Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rower30 on June 10, 2024, 10:17:09 AM
-
Upping my gear (boots instead of riding shoes). I don't need a purple foot so much again. Into this process I find out we are being taken for a ride on motorcycle boots, and how well the offer PROTECTION. I'm an engineer, I go by the data, not the colors or convenience so much as did it really protect you? A sneaker can be classy, comfortable and tactile until you crash. Most of the so called motorcycle shoes/boots are nearly undefined for true protection.
This bad. Really bad. The industry has CE ratings for safety but don't provide you with the data. Alpinstar says CE rated. SDI has no mention at all at REVZILLA. You buy on glitz and stuff that is OK to have, but the safety side, the main point of the shoe/boot is not available. Some vendors have their stuff CE tested, it fails the tests, but they say "CE tested". It was, but it FAILED! CE rated is better, it passed but how well and to what of the four tests? As a motorcyclist we deserve better than this mess.
Here is what a riding "shoe" does, and Alpinstar faster 3, to you foot when the bike is on it. No way will ever ride with a shoe for "general riding comfort" ever again. I have broken ribs and a crushed and puncturedfoot/leg. want to buy UP in protection but have no hard data to go on. Stuff that looks "armored" really isn't.
(https://i.ibb.co/GFf0St6/20240608-174636.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GFf0St6)
There are four areas of EC approval on shoes. But the manufacturers don't tell you how they rate or the data. Be warry of CE tested. That means it was just that tested, and not if it even passed the test! This is lying by telling the truth. Awful.
WHAT ARE THE REAL TESTS FOR PROTECTION we have as CE tests?
1.0 The first is the height, shoe (level 1) or boot (leve 2) that's easy.
2.0 Abrasion level 1 or 2, but how far do you exceed the 1 (close to a 2 and if you are at two how far above that? This test is measured in seconds for burn through.
3.0 Cut through, 1 or 2 level again but how far do you exceed, not just meet? his is a blade droped onto the she / boot at various places and penetration depth measured.
I have a good puncture wound to the bone (ouch!) as a shoe can't have cut through where it isn't! It seems only motocross boots meet a 2 on cut through. I need to use a boot to put protection farther up.
4.0 Transverse ridgity, 1 or 2. Here we want a 2 and to exceed a 2 by a good bit is better. The heel and ankle armor needs to go UP the boot to extend the ridgidity. Look at the picture of my foot. The CE 1 rated shoes stopped just above my foot's sole (awful purple line). Almost right away my foot was crushed. It worked, but only to the tests minimum requirement. I'd say "shoes" are all going to be deficient.
Transverse ridgity, or the lack of, is what crushed my foot. How stiff is the shoe laterally when the bike is on your foot? The Alpinstar faster 3 shoe was just OK and well better than a sneaker! But just OK isn't good enough. I'm looking for a 2, 2, 1, 2 CE rating BOOT. But the data is elusive as though just saying CE rated is enough, It isn't. Consumers need to know what they are buying, style or true protection. Stuff that looks bitchen has tested terribly.
The reviewers talk about "general" riding like giving up protection is fine as we are just riding around. Like I was. And had a near unavoidable instantaneous crash. Would I want to be generally protected right then? Nope.
I'm taking air bags more seriously now, too. The KLIM did a great job of preventing wooden splinters and inch long from getting to me, and I had ONE broken 5th rib and a bunch of bruised ones. Not MANY broken ribs. But still, I'm out four weeks.
Gear is so good now on ventilation that poor protection just seems to be a bad financial move. It really doesn't make you less comfortable in my experience, just more or less safe.This is 2024, this should not be happening to us. We are being taken for a "ride" with protection unknown. Well, my foot knows!
-
Sorry to hear about your injuries. I've been down before too and now when I buy gear it might be hours or days of research and emailing the manufacturer before pulling the trigger if I am specifically looking at the level of protection the gear provides. Some folks will walk into their local motorcycle shop, and leave with a pair of expensive boots no more protective than a pair of work boots thinking that money has bought something that will keep them safe and that's appropriate for use on a motorcycle since it was sold as motorcycle gear, it even has their bike brand on it! It is a real pain when the responsibility lands on the individual/consumer, yet the information they need is not readily available. Even when it is, often the testing does a poor job of testing for more common real world scenarios.
I am still not an ATGATT person. Depending on riding conditions and terrain I gear up or down differently. It all comes down to what is an acceptable risk to the individual, but the gap there for many is not knowing what the risks may be. Especially with footwear I've often heard people say they won't be going fast enough or their bike isn't heavy enough (not Guzzis, smaller motorcycles and scooters) to risk hurting their leg in a fall. The worst leg injuries I've seen on friends, including two resulting in amputation, have happened at stop lights. It can be outside your control for a car bumper to make contact with your leg at speed. I have compact and comfortable shoes that I often carry when I have an expectation of stepping off the bike for a while and walking around, I don't mind being practical.
-
I will be contacting the AMA, american motorcyclist association, and see what we can do to get the CE related data as part of the safety data provided to consumers. As it, it is not. Just saying CE doesn't work. This doesn't restrict what can be made or sols, but just lets you know what options are beng made for style, comfort and safety.
I just think it is wrong to not have safety data when the less important safety functions (style, comfort) are heavilly addressed. But when you crash? Now you want to have known the CE ratings across the board. I sure know I do now.
-
Footwear is a tradeoff. There are boots out there which will protect better than the "Faster 3" high top tennis shoes, but you have to be willing to make the compromise...
Sidi ST, for example...
