Which textile jackets are CE AA-rated?

Discussion in 'Equipment' started by Valentino, Nov 21, 2019.

  1. Valentino

    Valentino Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Oddometer:
    346
    Location:
    England
    No we've a new CE standard for motorcycle clothing, can anyone help with which textile clothing achieves at least an AA rating?

    Here's what I've spotted so far:
    An 'A' rating looks nigh-on-useless, except in ultra low speed crashes. The 'AAA' rating looks tough for a non-leather jacket to achieve, although the Hi-Pro and Road jackets achieve an even higher level of protection.
    #1
  2. levain

    levain STILL Jim Williams Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Oddometer:
    10,343
    Location:
    Charlotte, Vt
    I'd be curious what it really takes to achieve AA. I was just at a big moto shop in Leeds, England. Can't remember what it was called. It was huge and had Rukka, Klim, Rev'it, Held, Bering, Spada and a bunch of cheaper low level stuff. Most everything had a AA rating, or it had no tag. Something like Rev'it Sand had a AA rating, right alongside a Klim Badlands Pro, alongside the bottom of the barrel Weise at like £150. I'm doubtful that it's anywhere near the old Level 2 standard, but would love to be educated more.
    #2
  3. Valentino

    Valentino Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Oddometer:
    346
    Location:
    England
    The original CE standard was considerably higher than the new A-rating system. Clothing that achieves the original CE Level 2 is tested to be more protective than even AAA-rated garments. The old standard still applies, so manufacturers can choose if they wish to test to the original CE Levels or the new A-ratings. The new standard is easier to achieve, so garments can be less protective and still pass.

    See: Motorcycle clothing the CE approval law explained
    #3
    levain likes this.
  4. levain

    levain STILL Jim Williams Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Oddometer:
    10,343
    Location:
    Charlotte, Vt
    Thanks for that link. Very informative. As expected, it looks like it's been dumbed down. I'll stick with my level 2 spidi ergo pro that's been faultless.
    #4
    Peanut_Buttery likes this.
  5. cblais19

    cblais19 Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Oddometer:
    3,510
    Location:
    NoVA
    The vast majority of textiles that aren’t single layer poly crap seem to be able to manage ‘AA’. I’m waiting to see one hit ‘AAA’, the only non leather I’ve seen make that are denim items with reinforcement (I have a new pair of PMJ jeans that are AAA, and I believe their jacket is as well).
    #5
  6. Peanut_Buttery

    Peanut_Buttery Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2019
    Oddometer:
    205
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    This explains the new ratings: CE testing - how the law affects the bike kit you buy.

    Obviously the law in question doesn’t apply outside Europe, but the article’s informative nonetheless.

    I gather the abrasion resistance required for the new AAA rating is 45% lower than the original CE Level 1 rating and 75% lower than the original Level 2 standard. In terms of rider protection, the new A-ratings are miles lower than the original CE standard :(
    #6
  7. cblais19

    cblais19 Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Oddometer:
    3,510
    Location:
    NoVA
    To be fair, the original specs WERE for “professional” PPE - so a level 2 cert was for high speed crashes. I do think they used to test until failure on the old regime, whereas under the new one the mfr specifies what level they want to be tested to and it stops once they get there (or it fails).

    Does concern me when I see a leather jacket fail to get certified above ‘A’ (revit’s new perf jacket -_-).
    #7
  8. Peanut_Buttery

    Peanut_Buttery Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2019
    Oddometer:
    205
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #8
  9. levain

    levain STILL Jim Williams Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Oddometer:
    10,343
    Location:
    Charlotte, Vt
    Well, if that's true, that's pretty pathetic. Politics are everywhere.
    #9
  10. cblais19

    cblais19 Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Oddometer:
    3,510
    Location:
    NoVA
    "The test involves the sample being dropped through a distance of 50mm onto a 60 grit abrasive belt moving at a speed of 8m/s (approximately 18mph). The test ends when the sample is holed - defined by a trip wire, placed underneath the test specimen, being broken. The abrasive power of the belt is assessed using two layers of a standard reference fabric and the specimen's abrasion time is corrected."

    They changed the test mechanism between the 13595 and 17092 standards as well.

