I really don't think it's a conformity thing, nor a costume thing. I think it has a lot to do with your comfort zone. I grew up riding dirt bike in the 70's never wearing a helmet, I wouldn't dream of that now. When I ride a cruiser, I ride at a relaxed pace and don't feel the need to wear all of my gear. When I ride a sport bike or sport touring bike, I ride more aggressively and feel more comfortable wearing more protective gear. As far as the pirate costume comment, whatever, take a look at some of the sport riders and ADV riders.
|
|
|
Armor or no Armor that is the question..
- Thread starter Jampy00
- Start date
TK4
Well-known member
Tell that to the cager that left turns in front of you.
TK4
Well-known member
No question, people dress up but ATGATT !
I have enough scar tissue that I don't need tattoos and that's even wearing good gear.
TK4
Well-known member
Then if you're that good a rider, why wear any protective gear anytime at all ?
Because you don't know what other people are going to do, that's why.
I fear we must agree to disagree - let's leave it at that.
Just came here to post this up.
watched both videos back to back. i dont really see any conflict between the two.
obviously Paul Varnsverry (the PPE guy) isnt going to say on record to NOT wear armor. and frankly neither is ryan f9. if anything, Varnsverry agrees with ryans points that manufacturers basically do the minimum legal standard with armor in sizing and impact protection despite being fully aware that better methods / materials were available at the time.
Varnsverry then attempts to explain this by basically saying "well manufacturers kinda did the right thing with smaller, flimsier armor because it gets riders USED to wearing armor, because actual armor that works well is too thick and uncomfortable" which is honestly a weird argument to me but whatever. obviously the technology for it is gonna get better etc though.
the main Bennetts guy, John then tries to sorta pivot by saying "well any armor must be better than no armor, no?" and then him and Paul proceed to talk about how airbags do indeed offer WAY more protection than anything else on the market. Both Paul and John wear airbags themselves.
so wheres the lie here?
trying to call Ryan some sort of shill is hilarious. Obviously the entire channel is meant to sell stuff. he's not doing this just for fun lol. but at least hes doing it with more nuance than the majority of gear/bike review channels.
obviously Paul Varnsverry (the PPE guy) isnt going to say on record to NOT wear armor. and frankly neither is ryan f9. if anything, Varnsverry agrees with ryans points that manufacturers basically do the minimum legal standard with armor in sizing and impact protection despite being fully aware that better methods / materials were available at the time.
Varnsverry then attempts to explain this by basically saying "well manufacturers kinda did the right thing with smaller, flimsier armor because it gets riders USED to wearing armor, because actual armor that works well is too thick and uncomfortable" which is honestly a weird argument to me but whatever. obviously the technology for it is gonna get better etc though.
the main Bennetts guy, John then tries to sorta pivot by saying "well any armor must be better than no armor, no?" and then him and Paul proceed to talk about how airbags do indeed offer WAY more protection than anything else on the market. Both Paul and John wear airbags themselves.
so wheres the lie here?
trying to call Ryan some sort of shill is hilarious. Obviously the entire channel is meant to sell stuff. he's not doing this just for fun lol. but at least hes doing it with more nuance than the majority of gear/bike review channels.
Last edited:
Priller
Well-known member
Sorry, but the title of the video is "Why I Stopped Wearing Motorcycle Body Armour", and the thumbnail is classic clickbait nonsense with USELESS in a large font and the creator making a crazy face. He then proceeds to make a strawman argument about preventing broken bones, when absolutely nobody is making those claims or setting those expectations. He then finishes by saying that while he won't tell others not to wear it (liability dodge), he has stopped using it himself.
The bit that everyone else is trying to say loudly (including the authors he selectively quotes), that impact protectors do make a significant difference in reducing the most common injuries in crashes, is ignored by selecting one specific extreme-case scenario around broken bones. So not USELESS, I guess.
If the video was "Motorcycle Body Armour Could Be Much Better", then I might buy in. What is posted is classic clickbait, and it's irrelevant whether that's designed to sell airbags or generate clicks for YouTube revenue. Like so many other of their videos, it's bad information and should be ignored.
it feels weird that you quoted me but literally did not address anything i actually wrote lol.
first of all, youtube is its own thing with its own set of best practices and algorithms. thumbnails and titles are meant to attract viewers. i dont give a **** about that part. but if you're dismissing an entire video based on the thumbnail and title, thats on you.
i also think your argument would be more valid if the title were "YOU SHOULDN'T BOTHER WEARING ANY MOTORCYCLE ARMOR!" but...it doesnt say that.
instead it states why he chooses not to wear armor (and if one bothers to watch the video, he discerns exactly which type of armor hes talking about). ryan goes on to say he does wear armor thats vastly better (airbags) and both videos from him and bennetts agrees on this.
are you sure about that? impact protection is literally the entire marketing push on armor for knee/elbows etc. whats the very first line on d30s website? "D3O® is the number one choice for motorcycle body armor and protective gear that delivers outstanding impact protection, comfort and flexibility."
Any sensible, inquiring person (especially new riders) would surmise that 'impact protection' hopefully means less broken/fractured bones. absolutely nowhere does it even mention slide protection. so i call ******** that "nobody is making those claims" when that claim is literally the #1 implied benefit by arguably the most famous moto armor protection manufacturer.
like its already said in the video, he does wear armor thats vastly better (airbags) and verbatim says "i wont sit here and tell you to take the armor out of your jacket because, its somewhat protective. of course it is. you can slide on this. it might save you a bruise. maybe in some statistical anomaly it'll save you a fracture. i cant tell you to take the armor out your YOUR jacket, i can just tell you i take the armor out of MY jacket".
the bennetts video mostly agrees with f9's take on why motorcycle armor is in such a sad state its currently in (which i mentioned in my original post). and they both agree that airbags are vastly better. so where is this 'bad information' you're talking about? it sounds like you're just mostly mad about the youtube thumb/title and choose to dismiss it entirely because of that lol.
Varnsverry is very much on the side of the consumer, and pushing the manufacturers to do the right thing, but he and the associated PPE/safety orgs are pushing a very heavy stone up a very steep hill. The big manufacturers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the current EN17092 A/AA/AAA standards.
His statement about AA level clothing speaks volumes about his core stance: "I consider AA to be entirely inadequate for track use". And since AA is rated for up to (simulated) 70km/hr slides, I'd also consider that to be a condemnation of AA for street use as well.
Note that the 'A' level only exists so that manufacturers would be essentially guaranteed that their current products would pass when EN17092 came into effect. And ignoring the whole armour debate for a moment, also note that EN17092 includes the seam burst test which is a pretty good indicator of whether your clothing will simply fall apart the instant you hit the ground or not.
One common trait of technical professionals that have to put up with corporate nonsense on a daily basis is that they'll make statements that are technically true (like thinner, lighter armour being more acceptable to the public), when those statements are only valid for a very narrow context. I've had to train myself to stop making statements like that at work. Especially saying "anything is possible", because management stops listening as soon as they hear that, and they miss the entire "but it's a really bad idea and will cause us tons of problems in the future" part.
His statement about AA level clothing speaks volumes about his core stance: "I consider AA to be entirely inadequate for track use". And since AA is rated for up to (simulated) 70km/hr slides, I'd also consider that to be a condemnation of AA for street use as well.
Note that the 'A' level only exists so that manufacturers would be essentially guaranteed that their current products would pass when EN17092 came into effect. And ignoring the whole armour debate for a moment, also note that EN17092 includes the seam burst test which is a pretty good indicator of whether your clothing will simply fall apart the instant you hit the ground or not.
One common trait of technical professionals that have to put up with corporate nonsense on a daily basis is that they'll make statements that are technically true (like thinner, lighter armour being more acceptable to the public), when those statements are only valid for a very narrow context. I've had to train myself to stop making statements like that at work. Especially saying "anything is possible", because management stops listening as soon as they hear that, and they miss the entire "but it's a really bad idea and will cause us tons of problems in the future" part.
Last edited:
Priller
Well-known member
I guess it boils down to a difference of opinion about what the word 'impact' means? Or what the point of the video was? Not sure, feels like we're arguing on two sides of a fence, and not getting very far.
As for F9, my issue isn't specifically about the title and thumbnail of the video (though I don't think they're that far off the claims in the video), it's more the repeated videos (oxygen inside helmets, contact patches, which way to lean on a motorcycle, and on and on) where the claims are either outright wrong, or as with this video, extremely selective about what data they present in order to make a 'groundbreaking' point. "Everyone else is doing it wrong!" etc. I think they're slickly produced, and very short to avoid boring people with nuance or grey areas, but rarely useful.
Either way, that's just, like, my opinion, man. If you dig Ryan and his videos, have at it.
TK4
Well-known member
Please, Keep Your Armor In Your Gear - Adventure Rider
Usually FortNine is pretty good at explaining features of motorcycling in his easy to understand videos. This one is a whiff.
www.advrider.com
If nothing else, this thread has prompted me to dig out my old DVD of 'Faster' to make sure that I hadn't imagined Barry Sheene claiming to be the inventor of the back protector in 1973. Made from old helmet visors "so that it could only bend forwards and couldn't bend backwards".
Slid at Mosport off a ‘07 GSXR750 on my first trackday. Stitching opened up on my elbow area but the elbow armor absorbed enough impact from the fall that I didn’t feel a thing.
I’ve hit enough tree’s on my dirtbike that I’ll happily wear a chest/back protector with shoulder armor (ok I hit a tree pretty much every time).
Neither will help me if I go 100-0 hitting a pole/car but they aren’t cumbersome and each do their intended job well.
I’ve hit enough tree’s on my dirtbike that I’ll happily wear a chest/back protector with shoulder armor (ok I hit a tree pretty much every time).
Neither will help me if I go 100-0 hitting a pole/car but they aren’t cumbersome and each do their intended job well.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Deep down I really don’t like gear and wish F9 Ryan’s advice would liberate me from wearing any.
I have fond memories of learning to ride as a 10 year old on a dirt bike. I worried about finding 25 cents for gas, not about wearing gear, and didn’t start wearing it until I started street riding.
I’m not 10, so I can appreciate that despite never calling on gear, so I wear it 100% of the time I ride because it’s a smart thing to do.
If one has never been injured, perhaps you could be swayed by YouTubers into thinking gear is a waste, and that the world is flat.
I have fond memories of learning to ride as a 10 year old on a dirt bike. I worried about finding 25 cents for gas, not about wearing gear, and didn’t start wearing it until I started street riding.
I’m not 10, so I can appreciate that despite never calling on gear, so I wear it 100% of the time I ride because it’s a smart thing to do.
If one has never been injured, perhaps you could be swayed by YouTubers into thinking gear is a waste, and that the world is flat.
That was the first episode. Global premiered it @ 9:30 on a Thursday night. I remember seeing it on the guide, tuned in, and spent the next half hour wondering what the **** I was watching.
We also need to be able to hear them clearly, and there are probably lots of other aspects of their jobs that might benefit from having less heavy or less bulky helmets.
|
|
|
|
|