Is bike clothing less safe?
Discussion
Have you seen this article by Bennetts Insurance?
Bennetts Insurance said:
BikeSocial has discovered that the testing standards now used to certify motorcycle riding kit have reduced protection levels by as much as 90%.
Work carried out by leading scientific experts has compared relative abrasion resistance times in testing under the old standard – EN 13595 – with results achieved by garments certified to the new one – EN 17092 – and this has revealed significant reductions in the severity of the headline test for abrasion resistance.
For example, the highest protection under the new standard (EN 17092) is an AAA rating. But this standard is 80-90% less protective than the previous criteria (EN 13595). It certainly looks like regulatory capture by manufacturers regarding the requirements for motorcycle protective clothing. They have lowered the protection bar.Work carried out by leading scientific experts has compared relative abrasion resistance times in testing under the old standard – EN 13595 – with results achieved by garments certified to the new one – EN 17092 – and this has revealed significant reductions in the severity of the headline test for abrasion resistance.
It's certainly what Brian at BKS says. https://www.bksleather.co.uk/textiles/suits
The suggestion is that the new standard is just not good enough for plod and they want to stick to the old standard. That makes me wonder how the new standard can be deemed good enough for us mere mortals.
The suggestion is that the new standard is just not good enough for plod and they want to stick to the old standard. That makes me wonder how the new standard can be deemed good enough for us mere mortals.
AFAIK, most bike clothing before the current standard did not in reality meet any standard. It may have had CE marks on it, but that was for some component of the clothing which met a standard, eg if a elbow protector was fitted and that elbow protector met a standard, on went the CE mark. It did not necessarily mean that the jacket/pants itself had any sort of abrasion resistance.
I can't see there being loads of clothing out there which is now a lower standard, otherwise there would be lots of AAA rated stuff around as the article implies that AAA is easy to obtain, because it is lax. If you look at current bike clothing, the stuff which looks and feels the same as before (and is often the same just recertified) is A or AA. This implies to me that the old standard may well have been better, but most stuff was not certified to the old standard anyway.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the above.
I can't see there being loads of clothing out there which is now a lower standard, otherwise there would be lots of AAA rated stuff around as the article implies that AAA is easy to obtain, because it is lax. If you look at current bike clothing, the stuff which looks and feels the same as before (and is often the same just recertified) is A or AA. This implies to me that the old standard may well have been better, but most stuff was not certified to the old standard anyway.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the above.
Iminquarantine said:
AFAIK, most bike clothing before the current standard did not in reality meet any standard. It may have had CE marks on it, but that was for some component of the clothing which met a standard, eg if a elbow protector was fitted and that elbow protector met a standard, on went the CE mark. It did not necessarily mean that the jacket/pants itself had any sort of abrasion resistance.
I can't see there being loads of clothing out there which is now a lower standard, otherwise there would be lots of AAA rated stuff around as the article implies that AAA is easy to obtain, because it is lax. If you look at current bike clothing, the stuff which looks and feels the same as before (and is often the same just recertified) is A or AA. This implies to me that the old standard may well have been better, but most stuff was not certified to the old standard anyway.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the above.
That's my understanding too but, the point of the old standard was the top level stuff, that was certified, had been rigorously tested. Now, under the new standard, even at the highest level of testing, it's still a relative "walk in the park" to get certification, which means that punters who want the best protection can't actually use the new standard to get it. Perhaps the new standard needs something like an a AAAA rating that is the equivalent of the old standard?I can't see there being loads of clothing out there which is now a lower standard, otherwise there would be lots of AAA rated stuff around as the article implies that AAA is easy to obtain, because it is lax. If you look at current bike clothing, the stuff which looks and feels the same as before (and is often the same just recertified) is A or AA. This implies to me that the old standard may well have been better, but most stuff was not certified to the old standard anyway.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the above.
