Armor Aerostich Back Armor

Blrfl

Natural Rider Enhancement
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
5,689
Age
55
Location
Northern Virginia
Bike
Fast Blue One
STOC #
4837
I'm just about to pull the trigger on a one-piece Roadcrafter and want to add hip and back armor. The hip armor will be the Aerostich TF3 pads, but it looks like I have a lot of choices for back armor:

Aerostich Standard - Not a lot of coverage compared to the others, but doesn't look like it will interfere with ventilation.

Aerostich Competition - Better coverage; not too sure about comfort since Aerostich stresses that it's not really meant for that.

Bohn 7-Plate for Aerostich - Looks like it would stop a Sherman tank. Does block the vents, but Bohn's web site has a tip for fixing that problem. Size looks reasonable enough.

The difference in price doesn't factor into this; I want something that integrates with the suit, will be effective and still comfortable enough to wear on a daily basis.

Does anyone who's owned any of these pads have any thoughts on them?

ETA: I'm also going to look at the TPro Forcefield jacket upgrade.

--Mark
 
Last edited:

nm6r

Blue is faster!!!
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,338
Location
NM
We opted for the Standard. You can feel it there but it isn't uncomfortable.

Ray
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Sauk Rapids, MN
Bike
05 ST1300
STOC #
6765
I have the standard. I like the fit of the jacket better with it in. No interfierance with ventalation.
I don't have the hip pads so I can't give you much info on that.
I have both suits Roadcrafter and Darien. If you have any questions let me know.
 

JZH

International Bodger
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
430
Location
London, UK/So.Cal.,USA
No, no and NO!

Neither of the Aerostich "suit accessories" are to be considered "protective clothing", apparently because Aerostich have not bothered to have their protective properties tested to any standard. (Actually, I think there may be really only one standard for such things in existence, the European "CE" standard.) If you look at the instructions Aerostich has posted on their Web site, you will see the disclaimer where they state this.

As for Bohn, I own one and will no longer wear it, since I learned about how it was designed and manufactured. Sure, it might help, but then so might a bunch of smashed-up cola cans stuffed into the lining of your suit. If you're concerned enough about your personal safety to be considering the purchase of a back protector, it should be worth your while to find out what has been tested and therefore most likely to actually protect you in the unfortunate event that you need it. :eek::

The "protectors" you have listed are definitely convenient, because they strap into your suit and you don't have to think about them, but their protective qualities are definitely suspect, simply because neither of their manufacturers have stepped up to the plate and submitted their products for independent testing. (Or maybe they have, and they didn't pass? :eek:) In the EU, where Aerostich products are sold (barely), manufacturers are not allowed to claim their products have "protective qualities" unless this has been intependently tested to an applicable standard. This is no doubt why Aerostich has disclaimed any such qualities for its products. Bohn probably wouldn't be allowed to be sold in Europe, for other reasons...

There is a lot of information re back protectors in this thread. (I warned you!)

Ciao,
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
130
Age
46
Location
Goleta, CA
STOC #
7074
T-Pro Forcefield

I have the T-Pro Forcefield (Joe Rocket branded) CE rated back protector and Forcefield shorts.

T-Pro armor is amazing. It's comfortable, more flexible than most CE armor, vents well and feels like it would make a difference in a get-off.

Hip and shoulder armor is more crucial to prevent back injuries though.

JZH,

Look up T-Pro Forcefield protectors. From thir site, "All Forcefield products have been independently assessed and conform to the requirements of the EU Personal Protective Equipment Directive 89/686/EEC."
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Blrfl

Blrfl

Natural Rider Enhancement
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
5,689
Age
55
Location
Northern Virginia
Bike
Fast Blue One
STOC #
4837
Neither of the Aerostich "suit accessories" are to be considered "protective clothing", apparently because Aerostich have not bothered to have their protective properties tested to any standard. (Actually, I think there may be really only one standard for such things in existence, the European "CE" standard.) If you look at the instructions Aerostich has posted on their Web site, you will see the disclaimer where they state this.
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.

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.

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.

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.

:bigpop:


In any case, my 'Stich has been ordered with TF2 in the usual places plus the hips and no back armor. I'm going to continue shopping for back armor after I have the suit in hand and get a feel for where the Velcro for the back armor is and how well products not designed specifically for it will integrate. I suit up and strip down three times in an average weekday, and I'd much rather have convenient, comfortable, slightly-less-protective armor on than have something uncomfortable and inconvenient with CE stamped all over it protecting my closet.

I promise that if I try to sell it in Europe, I'll refer to it as a "curved yellow suit."

--Mark
 
Last edited:

JZH

International Bodger
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
430
Location
London, UK/So.Cal.,USA
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. :eek:

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... :p:)

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? :shrug2:

Well, at least you didn't get the Bohn! :D

Ciao,
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
16
Location
Drexel, NC
Bike
05 ST1300A
STOC #
6805
I have the Aerostich Jacket and standard back armor. The back armor is a little too long for me and makes the jacket push up on the back of my Shoei helmut.

Scott
 
OP
OP
Blrfl

Blrfl

Natural Rider Enhancement
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
5,689
Age
55
Location
Northern Virginia
Bike
Fast Blue One
STOC #
4837
I do not have access to Andy Goldfine's NTSB comments...
I found a copy, so now you do. (Attached.) I read the whole thing again and will say that while Goldfine is clearly looking out for his company's interests, he does make a number of valid points. Also note that the figures he presents are less than scientific, but if they tested competing equipment using the same method, they're all going to be subject to the same set of biases.

...they do not comply with the only independent standard for motorcycle protective clothing there is.
I've watched a number of standards make their way through ANSI (which, by the way is a non-governmental standards body) and the ISO, and committee members and delegates are routinely influenced by the interests of businesses. Unless the EU is funding full-time R&D for the people who sit on the standards-setting committees, those people are going to come from the industries making the products governed by the standards. They are, after all, the ones with the most knowledge of the subject matter, but I'd question their independence.

The European process makes headway in the right direction, but there are two areas where it falls short.

The first is that it lacks a chain of trust. If I'm standing in a shop with a piece of gear in my hand, there is no way that I know of to ask the EU if they can vouch for that product's certification. (There may be one, I don't honestly know, and I wouldn't expect the EU to expend its time and money fielding inquiries from someone not in a member country.) One way to solve that problem is to put a certification number on every product and have a web site where consumers can put that number in and see if it matches the product they're interested in buying. Now, marketing products with phony CE marks is illegal in Europe, but let's face it: the process involves people, and you can bet your boots it happens.

Okay, maybe the Aerostich TF2 pad is actually better than the CE standard, but where is the independent evidence for this...
It doesn't exist. If Aerostich were to apply for and get CE certification for TF2, all we know is that it does better than the standard of 50 kN transmitted after a 50 Joule impact. That's where the EU's second problem crops up: they don't disclose the test results, so other than the pass/fail, we have no idea how, say, Hiprotec stacks up against TPro. We have Goldfine's numbers, but they're anything but independent, and I doubt the entire industry would get together for a published bake-off. If the EU were to publish the certification test data in a way that was easy to get at, there'd be armed revolt by all of the certified manufacturers except the one that scored the best.

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.
The last two items are easily quantified, the first is an eye-of-the-beholder thing. I ride with a very comfortable Bead Rider under my tush, others who've tried it don't like it. The suit comes with TF2 at the shoulders, elbows and knees, and I'll have spent all of $30 to add the hip pads and make it a complete set. If I find them comfy, I'm set. If not, I'll look at other armor. But I have to start somewhere, and this is where I'm starting.

If it's experience that counts, clearly the CE-marked brigade has it over tiny, Minnesota-based Aerostich!
If members the CE-marked brigade were getting together a few times a year to exchange performance data and share their designs, I think I'd agree with you. The reality is that Hein Gericke, TPro, Knox and everyone else gains a competitive advantage by keeping their data under wraps. I'm not convinced that any of those companies is much bigger than Aero, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

... 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.
It's pretty clear that the soft parts of the TF2 pads aren't there for protection, but because they're manufactured as part of the pads, they fail the EC certification. That's just plain silly and is one of the reasons mandatory adherence to standards aren't always a good thing.

However, there is a different CE standard for "back protectors", which is, after all, what you're after.
There is; you're absolutely right. The standard Aerostich back pad really doesn't look like much, which is why I looked at the Bohn. After more reading about their practices, they're off the list. I've had a chance to look at what else is out there, and there are several possibilities that might integrate nicely with the suit and bear the CE mark.

