AAA textile jackets - Odd findings

[Supermofo]

I watched a review the other day of the Bowtex AAA base layer which I thought was bloody impressive given it's so light and thin. I had a look at it on Sportsbikeshop and then had a look at what else there is for AAA textiles as I was only aware of the Knox Honister that was also AAA.

Filtering for AAA and textile there are 30 options total
https://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorc ... e_0/max_20

But a lot of these are just different colours of the same jacket. Discounting the 3 Oxford Nexus jackets as they are in the wrong section being leather, I can only see 1 traditional style textile jacket. The Klim Badlands. All the rest are casual style jackets, base layers or shirts.

This struck me as odd. It doesn't even look like it should be particularly expensive either as this Oxford casual jacket is only £170
https://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorc ... od/2278187

John Doe seem to have the biggest selection even having shirts and hoodies that are AAA. I think this is pretty cool.
https://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorc ... rod/588415


How come no one other than Klim have bothered to make a traditional style jacket? And the Klim is bloody expensive. Only thing I can think of is that most use an aramid type material and maybe that is more difficult to use in a traditional style or make waterproof and getting usual textile material to AAA is much more expensive?

[Rockburner]

Do some research on what AAA actually means: as I understand it, it's a very confused standard and doesn't always actually imply that a piece of clothing is more protective than anything else.

[Supermofo]

Do some research on what AAA actually means: as I understand it, it's a very confused standard and doesn't always actually imply that a piece of clothing is more protective than anything else.

I get that it isn't perfect and it has it's detractors. But surely it's still a method of comparing 1 item against another in terms of abrasion/burst/cut? IE Hideout textiles exceeded the old standard and still exceed the new ones. The new standard being lower.

[Taff]

I've just bought new kit to replace my 10 year old Dainese, and I found it an absolute minefield.
I watched so many reviews, A this, AA that and AAA whatever. I got so confused that I spent all Friday afternoon looking at and trying on every laminated jacket in the shop.

I didn't really factor the rating in very highly as a way to differentiate, I found the fit to be way more important and the features / design came second.

So I bought the Rukka Nivala, a lowly A rating.

[Horse]

So I bought the Rukka Nivala, a lowly A rating.

Bonkers, isn't it? You pay a small fortune for A rated, when companies like Weise can sell an AA rated jacket for £140 - and even AAA denim jeans.

[Skub]

So,regarding gear being fit for purpose,is there any real datum point,or reference for the potential buyer?

[Taff]

So I bought the Rukka Nivala, a lowly A rating.

Bonkers, isn't it? You pay a small fortune for A rated, when companies like Weise can sell an AA rated jacket for £140 - and even AAA denim jeans.

Yes, but I think that says more about the testing.
As far as I could understand, the test rating doesn't tell the whole story, the Nivala is apparently 'only' A rated because the stretchy goretex material that they've used doesn't perform well in one particular test - abrasion.
Something I hopefully never have to rely on.

That test says nothing about the fit and comfort of the jacket that I will feel on my commute 8 times a week, the waterproofing every time it rains out how warm it keeps me all through winter.
( And if it lasts 9 years then I'll never need to buy a suit like this again for commuting )

edit to add - my prefered suit was the Alpinestars Altermira, AA rated and a good chunk cheaper than the Rukka, but the right size was restrictive across the chest and a size up had sleeves coming down past my knuckles, the fit just wasn't good enough so it got ruled out.

[Horse]

So,regarding gear being fit for purpose,is there any real datum point,or reference for the potential buyer?

I suppose the 'baseline' is human skin?

Oh, you want something more detailed?

https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/n ... ce-ratings

EN 17092 is divided into four classifications that as a motorcyclist you need to know about: B, A, AA and AAA.

B: This is deemed suitable for urban riding but without impact protectors
A: Also for urban riding but including impact protectors
AA: More suited to touring gear
AAA: The highest level of protection specified by the standard

[Horse]

That test says nothing about the fit and comfort of the jacket that I will feel on my commute 8 times a week, the waterproofing every time it rains out how warm it keeps me all through winter.

https://www.motocap.com.au/ do that. Only one Rukka:

https://www.motocap.com.au/products/jac ... order=DESC

[MrLongbeard]

That test says nothing about the fit and comfort of the jacket that I will feel on my commute 8 times a week

EN 17092 includes requirements for fit, sizing and ergonomics

[Taff]

That test says nothing about the fit and comfort of the jacket that I will feel on my commute 8 times a week

EN 17092 includes requirements for fit, sizing and ergonomics

it's odd then that every jacket that I put on sized differently, with the Alpinestars not fitting me at all.

