Back Protectors, Testing, and CE Standards

[license2ill]

Hey, just thought I'd share some info I've gathered about back protectors. Hope it provides some answers and insight into body armor and the buying process for protective gear in general.

It seems ridiculous to buy gear based on marketing hype, sponsorship deals, rumors, arbitrary crash experience, looks, feel, and name recognition. Real, scientifically derived numbers should be the first reason for buying a piece of  protective gear, always. There are currently no standards or testing procedures necessary to call a piece of cardboard "the best protection system on the planet" in the United States.

It can be very confusing, but after some discussions and some simple research I have found a few companies that offer CE certified back protectors and specify compliance with the proper back protector standard. The standard establishes a unified testing procedure to be used by clothing or protector manufacturers who intend to have their products qualified for sale in Europe and who want to offer their protective wear in all countries of the European Union. The result of this testing procedure determines whether manufacturers can market the protective equipment as "protectors" or simply "protective padding".

All of the certified back protectors are only good for a single-use due to the structure and/or crushable materials used to absorb impact, though a few offer better protection for multiple impacts during a crash.

The CE BACK PROTECTOR standard is labeled EN1621-2. The test is performed with a 5kg "kerbstone" dropped from one meter to create the test impact energy of 50 Joules The standard contains two levels of  force transmission performance. 18kN passes LEVEL 1 "basic" compliance and 9kN passes LEVEL 2 "high performance" compliance. So LEVEL 2 protectors allow 50% less energy to reach the spine/ribs.

The CE LIMB/JOINT PROTECTOR standard is labeled EN1621-1. It allows joint/limb armor to transmit no more than 35kN of force for all levels. Both of the CE body armor standards(back or limb) use the same amount of energy as a starting point, 50 joules. However, limb/joint armor ratings are based on performance at an initial energy of 50 joules, 75 joules, or 100 joules, leading to 3 levels of performance within this standard. All 3 levels allow no more than 35 kN of force to transmit: LEVEL 1 (50 joules), LEVEL 2 "high performance" (75 joules), and LEVEL 3 "extreme performance" (100 joules). "Astrene" gel/foam is the highest rated material used in body armor (extreme performance level in 8mm non-perforated thickness), followed closely by varying thickness and perforated forms of "Astrosorb", and T-Pro's four layers of  "Armour-Flex" material.

[license2ill]

http://www.pva-ppe.org.uk/ PART%203...20EXPLAINED.htm

Here's an excerpt from the link above with an explanation of the current CE Back Protector Standards:

"There has been criticism of the standard from medical experts who consider the transmitted force levels too severe; citing decades of automotive research which indicates 4 kN is the maximum force the brittle bones which form the human ribcage can withstand before they fracture. Four kiloNewtons is the requirement adopted in standards covering, for example, horse riders' body protectors and martial arts equipment.

Attempts to reduce the transmitted force requirement to 4 kN and to correspondingly reduce the 50 Joule impact energy requirement were strongly resisted by industry, who claimed consumers would be confused by different impact energy requirements between EN1621-1 and EN1621-2.

In truth, it was in the industry's commercial interests to test both types of protector at 50J, since they could then extol the efficacy of back protectors which, when struck with the same impact energy as limb protectors, transmitted only 9 or 18 kN of force compared to 35 kN. The consumer would be unaware that subtle differences in the impactor and anvil were responsible, and still less aware that 9 kN was still more than double the safe limit supported by medical experts. Furthermore, during the late 1990s, some companies had used the wholly inappropriate EN 1621-1 to CE mark their back protectors. Commercial objectives were given priority over consumer safety.

Despite these concerns, EN1621-2 represents a starting point from wholly unsafe products should be rendered obsolete and unsellable. It will be important, however, for consumers to ensure back protectors are marked with the correct standard number, if they are not to mistakenly purchase an old stock.

Finally, there are a small number of back protectors on the market which have been dual-tested against the requirements of EN1621-2 and also against a 4 kN transmitted force requirement. Reading the manufacturer's technical information will disclose which are the superior products." Don't we only wish that was true.

So there are two levels that are considered passing, but both of these levels fall within that 1621-2 back protector standard. However, 4kN is the medically recommended level of transmitted force, but is NOT actually required by the current CE back protector standard, and most protectors cannot provide this level at the 50 Joule energy impact level. Keep in mind that when a protector is just labeled as CE Approved, and no mention is made of the level of performance, it probably implies Level 1 compliance, but the claim should be verified (European sold models must comply by law).

