Back Protectors, Testing, and CE Standards

[CMG41]

Great thread, anyone have experience with Knox chest protectors??



Thanks

[license2ill]

It's priced competitively, but the same issues apply to all Knox products as written about their back protectors in a previous post above. Here's some more thoughts on the currently available pieces calling themselves chest protectors:

In terms of protection it's not capable of much, but I suppose it's better than buying a non-CE-approved piece. It's rated to the back protector standard as a level 1 passing lumbar protector. I don't know what the sizing guidelines are for lumbar protectors. If you want real impact protection in a piece that covers the chest, you gotta step into the bulkier vests made for horse riding. The difference is 4 times less force making it's way to your ribs, and that's at the level at which those forces cause damage. If you look at it in scientific terms, the Knox and any other similar piece are likely going to be irrelevant in crashes of similar severities to that used in the CE test for mc impact protectors(50J). The force levels allowed by the horse rider vests is 4kN. I don't have specific numbers for the Knox piece being sold as a chest protector, but Davies O'Dell(T-Pro Forecfield) reported a pass of 15.8kN for their chest piece. 4kN is said by medical experts to be enough to break ribs.

It's a hard call, because we need the market for these pieces to get better, but none of the current best pieces are very relevant to your hopes or expectations.

[Chinaman]

Originally Posted by license2ill

It's priced competitively, but the same issues apply to all Knox products as written about their back protectors in a previous post above. Here's some more thoughts on the currently available pieces calling themselves chest protectors:

In terms of protection it's not capable of much, but I suppose it's better than buying a non-CE-approved piece. It's rated to the back protector standard as a level 1 passing lumbar protector. I don't know what the sizing guidelines are for lumbar protectors. If you want real impact protection in a piece that covers the chest, you gotta step into the bulkier vests made for horse riding. The difference is 4 times less force making it's way to your ribs, and that's at the level at which those forces cause damage. If you look at it in scientific terms, the Knox and any other similar piece are likely going to be irrelevant in crashes of similar severities to that used in the CE test for mc impact protectors(50J). The force levels allowed by the horse rider vests is 4kN. I don't have specific numbers for the Knox piece being sold as a chest protector, but Davies O'Dell(T-Pro Forecfield) reported a pass of 15.8kN for their chest piece. 4kN is said by medical experts to be enough to break ribs.

It's a hard call, because we need the market for these pieces to get better, but none of the current best pieces are very relevant to your hopes or expectations.

What is the CE standards for motorcycle chest protector?
Thanks

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by Chinaman

What is the CE standards for motorcycle chest protector?
Thanks

Unfortunately, none exists. The only applicable standards would be those covering horse rider torso protectors, which also cover the back, ribs, and clavicle areas. The motorcyclist back protector standard is a compromise it lacks real protective value for the rib cage in general, and the sizing guidelines are based on either the length of the spine or an abbreviated lumbar length. The lumbar length is what is a couple of EN1621-2 pieces are certified as, lower back protectors. Since the lower back doesn't contain ribs, the standard is questionable for that use as well. Bruising may be alleviated at the levels of force transmission allowed by those pieces, but the minimum level established by the horse rider vest standards all call for an over 400% lower force minimum(4kn vs 18kN) for the EN1621-2 minimum level those pieces have been shown to barely pass at a similar test energy level(severity 45J for EN13158 and 50J for EN1621-2). Even the EN1621-2 Level 2 rating allows up to 9kN(double EN13158 still). There are no mc back protectors rated to the Level 2 requirements that are being sold as chest protectors, as of yet. I'm unclear on the sizing requirement minimums for mc lumbar protectors according to EN1621-2. The full-length pieces are supposed to make a basic 't' shape based on percentages of the total length with minimums required based on a outer garment specified garment size or torso length. A lumbar protector obvious has no requirement for a cross section at the shoulders, so you're guess is as good as mine as to how wide the tested coverage area may actually be. If it is the same as the full-length requirement, it's not to the edges of those pieces being sold with that label.

So, by far your best bet for anything worthwhile for covering your chest right now is a horse riding vest. The chest portions may be removable in those pieces if you are trying to fit it under leathers with an mc back protector instead, or something like that. The horse riding back protector portions are still better than the mc pieces too, so you'd be better protected with the whole best than anything made specifically for mc use. Horse riding vests certified to EN13158 or BETA 2000 Level 3, only. BETA does batch testing, so it's preferable as long as it's Level 3 marked, which is the same as the EN13158 requirements which has no rating levels.

[ashe]

Originally Posted by license2ill

It's a hard call, because we need the market for these pieces to get better, but none of the current best pieces are very relevant to your hopes or expectations.

in your best opinion, can you provide an overall ranking for the following chest protectors? or individual review?

tpro forcefield race-lite chest protector
bohn cool-air chest protector
knox ricochet chest protector
dainese chest protector
impact safe-t armor c-005 chest protector

[license2ill]

My guess is that the T-Pro is most capable and comfortable of the group. What that means in terms of real protective value may not be much. Knox has shown capable pieces, but it's unclear what is underneath the outside in that piece, and their pieces run the gamut in terms of performance. The Forcefield lumbar piece is not nearly as capable as their EN1621-2 Level 2 approved back protector, 15.8kN vs 6.5kN are the numbers I've seen published respectively. Impact Armor appears based on old 90's T-Pro pieces. The materials and construction weren't good enough to pass EN1621-2 then, and I don't think they would be any better than the current and new Forcefield products. Bohn, well, they've been known to lie about CE certification, steer away from claims of real impact protective value, and in general don't look to be anything but cheap foam in specs that may not pass the limb armor CE standard. I don't think you can rank these pieces based on any criteria that matters. None of them live up to hopes and expectations, and none may provide a real protective solution. It's not an easy place to tell someone to spend money on something that will not likely provide a better solution, but is only keeping alive the market for better option possibly down the road once a market is established and enough folks demand something that actually works, not just something that calls itself a chest protector.

[Livinlife]

Any review on the Icon Field Armor Vest? A couple of my friends bought this vest for $100 in our local shop. Is this a good protector?

[natedogg624]

Im assuming when i buy a back protector i just take the CE styrofoam one out...right?

[spyder4515]

I took a highside in turn 6 at Barber with a Knox Chest Protector earlier on in the year, managed to get under the bike and took the foot peg to the chest. Ive gotta say it certainly helped. THANK YOU KNOX!