CE-approved clothing - master list?

[keiji]

Originally Posted by kevinj

A few things I'm curious about :

* There's a difference between having the entire jacket/pant at a certain protection level; or only the high-risk zones (back, shoulders, etc. have armor or reinforced materials). Is there any data on how important this is? In other words, in how many % of accidents does the rider suffer injury to a non-standard location? (Standard meaning: shoulders, elbows, back, hips, coccyx, knees)

* I wonder about Cordura500, which is still used in many very high-end suits ($1000-2000). Some places tout it as being this awesome protective stuff, whereas others make it seem as passe and no longer good enough. Meanwhile there's cordura 1000 and cordura 2000 out there; cordura 1000 claimed to be 5x stronger than cordura 500 and comparable to competition leather. Is it crap or not?

Web bike world has a pretty good writeup on the certification-there are 4 zones, based on likelihood of impact, each requiring different amounts of protection. The the zone least like to take an impact, zone 4, requires 1-1.5 seconds from the test, which is slightly more than what a single layer of can get you.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/r4/clover-tekno-jacket/

I personally don't mind buying non CE gear, but having been burned enough time by crap., I'd basically have to know how each panel was stitched on, and whether or not panels were stitched together (patchwork) or onto each other (2nd layer) in critical areas.

There's still a brand out there that uses genuine 500D and 2000D corudra (sounds good, right?), but only stitches it together with a double top stitch so panels come apart easily and they are asking upwards of $300USD+ for a jacket now. The seam allowances were so small on my jacket, I actually had single top stitching in a few places.

Sometimes you have to use less stitching for leather because the leather will tear if you put such a complicated seam on it. What is SUPPOSED to happen is the seam allowances are glued together, but you'll find that it doesn't happen on a lot of garments.

In my experience, cordura is good, but not magic compared to other nylons. A nylon fabric wishing to be branded as Cordura must pass a minimum requirement, but there is no way of determining how much any particular fabric mill exceeds this minimum requirement. Also, any material's strength is highly dependent on the test method, and very few garment manufacturer's will all be using the same test. Even if a test is agreed upon, it may not match up with real use!

[ranmafan]

Originally Posted by kevinj

PS Looking at the velocity gear website -

it says "tested" rather than "certified" everywhere, which seems fair. It doesn't say "certified" anywhere, afaik. In one place, I found "1ST CE GRADE GLOVE", which sounds perilously close to implying certification.

You are far too kind...

Indeed, it doesn't say "certified" anywhere. It "only" says "CE grade", "CE spec", and displays the CE mark - which already puts them into legal grey area, at best. Where it does say "tested", they fail to mention that the spec contains far more than those tests - all of which, especially the "restraint" test, I consider pretty important. It has fooled a good deal of reviewers, yet instead of briefly clarifying the situation, they keep adding to the confusion, downplaying the importance of tests they did not pass with every comment.

Speaking of reviews, WBW also mentions that Exhibition Pro was not, in fact, tested, contrary to what is said on the website.

Were it not for the above, I would welcome their efforts as much as anyone else. Now, I'm left wondering what else might they be hiding or misrepresenting. As they say, fool me once...

[ranmafan]

Originally Posted by kevinj

A few things I'm curious about :

* There's a difference between having the entire jacket/pant at a certain protection level; or only the high-risk zones (back, shoulders, etc. have armor or reinforced materials). Is there any data on how important this is? In other words, in how many % of accidents does the rider suffer injury to a non-standard location? (Standard meaning: shoulders, elbows, back, hips, coccyx, knees)

Here's one report that's publicly available:



Apparently, the statistics in the standards themselves are also pretty similar.

[MZ5]

Originally Posted by ranmafan

Nope, sorry, not a good example at all. I'm not overly informed about the details...

Nor the nature of politics and business, apparently, but I digress...
;)

[Valentino]

Whom/how do we ask to make this thread sticky?

Kevinj's given excellent reasons why it would be a valuable resource for this thread be sticky:

Originally Posted by kevinj

First of all, I want to say Thanks! to the OP. It is really a very nice service to provide us with this handy list of all certified gear. (I'm currently shopping for better gear, if you were wondering.) Furthermore, it's clear that there's a lot of confusing and/or misleading language out there, and it takes a lot of time to read all the small print and start making sense of it. Thanks for sharing the results of all that work. You've earned a bookmark on my computer :).

[Gruesome]

I inquired with BMW regarding the state of EN13595 certification of their motorcycle rider outfits. A helpful fellow from 'BMW Motorrad Direct' in Munich replied that currently nothing is certified, and that they are not planning to certify any of the current outfits to the current norm. They are though very interested in and actively involved with the update/follow-up to EN13595, and they definitely plan to offer future rider outfits certified to this future CE norm.

[ranmafan]

Originally Posted by Gruesome

I inquired with BMW regarding the state of EN13595 certification of their motorcycle rider outfits. A helpful fellow from 'BMW Motorrad Direct' in Munich replied that currently nothing is certified, and that they are not planning to certify any of the current outfits to the current norm. They are though very interested in and actively involved with the update/follow-up to EN13595, and they definitely plan to offer future rider outfits certified to this future CE norm.

That does make sense. The time and money needed to test, alter, and then relaunch/label the old suits (that were likely designed without as much as a look at those standards) is probably better spent making sure new ones are designed to spec.

Thanks for the info.

[keiji]

Originally Posted by ranmafan

That does make sense. The time and money needed to test, alter, and then relaunch/label the old suits (that were likely designed without as much as a look at those standards) is probably better spent making sure new ones are designed to spec.

Thanks for the info.

The standards have been out for 10 years! They just don't want to do it.

[ranmafan]

Originally Posted by keiji

The standards have been out for 10 years! They just don't want to do it.

Probably more like 20, if you count drafts and previous British efforts.

A brand like BMW will probably be among the last ones to test/certify their gear - unless they get a police/military contract, that is.

[velocitygear]

Originally Posted by ranmafan

You are far too kind...

Indeed, it doesn't say "certified" anywhere. It "only" says "CE grade", "CE spec", and displays the CE mark - which already puts them into legal grey area, at best. Where it does say "tested", they fail to mention that the spec contains far more than those tests - all of which, especially the "restraint" test, I consider pretty important. It has fooled a good deal of reviewers, yet instead of briefly clarifying the situation, they keep adding to the confusion, downplaying the importance of tests they did not pass with every comment.

Speaking of reviews, WBW also mentions that Exhibition Pro was not, in fact, tested, contrary to what is said on the website.

Were it not for the above, I would welcome their efforts as much as anyone else. Now, I'm left wondering what else might they be hiding or misrepresenting. As they say, fool me once...

Ranmafan- You still have yet to answer my question: Do you even know the other testing requirements within EN13594?
To say that the main 4 testing requirements AREN'T the HEART of EN13594 is laughable!
I can't imagine anyone going to this trouble to skimp on "glove restraint".
Unbelievealbe, yet you stick to Certification like it actually means anything beyond those tests.

Again, I have and can show at anytime, my CE testing data. It says on our website specifically that our gloves were tested against cut, tear, seam burst and abrasion resistance. Indeed, that makes them CE "grade".

The Webbike World review mentions our original Exhibition Pro, our current glove, as stated on our website will ABSOLUTELY pass those 4 main testing requirements.

As usual, you make assumptions. How about asking questions first?

Legal grey area? Clearly, you miss the reality in regard to Ce enforcement.

[velocitygear]

Originally Posted by keiji

The standards have been out for 10 years! They just don't want to do it.

And you have a winner! The current downgrade of EN13594 says it all!

I use to believe in CE certification and sold my motorcycle to pay for the original CE testing for my gloves. That process, showed me once again, a business that is in business to make money! While their lack of enforcement is nothing new, it should be at the forefront of any discussion in regard to what the CE label actually means!

Beyond the "tests", not a frigg'in penny! IMO

JF

[ranmafan]

Originally Posted by velocitygear

Ranmafan- You still have yet to answer my question: Do you even know the other testing requirements within EN13594?
To say that the main 4 testing requirements AREN'T the HEART of EN13594 is laughable!

...Are you asking whether I've read the page linked in the OP, essentially? Yes, I have. A glove that does not have evidence of having been tested against - and passing - all the tests in the specs is not a "CE spec" glove. I see zero room for argument here.

The Webbike World review mentions our original Exhibition Pro, our current glove, as stated on our website will ABSOLUTELY pass those 4 main testing requirements.

Hold on. Are you trying to say that:

- it WILL pass those 4 requirements, IF you send it for testing, or
- it DID pass, because you have actually sent it - the very same model that you currently call "Exhibition Pro" on the website, different from the "Exhibition Pro" that WBW reviewed - for testing?

I do hope it's the second, because the first one would make the information on your website a blatant lie.

[ranmafan]

I just randomly came across something interesting:

"EN 13595-1 Abrasion Resistance Testing of two types of Jean referenced 'Draggin' and 'Red Route'", 2008, SATRA

http://www.motosicurezza.com/sites/d...8550_final.pdf

EDIT: One AGV Sport/Gimoto suit also added to the list.
EDIT2: Also went through the (much more detailed than the website) XPD catalogue and added all CE models.

[AceRider01]

<<<< Drayko / Draggin Jeans (Australia). Note that "Draggin' Jeans" (US) is a completely different company!

• C-Evo, L1, textile.
• All Drayko jeans, L1?, textile. >>>>>>>

If you carefully read the Drayko Jeans website - only Drayko Renegade is CE approved. Drayko Drift, for example is NOT.



Pictures show Drayko Renegade is C-EVO from Draggin Jeans, but available also in black as well as the normal blue colour.


C-Evo (Draggin) & Renegade (Drayko) got the CE L1 certification because the proprietary kevlar linings are apply to the whole of the jeans and not just on impact area likes others in their product range

[ranmafan]

Originally Posted by AceRider01

If you carefully read the Drayko Jeans website - only Drayko Renegade is CE approved. Drayko Drift, for example is NOT.

Pictures show Drayko Renegade is C-EVO from Draggin Jeans, but available also in black as well as the normal blue colour.

C-Evo (Draggin) & Renegade (Drayko) got the CE L1 certification because the proprietary kevlar linings are apply to the whole of the jeans and not just on impact area likes others in their product range

This does make sense, thanks for pointing it out. Updated.

Their website is also rather vague, now that I look at it. I'm starting to wonder if they're not playing the "passed some/all abrasion tests, never tested the rest" game, too.

....Sorry for the lack of updates lately. I've a ton of stuff to go through (especially the Italian site linked above!), just haven't had the time...