Biking gear performance testing?

Looking at some of the gear that was for sale as "Biking" gear at the Manchester bike show, some of the designers should have been embarrased to call them such.

I looked at a lot of gloves that wouldn't have offered a knats chuff worth of protection should you have an off. And most of these were dressed up as "race" gloves.

Likewise, some of the suits on offer were made of leather that was so weak, you could stretch it to just below breaking point. They had panels on the hips with a single layer between two stich lines that would have lasted about as long as a camera flash once they hit the hard stuff.

Or in other words, not fit for purpose.

All items come under the trades descriptions act but the gear I looked at wasn't fit for purpose. Its only my experience of sliding down the road and track that lets me know what to look for in a suit, boots or gloves. For someone who's yet to experience the very unpleasant event, they would have no idea and wouldn't find out that it wasn't fit for purpose until half of their thigh had been shreaded or their palm was missing and had been replaced with bone and gravel.

Steel toe capped boots and other Personal protection clothing (acid suits, eye guards, butchers gloves breathing apperatus, bike helmets) all have to pass a BS kite mark safetly test.

Isn't it about time there was a testing scheme for biking gear as it also come under the same banner?

A 5 second test against a grinding wheel would do for gloves to check for seams lasting and leather quality. A pull test on leather seams or again, a period on a grinding wheel on stressed areas for suits.

Maybe a manequin in a suit thrown into a drum with a representative rough surface with the drum rotating at the representative road speed. (I think I'll patent that )

I'd really like to see a performance rating for the gear I'm buying.

What do you think?

Carl

i know what you mean about seeing some shoddy gear out there, and sometime expensive shoddy gear!

Good idea on the testing, could mean that prices may go up but you cant put a price on your skin!

Was it not very well branded items? and where they cheap as chips?

If so i guess its best to stick to the bigger names who have earnt their reputaion!

Ride Magazine do tests on gear, might be worth looking up there results.

agreed. being new to biking i am astounded at how poor even the "quality" makes of kit are.

I would have thourgth that it would have had a lot better quality control.

We don't need more legislation. You can use your head to decide. Don't write off the mental capacity of everyone else. (I appreciate it was well meaning )

I certainly wasn't writing off anyone's mental capacity At least I hope I wasn't. One can only base one's judgement on experience and knowledge. If one doesn't have that then one is open to being sold something that's not going to perform. (didn't want to use "you" and personalise it.) How is the average beginner supposed to know a decent set of gloves from a carp set of gloves until he's sliding down the road and rapidly losing skin?

I'm struggling to see how legislation that means what you buy does the job it is sold to do, isn't wanted. it only improves the protection that the gear offers you.

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that we are all forced to wear protective clothing on a bike. Only that if something is sold to stop you losing body parts, then it does stop you losing body parts.

Like the ACU gold standard for all gear.

Cheers,
Carl

There are performance standards for motorcycle clothing, and another one for boots, and obviously the current ECE22-05 standard for helmets.

The European Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Directive of 1989 requires that "any clothing or personal equipment sold as providing protection from injury must comply with the relevant European Standard". Personal protective equipment is defined as "are unique products as far as the user buying it buys protection encountered at home, work and leisure".
Proof of compliance requires the gear to be independently tested and certified. The manufacturer is then issued with a CE (Conformité Européene or European Conformity) label which indicates that the item conforms to the relevant European or ECE standard.
The item must carry a permanently attached CE label with the number of the Standard. For example, boots are labeled CE EN 13634 and jackets, pants and suits are labeled CE EN 13595. Back protectors are CE EN 1621 (Note: -1 and -2 levels are now available).

The key thing is that the average motorcycle jacket or trousers is never sold as being 'protective'. To use that word would mean they need CE approval or they fall foul of the Sale of Goods Act. Only certain manufacturers make CE approved leathers, and only one that I know of make a CE approved textile suit. Oxtar/TCS make all their boots to comply with CE approval, which is why I wear those and also own two sets of CE approved MJK leathers.


This sort of thing was my bread and butter for a few years

Thanks Lozzo.

So the padding in the clothing is certified (shoulders, back, knees, forearms etc.) but the ability of the clothing to keep the padding useful, is not?

It's only the padding thats covered. I'm amazed the leather itself isn't covered. Otherwise, why use leather?

And nothing about gloves? If they have any kind of protection (knucke guards?) on them means they should be covered. But I can't find any CE marks on any of mine!

C

Originally Posted by Berlin

I'm struggling to see how legislation that means what you buy does the job it is sold to do, isn't wanted. it only improves the protection that the gear offers you.

Because it pushes the price up, and makes people make protective clothing to pass tests, not to protect. I don't think that people need experience in falling off to know just how damaging it is.

Thanks to Lozzo's link. I've found the sections that pertain to motorcycle clothing

Gloves:
EN 13594:2002
Protective gloves for professional motorcycle riders

— Requirements
and test methods

Leathers:

EN 13595-1:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders

— Jackets,

trousers and one piece or divided suits

— Part 1: General
requirements

and:

EN 13595-2:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders

— Jackets,

trousers and one-piece or divided suits

— Part 2: Test method for
determination of impact abrasion resistance

and:

EN 13595-3:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders

— Jackets,

trousers and one-piece or divided suits

— Part 3: Test method for
determination of burst strength

And:

EN 13595-4:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders

— Jackets,

trousers and one-piece or divided suits

— Part 4: Test method for
determination of impact cut resistance

Boots:

EN 13634:2002

Protective footwear for professional motorcycle riders

— Requirements
and test methods

So there you go! It turns out they are covered! I've learnt something new there!

Unfortunately I can't track down what the tests actually are because they cost £52 each for the standards!

Has your gear got the relevent CE markeings on them?

Cheers,
Carl