Back Protection
Discussion
Ladies & Gents,
Long time lurker, not very often poster looking for some help on Back protectors, in particular around CE certification levels.
I currently have a KNOX stand alone back protector (one of the large yellow ones), and am looking to upgrade.
I am considering the stand alone Forcefield Pro L2 which I know is highly recommended, or upgrading my integrated back protector in my Alpinestars Air Flo SMX jacket - reasons are long, but bulk is amongst them (especially as I have the chest protectors in there already making me top heavy).
Anyway, key question: I see the Forcefield is advertised as : Fully CE approved to EN1621-2 Level 2 , and I understand what this means (its higher than level 1), the upgrade I am looking at is : Bionic Back Protector: CE Certified Level 1 to the LATEST back protector standard (prEN1621-2:2010)- (Capitals are their use not mine).
Key question - which is best, did the CE regs change in 2010 making a level 1 better than it was, or better than the "old" Level 2.....(I can only find info relating to the regs from 1997 and 2003 not 2010)
I have tried using google, but no luck so far - what is EN1621-2:2010 ?.
Sorry bit of a serious question I realise.
Thanks all.
Long time lurker, not very often poster looking for some help on Back protectors, in particular around CE certification levels.
I currently have a KNOX stand alone back protector (one of the large yellow ones), and am looking to upgrade.
I am considering the stand alone Forcefield Pro L2 which I know is highly recommended, or upgrading my integrated back protector in my Alpinestars Air Flo SMX jacket - reasons are long, but bulk is amongst them (especially as I have the chest protectors in there already making me top heavy).
Anyway, key question: I see the Forcefield is advertised as : Fully CE approved to EN1621-2 Level 2 , and I understand what this means (its higher than level 1), the upgrade I am looking at is : Bionic Back Protector: CE Certified Level 1 to the LATEST back protector standard (prEN1621-2:2010)- (Capitals are their use not mine).
Key question - which is best, did the CE regs change in 2010 making a level 1 better than it was, or better than the "old" Level 2.....(I can only find info relating to the regs from 1997 and 2003 not 2010)
I have tried using google, but no luck so far - what is EN1621-2:2010 ?.
Sorry bit of a serious question I realise.
Thanks all.
There won't be a massive difference between the two levels, you're talking about the difference between a few pounds of pressure, the newer ones will be better and I think the Forcefield L4 is the current best one.
I've got a Held Salvo myself as it incorporates some extra protection at the front and was a nicer fit than the forcefield ones.
I've got a Held Salvo myself as it incorporates some extra protection at the front and was a nicer fit than the forcefield ones.
Work too hard said:
Steve - thanks.
I think you're right on standards.
My head is saying the standalone, my heart is saying the insert.
Thanks
Either is better than nothing....I think you're right on standards.
My head is saying the standalone, my heart is saying the insert.
Thanks
An insert will be more comfortable because it isn't physically strapped to you, and you don't have to remember to put it on.
A full 'standalone' protector will offer kidney protection and protect the full length of your precious spine.
Personally, I wear a full Forcefield L2. I wouldn't ride off without it.
You might be interested in this, that Graemsay posted in a similar topic a year or more ago:
old post said:
This article includes a discussion with Dr Rod Woods, who basically invented the CE standard for protective motorcycle gear. A pertinent excerpt is:
The Good Doctor tells me that, statistically speaking, you want to protect yourself from the feet up. He tells me about this idea of a rating of the frequency with which an injury occurs (over, say the UK in a year) and the dehabilitation caused by the injury. Turn the statistics into betting odds, and we're talking about your chances of not being able to walk after a crash. Now, the Good Doctor says that this rating DECREASES as you go up the body, ie.fewer people are dehabilitated from chest injuries or back injuries than from foot injuries. Yes, I found it hard to believe too, but he's got the st atistics ! That means, protect your feet first, then your legs, then your body. He admits that there's a peak at the head, ie. the head causes more dehabilitation than the body, but from there down, this rule holds.
I openly admit that this all came as news to me. I told him all sorts of scenarios - chest injuries from upper body impact : ruptured kidneys from back impact : broken back from back impact - he told me that statistically speaking, they just don't happen. Back injuries seldom happen to bikers - and those that do would not be prevented by back protectors. "How so ?", I ask him. Well, statistically speaking, all back injuries in bikers (and they're few and far between) involve bending or twisting of the back - like when you r shoulder or chin hits the ground hard, with resultant detrimental effects on your back. Back protector won't help there, pal. He tells me that broken ankles are the most common injury you can imagine. Compare them to broken backs and you're talking mountains and molehills. Surprising stuff. Time to revise my ideas on protection.
A doctor who provides medical support for road races in Ireland posts on the Performance Bikes Forum as DocJohn. He reckons that the hard type of back protectors restrict movement so as to prevent the spine from being bent badly out of shape, and have been very helpful in the sort of back injuries that Dr Woods highlighted in the quote above.
That said, a back protector isn't a heavy, expensive or uncomfortable piece of kit, so it won't hurt to wear one.
The Good Doctor tells me that, statistically speaking, you want to protect yourself from the feet up. He tells me about this idea of a rating of the frequency with which an injury occurs (over, say the UK in a year) and the dehabilitation caused by the injury. Turn the statistics into betting odds, and we're talking about your chances of not being able to walk after a crash. Now, the Good Doctor says that this rating DECREASES as you go up the body, ie.fewer people are dehabilitated from chest injuries or back injuries than from foot injuries. Yes, I found it hard to believe too, but he's got the st atistics ! That means, protect your feet first, then your legs, then your body. He admits that there's a peak at the head, ie. the head causes more dehabilitation than the body, but from there down, this rule holds.
I openly admit that this all came as news to me. I told him all sorts of scenarios - chest injuries from upper body impact : ruptured kidneys from back impact : broken back from back impact - he told me that statistically speaking, they just don't happen. Back injuries seldom happen to bikers - and those that do would not be prevented by back protectors. "How so ?", I ask him. Well, statistically speaking, all back injuries in bikers (and they're few and far between) involve bending or twisting of the back - like when you r shoulder or chin hits the ground hard, with resultant detrimental effects on your back. Back protector won't help there, pal. He tells me that broken ankles are the most common injury you can imagine. Compare them to broken backs and you're talking mountains and molehills. Surprising stuff. Time to revise my ideas on protection.
A doctor who provides medical support for road races in Ireland posts on the Performance Bikes Forum as DocJohn. He reckons that the hard type of back protectors restrict movement so as to prevent the spine from being bent badly out of shape, and have been very helpful in the sort of back injuries that Dr Woods highlighted in the quote above.
That said, a back protector isn't a heavy, expensive or uncomfortable piece of kit, so it won't hurt to wear one.
Steve Evil said:
joshd963 said:
does anyone know if race humps offer any protection at all? always wondered..
Bugger all really, it's usually just a piece of foam, better than nothing, but not by much.defblade said:
A doctor who provides medical support for road races in Ireland posts on the Performance Bikes Forum as DocJohn. He reckons that the hard type of back protectors restrict movement so as to prevent the spine from being bent badly out of shape, and have been very helpful in the sort of back injuries that Dr Woods highlighted in the quote above.
That said, a back protector isn't a heavy, expensive or uncomfortable piece of kit, so it won't hurt to wear one.
I got the oxford max, because of that, its a hard type protector.That said, a back protector isn't a heavy, expensive or uncomfortable piece of kit, so it won't hurt to wear one.
catso said:
I wonder whether a race hump compromises safety by being more prone to digging in and tending to flip you over if sliding on your back? either way I wouldn't rely on it for any protection.
I read an article in one of the bike magazines (think it was fast bikes), it was an interview with Mr Dainese.He said they invented the hump to aid aero dynamics which of course helps in going faster but also in remaining stable and comfortable on the bike, which of course aids concentration over longer periods. So in a round about way they do aid safety by helping avoid crashes in the first place.
Back humps would prevent hyperextension of the neck in certain circumstances, but then I've also read that they can be detrimental in other ways.
Re: back protectors, from what I gather, most spinal injuries come from wrenching or torsional injuries rather than impact ones, so yes the hard ones may prevent the former injuries, while the soft ones are more for the not-so-serious impact ones.
Of course, I don't have close to the experience that Dr. John or the other bloke has, but I've been in the A&E a few years, and my subjective anecdotal experience has led me to the above conclusions.
Re: back protectors, from what I gather, most spinal injuries come from wrenching or torsional injuries rather than impact ones, so yes the hard ones may prevent the former injuries, while the soft ones are more for the not-so-serious impact ones.
Of course, I don't have close to the experience that Dr. John or the other bloke has, but I've been in the A&E a few years, and my subjective anecdotal experience has led me to the above conclusions.
I used to wear my Knox Aegis religiously, but started to neglect it when I knew I might be carrying it around at the end of the ride.
What I've been pondering is a way to attach the back protector, possibly with velcro, to the inside of my jacket so that they can be carried around as one piece. Anyone tried this?
What I've been pondering is a way to attach the back protector, possibly with velcro, to the inside of my jacket so that they can be carried around as one piece. Anyone tried this?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3616666
A very old study but it was what I found on a quick search of pubmed. Admittedly the p value is quite high w/ only 14 patients and 26 injuries but I suppose it is literally "scientific" so it'll do.
Basically it says that all the thoracic injuries were from bikers presumably hitting trees and telephone poles with their chest, and then hyperflexing their spine rather than from the impact injuries directly to the back that back protectors protect from. I suppose a hard protector might stop the spine from hyperflexing but I highly doubt it (im sure they stop hyperextension tho), tho Dr. John Hinds might disagree
A very old study but it was what I found on a quick search of pubmed. Admittedly the p value is quite high w/ only 14 patients and 26 injuries but I suppose it is literally "scientific" so it'll do.
Basically it says that all the thoracic injuries were from bikers presumably hitting trees and telephone poles with their chest, and then hyperflexing their spine rather than from the impact injuries directly to the back that back protectors protect from. I suppose a hard protector might stop the spine from hyperflexing but I highly doubt it (im sure they stop hyperextension tho), tho Dr. John Hinds might disagree
I use the forcefield back protector, I bought it after asking fellow PHers a similar question.
I think I got it for £70 or something on the internet, its comfy I dont even notice its on.
also it seems to shape its self to the contours of my back and some how keeps you rather warm :s
I rode for a mile a month ago without it and to be honest I'll never not wear it again. Like wearing a seatbelt it just seems weird when i dont have it on.
I think I got it for £70 or something on the internet, its comfy I dont even notice its on.
also it seems to shape its self to the contours of my back and some how keeps you rather warm :s
I rode for a mile a month ago without it and to be honest I'll never not wear it again. Like wearing a seatbelt it just seems weird when i dont have it on.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff