Having read the publications in detail, and with a background to understand this science, I was convinced enough to spend my own money
A rare event. I’ve retrofitted my leathers with armour with the lowest ‘maximum transmitted force’ that fits them.However, I’d add some questions where we need more research:Albanese et el. wrote: Comparing the energy attenuation performance of the impact protectors (IP) worn by these riders and the real-world injury outcomes revealed a significant association between maximum force transmitted and the odds of injury. As the maximum force transmitted increased, the odds of injury increased. […] However, our findings suggest the energy attenuation requirements of the European Standard may be set too low to effectively reduce the probability of injury.
- Liz de Rome et al found no association between fracture risk and armour. But “armour” included non-CE stuff, CE armour older than its 5-year shelf life, CE1 and CE2 protectors. And we can speculate why “armour” didn’t reduce fracture risk. Inescapably, some crashes are beyond what any armour could protect. Also, older or non-CE armour mightn’t be ineffective. Elbow and knee protectors could rotate out of place. And only 1% of riders in de Rome’s study may have been wearing CE2 protectors: Albanese found that, of Australian riders wearing CE-armour, 99% of their protectors were CE1. Not to mention the finding that the “European Standard may be set too low to effectively reduce the probability of injury.”
- Compared with soft armour that’s all the rage, there’s evidence that a hard plastic outer shell is associated with reduced impact injury. The sample size is too small for statistical significance: more research required! But I’m interested that Alpinestars’ best textile jackets (e.g. the Revenant) use this construction, with a plastic shell on top of CE2 shoulder armour. And it’s not for marketing or style; the plastic hides under the outer Armacor® layer. It’s a secret extra.
And Otte et al (2001) found differences in the protective effect associated with the construction of the impact protector.Albanese et el. wrote: “Impact protector construction might be the most important characteristic, or at least as important as energy attenuation, for impact injury protection.”
I agree. Also, on top of Italian brands successfully lobbying
against Level 3 armour, 17% of CE-marked armour failed to meet the CE1 standard when tested independently by Albanese et al. MotoCAP test results concur (e.g. some CE-marked Dainese protectors let through more force than permitted by the CE standard). It underlines the problem of having a CE standard that nobody polices: it's like the Wild West without a sheriff.
)
to see if they’re more than hot air*
