Excerpt from: Motorcycle Lawyer
|
 |
| February 14, 2008 | | Lack of objective information leaves riders guessing | Lately, I've been trying to figure out where we stand with body armor, and what is the best brand available.
Of course, everyone claims to make the best and most protective. The hard armor people say that if you take a lump of clay, put soft armor over it, and hit it with a hammer, it will leave a localized dent. The soft armor people say that if you put a localized hit or drag on hard armor, you will make a hole. The combination armor people claim some of each.
Of course, hitting armor with a hammer is very unlike landing on pavement, even if the elbow is involved. Normally, armor hits a larger target area than that represented by the head of a hammer. There isn't even a great consensus about the amount of force likely to be encountered. One manufacturer is proud to absorb 100 joules of force, far more than the CE standard. That standard, of course, is all that we have, and it is unclear exactly what you get in armor that meets that standard.
I like Motorport gear, but I wonder how good the thin armor really is. Truthfully, I love the way that it molds quickly to the body, and it is light enough that wearing it is not a big deal. This means that it gets more use. But for a track day, what is the ultimate product? Is it my beloved Motoport, that claims to be better than T-Pro? Is it Forcefield, which has many reviews claiming it is the best? Is it the hard armor found in Vanson or Dianese?
I wish I knew. Even more, I wish I had some way of finding out. Various magazines have used dummys, and done other scientific seeming testing, but none of it seems convincing. Worse, there is no good database from either the real world, or the experiences of those who ride racetracks.
Until someone gets on this, we continue to guess. Expensive way to find out, in my opinion.
| | |
|
|