black-k1 said:
It's certainly what Brian at BKS says. https://www.bksleather.co.uk/textiles/suits
Blimey! I didn't realise this:Brian Sansom said:
Sadly, the requirements have been lowered which means lesser protective clothing can pass this standard and more riders facing higher risk of injury without realising. Aimed at urban and leisure riders only, even the highest rated AAA Classification only requires two seconds of abrasion resistance on the high risks areas of Zone 2 (elbows, seat, knees etc) to pass
If I had a blowout on the M40 and landed on my arse, I’d want a lot more than 2 seconds of abrasion resistance! Hood Jeans tend to agree:
(quite an interesting article about testing, etc. in that link if you have 5 minutes spare)
Hood Jeans said:
Not all AAA rated jeans are the same: We have always supported the EN 17092 standard. In 2018 we were the first company in the UK to be certified Class AA: prEN 17092-3 and again in 2021 Hood Jeans were the first company to be awarded UKCA certificates by Satra. However, we do have a couple of criticisms of the standard.
We feel the abrasion level is set too low, and the highest classification being too easy to achieve. Meaning some products with relatively low abrasion resistance can achieve the same highest classification as a garment with much higher protective qualities. I have seen some companies compare their single layer jeans to full race leathers and fully lined motorcycle jeans, just because all were classified AAA. I wonder do these companies really believe these garments are all of comparable levels of abrasion protection. I really feel there needs to be a higher level of classification to indicate to riders the real difference in protection.
EN 17092 uses the Darmstadt abrasion machine. Unlike the Cambridge machine used for EN 13595 the Darmstadt machine does not give a time of when a material has failed. It simply provides a pass or fail result. This means a product can just scrape through the abrasion test for EN 17092, but be given exactly the same ‘pass’ result and classification as a product that has much greater abrasion protective qualities and has passed the EN 17092 abrasion test by a much greater margin.
https://www.hoodjeans.co.uk/single-layer-motorcycle-jeans/We feel the abrasion level is set too low, and the highest classification being too easy to achieve. Meaning some products with relatively low abrasion resistance can achieve the same highest classification as a garment with much higher protective qualities. I have seen some companies compare their single layer jeans to full race leathers and fully lined motorcycle jeans, just because all were classified AAA. I wonder do these companies really believe these garments are all of comparable levels of abrasion protection. I really feel there needs to be a higher level of classification to indicate to riders the real difference in protection.
EN 17092 uses the Darmstadt abrasion machine. Unlike the Cambridge machine used for EN 13595 the Darmstadt machine does not give a time of when a material has failed. It simply provides a pass or fail result. This means a product can just scrape through the abrasion test for EN 17092, but be given exactly the same ‘pass’ result and classification as a product that has much greater abrasion protective qualities and has passed the EN 17092 abrasion test by a much greater margin.
(quite an interesting article about testing, etc. in that link if you have 5 minutes spare)
Having crashed in a textile jacket at 40mph I know the seam on my arm which hit the ground first ripped open immediately. The rest of the jacket survived very well but the armour was held in place as I rolled to a stop, so job done.
I don't think any of the tests are really much use. It all depends on your weight, speed, how you fall, what you fall onto etc. There are so many variables that just certifying a material will last 2 seconds, 6 seconds etc in a machine simulation of scuffing along at 30mph isn't really helpful. No textile jacket this side of some very expensive and specialist materials will survive very long and those that do will be very stiff and usually not great to wear, hence the popularity of leather which is massively scuff resistant at even 100mph+ speeds and is comfortable to wear too.
For me, if I want to ride at high speed and have a chance of surviving scuffing and bouncing down the M6 at 90mph then it's leather, or if I accept that textiles will give sufficient protection to keep the armour in place long enough for me to stop moving from a moderate speed and also probably do a reasonable job of protecting skin, then textiles will be fine.
Last year I bought summer kit, a mesh jacket which I put a 3DO back protector in, some Bull-it jeans and short boots and I've never been more comfortable on a bike. It was a revelation, I had better visibility because I could move more easily, the kit was lighter and I was much cooler. I know it wont survive an off at high speed but at the speeds I was doing around France and Italy, it was perfect. I don't even know what rating they are, maybe I ought to but would it make any difference ?
