CE Armour Standards Are Insufficient and Were Never Recommended by the Authorizing Agency
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nINIJ1cAbYM
Note: For many, this subject is contentious. Some feel wearing protective gear is too bulky, too heavy, too uncomfortable, etc., etc. I get that. This article is not meant to stoke anyone’s fires. It simply provides information to be used in whatever manner you deem of value to you. Some are ATGATT people, as I am. Great. Some wear flip-flops and T-shirts. Free country. The point of the article is “not to deter the reader from using protective gear.” It is to inform. Information can be taken and acted upon as knowledge. Mr. Varnverry is an expert, not a self-proclaimed expert, but an expert. I take his advice as his scientific data confirms his assertions.
Paul Varnsverry is the Technical Director of the PVA-PPE Group, which provides expert services in the fields of product development, product testing, and product certification for personal protective equipment within a myriad of civilian and non-civilian applications.
The information provided in this article is from Motorcycle Gear Hub and the interview it held with Paul on February 18th, 2021 with his interviewer, Roy Martin.
https://www.mcgearhub.com/motorcycle-gear/interview-with-industry-expert-paul-varnsverry-part-1/
This information is specifically about EN and CE Certification Standards for motorcycle gear.
EN 1621-1
“The standard for motorcyclists limb-joint protectors set “unadventurous” requirements from its original inception in the late 1990s, but the performance criteria selected were what the industry supported (by comparison, the standard for shoulder protectors for horse riders specified a higher impact energy and much lower transmitted for values than those of EN 1621-1.)”
The motorcycle clothing industry chose these standards because they were minimal and manufacturers were free to develop higher-performing products. However, “in the mass market, where the price point is critical, there was and is little or no ambition or incentive to do better than the standard requires.”
He goes on to state, “However, my concern with EN 1621-1 is that the size range specified in the standard – Type A and Type B – is inadequate for taller riders—particularly where the ‘long-bone” protectors are concerned; the elbow and the knee plus shin—and I have been pushing for improvements of the standards in this area for almost 20 years.
Supposedly, manufacturers were free to produce larger protectors, but since this is a minimum standard, no one does.
EN 1621-2
To protect bones, a force transmitted that is no greater than 4 kilonewtons is required, or an impact energy between 35 and 45 joules maximum. not the 50 joules specified in EN 1621-2. The problem resides in the fact that only CE Level 1 and CE Level 2 back protectors are being manufactured by motorcycle apparel and protective armor manufacturers, which at best (CE 2) transmits 9 kilonewtons of force to your back, spine and neck.
Don’t you think that this should be clearly understood and spelled out? When you buy your protective equipment, you assume that the standard is designed to protect you, the paying customer from the associated risk. It is not. In fact, according to Paul Varnverry, no such standard even exists for motorcyclists.
So, Where Does This Leave US?
Typically, you will hear people suggest wearing ‘all the gear, all the time’ or ATGATT. Sound advice assuredly, however, what value is it to wear ATGATT, if that equipment does not afford the protection required to keep you safe, or do the job for which you thought it was intended?
We all assume that manufacturers who meet standards have our best interests at heart. But do they? The rationale for standards that do not meet the force reductions necessary to protect our bones, is to ensure manufacturers that clothing manufacturers will not enter into direct competition with them. A rather jaded view of the manufacturing world to be sure. Rather than split the market more noticeably, standards that do not protect the motorcyclist are enacted to maximize market share and profitability.
A sad commentary on the industry we depend upon to provide us with the protection we require, if and when we fall.
Based on the information available and presented, I’ll wear clothing for abrasion resistance and not spend another dime on CE 1 or 2 protection. In any case, it’s already in my jackets (CE 2). But if it affords minimal protection, what’s the point of spending significant dollars on upgrading all of your armor if in the end, one ends up with the same fracture in either case? Note, that I’m not condoning taking out the protection you already own, far from it. What I’m hoping is that the manufacturers of CE 1 and CE 2 come clean and let the buying motorcyclist know that this is a minimal standard which will not protect you from fractures or worse. Personally I would like to see what technology could achieve to provide armor that would reduce impacts to 4 kilonewtons of force, or a CE 3 standard. Then, if you wanted to purchase it, the buyer could do so, irrespective of its bulk.
If people knew that CE 2 actually provided minimal protection, then maybe those who were seeking protection would spring for more advanced protection that ‘has’ been seem to work effectively, like air bags.
The choice is yours. Make an informed decision. The following citations will provide you with all the information necessary to make that informed decision.
Ciao…
Leave a Reply