CE armour for clothing; Rukka in particular

[icenian]

I've done a little bit of research on CE "armour" in bike clothing. It's interesting to see the marketing that's used, which is borderline fraudulent in many cases (with alleged incursions right over the border...)

I'm sure we've all seem descriptions that say something like fitted with CE armour in elbows and shoulders and a back protector, which is you read it carefully does not state the back protector is CE approved. Actually I think the majority of jackets I've seen come with that sort of description.

It's worth knowing that the standard for protectors for limbs (elbow, knee, shoulder etc.) is EN1621-1. The standard for back protectors is EN1621-2. Now, on Rukka's web site you will see:

Every Rukka motorcycling outfit carries the patented breathable Rukka Air protectors that meet the CE norm EN 1621-1 that function equally in all weather conditions.

Anyone familiar with Rukka jackets, or who has a look at one in a shop, knows that they fit the exact same protectors to elbow, shoulder and back (shape differs but it's the same material). That means their statement is easily read as meaning that EN1621-1 is applicable to elbow, shoulder and back protectors, which it is not. In fact closer inspection of the web site reveals that they do not refer to the thing fitted in the back as a protector at any point. I asked the UK distributors about this:

Rukka's RVP Air Protectors meet EN-1621-1 for knee/shin, hip, shoulder and elbow applications. The support insert in the back of the jacket is made from the same material as above but is not offered as a protector.

(my emphasis)

Presumably, since the material is identical, it means the back protector performs to the level that would be required of a limb protector. In actual fact, to gain certification to EN1621-1 a protector transmit no more than 35kN force from a 50J impact. Certification to EN1621-2 for back protectors requires a maximum transmission of 18kN force from the same impact.

In other words, a back protector may transmit no more than half the force a limb protector may transmit.

Which means what is fitted in a Rukka jacket may be only half as effective as something that is legitimately described as a CE back protector.

I am not picking on Rukka, it's only the example that I looked into and so I can quote them. They aren't significantly worse than any other manufacturer I know of, and according to the article linked below, they are better than many. At least the statements that Rukka make are true if read carefully. The only reason they can seem misleading is that they fit some level of protection - though not CE compliant - in the back of their jackets; a manufacturers who offers no protection at all can't be accused of trying to mislead customers, but that hardly makes their kit any better!

In fact there are several levels for each standard, where level 1 is the lowest protection. Most manufacturers do not state what level their armour performs to, so it's a pretty safe bet it's only level 1. For instance the Knox web site doesn't tell you what level of EN1621-2 their back protectors comply with, except for one model which they say complies with EN1621-2 level 2.

From what I've seen (which may not be a representative sample), protectors fitted to jackets and trousers are all level 1 compliant. For level 2 protection, you are looking at buying a separate strap-on back protector. But lots of separate back protectors are level 1, so check what you're buying!

Here's an excellent summary of CE standards, what they mean, and how marketing claims may or may not mean anything:
http://forum.motorcycle-usa.com/defa...?f=32&m=101300

[Pete Rock]

I have a Rukka Air something jacket (Air Power maybe?), it´s very cool and breatheable and comes with a supposedly rainproof removeable thermal lining, I say supposedly cause I never faced proper rain with it, light enough that I use it for light offroading too.
Regarding the protectors, I don´t have much faith in them, they´re way too soft to make me think they´ll do much in the way of protection on a significant impact. The back protector is made of exactly the same material, it´s like a thick net of silicone or rubber, flexible and lets the air through like it isn´t there, but not as confidence inspiring as my other jacket that has hard plastic protectors. (forgot the brand´s name, it´s the one that has a wolf´s head as logo)

[Wee Jack]

Tim, an interesting post , when I bought my HG Gore Voyager a couple of years ago , I opted for the upgrade to HG "hiprotect" back armour. But I dunno if it meets the standards ??? , you've got me wondering now.

My plan still remains - not to be opting for a career as a HG "hiprotect" crashtest dummy!!!!!

A career as a plain old ordinary dummy is tough enough just now.

[icenian]

Tim, an interesting post , when I bought my HG Gore Voyager a couple of years ago , I opted for the upgrade to HG "hiprotect" back armour. But I dunno if it meets the standards ??? , you've got me wondering now.

My plan still remains - not to be opting for a career as a HG "hiprotect" crashtest dummy!!!!!

A career as a plain old ordinary dummy is tough enough just now.

Have a look. It should have EN1621-2 written on it (and EH1621-1 on arm/shoulder armour).

Failing that, I'd 'phone up a Hein Gericke store and say you're thinking of buying one of their jackets and fitting the hiprotec back protector, will they please tell you what standard it conforms to?

And don't accept a reply of "CE standard"; if they seem to be fudging ask "is is EN1621-1?" and if they say yes, tell 'em you're 'phoning Trading Standards as they're selling Personal Protective Equipment under an inapplicable certification

[MacP]

My Rukka Air thingy jacket did a stirling job on my recent off. I hit the ground on my right shoulder - there are gouges on the reinforced areas - it was a heavy fall - I know I felt it.

Strange thing is I have no shoulder injury - no briuse or anything and all I can think of is that the armour supplied in the jacket did it's job.

Rukka is pricey but well worth it - I will send my jacket off for repair next week for a new panel and piece of armour.

I agree with the forst post - a lot of the stuff on labels that to be frank I wonder whether it's worth the paper...

[icenian]

Hideout in Cambridgeshire are extremely helpful with advice on Rukka and other textile jackets and armour.

It seems they can offer a T-Pro upgrade for armour in many jackets.
e.g. a T-Pro back protector for a Rukka jacket is 50 pounds.

They also told me that Rukka do an EN1621-2 grade back protector upgrade for their jackets for 25 pounds. Which mean Hideout know more about Rukka than TranAm (official UK importers) seem to

http://www.hideout-leather.co.uk/

If anyone is thinking of buying Rukka, see this thread:
http://http://www.xrv.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=13690

[doglegdon]

I buy Brosh, (the Israeli mob), products myself. The knee and shoulder armour do as you say, conform to the EH1621-1 requirements. Apparently, they are actually T-Pro CE approved products. However the back protector they market only meets the 50 joule EN1621-1: 1997 impact standard, not the EN1621-2. My question then, is that enough? Or is this just "hair splitting"?

In their "blurb" they do mention the following though:-

"All batch testing is carried out in the UK by SATRA and goods are not released to their destination until they have been officially approved and certified. In this way TPro offers its customers ‘total peace of mind’ about compliance with the relevant CE regulations."

Finally, having read a few of their product testamonies though, I think that their stuff definitely works, I just pray that I'll never have to find out how well!