Crash test on a real road surface
Discussion
After all the talk about Bennetts’ recent Best motorcycle jeans: THE TRUTH video, I thought this new 1-minute video could interest many PHers, too:
YouTube: Dyneema denim crash test on a real road surface
I gather the tester plans to show more of these tests on real roads.
YouTube: Dyneema denim crash test on a real road surface
I gather the tester plans to show more of these tests on real roads.
I can’t follow that video at all, tbh, it’s too fast and I don’t have a clue what they are doing?
Is it one type of denim, with different armour being fitted, or 4 different pairs of jeans, what’s all the under layer talk about?
Gobbledygook to your average punter who pops into a bike shop now and then and spends his money
Is it one type of denim, with different armour being fitted, or 4 different pairs of jeans, what’s all the under layer talk about?
Gobbledygook to your average punter who pops into a bike shop now and then and spends his money
t about this. Gonna be entertaining to watch.🤣PT1984 said:
Again I found it hard to follow, but I did scan the MCN video.
What is the outcome? Double layer and knee and hip armour. If so, what is the most cost effective option?
Outcome is the top quality lined with armour is better in that test, close to leather in slide timeWhat is the outcome? Double layer and knee and hip armour. If so, what is the most cost effective option?
Most cost effective I would say would be Hood jeans.
I have Hood and Rokker, wear whichever suits the conditions and possibility of rain.
Still not a realistic test. Highly unlikely that you would slide on the same pressure spot for more than 5 seconds in a real world crash - or even on track for that matter. You simply would not see the kind of wear-through being simulated here.
Instead, it is very likely that you will roll and not maintain constant contact with the pressure point for more than 1-2 seconds maximum. The most important protection in a crash on the road is impact protection - ie, armour.
Instead, it is very likely that you will roll and not maintain constant contact with the pressure point for more than 1-2 seconds maximum. The most important protection in a crash on the road is impact protection - ie, armour.
Nobody would argue against armour’s importance! Albeit armour’s protection is limited. (It’s designed to protect against falling onto the ground, not the forces involved in hitting another vehicle, lamppost, etc.)
Unfortunately, it’s possible to need protection vs sustained abrasion in one spot, e.g. if trapped under the bike as you slide down the road. And a mate had a long slide on his arse – he was doing 60 mph when a deer hit him.
Unfortunately, it’s possible to need protection vs sustained abrasion in one spot, e.g. if trapped under the bike as you slide down the road. And a mate had a long slide on his arse – he was doing 60 mph when a deer hit him.
Salted_Peanut said:
Nobody would argue against armour’s importance! Albeit armour’s protection is limited. (It’s designed to protect against falling onto the ground, not the forces involved in hitting another vehicle, lamppost, etc.)
Unfortunately, it’s possible to need protection vs sustained abrasion in one spot, e.g. if trapped under the bike as you slide down the road. And a mate had a long slide on his arse – he was doing 60 mph when a deer hit him.
For 5 seconds or longer? I highly doubt it.Unfortunately, it’s possible to need protection vs sustained abrasion in one spot, e.g. if trapped under the bike as you slide down the road. And a mate had a long slide on his arse – he was doing 60 mph when a deer hit him.
Hi all,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gTkIjBIsJ0
I'm the author of the above Dyneema crash test. Thanks for you comments on my video. First a little background. I did about 4 months research and testing of commonly used materials for motorcycle garments about a year ago. I make or modify my own gear and for my own education, I decided to do drop testing on an actual road surface. I chose a medium grade asphalt stretch of unused road to test on. I studied all the previous research on testing and the certifications and decided there were some flaws in testing. First of all, no materials are dropped from a realistic height. Secondly, the sample holder is flat, whereas all our impact points are convex. Thirdly, no armour is used in the tests. I did about 100 drop tests with everything from cotton denim, polyester, nylon, blends of denim, many technical textiles (dyneema, aramid), and of course several types of cowhide.
I'm in the process of putting together an explanation video and then some more crash test sample videos to show the method.