I don't think any of the tests are really much use. It all depends on your weight, speed, how you fall, what you fall onto etc. There are so many variables that just certifying a material will last 2 seconds, 6 seconds etc in a machine simulation of scuffing along at 30mph isn't really helpful. No textile jacket this side of some very expensive and specialist materials will survive very long and those that do will be very stiff and usually not great to wear, hence the popularity of leather which is massively scuff resistant at even 100mph+ speeds and is comfortable to wear too.
For me, if I want to ride at high speed and have a chance of surviving scuffing and bouncing down the M6 at 90mph then it's leather, or if I accept that textiles will give sufficient protection to keep the armour in place long enough for me to stop moving from a moderate speed and also probably do a reasonable job of protecting skin, then textiles will be fine.
Last year I bought summer kit, a mesh jacket which I put a 3DO back protector in, some Bull-it jeans and short boots and I've never been more comfortable on a bike. It was a revelation, I had better visibility because I could move more easily, the kit was lighter and I was much cooler. I know it wont survive an off at high speed but at the speeds I was doing around France and Italy, it was perfect. I don't even know what rating they are, maybe I ought to but would it make any difference ?
I agree that It all depends on your weight, speed, how you fall, what you fall onto, etc. However, the ratings become problematic when they allow manufacturers to market unsuitable gear. For example, one of the big brands added knee armour to ordinary denim jeans and got them A-rated. These jeans are advertised as CE-certified protective clothing for motorcycling.
When I was a new rider, I might well have fallen for this marketing (I bet some people have) and ended up wearing regular denim jeans for protection - without realising it. (I've nothing against wearing jeans, but the choice should be an informed one.)
When I was a new rider, I might well have fallen for this marketing (I bet some people have) and ended up wearing regular denim jeans for protection - without realising it. (I've nothing against wearing jeans, but the choice should be an informed one.)
Sorry but I have to disagree with some of what you said. You are right that there are a huge number of variables in any accident, to the point that no two accidents will ever be the same, thus no specific accident can be specifically secured against is exactly why we need standard testing approaches. The testing ensures that the materials in your clothing have a given minimum abrasion resistance measurable in a repeatable and consistent way, allowing you to assess which item is MOST LIKELY to offer the best protection. Likewise with seam strength and amour energy absorption/dissipation etc.
None of this will guarantee your safety but it all adds up to increasing you chances of surviving unscathed.
None of this will guarantee your safety but it all adds up to increasing you chances of surviving unscathed.
interesting reading both
do these standards apply to custom stuff? Was thinking of replacing my 'fashion garment' ancient leathers with CE certification on protective armour only for some of the new fangled AAA leathers. Scott (barnard castle) are the closest to me so was contemplating a bimble down that way to get measured up
do these standards apply to custom stuff? Was thinking of replacing my 'fashion garment' ancient leathers with CE certification on protective armour only for some of the new fangled AAA leathers. Scott (barnard castle) are the closest to me so was contemplating a bimble down that way to get measured up
I trust Scott Leathers, have bought their gear and would rebuy it. Scott Leathers is an unusual case: they are one of very few manufacturers to have achieved the original (tougher) CE level 2 for some of their textile jackets, but I'm doubtful they got their leathers certified. However, Scott (like BKS and Hideout) is one of the only manufacturers where your leathers are made from the same quality hide, with the same stitching, by the same seamstresses, as professional road racers.
The other big names in custom gear – BKS and Hideout – have all their textiles and leathers CE-certified to the highest rating possible. And they have been lobbying for higher protection standards (unlike Dainese and Alpinestars, who successfully lobbied the EU to lower standards
).
The other big names in custom gear – BKS and Hideout – have all their textiles and leathers CE-certified to the highest rating possible. And they have been lobbying for higher protection standards (unlike Dainese and Alpinestars, who successfully lobbied the EU to lower standards
).My understanding is that ALL motorcycle clothing now needs to meet the new standards so Scott Leathers will, as a minimum, have met that standard and will be marked accordingly. I thought their leathers used to be certified the old standard but regardless, as has been said, they are one of the few (with BKS and Hideout) that I'd trust to really do a proper job.
Iminquarantine said:
AFAIK, most bike clothing before the current standard did not in reality meet any standard. It may have had CE marks on it, but that was for some component of the clothing which met a standard, eg if a elbow protector was fitted and that elbow protector met a standard, on went the CE mark. It did not necessarily mean that the jacket/pants itself had any sort of abrasion resistance.