[license2ill]

Here's a list of all of the back protectors I have found, starting with the LEVEL 2 rated protectors, followed by some LEVEL 1 protectors, and finally by those that are NOT RATED and/or offer no performance data or verification of claims:

BKS is the only motorcycle clothing manufacturer I have found that offers back protectors that meet the medically established 4kN energy transmission level with their Astroshock model protector.

BKS also offers limb/joint armor that meets the CE 1621-1 standard's highest rating, the "extreme performance" energy absorption level (35kN@100J).

They seem to have the right attitude and the highest quality merchandise available, but they are also THE most expensive producer of leather motorcycle apparel on the planet. Should we really have to pay $3000.00 for the kind overall protection we need? Nobody else claims suits that are 100% CE approved as a whole (abrasion, tearing, seam burst, and impact) . Why is there only one manufacturer willing to meet the baseline testing requirements and apply for certification? It's a sad statement about level of respect we are shown as consumers by the majority of gear manufacturers.

http://www.bksleather.co.uk/techno.htm


T-Pro offers similar products, their website is full of good info and their products clearly stand-out as the highest-rated in crash protection. Both BKS and T-Pro protectors and body armor are effective for multiple impacts during a crash event, and are made with no hard plastics which should be much more comfortable and is potentially safer than products made with hard materials.

The most interesting piece of info from the T-Pro Body Armor site:

"Back Protection for Motorcyclists--Only a few motorcyclists receive a direct blow to the spine causing serious injury; more spine injuries are probably due to direct blows to the shoulders and hips. The products commonly known as motorcyclists back protectors, if correctly designed and constructed may alleviate some minor direct impacts on the back, but will not prevent skeletal or neurological injuries to the spine in motorcycle accidents."

It appears that most riders' assumptions about the use and effectiveness of back protection is more than even the highest rated protectors can live-up to in actual performance. This information won't stop me from purchasing a back protector, but it certainly gives me a better understanding of what to expect at current levels, so as not to be fooled by stories or sales pitches to the contrary. Is minimizing spinal, scapular, rib, and kidney bruising worth the cost of most of these protectors? I'd say so.

T-Pro's Forcefield back protector is CE certified to the 1621-2 LEVEL 2 standards, making it one of the few that advertises meeting this higher level. They also claim that the "Armour Flex" material will absorb multiple impacts with the same effectiveness. However that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be used again after a crash, but, just like a helmet, it will protect against second or third blows in the same area in a crash.

T-Pro also makes a chest protector/harness system, the 8100 harness, that they say conforms to the 1993 Swedish Off-Road Standards. I'm not familiar with the requirements for that certification. I would assume that off-road standards wouldn't be ideal for street-speed impact protection, and I would consider 1993 to be archaic in terms of technology and materials advancements. I'll look into it, and try to find-out just how stringent that standard is, and if it applies favorably for street protectors.

Johnson Leather, in the U.S., sells the T-Pro Forcefield products, as well as what looks to be the BKS "Astroshock" back protector inserts under their own name, and BKS now also sells a re-badged version of the T-pro Forcefield protector as well.

http://www.tprobodyarmour.co.uk/ff_back.html

http://www.johnsonleather.com/armor/

Dainese doesn't tout or even mention CE approval anywhere on their own website, but I did manage to find some info on the Dainese protectors from MotoLiberty's website. Dainese makes quite a few different models, not all advertise the same levels of protection, but most appear to be certified. They use an aluminum honeycomb structure, similar to the Knox protectors.

"The new Dainese folding back protector--Paraaschiena Ripegabile, is made with a hard plastic tortoise-shell type construction. It has an optimum shock absorption capacity which easily superceded the tough test at the highest level, EN1621-2 LEVEL 2." It also has the added convenience of being foldable for storage.

The Dainese Wave 2 protector is CE rated LEVEL 1.

The BAP protectors are also CE approved, LEVEL 1.

The Back Space and Gilet Space models are also CE approved to the LEVEL 1 standard, passing with 15kN of transmitted force in tests.

http://www.dainese.it

http://www.motoliberty.com/prod_detail.asp?ProdID=34

[Baltobuell]

Dude! great info! Somebody forward that to RRW. Maybe get get a column and get paid for such great work.

[Clay]

I looked up the protector I just bought, the Spidi air back.  Here's the info I found.

The AIR BACK project has been developed to obtain maximum protection on impact. It represents the safety lab division's answer to a precise drawing drafted at the university of hanover that highlights the parts most at risk on the rider's back. Thanks to the innovative technology and to the protection system being extended to the shoulder blades area (conforming to standard pren 1621/2) the "AIR-BACK" back protector helps to minimise the damage to the back in the event of violent impact

Awsome bit of reading though!  Thanx.

