ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Gear > Equipment
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-06-2007, 12:54 PM   #121
ikonoklass
Kountersteering Krew
 
ikonoklass's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Oddometer: 2,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloyosh
I feel that since the EU is actually putting forth an effort in this arena (motorcycle specific protective equipment) lends some credibility.

YMMV
There's no doubt in my mind that it has some credibility. I'm just not sure the EU's standards are better than Wayne's.
__________________
2012 Speed Triple
2005 R1200GS
1998 FXDL
ikonoklass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 02:08 PM   #122
soloyosh
Dad and husband
 
soloyosh's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: LHC, AZ
Oddometer: 5,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikonoklass
There's no doubt in my mind that it has some credibility. I'm just not sure the EU's standards are better than Wayne's.
When you say Wayne's, what do you mean? His personal standards or the standards he tests his gear against? On the first, its apparent he has high standards for his gear. On the second, it seems that he and other manufacturers have come up with a variety of standards for their gear. The Wyzenbeek, Darmstadt and Martindale machines and Aerostitch's sandbag dummy spring to mind. I applaud Wayne for testing and freely supplying data. As a consumer though it's tough to make a comparison. The makers of the three machines and the CE machine freely admit that there is no reliable way to compare results generated by the different machines. And that's just for the abrasion.

CE has my support since it specifically has motorcycle applications in mind. I think the Darmstadt test was designed for motorcycle applications as well but the engineer in me sees more flaws with its methods. The other two machines have their background in carpeting and upholstery and they share some of the flaws (in my mind) that Darmstadt has.

I freely admit, Wayne's stuff may be the best but how to you get a true, apples to apples, scientific comparison? I feel that CE is the best option at hand right now.
__________________
2007 Aprilia RXV 5.5
soloyosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 02:58 PM   #123
fullmonte
Reformed Kneedragger
 
fullmonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Oddometer: 5,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloyosh
The Wyzenbeek, Darmstadt and Martindale machines and Aerostitch's sandbag dummy spring to mind. I applaud Wayne for testing and freely supplying data. As a consumer though it's tough to make a comparison. The makers of the three machines and the CE machine freely admit that there is no reliable way to compare results generated by the different machines. And that's just for the abrasion.
Screw machines and those unrealistic testing methodologies. What they need to do is suit up a crash dummy that weighs 160+ lbs and throw it out of a moving pickup truck at 50+ mph. I'd be more inclined to buy gear tested that way than the current status quo (tested in some lab). Imagine if a moto mag conducted a gear test this way. It would be similar to the "Blowing the Lid Off" helmet article. Remember the uproar that caused in the helmet industry? Maybe something similar would get some of the so called protective gear manufacturers off their asses and make gear that actually protects the rider in a crash. I'm dreaming here, but you get the idea.
__________________
"If you are looking for the typical ride to a restaurant, eat tacos, hold the middle finger over the food, stop and take a picture of a gravel road type ride, you probably won't be interested." - dlrides

"A guy I know was the lead researcher for the University of Utah federally funded study of cellphone and texting use while driving. He found that your twice as dangerous as a drunk while using your cell phone and I think it was up to six times worse if the driver was texting."-dakardad
fullmonte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 04:48 PM   #124
soloyosh
Dad and husband
 
soloyosh's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: LHC, AZ
Oddometer: 5,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullmonte
Screw machines and those unrealistic testing methodologies. What they need to do is suit up a crash dummy that weighs 160+ lbs and throw it out of a moving pickup truck at 50+ mph. I'd be more inclined to buy gear tested that way than the current status quo (tested in some lab). Imagine if a moto mag conducted a gear test this way. It would be similar to the "Blowing the Lid Off" helmet article. Remember the uproar that caused in the helmet industry? Maybe something similar would get some of the so called protective gear manufacturers off their asses and make gear that actually protects the rider in a crash. I'm dreaming here, but you get the idea.
Wasn't that whole arcticle's testing done in a lab... on machines?

We need American motorags like RiDE:

http://www.ridetriangles.com/pdf/587/213149.pdf

Cheers
__________________
2007 Aprilia RXV 5.5
soloyosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 04:58 PM   #125
makinwaves
Beastly Adventurer
 
makinwaves's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Travelling in South America!
Oddometer: 1,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikonoklass
There's no doubt in my mind that it has some credibility. I'm just not sure the EU's standards are better than Wayne's.
The difference is that the CE standards are developed following a rigorous science based process involving significant peer review over several years by numerous scientists and engineers before it was even accepted or approved for use by the industry. In addition, the standards were developed specific to the motorcycle industry and targeted the primary areas that are at risk of failure in a crash (i.e., seam burst, abrasion, impact). Finally, the CE standards were developed by scientists and engineers independent of the motorcycle clothing industry.

The same can't be said at all for the methods that Wayne uses. This doesn't mean there is no credibility to his methods, or that you could argue that any other north american manufacturer puts the same level of effort in ensuring their gear is as protective as possible, but it's quite the stretch to say the CE standards only have some credibility!
makinwaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 05:13 PM   #126
ikonoklass
Kountersteering Krew
 
ikonoklass's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Oddometer: 2,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by makinwaves
The difference is that the CE standards are developed following a rigorous science based process involving significant peer review over several years by numerous scientists and engineers before it was even accepted or approved for use by the industry. In addition, the standards were developed specific to the motorcycle industry and targeted the primary areas that are at risk of failure in a crash (i.e., seam burst, abrasion, impact). Finally, the CE standards were developed by scientists and engineers independent of the motorcycle clothing industry.

The same can't be said at all for the methods that Wayne uses. This doesn't mean there is no credibility to his methods, or that you could argue that any other north american manufacturer puts the same level of effort in ensuring their gear is as protective as possible, but it's quite the stretch to say the CE standards only have some credibility!
Right, but peer review of what? A fabric abraded by a machine until failure, or of complete suits actually crashed? Do the CE scientists attempt to replicate a crash in their testing? I don't know; I'm axing. One thing I think it's safe to presume: the Halvarsson's is too new to have been revised and re-issued as a "version 2.0," taking into account actual crash data over many years. That's the advantage Motoport has right now. I will allow that it's entirely possible that the CE standards and the Halvarsson's are everything their proponents claim them to be. I simply don't think the argument is very compelling right now. The fact that the Halvarsson's only comes in two colors, Death and Unwearable, makes me seriously question the company's judgment and commitment to motorcycling. Makinwaves, I'm still eager to hear your comparison of Halvarsson's v. Motoport.
__________________
2012 Speed Triple
2005 R1200GS
1998 FXDL
ikonoklass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 06:19 PM   #127
ThomD
Is this thing on?
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Oddometer: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by makinwaves
The difference is that the CE standards are developed following a rigorous science based process involving significant peer review over several years by numerous scientists and engineers before it was even accepted or approved for use by the industry. In addition, the standards were developed specific to the motorcycle industry and targeted the primary areas that are at risk of failure in a crash (i.e., seam burst, abrasion, impact). Finally, the CE standards were developed by scientists and engineers independent of the motorcycle clothing industry.!
Um, ah. You sure about that? CE standards are government approved. Like most any government process, I would think that involved industries were somewhat involved. I do not know this to be a fact, but I'd need to see some evidence to the contrary before I can accept your statements.
__________________
www.tandemhearts.com
ThomD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 06:30 PM   #128
makinwaves
Beastly Adventurer
 
makinwaves's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Travelling in South America!
Oddometer: 1,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikonoklass
Right, but peer review of what? A fabric abraded by a machine until failure, or of complete suits actually crashed? Do the CE scientists attempt to replicate a crash in their testing? I don't know; I'm axing.
You're confusing the outcome with the objective. The objective of the CE technical committee was to develop a minimum performance standard for motorcycle clothing that reduces the health and safety risks associated with a motorcycle crash. So of course they would look at how current clothing performs, where most injuries occur, how they occur, etc., etc., before they could even begin to develop a method to improve on the protective performance.

The outcome is the test methods that were developed to satisfy the objective (i.e., ensure a minimum safety standard is met for clothing that passes those test methods). Peer review is important as it validates that the objectives and outcomes are sound and reproducible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ikonoklass
One thing I think it's safe to presume: the Halvarsson's is too new to have been revised and re-issued as a "version 2.0," taking into account actual crash data over many years. That's the advantage Motoport has right now. I will allow that it's entirely possible that the CE standards and the Halvarsson's are everything their proponents claim them to be. I simply don't think the argument is very compelling right now. The fact that the Halvarsson's only comes in two colors, Death and Unwearable, makes me seriously question the company's judgment and commitment to motorcycling. Makinwaves, I'm still eager to hear your comparison of Halvarsson's v. Motoport.
The company has been making motorcycle clothing for 60 years and has invested considerable time and money developing a technology that has allowed them to be one of only a very few who have passed the CE standards. This is supported by the RIDE testing in 2005 that confirmed the Halvarssons technology blew away 15 other competitor's clothing. It is further supported by the numerous european police forces that have switched from their previous motorcycle gear to the Halvarssons safety gear. The jackets were not originally intended for the general consumer (they were developed for the UK police force specifically) and the high visibility jacket in particular. I suspect the success of the clothing caused Halvarssons to bring it to the general market too quickly, and with just the one colour option. If there really is a second version on the horizion, I hope it is based on adding more reflective patches and additional colour options. I agree with you that the jackets should have considerably more reflective bits, but I'd disagree that they haven't shown a considerable commitment to the motorcycle industry.

makinwaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 06:53 PM   #129
anodyne
Gnarly Adventurer
 
anodyne's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: CO
Oddometer: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by makinwaves
By the way....I'm probably the only one on this forum (in North America??) that owns both Motoport kevlar and the Halvarssons safety gear. Anybody want to know how they compare??
And .... the comparison?
anodyne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2007, 06:53 PM   #130
makinwaves
Beastly Adventurer
 
makinwaves's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Travelling in South America!
Oddometer: 1,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomD
Um, ah. You sure about that? CE standards are government approved. Like most any government process, I would think that involved industries were somewhat involved. I do not know this to be a fact, but I'd need to see some evidence to the contrary before I can accept your statements.
You're right. There was probably some representation on the committee by industry. What I probably should have said was highlighting the difference between a minority representation versus sole (100%) representation.

I work for government myself and sit on many technical committees in which industry is often represented by one or two individuals. While their views and input are reviewed and considered, the selection of standards or safety requirements are often based on science only, unless the economic repercussions are substantial. Government has a duty to set minimum standards or laws that are protective of human health and the environment regardless of industry or economics. That said, "lobbying" by industry seems to have a greater impact in the US than it does here.

This is not to say that Motoport's methods are any less rigorous or less safe, but rather there is more credibility to the CE developed standards in which industry representation would be considerably less.

Sorry if my post was misleading.
makinwaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 09:48 PM   #131
Stevevh
Kudu Driver
 
Stevevh's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas/FtWorth TX
Oddometer: 283
Interesting thread! I own both a jacket and pants made by Motoport. I have dealt directly with Wayne and so far he has been upfront and honest in his dealings. When I got my pants the butt was overly large while standing up but on the bike it was ok. However being the vain person I am, I wanted these things to look good on me AND protect me, so I called Wayne and asked his advice. I sent them back and had them altered. It cost me $50 but this is a business and I was cool with that.(Wayne has to make a living!) Now they fit great and look great. Wayne makes a great product period! Just do some research. He does very little to advertise and most of his business is by word of mouth. That in itself says a lot for his product. I don't care who certifies it, as long as it works in the real world, that is fine with me!

Steve
Stevevh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 08:13 AM   #132
vagt6
Bit the Bullet
 
vagt6's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: C'ville, VA
Oddometer: 832
Yes, the "big butt" problem with the air mesh kevlar pants. Mine have it, too. I provided Wayne with highly specific measurements of my waist and torso. So, it would seem that Cycleport intentionally designs the pants this way. Apparently, the baggy butt syndrome does not affect the safety performance of the pants.

So be it, I'm not about to spend another $50 in order to look better. After riding a couple of hundred miles in warm weather with these pants, I'm beginning to like them much more. A big plus is I can ride with shorts under the pants due to the fire-resistant fabric.

The bagginess in the seat area becomes a non-issue very quickly because these pants are SUPER comfortable. The wind blows right through the fabric. Even when sitting still, the pants remain relatively cool.

I'm sticking with the baggy butt, and the pants.
__________________
-- Mark in C'ville
vagt6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 09:07 AM   #133
Thor
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Oddometer: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by vagt6
Yes, the "big butt" problem with the air mesh kevlar pants. Mine have it, too. I provided Wayne with highly specific measurements of my waist and torso. So, it would seem that Cycleport intentionally designs the pants this way. Apparently, the baggy butt syndrome does not affect the safety performance of the pants.

So be it, I'm not about to spend another $50 in order to look better. After riding a couple of hundred miles in warm weather with these pants, I'm beginning to like them much more. A big plus is I can ride with shorts under the pants due to the fire-resistant fabric.

The bagginess in the seat area becomes a non-issue very quickly because these pants are SUPER comfortable. The wind blows right through the fabric. Even when sitting still, the pants remain relatively cool.

I'm sticking with the baggy butt, and the pants.
What am I missing here? Riding pants have a baggy butt so you don't get a terminal wedgie when you are in the riding position.

I really don't understand why there seems to be so much hatred for Motorport. They are unique, I'll give you that, but jeez!

Get some chaps everyone and STFU!
Thor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 10:26 AM   #134
vagt6
Bit the Bullet
 
vagt6's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: C'ville, VA
Oddometer: 832
Okay, everyone stop posting. Thor doesn't like it.

Just agree with Thor, and STFU.
__________________
-- Mark in C'ville
vagt6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2007, 08:16 AM   #135
ikonoklass
Kountersteering Krew
 
ikonoklass's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Oddometer: 2,601
Thumb

Thanks for the link to the Bike article.
__________________
2012 Speed Triple
2005 R1200GS
1998 FXDL
ikonoklass is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 12:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014