Well, I enjoyed myself. Got there nice and early. Picked up a bottle of Scottoil and syringe for re-filling my lubetronic [1] and more importnantly a complete Arlen Ness textile outfit for £200 off [1] [1] Well, some bastard nicked the bottle since July [2] OK, tell me the stuff is shit. They've promised me a 12 month guaruntee -- Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
Quoting Catman: "a complete Arlen Ness textile outfit for £200 off - OK, tell me the stuff is shit". The protective performance of your suit is completely unknown, as it is for 99.99% of motorcycle apparel out there. There is anecdotal evidence that *heavyweight* textile jackets and trousers have protected the wearer in a slide along the tarmac; however, in the EN 13595-2 impact abrasion test, air-textured nylons such as Cordura last between 0.45 and 0.65 seconds from contact to perforation, dependant upon the fabric weight. Some extremely heavyweight ballistic nylons have achieved 0.9 seconds. This is close, but not close enough to even the lowest requirement for the areas of a garment least likely to come into contact with the tarmac, and the use of such materials in motorcycle clothing is rare and retricted in placement. In the EN 13595-4 impact cut tests, single layer textiles stand little chance, unless the fabricl used in the garment is extremely thick and hard, which slows the blade's progress. Multi-layer construction - like the Scott jackets issued to the Met Police motorcyclists - and laminates featuring three-dimensional weave structures, like the Halvarssons Safety suit, fare signficantly better because the thickness, mass, fibre tenacity and layering progressively slow the blade (not unlike stab-resistant vests). Ensuring satisfactory burst stength for textile seams isn't difficult to attain, since the elongation-at-break properties of the fibre are brought into play. It is more difficult to achieve with leather. However, manufacturers need to match the performance of the thread used to sew the sheet materials (leather or textile) together: strong thread and weak material will lead to early failure of seams just as strong material and weak thread will. Few manufacturers test their garment constructions using the EN 13595-3 test method, and then bleat about the write-up they receive when RiDE magazine does it for them! ;-) There are still two choices in the market: "Conformite Europeen" (tested to the European Standards) or "Caveat Emptor" . One of these two "CEs" guarantees a level of protection, the other promises nothing.
Heh, very good It's CE. I wouldn't buy something that wasn't (however bad my reasons may be) I was more thinking of how it was going to leak, be cold, have the zips fall off etc etc. -- Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
Those requirements can also be covered. Waterproofness EN 343 "Protection against rain" (tests materials and constructions for waterproofness and breathability) & EN 14360 "Test method for ready made garments - Impact from above with high energy droplets" (a simple adaptation of which would provide a very useful test for motorcyclists' rainwear) Protection from cold EN 342 "Ensembles and garments for protection against cold" (temperatures below -5C) & EN 14058 "Garments for protection against cool environmments" (temperatures of -5C and above) Durability tests for zips are also available. Few motorcycle clothing companies will even know of the existence of these documents, let alone have commissioned testing of their materials, components and garments.
I bet. So has anyone here used any Arlen Ness stuff then? -- Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
Catman wrote: "It's CE" I omitted to remark on this comment when writing my earlier reply. You will probably find that any CE marking on your suit relates purely to whatever fitted impact protectors (back, shoulders, elbows, hips, knees) might be present. It is unlikely that the garment itself will have been subjected to any form of standardised testing or product accreditation. It is permitted for a manufacturer to fit CE marked impact protectors to garments that are otherwise non-protective. So, impact protectors could be fitted to a suit pieced together from wet toilet paper held together with flour paste. Fully CE marked garments (such as those conforming to EN 13595 mentioned earlier in this thread) are subject to a mandatory requirement that they be fitted with CE marked protectors.
It appears that only the armour in both my HG and Stadler gear is CE, not the jacket/pants themselves. Both are better made than the Tourmaster or Joe Rocket stuff I had before.
Funnily enough, I was just thinking this the other day. I was ploughing through the HG cattledog reading up on their Maxwell jacket, which is a waterproof textile jobby with leather on the arms and shoulders, and I realised that the only reference to CE was very clearly associated with the protectors. HG stuff seems well enough put together, but I've had low-speed offs wearing two different HG textile jackets, and both have been shredded.
Thanks for the compliment, Steve. Fourteen years I have been involved in the development of the European motorcycle clothing standards, and I am amazed I didn't make the connection between the common use of "CE" before.
Paul Varnsverry wrote It wasn't a compliment it was a statement of fucking fact. I'll let you if ever the compliments start. And we read it here first on ukrm.
wow Yes, it is just the armour that's marked. As ever has been with my kit. Cheers -- Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
Welll, I'll not be buying one of them, then. -- Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
off. As I often have cause to remark, there are an awful lot of motorcycling garments out there sewn together with thread that M&S wouldn't use in their flimsiest ladies' lingerie. The issue of impact protectors flapping around in looser-fitting (than leather) textile garments can easily be addressed if manufacturers use armour components that are more generously-proportioned. Ideal in theory, but this falls apart because motorcyclists' limb protector standard EN 1621-1 is interpreted by the industry as specifying fixed product sizes (2) for all sizes of wearer and all types of outer garment. In fact, the two sizes specified are minima, but the industry by and large works solely to these sizes (which IMHO only provide adequate covereage for wearers up to about 1.7 metres tall). Every other PPE standard I have in my possession - and there are plenty of them! - requires that the component is sized pro-rata the largest size of individual it is intended to fit (with height plus chest and/or waist girths providing control dimensions, and the dimensions of the product calculated as a percentage of these) and does not feature suggested product dimensions. There is, however, one specialist manufacturer of impact protectors who can offer larger-sized products (and can even offer "made-to-measure").
Bear has alluded to impact protectors that can flap around in loose-fitting garments, and consequently be out of position when the wearer hits the road. You have identified a different problem: what if the structure of the garment is so weak that it fails catastrophically on impact? The protectors might be in position for the initial impact, but as the garment falls apart around you, there is a risk that the protectors will join forces with the tarmac to work against the fabric and speed up the destruction process still further, whilst simultaneously being out of position and unable to provide protection in subsequent, albeit possibly-lesser severity impacts. All very theoretical, but I believe the premise is sound.
