Back Protectors, Testing, and CE Standards

I offered to test the back protector at least a month ago but no response

Im actually going to be racing so you can be sure it will be tested well ;)

myoung_84@hotmail.com

[number9]

Just trying to keep this thread alive for the newbies or anyone else considering a back protector.

[masonboy]

we should sticky this!

[license2ill]

Thanks guys. A rider on another forum forwarded me this response from a Joe Rocket rep in response to an email regarding their GPX protector.

It contains a lot of double-speak and jumbled bits of nonsense. I'm not sure why they don't bother to tell us anything of substance unless we ask. And when asked, you can get an answer that is so seemingly ill-conceived that it leaves you more confused than when your started. Oh well, here ya go:

"The GPX back protector was developed by a U.K. company called T-Pro. It was made for U.K. and Europe market. It was tested and passed the C.E.
requirements and had been sold in the U.K. for several years.

I do not place much stock in C.E. We sell products in the U.K. and must have protectors that comply. In endless testing protectors available from many of our competitors fail to pass when tested by the leading U.K. test house named S.A.T.R.A. Many manufacturers self test and self certify. To further add to my lack of confidence in the C.E. standard the test method is open for interpretation. Armor that passes when tested by T.U.V. in Germany has failed when tested by S.A.T.R.A. in U.K. The last straw in C.E. standard is that the test house does not take into account the dome affect of shape of the protector. The protectors that we use for all of our top factory racers does not pass. In our own testing we have found them to be superior to some protectors that do pass.

So yes the GPX did pass C.E. We never advertised this fact. As of now we are not promoting or marketing anything to do with C.E. If C.E. does become of significant demand in the market then we may need to change that policy.

One other benefit of the GPX back protector is that it is a soft shell. The soft shell is less likely to tear a hole in your leathers. We are thinking about marketing one of the trendy hard shell protectors, but I am still reluctant due the problem of the leather tearing in a crash.

So there is a long answer to your short question. If your local sanctioning body asks about C.E. please remind them that we are not in Europe."


My questions and comments after reading this:


Is the testing really as fallible as this guy claims? Or is he trying to breed doubt? From my understanding of the back protector test, it is fairly simple. How could one acredited facility get such different results from a such basic testing parameters? Again we are in the dark as to any details or enough information. The CE directives also clearly state that an acredited facility must test the model before it it will be approved as well. Though he claims that inhouse testing can be done to satisfy the requirements.

If the information is not advertised, how are we supposed to know what makes a Joe Rocket product better than the unmentioned other brands that don't pass the tests?

How and why are the sponsored rider's protectors not only different and supposedly better, but not available to us? Without a standard requirement, why would Joe Rocket not attempt to sell a supposedly superior product here in the U.S.

No account for dome effect? Sorry, I smell complete bullshit on that one. The test doesn't take manufacturing or construction differences into account for good reason, its a performance standard, it measures impact force transmission, not shape. This something he claims they use for their protectors of their sponsored riders, the one that won't pass the CE tests but is supposedly better than the the GPX due to the dome effect, uh, eventhough it can't pass the perfromance tests.

"This is not Europe"? I don't care where I live, I want the best performing equipment, or at least to know what the equipment is capable of before I spend my money.

It was also my impression that Joe Rocket doesn't sell any prodcuts in Europe. Remember the whole Nicki Hayden is going to Europe press release from Joe Rocket when they parted ways?

It appears that many roads lead to T-pro, apparently their protecotrs have been re-badged for a few different companies, like BKS and Jofama, as well. The Forcefield protector appears to be a newer design that outperfroms this older model, which may have been CE certified at one point, but is not likely to perform up to the current 1621-2 standard.

It is also funny to see how hard companies like Bohn and Impact Armor try to associate themselves with the CE standards even though their products are not certified, yet Joe Rocket is apparently selling a high-rated piece and doesn't seem to care about providing us with hardly any info at all about their product unless you ask. And when you ask, the only performance information they can offer is downplayed as useless.

His statements about demand seem to solidify their true feelings. It is apparent they will sell whatever we ask for, which can be a good thing as long as we are informed enough to make the best decisions. They don't care if it is a performance standard or a "trendy hardshell design". A great attitude to have when selling safety equipment. They don't take us, or our true needs very seriously.

The one thing that is evident is that we are severely under-informed, and by the tone of these statements, most gear manufacturers don't care, as long as they can sell their products. This guy's attitude, whether he is sincere about better products or not, doesn't instill any confidence in their commitment. We need to get a handle on the lack of informaiton and BS being fed to us by companies that we are entrusting with our protective decisions and our pocketbooks.

