Whoa, let's back the truck up here.
First: Your statement about what should be considered "protective clothing" is not to be considered valid anywhere in the world other than in countries which are members of the European Union.
From Aerostich's web site:
'CE Approved' Labels?
CE impact standards involve both energy absorption capability and pad shape and size. Aerostich TF2 pads do not match these European standards because of their shapes, not their energy absorption capabilities. In hard-shelled areas, TF2 armor tested significantly better than most other CE approved armor. Around the softer edges, it tests lower. TF2 armor was tested at a CE lab in England and using a duplicate of the test apparatus here. TF2 pads were developed (years before CE standards existed) to provide effective protection when fitted into the oversuit designs of Roadcrafters and Dariens. Because of this, TF2 pads allow comfort with various combinations of street clothing better than CE shapes. Roadcrafter suits were the first riders garments to use removable armor pad systems,and to use an advanced energy absorbing material like TF2. When we introduced TF2 armor, all protective garments, including road racing suits, featured sewn-in paddings made from felt, foam rubber or other less effective materials.
Legal Notice: These garments are not considered to be personal protective equipment as defined in, or within the scope of, the personal protective equipment (EC Directive) regulations 1992 (S.I.1992/3139). No liability will be accepted arising out of these garments? non-compliance with such regulations.
I do not have access to Andy Goldfine's NTSB comments, so all I have is what they say on their Web site, which is that their suits (well, the armor in their suits) were tested, but they do not comply with the only independent standard for motorcycle protective clothing there is. Okay, maybe the Aerostich TF2 pad is actually better than the CE standard, but where is the independent evidence for this--and it places Aerostich in the fine company of various fly-by-nights like Bohn.
My first Roadcrafter suit (ca. 1992) didn't come with "TF2" pads; it came with "Temperfoam" pads and no hard shells. It was very comfy, a little bulky and was definitely affected by temperature changes. I think somewhere along the line Aerostich realised that somebody else owned that trademark, so they changed to TF2. Now there are several different TFs, but nary a Temperfoam in sight...
By they way, the Aerostich blurb is a little misleading, in that it suggests that CE-marked armor is uncomfortable. Bollocks, the Hein Gericke Hiprotect armor with which I replaced the TF2 pads in my 'Stich is MORE comfortable than TF2, less bulky and doesn't become stiff when it gets cold. Moreover, dozens of other manufacturers have managed to incorporate CE-marked armor in their garments without sacrificing "comfort", so that's hardly an excuse.
Second: Standards are wonderful, but they're not the be-all and end-all. Kudos to the Europeans for having standards for protective clothing, but who wrote them? Do they do anything to force manufacturers to improve the state of the art as time goes on, or do they simply codify the performance of existing gear at the time they were written? Or, worse, were they simply put in place as a way to protect in-market manufacturers from cheap imports? The argument that a standard is good merely because it exists doesn't fly with me, because there are plenty out there that are meaningless. I have very high confidence that the curved, yellow fruit I ate with breakfast this morning was indeed a banana, whether or not EU regulation 2257/94 says my grocer can call it that.
All very valid criticism of international standards...
What Aerostich has going for it is 20+ years of experience with the performance of its products in real-world crashes and the many product improvement cycles that go along with it. I much prefer that to having some government bureaucrat dictate a standard that manufacturers will slavishly adhere to whether it's good or not. They're quite clearly selling a lot of suits here in the U.S. Popularity is not necessarily an indicator of how good a product is, but people who are serious enough about the sport to plunk down $800 for one aren't going to keep doing so for more than two decades if they don't perform.
...but not this. :noway CE standards were not "dictated by government bureaucrats". They may not be perfect (witness the robust debate between Snell and DOT, for an example of legitimate dispute regarding the appropriateness of different standards), but they are hardly arbitrary, as you imply. Moreover, Aerostich may be popular among a certain, fashion-challenged segment of the American motorcycling population (and I count myself among these), but the "real-world" experience of recreational AND racing suit manufacturers throughout the world since at least the 1970s has been brought into the design and manufacture of many, many thousands of CE-marked garments. If it's experience that counts, clearly the CE-marked brigade has it over tiny, Minnesota-based Aerostich!
Third: Aerostich has bothered to test its TF2 material against the EC standard. It passes on impact protection, doing as well as or better than a number of brands bearing the EC mark. (Andy Goldfine's comments to the NTSB last year has a summary with rough numbers. Write the company and ask for a copy.) Where it fails was not meeting the EC's shape standard, which Goldfine theorizes was developed with tight-fitting racing suits in mind. I think there was also an explanation in his statement about why they use the disclaimer.
Thanks, I did not know that they had claimed to have had TF2 armor tested. (I found the quote above later.) I think what Aerostich means regarding the "shape standard" is not that protective pads have to be a certain shape (like the infamous UE-approved banana...), but that, because Aerostich's pad design includes extra "floppy bits" that don't meet the CE standard, not 100% of the pad passes the test, but that the main part of it does meet the standard. In other words, if they cut off the foam around the hard shell and sent just what's left in for testing, they'd have passed, but then the pad wouldn't stay put in the suit. I can see their predicament--changing a proven design just to meet a standard that doesn't actually apply to the vast bulk of their production makes no sense, but not doing so does require them to defend themselves against competitors whose designs are compatible with the standard. (And against professional skeptics like me...
I chose comfort, practicality AND a proven, independent safety standard for the Roadcrafter suit I use every day on my commute to and from work. But, I had to swap armor to get all of those things. (FYI, the Hiprotect armor fits almost perfectly into the suit--I think I had to trim a bit off of one set, but I made no mods to the suit at all.)
However, there is a different CE standard for "back protectors", which is, after all, what you're after. And, I should point out, neither of the Aerostich "back pads" incorporates a "hard shell" (as far as I can tell from their description on the Web site), which was the only part of the TF2 pads that passed the other CE standard. Aerostich markets the "Competition Back Pad" as state-of-the-art ("competition-grade", "first developed for pro-race applications", "very high levels of impact energy dissipation", etc.) but doesn't explain why it did/didn't/couldn't have passed the CE back protector standard--what's their excuse this time, one wonders?
Well, at least you didn't get the Bohn!
Ciao,