Quoting Verdigris:

"Is *removable* armour - more properly: readily replaceable armour -
part
of the CE standards?"

Don't certain Italian manufacturers still bond their protectors with
adhesive to the reverse face of the leather? And don't some fit
externalised components of plastic or other materials which are an
integral part of the structure of the suit? If so, these protectors (if
that is what their function is claimed to be) would obviously not be
removeable and replaceable.

Impact protectors might be tested according to EN 1621-1 as a stand
alone product, and a mandatory fitment to garments conforming to EN
13595 (which includes a test method for assessment of the protectors'
resistance to displacement from the areas of the body they are
internded to cover), but nowhere do the standards demand that
protectors be replaceable.

"Since a decent leather suit should last more than five years..."

Some manufacturers might still quote "five years", particularly if
there is insufficient evidence of their products' durability in
extended use. Companies with a pedigree can demonstrate that, with
regular care and maintenance, their products will last three or four
times that long.

The Cambridge Standard was ten years old in June of this year. It would
be instructive to see one of the earliest CE marked garments retested
to see how it stacks up against the original specification, and to
repeat the exercise every one, two or five years to gain data. What
would be difficult to control, however, is the consistency in how the
garments have been used and maintained, so from a purist's perspective
the data might be considered flawed.

Quoting Wizard:

"OK- it says mine meets prEN1621-2"

I have spoken with Geoff Travell and he reckons your Knox back
protector is probably at least a couple of years old, beacuse once the
EN was published, the certificaytion and labelling for Knox products
was updated.

Other "unfinished business" from above:

Knox insurance. As the Knox web site says, a gigantic premium increase
from the insurers meant this could not be continued without increasing
the price of each product sold to cover the costs. No claims were made,
but the underwriters took a sudden dislike to the risk to which they
were exposing their investors. No other company wanted to quote for
Knox's business.

Back protectors passing the 4 kN transmitted force requirement. The
Jofama "back converter" for one, plus Geoff Travell reckons the Knox
"X1" and "Contour" models will meet or exceed the requirement. I
suspect TPro can also come up with something.

Jofama manufacture and market their own products, so can decide what
technical specificaytion they wish to meet. TPro market their own
products and supply some garment manufacturers, but not as many as the
largest market share-holder, Planet Knox.

Garment distributors buying from the latter two companies will
generally want the keenest price and the products will have to be
engineered to meet the standard. Producing products which not only meet
the standard, but exceed its requirements by a country mile means more
materials, or more high-tech materials, and thus increased cost. This
doesn't entirely coincide with the commercial philosophies of the
cut-throat world of ready-made motorcycling kit, where they won't pay a
penny extra for a popstud that will last for ever (preferring to pay a
penny less for something with an 80% chance of failure within the first
year).

Sorby; if your mate is still looking for a back protector to fit into
the pocket of his suit, his best bet is to speak with TPro on 01933
410818; mentioning that I have suggested he contact them. They may be
able to produce a custom-made product. I cannot make any promises that
they will be able to help, but if he doesn't ask he won't know.