Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Mintbread wrote:

storysunfolding wrote: Yes, there are times when you want rigid boots and armor. However, there are times when you don't too.

Would those be the days when you are sure you are not going to crash?

good point, and besides, i think some of the alpinestar boots look a heck of a lot better than combat boots. Anouther question i have is about the pants. http://www.newenough.com/joe_rocket_ste ... s_page.htm what kind of protection will pants like that offer you? Will it be up to par with other pants or what?

JWF

Mintbread wrote:

storysunfolding wrote: Yes, there are times when you want rigid boots and armor. However, there are times when you don't too.

Would those be the days when you are sure you are not going to crash?

Actually, the stiffness of the boot can lead to a much worse break at a different location, often at the joint, making it so that you'll never walk again. Of course you'll just have to take the words of an orthopaedic surgeon with 30 years of experience at face value.

The boots with armor seem more designed for racing when a crash involves more speed and less resistance (car, tree, embankment etc)

Do you happen to be that orthopaedic surgeon with 30 years experience?

How can the armour in the boots cause the leg to break in the joints? The armour is designed so that the ankle is protected, not the other way around.

Case in point: I was wearing armoured riding boots when I highsided my bike. My toe caught on the road as I went over and the bike landed on my leg.

This was the result:





You can clearly see that the break occured away from the joint in my opinion due to the rigidity of the ankle support. It was a compound fracture that also severed tendons, so once the damage was done the height and strength of the boot kept my foot attached whilst it was still sliding along under the bike.

That orthopaedic surgeon would be my father, who happened to write the last post. I actually contended it myself, but he's confident. Something about the stiffness of the boot working as a fulcrum to break the joints by leveraging them against themselves

"The leg is very strong up and down but it is very weak when it encounters sideways forces. The femur is the strongest bone in the body if you try to compress it, but snaps fairly easily when it bends. The armor in a boot protects the ankles from abrasion and plays a role in protecting from a direct force, distrubuting the force along a greater area. However, it can imobilize the movement of a joint that in some circumstances would prevent a break all together. In that case a more flexible boot, that is to say one without reinforcing armor, would have been more appropriate. Granted you'll never know what kind of crash you'll have but the bad breaks I see are mainly the product of a reinforced boot."

he threw in some choice words about young **cks compensating in certain areas with bikes only real men could handle.

Did you read anything that I just posted?

Mintbread wrote:Did you read anything that I just posted?

I did read what you posted, hence why I called my father to ask him why he wrote what he did and posted a response. I respect your opinion that you feel that the armor protected your ankle by moving the break beyond the armor. It is my opinion and that of my fathers that your fracture does not represent all fractures experienced while wearing boots and his 30 years of surgical experience has resulted in him being able to evaluate a great number of cases. Statistically you need a base of at least 30 subjects to begin drawing any sort of significance and with the hundreds of cases he's seen, I believe that he has some right to his own opinions.

To reiterate what was stated before and not to draw more conflict- in some cases, it is better to have a boot with no armor. There was never an all inclusive statement saying that a flexible boot was better than one with armor. As a matter of fact, it was mentioned that an armored boot is actually preferable in some crashes.

Also, in my unprofessional opinion, I believe there are many possibilities of force distrubution that wouldn't create a distal fracture regardless of the boot you were wearing.

storysunfolding wrote:That orthopaedic surgeon would be my father, who happened to write the last post. I actually contended it myself, but he's confident. Something about the stiffness of the boot working as a fulcrum to break the joints by leveraging them against themselves

"The leg is very strong up and down but it is very weak when it encounters sideways forces. The femur is the strongest bone in the body if you try to compress it, but snaps fairly easily when it bends. The armor in a boot protects the ankles from abrasion and plays a role in protecting from a direct force, distrubuting the force along a greater area. However, it can imobilize the movement of a joint that in some circumstances would prevent a break all together. In that case a more flexible boot, that is to say one without reinforcing armor, would have been more appropriate. Granted you'll never know what kind of crash you'll have but the bad breaks I see are mainly the product of a reinforced boot."

he threw in some choice words about young **cks compensating in certain areas with bikes only real men could handle.

Jekyll and Hyde??

Please ask your father to get his own member account, so we know who is saying what.

I would but at 65 he doesn't much care for internet forums. I don't think he'll post again but that topic piqued his interest and he wanted to give a medical perspective. However, if you ever come into his practice and you ride, he gives motorcyclists a 20% discount on their deductible.

I am more confused than ever

It would be nice if the good doctor could put it in his own words and under his own account. Though, I bet he has some liability concerns about offering such advice.

I always considered boots to be mostly for abasion protection with a secondary emphasis on ankle support. Though, if I am to change my opinion on that, your dad is going to have to be more clear about the potential risks and the proper gear.

So Mintbread, how's the ol' leg feel now? That looks pretty nasty.