|
Glad it sparked some interest and thanks for the kind comments Mr Gazza!
Pedro - sure any armour is good stuff - they have to pass the CE tests if they are claiming to be anything other than "comfort foam". You should be able to see what level they are from labels/stamping on the armour and whether they've also passed the (optional) hot and cold tests. I kept my considerations to a few well known specialist aftermarket suppliers with big ranges to make it manageable, but certainly Dainese and Alpinestars are also well known and well respected makers so if you're happy with and like this armour it will certainly offer good protection. Got Dainese armour in one of girlfriends old jackets that came with it fitted and seems good stuff, so never felt need to swap it. Though she's using another jacket these days.
The hard shell armour/soft armour debate is a tricky one and one I've pondered over the years too. Difficult to get any definitive reliable information on it, so I just go with the CE standard these days and leave hard/soft to personal choice. I had Vanson's GP hard shell armour (not CE rated - its US) in my vanson jacket when I crashed at silverstone at high speed with no injuries, so, albeit that is a sample size of one, it worked for me on that crash. It's true hard armour may offer some penetration protection benefits, but apparently penetration is rarely an issue in real life crashes. Hard armour may also offer a tad bit more abrasion resistance if outer clothing layers wear through... but I've also heard hard armour can create abrasion wear hot spots in a crash meaning outer protective material wears through faster than with soft armour. In my Silverstone crash it was notable I wore through two very thick layers of (very thick) vanson competition weight leather on my shoulder where the armour was, which (again sample size of 1) would seem to support this. Kit with external plastic or metal sliders on shoulders/elbows/knees, as now seen on many modern leather suits, is designed to help with this and also help sliding rather than gripping and tumbling in a crash. But maybe most relevant on a racetrack with high speeds, long slides and plenty of run-off. The spreading the impact idea can have merits (though apparently armour is mostly about spreading the impact absorption out over time rather than area). But interestingly the most recently developed CE standard (specifically for chest protectors) has a specific test about 'force distribution' to get level 2 certification, though I confess I've not looked into this as not (yet) in the market for a chest protector. There can also apparently sometimes be concerns about the hard shell edges causing injury in some crash dynamics and some find that comfort with hard shells is an issue (though it never bothered me). Some soft shell armour claims that on impact it hardens up giving best of both worlds... one last point I've heard is that (limited) articulating hard shell back protectors may offer some protection from hyper-extension injuries by limiting the range of back motion in a crash... so plenty of pros and cons to consider but difficult to reach definitive view based on reliable objective evidence of which is 'best'... must say if I was an off-road rally raid type rider (I wish!) who might be landing on jagged rocks etc I might prefer hard shell armour for the penetration protection especially for the back... but in the end it comes down to a not very scientific personal preference decision. Whatever you decide, if it's CE it's good and certainly better than no armour....
Cont/
|