    The original test WAS a higher standard from the comparisons I've been able to find, but I do think it's of benefit to the consumer that there's a wider range now. Most accidents happen sub 50mph per the data, so at least knowing that your garment should hold together there (or in the case of 'A', is only good for extremely low speed urban traffic style riding...) is of value. It's unfortunate that there seems to be little demand/push for textiles to make it to 'AAA' / basically the old level 1 - I wonder if the limited materials available under Gore's branding, and high demand at the top price end for laminated suits, is constraining this to a degree.

    @levain I forgot just how good Spidi's materials were for the Ergo - >30s of resistance to the above test in the 1&2 impact zones.
    #10
    Peanut_Buttery likes this.
  11. dragos

    dragos Master of disaster.

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,769
    Location:
    Romania
    It depends. In a strange way, I think it's a positive development.
    That is, instead of a standard that everybody ignored, now there are those 3 levels that at least offer some information and are mandatory. At least manufacturers are forced to offer some info regarding the minimum level of protection provided.
    Forcing Klim to tell us that suit has AA certification gives us more (even if not as much as we'd like) info than having no certification.
    #11
    ukAdventurer likes this.
  12. levain

    levain STILL Jim Williams Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Oddometer:
    10,343
    Location:
    Charlotte, Vt
    Yeah. I'd agree with that. Something is better than nothing for sure. It's a shame that this doesn't actually make us any safer though. More the illusion that we are.
    #12
  13. Peanut_Buttery

    Peanut_Buttery Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2019
    Oddometer:
    205
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #13
  14. cblais19

    cblais19 Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Oddometer:
    3,510
    Location:
    NoVA
    it does, but what it means is that clothing item has impact protectors. Considering ‘A’ is for crashes below 30kph (urban/scooter focused items), those are probably more important anyway. The issue is that the level’s meaning aren’t required to be disclosed.
    #14
  15. hamiamham

    hamiamham Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Oddometer:
    696
    I am guessing the answer is "NO" but does there exist somewhere a master list of what items have achieved AAA, AA, and A ratings?
    #15
  16. Peanut_Buttery

    Peanut_Buttery Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2019
    Oddometer:
    205
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Unfortunately, I’m not aware of a master list.

    I completely agree about the issue being the level’s meaning not being disclosed.

    Many of the big brands are selling A-rated textile clothing, often at expensive prices, inferring it’s highly protective and marketed to riders of big bikes.

    I’ve not seen a textile jacket from Alpinestars or Dainese with anything other than an ‘A’ rating :(

    Spidi has a textile jacket with an ‘AA’ rating, the Globetracker. But it’s the only one in its entire range of textiles.
    #16
  17. cblais19

    cblais19 Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Oddometer:
    3,510
    Location:
    NoVA
    Actually, Spidi has something like 7 or 8 textile jackets that are certified to AA now. They’re one of the few big name mfrs who actually disclose the level on their site.

    Dainese and A* don’t seem to disclose the actual level anywhere I can find, but I’m going to guess that for Dainese at least their mid range jackets can make it to at least AA as well.
    #17
  18. dragos

    dragos Master of disaster.

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,769
    Location:
    Romania
    #18
    Peanut_Buttery likes this.
  19. Peanut_Buttery

    Peanut_Buttery Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2019
    Oddometer:
    205
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I contacted Dainese to find out. Even some of their most expensive textiles are only ‘A’ rated, but they’re adapting to the new CE requirements and expect to achieve higher rating for new clothing in time. I’m guessing we’ll see some for 2020.

    Full credit to Spidi and this transparency increases trust in the brand. It’s why my last purchase was Spidi.
    #19
  20. ThrillSeeka

    ThrillSeeka Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 18, 2019
    Oddometer:
    122
    Location:
    Europa!
    How does this not make us any safer?

    The rating levels under pr-EN 17092:2018 exist as objective measures for motorcycling consumers to identify what level of tested protection they're buying. Prior to this, it has been a guess at best with motorcycling apparel.

    Consumers can now make better informed decisions. Not all consumers know that a textile jacket implementing cheap polyester at elbows with no added reinforcements is going to evaporate as soon as the elbows touch asphalt in an off at urban speeds. Yet 000,000s of riders have purchased jackets sporting such chassis setups and are riding at speeds that will only render these jackets as imprinted tattoos on their upper bodies for nurses to then have to scrub away.