I can't see there being loads of clothing out there which is now a lower standard, otherwise there would be lots of AAA rated stuff around as the article implies that AAA is easy to obtain, because it is lax. If you look at current bike clothing, the stuff which looks and feels the same as before (and is often the same just recertified) is A or AA. This implies to me that the old standard may well have been better, but most stuff was not certified to the old standard anyway.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the above.
My thoughts as well, if it was as dumbed down as claimed everyone would be launching AAA gear, considering I'm only aware of one textile jacket that has received AAA (a limited edition KLIM jacket) and it's taken most manufacturers 3-4 years to develop and release AA rated textiles, for me motorbike clothing is now safer, as I'll ensure to buy an AA rated textiles gear as a minimum. My old textile jacket might not have even passed A, I'll never know.I can't see there being loads of clothing out there which is now a lower standard, otherwise there would be lots of AAA rated stuff around as the article implies that AAA is easy to obtain, because it is lax. If you look at current bike clothing, the stuff which looks and feels the same as before (and is often the same just recertified) is A or AA. This implies to me that the old standard may well have been better, but most stuff was not certified to the old standard anyway.
Please correct me if I am wrong on the above.
I accept Leathers are a different story, I'm still azed how many manufacturers offer a leather suit that only achieves AA. I do wonder if some purposefully underquote the cheaper leathers to give a differentiation point over their range
black-k1 said:
Sorry but I have to disagree with some of what you said. You are right that there are a huge number of variables in any accident, to the point that no two accidents will ever be the same, thus no specific accident can be specifically secured against is exactly why we need standard testing approaches. The testing ensures that the materials in your clothing have a given minimum abrasion resistance measurable in a repeatable and consistent way, allowing you to assess which item is MOST LIKELY to offer the best protection. Likewise with seam strength and amour energy absorption/dissipation etc.
None of this will guarantee your safety but it all adds up to increasing you chances of surviving unscathed.
Completely agree - same thing applies to NCAP testing for cars. Of course they don't represent every possible type of accident, but they do provide consistent feedback for the manufacturers to work with and strive to meet.None of this will guarantee your safety but it all adds up to increasing you chances of surviving unscathed.
Krikkit said:
black-k1 said:
Sorry but I have to disagree with some of what you said. You are right that there are a huge number of variables in any accident, to the point that no two accidents will ever be the same, thus no specific accident can be specifically secured against is exactly why we need standard testing approaches. The testing ensures that the materials in your clothing have a given minimum abrasion resistance measurable in a repeatable and consistent way, allowing you to assess which item is MOST LIKELY to offer the best protection. Likewise with seam strength and amour energy absorption/dissipation etc.
None of this will guarantee your safety but it all adds up to increasing you chances of surviving unscathed.
Completely agree - same thing applies to NCAP testing for cars. Of course they don't represent every possible type of accident, but they do provide consistent feedback for the manufacturers to work with and strive to meet.None of this will guarantee your safety but it all adds up to increasing you chances of surviving unscathed.
The bike clothing test is not anything like that, there is no crash to test the garment, part of the garment is cut off and placed into a machine without any of the liners being present. It's then spun around and dropped onto a concrete test surface. This has to cause a hole of less than 5mm at just 28mph for A rating and 43mph for AA rating. AAA is 75mph.
So firstly this isn't a crash test, it's a simulated material test in a lab. A 5mm hole is irrelevant when it comes to armour moving, a much larger hole will still keep the armour in place. And in textiles you don't slide anywhere near as much as you do in leather, you tend to roll over and over and there's nothing in the test which simulates that.
So I don't think the difference between A and AA is that great, your injuries are going to be determined far more by the details of the accident. AAA might be a standard worth looking for but it does appear that textiles which can survive this, even on a non-realistic concrete test machine might be too stiff to be comfortable or currently very expensive.
So I still believe A or AA textile is probably irrelevant in the real world and if you want high speed protection it's still leather you need, which I think we all knew already
But I do agree with the comment a few above that any test is better than none, simply to stop companies selling cheap Chinese jeans with a knee protector as bike gear so the uninformed riders do at least have a chance to know what they're buying. Especially with the seam test being more relavent here.
I think you missed the point of the NCAP comparison. NCAP is a series of pre defined, measurable, repeatable test designed to establish a standard set of results by which the expected "safety levels" of different cars from different manufacturers can be compared. EN 17092 and EN 13595 are a series of pre defined, measurable, repeatable tests designed to establish a standard set of results by which the expected "safety levels" of different garments, using their materials and construction, can be compared. NCAP does not provide any guarantees that anyone will survive a car accident unscathed and EN 17092 & EN 13595 provide no guarantees that a biker will survive an accident unscathed. It's the approach that is comparable, not the specific tests.
I agree 100% that the A and AA ratings EN 17092 appear pretty pointless other than show that the materials and construction of a given garment failed to make a higher grading, so even if the garment looks pretty "ruffty tuffty" it's unlikely to offer any significant protection if crash tested for real. That said, it still shows that an A rated garment is likely less protective than an AA rated garment.
As you said, having EN 17092 is at least an improvement on before where, unless the manufacturer tested their clothing to EN 13595, there was no easy way of tell if the item of clothing offered any level of protection at all. (And I don't think it was just the Chinese that were producing clothing with poor protection levels. There are a number of big European names in biker clothing whose garments are only A rated!)
I've always believed that, while in the western world, as regards safety on motorcycles then, to know what the best things to wear are, look at the local motorcycle police. The fact that BKS suggest the motorcycle police are looking for an EN 13595 equivalent BSI rating for emergency services suggests to me that this is the standard to use if you want protection and comfort.
I agree 100% that the A and AA ratings EN 17092 appear pretty pointless other than show that the materials and construction of a given garment failed to make a higher grading, so even if the garment looks pretty "ruffty tuffty" it's unlikely to offer any significant protection if crash tested for real. That said, it still shows that an A rated garment is likely less protective than an AA rated garment.
As you said, having EN 17092 is at least an improvement on before where, unless the manufacturer tested their clothing to EN 13595, there was no easy way of tell if the item of clothing offered any level of protection at all. (And I don't think it was just the Chinese that were producing clothing with poor protection levels. There are a number of big European names in biker clothing whose garments are only A rated!)
I've always believed that, while in the western world, as regards safety on motorcycles then, to know what the best things to wear are, look at the local motorcycle police. The fact that BKS suggest the motorcycle police are looking for an EN 13595 equivalent BSI rating for emergency services suggests to me that this is the standard to use if you want protection and comfort.
I agree with black-k1. The old CE standard (EN 13595) was based on highly comprehensive research by Cambridge University, including thorough analyses of crash injuries and the accompanying kit. I gather it was gory work but thorough, so the "Cambridge standard" was meaningful for real-world protection. However, the new CE standard (EN 17092) is diluted and, as the Bennetts article highlighted, less protective for us.
They might be pricey (beyond my means), but there are textiles with top-level comfort, plus protection that significantly exceeds AAA (i.e. EN 13595 Level 2). While I haven’t tried the BKS 100SX textile motorcycle suit, I tried on Hideout Hi-Pro textiles, and they were the most comfortable textiles I’ve ever tried.
SteveKTMer said:
AAA might be a standard worth looking for but it does appear that textiles which can survive this, even on a non-realistic concrete test machine might be too stiff to be comfortable or currently very expensive.
Not necessarily. Scott Leathers sells textile jackets that surpass the highest CE standard (EN 13595 Level 2, tougher than AAA) yet are very comfy. I commuted daily in one for years, and it was one of the best-built jackets I’ve ever had. The New Road jacket costs £315, and the Road Airflow jacket is £295. At the cheap price level, Aldi (yes, Aldi) used to sell textiles that were certified to the highest level (EN 13595). They might be pricey (beyond my means), but there are textiles with top-level comfort, plus protection that significantly exceeds AAA (i.e. EN 13595 Level 2). While I haven’t tried the BKS 100SX textile motorcycle suit, I tried on Hideout Hi-Pro textiles, and they were the most comfortable textiles I’ve ever tried.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff