Do you use an airbag? D-Air, Tech Air?
Discussion
This discussion reminds me of the discussions surrounding the effectiveness of avalanche air bags for off piste skiers / boarders. That industry didn't have standards either, yet what they were dealing with was easier to measure: survival rates of avalanche victims with and without airbag technology. There are a ton of people wearing them now so I expect a robust studies (I think you call them case control studies) could be done, rather than just a bunch of case reports and series.
The early users are the guinea pigs for now, folks!
The early users are the guinea pigs for now, folks!
SVS said:
Thanks Tom - great to have your insights in this thread 
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?
I do but unfortunately I can't say! I can say that there is an increased range in both leather and textile. The manufacturers do seem to be getting behind the technology now and making it more accessible rather than limiting it to top of the range stuff.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?
As it turns out the figures I quoted were wrong but Dainese have information on the forces here:
https://www.dainese.com/d-air/
It actually transfers 90% less force than the minimum for CE level 2. In the majority of clothing at the moment you only get CE Level 1 armour so there is a big difference over standard armour.
Airbags also cover a lot of area that doesn't usually have armour which is another benefit.
https://www.dainese.com/d-air/
It actually transfers 90% less force than the minimum for CE level 2. In the majority of clothing at the moment you only get CE Level 1 armour so there is a big difference over standard armour.
Airbags also cover a lot of area that doesn't usually have armour which is another benefit.
Prof Prolapse said:
spareparts said:
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?
I don't know what the most appropriate methodology would be, bogie said:
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.......
Airbags are designed to minimise bone breakage upon impact with the tarmac. Not impact with road furniture or other vehicles. And for that intended use case, falling off (low side or high side) on track is completely comparable to the public road. The airbag triggers as soon as it senses you have separated from the motorbike in order to protect your body (and head) from the initial force of impact against the road.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.......
Hitting road furniture or other vehicles AFTER the initial fall vs. Sliding on track is a valid difference which airbags are not designed to protect against.
spareparts said:
The airbag triggers as soon as it senses you have separated from the motorbike in order to protect your body (and head) from the initial force of impact against the road.
It's hard to edit this on my phone so I have just quoted what I need.The D air system doesn't work like that. It can actually decide whether it is required or not in a crash. It can even decide mid crash whether it is required.
So as an example, Dainese showed us a video of a MotoGP rider (I can't remember which) low siding and in the initial crash the airbag doesn't go off. He then hits the kerb which sends him tumbling at which point you see the airbag go off.
Similarly they have plenty of videos of airbags going off in mid air but not the instant the rider comes off the bike.
I'd say that is relevant to road crashes as you may be sliding but not requiring the airbag but then start tumbling or hit something hard.
Dainese also use 2 different systems for road and track.
Other less sophisticated systems will go off as soon as you pull the cord hard enough and so will be much more instant whether required or not.
spareparts said:
Prof Prolapse said:
spareparts said:
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?
I don't know what the most appropriate methodology would be, Don't mistake any humility I have for a lack of knowledge of scientific method. Not knowing what is the best methodology is not the same as not knowing something is a logical fallacy. It is simply an admission of the complexity of the problem, and the constraints of my knowledge. I actually gave you two examples of similar methodologies which would be infinitely preferable to MotoGP anecdotes. So use either of them as you wish if you feel having an alternative method somehow demonstrates the limitations of reliance on anecdotal evidence alone.
Last point, but you are having the mother of all Epistemological failures. You're asserting that because I cannot disprove something, that it must be true. This is the classic "burden of proof argument". I am not making the claim that it works, so the onus is not on me to prove anything. The person making the claim, in this case "motorcycle airbags will provide additional protection on the road", must provide the evidence base before being taken seriously. This is my whole point, manufacturers (to the best of my knowledge) have failed to do this in any satisfactory way.
If that doesn't make sense google "Bertrand Russel's teapot".
spareparts said:
That was how the Dainese guy explained it to me as at EICMA and here in the U.K. For sure there are other sensors. But my point still stands - It is relevant for both track and road riding.
I agree that it is relevant to road and track riding but the system doesn't work in the way you describe. You may have been told that but it isn't the case. The information I have is from Dainese's own training course involving some of the people that designed it rather than a bloke on a stand.Prof, I may be a bit thick but I find it hard to follow some of what you're saying so I'll ask some questions that will simplify it. Would you agree that reducing the force transferred in an accident is beneficial? This is what the manufacturers claim. What evidence would you like to see over and above that?
Coincidentally this video was recommended to me on YouTube showing the effects of G force on an actual human (it's a bit grim)
https://youtu.be/DQgq0R77pxU
I've done some quick calculations based off http://sciencing.com/convert-newtons-gforce-872033... and come up with the following;
I weigh 95kg so 20kn according to that calculation is the equivalent of around 20g. 40kn which is more than level 1 CE armour comes out just under 43g so what that first guy experiences. 2Kn comes out at 2g which I would think everybody could stand.
I may have completely misunderstood that though so I'm happy to be corrected.
Prof Prolapse said:
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.
I pretty much agree with your point, but most of the arguments 'against' sound very similar to me to the arguments against compulsory seat belts or helmets. I think the anti arguments rely more on anecdotal reports and fringe cases than the for arguments.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.
I think that something which can be tested and shown to reduce the impact force has to be a good thing. In reality though I don't think that you're going to get the sort of tests that it sounds like you want. I suspect that the evidence when it arrives will be statistical analysis of accident consequences but that isn't going to be until there are enough airbags out there to give a decent smaple size.
Prof Prolapse said:
spareparts said:
Prof Prolapse said:
spareparts said:
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?
I don't know what the most appropriate methodology would be, Don't mistake any humility I have for a lack of knowledge of scientific method. Not knowing what is the best methodology is not the same as not knowing something is a logical fallacy. It is simply an admission of the complexity of the problem, and the constraints of my knowledge. I actually gave you two examples of similar methodologies which would be infinitely preferable to MotoGP anecdotes. So use either of them as you wish if you feel having an alternative method somehow demonstrates the limitations of reliance on anecdotal evidence alone.
Last point, but you are having the mother of all Epistemological failures. You're asserting that because I cannot disprove something, that it must be true. This is the classic "burden of proof argument". I am not making the claim that it works, so the onus is not on me to prove anything. The person making the claim, in this case "motorcycle airbags will provide additional protection on the road", must provide the evidence base before being taken seriously. This is my whole point, manufacturers (to the best of my knowledge) have failed to do this in any satisfactory way.
If that doesn't make sense google "Bertrand Russel's teapot".
You seem fascinated by the academia of this. You earlier raised Sharp tests. IIRC, Arai's RX7GP did very poorly in the Sharp tests. And yet we have seen the Arai perform superlatively well in real world situations. Such results call into question the validity of such 'scientific' tests.
Prolapse said:
You're asserting that because I cannot disprove something, that it must be true.
Not at all. Your assumption logic is false: I am asserting that because you cannot disprove something, you cannot say it is not true.You are clearly bent on arguing for the sake of arguing and choose to dismiss the tested results as proven in real situations, as shown by the many dozens of varied crashes in MotoGP where the vast majority of riders have walked away without broken collarbones etc. I am sure Dainese and Alpinestars have done their own laboratory tests that the public do not have access to, and maybe that is where you should investigate. In the meantime, you have not answered my questions as you have no answer. And therefore, you are not in a position to disprove claims by the manufacturer. Sorry Prolapse, but your false humility is not lost on this thread.
Hey Prolapse,
You seem fascinated by the academia of this. You earlier raised Sharp tests. IIRC, Arai's RX7GP did very poorly in the Sharp tests. And yet we have seen the Arai perform superlatively well in real world situations. Such results call into question the validity of such 'scientific' tests.
Have you any experience whatsoever of scientific controlled R&D/cert testing?
A friend of mine had a nasty horrible highside yesterday in an alpinestars teh air suit. He said he felt it inflate in mid air and had a lovely soft landing on his upper body. Unfortunately it doesn't cover the whole body and he's got a sprained ankle.
I'll be buying one this winter from SasTom when the new range is announced for next year
I'll be buying one this winter from SasTom when the new range is announced for next year
Tech Air crash test footage, I've been considering one for a while now but it's a bugger finding a local stockist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3tREs_ycck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3tREs_ycck
Helite Turtle Shell airbags are reusable.
You either wear the airbag over your leathers or you can buy a Helite jacket with an integral airbag inside it: here is the Helite range for bikers.
It knows you're in a crash, because you clip in a ripcord from the jacket to your bike (a little bit like using a seatbelt). If you part company from your bike with enough force, the ripcord causes the airbag to inflate. (It needs the force of a crash to inflate, so that you can't accidentally inflate the jacket by forgetting to unclip.)
You either wear the airbag over your leathers or you can buy a Helite jacket with an integral airbag inside it: here is the Helite range for bikers.
It knows you're in a crash, because you clip in a ripcord from the jacket to your bike (a little bit like using a seatbelt). If you part company from your bike with enough force, the ripcord causes the airbag to inflate. (It needs the force of a crash to inflate, so that you can't accidentally inflate the jacket by forgetting to unclip.)
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff