Really Poor Gear Ratings / CE in the USA - why the inconsistencies ?

[AJ Huff]

I don't remember this much nastiness and short tempers before the recent update. One heck of a database error

-AJ

[pressureangle]

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.

[Moparnut72]

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.

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

[Ncdan]

Please keep in mind, debate is a good thing as long as we respect each other and do not launch personal attacks.

Thanks
Dan

[blackcat]

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.

[Rower30]

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

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

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.

[twowheeladdict]

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

[Rower30]

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

[tazio]

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
  ...I couldn't resist

[Rower30]

|

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.

[Murray]

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.

[Motormike]

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! 

[John A]

In this Information Age there are pockets where there is no information. I think the op was lamenting that he found one.

[rocker59]

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.

[Testarossa]

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.

[faffi]

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

[Dr. Enzo Toma]

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

protection in a collision or slide.

[faffi]

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.

[kballowe]

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.

[Rower30]

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

[Luap McKeever]

[rocker59]

I'm merging these two threads.  Same topic.  Same OP. 

[Turin]

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

[twowheeladdict]

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!

[Dr. Enzo Toma]

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

[twowheeladdict]

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. 

[Dr. Enzo Toma]

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 ;)

[twowheeladdict]

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.

[Frenchfrog]

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.

[Dr. Enzo Toma]

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.