The problem with EN17092 (and why it's not what you think it is)

In this video, we talk about the safety standard, EN17092 and why it's not what you think it is.
To read our full, written article, click here - www.motolegends.com/reviews/t...
Why not pay us a personal visit? Click here for directions and opening hours - www.motolegends.com/customer-...
For the latest news and reviews, subscribe to our KZbin channel by clicking here - kzbin.info...
To follow us on Facebook, click here - / motolegendsuk
To follow us on Instagram, click here - / motolegends_uk

[@andrewhannam.]

As a motorcyclists in North America, I am just glad that Europe has real standards and ratings. This is why I buy European kit.

[@danboyd6180]

Nailed It Brohansel

[@Hoshi_Toranaga]

Why not get both.... like John Doe Rider Shirt. AAA rated, can be ordered with big Level 2 protectors throughout, streteches, light to wear, excellent airflow, ,moisture wicking.... genius German engineering. Love their Jeans and Shirts, even in the hottest summer, and with Scott on Top and some Merino layer below, even in cold weather.

[@lenluksa326]

At least you (across the pond) have safety standards and different kinds of testing for riding gear. Here in Canada and dare I say North America, there's more attention paid to wearing gear (or not wearing it) to project a certain "image" i.e. weekend pirate, or whether a piece of riding gear will match the colour of the moto they're riding. Your safety rating systems and approaches may not be perfect but at least you are making the effort to have them and to bring consistency to them. I always learn something from your vids and today I learned the difference between a safety rating and abrasion rating. Thanks for that.

[@ClipperUK2008]

I think everyone would agree that en17092 does not go far enough. As a minor correction it should be said that you don't need armour at all for en17092 - at the moment you can get a B rating if your garment does not have the minimum armour so unarmoured garments are B rated. To get A, AA or AAA you have to have the minimum armour and as you mention that does not include a back protector which is a pretty big omission (and hip not needed for A rated pants!). I firmly believe that both of those should be required for A,AA and AAA. Also the fact that en17092 doesn't go above and beyond means that there is "no difference" between an AAA rated mesh jacket with level 1 armour and an AAA rated race leather jacket with full level 2 armour. Obviously if the garment has en13595 level 2 on top then that does give us an "above and beyond" measure. The "active" safety ratings should be about giving us information about the en17092 ratings and the armour ratings/sizes so we can make an informed decision. Motocap also do a brilliant job but the range of garments tested is limited - but it can be another useful datapoint (they use the same machine as en13595). Personally if the garment is leather then it has to be AAA and fully armoured level 2. For textiles AA with level 2 armour throughout. With modern fabrics and methods all of this can be very wearable and comfortable. I don't like to compromise on abrasion/burst/seam strength as I have suffered skin abrasion before and it was very unpleasant so I do all I can to avoid it whilst still remaining comfortable.

[@rt26fr72]

Thank you! You have explained exactly what I was looking for - to understand what the EN17092 standard actually means and the differences between the levels.

[@mikenoeth955]

Agree. Great report. Just recently had an accident with 70 mph on the US interstate. Sliding down the road with a mesh “A” jacket / pants and with CE1 armor. What saved the day was the Airbag vest. The pants and jackets rubbed thru and caused some slight road rash. The problem was that I lost the armor due to rubbing thru the layer. In the end it is a combination of good abrasion resistance and good armor. Next jacket is at least “AA” and CE2 armor.

[@martinl6205]

Chris you are an absolute mind of information for the industry. We all appreciate your knowledge and advice through the years. Thank you!

[@The-Splat]

Chris rightly mentioned the “well-known Australian study” highlighting armour’s role in abrasion resistance. This research and every subsequent study found no association between armour and reduced fracture risk; all the evidence shows that CE standards are too low to be effective against breakages. It will likely remain a problem while manufacturers dominate the CE committee that sets the armour standards. More positively, the few studies on airbags show they provide effective protection below 30 mph. However, the CE standard for airbags doesn’t consider their algorithms, so we have no clue in which circumstances the airbag will or won’t trigger. Regarding back protectors, numerous studies found no association with reduced back or spinal injuries because the current design fails to protect against the most common cause of back injuries. Most spinal injuries are caused by bending and torsional force (craniocaudal force), which, despite the evidence, the current CE standard for back protection doesn’t consider.

