Which motorcycling Jeans?

[The Spin Doctor]

Make sure you are buying reputable jeans that are certified.

While that's sound advice, it can be hard to follow because some manufacturers use labelling that's baffling. E.g. Dainese clobber often has a cardboard label - not stitched into the garment - that says "CE Cat. II". What does this mean? Is the clothing EN 13595 certified (to Level 1 or 2)? Or should it have an AAA - C rating by now?

The Level 1 / 2 are still valid for protective clothing.

But my guess is that your label appiles to the body armour - the manufacturers can clear old stock - and still were, last time I looked, so these will have the old, slightly deceptive, CE labels for the armour only.

[Tomcat]

I tried a pair of Draggin jeans on when they first came out yonks ago, I thought they were heavy too wide in the leg and didn't seem to be the right shape so I have stuck with my Levi's

I bought some Draggin cargos a while ago specifically because they were wider in the leg, that way they would go over adventure boots. I also bought a pair of Hood jeans when they were on offer after the CE standard changed. The old ones are pretty much the same as the new ones except the kevlar lining ends halfway down the calves.

IMO they're both comfortable and I'm happy to wear either riding. Actually the extra layer helps on the usual less-than-boiling days we get over here and helps stop getting wind chilled knees. But yes, they are heavier and bulkier than fashion jeans, there's no way of getting away from that, more so if you have all the body armour. I had some spare knee pads which I've punt in the knee pockets of my Draggins though I'm happy to wear the Hoods without armour.

My advice, should anyone be asking, is buy Hood, very good kit and made in Britain, but if you don't find a style that you like then look at Draggin who have a wider range (no pun).

[Hot_Air]

If you were going to design something to baffle the consumer, the CE standards for motorcycle PPE would be it. It’s appalling

I know Dainese are reputable, but sometimes you just have to think wtf?

Out of curiosity, I emailed Dainese, and the company was quick to reply that the jacket was AAA certified. Nowhere on the jacket is there an EN 17092 label. Following Mascagman’s advice, I looked at the information label: it had all the correct details including – in contrast to what Dainese told me – an AA rating. WTF!

The Level 1 / 2 are still valid for protective clothing.

Dainese – according to Superbikefreaks – had all its leather suits from 2017 onward CE-approved to level 2. Now some of these same leathers sport an AA rating (including spendy D-Air suits!). Hmmm. If they had already passed EN 13595, why on earth would Dainese pay for another test?

Can leathers get EN 13595 approval at level 2, but only an AA rating? I heard the AAA rating has a more stringent seam burst test – but is that true?

[Mascagman]

Can leathers get EN 13595 approval at level 2, but only an AA rating? I heard the AAA rating has a more stringent seam burst test – but is that true?

As they are different standards, the method of determining abrasion resistance is different. EN13595 is dependant on how long a sample can withstand holing on a grit paper belt and the test is the same for all material types. EN17092 is an assessment of whether the layer closest to the skin holes after reaching a set speed and impacting on concrete, so the speed will vary dependant on the class.

It is ultimately up to Dianese at what speed/class they would like to certify to at EN17092 as they have no direct correlation between the two standards. Usually if a garment comfortably passes Level 2 EN13595 you would expect it to pass AAA.

Its a bit alarming that they are claiming to you that it is AAA when it has been certified to AA.

[Mascagman]

Can leathers get EN 13595 approval at level 2, but only an AA rating? I heard the AAA rating has a more stringent seam burst test – but is that true?

17092 uses the same seam strength test method as the motorcycle gloves. Class AAA does very high requirements to meet for seams but the 2 test methods are completely different. EN13595 uses a large sample of seam and has pressure put on to it from the underside until it literally bursts through and you have a result in kPa. EN17092 has small samples of seam that are pull apart by 2 tensile jaws until either the seam or the material bursts and you have a result in N/mm.

[The Spin Doctor]

All I'll say on the abrasion tests is that the belt test - ie the Cambridge standard from which the Level 1/2 standards derived - has now been shown to be representative of abrasion from a real road surface via Dr Chris Hurren's latest work at Deakin University.

He's found that ordinary denim is capable of getting an A rating and even an AA rating.

Which is why we're now seeing A rated cotton hoodies being billed as 'protective'

[Supermofo]

Could some of the Dainese results be down to cost saving. IE they were level 2 but to get everything through you put them through a AA test rather than an AAA test. I read that each test costs something like 6k euros. If you put in for an AAA and fail you pay another 6k for an AA. So if some were marginal and some well over do you just lump them all in for AA and know you don't need to retest anything. If a company has hundreds of products 6k euros a time is spendy.

[Mascagman]

Could some of the Dainese results be down to cost saving. IE they were level 2 but to get everything through you put them through a AA test rather than an AAA test. I read that each test costs something like 6k euros. If you put in for an AAA and fail you pay another 6k for an AA. So if some were marginal and some well over do you just lump them all in for AA and know you don't need to retest anything. If a company has hundreds of products 6k euros a time is spendy.