[James-NSC]

A year ago I suffered a back injury when I crashed my R6. I got an L1 burst fracture with 50% rotation and 50% compression. Everyone is stunned that I am not paralyzed. Why I am not, who knows, but if the bone had moved any more than it did I would have been.

My back protector may well have made the difference.

Now, one thing to keep in mind with back protectors is that they don’t help you with spinal compression one bit. As license2ill mentioned in the first post “more spine injuries are probably due to direct blows to the shoulders and hips” and this was certainly true in my case. However, the point that this fails to address is that after a compression injury, when the spine is extremely vulnerable, additional impact injuries are a very real concern and can aggravate an existing injury quickly elevating the potential for paralysis.

I had a compression (pretty standard) and then additional impacts to the spine (also pretty standard).

Fortunately for me, I was wearing a quality back protector with a large footprint (wide coverage area including shoulders). I have three back protectors (Tecnic, Knox, and Dainese) and after riding with a club for a few years, I’ve pretty much seen them all and have had the opportunity to compare the fit/finish with my own eyes/hands. With 90% of them, you can tell just by holding them if one is better/worse than the other. I have yet to see a back protector that inspires the level of confidence that the Knox KC line does and Bohn is a far cry from this, BTW. Everyone I know that has a Knox feels confident with it and everyone that doesn’t gets the “I’ve been gypped” face when they compare theirs to a Knox. I base this solely on my personal usage test and personally comparing them. I have yet to read a lick of literature or marketing propaganda for back protectors that makes any difference. The purpose of marketing is to get you to buy their product, not to tell you the truth about their product so, to me at least, this makes marketing pretty useless when choosing a back protector IMHO.

I wear a back protector every time I ride (no exceptions), I can tell you from personal experience and speaking as someone who really needs to avoid another injury, that I wear the Knox KC-2000 religiously and I will be getting the new KC-2001 or Race when I get back on the bike full time.

I recommend the Knox KC line to everyone that thinks wiggling their toes is pretty keen and would like to continue to do so in the future.

[masonboy]

im ordering mine asap as soon as i get my precise measurement of my back

you sold me on the knox

[number9]

I have the Knox KC2000-X1 and I love it. Can't go wrong there.

[Rhymesayer]

Another thumbs up for the KC2000 x1. Its not that expensive either if you think about what it can do for you. I love it.

[vra02]

always wondered what CE stands for. now i know more about it after reading this thread. thanks a lot to everybody who gave info about CE standards and back protectors.

i have a friend who crashed and injured his back. he was out of work for 3 months. he told me that wearing a backpack made his injury worse. after hearing it from him, i don't wear by backpack to work anymore. i just strap it on in the back. all i wear now is my jacket with back padding.

i look into getting a back protector. spending a couple of hundred of dollars compared to being out of work for months and losing an income is a chump change.

[license2ill]

A friend on another forum was kind enough to email Satra regarding the Velocity Gear products and his 4.49kN pass claim and forwarded me this response. It was fairly inconclusive due to the lack of a cert number and the proper manufacturer name that it is listed under.

They point-out that the testing is an initial-type examination only, and no ongoing testing is performed to meet the requirements. T-pro specifically states that their products are all continually batch-tested, I'd like to know more about that statement from them as well.

Here is the (inconclusive) response from SATRA:

_1st email:

"EN 1621-2 is the standard used to certify (CE mark) motorcycle back
protectors for the EU market to ensure they satisfy minimum
legislative requirements.

SATRA is an approved organisation within Europe for this purpose.

We have certified a number of these types of products - you will have
to give me a name and product reference for me to be able to identify
if we have certified an example of the product you have.

The Certification for this type of product is for an initial type
examination. There is no on going conformity assessment of any
subsequent production. The CE process merely proves the manufacturer
is capable of making the product - not that all his product has been
checked. So, his product and literature would be correct at the time
of certification.

The average peak forces transmitted through the product under test
should be below 18KN (no single value over 24KN) for level 1 and below
9KN (no single value over 12KN) for level 2 when tested in accordance
with the standard.

Hope this helps."

_2nd email:

"I cannot discuss the particular product as I am still not aware of the actual manufacturer (I think 'Velocity Gear' must be the distributer in the US as I have no record of directly certifying anything for them), and also because of our confidentiality to our clients.

Without express permission from my client, I can only give you information off an EC type examination certificate issued by SATRA (this is a legal obligation on me) but will obviously need the cert number first.

Bearing in mind the transmitted forces for the two different levels, the claimed 4.49 KN is a very good pass at the higher level."


The guys on the adventure rider forum put Velocity Gear through the ringer about the whole Dianese copycat issue, a pretty good discussion:

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48050

I'm still waiting on a reply regarding the certificate numbers and verification.