(https://i.ibb.co/GHYvffD/stivali-st.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GHYvffD)
img hosting (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Footwear is a tradeoff. There are boots out there which will protect better than the "Faster 3" high top tennis shoes, but you have to be willing to make the compromise...
Sidi ST, for example...
(https://i.ibb.co/GHYvffD/stivali-st.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GHYvffD)
img hosting (https://imgbb.com/)
You just made my point. There is ZERO CE ratings data on the boot except you know it is a BOOT CE=1 for height. That's not enough. You have no tested level of safety you are buying. None. That's not a compromise we as motorcyclists should be making.
-
You just made my point. There is ZERO CE ratings data on the boot except you know it is a BOOT CE=1 for height. That's not enough. You have no tested level of safety you are buying. None. That's not a compromise we as motorcyclists should be making.
OFFS, are you a new rider?
Had you been wearing an armored boot rather than a sneaker, your foot would not be in its current condition. You chose the shoe for comfort over the protection of a boot.
You OCD engineers really take the cake. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand the compromises and choices you made, the day you went down. it's not the industry's fault.
Wear more better protection when you're back on two wheels. You don't need an AMA investigation or NHTSA study and rating to understand what is needed.
-
In your original write-up, you said you were wearing riding boots. Is that so and they didn't do a good job or were you wearing shoes?
I use moto cross boots ( I will post the name when I return home) and they are 12 inch high and armored all around. I feel very well protected in them, but they can get warm.
-
In your original write-up, you said you were wearing riding boots. Is that so and they didn't do a good job or were you wearing shoes?
I use moto cross boots ( I will post the name when I return home) and they are 12 inch high and armored all around. I feel very well protected in them, but they can get warm.
he was wearing these. Alpinestars Faster 3.
(https://i.ibb.co/vPQL8YJ/alpinestars-faster3-shoes-750x750.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vPQL8YJ)
-
Indeed. Simply pick up any high-end MX boot. That's about as much foot and lower leg protection as you are going to get and still be able to walk (albeit barely!)
Everything is going to be a trade-off between comfort and protection.
-
A bit harsh wording, I would say, rocker59.
German magazine MOTORRAD do test every kind of riding gear with different intervals. ADAC as well. In these tests you get all the data.
MX boots give the best protection. I had some tall shaft, but were comfy motorcycle shoes when I fell in 1995 and the bike landed on top of me. I broke my big toe, a tarsal bone and cracked the ankle. After the accident, I bought a pair of MX boots. The sole had a metal plate to prevent the shoe from folding sideways, and a metal shield to protect the front of of the lower leg. The whole shoe was made in thick leather and very sturdy. Unlike my softer boots, the MX boots were not made for walking.
Racing boots also give very high protection, although they are lower in the shaft to allow the rider enough flexibility.
Very little can compete with these two styles. When my MX boots wore out, I went back to more comfortable riding boots. Better protection than the old ones, but my Alpinestars have now followed me for more than a decade. I like the comfort. Being uncomfortable while riding is also a safety risk.
I would say that had there been a full body air bag that could protect me from heel to neck, I would have saved myself a lot of hurt over the years. If I had been willing to pay the cost and live with the reduced comfort. Life involve risk, and each one must find out how much risk they can live with. Would you ride your bicycle - some reach 50 mph downhill - only in complete motorcycle gear? I guess some will. I would not. I understand the risk involved in what I do, and either accept it as part of life, find protection that can reduce the consequences, or do something else. Each person have their own limits. There are no universal right or wrong, just individual choices.
-
Simply buying motorcycle boots alone doesn't mean you're getting great protection.
Here's a pair of Tour Master Solution 3.0 WP Boots that I went down with on the highway. Of course they were better than nothing, but they only provided good lateral protection and per my doctor, the lack of medial protection did not help the resulting sprain and bruising. My replacement boots have both medial and lateral ankle protection inserts, having learned from that mistake and from my experience of never having more than light bruising from track spills in proper race boots (SMX Plus V2 Boots). Still, I am not going to wear the Alpinestars SMX boots to the grocery store, there is a more appropriate in between.
(https://i.ibb.co/HPYJ4gX/20220313-224536.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HPYJ4gX)
(https://i.ibb.co/NsW01mm/20220313-224559.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NsW01mm)
(https://i.ibb.co/gd1dwpf/20220313-224617.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gd1dwpf)
-
That Faster 3 looks like a basketball shoe. Might as well wear this.
(https://i.ibb.co/jMfKTQ4/Tshoe.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jMfKTQ4)
If you want real protection, especially against ankle sprains, you need one of the plastic-and-steel motocross boots with mechanical ankle hinges. These have been available since about 1974 and were first introduced by ski boot companies like Heckel and Scott. But they're not comfortable for walking and it can take some practice to find the shift lever reliably.
-
OFFS, are you a new rider?
Had you been wearing an armored boot rather than a sneaker, your foot would not be in its current condition. You chose the shoe for comfort over the protection of a boot.
You OCD engineers really take the cake. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand the compromises and choices you made, the day you went down. it's not the industry's fault.
Wear more better protection when you're back on two wheels. You don't need an AMA investigation or NHTSA study and rating to understand what is needed.
Please stop being so rude. Did you even read the post, I did mention I've been at this 45 plus years, or do you just want to drop in mid-post and flame? What data do YOU have to verify your articles safety level, really? know, I've checked. No one is blaming the "industry" per say, I'm blaming the inability to judge the "trade-offs" to buy up the safety ladder. Manufacturers can make any produdt they want, but YOU should ask for the proper level of safety a product provides and yes, decide accordingly. You want to buy blind, fine, I don't. Yes you do need regulations to safety to understand what you re buying. No one should buy your comments, I buy a well RATED boot/shoe.
