Quote:
|
the back protector in my Dianese jacket is EN 1621-1 BAP3 NOT EN 1621-2 which, according to this post, is the standard for back protectors. So my long winded question is: Does the EN 1621-2 standard cover back protectors which are built into jackets or do they have to be a seperate peice to get the EN 1621-2 rating?
|
I didn't catch the exact nature of your question initially. The 1621-2 standard is new, as of last year, so basically all older designs weren't required to pass the 18kN limit that the new 1621-2 requires. I'm not sure if the older model BAP protector would pass the requirements or if Dainese has upgraded it to passing levels, and I'm not sure that they are even maznufacturing them anymore, or if they are not selling them for motorcycling-use anymore.
As Paul Varnsverry points-out in the excerpt I posted in my original post, some distributors may have old stock, and some old models may not pass the requirements of the new standard.
I have found info that states that the BAP protectors are CE approved from a distributor's website, that I believe is up-to-date, but I am not positive about that info being correct in reference to the 1621-2 standard which came into effect in early 2003, or if the protectors are prior to 2003 models. It is unfortunate that Dainese doesn't offer better info themselves on their website. Not all manufacturers complied quickly, and apparently the laws have been somewhat loosely enforced or misunderstood, and it takes time to prosecute violators under this kind of legislation.
I have gathered and attempted to interpret as much information as I can, but I urge everyone that reads my post to verify the details of each manufacturer's products that you are interested in, in order to have a clear understanding of what you are purchasing.
The transisition stages for the maunfacturers, which has been this past year, is the most confusing as far as knowing which models comply, which one's are old stock, which one's would comply if simply required to test, and which one's are claiming to comply, but haven't even been tested.
This is also a question I have about the Alpinestars RC inserts, as the ad copy makes no reference to the 1621-2 standard, as it does wiht the Tech protector. After also hearing of a distributor that stated they are not available anymore, I am not so sure as to the RC being certified to the new standard either. If you are interested in it, I would verify that it is actually rate to the proper standard before buying.
Also, the Spidi Airback models distributed by Lockhart Phillips. I'm not sure if the Airback models in the US are properly rated either, as I have heard that they have been updated, but were not new for 2003 in th US. This could mean that we were still getting a version that was not properly rated either. I have not had any verification of that, so again, check it out, as it is a possibility.
As I've said before, all of these question marks and confusing information could be put to rest with a standard for the US market, or at least to start with the willingness of only accepting the highest standards available.
And when you have companies like Bohn allowed to illegally use the CE label without any repercussions we have absolute chaos, as we can't even trust that these standards are being met legally, or that if we are being outright lied to about the effectiveness and meaning of the label.
Ok, I guess I'm done :b
Re: Back Protectors, Testing, and CE Standards
Linear Mode