Its in the low hundreds per test type, but you are correct in saying they have to keep paying if they get failures at higher levels. Your thinking is pretty spot on in regards to the possibility of them not wanting to take the price hit. There are some "premium brands" that only certify to lower classes no matter the garment type as they see the whole certification process as a rubber stamp process and just want the certificate at the end unfortunately. So you could pay a grand for a jacket that technically has the same protection as a riding shirt.

That is no help to the end user and to be honest must be harder to market the product afterwards.

[Supermofo]

Does seem like a rubber stamp exercise in a lot of cases.

[Hot_Air]

Times are a-changin' and more of us know about CE standards. Plus, thanks to coronavirus, “PPE” has gone from being an obscure acronym to common parlance. Magazines like Ride give the EN 17092 rating in clothing reviews, and there’s increasing discussion about CE standards on internet forums.

Transparency (about CE ratings) gives me trust in a brand. And I’m only interested in buying from honest companies because I’m trusting the manufacturer to – literally – save my skin.

There are some “premium brands” that only certify to lower classes no matter the garment type as they see the whole certification process as a rubber stamp process and just want the certificate at the end, unfortunately.

Ultimately, companies like Dainese need to catch on (notably when competitors like RST rapidly revised their website to make it easily visible which products had an A, AA or AAA rating). If I can buy an AAA rated RST or Spidi jacket, why would I consider an AA rated Dainese jacket?

Dainese makes beautiful gear – and it fits me well. But its marketing is tiresomely, infuriatingly, reliably vague about CE standards.

[MrLongbeard]

Its in the low hundreds per test type, but you are correct in saying they have to keep paying if they get failures at higher levels. Your thinking is pretty spot on in regards to the possibility of them not wanting to take the price hit. There are some "premium brands" that only certify to lower classes no matter the garment type as they see the whole certification process as a rubber stamp process and just want the certificate at the end unfortunately. So you could pay a grand for a jacket that technically has the same protection as a riding shirt.

That is no help to the end user and to be honest must be harder to market the product afterwards.

For the physical testing yes, but if they are changing materials then they need to look at REACh compliance again, and if they are actually testing against REACh £6k isn't a million miles wide of the mark.

[Mascagman]

For the physical testing yes, but if they are changing materials then they need to look at REACh compliance again, and if they are actually testing against REACh £6k isn't a million miles wide of the mark.

But only 6 tests are required on those materials, so unless there are a ton of different leathers it shouldn't be too costly. Especially for textile garments.

If 1 garment was costing 6k for the full process it would be time to change NB.

[MrLongbeard]

For the physical testing yes, but if they are changing materials then they need to look at REACh compliance again, and if they are actually testing against REACh £6k isn't a million miles wide of the mark.

But only 6 tests are required on those materials, so unless there are a ton of different leathers it shouldn't be too costly. Especially for textile garments.

If 1 garment was costing 6k for the full process it would be time to change NB.

6 for REACh?

Off the top of my head;

Tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate
Tris (aziridinyl) phosphinoxide
Polybrominatedbiphenyls (PBB)
Organostannic Compounds
Azo Dyes
Diphenylether, octabromo derivative
Nonylphenol ethoxylates
Dimethylfumerate (DMF)
Lead
Bis(pentabromophenyl)ether (decabromodiphenyl ether; decaBDE)
Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reprotoxic (CMR) substances
Cadmium
Phthalates
Chrome 6
PAH's
Nickel

Then you need fibre composition, license fee for washing symbols, maybe formaldehyde and PH levels depending on your in house requirements, all before you look at the physical properties of the garments

[Mascagman]

For the physical testing yes, but if they are changing materials then they need to look at REACh compliance again, and if they are actually testing against REACh £6k isn't a million miles wide of the mark.

But only 6 tests are required on those materials, so unless there are a ton of different leathers it shouldn't be too costly. Especially for textile garments.

If 1 garment was costing 6k for the full process it would be time to change NB.

6 for REACh?

Off the top of my head;

Tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate
Tris (aziridinyl) phosphinoxide
Polybrominatedbiphenyls (PBB)
Organostannic Compounds
Azo Dyes
Diphenylether, octabromo derivative
Nonylphenol ethoxylates
Dimethylfumerate (DMF)
Lead
Bis(pentabromophenyl)ether (decabromodiphenyl ether; decaBDE)
Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reprotoxic (CMR) substances
Cadmium
Phthalates
Chrome 6
PAH's
Nickel

Then you need fibre composition, license fee for washing symbols, maybe formaldehyde and PH levels depending on your in house requirements, all before you look at the physical properties of the garments

No, i mean 6 to obtain a certificate.

PH, Azo, PAH, Nickel, PCP and Chromium IV. Full REACH testing would be an optional extra. If they don't need it to obtain a certificate, they won't do it.

[MrLongbeard]

No, i mean 6 to obtain a certificate.

PH, Azo, PAH, Nickel, PCP and Chromium IV. Full REACH testing would be an optional extra. If they don't need it to obtain a certificate, they won't do it.