[license2ill]

Actually, after having to chop the original so many times I was too lazy to post the rest of it that included that info about the Airback. Here's the rest:


Knox was the first company to apply for CE approval for their KC protectors back in 1997, under the previously established limb/joint protector standards(EN1621-1). For a while, Knox was the only company that offered a certified protector.

All of the Knox protectors are approved to the current and proper 1621-2 standard (Level 1). They claim to surpass the basic requirements, but not higher level compliance. They offer the largest coverage area of any of the protectors available with all of their models.

The Stowaway model is flexible enough to roll-up for convenient storage, and comes with its own storage bag and is still approved to the LEVEL 1 standard.

http://www.planet-knox.com/Knox/index.asp

Alpinestars states that their Tech Protector and RC back pad inserts are EN1621-2 approved (LEVEL 1).

http://www.alpinestars.com/_lp/moto_protection.htm

Spidi offers two families of  back protector options, the Airback and Warriors.

The Airback protector is CE Level 1 approved according to the Italian Spidi website. However, SpidiUSA doesn't mention any of this info. I was told that the European versions are updated and not yet available in the U.S which could explain these differences.

The Warrior "mid" and "low" options are LEVEL 1 approved, but offer very little coverage area, focusing on the lumbar region with no shoulder blade coverage. Spidi touts the Airback protector as being more effective because of its shoulder blade coverage and the nature of most initial crash impacts hitting the shoulder blade region.

It is also confusing with the standard and compact Warrior protectors. I noticed a difference the photos of the Spidi Warrior protectors on the Spidi USA website vs. the Italian site (English version). The US website shows a Warrior protector that looks different than the Warrior protectors on the Italian website. Again, I was told that the European version is updated and not yet available in the U.S which would explain these differences.

Both Spidi websites state that the regular and compact versions of the Warrior are compliant with the CE Directives for PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), which have nothing to do with the actual testing performance or standards for the equipment. The Directives are simply an ethics code and basis for testing procedures and standards operations. This is a very misleading statement regarding the effectiveness of these products. Have they been properly tested and certified to the EN1621-2 standard? It certainly doesn't appear that way.

http://www.spidi.it/spidi-jsp/index.jsp?lang=en

http://www.spidiusa.com/Category.php?Category=protection

http://www.ce-marking.org/directive-89686eec-PPE.html

The Giali protector claims CE approval. No mention of level. It is a European model, so it is probably properly approved to the LEVEL 1 standard.

http://www.motorcycle-uk.com/giali/GialiBackProtectors.html

Clover, another European brand, has a couple of models specified to meet LEVEL 1 standards, no word of availability of Clover protectors in the U.S.

http://www.bbbikeshop.co.uk/acatalog/Browse___Best___Buy_CLOVER_Back_Protectors_329.html

Kobe back protectors claim CE approval as well, but no mention of which standard or level.

http://www.1888fastlap.com/kobe_fastlap_vented_back_protect.htm

Fieldsheer makes claims in their marketing copy for the X20 back protector that leave the specifics to the imagination by not directly referring to the standard that their protector has passed.

"The X20 back protector provides protection internally using a new "honey comb" plastic core, proved to exceed all European CE standards."

Maybe I'm over-analyzing, but if you read it carefully, what is that really saying? Has it been certified? Has it been tested as a whole? Is the design or the final product proven to CE levels? All CE standards?

I have received confirmation from an X20 owner that it is properly rated to the 1621-2 LEVEL 1 standard. Not the best, as they make it sound, but properly rated and certified nonetheless. It would have been easier, if they just would have stated that in their ads.

www.fieldsheer.com

Helimot carries a German brand of protectors, Erbo. The models on Erbo's own website are shrouded in a Cordura cover. I don't know if they are the same models sold by Helimot, but Erbo states that those protectors are CE LEVEL 1 approved.

[license2ill]

Helimot has an interesting theory behind their TLV protector, but make no claims of protection (Its an American market product). I have heard stories of the owner of Helimot performing "real world" tests with a hammer for skeptics. Uh sorry, I'd rather have repeatable measurements than seat-of my-pants guesses at what crash forces are going to feel like. These dramatic exhibitions should be saved for differentiating the meaning of the data, rather than basing your presumptions of efficacy on them.

http://www.helimot.com/catalog/other_items/tlv_data.shtml

http://www.helimot.com/catalog/other_items/erboback_data.shtml

Knox makes reference to improper use of CE claims by other companies. They don't name names, but it appears to be in response to Bohn's non-certified CE labeling practice. Bohn uses a CE label without actually being certified. Bohn also does not specify which standard they are referring to in their marketing statements of "exceeding CE specs" or "built to European CE standards". An article on the British Motorcycle Federation website implies that unnamed companies are being sued for improperly using the CE mark and not complying with the proper specs for back protectors. I cannot find any actual information that directly refers to Bohn or the standards that Bohn allegedly meets or exceeds.

http://www.bmf.co.uk/briefing/index.php?brief24.inc.shtml

Bohn lists the Pro-Racer protectors as being "made to European CE standards", though they have NOT actually been certified. Is Bohn referring to the correct back protector standard when they make this claim? Well, Bohn's claim was not only made prior to the existence of the 1621-2 back protector standard, but they have still refused to submit for proper testing and certification.

Bohn makes no certification, rating, or other protection claims with any of the Carbon/Kevlar models or the Pro-Racer Motard version, and offers no performance data or levels or verification of protection for those models either.

The Bohn X-Ploit chest and back harnesses claim to be "made to the Scandinavian Off-road Protection Standard." No word on whether these protectors are actually certified to that standard either. I don't know too much about the Swedish(Scandinavian) off-road standard, but it was instituted in 1993 and is probably not at the current level required by CE for street use items.

Bohn's website offers no specific information regarding which CE specs are being met and how it is being proven. I find this claim to be blatantly deceptive and deceitful. Such claims should be backed-up with formal proof. Any company that tries to tag-on to safety standards and markings without actually providing open evidence or paying for the right to market its products using the standard is not selling in good faith.
The other claim by Bohn is that their protectors can be used for multiple crashes. This goes against all other information about the only materials in use that will absorb the necessary amount of energy to meet the 1621-2 standard. So far, there are no companies that meet the proper standards without using materials that permanently deform after a crash impact, or multiple impacts during a single crash, just like helmets.

But they do offer-up some gems, like this quote from Eric Bostrom:

"After testing at the Jan 2000 Laguna Shakedown Eric reported: '...really comfortable, and made me feel safe on the bike' "

Boy that was convincing, haha. Yes, that is the entire testimonial.

http://www.bohnarmor.com/bohnarmor/index.asp

http://www.actionstation.com/proracer.html


Impact Armor claims their protectors are ""Designed to exceed ALL European CE specifications for armor", but are NOT actually CE certified and do not provide any performance data either. The CE had not introduced the 1621-2 back protector standards at the time that statement about the "design" was originally published. There is no reference to the proper standard, and the lack of open proof leaves that statement worthless.

[license2ill]

Impact Armor relies on testimonials from unpaid professional racers, but nothing in the way of proven results of crash worthiness or protective levels in their marketing or correspondence.

I had email correspondence with Michael Braxton, owner of Impact Armor. He seemed friendly, but unwilling to divulge any real information about how his Impact Armor protectors have performed in tests. In fact, I got the gist that they haven't been tested at all or at least in the current form. He focuses on theory and a "patented design", but the design and theory need to be proven by repeatable testing of a final product to be worthwhile. In fact, in Mr. Braxton's allusions to CE, the website states that "prototypes were submitted for testing to the Cambridge Institute in Britain". Results of these "prototype" tests are not shown, and the assertion is qualified by a statement about a 6-year long "wearability program" as if they were the same issue. Also, the "patented design" is not in reference to a protective feature, but a convenience feature that allows disposal and replacement of damaged components after an impact-use. A patent doesn't say anything about the design's effectiveness. This all amounts to a lot of hype without actually saying anything substantial about the actual crash-worthiness of the product . I inferred that these theories were tested in the early '90s while working with T-Pro. I don't know the complete history of T-Pro and Impact Armor or Michael Braxton, but I am leery of his evasiveness and lip service to safety and standards in our correspondence, though his intentions did sound sincere at times. However when it comes to my safety, somebody's sincere intentions won't buy a cup of coffee. One statement he made did bother me:

According to Braxton, "Frankly, the cost, time and bureaucracy to obtain CE certification is just not worth the hassle... And if you did subject your self to the process, the quality of your product is treated no differently than the others...."

Frankly, I think that the "quality of your product" would be revealed by performance testing. What does he really mean by that statement? Does it sound arrogant or just ignorant? Either way, it's certainly laughable. Apparently it's less of a hassle to claim something meaningful without paying for its use, but he is certainly willing to reap the benefits of the association.

According to Paul Varnessy, head of PVA Technical File Services, "It actually costs less to test and certify a motorcycle suit than it does the average pair of safety shoes - as proven by the fact that the first companies to achieve EC type approval were the small, UK manufacturers of bespoke motorcyclists' clothing."

www.impactarmor.com

Teknic makes no specific claims of protective levels or performance results with their 4 or 7 link protectors, but they also sell the CE approved Knox back protectors.

http://www.teknicgear.com/pages/collections/accessories/4_7_link.html

Joe Rocket's website says very little about their GPX back protector. It is NOT shown to be CE certified. It is, however, made with the same material that BKS uses in their body armor, "Astrosorb", one of the highest-rated foams used in LIMB/JOINT armor, but make no reference to the thickness used or performance results, just that it is one-piece. Other companies have stated that Astrosorb alone will not meet the CE back protector standards.

http://www.joerocket.com/catalog/item.cfm?products_id=233

The NJK, another American model that offers nothing about protection levels or certifications:

http://www.njkleathers.com/bp.html

The Italian made UFO back protectors. Don't know about their availability in the U.S., or certification, but they are likely properly approved as a European product.

http://www.gobike.com.au/category494_1.htm

There are plenty more out there, the important thing is to know what to look for before you spend any more money thinking you have the safest possible piece of equipment. In the end you have to ask yourself just how much limited personal experience, limited arbitrary crash experience, limited knowledge of the real forces at work in any crash story, and the beliefs of others in what they have heard through the grapevine will get you the right answers. The problem with any of that information is that it is never complete or accurate, no matter how well-intentioned it may be. Is any of this sort of speculation going to satisfy your motivation to part with your money? What information will provide you with the safety expectations you have decided are appropriate?

[tzracer]

Great work.

One note, J (Joules) is a unit of energy, N (Newtons) is a unit of force. Your original post kind of mixes the 2 up. Doesn't really greatly affect the content of the post, just being a physicist (and a college instructor) forces me to point it out :)

[license2ill]

Great work.

One note, J (Joules) is a unit of energy, N (Newtons) is a unit of force. Your original post kind of mixes the 2 up. Doesn't really greatly affect the content of the post, just being a physicist (and a college instructor) forces me to point it out :)

Thanks, I needed clarification on that. High School physics didn't do too much for me. ;D

Can you add some perspective on the measurements of energy and force used in the CE tests? I don't think too many people really know how to interpret Joules or Newtons in terms of what they will "feel" like or something they can associate the units to in terms we may be familiar with? For example, most people understand mph, and would associate a fall with how fast they were going when they impact, any translation we can make here?

[stumpy]

Now I'm wondering what helmet you wear!   ;)

Very informative.  Thank you!

StUmPy

[tzracer]

Thanks, I needed clarification on that. High School physics didn't do too much for me. ;D

Can you add some perspective on the measurements of energy and force used in the CE tests? I don't think too many people really know how to interpret Joules or Newtons in terms of what they will "feel" like or something they can associate the units to in terms we may be familiar with? For example, most people understand mph, and would associate a fall with how fast they were going when they impact, any translation we can make here?

I'll try, it is not really easy since most people think in terms of pain not force or energy.

A Newton is about 0.25 pounds, 1 N = 0.25 lbs.
A Joule is the same as a Newton meter (N-m).

If I drop a 1N object 1 m it will have 1N-m of energy. So drop a 1/4 pound weight 1m (about 39 inches) on your foot and you can get a feel for 1 J of energy. It is not really that much. Energy of a collision and force are related. Energy (work) is force times distance. By adding padding, you increase the distance of the collision, there by lowering the force. Hopefully the force is not injurious (is that a word?). More distance, less force, same energy.

Once the force required for various injuries is known (cadaver testing), then the max energy for various types of padded devices can be calculted. One problem with padding is that it has a zone of force in which it works. Force to low to compress, and all energy is transfered through the padding, too high and the padding is quickly fully compressed. So someetimes you will see a mixture of materials to try to cover a wider range of collision speeds.

Also, 1/2 mv^2 is kinetic energy, to get it in J, m (mass) must be in kilograms (divide pounds by 2.204 - only works near the surface of Earth - so don't use while you are on the moon) and you speed must be in meters/second (1 m/s = 2.24 mph, so divide mph by 2.24 to get m/s).

For things like helmets and spine protectors, you are more interested in your contact with the ground than sliding into something. So your horizontal speed is not needed. If you know the height you are falling from, you can calculate the energy your body has (weight times height, Newtons times meters). This will be the energy your padding will experience.