Rethinking my approach to protection/armor

[adouglas]

Like most of us, I've got a jacket with armor in it, and I also have riding pants with foam hip pads and knee armor. ATGATT.

That's all well and good, but I really wonder about how well it would work in a crash. It's not impact I'm thinking of, it's having the armor move out of place as I slide along the pavement.

We've all seen crash videos and sliding always happens, whether combined with a direct impact or not. If that armor can move easily relative to your body, I imagine that the friction from the pavement is going to shove it away from the bits you're trying to protect.

It's clear to me that this is going to happen if I go down. Anyone who's seen any high-speed camera footage knows how things that seem solid and stable are actually incredibly mobile -- even rubbery -- in real life.

So I'm wondering how viable armor placed in a typical jacket really is. The jacket is going to contact the pavement and drag, taking the armor with it. I can easily move the sleeve of my jacket around enough to expose my elbow and forearm, even with everying cinched down as tight as it will go.

I've recently started looking at the armor designed to be worn over your shirt, but under your jacket. The idea is that you remove the armor from the jacket itself. The armor is, in effect, now attached to your body instead of attached to the jacket. So, the thinking goes, if you go down the jacket can do what it wants but the armor should stay in place and therefore provide better protection.

Also, by spending the bulk of your money on the stuff that will actually protect you, you can buy a less-expensive jacket and replace it more often.

Here's a typical example, which is Level 2 CE certified:





It doesn't look like it, but it actually has a zipper, so it wouldn't be hard to put on.

Anyone go this route? Any thoughts or opinions?

[tapdiggy]

Like so many other things, there is a gray area. On the track, with high speeds and the crashes that can result, well-fitting gear that doesn't shift around is logical. Ditto for canyon runs and such. In town, commuting, runs to the store; these occasions don't call for big speed and hard leans. A solid riding jacket and analogous pants, gloves, and footwear (helmet is obvious) should be adequate when used with alertness and safe riding habits.
Gear is for mitigating the damage from hitting the ground or whatever you land on after a fall. It won't prevent injury completely, regardless of fit or material or any other factors.
The point: some things are perfect for something, nothing is perfect for everything; learn to roll away form falls instead of sliding; top-of -the-line armor doesn't stop the runaway truck from gooifying your pelvis.

[Jatan]

Biggest thing for me is reducing damage at the first point of impact -- if I go down, I want the helmet/jacket/gloves/knee armor to absorb/protect as much as it can as soon as I hit the ground (the rolling/sliding afterwards shouldnt be as bad as the initial impact)

If you feel the jacket's armor isnt good enough then get the chest armor and remove the jacket's armor -- ride with what you'll feel safe and comfortable in so you can focus more on staying alert instead of constantly worrying about not having enough protection

[Momaru]

Seems to me the armor is primarily for that initial impact (and perhaps subsequent ones if you roll). The external materials of the jacket/pants/whatever is what's going to be taking the abrasive forces.
That said, I think any abrasive force strong enough to seriously twist on your gear is also likely to twist on you, turning a slide into a tumble/roll, taking you with it.

I agree that armor attached to the gear seems more likely to go mobile on you at a bad moment (than say gear specifically strapped to you and separated from the outermost shell) should that section of the outer layer catch on the pavement. I too have jackets that were the best-fitting available but I can easily get my bodyparts out of the armor zone with some simulated abrasion/twisting. Hence why I wear the Icon Field Armor on my knees/shins and a snug jacket.

I respectfully disagree that

Originally Posted by tapdiggy

Gear is for mitigating the damage from hitting the ground or whatever you land on after a fall. It won't prevent injury completely, regardless of fit or material or any other factors.

The armor is designed for that yes, but there's also the material of the gear itself, as I mention above. It can completely prevent damage provided appropriate design/quality, fit and conditions. Yes this is an admittedly small subset of reality, but it's a nit I pick because there is a definite delineation between quality equipment that works as it should in a crash and holds together (I realize what it's supposed to do exactly is up for debate) vs gear that simply disintegrates in the first half second leaving your skin and bones to take the rest of the event.

Originally Posted by tapdiggy

The point: some things are perfect for something, nothing is perfect for everything; learn to roll away form falls instead of sliding; top-of -the-line armor doesn't stop the runaway truck from gooifying your pelvis.

Very true. But I think Andrew's intent is more to address whether armor integrated into gear is appropriate to use as protection or if it's a losing compromise with the convenience of stepping into "one" garment for your protection needs vs layering (eg. shirt, armor, jacket).

[adouglas]

Tapdiggy:

Point taken about suitability for the purpose. It is of course a compromise. Wearing a full-bore track suit would offer the best possible protection, but for street riding that is simply not practical.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply talking about a different approach to armor placement, not wearing more gear. The armor is more or less the same as what I've already got. My jacket already has armor for my shoulders, elbows and forearms, and a back pad. The only significant difference is that it'd no longer be attached to the jacket. (Sure the armor I linked to has a beefy back protector and chest pads, but that's not the point.)

Point also taken about the fact that no armor is 100 percent perfect, but that's not what I'm asking either. Of course it's not perfect and I'd never expect it to be.

I can't say I agree about riding skills being a substitute for better protection. It seems as if you're suggesting that if I'm a safe rider, then my gear is adequate, right? Aren't you really talking about avoiding the crash in the first place?

Track speeds are higher and crashes are more likely, but that doesn't change the fact that a crash is a crash. Even with safe riding habits and alertness crashes happen. Those preventive measures are no longer relevant the instant you go down. Your gear has to protect you... I don't see why being on the street instead of the track means you need less protection in the unlikely event of a crash.

If you go down you're going to hit and you're going to slide (or roll, or come to an unpleasant sudden stop... but there will be sliding the moment you strike the ground no matter what you do), and it doesn't matter whether you're on the track or on the street. If the gear is shifting around it can't protect you as it should, right?

One last question... how exactly do you "learn to roll away from falls instead of sliding?" That's practice I do NOT want to engage in!

[adouglas]

Impact vs. sliding...

Here's how I see it. I may be completely wrong, but i don't think so.

Many years ago I laid a motorcycle down, but I was only going 10 mph or so, so it really doesn't count.

I have crashed a recumbent bicycle going fast enough for it to be unpleasant... about 20-25 mph, maybe faster. It was a lowside caused by hitting a patch of gravel. My understanding of how crashes really happen is based in part on that unpleasant experience.

In a lowside crash, there is very little actual impact. Your body is only falling a couple of feet, then you slide and, if there's enough friction, you start to roll. The forces you undergo are for the most part lateral/torsional, not direct impact, unless you're unlucky enough to hit something solid like a curb or a tree. In my lowside crash I didn't even get all that much bruising, despite wearing nothing but unpadded lycra shorts. I had a lot of road rash, though. My wife thought it was funny. I didn't.

In a header (car encounter) or highside, there is of course more impact because you're flying through the air. But you're still probably not going to hit the pavement head-on. Look at photos of helmets that have been crashed. You just don't see that much crush damage, but you always see abrasion damage. Most of what happens is still lateral sliding.

Like this:



This doesn't look like the result of a lowside to me. If you lowside, you're not face-down. But still... lots of scraping, no bashed-in areas.

From my direct experience (thankfully limited) and from these observations my conclusion is that I want my armor to protect me from abrasion first and foremost, because that's what I'm going to encounter 100 percent of the time. After that comes impact protection.

I welcome actual evidence to the contrary.

[tapdiggy]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Tapdiggy:

Point taken about suitability for the purpose. It is of course a compromise. Wearing a full-bore track suit would offer the best possible protection, but for street riding that is simply not practical.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply talking about a different approach to armor placement, not wearing more gear. The armor is more or less the same as what I've already got. My jacket already has armor for my shoulders, elbows and forearms, and a back pad. The only significant difference is that it'd no longer be attached to the jacket. (Sure the armor I linked to has a beefy back protector and chest pads, but that's not the point.)

Point also taken about the fact that no armor is 100 percent perfect, but that's not what I'm asking either. Of course it's not perfect and I'd never expect it to be.

I can't say I agree about riding skills being a substitute for better protection. It seems as if you're suggesting that if I'm a safe rider, then my gear is adequate, right? Aren't you really talking about avoiding the crash in the first place?

Track speeds are higher and crashes are more likely, but that doesn't change the fact that a crash is a crash. Even with safe riding habits and alertness crashes happen. Those preventive measures are no longer relevant the instant you go down. Your gear has to protect you... I don't see why being on the street instead of the track means you need less protection in the unlikely event of a crash.

If you go down you're going to hit and you're going to slide (or roll, or come to an unpleasant sudden stop... but there will be sliding the moment you strike the ground no matter what you do), and it doesn't matter whether you're on the track or on the street. If the gear is shifting around it can't protect you as it should, right?

One last question... how exactly do you "learn to roll away from falls instead of sliding?" That's practice I do NOT want to engage in!

I understand your intent better now. I will relay my limited crash experience and clarify my position hopefully.

I crashed last year, a lowside at 25-35 MPH. I recognized that I wasn't gonna keep it on the wheels very quickly and chose to bail instead of dropping the bike on my leg. So now the bike is in front of me sliding forward and I am off balance, with residual momentum propelling me forward off my feet.
Here is where the alertness and roll come in simultaneously: I am about to go sliding face down into the tar. I recognize this and pull my shoulder in and tuck my head. my shoulder armor takes the impact instead of my unarmored stomach and chest. I tumbled a couple times and came to a stop on my back. Resulting injuries were bruises. I unfortunately have repeated this kind of accident with similar results: I get in trouble; I realize the situation is lost; tuck; roll.

If you have read this far, let me say I think an armor shirt is a great idea and very practical. If the armor in your gear is shifting away from the areas it is meant to protect, it is useless and should be replaced with more reliable protection...

But if you do crash (heaven forbid), try to roll. Its a fun way to fall, really.

[demp]

Originally Posted by adouglas

I really wonder about how well it would work in a crash. It's not impact I'm thinking of, it's having the armor move out of place as I slide along the pavement.

Yep... my kneecap agrees with you (my knee-pad did exactly what you describe), my 2 cents on the jacket, if you're able to move it around that much - it's too big

[Reswob]

I would trust the armor in your jacket/pants to stay in place 1,000x more than armor strapped to your elbows/knees. You can't have pads that stay in place well and allow you full range of motion unless they're attached to your jacket.

[LazinCajun]

Originally Posted by adouglas

In a header (car encounter) or highside, there is of course more impact because you're flying through the air. But you're still probably not going to hit the pavement head-on. Look at photos of helmets that have been crashed. You just don't see that much crush damage, but you always see abrasion damage. Most of what happens is still lateral sliding.

To be fair, the effects of impact on a helmet are more likely to be seen on the *inside* where your noggin hits the foam. I know you're aware of this, but I wanted to make it explicit so somebody new doesn't think "Oh, i'll just get a few scrapes on my face, I don't need a helmet."

Edited to add: Rolling at high speeds is worse than sliding. Rolling / tumbling can create hard impacts (think broken bones) and (I'm 95% sure) won't slow you down as much as sliding will. I read an article about learning to crash, and the advice was to avoid reaching out with your hands, avoid tumbling, and try to slide feet first. Granted, if you have the presence of mind to do all of that, how in the world did you crash in the first place?

Edited again: Nice thread topic! It's always good to re-evaluate things like this.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by demp

Yep... my kneecap agrees with you (my knee-pad did exactly what you describe), my 2 cents on the jacket, if you're able to move it around that much - it's too big

To be honest, if the jacket were tight enough that I couldn't move the armor out of place it would not be a practical real-world garment. It's the compromise noted above... a race suit is like that because it's made to fit skin-tight. Regular jackets aren't.

Try this test: Go get your own jacket (which presumably is tight, based on your post). Put it on and grab the elbow pad. If you can move it far enough to get the point of your elbow past the edge, then, well, there you go.

I've got two jackets, one mesh for hot weather and one textile. Different manufacturers. Both fit closely, but there's enough room to wear them over street clothes. I can displace the pads on both of them as described, even if all the adjustable straps are as tight as I can get them.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by Reswob

I would trust the armor in your jacket/pants to stay in place 1,000x more than armor strapped to your elbows/knees. You can't have pads that stay in place well and allow you full range of motion unless they're attached to your jacket.

Please explain your reasoning. I believe that since the jacket is what actually contacts the pavement, it's what gets pulled laterally due to friction.

If the armor is attached to the jacket then it will by definition also get pulled laterally.

If the armor is under the jacket, then the jacket material can slide over it and it will be less likely to move (or so the reasoning goes... I have no actual evidence).

In my jackets, the armor is carried in simple fabric pockets that are not terribly structurally sound. The material is very light, it's single-stitched... it's no more substantial (and probably less so) than the retaining methods used on the standalone armor I've seen. I don't think it'd actually come out, but I don't think it's "a thousand times" more likely to stay in place.

[CRXTrek]

I ride for sport not commute. I wear a 1 pc. suit.
I would think it would be much easier to put it on than to strap on back, elbow, and knee protection seperately. Plus putting on the jacket and pants.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by CRXTrek

I ride for sport not commute. I wear a 1 pc. suit.
I would think it would be much easier to put it on than to strap on back, elbow, and knee protection seperately. Plus putting on the jacket and pants.

Not sure what you mean... that the 1-pc suit is easier to put on?

These things aren't separate pieces. They are tight, stretchy (lycra?) jackets with zippers. It's more like putting on a second jacket.

I see the pic link broke for some reason. Let me find an alternate source....

[Flashmonkey]

The real long term solution is a custom made 2-pc suit with armor located appropriately for your height and build. Unfortunately, the off-the-shelf stuff is meant to fit most people adequately, which means that it'll fit nobody well.

The solution you've proposed above isn't bad at all....if you're willing to live with the extra bulk and hassle associated with taking all of that crap off and putting it on. But I do believe that a tailor made 2-pc (or even 1 pc...if ur into that sorta look for the street) is the real long term solution that most of us should be looking into for maximum protection.

In Ontario, we have a number of small vendors that deal in custom leather fabrication who also specialize in motorcycle apparel. I plan on giving one of these guys a visit the moment I have the spare cash to spend on this (the prices are not bad at all, actually). Good thick leather, well placed armor on a jacket and pant set that was tailor made for me....mmmmmmmmmm.

[Greg_E]

I have tested the shifting on the elbow armor in my jacket, it shifts a little bit but I can't make the arms tighter without eliminating mobility. Need to check the knee pads because I don't think there are straps to tighten up the legs like there are on the arms. Basically for any of this stuff to work, you need to be able to limit the amount of excess material in the clothing. Most manufacturers realize this and put in some sort of adjustment. My jacket has snaps above and below the elbow protection and it seems to do a decent job to me.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by Greg_E

I can't make the arms tighter without eliminating mobility.

Precisely my point. No matter what I do with my jacket, the armor still moves.

I decided to go ahead and order one of these things. I can always send it back if it doesn't do what I expect it to do.

[ninja250]

From what I was told by the guys at the Dainese store in Costa Mesa, the way you prevent the armor in your jacket from sliding out of te way of what is supposed to be protecting on your body is to get a tighter jacket that you would ever imagine.

Worked for me..
They stuffed me in a tiny little 52 jacket and I came out unscathed as far as all the padded areas in the arms and shoulders. I had been wanting a size 68 jacket earlier that day before the sales clerk set me straight.
Sorry if this has already been stated. This is in reply to the original post.
I'm comfy in this jacket for every other day 100mi commute as well.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ninja250]

They went on to note at Dainese that If I ever went to a one piece from a two, it woul have to be custom fitted. Pretty much mandatory he said for my body shape.
They offered tayloring on site. You then pay for the suit and receive it a month later.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Greg_E]

Yeah, I am all custom sized too, the Tourmaster jacket and pants is a close compromise since they offer it in long/tall sizes. A racing suit would certainly need to be custom for me to really be safe on the track.

[tristatejames]

Originally Posted by CRXTrek

I ride for sport not commute. I wear a 1 pc. suit.
I would think it would be much easier to put it on than to strap on back, elbow, and knee protection seperately. Plus putting on the jacket and pants.

I went for a ride this afternoon and went with my black track 1 pc. Although the all black is not the safest color, I didn't wear my yellow 2 pc. because the protection moves around. I agree that the protection can't move for it to work.

[Momaru]

Originally Posted by ninja250

They stuffed me in a tiny little 52 jacket and I came out unscathed as far as all the padded areas in the arms and shoulders. I had been wanting a size 68 jacket earlier that day before the sales clerk set me straight.

[ninja250]

You should see my Joe Rocket GSXR jacket they squeezed me into. It's a 46!

Stuff stretches out like crazy even if it seems way too tight. You gotta buy tiny little gear. lol

M Dainese jacket squeezed all the blood out of my arms when I first bought it and put it on for a ride and made them "fall asleep". Not anymore..

Just like it was very hard to get my Shoei on when purchased and not anymore either.

[Momaru]

Originally Posted by ninja250

You gotta buy tiny little gear. lol

Just like it was very hard to get my Shoei on when purchased and not anymore either.

Yeah... I wear small jacket size on just about everything and that's frequently more extra material than I want. Guess that's what I get for being 5'9" and 145lbs. Will also likely have to go the 'custom gear' route when I can pony up for full leathers. The Scorpion helmet I have has relaxed so it's not too hard to get on but still firmly squashes my cheeks. No gum chewing allowed Rather that than bonus brain trauma though.

[zilaniz]

as mentioned already you need to get smaller gear that almost feels as if it does not fit you. Motorcycle gear is only ment to feel comftorable while in the riding postions. Basically it should fit you like a glove

[adouglas]

The armor arrived. It fits very well... nice and snug, and quite comfortable. Seems to be well ventilated, so in combination with a mesh jacket it ought to deal with warm weather well.

It's vastly more substantial than the CE armor in my jacket. It's heavy. The thing must weigh five pounds all up, including the back protector.

We shall see what it's like on the bike. First impression is positive, but I've only just put it on to see how it fits.

[Mista Bob]

Have you tried wearing a jacket over it yet?

I own the very same set of armor that you posted and I can't imagine it fitting under anything but a jacket that is way too large for you normally.
Mainly due to the back protector, which is more bulky then the usual stand alone ones that are available.

Well, if I remember correctly... it fit under my leather jacket but it makes you look like a ninja turtle wearing a leather jacket.

Personally I wouldn't bother with a jacket on top of it unless you plan on doing some decent speed spirited riding (in which case you should be wearing proper fitting full leathers anyways IMO).
Whenever I wore the armor suit I'd wear just that with leather gloves, boots n a helmet.

[adouglas]

Yes, it fits under both textile and mesh jackets (I don't own a leather jacket). The elbow and shoulder armor takes up no more room than the stock stuff in the jacket, which I have of course removed.

Strictly speaking my jackets are probably too big, but I'm hard to fit. I have broad shoulders for my size, so to get my shoulders into anything the body is usually too big and the sleeves too long. So this arrangement feels fine to me.

The back protector is more bulky than the utter joke of a foam pad in the jacket, but I don't care. I feel well protected.

I would NEVER wear this alone. The material of the thing is stretchy lycra that would disintegrate in a hurry if not covered by a jacket. I could probably poke a finger through it easily.

So far I'm fine with it.

[sofo]

I am thinking about this same kind of armor "shirt" underneath a jacket specifically for summer time under a textile mesh jacket. These armor "shirts" are common in downhill and freeride mountain biking, in fact I'm currently looking for options that I could use for both activities to get the best options available.

I think it's valid to think about armor movement in a crash however I have experienced and seen pads like those in the "shirts" and seperate peices that go right on the skin shift so really, unless you try some kind of trans-dermal attachment system to bolt the armor directly to your skeleton, there is no guarantee that everything will stay in place.

Very interesting thread...

[Rayme]

I would think that armor is for the impacts, once you're sliding on the pavement I would pray the textile and / leather is actually what is keeping you from getting road rash and do its job properly..my worst fear would be to start sliding backward where my jacket would start lifting up my back exposing the whole bare skin...but wearing a one peice suit is just not practical for everyday use. An under jacket armor would need to be very fit and strongly attacked to you to stay in place in the even the jacket flies over you. If you think about it, armor is only good for the moment you hit the pavement..if you start sliding into trees, posts, into a canyon... or cars..theres no much amount of armour that will save you from broken bones !

[sofo]

Originally Posted by adouglas

I would NEVER wear this alone. The material of the thing is stretchy lycra that would disintegrate in a hurry if not covered by a jacket. I could probably poke a finger through it easily.

So far I'm fine with it.

Watch out with lycra... if your textile jacket tears and exposes it that stuff has a nasty tendency to melt into skin.

[sofo]

Originally Posted by Rayme

I would think that armor is for the impacts, once you're sliding on the pavement I would pray the textile and / leather is actually what is keeping you from getting road rash and do its job properly..my worst fear would be to start sliding backward where my jacket would start lifting up my back exposing the whole bare skin...but wearing a one peice suit is just not practical for everyday use. An under jacket armor would need to be very fit and strongly attacked to you to stay in place in the even the jacket flies over you. If you think about it, armor is only good for the moment you hit the pavement..if you start sliding into trees, posts, into a canyon... or cars..theres no much amount of armour that will save you from broken bones !

Good thoughts, makes me think that the best way to go is a properly fitted jacket (custom if needed) made like a Vanson with 3.0mm leather and CE-approved armor.

If fit is hard, I'd pop for custom fit since my skin is worth the cost.

[adouglas]

Beautiful day here in New England so I took a nice long ride - about 150 miles. Temps in the 70s.

Wore the armor over a mid-weight cotton buttoned shirt and under a Fieldsheer mesh jacket. Quite comfy... not hot at all. It's vented enough, and in the right places (under the arms) to keep you cool if there's airflow.

My only gripe is the chest pad. It rides very high on me. I'd like it to be about an inch or maybe two lower. I might modify it.

[ninja250]

I've been thinking about this thread some on my own.. not as a way to get better fitment of the pads so they don't move but rather just so I can ride around in a Tshirt while still sporting ATGATT during summer.

[adouglas]

Seriously... the material on this thing isn't sufficient to hold the pads in place by itself. I'm not kidding when I say I could probably poke my finger through it.

If you wear this you're still wearing a garment. If you really want to feel like you're wearing a T-shirt, then I think you're out of luck. Pads MUST cover you.

I've got a Fieldsheer mesh jacket that vents so well it's as cool as a T-shirt anyway. Or so I believe... I've never ridden in just a T-shirt, not once. ATGATT means exactly that to me.

Solved the chest pad fitment issue, by simply fastening the belly band OVER the lower edge of the chest armor. I suppose I could alter the belly band pretty easily (I'm moderately handy with a sewing machine).

Still very comfy ventilation-wise. If I remember to I'll check back in after the weather gets hot to let everyone know if it remains comfortable. ("Hot" here in CT means 90s with 90+ percent humidity... we get about 10 days of that every summer.)

[Flashmonkey]

Originally Posted by ninja250

I've been thinking about this thread some on my own.. not as a way to get better fitment of the pads so they don't move but rather just so I can ride around in a Tshirt while still sporting ATGATT during summer.

Ummm...that's technically not ATGATT.

[adouglas]

I've had the Juggernaut for six weeks now so I thought an update would be in order.

In my last post I noted that the chest pad was riding kind of high. This was a literal pain in the neck, because when on the bike the upper edge of the belly band would push the chest plate up into my Adam's Apple.

Turns out this was my fault, for not wearing it properly. I was basing how it fits on the photo, and other photos shown at WebBikeWorld in their review. These all suggest that the upper edge of the belly band is supposed to be at the lower edge of the chest plate, and the ones at WBW showed the lower edge of the band right at the rider's waistline. The model in that photo must be a very tall guy. Wearing it that way didn't work for me.

For a while I put the belly band OVER the plate so I could keep its lower edge at my waistline, and that worked but didn't seem correct. The back protector felt like it was too high and it just felt kind of awkward.