I was wearing FASTER 3 riding shoe, and the level of protection wasn't sufficient in my mind and I'm well aware of the trade-offs. So full STOP there. "Feelings" about protection are based on what? You have NOTHING to judge how well a shoe performs, nothing. Did the article pass the test(s) or exceed them? Here is the LABEL on the FASTER 3 shoe, same as is applied to the other products. Show me how you know the safety level of the shoe in the four area of test. Feeling don't have a place in my vocabulary buying peformance, and shouldn't in yours, either. To buy more safety you need to know the basis of the tests. We don't.That label is a generic label and provides no level of "trade-off" to safety and form/fit/function. None. This isn't OCD, it is being smart.
(https://i.ibb.co/hXNFnZP/20240610-152718.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hXNFnZP)
-
THINK for a moment here everyone. STOP the the chatter on "feelings" on your boots protection (based on what data?) and accepted risk.
The topic is this; A CONSUMER SHOULD KNOW THE LEVEL OF SAFETY A SHOE/BOOT PROVIDE TO A STANDARD, AND THAT STANDARD AND TEST RESULTS NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED.
All you feelings buyers can ignore it, fine. A shoe/boot that looks bitchen can test poorly. You eyes are not a test lab, the EC standard is. REPORT the level of safety right along with the other form/fit/function variable so a consumer can make REAL and PROPER decisions on the accepted risk. This isn't about YOUR risk acceptance, but the ability to mitigate the risks to what best matches others tolerances. We are all different. We can make different decisions with the same data, GIVE ME THE DAMN DATA so I can!
Are you going to buy a parachute based on how the package looks to you, or the data the reports how often it fails to deploy? Maybe you don't care about that stuff, I do.
-
That Faster 3 looks like a basketball shoe. Might as well wear this.
(https://i.ibb.co/jMfKTQ4/Tshoe.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jMfKTQ4)
If you want real protection, especially against ankle sprains, you need one of the plastic-and-steel motocross boots with mechanical ankle hinges. These have been available since about 1974 and were first introduced by ski boot companies like Heckel and Scott. But they're not comfortable for walking and it can take some practice to find the shift lever reliably.
Looks? I want the tests to PROVE a choice is better, where and how much. That's the problem. We look and don't know. We let the manufacturers use the CE mark and provide none of the data to make the CE mark useful, why? I'm surprised so many buy protection blindly. No wonder the situation is so poor.
-
THINK for a moment here everyone. STOP the the chatter on "feelings"
Rower30,
I strongly recommend you take your ranting to ADVrider.com and post your concerns about lack of equipment ratings that satisfy you to the "Equipment" sub-forum. Or maybe even "Jo Momma".
You're not gaining any traction here. In fact you're losing some.
-
I've found that SHOUTING is less productive than showing respect.
I did find details of the CE-related test results when I bought a pair of Klim Outlander GTX boots. They were in a tiny booklet in the box. Reading them made it clear I had not bought boots certified to protect me from much at all. I have since lost the booklet. It would be better if this information were available readily prior to sale, especially in some standardized form, in a central repository.
On Klim's web page about the boots it states, "CE CERTIFIED TO EN13634:2017, FOOTWEAR 1112 WR WAD," but a quick look for the details of the standard only turned up a site that required a subscription to see. The info in the boot's box was fairly complete, though pretty discouraging.
It's a good idea to know what you're buying and it should be easier to know. Good point. Klim at least has info in the box. Maybe more brands do too.
-
Looks? I want the tests to PROVE a choice is better, where and how much. That's the problem. We look and don't know. We let the manufacturers use the CE mark and provide none of the data to make the CE mark useful, why? I'm surprised so many buy protection blindly. No wonder the situation is so poor.
Data, no data. Pfff.
The proof is in the pudding dear, and anecdotes, while not proof, pile up over time.
If you'd had 'data' on riding footwear safety, rated 1-10, what would you have chosen? Would 5 have been enough? Would you have chosen a 7?
It's super simple. Motocross/Enduro competition boots are the best protection. Anything less is a conscious, and hopefully conscientious, concession to comfort and or/style.
If your complaint is that you don't have data to choose between 4s and 7s, well, ask around. If every shoe was tested and had published data, none of them would be affordable.
-
Data, no data. Pfff.
The proof is in the pudding dear, and anecdotes, while not proof, pile up over time.
If you'd had 'data' on riding footwear safety, rated 1-10, what would you have chosen? Would 5 have been enough? Would you have chosen a 7?
It's super simple. Motocross/Enduro competition boots are the best protection. Anything less is a conscious, and hopefully conscientious, concession to comfort and or/style.
If your complaint is that you don't have data to choose between 4s and 7s, well, ask around. If every shoe was tested and had published data, none of them would be affordable.
No, it isn't simple. Motoross boots aren't always the best protection unless you don't have the tested data to prove it to and a controlled set of standards. The tests are done, as the CE mark claims. Then publish the results so we know.
I find it unbelievable this community wants buy gear blind to how it really protects and to add the available CE data. It was tested yes? Wanting safety as well as form/fit function means you are OCD? Seriously? The CE tests exist. It isn't a question of variation between differing tests as you suggest. SNELL and DOT are an example. DT is a voluntary compliance, a helmet can never be verified to pass, where SNELL has to have every desing tested. But on shoes/boots that's not even close to the problem. Report the results of the current CE test.
That the moderator trolls the post and make all kinds of accusations about me that are clearly already answered, and suggest that EC compliance level data some consumers can use, and that is supposedly tested, is uncalled for is simply outrageous.
I have contacted the AMA to see what we can do to simpy have the CE rating values published as part of the data on shoe and boots so the consumer can make informed and individualized decisions on how much of each category they want to buy. To deny people available data because you don't need it isn't the answer.
This has nothing to do with "winning" anything. It is about product information that define WHY a boot is even called a motorcycle boot in the first place. Those that want to buy uninformed and feel it is unnecessary isn't a win or loss to me. You can ignore the CE level additions if you like. I bet you won't.
-
Footwear is a tradeoff. There are boots out there which will protect better than the "Faster 3" high top tennis shoes, but you have to be willing to make the compromise...
Sidi ST, for example...
(https://i.ibb.co/GHYvffD/stivali-st.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GHYvffD)
img hosting (https://imgbb.com/)
Not true. You want it to be true based on application bias. You have no evidence to a repatable test where the product is better and how much. Sure I want to feel it is better, too, but I want to compare that improvement to a set standard to make the best choice out there. Your boot may not be it. There was never a discussion that the FASTER 3 was somehow needing to be banned. It let me down more than I want going forward, that's it. Like you said, adjust your expectations. That's not an attack on the industry. It worked like it did. I researched the ratings for the FASTER 3 and found none (I posted safety the label and why it is useless as is now).
How do you make sure you're getting better between the boots? Right now you don't. I don't use comments as data. The FASTER 3 shoe, although not the best protection, may be the best shoe design out there tested to a documented standard. For shoe users, it could be the "best" to their risk level. Mine just moved higher. As is, there is no way to even tell.
-
Maybe riding is not for you.
Look at ARAI-they even say NO helmet can protect in every scenario. Does someone really need a rating to determine riding "sneakers" will provide protection against a 450 pound plus machine falling on them?
And yea, I know the risks. The plates in my neck remind me often.
-
Maybe riding is not for you.
Look at ARAI-they even say NO helmet can protect in every scenario. Does someone really need a rating to determine riding "sneakers" will provide protection against a 450 pound plus machine falling on them?
And yea, I know the risks. The plates in my neck remind me often.
^^ this.
Unless you have data on the crash you will have, which you won't, you can't really apply the test data on the footwear.
Here's what it looks like from here; you want to blame someone other than yourself, or just bad luck, for your injury.
-
More data is always going to make a better decision. If you want to select gear based on what is currently provided, fine with me. But to say getting the best gear for your money means riding isn't for you? Seriously, I've ridden and raced since 1974. Don't troll the site and skip the necessary info on the OP. I've been around the block on bikes more than most of you.
No one is blaming gear for the crash damage per say. My selection wasn't far enough up the ladder for my risk from here foreward. The original post suggest that to use a shoe style EC rated piece of gear it tips the scale to less protection and here is why. It doesn't blame the gear as it is what it is. It does suggest the balance might make you get a boot with the fit drawbacks, instead. A boot isn't as comfortable as a shoe style but...that safety balance may not get it done. Here is your "word of mouth" data you illude to.
Should we be gunie pigs in crashes to evaluate gear? Sme bunch of nice guys on that methodology than a lab tested preventive measure to reduce the carnage that yes, will happen.
Better, a CE rating numbers versus nothing, would also tell you something about how much the balance is tilted. If you had that data on every piece, you are telling me you would ignore it? If you look at it maybe riding isn't for you and all the rest of the stuff tossed out in this thread? Come on people you can't mean this stuff. If the hard data isn't for you fine, take a guess.
The thread is to look back and reselect gear to improve the outcome. But to point out it is hard to do the way foot gear is speced to us. ALL of us, not just me. We, as motorcyclist, need the CE rating numbers to do this. Of course every get-off can't be determined ahead of time. But the known CE ratings can certainly say it will be generally better or worse.
Through much research, I find THIS on the Alpinestars SMX-6 V2 Drystar boots...here we know what safety level this boot provides. I put this on my list of defined EC rated products to consider. Now to figure out how the reviewer found the tested CE results! This should not be a snip hunt.
There is plenty of protection, helping them to achieve a highest-possible CE rating of 2-2-2 against the older, 2015 standard (the later 2017 standard is the same testing methods but adds another 1 or 2 at the beginning, to denote low or high-leg design respectively).
-
Data, no data. Pfff.
The proof is in the pudding dear, and anecdotes, while not proof, pile up over time.
If you'd had 'data' on riding footwear safety, rated 1-10, what would you have chosen? Would 5 have been enough? Would you have chosen a 7?
It's super simple. Motocross/Enduro competition boots are the best protection. Anything less is a conscious, and hopefully conscientious, concession to comfort and or/style.
If your complaint is that you don't have data to choose between 4s and 7s, well, ask around. If every shoe was tested and had published data, none of them would be affordable.
The data exist to market the CE rating. Publish it. Your comment is meaningless to the situation. It's already tested, show the results. That cost next to nothing. If a non CE rated product costs just as juch or is slightly cheaper and you believe it is safer, and no way to know that, go ahead and buy it.
-
Maybe riding is not for you.
Look at ARAI-they even say NO helmet can protect in every scenario. Does someone really need a rating to determine riding "sneakers" will provide protection against a 450 pound plus machine falling on them?
And yea, I know the risks. The plates in my neck remind me often.
You need a consistent rating to determine the best riding shoe (far from a sneaker) or a riding boot. Which are the best in the category? You're happy not knowing that? You know with no data your boot was the best for you? Why? Word of mouth is a poor excuse for the needed data and would take decades to replicate standardized testing. Just wait for all your buddies to crash?
