• A few people have been scammed on the site, Only use paypal to pay for items for sale by other members. If they will not use paypal, its likely a scam NEVER SEND E-TRANSFERS OF ANY KIND.

CE abrasion ratings explained

Rabbit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
709
Points
113
Location
Ohio
Visit site
So there is a new standard for abrasion resistance in CE riding garments: AAA, AA, A, B, C.
After much digging it appears that everyone is moving towards this standard but very little has been published on what kind of resistance we can expect from the garments themselves. There are 3 impact zones in the standard with 1 being high wear areas such as knees, gluteal regions and hips.
Im a little less sure on where zones 2 and 3 are though.
Here are the speed requirements for the primary impact zone: AAA 72 mph, AA 45 mph, A 28 mph, B same as A but no impact protection is required, C has something to do with off road.
These are the maximum requirements for speed resistance in each of the classes. Hope this helps anyone else looking at how protective their pants actually are.
This is the link to the article if you want to dig deeper. Hope this helps and safe riding all!
 
Good article, thank you.

My biggest concern, I suppose, is that clothing marketed outside of the EU may still claim to use "CE" rated parts, but not actually have a CE rating. We know that seams are a weakness in clothing and that some companies stitch together small pieces in fashionable ways, then stuff in a piece of CE rated armor. The garment itself may come apart but the buyer sees the CE armor and thinks it is a safe garment. That may not be allowed in the EU nations but I suspect it may be a bigger issue here in the US where there is a much more casual culture to moto-gear, with probably 1-in-100 being ATGATT riders. And of that small %, many are not well informed on gear and thing they are buying good gear when in fact they may not be doing so because of misleading marketing.

I guess we will see how the marketing game plays out over the next couple of years.
 
I think there is that possibility, but most of the higher quality gear is European manufacture. The US is small potatoes and we get their leftovers so I think the CE ratings will bleed over to us whether we like it or not. One caveat would be gloves. The US has a number of high quality gloves here that aren’t CE rated, but I wouldn’t hesitate to use them anyway.
 
. . . most of the higher quality gear is European manufacture. . .
I guess I'm thinking of the lower priced brands. Here in America, where protective gear is NOT the norm, I think the lower priced brands may lack the quality of the Rev'it, Dianese and other top tier product lines.

Just some statements from some of the budget priced products: "CE rated armor covers your elbows and shoulders with the option of adding in a back protector (sold separately)." Another makes this statement: "CE armor in shoulders and elbows with contoured rear EVA back pad for comfort and protection" and another says: "13oz twill outer construction. Covec SR6 protective layer. Includes elbow and shoulder armor." And another says: "The features list continues with included CE Level 2 impact armor at the shoulders and elbows."

Notice the wording never claims the garment is CE approved or tested or rated, but they are inserting CE armor into their gear. And certainly the lower priced brands are not the only ones saying this stuff.

At this point I'm just wondering out loud. I hope the gear is safer than it may seem to be.

I would certainly HOPE and expect that a $400 to $500+ moto jacket is built better/safer than a $159 moto jacket. And the materials on the more expensive brands are certainly higher grade materials. But what does a sub-$200 or even sub-$300 jacket buy in terms of safety because I suspect that most of the "protective" moto-gear sold in the USA is currently the low priced stuff. In fact that is all I see at several dealerships.
 
Had a friend who did a freeway slide 60+ mph and he wore Cortech (Lower to mid level brand) Came out just fine. I think for road riding most materials will do fine. Track... another story obviously. I’m most concerned about the seams bursting. Honestly though, good helmet, boots and gloves are going to cover all the Major (statistically speaking) points of injury. Get some decent pants and I’m less concerned about the jacket as long as it does have CE armor.
 
EN 17092 (the CE standard referred to in OP) is COMPLETELY DEFICIENT in my opinion as a test of motorcycle clothing. The older EN 13595 standard (which will still be allowed to be used for a couple more years) is far better, though it still has its weaknesses and limitations.

This whole thread below is worth a read, but this post hints at the deficiencies marketers are experiencing with the 17092 standard:

 
Had a friend who did a freeway slide 60+ mph and he wore Cortech (Lower to mid level brand) Came out just fine. ...
Cortech makes a range of gear. We don't know anything about the incident other than a slide at 60. Most freeway incidences are bounces with slides. Glad he is OK but not sure I would use 1 incident as a "typical" example of a safety standard or as indicative of how any brand will perform as I believe that high end brands can all fail under the wrong circumstances.

Generally I think the various testing shows we are better off with fewer seams, dense abrasion resistant fabric/leather, preferably in overlapping layers in key areas.

I've done only some research, not as in depth as others, but I'm convinced enough that I will invest in higher quality gear. I'll also buy multiple jackets, pants and gloves for the simple reason that I want to be as comfortable as the weather will permit so I've got full mesh, closable panel mesh and full textile jackets and pants. The full mesh being the weak link, but also the least used, and typically for weather when speeds are lower and highway slides are far less likely, but even with the lightweight full mesh jacket I upgraded the armor.

We get no guarantees in life. But if we are going to try to mitigate our risks, seems to me we should buy the best risk mitigation we can afford. If someone can afford only a cheap Joe Rocket, that is certainly better than a fashion jacket. FirstGear would likely be a nice step up from the Joe Rocket, but at DOUBLE price, Klim or a premium E.U. brand would be even better but might cost 4 to 5 times the price of the budget friendly Joe Rocket. Wear what you can afford but don't 'cheap out' on your gear because you think they are all the same. Try not to be misled by deceptive marketing practices.

I'm not trying to pick on brands, I only used those as examples. I'm sure some Joe Rocket gear is very good, but I see it at the low end shops along with First Manufacturing and ICON as 'entry point' brands. I see FirstGear, Cortech, Olympia and a few others less frequently but typically offered as the "middle" brands.
 
Cortech makes a range of gear. We don't know anything about the incident other than a slide at 60. Most freeway incidences are bounces with slides. Glad he is OK but not sure I would use 1 incident as a "typical" example of a safety standard or as indicative of how any brand will perform as I believe that high end brands can all fail under the wrong circumstances.

Generally I think the various testing shows we are better off with fewer seams, dense abrasion resistant fabric/leather, preferably in overlapping layers in key areas.

I've done only some research, not as in depth as others, but I'm convinced enough that I will invest in higher quality gear. I'll also buy multiple jackets, pants and gloves for the simple reason that I want to be as comfortable as the weather will permit so I've got full mesh, closable panel mesh and full textile jackets and pants. The full mesh being the weak link, but also the least used, and typically for weather when speeds are lower and highway slides are far less likely, but even with the lightweight full mesh jacket I upgraded the armor.

We get no guarantees in life. But if we are going to try to mitigate our risks, seems to me we should buy the best risk mitigation we can afford. If someone can afford only a cheap Joe Rocket, that is certainly better than a fashion jacket. FirstGear would likely be a nice step up from the Joe Rocket, but at DOUBLE price, Klim or a premium E.U. brand would be even better but might cost 4 to 5 times the price of the budget friendly Joe Rocket. Wear what you can afford but don't 'cheap out' on your gear because you think they are all the same. Try not to be misled by deceptive marketing practices.

I'm not trying to pick on brands, I only used those as examples. I'm sure some Joe Rocket gear is very good, but I see it at the low end shops along with First Manufacturing and ICON as 'entry point' brands. I see FirstGear, Cortech, Olympia and a few others less frequently but typically offered as the "middle" brands.
Fair enough. My only real point is that more expensive isn’t always required. Don’t let best get in the way of better.
 
Here is a kick, Revzilla doesn’t even have a filter for CE certified on their jackets. Only what type of armor it has.
 
Nope. The vendors outside the EC make extremely little effort to even gather, nevermind catalog or make searchable, CE certification. They’re all about telling you that the bits of $0.75 foam selling for $75 are CE, though.
 
Nope. The vendors outside the EC make extremely little effort to even gather, nevermind catalog or make searchable, CE certification. They’re all about telling you that the bits of $0.75 foam selling for $75 are CE, though.
EXACTLY my point when I made my comment about products sold in North America.
 
Fair enough. My only real point is that more expensive isn’t always required. Don’t let best get in the way of better.
As I said, the best someone can afford.

But I don't believe that some of the lower priced stuff is worth the cost and the way it is marketed by the companies it appears that it is just as safe as gear that is built better, with fewer seams, and heavier fabrics, multiple layers, etc.
 
As I said, the best someone can afford.

But I don't believe that some of the lower priced stuff is worth the cost and the way it is marketed by the companies it appears that it is just as safe as gear that is built better, with fewer seams, and heavier fabrics, multiple layers, etc.
I think we agree, certainly. I have noticed that even some of the lower tier brands seem to be upping their quality. I think my next research project is what to look for in a jacket.
 
I have been studying boot certification to make a GWRRA presentation. I also read some injury studies. The most common (serious) foot injury on moto accidents is a metatarsal break. The metatarsal is the bone under the skin that connects the main foot to each toe.

This commonly occurs either from a sideways crush (often when a rider is laying on the ground and a car runs over his foot, or a pinch injury) or a top down crush (e.g., dropping bike or panniers on your foot.)

Very few boots will protect you from a top down crush. I worked in an oil equipment factory once and was required to wear boots with a metatarsal shield. A top of the line motocross boot is about it for protection from the top down crush.

The sideways crush break of the metatarsal is prevented by having a boot with a stiff sole. Any CE rated boot will be stiff enough.

There were also a large number of toe and heel bones broken and twisting injuries.
 
Last edited:
I have been studying boot certification to make a GWRRA presentation. I also read some injury studies. The most common foot injury on moto accidents is a metatarsal break. The metatarsal is the bone under the skin that connects the main foot to each toe.

This commonly occurs either from a sideways crush (often when a rider is laying on the ground and a car runs over his foot, or a pinch injury) or a top down crush (e.g., dropping bike or panniers on your foot.)

Very few boots will protect you from a top down crush. I worked in an oil equipment factory once and was required to wear boots with a metatarsal shield. A top of the line motocross boot is about it for protection from the top down crush.

The sideways crush break of the metatarsal is prevented by having a boot with a stiff sole. Any CE rated boot will be stiff enough.

There were also a large number of toe and heel boots bones broken and twisting injuries.
That’s really good to know. I wish we could get a ‘gear primer’ for things like this. What are the most common injuries, what protection will help with them and what is just pure marketing fluff.
 
The toe and heel injuries are prevented mostly by stiff toe and heel counters. The foot twist is also prevented by a stiff sole. Lower leg / foot twist is hard to prevent without an extremely stiff upper shaft like you get on a motocross or track racer.
CE certified boots must have stiff soles, full grain leather or equivalent abrasion protection, and toe, ankle, and heel counters.
 
That’s really good to know. I wish we could get a ‘gear primer’ for things like this. What are the most common injuries, what protection will help with them and what is just pure marketing fluff.
The CE standards break the body into zones. The zones are rated by likelihood and severity of injury. For example, on the Kodiak 2 from Klim there is stretch in the area under the armpits, which cost them a level of rating. I personally don’t think there is any fluff in armor ads I see. There is sometimes failure to mention where armor falls short. CE rated armor is not required in the US or Canada. I have never heard of a rider‘s gear being checked in Europe, either, except for helmet ratings.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top