Emails to Velocity told me that I wasn't doing it right. You put the shirt on, zip it up and pull the belly band DOWN as you fasten it, stretching the shirt's lycra. There is no need to put the lower edge of the band at your waist, and the chest plate can go over the band. There are even a couple of velcro tabs on the chest plate that you can stick to the band to keep it from riding up.

On me, the middle of the band winds up at my waist. That's a good two or three inches lower than I had been wearing it when I had the band up over the plate. Now that I'm wearing it right it's more comfortable and feels very secure.

Regarding heat, with a mesh jacket I've been reasonably comfy even in high heat and humidity (heat index near 100), though I wouldn't say "cool" by any stretch of the imagination in those conditions. With temps in the upper 80s and reasonable humidity I'm quite comfortable. Most of the shirt is open-weave lycra that you can see through, so it doesn't impede air flow at all.

The vent holes in the chest plate don't seem to do anything. However, there's noticeable airflow down the inside of the chest plate, which is quite pleasant. The air comes in through the neck of my jacket and flows down over my chest. If I flex my torso a bit I can get even more room, and feel the air on my belly - er, "abs" (they're in there somewhere, right? ). It's a nice breeze down my chest.

There's no real flow around the belly band, of course. It does have holes in it but because it fits so tight there's no air circulation at the waist.

I'd gauge overall perceived flow with the mesh jacket as somewhere between straight mesh and a solid vented textile jacket. If you wear a vented textile jacket it won't change the perceived flow IMHO.

Overall I'm quite happy with my decision to go this route. I feel very secure and well-protected, with very good (CE Level 2) armor that goes far beyond what I've got in my jacket.

When I ride to the diner at lunch I don't wear it, though. I keep my spare jacket at the office with its original armor in place and wear that instead. The difference in feel and perceived security is striking.

That's one the real drawback to this IMHO. If you're hopping on the bike for a casual trip to go get a burger it's just too elaborate to deal with.

[KimR]

I have a similar "shirt"--an Acerbis Koerta. It's actually designed for off road protection, but it's the same deal, CE armor sewn on a mesh shirt with a zipper. Here's a link to some pics: http://www.powersportsuperstore.com/...09&Click=6154&

I have worn it on the street on a trip to southern India. And I have been down in it. It worked fine. Just a little rash on my forearm (I was not wearing a jacket over it).

But for everyday here in the states, I wear a Cycleport Ultra jacket. Custommade Kevlar mesh. I also have been down in that jacket and was absolutely unscathed. In fact, the jacket was unscathed. Can't say enough positive things about it. See www.cycleport.com

[Roark]

Any updates to this body armor?

[Sirref]

holy thread revival

on point w/the original post, the OP brings up a good point with sliding and loose armor within the jacket or a loose jacket in the first place.

The difference between my last street off and my last track off is shocking, especially when considering the speed differential (I was near the top of 5th gear on my track down (80-90~ likely closer to 80s) and low 2nd gear on the street down (~30-45mph once again likely closer to the lower number)
I didn't have a scratch on me from the track down which was significantly more intense because of the higher quality gear, my frank thomas leather suit fits me perfectly throughout (with the exclusion of being tight on the knees but that's minor) so none of the armor shifted at all to cause unnecessary friction on my body.
Meanwhile the street off I have a few minor scars from that were caused by my jacket rubbing on my skin while I was sliding, I know it'd have hurt quite a bit more if I wasn't wearing my jacket (and my face would look pretty different w/o the helmet too) but wearing gear that fits properly makes a pretty big difference. My next jacket will be form fitting and I'll try it on over at revzilla hq before purchasing it to ensure said fit.

the points about armor under the jacket is interesting, this works flawlessly in a track setting or canyon carving but I feel that day to day riding it'd get old fast and you would have less protection if you skipped it to just wear your jacket for a shorter ride unless you had a second jacket for just such an event. This is feasible if they are different jackets. Say a track/canyon carving leather jacket and a more apt for commuting waterproof textile jacket or something like that but I wouldn't be able to bring myself to budget two equivalent jackets when I still need to cover other bills at the same time.