Time is actually an irrelevant metric, in my opinion. Distance is what you want to look at. Abrasion = surface area / weight * distance. So all my results are in metres to failure. Most textiles failed within 1-9 metres which isn't very far and can go by in a blink of an eye when you're traveling fast. My protocol was to drop the sample from 1 metre high at 45km/h and break to a stop in 18 metres distance. I'd call this a medium case crash scenario. If the sample survived the first crash (and many didn't), I repeated the test for another drop until the sample failed. The result is the accumulated distance before failure. The worst performers were cotton denim, single layers of nylon and polyester - about 1-3 metres. Single layer denims did about 6-12 metres. Anything with an aramid/kevlar 2nd layer survived maybe 2 crashes and 20-30 metres. The best performers were 2 layers of cowhide which managed 200 metres (11 drop and stops) without failure. Each drop to stop (45km/h to zero) takes about 2 seconds and impacts and slides for 18 metres. I used slow-motion video (240fps) with a GoPro so I can determine the failure point from the debris - a high-viz liner under the sample gives me visual data on when the sample has worn through. There are some notes on each test and in the description. However, I understand that this might not be clear for people not familiar with impact abrasion testing.
I appreciate the comments and will have an explanation video soon. I'll probably separate individual tests into category or something like that. However, the tests alone are a bit boring to watch, especially cowhide where nothing really happens visually. I have included a wide-shot still frame to hopefully explain the protocol. The weights of the sample are similar to EN13595 and the distance traveled (at 45km/h) similar to EN17092.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gTkIjBIsJ0
I'm the author of the above Dyneema crash test. Thanks for you comments on my video. First a little background. I did about 4 months research and testing of commonly used materials for motorcycle garments about a year ago. I make or modify my own gear and for my own education, I decided to do drop testing on an actual road surface. I chose a medium grade asphalt stretch of unused road to test on. I studied all the previous research on testing and the certifications and decided there were some flaws in testing. First of all, no materials are dropped from a realistic height. Secondly, the sample holder is flat, whereas all our impact points are convex. Thirdly, no armour is used in the tests. I did about 100 drop tests with everything from cotton denim, polyester, nylon, blends of denim, many technical textiles (dyneema, aramid), and of course several types of cowhide.
I'm in the process of putting together an explanation video and then some more crash test sample videos to show the method.
Time is actually an irrelevant metric, in my opinion. Distance is what you want to look at. Abrasion = surface area / weight * distance. So all my results are in metres to failure. Most textiles failed within 1-9 metres which isn't very far and can go by in a blink of an eye when you're traveling fast. My protocol was to drop the sample from 1 metre high at 45km/h and break to a stop in 18 metres distance. I'd call this a medium case crash scenario. If the sample survived the first crash (and many didn't), I repeated the test for another drop until the sample failed. The result is the accumulated distance before failure. The worst performers were cotton denim, single layers of nylon and polyester - about 1-3 metres. Single layer denims did about 6-12 metres. Anything with an aramid/kevlar 2nd layer survived maybe 2 crashes and 20-30 metres. The best performers were 2 layers of cowhide which managed 200 metres (11 drop and stops) without failure. Each drop to stop (45km/h to zero) takes about 2 seconds and impacts and slides for 18 metres. I used slow-motion video (240fps) with a GoPro so I can determine the failure point from the debris - a high-viz liner under the sample gives me visual data on when the sample has worn through. There are some notes on each test and in the description. However, I understand that this might not be clear for people not familiar with impact abrasion testing.
I appreciate the comments and will have an explanation video soon. I'll probably separate individual tests into category or something like that. However, the tests alone are a bit boring to watch, especially cowhide where nothing really happens visually. I have included a wide-shot still frame to hopefully explain the protocol. The weights of the sample are similar to EN13595 and the distance traveled (at 45km/h) similar to EN17092.
Edited by UKadventurer on Monday 4th April 12:32
Edited by UKadventurer on Monday 4th April 12:59
spareparts said:
For 5 seconds or longer?
A 5-second slide time under the current CE test equates to a 1¼ second slide time on a typical British road.Under the current testing regime (EN 17092), the slide time isn’t meaningful for British roads. The abrasion test (Darmstadt machine) uses relatively smooth concrete; it’s four times less abrasive than the top-dressed or chip seal surfaces typical of British roads. The previous CE test – designed by Cambridge University – used a 60-grit surface because it was more representative of our roads. But when the CE test was revised, overseas manufacturers successfully lobbied the EU to move from the Cambridge standard to the Darmstadt test.
Also, as UK Adventurer mentioned, slide distance is probably more relevant than slide time.
Thankyou to UKadventurer and all those doing testing of what is claimed to be safety equipment for us bikers. I'm not an ATGATT person but I like to think that my choices of what to wear when riding my bike are based on real information, not marketing/sales claims designed to sell sub-standard kit regardless of the risks to my safety.
I think that there are a number of manufacturers and retailers, as well as national and international standards organisations, who need to remember that, when it comes to safety equipment, choosing to not deliver the best is one thing, misleading and even falsifying is something very different.
I think that there are a number of manufacturers and retailers, as well as national and international standards organisations, who need to remember that, when it comes to safety equipment, choosing to not deliver the best is one thing, misleading and even falsifying is something very different.
Salted_Peanut said:
spareparts said:
For 5 seconds or longer?
A 5-second slide time under the current CE test equates to a 1¼ second slide time on a typical British road.Under the current testing regime (EN 17092), the slide time isn’t meaningful for British roads. The abrasion test (Darmstadt machine) uses relatively smooth concrete; it’s four times less abrasive than the top-dressed or chip seal surfaces typical of British roads. The previous CE test – designed by Cambridge University – used a 60-grit surface because it was more representative of our roads. But when the CE test was revised, overseas manufacturers successfully lobbied the EU to move from the Cambridge standard to the Darmstadt test.
Also, as UK Adventurer mentioned, slide distance is probably more relevant than slide time.
Just to reiterate:
The slide distance is the critical measurement. However, just for the record, the time of each drop in my tests was only 2 seconds from drop to stop. The slo-mo video (240fps) makes it seem much longer in time.
I just intend to show the real physics of a fall and slide on a real road. The test is using averages. My arm weight is 6kg so I used my arm weight. My arm is at about 1.2m above the ground on a bike. I used 1 metre. Most crash durations are only about 1.5 - 2 seconds and at city speeds, according to research. So I used that.
Tests to destruction are the most useful tests. Just a pass/fail is pretty uninformative.
By seeing how many impacts and slides a material can handle, we can just accumulate that amount for a distance to failure. It can also simulate a material's ability to handle impact which both EN13595 and EN17092 completely ignore.
The best combination in my 100+ drop tests was: 2 layers of BKS Brazilian cowhide (1.4mm to 1.6mm) with 7mm of foam (I couldn't fit a full armour pad - the samples were too small). The 2nd best was HideOut leathers cowhide (1.4mm - 1.6mm). I couldn't destroy the BKS combination even after 11 crashes (200 metres accumulated). HideOut's managed 180 metres in 10 crashes and failed on the 11th crash. Also, it's half the price. You probably don't need this level of protection but you might want it.
I'm not going to tell people what to wear, I just show the results and you can make an informed choice based on your risk tolerance balanced against comfort and style, etc. There is so much hype in the marketing of motorcycle PPE, I think it's good to know an unbiased test on a real road.
The slide distance is the critical measurement. However, just for the record, the time of each drop in my tests was only 2 seconds from drop to stop. The slo-mo video (240fps) makes it seem much longer in time.
I just intend to show the real physics of a fall and slide on a real road. The test is using averages. My arm weight is 6kg so I used my arm weight. My arm is at about 1.2m above the ground on a bike. I used 1 metre. Most crash durations are only about 1.5 - 2 seconds and at city speeds, according to research. So I used that.
Tests to destruction are the most useful tests. Just a pass/fail is pretty uninformative.
By seeing how many impacts and slides a material can handle, we can just accumulate that amount for a distance to failure. It can also simulate a material's ability to handle impact which both EN13595 and EN17092 completely ignore.
The best combination in my 100+ drop tests was: 2 layers of BKS Brazilian cowhide (1.4mm to 1.6mm) with 7mm of foam (I couldn't fit a full armour pad - the samples were too small). The 2nd best was HideOut leathers cowhide (1.4mm - 1.6mm). I couldn't destroy the BKS combination even after 11 crashes (200 metres accumulated). HideOut's managed 180 metres in 10 crashes and failed on the 11th crash. Also, it's half the price. You probably don't need this level of protection but you might want it.
I'm not going to tell people what to wear, I just show the results and you can make an informed choice based on your risk tolerance balanced against comfort and style, etc. There is so much hype in the marketing of motorcycle PPE, I think it's good to know an unbiased test on a real road.
But don't we all know this already ?
If you want the best protection you need a good quality leather suit, my Hideout made to measure was much higher quality than my £500 Alpinestars suit and I'd expect both to survive multiple crashes on a track day or the road, the Hideout was just more comfortable and had better armour.
My cheap mesh jacket and bike jeans will never get anywhere near that level of protection but I sacrifice protection for clothing which is pleasant to use, cool and about a quarter of the weight of leather which in summer means more miles on the bike.
It's all irrelevant if you hit a lamp post or tree at 50mph and your internal organs rupture, no amount of leather will keep you alive in that situation.
