Total Motorcycle Community Forums

OK... So, I'm looking to ensure that I have a certain level of protection on the roads.

I'm relatively happy with my Olympia AST jacket even with the dork factor, but I'm looking for something else that offers more complete coverage.

No... I'm not talking a suit of armor.

Part of the reason I'm looking for chest protection is a recent death of a friend at works wife's cousin of internal injuries. But really this is just a re-awakening of something I've wanted to address for a while.

Specs for possible jacket or riding suit
1) Perforated leather for 80 to 100 degree riding weather.
2) Back protection (CE lvl 2) including tail bone protection
3) Hi visibility color. White, Yellow or Bright Green
4) CE armor with extensions for as much arm coverage as possible
5) Knee CE armor (separate pants or part of suit) (Olympia Ranger Pants seem ok - and have hip pads as well)
6) chest protection
7) If suit, leggings should be light color as well.

It seems though, that there is no jacket that fills these specs. There are some race suits (dainese) that appear to come close, but I didn't see any chest protection.

I can do a combination of my current jacket and konx body armor although it is very pricey. In fact, it is more expensive than some clearance leather jackets out there. I do like that it has significant kidney protection and chest coverage seems to cover a significant area (but nothing for the abdomen? Weird).

I am concerned that the combo could be too warm. In the depths of summer last year I resorted to a lower protection mesh jacket or my Olympia AST jacket with nothing on under it.

I don't want to resort to a wet cooling layer if I can avoid it (as mentioned in other threads) - as I don't want to be thoroughly disgusting when I get to work.

I've also thought that perhaps buying these Alpinestars Chest Armor and figuring a way (perhaps velcro) to install it in the chest of my jacket would provide some coverage.

I've even toyed with the idea of the Icon Field Armor and ripping it apart and attaching the armor to the outsides of my jacket. Some extra abrasion resistance and protection for the back. But I saw the armor in person at a store on Rte 18 in NJ and the chest piece is very small.

Of course I could wear a medieval suit of armor - my bike can handle the extra weight. But it seems that soft armor is the recommendation for protection.

And finally, it doesn't seem to offer chest protection, but for the price it seems useful - this Dainese suit on ebay - which hopefully - if is as advertised would be a nice, high visibility suit - which I might still need to add a bit of chest protection to, but would definitely help me feel safer.

So, anyway, I'm just blathering along.

But why do so few jackets have chest armor? Don't you want to protect it?

RhadamYgg

Actually, you might want to consider the suit of armor look.

Honestly, the back armour I have is flimsy.

When it gets hot out I wear pants that don't have knee pads. When the really hot summer weather comes I switch to my textile jacket from my leather.

I see people riding up and down the street wearing flip flops and shorts, that will never be me. But I see more people WITHOUT gear than WITH gear.

How many people ride motorcycles compared to how many people die on motorcycles everyday.

Look at the Swine Flu (H1N1) people freaked out when like 10 people in NY died from it. 10 out of how many people live in New York?

I think looking at statistics and seeing examples and everything just has you overwhelmed.

I won't fault anyone for trying to be safe, but I'd like to believe that the manufacturers look at statistics and build their products accordingly and offer a full range for what people should want or need. If nobody is really offering chest armour, except for in jump suits I think that should speak volumes as to what is necessary itself.

The final decision is up to you, do what makes you happy you know?

I hate when I do that. I had an entire reply typed out and hit the back button by mistake. Found the Icon vest that was posted in another thread, but also found this page which has quite a few protective vests and jackets of varying protection levels.

Clicky Link to the other thread showing the Icon vest. Someone (you) replied saying:

RhadamYgg wrote:I like the armor... As a supplemental for under a jacket - to give better chest and back protection.

Sorry I lost the other reply, it really was quite entertaining and thought-provoking. Possibly the greatest literary work the world will never know....plus it had lots of links, too.

PacificShot327 wrote:Actually, you might want to consider the suit of armor look.

Nice. Might help how hard my suspension is too...

RhadamYgg

Rhadam I wear an armored jacket with shoulder and elbow armor, full-face usually. I place alot of importance on safety and whatnot, but I just don't see the real benefit of chest armor. If your hit on any side of your body hard enough, I can't see how any reasonable amount of armor is going to really guard against internal bleeding.