[@sCiphre]

Iirc only level 1 armour had no measurable effect. Level 2 armour had decent effect.

[@Geshmaal]

This is an interesting topic and there's not really a good solution to this - Bennett's have tried to introduce their own standards above AAA but I know you aren't a fan of their approach. I quite like the Motocap reviews from Australia, even some AAA gear performs poorly in their tests but it is a more holistic approach than EN17092. The times I've come off the bike though I've had far more trouble from the impact than from abrasion, I can confirm the upgraded Halvarssons level 2 armour works well!

[@grandtourisbros]

Thank you for educating us on this issue and providing clear examples!

[@keithmatthews7077]

Chris, well present information, aa always asking the great questions that we all should be asking ...

[@simonegambini7190]

fantastic discussion you are one of the few who talks about this, well done. Greetings from Italy

[@Imotopilot]

Thank you for sharing this! Quite eye opening.

[@LloydGrace1]

Very informative, thank you!

[@Philche]

This information helped me a lot. Thank you.

[@BoomerMutt55]

Thank you for this explanation, I appreciate it. And my best from across the pond.

[@user-ix3ry4wq7b]

Thanks for posting this, your videos always bring different perspectives rarely mentioned by other channels… My Marrakesh jacket is by far my favorite piece of gear comfort wise, and honestly I had never considered it before seeing you mentioning it in an older video… Wish your shop was closer, next time I’m in the UK will find a way to stop, grab a coffee and try some different gear I might have overlooked so far… Cheers

[@christoferbjork3709]

I didn't know that. Thank you!

[@marka5202]

Absolutely spot on! This conversation needs to be had more widely. I can think of no other retailer that puts in anything close to this level of thought and effort. Thanks for posting.

[@R71D]

Very informative. I look forward to the Shoei Neotec 3 to start selling in the US.

[@scottdawkins5516]

Totally agree. Came across this with some AA rated RST trousers with little level 2 pads in the knees which were in a type B sized pocket and slid round the side. Useless. You've confirmed what I thought, tick box exercise to get the certification. The size of the area covered is just as important.

[@michal_z]

On point💪

[@903lew]

You do realise that EN17092 does not concern armour (that’s EN1621)? It’s a bit like saying the RON of fuel is a rubbish standard because it doesn’t concern the quality of spark plugs. Best of luck selling the Rukkas, I’ll do AAA and level 2 armours of a good size.

[@Motolegends]

Of course I realise; that’s why I made this video. The problem is that most motorcyclists think that EN17092 is a safety standard rather than an abrasion test. I would have thought that was clear. As far as what you decide to wear, keep ticking those boxes. That’s your loss. But you’re not listening. Don’t care what AAA jacket you buy, it won’t take armour as big as the stuff that comes with a Rukka or Stadler jacket. And you will never be comfortable on the bike if that’s how you always choose to ride. CP

[@903lew]

@@Motolegends Nice to know you’re checked all AAA jackets out there. Best of luck attracting custom with this lovely attitude.

[@paulvarnsverry11]

There are several well-made points in this video (aside from the inference that a larger protector = greater transmitted force attenuation, PLUS AAA is the only performance classification in EN 17092 that specifies enhanced abrasion protection to the buttocks; AA and A are not required to feature this - I’ll leave the insurance company referred to to respond to the remarks on its scheme), which brings me to the point that the even the largest, EN 1621-1 Type B template does not specify protectors of adequate dimensions for taller or larger riders. This was first pointed out in the mid-1990s - while the first version of the standard was still under preparation - and on at least two subsequent occasions (including when the 2012 revision was under development). On each and every occasion the concerns were dismissed by the European Standards committee for motorcyclists’ clothing as it was claimed the templates were minima and protector manufacturers would be free to produce components larger than the minimum area of coverage. The reality is that larger dimensions = higher materials costs and in a competitive market the clothing brands will be comparing prices, so protector manufacturers generally work to the EN 1621-1 templates. Why produce bigger protectors if they are not recognised, and the resultant unit costs see you passed over in favour of a competitor working to the minimums? There are limited exceptions - Rukka (and others referenced by Chris) and Klim immediately spring to mind - but in the mass market protectors that just satisfy the coverage requirements are the norm. The issue is compounded with EN 17092, where the zone 1 area at highest risk of impact and abrasion is defined by the EN 1621-1 template; but which of the two templates - smallest (Type A) or largest (Type B) - is not stipulated! In EN 17092, the Type A template can be used to define zone 1 in EN 17092-conforming garments, and these garments can then be legitimately fitted with Type A impact protectors, across the brand’s entire size range, which might be 3XS - 5XL. Wearers of the largest sizes will be provided with proportionately reduced protective coverage - both for impact protection and for abrasion protection. In my opinion, both EN 1621-1 and EN 17092 need to address this issue. The latest review of EN 1621-1 has just been confirmed. I do not see how the revised standard that results from the process can be credibly or morally proposed for publication (not even for CEN enquiry) without satisfactorily covering the issues of additional templates for larger sizes of protectors and linking size of template (and thus, impact protector) to body dimensions of end user.

[@The-Splat]

Well said, Paul 👍 Regarding Bennetts Insurance, I’m disappointed Chris continues his unjustified war of words against them. It reflects poorly on him. Would we need Bennetts’ High Performance Award if Knox hadn’t lobbied AGAINST higher protection standards?

[@Motolegends]

Paul, I didn’t suggest that a larger protector would absorb more energy. My point was that a larger protector provides more protection by dint of being larger, thus protecting a wider area. And I don’t think that anybody is going to argue with the fact that a longer back protector will provide more protection than a short one, for example. If more of your spine is covered by a piece of armour, it will provide more protection. CP

[@paulvarnsverry11]

⁠​⁠@@Motolegends : It was the phraseology used in the Halvarssons Level 2 versus Stadler level 2 commentary that created that impression, Chris. I’ll accept that to most people it would not even occur, but given the extent to which I am embedded in the topic it’s the type of minutiae that leaps off the screen - or page - at me. Your logic on the advantages of larger protectors in terms of coverage is, of course, inarguable, so I hope you’ll allow me to give you a nudge when the public enquiry into the EN 1621-1 revision opens (it’s at least 18 months to 2 years away) so you can contribute your views.

[@The-Splat]

@@paulvarnsverry11 While I agree entirely with you on armour sizes, the CE test’s allowable transmitted force must be revised. Every study on motorcyclists’ body armour found it’s ineffective against fracture risk. In contrast, the few studies to date on airbags found they are associated with reduced injury risk below 30 mph.

[@paulvarnsverry11]

@@The-Splat My comments on the extent of revision were not exhaustive. There are others with an interest in standards development who also hold the view that advances since 2012 also justify changes in that area of the limb protector standard.

[@os6219]

This is fundamental information! I have indeed been wondering about this comparing jackets protection I own. My AAA rated is clearly less protected at a 1000€ than a simple no-name Bomber at 100€ with maximum protective gear from d30. Quite unbelievable!

[@wellewolle7858]

Love those videos! Always nailing it! In your other videos, you proclaim the Marrakesh as the best motorcycle jacket - I am intrigued by the concept! Where would you place an upgraded L2 armor in a Marrakesh/Baja from said safety perspective, when we compare it with Stadler. Apples and pairs for sure...but how much compromise do I buy with a Marrakesh/Baja layer concept, if Stadler has just so much safer armor?

[@motohutca]

Chris, I'd like you to know, you are the guru in the moto apparel world and do wonders for the rest of us. It's really hard to find a lot of the information and you make it extremely easy and digestible. Hoping to see you at EICMA this year,

[@doolar]

And this is why I had no hesitation buying the Nivala 2 (Rapto-R in Sweden) from Rukka almost two years ago, even though it is a "just" single A suit. The armor pieces are huge, and the suit is still super comfortable to wear.

[@alainmichaud6747]

Nice explanation , but there is still rider in normal jeans and tee shirts in summer in Canada, most people do not understand. I wear Kim Marrakesh jacket with scorpion Kevlar jean , all with armor 1, I remove the class 2 armor due to heat and stiffness, i still have the best garment and good armor since I ride a trike ( gloves, boots) safety is a personal choice , as there is not enough education on the subject, this is why this video is important.

[@UltimateDazzle]

Nice video , well explained, and yes there’s always a compromise, else we would all ride dressed like Sir Lancelot about to go jousting

[@Gbner]

I think we can all agree EN17092 is not perfect. But expensive brands (Rukka) should just get over it and stop producing single A rated gear for 1.000€+. People are rightfully complaining when even the cheapie store brands are achieving AA on their textile jackets. There is no point in justifying it or going after the standard itself to somehow make these brands look better.

[@andrewmoorey556]

I hope the new Belstaff Brooklands jacket has a bigger back protector pocket. My old version is tiny. Also I’m not a fan of the D30 Ghost Level 2 knee armour- it’s only thicker in the middle so when kneeling on the floor it rolls over.

[@gbner9991]

10:26 that Alpinestars Bogota jacket looks really cool, would love to see a review of it...

[@Motolegends]

I think you’d be disappointed. I certainly was. CP

[@patrickmatthys699]

Why?

[@mcdon2401]

Of all the times I've fallen off of bikes (and there's been a few) I've only once worn through the outer layer of an item once (a jacket sleeve). But every time I've fallen off, I've hit something (be it the pavement or something else) and that's caused problems every single time. Wouldn't like to think what would have happened if armour hadn't been a thing.

[@mickleblade]

While that massive black back protector looks amazing, it looks to have dreadful airflow and would cook the of us who live in hotter climates. I doubt you could sit down in it at a cafe for a coffee either! Great video.

[@Motolegends]

No, you’re right; in fact, Mr. Stadler once stated to me that his jackets were designed for riding, not for drinking cappuccinos! CP

[@MattGrover]

How likely is it that a garment, from any manufacturer, supplied with lvl1 armour would be able to accept the larger/bulkier lvl2? Or do they tend to be made to fit accordingly?

[@ClipperUK2008]

For standard A/B size armour it is very likely as Level 2 armour in same size is just slightly thicker. Armour comes in levels 1 and 2 and sizes A and B. B is larger and covers a bigger surface area. As far as I know , and have experienced with jackets and jeans, if the armour is Level 1 and is A sized then Level 2 A sized armour should fit as it is just a bit thicker but covers same area - same with B sized armour but B armour won't fit into a garment that can only take A. The exception would be oversized armour like Chris demonstrated in the video they won't fit in other garments that are sized for A or B size as they go above that - however they tend to be farily bespoke to that manufacturer/garment. Armour sold in retailers is usually stamped A/B sized. BAck protectors are more complicates as they can be Full Back , Centre back and Lower Back so harder to mix/match - I tend to buy what is recommended by manufacturer and , again, level 2 fits as long as it is same sizing code

[@Motolegends]

No, and that can be a problem. Normally, a jacket comes with pocket of a specific size. If the armour is Level 1, you can normally upgrade to level 2, but you cannot fit bigger armour in. CP

[@sarge2665]

Yet another excellent and informative video. Nice to see a company that genuinely puts their customers needs before profit. Thanks guys and keep up the good work 👍🏻

[@martinhowell3475]

I've never worried in the slightest about Safety ratings, just gone with brands i trust and the comfort/quality of the garment.

[@jonr1122]

Level 1, level 2. It doesn't make much difference, armour is really only helping the abrasion resistance. Level 2 is such a low bar, (9kn), that in even a fairly minor off it will have almost no bearing on whether you break your bones or not. There should be AAAAA garments and CE level 5 armour. The fact that there isn't is due to the clothing manufacturers dictating to the politicians what the regulations should be. It is a disgrace.

[@dennismckee6017]

I don't see the problem. Slide risks and impact risks are two totally different issues. There should be an "A-AA-AAA" standard such has is for sliding. There should be a Level 1-2, such as is for impact. These garments are all able to have the different components switched to make them as safe as possible by picking AAA, and adding Level 2 pads. One main rating would not be as informative as the current structure.

[@Motolegends]

No issue with that, but the perception is that AAA rated garments are safer, and they are not. But again things never that simple, as you need to factor in comfort and breathability if you want to ride safely. Which is why it’s almost impossible to find an AAA-rated Gore-Tex jacket. Actually, there is one, but it is very uncomfortable to ride in. But my point was a simple one. AAA under EN17092 does not mean safer or more protective. CP

[@dennismckee6017]

@Motolegends I'm just of the opinion that this is a multifaceted issue that cannot be represented by one rating standard. It should take into consideration slide resistance separate from impact absorption. They are not related at all.

[@dennismckee6017]

I agree about the comfort. I wear a AA Goretex jacket with Level 2 armor. It is my best fit for my everyday commute

[@Motolegends]

@@dennismckee6017No argument. My only point is that the motorcycling public perceives EN17092 as an all-encompassing safety rating; and it’s not. That is all. CP

[@carlostomas3698]

@@Motolegends Who considers the standard as the only important safety measurement is poorly informed. But for what it is AAA is better than AA and better than A for what is intended to to be measure with and compared with! Of course not all AAA are equal, and unfortunately is not easy to know the all information, besides some third party tests. It’s like level 1 and level 2 protections. 2 protects best than 1, but also for different brands and models same level doesn’t mean exactly the same protection. Every rider should understand what he is buying! There are plenty information out there to explore and understand. In the shops if one’s seems to know little it should be explained the different levels and kinds of protections available. Is up to the rider to understand the compromises to have between kinds and levels of protection, comfort, weight, temperature and, mainly, the level of risk each one wants to takes when riding, with a true knowledge that nothing will be certain to protect on a crash and, of course, price. For me, I don’t hesitate to lose in comfort to have more protection. And prefer to spend more money on it than on the bike (especially on things just to make it louder, “prettier”, “flashier”, …). But that’s me!

[@sambagogo777]

Your point on EN17092 being a protectionist measure to help keep out overseas competitors was well made. I'd also add that it stifles start-up companies from within the EU being able to compete. I suspect a few Eurocrat palms were greased by the big name European manufacturers to bring said legislation to pass.

[@SortItOotMan]

Where do airbag jackets come into all this? Still no safety standard for those?

[@Motolegends]

Not really sure, but I seem to remember being told by Spidi that there is a standard. We don’t get too involved with airbags, so probably not the best people to ask. Sorry. CP

[@fictiveaudio]

There is, it's EN 1621-4

[@SortItOotMan]

BS EN 1621-4:2013. Inflatable protectors other than mechanically activated are not covered by this standard. Out of date nonsense as usual. Pish!

[@user-nu7rp6jv1u]

This is EU bureaucracy at its worst! I'd like to see the reintroduction of a meaning full British standard and if its difficult to pass that can only be a good thing. Large quality amour in all the main areas is key, nobody ever died from sliding 20 yards.

[@paulvarnsverry11]

BSI is a member of European Standards body CEN, and the rules of membership prohibit publication of a national document where an existing European Standard has been published. CEN rules also stipulate that there cannot be two standards simultaneously covering the same product type or group. This is why the original standard for motorcyclists’ clothing - EN 13595 - has been withdrawn, because EN 17092 supersedes it. EN 13595 had its origins in the work of Dr Roderick Woods and was proposed by BSI to CEN as a European Standard. It set a high benchmark and a combination of that and the prevailing legislation (the original PPE Directive) proving difficult to enforce meant most motorcycle clothing brands ignored it. The current PPE Regulation has more teeth, which is why a standard (EN 17092) was required that existing products could more readily achieve. There is a view that both EN 17092 and the requirements set by EN 13595 should coexist, but that has proven to be a controversial suggestion.

[@jaimewisoky]

🤗 Promo>SM

[@aleksrodins]

Thank you for sharing your professional outlook and opinion on a general issue! H&S topics are always very sensitive to discuss! Can’t believe, that some people look at this video as Rukka commercial only! 🫤 I am sure many riders will learn something from this video, and will use the info to formulate their own opinion on what to wear!