[MrLongbeard]

So,regarding gear being fit for purpose,is there any real datum point,or reference for the potential buyer?

I suppose the 'baseline' is human skin?

Oh, you want something more detailed?

https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/n ... ce-ratings

EN 17092 is divided into four classifications that as a motorcyclist you need to know about: B, A, AA and AAA.

B: This is deemed suitable for urban riding but without impact protectors
A: Also for urban riding but including impact protectors
AA: More suited to touring gear
AAA: The highest level of protection specified by the standard

+ 17092-6 for class C garments; basically under or over garments that hold armour and provide no or below minimum abrasion resistance

[MrLongbeard]

That test says nothing about the fit and comfort of the jacket that I will feel on my commute 8 times a week

EN 17092 includes requirements for fit, sizing and ergonomics

it's odd then that every jacket that I put on sized differently, with the Alpinestars not fitting me at all.

It's can be a subjective test granted, can the assessor do this and that, mount a motorcycle, operate the controls, walk on a flat surface? a wee Italian tester isn't comparable to a burly British tester.
I've seen labs, and taken part in it myself, try and have a range of bodies available to them to assess the ergonomics, glove testing was always a bit of fun, trying to pick up ever smaller objects to check the size, fit and dexterity.

[Taff]

I'm a bit sceptical about the testing because I spend most of my working days working with Certification Standards for Aeroplanes and Equipment, and errrr, to put it mildly, it can be interesting.

[Horse]

I'm a bit sceptical about the testing because I spend most of my working days working with Certification Standards for Aeroplanes and Equipment, and errrr, to put it mildly, it can be interesting.

Boeing?

[Taff]

I'm a bit sceptical about the testing because I spend most of my working days working with Certification Standards for Aeroplanes and Equipment, and errrr, to put it mildly, it can be interesting.

Boeing?

fuck no, but feeling their influence

[Horse]

That test says nothing about the fit and comfort of the jacket that I will feel on my commute 8 times a week

EN 17092 includes requirements for fit, sizing and ergonomics

it's odd then that every jacket that I put on sized differently, with the Alpinestars not fitting me at all.

So the common denominator for 'everything else' not fitting is ... you? Hmmm ...

[Supermofo]

'only' A rated because the stretchy goretex material that they've used doesn't perform well in one particular test - abrasion.
Something I hopefully never have to rely on.

Not knocking you or your decision, but I suppose I look at something like the abrasion resistance being the only reason to buy a bike specific jacket over say a far cheaper walking/military goretex that'll do the waterproofing bit just as well for a fraction of the cost. I've been thinking AAA base layer to take care of the crashing side of things and then anything can go over the top.

I think you're right Re the materials as only the Klim is a traditional bike jacket. All the others look like aramid jackets which takes care of the abrasion/cut/burst but then don't do the waterproofing. Having said that the Bowtex stuff looks proper funky, no thicker than my current base layer, stretchy and weighs 1kg with the armour. Makes you wonder why that can't be used as a liner for a traditional jacket for the best of both worlds.

For what it's worth I've been riding in an A rated jacket as my waterproof option for a few years and not overly worried on the basis that pre these tests you had no idea either way. I doubt any of my previous textile jackets were any better. Plus when I bought it no textile jacket was rated higher than an A. Also I believe the abrasion tests don't include the armour which would probably help in the real world more than the outer.

But I think for its replacement I'd want AA minimum. Why? Just for the comfort of knowing the outer should stand up better I suppose. Although a Bowtex or Knox underneath solves that problem hence my thinking and in summer can be worn alone.

[Taff]

EN 17092 includes requirements for fit, sizing and ergonomics

it's odd then that every jacket that I put on sized differently, with the Alpinestars not fitting me at all.

So the common denominator for 'everything else' not fitting is ... you? Hmmm ...

I didn't say 'everything else', you did.

I said the Alpinestars didn't fit at all,

[Supermofo]

With my new gloves I found fit a bit of a nightmare, tried 3 of the same glove in the same size and all were slightly different.