|
I looked at performance, coverage, shape, thickness, weight, flexibility, beathability and cost of four popular armour manufacturers - Knox, SAS-tec, D3O and Forcefield.
On performance there are two levels under the CE standard level 1 and the higher protection level 2. All kit has to be tested at ambient temperature (23C) plus in wet conditions. Optionally kit can also be tested in hot and cold temperatures as well. For limb armour CE level 1 force transmitted in the test needs to be below 35 kN. For level 2 it has to be below 20kN (lower score = better protection). For back protectors the standards are tougher. Level 1 must be below 18kN and level 2 below 9kN. Chest protectors have another separate standard needing less than 18kN for level 1 and under 15kN in a force distribution test for level 2. I wanted max protection so was looking at level 2 only and the lower the scores the better within that. Not looking for a chest protector at the moment (but maybe I should, given injury stats...). Bonus points for armour being tested and passing in hot and cold conditions too.
Coverage and shape can vary quite a bit, obviously armour is only any good in a crash if it gets between you and whatever you hit. Some have pretty limited size/coverage or shapes that don't cover key areas as well as others. But on the other hand larger coverage can increase weight/bulk and increased potential for less comfort so it's a trade off. A lot of kit has armour pockets so the size has to fit these. My kit is velcro attached so I can fit larger sized/differently shaped stuff and adjust positioning too. I wanted good/max coverage using the size of my existing armour as a starting point. If your kit has armour pockets your choice will obviously be limited to armour fitting the pockets.
Thickness varies. The thicker the armour is in general the more protection it offers, though some materials give the same performance with less thickness than others. To reach level 2 limb armour you're looking at at least 12mm thick (eg Forcefield), 18mm for back protectors (e.g. Forcefield, D3O). Though many materials/manufacturers need thicker material to reach the level 2 standard and/or use much thicker armour to get a really good pass with better protection. For instance, an extreme example from SAS-tec who have a heavy duty (model SC1/42 prestige) knee/elbow armour option transmitting just 8.5kN, less than half the max 20kN force to get a level 2 pass for limb armour, but at the cost of having 18mm thickness. Thinner = less weight/bulk/more comfort in general, so all else equal thinner is better (and of course it has to physically fit in your kit). But if you want extra protection, have the space and don't mind the bulk/weight/comfort issues, then thicker may suit you. It's also good for armour to fit snugly so it stays put in a crash, so thicker armour might be a good option in looser fitting kit.
Weight depends on the material, thickness and coverage. But some pieces are surprisingly light despite offering more coverage than other heavier pieces. Less weight is obviously better for comfort but if well integrated into your kit maybe not such an issue once wearing it and sat on the bike... so weight not a deal breaker for me but lighter is better all else being equal.
Flexibility helps with comfort/moving around, but how important it is depends on position of the armour/shape and personal choice. My existing armour was reasonably soft but still fairly rigid and I got on with it fine (your mileage may vary), but if newer stuff was more flexible than what I had already then that can only be good for extra comfort, particularly for knees given flex there/walking around.
Cont/
|