back protector of choice??/

[license2ill]

I'll throw in a couple long-winded posts I made on a couple other boards, cuz I like the info:

The sole purpose of a "motorcyclist back protector" is for direct impact absorption for the spine, ribs, and internal organs. There is a standard in Europe covering them, and it strictly specifies levels of force transmission and coverage area. The idea of them as some kind of brace is a nice hope, but they are simply not capable of providing that type of effect outside of the abdominal straps wrapping around the lower back area. For bracing support purposes, take a look at a scoliosis corrective brace sometime, or a body board used to transport accident victims. No motorcyclist back protector can prevent paralyiss or even hope to deal with those types of forces, namely because those injuries usually occur from displacing blows to the shoulders(that affect the brachial plexus), blows to the head that affect the cervical spine, or blows to the hips that affect the thoracic spine. The other reason is that none are long enough or stiff enough or hold a large enough area to deal with the large amounts of force that is required by a direct impact to the back to displace vertabrae or even to hyperflex or extend the spine. Luckily all serious impacts and injuries to the back and spine are said to be relatively rare within accident scenarios. I still think protecting that area, for the price of admission is a good idea, no matter the current limitations. From that standard:

"Back protectors and lumbar protectors (EN 1621-2) are intended to provide protection against impacts against edges such as kerbing. However, while some 13% of motorcyclists sustain back injuries in crashes, the majority of these injuries are due to blows to the head or to bending and twisting of the back. A back protector will not prevent these types of injury. Less than 1% of injured riders suffer serious injuries from direct blows to the spinal area, however back protectors will provide protection from more minor injuries such as bruises and strains (EN 1621-2, p. 4)."

http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/77.html

With that in mind, some deal with impact forces better than others. That CE standard(1621-2) falls a little short in minimizing forces down to the appropriate levels, but an uncertified piece is even more likely to fall short of those levels. The concept of the back protector is to minimize fractures and bruising. Rib factures occur typically at levels of 4kN of force. The Level 2-rated CE pieces come the closest, with a maximum allowable average pass of 9kN at 50 Joules of impact energy, which is equivalent to a 10lb bowling ball dropped from 3 feet onto your back. That's not to be confused with a piece in a jacket that is wrongly specified to the CE 1621-1 standard for limb armor. It allows up to 35kN of force to pass, and doesnt offer a coverage area specification for back armor at all, so it's completely inappropriate.

There is a horse rider's torso protector standard that takes the allowed force numbers down to the more apporpriate 4kN level, the BETA 2000 Level 3 standard. It uses 45kN of impact energy, but also requires chest, rib and clavicle coverage area. There's a couple of vests certified to that standard, and they may be a great alternative for better overall protection. The Tipperary Esprit and Jack Owens body protectors. The Esprit is relatively inexpensive at only $140. I don't know how well the extra clavicle coverage/straps will do in a more tucked position, but jockeys seem to wear them with no issues.

The plastic over foam protectors(like the Teknic in the post above) are an older design, but were made with the same concepts in mind, though the plastic bits don't typically disperse impact energy as effectively as newer materials and designs, so you will not find too many that are CE-approved. CE-approved pieces will all have some sort of energy absorbing foam or honeycomb internal structure, and the level 2 rated pieces are all constructed that way. There are only a few options that achieve Level 2 status, those being the T-Pro Forcefield/Joe Rocket Speedmaster, the new Spidi Warrior Back, the Velocity Gear protector, the BMW protector, and the Knox Contour. Dainese made one for a while, out of crushable plastic, which was very thick and stiff, but they don't anymore. T-pro makes a jacket insert version that is properly 1621-2 certified, the same as their stand alone piece. For your money, the Joe Rocket Speedmaster is the best value, and probably the most comfortable of those motorcyclist-specific options.

Too many riders think the answer to protective needs is to put a hard place between themselves and a rock, but it's not, energy management is what you want out of a piece meant for impact protection, just like a helmet. The reason helmets are hard--covered is that they are subjected to greater energies and the shells work in conjunction with that thicker, softer absorbing foam. It also provides a light-weight and durable protective surface for that more fragile foam, and abrasion resistance with lower friction to minimize head rotation. Though it's a different set of needs, there is still contention that the hardness of stiffness can be too much, creating less efficient impact absorption qualities.

Any extra layers will provide additional abrasion resistance, but the last thing you want is a hard piece under your outer layer that reduces the effective surface area of that outer garment in contact with the ground in a slide, or tearing a hole in it. You should have jacket zipped to proper pants, but any solid piece strapped to your back is more likely to provide coverage if a jacket rides up.