I'd like to see some stats (I've not looked . . .) to show the cause of deaths and life changing injuries in bike crashes. That would tell me more accurately what I need to do to stay alive and for example, not lose a limb . . . as I might find that the material you are wearing in many road crashes is irrelevant and speed or what you hit is the critical factor in determining the outcome. How can we get this data ?
Also, if a reseller is misrepresenting the safety standards of PPE is that an offence ?
If you want the best protection you need a good quality leather suit, my Hideout made to measure was much higher quality than my £500 Alpinestars suit and I'd expect both to survive multiple crashes on a track day or the road, the Hideout was just more comfortable and had better armour.
My cheap mesh jacket and bike jeans will never get anywhere near that level of protection but I sacrifice protection for clothing which is pleasant to use, cool and about a quarter of the weight of leather which in summer means more miles on the bike.
It's all irrelevant if you hit a lamp post or tree at 50mph and your internal organs rupture, no amount of leather will keep you alive in that situation.
I'd like to see some stats (I've not looked . . .) to show the cause of deaths and life changing injuries in bike crashes. That would tell me more accurately what I need to do to stay alive and for example, not lose a limb . . . as I might find that the material you are wearing in many road crashes is irrelevant and speed or what you hit is the critical factor in determining the outcome. How can we get this data ?
Also, if a reseller is misrepresenting the safety standards of PPE is that an offence ?
One thing that these tests highlighted to me is the benefit of the armour.
I have a couple of pairs of (dual layer) jeans that I removed the armour from because I didn't like the shape/contact with my knee, it was uncomfortable. I recently ordered some D30 for my new jeans, and it's like night and day comfort-wise compared to the stock armour, so I'm way more likely to wear it.
Looks like I'll be ordering some more.
I have a couple of pairs of (dual layer) jeans that I removed the armour from because I didn't like the shape/contact with my knee, it was uncomfortable. I recently ordered some D30 for my new jeans, and it's like night and day comfort-wise compared to the stock armour, so I'm way more likely to wear it.
Looks like I'll be ordering some more.
SteveKTMer said:
But don't we all know this already ?
If you want the best protection you need a good quality leather suit, my Hideout made to measure was much higher quality than my £500 Alpinestars suit and I'd expect both to survive multiple crashes on a track day or the road, the Hideout was just more comfortable and had better armour.
My cheap mesh jacket and bike jeans will never get anywhere near that level of protection but I sacrifice protection for clothing which is pleasant to use, cool and about a quarter of the weight of leather which in summer means more miles on the bike.
When new textiles come out, they routinely claim "8 times stronger than leather" or "stronger than leather" etc. I'm sceptical but there are plenty of people who haven't been around as long and fall for the hype and marketing claims. I wanted to believe it too so I tested how good they would perform in an impact - just a straight fall onto the road. Well, it turns out very few garments will even survive an impact and a few metres of slide on an actual road. They don't fail by the end of the slide. They fail shortly after impact, leaving you exposed for the rest of even a short slide. IF they was anything as good as leather, I'd wear it. If you want the best protection you need a good quality leather suit, my Hideout made to measure was much higher quality than my £500 Alpinestars suit and I'd expect both to survive multiple crashes on a track day or the road, the Hideout was just more comfortable and had better armour.
My cheap mesh jacket and bike jeans will never get anywhere near that level of protection but I sacrifice protection for clothing which is pleasant to use, cool and about a quarter of the weight of leather which in summer means more miles on the bike.
There's also huge hype and a push for single layer jeans. The claims are extraordinary but the reality is quite different. However, people like to believe in fairy tales. There's a recent discussion on this group and people are clearly drinking the kool-aid when they repeat the marketing claims despite the evidence against that.
MOTOCAP, Bennett's and I have all shown test results that show single layers of anything are woefully inadequate yet believe don't want to believe it because the manufacturers and salespeople say otherwise.
The good news, if you wear armour, your armour is the abrasion layer in the impact zones because the outer fabrics fail shortly after impact. In zone 2, no such luck. You'll probably be losing skin with a single layer garment.
Personally, I wear an Alpinestars perforated leather jacket and RST kevlar (part lined) jeans on the road around town. Teknic 2-piece leathers on longer trips where higher speeds are allowed. Oh, and a Helite airbag vest. However, I'm mostly an off-road rider these days so it's Leatt hard armour over covec pressure suit for those rides.
UKadventurer said:
Hi all,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gTkIjBIsJ0
I'm the author of the above Dyneema crash test. Thanks for you comments on my video. First a little background. I did about 4 months research and testing of commonly used materials for motorcycle garments about a year ago. I make or modify my own gear and for my own education, I decided to do drop testing on an actual road surface. I chose a medium grade asphalt stretch of unused road to test on. I studied all the previous research on testing and the certifications and decided there were some flaws in testing. First of all, no materials are dropped from a realistic height. Secondly, the sample holder is flat, whereas all our impact points are convex. Thirdly, no armour is used in the tests. I did about 100 drop tests with everything from cotton denim, polyester, nylon, blends of denim, many technical textiles (dyneema, aramid), and of course several types of cowhide.
I'm in the process of putting together an explanation video and then some more crash test sample videos to show the method.
Time is actually an irrelevant metric, in my opinion. Distance is what you want to look at. Abrasion = surface area / weight * distance. So all my results are in metres to failure. Most textiles failed within 1-9 metres which isn't very far and can go by in a blink of an eye when you're traveling fast. My protocol was to drop the sample from 1 metre high at 45km/h and break to a stop in 18 metres distance. I'd call this a medium case crash scenario. If the sample survived the first crash (and many didn't), I repeated the test for another drop until the sample failed. The result is the accumulated distance before failure. The worst performers were cotton denim, single layers of nylon and polyester - about 1-3 metres. Single layer denims did about 6-12 metres. Anything with an aramid/kevlar 2nd layer survived maybe 2 crashes and 20-30 metres. The best performers were 2 layers of cowhide which managed 200 metres (11 drop and stops) without failure. Each drop to stop (45km/h to zero) takes about 2 seconds and impacts and slides for 18 metres. I used slow-motion video (240fps) with a GoPro so I can determine the failure point from the debris - a high-viz liner under the sample gives me visual data on when the sample has worn through. There are some notes on each test and in the description. However, I understand that this might not be clear for people not familiar with impact abrasion testing.
I appreciate the comments and will have an explanation video soon. I'll probably separate individual tests into category or something like that. However, the tests alone are a bit boring to watch, especially cowhide where nothing really happens visually. I have included a wide-shot still frame to hopefully explain the protocol. The weights of the sample are similar to EN13595 and the distance traveled (at 45km/h) similar to EN17092.
So, in conclusion, just don’t fall off! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gTkIjBIsJ0
I'm the author of the above Dyneema crash test. Thanks for you comments on my video. First a little background. I did about 4 months research and testing of commonly used materials for motorcycle garments about a year ago. I make or modify my own gear and for my own education, I decided to do drop testing on an actual road surface. I chose a medium grade asphalt stretch of unused road to test on. I studied all the previous research on testing and the certifications and decided there were some flaws in testing. First of all, no materials are dropped from a realistic height. Secondly, the sample holder is flat, whereas all our impact points are convex. Thirdly, no armour is used in the tests. I did about 100 drop tests with everything from cotton denim, polyester, nylon, blends of denim, many technical textiles (dyneema, aramid), and of course several types of cowhide.
I'm in the process of putting together an explanation video and then some more crash test sample videos to show the method.
Time is actually an irrelevant metric, in my opinion. Distance is what you want to look at. Abrasion = surface area / weight * distance. So all my results are in metres to failure. Most textiles failed within 1-9 metres which isn't very far and can go by in a blink of an eye when you're traveling fast. My protocol was to drop the sample from 1 metre high at 45km/h and break to a stop in 18 metres distance. I'd call this a medium case crash scenario. If the sample survived the first crash (and many didn't), I repeated the test for another drop until the sample failed. The result is the accumulated distance before failure. The worst performers were cotton denim, single layers of nylon and polyester - about 1-3 metres. Single layer denims did about 6-12 metres. Anything with an aramid/kevlar 2nd layer survived maybe 2 crashes and 20-30 metres. The best performers were 2 layers of cowhide which managed 200 metres (11 drop and stops) without failure. Each drop to stop (45km/h to zero) takes about 2 seconds and impacts and slides for 18 metres. I used slow-motion video (240fps) with a GoPro so I can determine the failure point from the debris - a high-viz liner under the sample gives me visual data on when the sample has worn through. There are some notes on each test and in the description. However, I understand that this might not be clear for people not familiar with impact abrasion testing.
I appreciate the comments and will have an explanation video soon. I'll probably separate individual tests into category or something like that. However, the tests alone are a bit boring to watch, especially cowhide where nothing really happens visually. I have included a wide-shot still frame to hopefully explain the protocol. The weights of the sample are similar to EN13595 and the distance traveled (at 45km/h) similar to EN17092.
Edited by UKadventurer on Monday 4th April 12:32
Edited by UKadventurer on Monday 4th April 12:59
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff