Do you use an airbag? D-Air, Tech Air?

Do you use an airbag? D-Air, Tech Air?

Author
Discussion

SAS Tom

3,398 posts

173 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
I've had a fair bit of training about airbag kit at work.

The Dainese is my favourite of the lot. It's unbelievably clever, knowing whether to set off or not. It brings the transmitted force down from something like 15kn down to just 3kn. Apart from charging it there's no extra effort required. Where it will fall down is if you do come off and need it checking out. Dainese are ridiculously slow at doing anything and they don't really give a time period for getting it back to you. As far as quality of materials etc, they don't really claim to use the best materials, in fact the opposite, they have mentioned before using the cheapest low quality leathers available. I'm not saying it's bad kit, I think it's good stuff but don't be fooled into thinking they use really high quality materials.

Alpinestars system I'm not so keen on the vest. It's a lot of money on top of a suit but at least then it's transferable to other leather or textile jackets. Definitely an advantage to that if you plan on wearing it all the time.

I'm not so keen on the helite vest or the new Merlin system. They add to much faffing for me when you have to put a big heavy vest on and remember to clip/unclip it from the bike. The advantage is that there is no charging and it will work in all scenarios where you come away from the bike. The wireless systems can have trouble activating in some tunnels or other places where gps struggles. That is what stops a lot of the systems being rated CE Level 2. I have had a helite vest set off on me and it's like being punched in the chest! It covers a lot of your torso as well as stopping your neck from moving by pressing against the helmet. I can definitely see it stopping a lot of injuries.

Personally as the technology gets better and the price comes down it will be more common but there are still issues that people can't get over like charging batteries or clipping yourself to the bike. These seem to be the things that put people off as I think most people can't really argue how good they are at preventing injuries. We haven't really had much uptake on any of the airbag kit so far, I think less that 5 people have ever seriously asked me about it.

Prof Prolapse

16,160 posts

189 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
I'm going to say what I always say.... Is there any scientific evidence that these things actually work?

Beyond a manufacturer making claims I mean, has any one independent actually sat down, and demonstrated that airbags are preferable in the event of an accident on the road, and published their findings?

Or is this another instance where the early adopters are the most gullible, and we're told the evidence will come later?





spareparts

6,777 posts

226 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
Prof Prolapse said:
I'm going to say what I always say.... Is there any scientific evidence that these things actually work?

Beyond a manufacturer making claims I mean, has any one independent actually sat down, and demonstrated that airbags are preferable in the event of an accident on the road, and published their findings?

Or is this another instance where the early adopters are the most gullible, and we're told the evidence will come later?
If you think of the number of falls and highsides in MotoGP since racers started wearing airbag equipped suits vs. the number of broken collarbones sustained, I think the stats are good proof that they do work. Not 100%, but quite close.

graeme4130

3,823 posts

180 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
I had a chat with the Dainese tech guys about getting a custom D-Air racing suit, and asked the same question about neck protection.
His answer made total sense, in that with the variety of different helmets on the market and people with different neck lengths, you can't use too much neck protection as you run the risk of the underside of the helmet being pushed up by the air bag deploying and breaking the persons neck.
The D-air suits have enough airbag inflation around them to stop your neck being bent to a dangerous angle, but not enough to lift your helmet and keep your neck rigid

Rawwr

22,722 posts

233 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
graeme4130 said:
I had a chat with the Dainese tech guys about getting a custom D-Air racing suit, and asked the same question about neck protection.
His answer made total sense, in that with the variety of different helmets on the market and people with different neck lengths, you can't use too much neck protection as you run the risk of the underside of the helmet being pushed up by the air bag deploying and breaking the persons neck.
The D-air suits have enough airbag inflation around them to stop your neck being bent to a dangerous angle, but not enough to lift your helmet and keep your neck rigid
If you have a mooch around YouTube you can see one particular Helite deployment where it physically lifts the helmet, which I always thought was a bit dubious.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
graeme4130 said:
I had a chat with the Dainese tech guys about getting a custom D-Air racing suit, and asked the same question about neck protection.
His answer made total sense, in that with the variety of different helmets on the market and people with different neck lengths, you can't use too much neck protection as you run the risk of the underside of the helmet being pushed up by the air bag deploying and breaking the persons neck.
The D-air suits have enough airbag inflation around them to stop your neck being bent to a dangerous angle, but not enough to lift your helmet and keep your neck rigid
I would think there should be no air inflation in the neck area, as it might act as a pivot point with regard to ripping your head off if even remotely solid.

IanUAE

2,927 posts

163 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
We might be racing with the D-air system fitted to PSI suits this season. Will keep you posted if the rider tries the system out.....

Prof Prolapse

16,160 posts

189 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
spareparts said:
If you think of the number of falls and highsides in MotoGP since racers started wearing airbag equipped suits vs. the number of broken collarbones sustained, I think the stats are good proof that they do work. Not 100%, but quite close.
I know you have one of these, and I'm perfectly open to them working and not wishing to deride your purchase, but that isn't proving it works. It's just anecdotal evidence.

I'm not a statistician, but I do work exclusively in research and testing, and know that statistical evidence goes far beyond "one number is smaller than other so it works". If you're going to rely on numbers alone, you need to demonstrate the methodology is appropriate to prove it. You need to show there is a relevant and measurable difference, and it adequately powered and satisfies and appropriate "P-Value" etc. That's before we start looking at the variables, and state the obvious debate about how relevant MotoGP crashes are to those of us who pootle down the M6.

If someone can show me they work, I would genuinely cough up the cash, but once again, no one takes the time to test anything objectively, because (and this honestly isn't aimed at you) people will pony up the cash regardless of any evidence base, "because MotoGP".

I find the whole thing regarding bike safety gear incredibly frustrating. It might well work, but why the hell should I be putting my life and wallet in someone else's hands by taking their word for it? Why not just show me it works by letting someone independent test it? (Like SHARP testing of helmets). It really doesn't cost that much, and what safety conscious buyer wouldn't be happy to have costs raised fractionally so they know it works?

That is unless there is evidence out there, in which case I will happily reverse myself, and look to buy one if the effect is sufficient to justify the outlay.




Renn Sport

2,761 posts

208 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
Prof.. with respect and not trying to start a fight... do we have the same level of evidence for back protectors? Or injuries on people with gloves or don't wear gloves? I don't think we do... would you wear a back protector or gloves even without the evidence?

I am sure dainese could run a questionnaire to anyone of their customers wearing a D-Suit or those not who have crashed, but I think the feedback from GP racing and the injuries avoided while wearing a D-Air suit is sufficient.

I am guilty and biased... I wear a D-Air suit on track. I am lucky I haven't needed it yet (not through lack of trying mind). I'd rather pay the money and get a suit which may protect me rather than risk a horrible injury.

I'll be buying a Dainese or Alpinestars road suit also... probably the Alpinestars as it can transfer from leather jacket to textile jacket.

SAS Tom

3,398 posts

173 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
Prof Prolapse said:
spareparts said:
If you think of the number of falls and highsides in MotoGP since racers started wearing airbag equipped suits vs. the number of broken collarbones sustained, I think the stats are good proof that they do work. Not 100%, but quite close.
I know you have one of these, and I'm perfectly open to them working and not wishing to deride your purchase, but that isn't proving it works. It's just anecdotal evidence.

I'm not a statistician, but I do work exclusively in research and testing, and know that statistical evidence goes far beyond "one number is smaller than other so it works". If you're going to rely on numbers alone, you need to demonstrate the methodology is appropriate to prove it. You need to show there is a relevant and measurable difference, and it adequately powered and satisfies and appropriate "P-Value" etc. That's before we start looking at the variables, and state the obvious debate about how relevant MotoGP crashes are to those of us who pootle down the M6.

If someone can show me they work, I would genuinely cough up the cash, but once again, no one takes the time to test anything objectively, because (and this honestly isn't aimed at you) people will pony up the cash regardless of any evidence base, "because MotoGP".

I find the whole thing regarding bike safety gear incredibly frustrating. It might well work, but why the hell should I be putting my life and wallet in someone else's hands by taking their word for it? Why not just show me it works by letting someone independent test it? (Like SHARP testing of helmets). It really doesn't cost that much, and what safety conscious buyer wouldn't be happy to have costs raised fractionally so they know it works?

That is unless there is evidence out there, in which case I will happily reverse myself, and look to buy one if the effect is sufficient to justify the outlay.
What do you class as working? Stopping injuries completely? Reducing the impact force? Anything else?

I'm not trying to start an argument, just wondering what question you want answering. As far as I am aware the manufacturers that I have spoken with claim that the suits reduce impact force. Dainese for example say that their airbag suit transfers around 3Kn of force compared to the CE level benchmark of I think 15Kn is which is a big difference.

Rawwr

22,722 posts

233 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
All bike gear is just degrees of mitigation. I think it'd be foolhardy to attempt to prove absolutes.

Renn Sport

2,761 posts

208 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
Rawwr said:
All bike gear is just degrees of mitigation. I think it'd be foolhardy to attempt to prove absolutes.
True.

Prof Prolapse

16,160 posts

189 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
Renn Sport said:
Prof.. with respect and not trying to start a fight... do we have the same level of evidence for back protectors? Or injuries on people with gloves or don't wear gloves? I don't think we do... would you wear a back protector or gloves even without the evidence?

I am sure dainese could run a questionnaire to anyone of their customers wearing a D-Suit or those not who have crashed, but I think the feedback from GP racing and the injuries avoided while wearing a D-Air suit is sufficient.

I am guilty and biased... I wear a D-Air suit on track. I am lucky I haven't needed it yet (not through lack of trying mind). I'd rather pay the money and get a suit which may protect me rather than risk a horrible injury.

I'll be buying a Dainese or Alpinestars road suit also... probably the Alpinestars as it can transfer from leather jacket to textile jacket.
Two things. The short answer is "No we don't have sufficient evidence for those either and that pisses me off no end". We basically just have helmets and lab testing, which is why we have endless speculation about what is actually safe and necessary. Case in point, last I heard back protectors have been cited as inconclusive benefit by researchers. Even helmets have been speculated to increase the risk of upper spinal damage (but it's obviously trivial by comparison).

The other thing I'd say is, it's just not the same as comparisons with gloves etc. Gloves and the ilk are looking at basically two things, increasing abrasive resistances, and reducing the blunt impact trauma, and they're only comparing it to nothing. So to test that you just need to look at two things, which offers more abrasive resistance flesh or leather? Or which resists blunt trauma more readily, CE tested impact foam, or flesh and bone? Do you need to split into two populations and do research? No. It can be satisfied with a bench test and sensible comparison.

When you start introducing extremely complex systems of automatically inflating bags, you're no longer comparing two simple groups however. You're comparing two complex groups as both are protected. Then you're looking at complicated things like the physiology surrounding crashing whilst wearing one, and then the impact of external factors, like road architecture. The method is much more complex.

They might be amazing, I really hope they are, but I return to my point, why not prove it? Questionnaires are crap. You need someone independent to come up with a decent and transparent methodology and most likely carry out testing in a lab to guarantee the predictability and consistency of any test. Besides anything else would unlikely be financially viable, I'm not suggesting for a second we start throwing people down the road and getting the measuring tape out.






Prof Prolapse

16,160 posts

189 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
SAS Tom said:
What do you class as working? Stopping injuries completely? Reducing the impact force? Anything else?

I'm not trying to start an argument, just wondering what question you want answering. As far as I am aware the manufacturers that I have spoken with claim that the suits reduce impact force. Dainese for example say that their airbag suit transfers around 3Kn of force compared to the CE level benchmark of I think 15Kn is which is a big difference.
I don't want to argue, and hope I'm not coming across as being a dick either, I'm just shooting the st before I finish at 5.30...

I would like to see evidence I am safer with it than without it, preferably by how much. We always seem to carry the assumption in motorcycle gear that "the more I have, the safer I am", which cannot be a universal truth, and when someone makes something complicated and expensive which starts to push the limits of that assumption, I want them to show me that's true before I give them a lot of money.

It sounds like you have more data there, which is definitely a start, but I want to see how that relates to an accident in real terms, with a method based on existing knowledge, carried out in a transparent way, preferably by independent people. We seem happy to insist on this for car crash testing, but not safety gear. Christ have you seen the level of research on children's car seats?

I won't hold my breath....


Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 12th September 17:31

SAS Tom

3,398 posts

173 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
My understanding is that all of the manufacturers claim that airbag systems are able to absorb a large amount of the force involved in having a crash. As mentioned before the figures of Dainese but I'm sure other manufacturers have their own figures.

Now I don't have a comparable scale of the forces involved in a crash so I don't really know if 15Kn for example is a lot or not but I can find out. Taking the figures I have mentioned, would you like to find out what effect on the body 3Kn and 15Kn have as an example?

In simple terms to me at least, reducing the force transmitted in a crash is beneficial. I don't know if that reduced force equates to the difference between breaking a bone and not or getting a bruise or not. I'd like to find out though. To me the concept doesn't represent value for money to the general public. Currently I don't get the impression that many people see the claimed increased protection as value for money. That's just the same for people who don't see the value in spending £700 on a helmet and will buy something for £200 instead.

As I do have access to the people from these companies I am interested in asking them questions for you guys but I'd like to ask them useful questions. I don't think asking them why airbag jackets/suits/vests etc are good will get a very useful answer.

Edited by SAS Tom on Tuesday 12th September 17:43

SVS

3,824 posts

270 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
Thanks Tom - great to have your insights in this thread thumbup

Incidentally, do you know what's likely to change in the D-Air and Tech-Air ranges for 2018? Any new products/jackets coming out?

gland

Original Poster:

109 posts

79 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
SAS Tom said:
Taking the figures I have mentioned, would you like to find out what effect on the body 3Kn and 15Kn have as an example?[...]
Yes please. I'm not getting very far with my own calculations! My old physics teacher would disown me.

From what I can tell, to achieve an impact force of 3KN you'd have to drop a 79Kg weight onto me from 2 meters in the air. To work that out I guessed an impact time of third of a second, but who knows. Hopefully someone smile

calculators used:
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/impact-force-calc...
https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

spareparts

6,777 posts

226 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
Prof Prolapse said:
spareparts said:
If you think of the number of falls and highsides in MotoGP since racers started wearing airbag equipped suits vs. the number of broken collarbones sustained, I think the stats are good proof that they do work. Not 100%, but quite close.
I know you have one of these, and I'm perfectly open to them working and not wishing to deride your purchase, but that isn't proving it works. It's just anecdotal evidence.

I'm not a statistician, but I do work exclusively in research and testing, and know that statistical evidence goes far beyond "one number is smaller than other so it works". If you're going to rely on numbers alone, you need to demonstrate the methodology is appropriate to prove it. You need to show there is a relevant and measurable difference, and it adequately powered and satisfies and appropriate "P-Value" etc. That's before we start looking at the variables, and state the obvious debate about how relevant MotoGP crashes are to those of us who pootle down the M6.

If someone can show me they work, I would genuinely cough up the cash, but once again, no one takes the time to test anything objectively, because (and this honestly isn't aimed at you) people will pony up the cash regardless of any evidence base, "because MotoGP".

I find the whole thing regarding bike safety gear incredibly frustrating. It might well work, but why the hell should I be putting my life and wallet in someone else's hands by taking their word for it? Why not just show me it works by letting someone independent test it? (Like SHARP testing of helmets). It really doesn't cost that much, and what safety conscious buyer wouldn't be happy to have costs raised fractionally so they know it works?

That is unless there is evidence out there, in which case I will happily reverse myself, and look to buy one if the effect is sufficient to justify the outlay.
Assuming you watch MotoGP, I am sure you would have witnessed the many dozens of crashes over the past several years since airbag suits came in. There is no clearer factual evidence that they have prevented significant injury in real world situations where - riders are falling off their bike, and at speeds inflicting even greater force than you or I would normally encounter on the public road. If you think MotoGP crash testing is not a reliable source of data, what alternative testing can you suggest to provide reliable evidence that airbags work as intended?


bogie

16,342 posts

271 months

Wednesday 13th September 2017
quotequote all
Lets be careful not draw too many correlations between riding a bike in a relatively safe environment like a closed race track, where its mostly big slides and falls compared to riding on the road where there are lots of things to hit. (unless of course you are buying a suit for trackdays or racing)

1/2 dozen airbags in a car wont save your body from the deceleration of hitting anything solid at 60mph. The survival rate is so low at those speeds no-one mentions them...but at 30mph, if you are lucky, you can walk away thanks to the airbags, crumple zones etc.

The leathers and airbag kit is designed to let riders who compete crash and race again that day or next.

But how many 150mph slides do you experience at a weekend, compared to say a motoGP rider ? ...there are hundreds of crashes per meet in motoGP.

The majority of accidents on roads are collisions at junctions involving other vehicles ......not high speed slides or high sides.

Has anyone seen the crash test data/vids for these airbags in a road collision situation ? ...im sure these airbag suits will help reduce injury, I just wonder how much it increases the survival rate in road scenarios.......

Prof Prolapse

16,160 posts

189 months

Wednesday 13th September 2017
quotequote all
spareparts said:
Assuming you watch MotoGP, I am sure you would have witnessed the many dozens of crashes over the past several years since airbag suits came in. There is no clearer factual evidence that they have prevented significant injury in real world situations where - riders are falling off their bike, and at speeds inflicting even greater force than you or I would normally encounter on the public road. If you think MotoGP crash testing is not a reliable source of data, what alternative testing can you suggest to provide reliable evidence that airbags work as intended?
Sorry mate but I still think that's flawed reasoning. You're just again relying on the strength of anecdotes in a different environment.

Just as an analogy, hundreds of patients and doctors claim drugs we've tested work. All these things start with extensive pre-clinical testing, so just like what you're saying in a slightly different environment they seem to work, and there's a reasonable assumption they work. But when we actually look at the data, guess what? Overall it's worthless. It may work for some people, some of the time, but that simply isn't good enough.

I don't know what the most appropriate methodology would be, but I've already speculated what the minimum is. Similar papers exist collating information on motorcyclists from A&E departments, but it's expensive and labourious to set up those sorts of studies, and it would take many years. So a good reasoned bench test still seems to make sense, the fact we already have seen the success of the SHARP testing means it has already been successfully done, and isn't a pipe dream.

But the fact I am having to explain why demonstrating your safety gear actually keeps you safe in the way you use it is desirable just demonstrates I'm still in a minority on this point.

Again though, same caveat as before, if there's information I'm not aware of, I'll happily reverse myself.