They have to comply with REACh, regardless if it's a piece of PPE, a pair of shoes or a natty scarf, OK not for signing off on the Innocuousness of PPE but in general, the overall package for the garment, the same way they have to comply with the packaging waste directive, and the fibre comp regs, and the license fee for the washing symbols, etc. etc. it all adds up.

But that's a very vague section;

The materials of which the PPE is made, including any of their possible decomposition products, must not
adversely affect the health or safety of users.

For me I'd be including CMR's (entry 72) it's coming into force this November, I'd expect manufacturers should have been looking at them from 12 months back

[Mascagman]

No, i mean 6 to obtain a certificate.

PH, Azo, PAH, Nickel, PCP and Chromium IV. Full REACH testing would be an optional extra. If they don't need it to obtain a certificate, they won't do it.

They have to comply with REACh, regardless if it's a piece of PPE, a pair of shoes or a natty scarf, OK not for signing off on the Innocuousness of PPE but in general, the overall package for the garment, the same way they have to comply with the packaging waste directive, and the fibre comp regs, and the license fee for the washing symbols, etc. etc. it all adds up.

But that's a very vague section;

The materials of which the PPE is made, including any of their possible decomposition products, must not
adversely affect the health or safety of users.

For me I'd be including CMR's (entry 72) it's coming into force this November, I'd expect manufacturers should have been looking at them from 12 months back

All that is fine but the comment about 6k was in terms of testing costs. Obviously there will be significant costs in general for manufacturing a garment but in terms of getting a certificate to sell, it is a straightforward process with limited testing. If the standard doesn't state that it is to meet REACH requirments, they will only provide compliance by testing to EN420 and EN21420 hence why at least 3 of the big motorcycle NB do not require this when certifying that I know of. I'm sure other NBs may require full testing.

[Hot_Air]

Could some of the Dainese results be down to cost saving. IE they were level 2 but to get everything through you put them through a AA test rather than an AAA test.

This explanation made the most sense to me. Until I checked out MotoCAP test results; the MotoCAP website has a handy filter so you can see the test results per brand, and some manufacturers' abrasion resistance and impact protection don't look pretty.

Judging by the MotoCAP test results, it's easy to see why some brands (Dainese, I'm looking at you!) have tested their race leathers to a paltry AA standard. Their abrasion resistance (often mediocre) and impact protection (generally poor) suggest that some Dainese leathers could struggle to pass the AAA testing.

RST shows how it should be done. Its gear, in general, gets solid results all-round. No wonder RST tested most of its leathers to a chest-swelling AAA rating.

Dr Chris Hurren's latest work at Deakin University. He's found that ordinary denim is capable of getting an A rating and even an AA rating.

Perhaps scarier than the 'protective hoodie', there are Dainese race leathers – including the Mugello R D-Air suit at £3400 – with only an AA rating! (Alpinestars and Spidi got all their one-piece suits to AAA, so why can't Dainese step up?)

[Mascagman]

Perhaps scarier than the 'protective hoodie', there are Dainese race leathers – including the Mugello R D-Air suit at £3400 – with only an AA rating! (Alpinestars and Spidi got all their one-piece suits to AAA, so why can't Dainese step up?)

Mental. It definitely pays off to understand what you are buying in terms of garments for different needs. I dont have a problem with shirts, hoodies etc in general as most of them are safe but its the thought of buying a shirt with the same protection class as a race suit that is worrying.

Suits shouldnt be less than a AAA. But unfortunately this isn't enforceable

[Mr Moofo]

I'd rather crash in the ones that are better than leather


Not every manufacturer test its jeans for abrasion; in fact, by far the majority do not. But a weave like Resurgence’s Pekev records a ’slide’ time of 10.83 seconds. Now that’s impressive, because that’s twice as long as leather. And leather is way over the top for normal road riding. The slide time on leather is normally between 4-5 seconds

The Resurgence Gear jeans and cargo pants both have the PEKEV liner that has now been tested to the EN 13595-2 standard.

The standard calls for a minimum 2 second abrasion resistance and the Resurgence Gear material lasted 23.2 seconds in the test.

UPDATE (November 2014): The Resurgence Gear PEKEV men’s and women’s jeans have now been certified to CE Level 2 standards by SATRA.

Technology moves on, leather hasn't got worse, but man made materials have got better

How hot / itchy is the liner - just about to order ....

[Supermofo]

Perhaps scarier than the 'protective hoodie', there are Dainese race leathers – including the Mugello R D-Air suit at £3400 – with only an AA rating! (Alpinestars and Spidi got all their one-piece suits to AAA, so why can't Dainese step up?)

Mental. It definitely pays off to understand what you are buying in terms of garments for different needs. I dont have a problem with shirts, hoodies etc in general as most of them are safe but its the thought of buying a shirt with the same protection class as a race suit that is worrying.

Suits shouldnt be less than a AAA. But unfortunately this isn't enforceable

Seems Furygan have a hoodie rated to AAA
https://www.motolegends.com/reviews/Fur ... die-review

Which is better than almost all their other kit as far as I can see. Most of their Textile especially is rated to the French standards rather than EU I noticed but I think is generally rated as A.