PacificShot327 wrote:Actually, you might want to consider the suit of armor look.

Not to bust anyone's bubble but a friend of mine was going back to his house from a S.C.A. meeting when he hit one of these wide steel plates that cover large holes in the road. He lost control of his motorcycle and was pitched into a solid brick wall. He was wearing full plate. Broke nearly every bone in his body. He survived but he's a bit fidgity when people talk about motorcycles and protection.

As for chest protection there is wearable body armor that the MXers use. it's just that, a one piece set of hvy armor that you put on by placing it over your head and then tighting your side straps. The squids have taken to wearing them along witha $200-$400 helmet . Nothing else mind you but they do have great protection in those areas.

The problem is that like the brain, your inner organs are usually injured by the motion of the organs in your body. So it's like so much of injuries during a crash. Seldom, though it is a numerical possibility, is the accident caused by sharp impact. Protection needs to slow down the speed of the impact as much or more than protecting the injury site from a hit on a hard edged surface. So the weight and uncomfortableness of heavy chest armor is considered not worth the problems of wearing it around. It all about trade offs.

I've been doing a lot of studying of wearable armor and found one truth. If armor is too confiding or heavy and hot, the number of people seem to wear it less. The number of peole that wear anything around here is patheticaly small. It seems armor is wearing tie up sneakers instead of flip-flops.


Again another statisistic is that overweight people are more likely to have deadly injuries than thinner people. It seems the stress of being over wieght has a noticable to your "Hurt" number as a medium sized trauma.

Ryethil wrote:

PacificShot327 wrote:Actually, you might want to consider the suit of armor look.

Not to bust anyone's bubble but a friend of mine was going back to his house from a S.C.A. meeting when he hit one of these wide steel plates that cover large holes in the road. He lost control of his motorcycle and was pitched into a solid brick wall. He was wearing full plate. Broke nearly every bone in his body. He survived but he's a bit fidgity when people talk about motorcycles and protection.

It's called humor...
Why would anyone wear plate while riding? Eek.

RhadamYgg, I personally don't think it would be a good idea to have too much in the way of chest protection. If you used those inserts from Alpinestars, I think that would probably be enough. But seems to me like anything more would limit your movement too much. I never relied on my mirrors, and instead would frequently turn my upper body about 70% to get a clear view of what's behind me, or if traveling at higher speeds, would actually just look upside down on either side to see what's behind me. I wouldn't have been able to do either of those if I had anything too bulky or firm in the way. To me, the ability to be that flexible outweighs whatever benefit I might gain from armor as far as chest protection goes. There may be others who disagree here, but this is just how *I* feel.

Ryethil wrote:Not to bust anyone's bubble but a friend of mine was going back to his house from a S.C.A. meeting when he hit one of these wide steel plates that cover large holes in the road. He lost control of his motorcycle and was pitched into a solid brick wall. He was wearing full plate. Broke nearly every bone in his body.

So are you saying not to wear full plate or not to get pitched into solid brick walls on your motorcycle?

Brackstone wrote:Honestly, the back armour I have is flimsy.

When it gets hot out I wear pants that don't have knee pads. When the really hot summer weather comes I switch to my textile jacket from my leather.

I see people riding up and down the street wearing flip flops and shorts, that will never be me. But I see more people WITHOUT gear than WITH gear.

How many people ride motorcycles compared to how many people die on motorcycles everyday.

Look at the Swine Flu (H1N1) people freaked out when like 10 people in NY died from it. 10 out of how many people live in New York?

I think looking at statistics and seeing examples and everything just has you overwhelmed.

I won't fault anyone for trying to be safe, but I'd like to believe that the manufacturers look at statistics and build their products accordingly and offer a full range for what people should want or need. If nobody is really offering chest armour, except for in jump suits I think that should speak volumes as to what is necessary itself.

The final decision is up to you, do what makes you happy you know?

So sooo many people riding without gear today.

It all depends on our tolerance for risk, I know. I don't think it would be horribly difficult for a little bit of foam in the chest. Maybe formed up to make me look muscular!

RhadamYgg