-
The boots I am using are called "Forma" and they are extreme, but actually not bad to walk in and no problem with gear shifting.
-
Everyone has an idea of what kind of boot that they need. I picked something that meets my idea of "sturdy" and "comfortable".
Irish Setter work boot with non-metallic safety toe. Leather.
(https://i.ibb.co/wB2L172/Irish-Setter-work-boot.png) (https://ibb.co/wB2L172)
-
Test
-
(https://i.ibb.co/0rpszQv/Screenshot-20240610-223700-Chrome.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0rpszQv)
Here above, inside the boot is the Alpinestars SMX-6 V2 Drystar boots CE rating, 2,2,2,1. The CE VALUES (ya I shouted, too bad) is under the little MC guy. It is hard to see but the review sample was 2,2,2,1.
Notice that the transverse ridgity is a 1, same as CE rates FASTER 3 shoes below (hard to see as the resolution of the software is course). Here the boot isn't better than a good riding shoe. Both bested ratings for abrasion and penetration. The FASTER 3 shoe is rated 1,2,2,1, well better than a sneaker. Go ahead wear a sneaker if you want to.
(https://i.ibb.co/mqr3pyB/20240610-224255.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mqr3pyB)
A boot design extends the puncture zone and abrasion farther up your leg. The weight of a MC on your foot isn't too much better than the FASTER 3, same transverse ridgity. Here on the boot there may be some improvement in crush since the stiffness above the heel and ankle zone that may extend farther up depending on the design. A 2 transverse ridgity is probably only meet with steel shanks or really thick soles, maybe both. And, it applies to the sole area only, not higher.
Now we have data to go by. I would have avoid the puncture if the shoe extended up, the boot does. The boots 2 puncture rating suggests a decent armor level. The 2 abrasion suggest better road rash farther up if your leg is trapped. Crush is the same, a 1, as the FASTER 3 (see the initial photo of my foot) show that the shoe did prevent the lowest foot area from damage at least from the weight of a V100S. Not a car bumper if it arrows in on your foot, no. I get it guys.
Here is the point, if the CE data is on, at least Alpinestar shoes and boots tongue, how hard is it to put that CE rating in the product data when you shop for footware? We have to buy it and look? I'm the only one who is nut to expect more than this from Alpinestar and SIDI et all?
Now all I need to do is have the RevZilla people open up boxes and read me the ratings off the boot tongue!
-
Hey, Rower30, you're yelling about nothing. Do you want to read the boot test standards and procedures? They're here ( found them with a simple google search)
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/f5bbe4a8-39ee-4652-96a3-cc060d0b8236/en-13634-2017 (http://https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/f5bbe4a8-39ee-4652-96a3-cc060d0b8236/en-13634-2017)
If you need them explained in simpler English, most of the distributors publish relatively complete explanations on their websites.
The clothing standards are different. Find them here (again, a simple google search):
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/2fac8335-67cc-4dd2-9a43-cb4637dc6399/en-17092-5-2020 (https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/2fac8335-67cc-4dd2-9a43-cb4637dc6399/en-17092-5-2020)
Look up the helmet and eyewear standards for yourself. And quit scolding the rest of us for our ignorance/apathy.
-
I don't remember this much nastiness and short tempers before the recent update. One heck of a database error
-AJ
-
I don't remember this much nastiness and short tempers before the recent update. One heck of a database error
-AJ
|
1. Choose to ride in low-tops
2. Injure foot in *unexplained* crash
3. Blame your choice on insufficient data
4. Tell everyone else they can't make good choices either without specific data
5. Get beat up for pretending people can't tell the difference between a tennis shoe and enduro boot
Yeah, sounds like it's earned this time.
-
Everyone has an idea of what kind of boot that they need. I picked something that meets my idea of "sturdy" and "comfortable".
Irish Setter work boot with non-metallic safety toe. Leather.
(https://i.ibb.co/wB2L172/Irish-Setter-work-boot.png) (https://ibb.co/wB2L172)
I prefer Danners. I wear them just about all my waking hours. So I need something that is comfortable all day, walking and otherwise yet give me reasonable protection while riding. This discussion is totally out of hand.
kk
-
Please keep in mind, debate is a good thing as long as we respect each other and do not launch personal attacks.
Thanks
Dan
-
I have a pair of Sidi Adventure boots which I bought a few years ago before the newest version came out and the CE rating is 11 which is kind of surprising given the protection on those boots but I guess compared to Sidi's racing boots they are next in line. Anyway, I have talked to Sidi America a few years ago about an issue and they were easy to deal with and if this CE rating was a concern I would just talk to them.
-
Hey, Rower30, you're yelling about nothing. Do you want to read the boot test standards and procedures? They're here ( found them with a simple google search)
\https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/f5bbe4a8-39ee-4652-96a3-cc060d0b8236/en-13634-2017 (http://\https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/f5bbe4a8-39ee-4652-96a3-cc060d0b8236/en-13634-2017)
If you need them explained in simpler English, most of the distributors publish relatively complete explanations on their websites.
The clothing standards are different. Find them here (again, a simple google search):
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/2fac8335-67cc-4dd2-9a43-cb4637dc6399/en-17092-5-2020 (https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/2fac8335-67cc-4dd2-9a43-cb4637dc6399/en-17092-5-2020)
Look up the helmet and eyewear standards for yourself. And quit scolding the rest of us for our ignorance/apathy.
Not true at all. You need the rated standards BEFORE you but an item. It isn't that they aren't tested, it is that you should not need to BUY an apparel to see the EC ratings. Go to RevZilla and look at the marketing literture. There is no EC ratings levels presented or footware apparal. If the EC "label" the little MC man and the ratings under it, is a standard TAG for apparel that's great. So if this information is there, provide it in the tech specs for the product for comparisons. Not just on the garmet. I see no excuse for that omission.
Sure, the EC test standards exist and again that's not the problem. We know there is a standard. You've warped the problem to suit your attacks. No one is attacking your ignorance. A product spec page with no EC level ratings isn't "ignorance" it is simply a missing requirements needed for a best suited purchase. That has nothing to do with being scolded. Knowing to look for it and ask for it is helping you.
The opposite is being done here. I am being scolded beause I want to have the proper information to buy the best gear beforehand, and this is somehow unwarranted? Come on you guys, you really think that's appropriate? If you want to buy stuff with little information on the EC levels, go ahead. Some of us want that before we buy.
The problem was never that EC isn't a standard or how it is tested, it is how it is marketed before you buy the item. Customers should easily have this information and be able to understand what it means. Motorcycling is about some risk, but it is also about the smart mitigation of those risks. If flying blind suits you, fine. Many want to do more and buy accordingly.
-
At least you still have your foot. I saw a YouTube video where the guy went down on the interstate and his foot got trapped under the bike and was ground off.
Get yourself some alpinestars tech 10 CE certified boots.
https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/alpinestars-tech-boots-ce
-
The question isn't the standards at all, you're way off the issue. Read the OP, please. You can buy as uninformed as you want to be, fine by be. Some want more, and we should get it as motorcyclists. The data is there, so post it.
But, for people that want to compare garments, the EC ratings should be available in the tech spec before we buy an item. That's the problem. It was never the EC doesn't have standards, it is how the results are marketed so you make an informed decision on a purchase. A garment label is good, but you should not have to buy an apparale to find those approvals. Below is the EC feature specs on a pair of boots. What does this tell you about the safety ratings? Nothing so far. EC is meaningless until the four requirement are listed. The boot does have the EC ratings, so why not have them listed in the features information? I find that a swing and a miss the manufacturer's part.
-CE certified to EN 13634:2017
-
Galen, speedy recovery to you. Appreciate you presenting this incident (w/pics). Not easy to lay it out there for all to comment on.
You've given food for thought.
You obviously have the time and focus now to pursue your thoughts on this matter. It will be interesting to me as to which replacement footwear you end up purchasing over another, and why.
Now, GET OFF MY LAWN :thewife:
:grin: ...I couldn't resist :boozing:
-
|
1. Choose to ride in low-tops
2. Injure foot in *unexplained* crash
3. Blame your choice on insufficient data
4. Tell everyone else they can't make good choices either without specific data
5. Get beat up for pretending people can't tell the difference between a tennis shoe and enduro boot
Yeah, sounds like it's earned this time.
Wow, really off base here.
-The faster 3 shoe is a high top EC 1 rating. It covers the ankle and is not a sneaker. Not even close.
-The injury is reflected back on to mitigate a similar situation in the future. Get more protection or the keep the same? We need data to do that. How much can we buy, and which product deliver that? The crash was never unexplained. Unavoidable under the circumstances, but fully explained.
- To make an improvement you do need the data to compare products in the same category. That's indisputably true. The current shoe is CE 1,2,2,1. The referenced boots are 2,2,2,1. The transverse ridgity is the same between them on crush. But the data isn't on the sales literature to compare before you buy. The shoe or boot will fare similar on crush.The boots heel and ankle suport will invariably help some in real world, agree, but this isn't a 2 crush boot design. That would be an even better boot but you have to know the test result. You can't look it over and see that result.
- Not sure how sneakers got into this, but no data is just no data and you can't tell the performance of a product without a referenced test to define what exactly that is. The data doesn't pretend anything, but hell yes people do. That's how marketing leas you around.
Those that want to buy on look see basis seem threatened to use data to help get the best for the buck. That's not the point of this thread. It is to point out that information that can allow a better informed decision can be made available, but isn't, in the marketing literature at popular web sites for footware. We, as consumers, can use as much or as little as we want. But for those that want to use as much as we can, the EC ratings information is a warranted part of a garments requiremets as much as the color, and comfort.
-
CE ratings are an industry lead voluntary standard introduced in the 90's there was a lot of gear at the time that exceeded the standard but wasn't tested as the companies didn't see the value in the rating system. Somehow over years it has become marketed as a gold standard for safety gear when really it's a bare minimum. Like most industry lead systems it's a junk standard although I'm not across a similar standard fortnine did a video on it recently explaining how US football padding (might of been ice hockey gear) is tested to a higher standard than CE approved motorcycle equipment.
It's better than nothing but not by much, quality gear and hope to never use it is really all you have beyond helmets, which do have various standards.
-
My father always used to say, "A poor workman blames his tools." I can't wait to see what happens when he moves on to helmet standards! :tongue:
-
In this Information Age there are pockets where there is no information. I think the op was lamenting that he found one.
-
In this Information Age there are pockets where there is no information. I think the op was lamenting that he found one.
Nah, he's just laid up injured and decided to do a little trolling and proselytizing.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINIJ1cAbYM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINIJ1cAbYM)
and read the comments.
