Pants Have We Taken a Step Back in Rider Safety?

Daboo

Daboo

Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
1,507
Location
Martha Lake
Bike
F900 XR
2025 Miles
003056
This was an eye-opener for me. It started when the zipper broke on my go-to riding pants, some old Olympia Dakar pants. They were what I was wearing when I had the accident a year ago. So while I'm trying to get the zipper replaced, I started looking for what was available as a possible replacement. One of the possibilities was "riding jeans". An offshoot from that was learning about the EN17092 certification levels.

Over the last few years, I've noticed that riding gear material is thinner and more supple to the touch. It used to be that Cordura was the standard fabric that everyone used, but now they are using other trademarked names for polyester type materials. KARBONITE. ProTechWool. My Olympia Ranger jacket has 2000d Cordura in the impact areas. It's heavy to pick up. Not like the new stuff at all. Are those other materials as good? All we can do is to trust the manufacturers.

I got an email from Bob's BMW today announcing their latest sale, so I went window shopping to see what they had available. And what I saw in the descriptions surprised me. I thought riding pants were supposed to be superior for protection than riding jeans. My Revit! Lombard 3 pants that I just purchased (and haven't decided on keeping), have a EN17092 AA certification. And that is the same as the certification for some of the top level riding pants I looked at. I would've thought the pants would meet the AAA rating, but they don't.

Before you get to thinking a AA certification rating is great, this is all it means. Class AA garments must withstand abrasion for 5 seconds at a speed of 75 kilometers per hour, or 46 mph.

This is a well written article asking a good question. The new EN17092 standard is actually 90% less protection than the old standard EN13595. I didn't expect that.

1748707570135.png

There's a lot more to read in the article than this diagram. I hope you take the time to read the whole article.

So what is the difference between my HWK pants that sell for $59 and the KLIM, Revit! or Alpenstars pants that sell for 15 times more?

Chris
 
I'm going to make a plea for some common sense. Sure certifications mean something, but few of us take a deep dive like you did into what they mean (only 5 seconds of abrasion? My friend slid 150'...got up and walked away w/ bruises). It doesn't take much more than a look to compare AeroStitch's material with any other brand. Of course 2000d Cordura will protect you better, look how heavy the fabric is. If the garment feels light how do you think it will protect you in an impact with the street? Armor in the right places (shoulders, elbows, hip, knees) will offer some protection, but how about the other areas? That's where the heavy fabric protects you.

I questioned a friend who was wearing reinforced blue jeans for riding. He said he wore them for comfort and hoped they protected him in a fall. At least he acknowledged the minimal level of protection.

In the trades we have a saying...Codes are a MINIMUM standard. When you aim for the least and miss, it doesn't measure up.
 
I think we're seeing a similar thing with the fabric as he points out with the pads. Regulatory capture. Some many motorcyclists don't want to wear bulky gear that makes them look fat or frumpy. So the trend went for thinner materials that were minimalistic. Besides, the EN13595 standard was voluntary anyway. The manufacturers went where the money led. And now we have gear that looks the part, but probably doesn't do much in a crash.

That pair of Olympia Dakar pants are heavy. Over the years, the material has become broken in, so it isn't as stiff as it was when new...but it still is Cordura. It held up to that crash a year ago, and all I needed to do was wash it. The Olympia jacket I was wearing, is the same one I wear today. It looks old. But it is just as functional as it was when new. And I doubt you can find the couple threads that were scuffed when I went down. I washed it and I'm wearing it now.

I look at the HWK pants I have and the Revit! pants I bought and returned and they look like they are made from the same material. Both are made of 600D polyester.

Which is the one that cost $53 and which is the one that costs $400? Is there enough difference in the products to justify a $350 difference. I'm really not so sure.

1748739721871.png 1748739752846.png

I think the reason the new EN17902 standard is what it is, is because:
  • The manufacturers can meet it easily.
  • The certification process is cost-prohibitive to new-comers in the market.
Chris
 
Daboo said:
Some many motorcyclists don't want to wear bulky gear that makes them look fat or frumpy. So the trend went for thinner materials that were minimalistic.
Click to expand...
Yep... we see lots of "fancy" riding gear that I would rate as 'skater fashion' at max...
And breathable membranes getting rare (plus expensive) now...

And besides your claims above I sadly observe a significant degrade of functionality in the design...
Even on garments beyond the € 700,- to € 1200,- range... (for a jacket... decent pants come for another € 400,- plus... )

One needs two(!) inside pockets hidden behind the first/outer zipper for a) valet (LHS)* and b) your phone (RHS)... most have none now...
(ever stuck on a toll-both, ferry boarding or border crossing in pouring rain requiring to have quick access to your credit card/coins, documents and your passport??)
One needs sleeves with adjust/expandable ends to get them over your glove cuffs in bad weather... most are way too tight now...
And adding magnets(!) to work ventilation flaps, can only be the idea of someone who doesn't even own a credit cart... one wrong move near your valet inside the chest pocket, and the next fuel stop becomes an ordeal...
 
[Quoted] By 2016, the European Parliament had had enough of the deception, and when new legislation was passed in January of that year, it came with an announcement that compliance would be compulsory for motorcycle clothing manufacturers.

[Quoted] The existing European Standards working group quickly set about developing a new set of testing standards that are more achievable, based on the test performances of materials in use in 2016 and would consequently make it easier for clothing producers to meet their legal obligations.

Sounds like, what it sounds like. Instead of having to bring the newer kits up to existing standards, which might to some extent approximate what the materials would be exposed to, write an inferior standard to which the newer kits meet compliance.

Then everybody's happy
 
Gerhard said:
Having payment methods on my watch have made tolls and gas stops easier.
Click to expand...
Never!...
In the remote areas we prefer this tech might not be as common to begin with...
Gerhard said:
Chip technology on modern credit cards is not affected by magnets.
Click to expand...
Hopefully...
But they also accumulate (metallic) road debris, hence are prone to corrosion...
 
ST1100Y said:
Never!...
In the remote areas we prefer this tech might not be as common to begin with...
Click to expand...
5 years ago that may have been the case but the places that don’t do contactless payment are pretty small in number.
 
Gerhard said:
5 years ago that may have been the case but the places that don’t do contactless payment are pretty small in number.
Click to expand...
In North America and Western Europe no doubt, but that isn't necessarily representative of the whole world. In many areas credit/debit card machines are not as ubiquitous or as welcomed let alone contactless payment. I spent this past month of February traveling all over Thailand. Very often if we would not have had cash we would have had a problem. Even some hotels only took cash, which was quite surprising to us. There is still a strong preference for cash in much of that country and I suspect that many other parts of the world the same might be encountered.
 
ST1100Y said:
In the remote areas we prefer this tech might not be as common to begin with...
Click to expand...

Also many preferred remote areas here in the US where that wouldn't work either...or might have worked if their system wasn't down just as you came by.

And in Houston, many small businesses are turning cash only or charging a fee for CC.

In CA......


1748809507873.png
 
Andrew Shadow said:
In North America and Western Europe no doubt, but that isn't necessarily representative of the whole world. In many areas credit/debit card machines are not as ubiquitous or as welcomed let alone contactless payment.
Click to expand...

MidLife said:
Also many preferred remote areas here in the US where that wouldn't work either...or might have worked if their system wasn't down just as you came by
Click to expand...
I am not saying not to carry the physical card but having the ability to pay with your watch is a real convenience when riding a bike because you don’t need to dig around in your pockets frustrating the drivers waiting behind you. Be for I used contactless payment method roadside I would put the required amount of cash in my glove which was fine as long as you knew the amount.

 
Gerhard said:
... contactless payment ...
Click to expand...
Indeed a big step backward in safety... :cautious:

Back O.T.:
there is a decline in fabric quality, longevity, features as well as overall design...

Out of interest I recently tried on a KLIM Badlands Pro, highly advertised and horribly expensive (about € 1400,-)..
- very bulky and stiff, total weird fit, sized XL but obviously cut for a 'short, barrel chested, +300 lbs fella with stubby arms, tiny wrists and a bullneck'... :unsure:
Me, 6'1" 'regular fit', could have placed two of my chests inside (for the fun I wrapped my GF into the front and we were able to close the zipper 1/2 way up), half of my forearms were exposed/sticking out the sleeves and an about 3 fingers wide gap all around my neck (despite closures I could pull it over my head like a sweater)
- only one Napoleon pocket, thermal liner not included...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom