Back protectors?

[dodgyguy]

Hey Guys,

I'm sure this has been covered, but I'm looking at getting a back protector to fit under my leathers.

Any advice on what i could be looking for? Are the foam ones any good?

Cheers

DG

[Milts]

For maximum convinience but minimum protection you can get an insert for your jacket, something along the lines of this:

http://www.motomail.co.nz/estore/style/rvarbktp2.aspx

http://www.motomail.co.nz/estore/sty...biwarrior.aspx

For best protection you want a name brand fully sepearte back protecter. There are a range to choose from. They all offer good protection, some perhaps a bit more than others, some are more comfortable and some cover more of your back. You want at least a level 2 EU certified one. I own a forcefield one purely because it was going cheap; my father owns a knox aegis and personally I would recommend those, they cover nearly all of your back,are very comfortable and have a high level of protection. Quasi can sort you out with one of those.

Some links to consider:

http://qmoto.co.nz/gear-shop/knox/up...category_id=12

http://www.motomail.co.nz/estore/style/asbiobprot.aspx
http://www.motomail.co.nz/estore/style/spbacksz116.aspx

Try doing a search within this forum for 'back protector', as you said it's been well discussed before. Some threads you might want to look at include

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...back+protector

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...back+protector

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...back+protector

[Quasievil]

Go Knox mate, most of them are to damn short and dont cover the lower part of you back.
I have knox on the website, I also have a 8 plate AEGIS I can sell you at a good price.
If interested you will need to text me if not today as im overseas from tomorrow for a week k
0275 430329

[p.dath]

Hey Guys,

I'm sure this has been covered, but I'm looking at getting a back protector to fit under my leathers.

Any advice on what i could be looking for? Are the foam ones any good?

Cheers

DG

The foam ones are useless. Often there to only keep the jacket shape.

Back protectors serve two functions - impact protection against hitting something, and abrasion resistance against a slide on your back.

The back protector should cover your lower tail bone. If it doesn't then you risk it being rubbed off during a slide.
The straps that go around your "front" should ideally go more around your hips then where your internal organs are located.

[Maha]

From the 'I Did Not Know That' Files...

A little-known piece of trivia is that Barry Sheene invented the motorcycle back protector, with a prototype model he made himself out of old helmet visors, arranged so they could curve in one direction, but not the other. Sheene gave the prototype along with all rights to the Italian company Dainese - they and other companies have manufactured back protectors since then.

[Urano]

Back protectors serve two functions - impact protection against hitting something, and abrasion resistance against a slide on your back.

nope.
bp serve ONLY as protection against hitting objects (and there is also another truth about it actually, but i'd never suggest to not wear a bp anyway...)
abrasion resistance is demanded to the CERTIFIED JACKET that you should wear over it.
there's no abrasion testing on 1621-2, which is instead in 13595.
13595-2 precisely.

The straps that go around your "front" should ideally go more around your hips then where your internal organs are located.

do not agree.
around your hips you should have your hips protectors.
the bp strap has to be at your navel's level.

From the 'I Did Not Know That' Files...

A little-known piece of trivia is that Barry Sheene invented the motorcycle back protector, with a prototype model he made himself out of old helmet visors, arranged so they could curve in one direction, but not the other. Sheene gave the prototype along with all rights to the Italian company Dainese - they and other companies have manufactured back protectors since then.

this is an invented story (or maybe "not a completely true story") put around by the huge dainese's marketing power.
it seems actually that bp were invented in 1972 by "speedmode", a little enterprise based in padova.
here the clue, in italian... http://motosicurezza.com/?q=blog%2Fu...iena-veramente

[DEATH_INC.]

nope.
bp serve ONLY as protection against hitting objects

A good well designed protector will also help to stop you from overextending your back the wrong way. The plates should all lock together and make 1 solid spine when you try to do this.

[Urano]

A good well designed protector will also help to stop you from overextending your back the wrong way. The plates should all lock together and make 1 solid spine when you try to do this.

sure. and a very good well designed could also make you a relaxing shatzu massage.

the point is: protection from overextending your back is not contemplated into the certification process.
there are regulation on the extension of protected area, comfort (as it should not limit your movements) and residual forces on hitting.

does it make something else? good.
can you know it for sure? nope.

is there any possibility that a 2-3 cm pad on your back could offer some resistance on the overextending back of a 75-80 kg men throw on a pole? my opinion? not so many...
look at a neck protector, look at the principle that uses to work, and you'll understand my doubts about the possibility that a bp could work the same way...

[Maha]

this is an invented story (or maybe "not a completely true story") put around by the huge dainese's marketing power.
it seems actually that bp were invented in 1972 by "speedmode", a little enterprise based in padova.
here the clue, in italian... http://motosicurezza.com/?q=blog%2Fu...iena-veramente

I dont read Italian...but I believe also that Sheene was responsable for bringing colour into the the racing arena (leather wise) and played a big part in the improvement of safety at some of the worlds leading tracks.
He was fluent in 7 languages, probably one of them was Italian.

[DEATH_INC.]

google translator sez:

We have already discussed here, a year and a half ago, that it was common place (supported by the company itself and other periodicals), indicate the first as a back protector built in 1987 by Dainese. But already by visiting the website of Knox, as we wrote previously, we find that in 1982 the same product had a back protector.

In addition there is evidence indicating, including that of our User GINOX, which was the first back protector built in 1972 by company Speedmode.

At trade shows and talking with representatives of various companies, however, was that the objection came back protector Dainese back protector was the first modern and not the usual "piece of cardboard" as before.

At the end of April we went to Northern Italy to test the back protector and talk about the future of standards in an accredited laboratory (a short article on our visit) and by the way we visited a company where the first back protector is guarded. The back protector was built in Padua in 1972 by Mr. Bettella Speedmode Company (at that time was on the verge of Dainese start business). It was a back protector, though not modern text, certainly conceptually modern hard outer layer of polypropylene, a soft double layer of different density (Sky and polyethylene foam), with velcro straps and lower back, kidneys and covered holes for ventilation. Surely it was not a "piece of cardboard", but a real back protector studied. And beyond this future (since then) patents and registrations.

[p.dath]

nope.
bp serve ONLY as protection against hitting objects (and there is also another truth about it actually, but i'd never suggest to not wear a bp anyway...)
abrasion resistance is demanded to the CERTIFIED JACKET that you should wear over it.
there's no abrasion testing on 1621-2, which is instead in 13595.
13595-2 precisely.

That is interesting. Once of the reasons mentioned for wearing a back protector at AMCC ART days is in case a two piece separates exposing the back on the track, and that a back protector would limit the damage.

While I guess it would provide more protection than a simple exposed back, it seems that it may not provide much protection since they are not designed to resist abrasion.

[Quasievil]

nope.
bp serve ONLY as protection against hitting objects (and there is also another truth about it actually, but i'd never suggest to not wear a bp anyway...)
abrasion resistance is demanded to the CERTIFIED JACKET that you should wear over it.

You some kind of certification junkie dude, of course a BP will offer a level of abrasion protection, you dont need a Paid endorsement for everything do you?

[Urano]

You some kind of certification junkie dude, of course a BP will offer a level of abrasion protection, you dont need a Paid endorsement for everything do you?

oh man...
of course a bp will offer a level of abrasion protection, and so it will my missus' pantyhose.
is it a level of protection somehow valuable? maybe is exactly the same of a pantyhose because the epoxygum will melt while sliding on the road...
who knows?

am i a certification junkie?
no.
and actually i don't give a shit about certification for itself, also because i don't have any personal or professional interest in the matter.

the only thing that annoys me is the relative inaccurate (not to say "false") communication habit of an industry that tries to sell something making everybody believe that is something else.
90% of motorcycle gear is sold as "protective" because it has certified impact protection only. legally (as for ECE) it is not permitted to call such a thing "protective".
and, simply, i believe that if you look for a strawberry icecream and i knock at your door with a chocolate ice cream with a strawberry on it, you would be a little perplexed, even if i try to convince you that it tastes the same...

so, why should i pay for something sold as "protective" which protective is not, provided with impact protection only and with "superior characteristics" and "first choice materials" (which mean nothing), and then discover on my skin that the first choice material was sure the panel, but not the stitching and that it opened like a zip on the tarmac?

so, let's keep it simple and clear.
bp are thought and built to protect from impact. full stop. (and if you want me to be *completely* honest, the technical board at the base of all those regulations and mountains of paper says that bps are pretty useless... but, as said, i'd never suggest not to use one anyway)
there are other stuff thought and built to protect form abrasion.

don't use spoon to cut beef...

[p.dath]

Just been reading up on back protectors. What a minefield of opposing information. Have read of this article - it's very interesting:
http://forum.motorcycle-usa.com/defa...?f=32&m=101300

[Urano]

Just been reading up on back protectors. What a minefield of opposing information. Have read of this article

pretty fair and informed article, although a little dated...

Only a few motorcyclists receive a direct blow to the spine causing serious injury; more spine injuries are probably due to direct blows to the shoulders and hips. The products commonly known as motorcyclists back protectors, if correctly designed and constructed may alleviate some minor direct impacts on the back, but will not prevent skeletal or neurological injuries to the spine in motorcycle accidents.

this is actually a line exactly copied from the author of cen 162 wg 9 technical base research, doc. Woods from cambridge university research facility.


as you've seen, you'd find anything and its contrary on the net.
when in doubt, always go to the base of informations:
http://live.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp1.html

uh, by the way:
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload...tor%20test.pdf


a little outdated too... but always interesting...