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

[Rower30]

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.





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!

[Dr. Enzo Toma]

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.

[Rower30]

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.

[rocker59]

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...




img hosting

[Rower30]

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...




img hosting

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.

[rocker59]

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.

[blu guzz]

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.

[rocker59]

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.

[Motormike]

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.

[faffi]

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.

[Dr. Enzo Toma]

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.

[Testarossa]

That Faster 3 looks like a basketball shoe. Might as well wear this.




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.

[Rower30]

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.

[Rower30]

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.

[Rower30]

That Faster 3 looks like a basketball shoe. Might as well wear this.




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.

[rocker59]

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.

[moto]

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. 

[pressureangle]

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.

[Rower30]

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.

[Rower30]

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...




img hosting

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.

[kingoffleece]

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.

[pressureangle]

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.

[Rower30]

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).

[Rower30]

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.

[Rower30]

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?

[blu guzz]

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.

[kballowe]

 
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.

[cliffrod]

Test

[Rower30]

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.





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!

[Testarossa]

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.