    I've lost count of the amount of textile motorcycle apparel that I've seen fail catastrophically at low speeds (and unnecessarily injure riders). I'm talking of riders being road-rashed left and right at speeds between 20-40 mph wearing the expensive stuff. pr-EN 17092 now forces all European brands to unveil the objectively-tested level of protection in their apparel, which is something that a portion of brands have been proactively trying to hide away even before forums existed and people online started asking questions.

    The fact that European brands now have to state the objectively measured level of protection in their garments makes us all safer.

    Or do you think that not mandating motorcycling apparel as PPE and thus still allowing the good ol' trick of implying that a whole garment is CE-certified because, you know, the elbow pads are CE certified (under EN1621-1 and as Type A to boot) is not making consumers less safe?

    [​IMG]

    pr-EN 17092:2018 goes after tricks like the one above that put all motorcycling consumers' lives at risk. How can you state that pr-EN 17092:2018 doesn't make us safer?

    Is pr-EN 17092:2018 perfect? No, but that's why it has the "pr" preceding the EN enumeration. Will some brands still try to mess around trying to advertise their A-rated apparel as if it was AAA-rated? Probably, but, moving forward, any brand doing this will be legally liable.

    EN 13595 was a failure because it made garments too cumbersome and/or too expensive to sell, or that was the excuse from manufacturers (even though cheap Level-1 apparel has been made).

    What made EN13595 fail was the refusal of brands to certify their garments and the fact that it was optional and not mandatory. With pr-EN 17092:2018, a range of ratings exist that allow for the certifying of light-wearing, cheap-to-make apparel; this being an added incentive for brands to certify their gear, even if it's just to flaunt how their whole lineup is CE certified (which I've already seen some brands flaunt). Lest we forget how certifying is mandatory moving forward if wanting to sell motorcycling garments as being protective; that itself is a strong incentive.

    pr-EN 17092:2018 isn't something that some lazy bureaucrats who cannot even tell a motorcycle from a bicycle put together in a 30-minute meeting while playing ping pong on the meeting table and drinking Margaritas. Far from it. EN standards are well known for being very meticulous in their research and testing methodology.

    Is the protection offered by the rating levels lower than the preceding EN13595 standard? Yes. But the big brands have been notorious for refusing to make Level 2 apparel anyway. Also, the level of rider protection certified within the AAA rating is absolutely nothing to sniff at.

    One more thing: mopeds and scooters are extremely popular in the EU and part of pr-EN 17092:2018 is to get these riders suited up since most crashes occur below 50 mph and everyone and their dog in the EU knows someone missing a good amount of skin from having crashed riding a moped. This fact is something that seems to go unnoticed by those criticizing pr-EN 17092:2018.

    pr-EN 17092:2018 also tests ergonomics which thus optimize rider protection. How many people do you know riding with jackets and pants that fit so badly that the armored pads factually pose as sources of friction burns in an off?

    The only riders who would not feel safer by pr-EN 17092:2018 (or more like not give a damn about it) are those who are willing to pay the big bucks for a top-end racing leather suit and thus could not care less if the suit is rated AAA or not since crashing speeds wearing those suits surpass AAA testing and those same suits are known to come out from a 130 mph like new.

    Do you actually feel the same way about EN 1621-1:2012 & EN 1621-2:2014 as you do about pr-EN 17092:2018?

    How about the fact that now EN 1621-3:2018 is now a finalized CE standard instead of provisional? You don't think that this moving in the right direction to improve the industry and products available to motorcycling consumers?


    Again, pr-EN 17092:2018 is meant to include moped/scooter riders, who make a huge % of motorcycle riders in Europe, unlike the USA. That's one of the reasons for the different ratings and levels of protection.

    An A-rated motorcycle jacket is a cheap, reliable, easy-to-wear solution for the millions riding in urban traffic every day in Europe. Most moped riders run away from anything leather, unless it's fashion leather with seam strength as if glued with spit.


    I've started compiling a list. It hasn't been an easy task for various reasons. But you'd be surprised to know the amount of unknown brands that are taking pr-EN 17092:2018 very seriously. Ditto for EN 13594:2015 (which is optional, unlike pr-EN 17092:2018).

    I for one welcome pr-EN 17092:2018 and deem it a step in the right direction.
    #20
    flexiflyer, GotFog, MCole and 2 others like this.