With that thought of chest and clavicle protection as another issue:

T-pro has a new one out. Covers much more of the rib cage than others, wraps around. I guess it can be worn front or back, they show it in the picture worn on the back. Says it meets the level 1 standard(for back protectors). There's not a specific standard covering the chest or ribs, but I'm guessing this is the best piece now available for specific chest protection. Not sure that it really meets the back protector standard because of the coverage area, a misstatement perhaps, but with their other products all being properly certified and meeting higher performance standards, I'm guessing they can back-up the impact absoprtion numbers. Level 1 numbers are still not very appropriate for ultimate fracture protection, but I'd take that over a manufacturer that still hasn;t got any numbers or certified any of their products to those available standards. It's also held in place with shoulder straps, which seems like a better idea than just a floating piece under your leathers. If it's anything like their back protector, it's also going to be thin and comfortable. It's also less expensive than any others at $70.

http://www.johnsonleather.com/forcefield_rib.htm

The back protector on the Velocity Gear jersey is the only part that meets the Level 2 requirements which is specific only to back protectors. As I tried to say above, there is actually no standard available for chest coverage pieces, so it's a cloudy issue as to proven performance for any piece you get. I believe Velocity Gear has said that the chest portion is the same as the limb armor pieces, which, if properly certified to the CE limb armor standard are much less protective for ribs, allowing up to 35kN of force vs the 18kN that the Level 1 back protector standard allows or the 9kN that Level 2 allows. There is only one level of performance for limb armor(two sizes, type-a and type-b), but there is also another high-performance standard for limb armor called the Cambridge standard, established by the Cambridge Protective Reasearch Facility in England, which uses higher levels of impact energy at 75Joules and 100Joules and requires less than 25kN of force to pass. T-Pro has the only limb armor that I know of that also passes the Cambridge standard, but again, that's for limb joint armor, not rib armor, ribs can actually break at only 4kN of force. So the back protector levels of force allowance are much closer to the most apporpriate for ribs (front or back). The horse riders standard requires the 4kN level(albeit at 5 Joules less impact energy than the CE requirement, 45Joules), which is the most ideal out of any available guidelines, though the impact energy used is on the lower side.

Originally Velocity Gear was claiming the limb pieces meet the CE limb standard, but I noticed recently that is no longer on their website info. The Cambridge "extreme" stuff by T-pro is my choice for limb armor, Johnsons's has the 4-layer Armourflex stuff that meets those levels. The whole issue of how much impact energy is appropriate and how much force transmission is apporporiate is all tricky stuff. Fortunately, Europe has kind of figured it out, but unfortunately it's still very confusing, somewhat compromised, and still not comprehensive enough or simple enough to make good decisions easy or understandable for a newbie or even an experienced user. I hope that made some sense, it is fairly complicated, but in summary, I think the horse riders vest is most protective, and the T-pro is perhaps the best stand-alone chest protector.

For further clarity about all these guideleines of protective levels and performance proof, there's a CE standard(legal standard for Europe, kind of like DOT for helmets in the US) for limb impact protectors(EN1621-1) and also one for back protectors(EN1621-2, with two levels of passing).Then there's the Cambridge High-performance Standard for limb armor(impact protectors), and there's a standard for horse riders body protectors, the British Equestrian Trade Association(BETA 2000) which is identical to the CE standard for horse riders body protectors, but with more stringent continued enforcement methods. There are additional CE standards available for other motorcycling-specific protective gear, like outer garment whole suits, gloves, and boots that specify all the other areas and protective concerns besides just impact protection. While that gets complicated and involved for some that would prefer to use hail mary's instead of lab testing or data, I don't think it's in our best interest to buy anything for our protection and safety without some sort of tangible proof of efficacy like the kind those labels offer, especially when we are asking for "the best" to suit our needs and expecting real solutions.

Within all that talk of impact energy and force levels, I wish we could say these differences amounted to splitting hairs, but I think there is still a lot of room for improvement here, even at the highest levels of performance, information, and options. Basically, once a level of force at the point for which the injuries we are seeking to prevent or minimize is established, then you can set a level of impact energy to make impact protectors compliant to those neccessary levels to create a range of usefulness. That really hasn't happened within the motorcycle protective gear world. 50 Joules is fairly apporpriate as a drop height/mass to use for testing of impact protectors, but the products haven't been designed to break a fall to the point at which the injuries we hope to prevent will occur at those heights/mass requirements when speaking of the ribs and spine. The chest seems to be an all but forgotten area of the body, even within the available motoryclist guidelines, completely unspecified for protection, except within the available equestrian rider guidelines.

For more info on motorcyclist chest injuries though, here's some numbers from a fairly recent European study of road accidents and injuries, they still seem fairly rare, regardless, though I still would like to have an appropriate amount of rib protection in case of an event:

Proportion of all motorcycle casualties with injuries to the chest:

* Proportion of all injured riders: 19%
* Proportion with soft tissue injuries: 12%
* Proportion with fractures: 9%

Chest injuries can include internal injuries although these are relatively rare (7%).

Chest injuries are most likely to be caused in an impact with another vehicle (Otte, 2002).

(When you consider that fact, almost any amount of impact energy seems fairly insubstantial within testing, though the chest is most liekly not struck directly by the moving mass of a car. If yoou watch some videos of the Dainese or Astars airbag vests, you'll notice the crash dummies striking the bikes handlebars or gas tank chest first pretty violently though in the collision)

http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/91.html

And here's a list of all of those CE standards available for various motorcyclist protecitve clothing and needs:

http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/93.html