For me, it all boils down to this: The only way for me to reduce my risk of injury to an absolute minimum is to hang my keys up and retire to the Barcolounger in my living room. That's not an acceptable option. I also don't want to ride with so much armor that I feel like a beetle while I'm riding. That's a compromise I'm willing to make for the enjoyment I get out of the sport.

--Mark
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Rob Hephner

Mobile Pest Control
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,096
Age
56
Location
Show Low, AZ
Bike
ST1300
STOC #
5509
Not to confuse the issue, but a back protector's original design purpose was not against direct impact.

Vertebra stress fractures come from hyper-extension or deep compression of the spine. This commonly is caused by the whipping action that occurs during a highside. The first back protector was designed (and still is) to keep the back from folding backwards. In other words, standing straight up you should not be able to bend backwards.

Dianese designed the first back protector for MotoGP and still make what most hold as the best. (We need not debate that point)

The point, is the design philoshopy of what the intended purpose is of a back protector. After you understand that you can be better informed, thus make your own decision based upon what it is supposed to do.
 
Last edited:

JZH

International Bodger
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
430
Location
London, UK/So.Cal.,USA
Thanks for the attachment, Mark.

I've no intention of bashing Aerostich, as I've been a good (and I like to think, loyal) customer of theirs for many years, but the Roadcrafter suit padding has never impressed me. That's why I was so happy to discover that the Hiprotec pads fit right into the 'Stich suit like they were made for each other--giving me everything I wanted (especially the bulk reduction). At least you know that is an option.

What bothers me the most about international standards in general is that, although they get adopted and therefore can affect your life in some way, the standards themselves are still "owned" by the standard-setting body that created it, so you have to pay for the privilege of reading them! :rolleyes: Standards bodies, of course, first and foremost work for the preservation of their own authority/importance, etc., which can result in all sorts of acrimony as territories are encroached. However, they can still do some good, and I think the CE motorcycle protective clothing standard is a good first attempt, anyway. Unfortunately now a bit out of date, Paul Varnsverry's Web site still has a lot of good info about the CE standards process--and about motorcycle CE standards in particular. Rogue CE marking without doing the testing is still a huge problem, but there would definitely be even less good information out there without the CE standard.

ISTR that part of the CE standard was to provide the test data along with the garment sold? I'm sure I've even got somewhere the little booklets that came with the Clover and Knox back protectors I have--though I must confess not paying much attention to them. However, I don't recall any test data coming with the Hein Gericke Hiprotec armor--and I've bought about a dozen pairs over the years. I'll have a look this weekend.

I hope you find an acceptable solution. Unfortunately, my Knox back protector hasn't been seen since my last move, and it is frankly too much of a hassle to wear it every day. By comparison, if I'd purchased one of the Aerostich "back pads", it would still be velcro'd into the suit and I would be wearing it every day. My Knox isn't much help sitting in a closet... :eek::

Ciao,
 

Rob Hephner

Mobile Pest Control
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,096
Age
56
Location
Show Low, AZ
Bike
ST1300
STOC #
5509
If protection is uncomfortable it eventually doesn't get used....thus not really protection at all.
 

Boogityx3

Boog
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
4
Location
Jamestown, north dakota
Bike
Honda Blackbird
Digging up an old thread here,
but I'll back the Aerostich Roadcrafter any day.
Tho I've never crashed in one, my research before buying showed me that editors
Tim Carrithers, and Mitch Boehm from Motorcyclist;
Road Test Editot Don Conet of Cycle World; and another from Motorcycle Cruiser have.
They pay for their Roadcrafters out of their own pockets, and stick with them as their Aerostich
has protected them well in their tumbles.
I've found mine to be very comfy, but it does take some time in the suit before it sort of "forms"
to your body.
I read that the crotch is prone to letting water in in heavy downfalls, but I biked thru Spokane, Wa a couple
of years ago on a day when they had record-one-day rainfall. Thought I might not get thru town alive, but I did stay warm and dry.
Very, very little moisture did get thru the crotch, but nothing serious.
Aerostich offers many upgrades to the Roadcrafter, includeing additional armor.
IMO, a great product.

 
Top Bottom