BTW nothing in the boot standards applies to penetration except there's something about cutting. The test for that is a knife blade applied with an impact equivalent to about 6.3mph; passing score is penetration of an inch or less. No mention of how sharp the knife is supposed to be. Standards are ALL minima agreed to by the manufacturers. NO standard will prevent impact injury but you might suffer less with the protection than without it. My personal experience is that at low speeds ATTGAT is very effective at preventing surgery. But you can still bruise pretty badly. I once had a 40-mph high side, landed on my (padded) shoulder and (Snell-rated) helmet and broke a collarbone but didn't concuss.
Some decades ago I was involved in writing standards for ski bindings and the boots that mate with them. After adoption of the standards, fractures to foot, ankle and lower leg dropped about 90%. Knees sprains and resulting surgeries rose -- that became the next unprotected joint.
Bottom line is that all the information is out there if you care to look for it, but outside the EU the standards don't have force of law and manufactures don't care to print up 70-page information manuals. They're also free to misrepresent the efficacy of the protection they do provide. Capitalism is a wonderful thing. It pretty much guarantees that manufacturers and distributors prioritize shareholder value over consumer interest.
-
I think you can go a long way by choosing a known brand and inspecting the boot in person. Old video, but still very informative and a good help if you go to the store looking for your next boot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuXM3Du18tk&t=1s
-
A "known brand" is no guarantee as their products are likely to vary. Many of the same brands selling some of the better protective gear also sell very entry level riding gear with much less protection, or even just branded apparel with no motorcycle specific protection.
Motorcycle gear can be a real laugh sometimes. Look at when there was the Moto Guzzi X Timberland collaboration. To a new rider that might look like decent protection, and after all it's coming from a motorcycle manufacturer and a reputable boot maker. For any of us with a keener eye looking at it, we'd know the offer nearly no
(https://i.ibb.co/HKxWn96/moto-guzzi-x-timberland-boots.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HKxWn96)
protection in a collision or slide.
-
A brand name is no guarantee, hence my comment about inspection. If the boot is soft and supple, it will not give much protection. But if it is stiff and have external protection where you think it is relevant, it will give good protection. It can be difficult to know if it is the best boot, but the difference will not be all that great.
-
I prefer Danners. I wear them just about all my waking hours. So I need something that is comfortable all day, walking and otherwise yet give me reasonable protection while riding. This discussion is totally out of hand.
kk
I wear those Irish Setters every day. Tennis shoes hurt my feet.
-
We as motorcyclists need to push to adopt the European stand as a requirement for consumers in the USA. Those that undertaker the standard can benefit from the product comparisons, as this is what it is for after all. I am working with the AMA to further investigate what we need to do for our hobby in the USA.
Best all,
Galen
-
(https://cdn.publish0x.com/prod/fs/images/6ffd6b7911e7968e24f58ccf8a65f223ad61a0e594ab540d86b1e42b53beab18.png)
-
I'm merging these two threads. Same topic. Same OP.
-
My next piece of gear. full testing complete. see vid. ATGATT
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=bear+suit+armor&&mid=9E765DC62100C9C3A65E9E765DC62100C9C3A65E&&FORM=VRDGAR (https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=bear+suit+armor&&mid=9E765DC62100C9C3A65E9E765DC62100C9C3A65E&&FORM=VRDGAR)
-
We as motorcyclists need to push to adopt the European stand as a requirement for consumers in the USA. Those that undertaker the standard can benefit from the product comparisons, as this is what it is for after all. I am working with the AMA to further investigate what we need to do for our hobby in the USA.
Best all,
Galen
Not just no, but hell no.
I can very easily choose the gear I want to wear, and even order from the EU if I want. It is very easy to chose the most protective gear. It is also easy to see what gear will be less protective.
You chose wrong and now want the rest of us to deal with your poor decision? No thank you!
-
It is very easy to chose the most protective gear. It is also easy to see what gear will be less protective.
Good luck with that. People said the same thing about crash safety tests on cars and insisted that cars before the regulations were safer than those after... it looked obvious to them until they were proved wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
-
Good luck with that. People said the same thing about crash safety tests on cars and insisted that cars before the regulations were safer than those after... it looked obvious to them until they were proved wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
Not sure what your analogy has to do with picking gear. We all know energy needs to be absorbed and dissipated.
Race suits are more protective than mesh riding gear.
Motocross boots are more protective than riding sneakers.
Air bag vests are more protective than no air bag vest.
Choose the level of protection you want to wear and let others choose the level they want to wear. None of it is going to keep you from death because of a sudden deceleration against an immovable object, but definitely lesson injury in minor get offs.
It will always be a trade off between comfort and protection. The freedom to choose for yourself is important.
I have Jackets that have incredible abrasion protection but limit mobility. Same with boots, gloves, pants, etc. Anything less that a Full Face helmet that fits correctly is a compromise in protection.
If the OP thought his gear was protective and was surprised when it wasnt, that is on him.
-
The point is that one can't simply look at a piece of gear and accurately judge how protective it is beyond obvious things like coverage. That is the point of testing and results. Kevlar lined jeans are a great example. People buy them thinking it's a bulletproof material and abrasion resistant, should be good for a slide. The reality is that it melts to your skin and products like dyneema do much better specifically for sliding in a motorcycle accident. Compare the two materials with your direct observation outside of testing, and the kevlar is heavier and sturdier - so you'd have no idea without the test data and real world reports.
I haven't seen anyone here suggest not letting others make their own decisions ;)
-
The point is that one can't simply look at a piece of gear and accurately judge how protective it is beyond obvious things like coverage. That is the point of testing and results. Kevlar lined jeans are a great example. People buy them thinking it's a bulletproof material and abrasion resistant, should be good for a slide. The reality is that it melts to your skin and products like dyneema do much better specifically for sliding in a motorcycle accident. Compare the two materials with your direct observation outside of testing, and the kevlar is heavier and sturdier - so you'd have no idea without the test data and real world reports.
I haven't seen anyone here suggest not letting others make their own decisions ;)
Everyone I know considers Kevlar the minimum gear to wear for minimum protection.
Who are these people that think it is the best material for riding gear? Kevlar is what you wear when you are just putting into town to hang out with your friends. No one wears it for serious riding.
The same people who believe the marketing hype about products are the same people who take advice from Hollywood actors.
-
I'm an unashamed European and very grateful that we have certain standards here. It certainly does not mean that you MUST wear all the right gear but at least you have some knowledge of what you are buying and that's extremely relevant to every aspect of our lives AFAIC.Wading through the relevant standard is another kettle of fish though.
-
Everyone I know considers Kevlar the minimum gear to wear for minimum protection.
Who are these people that think it is the best material for riding gear? Kevlar is what you wear when you are just putting into town to hang out with your friends. No one wears it for serious riding.
The same people who believe the marketing hype about products are the same people who take advice from Hollywood actors.
Give it another read and you'll find no such claim or suggestion was made that kevlar is the "best material" for riding gear. ;)
You might be catching on though. One can't make an informed decision on marketing hype, that's where testing and published results and certifications come in.
-
One of the byproducts of our rush to internet retail is the absence of actual stores. Another is going to the few existing stores, trying on all of their products, asking lots of questions and then buying online to save a few bucks ( go ahead and flame me, but you know its true). I think the chance to see and handle the merchandise before purchase gives people a better chance to consider things like ankle protection. A premium set of boots is not a trivial expense, nor is it a trivial matter if they have to be put to the test. Also, to work well, fit is very important and once again without the chance to test fit, your potential safety under use is limited. I think you can do just as much damage if your foot and ankle are flopping around inside of a too large boot as if you are wearing a boot with inferior protection.
-
One of the byproducts of our rush to internet retail is the absence of actual stores. Another is going to the few existing stores, trying on all of their products, asking lots of questions and then buying online to save a few bucks ( go ahead and flame me, but you know its true). I think the chance to see and handle the merchandise before purchase gives people a better chance to consider things like ankle protection. A premium set of boots is not a trivial expense, nor is it a trivial matter if they have to be put to the test. Also, to work well, fit is very important and once again without the chance to test fit, your potential safety under use is limited. I think you can do just as much damage if your foot and ankle are flopping around inside of a too large boot as if you are wearing a boot with inferior protection.
For those who can't get to physical stores there are a lot of opportunities to educate yourself on products. Motorcycle gear.com is very forthcoming on their take on protection comparison. Revzilla provides detailed information. Webbikeworld provides great information.
All the online retailers I have dealt with have easy exchange processes.
I have been to Iron Pony a few times in Columbus OH. Cycle Gear is now tied to Revzilla so they can get anything into the store.
You don't have to go through.all of the above to see the difference in a lot of gear.
Here is the alpinestar faster 3.
(https://i.ibb.co/9H9mH6w/62-bf-56-H1-Alpinestars-Faster3schwarzgraucamorot20257333020.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9H9mH6w)
Here is the Alpinestar Tech 10.
(https://i.ibb.co/xKv4md5/Large-2010020-10-fr-tech-10-boot.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xKv4md5)
Which boot is going to provide more protection when you let a bike fall on your foot?
No one chooses the faster 3 thinking it is going to provide optimum protection. They choose it for comfort and off bike walking. They compromise between protection and everyday usability.
Blaming the gear or the manufacturer is a cop out and what is so prevalent in our society, "playing the victim".
These are my compromise boots.
(https://i.ibb.co/FD4VyWr/Icon-1000-Elsinore-HP-Boots.webp) (https://ibb.co/FD4VyWr)
And my touring boots
(https://i.ibb.co/Jrv3qvN/tcx-infinity-3-gtx-haupt.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Jrv3qvN)
Both are still a compromise in protection, but aren't sneakers with a little extra slide protection. The OP needs to grow a pair and own up to his poor choice in gear and overriding his abilities. He talks about data but look what he chose among all the offerings.
-
I read the first sentence of the first post as someone saying I'd like to get better equipment and I'm finding the standards and descriptions of what's available to be poor and that consumers should demand better. Shocking people made that personal.
I've learned a lot from this thread. Things in didn't know. What's intuitively obvious to what seems like the angriest of you was not to me. Heck I didn't even know there were safety standards for boots. I guess maybe I should re-evaluate my thick leather Cruiser Works boots. All this time I thought they were pretty good. Maybe not.
But most of all I reminded myself of why I don't go to Moto Guzzi rallies.
-AJ
-
Many years ago, I was friends with a Harley rider that would routinely ride wearing shorts and sandals! :shocked: One year at Daytona Bike Week, we stood in a long line at the Harley demo rides (that shows you how long ago this was, no waiting now!) When he got to the front of the line, he was refused because he was wearing open-toed shoes. He pitched a fit and stomped off. Of course, if he had bothered to read the ride requirements signs posted all over, he would have realized he would be allowed to demo a bike dressed the way he was. Everyone makes their own decisions concerning the risks of riding. Many, like my old friend, simply refuse to think it will ever happen to them.
-
Everything is good until it isn't.
After the fire dept., the second call made is not to buy insurance.......... ...........
-
I'd forgotten entirely about this website that evaluates riding gear:
https://www.motocap.com.au/
Worth a look.
-
I am in before the lock
:popcorn: