Part 2 – The new levels of the standard.

Over the past seven years, Europe has developed a new clothing protection standard (EN17092).

We have asked Dr Chris Hurren to explain the new European standard and what it means for Aussie riders.

Dr Hurren is a research scientist at Deakin University in Geelong where he and his laboratory works on protective motorcycle clothing. He worked with Dr de Rome and others to produce the protocol that is used by MotoCAP for their testing regime.

Chris Hurren and his Honda GB400

Clothing standard: Levels

This is the second in a four-part series explaining the new levels. Click here for part 1.

The new standard EN17092 specifies the testing protocols for the required protection levels for five classes of garment.

• AAA – Heavy duty protective garments
• AA – Medium duty protective garments
• A – Light duty protective garments
• B – Light-duty abrasion protection garments (no armour)
• C – Impact protector ensemble garments

Class AAA garments are designed to be most protective with the highest requirements for impact abrasion, tear and seam strength. Class AA have a lesser requirement for abrasion, tear and seam strength. Class A has the lowest requirements for protection with abrasion measurement only being required for the zone 1 and 2 areas. The Class B garments have the same requirements as Class A but do not have to be fitted with armour. Class C garments are armour-only garments such as off-road protection vests or knee braces. Class AA and AAA must be fitted with armour in the shoulders, elbows, hips and knees. Class A garments also must have armour in the shoulders, elbows and knees however the fitting of hip armour is optional. If the armour is not in the garments hanging in the store ask the salesperson for them as they are meant to be there.

EN17092 covers the same range of factors as those in EN13595, including impact abrasion resistance, seam tensile strength, fabric tear strength, impact energy absorption of armour, restraint system effectiveness and the positioning of protective components. It also outlines that the garment should be tested for materials innocuous to ensure that there are no harmful chemicals present and no running dyes. Tear strength, ergonomics, restraint and armour testing are the same as were in the previous standard EN13595 whereas impact abrasion resistance, seam strength and risk zones are now measured and defined in a new way. Each of the new methods are detailed in the three other parts of this series.

As you read the last two parts you may ask yourself is this standard set high enough? The biggest concern with a low standard is that manufacturers will build to it. An example of this would be why put a para-aramid layer into protective denim pants when the right denim by itself will achieve the “Class A or AA” rating. It costs less to manufacture and while it is not the highest rating it is still achieving certification. It is evident from the changing quality of garments in Australian and New Zealand stores, that a number of manufacturers are already doing this and it is not just limited to denim. Unfortunately change in this space is slow with riders replacing their gear infrequently so it will take a number of years before any reduction in protection would show as increased injury numbers.

Motocap ratings

The best step forward for riders is to be careful in what you buy. Use common sense, advice from other riders and tools such as MotoCAP to help you make the right choice. Remember if the product feels too thin or seems too good to be true then it is probably not protective. Be especially wary of “Class A” rated garments. As riders, we can show manufacturers that products with reduced safety levels are not acceptable by not buying them. This movement has already been seen in the UK where riders are avoiding the thin single-layer denim jeans because they just don’t feel safe in them.

The next article looks at the differences in impact abrasion resistance measurement.

Source: MotorbikeWriter.com

Part 3 – Impact abrasion resistance.

Over the past seven years, Europe has developed a new clothing protection standard (EN17092).

We have asked Dr Chris Hurren to explain the new European standard and what it means for Aussie riders.

Dr Hurren is a research scientist at Deakin University in Geelong where he and his laboratory works on protective motorcycle clothing. He worked with Dr de Rome and others to produce the protocol that is used by MotoCAP for their testing regime.

Dr Hurren with a clothing testing machine

This is the third in a four-part series explaining the new method of impact abrasion resistance measurement. Click here for Part 1 and Part 2.

Clothing standard: Abrasion resistance

The biggest difference in EN17092 is that it utilises the Advanced Abrasion Resistance Tester (AART) more commonly known as the Darmstadt method for evaluating the impact abrasion resistance of garment materials at specified riding speeds.

This test machine was developed 30 years ago at Technische Universitat Darmstadt. A short video was created by the university to show the test:

The test is a rotary system with three arms spinning around a drive shaft above a 900mm diameter concrete test surface. Material samples are attached to test heads at the end of each arm which are spun up to the test speed at 10mm above the test surface.

On reaching test speed, the drive shaft disconnects allowing the spinning arms and fabric samples to drop spinning freely in contact with the abrasive surface until they stop.

The test is given a pass at the given test speed if there are no holes formed in any of the three samples. A hole is deemed a hole if it is greater than 5mm in diameter. Test starting speeds are 120, 75, 70, 45 and 25km/h.

Original Darmstadt test machine (Image: SKL – automotive engineering)

As this test starts at a high speed and slows to a stop over the duration of the test it may appear to riders to be more realistic than the Cambridge impact abrasion method (CAM), which is carried out at a constant speed. Unfortunately there is very little information available on the test machine or method especially in relation to validating the performance of the test against crash damage to clothing in real world crashes. The test surface used is concrete and is not designed to be periodically replaced, which suggests the surface may lose it abrasiveness over time. The surface is also prepared to resemble asphalt which is predominately used in urban environments. The question must be raised as to how representative is it of the chip seal roads that make up the majority of Australia’s rural and other higher speed road network.

While the use of specific test speeds in the AART is intuitively appealing, there are valid questions as to whether it does test for all riding environments. Research needs to show that the AART test covers all riding and is not just aimed at low speed urban riders. There are many questions yet unanswered. Is the test surface abrasive enough? Will the test surface clog during testing? Does it polish and become less aggressive over time? How do the test results relate to actual road injury? These really need to be answered about the test method to give riders confidence in its results.

At Deakin we have made simple comparisons between the CAM and AART tests with a piece of 12oz denim similar to that found in a pair of Levis 501 jeans. Samples were sent and tested on two AART machines in Europe. On both AART machines the denim passed the 75km/h test speed. On the CAM it achieved 0.6 seconds equating to approximately 5 metres of slide distance. This would mean that if the other parameters such as seam strength and tear were adequate a pair of the same jeans with armour in the knees and hips could meet “Class AA“ certification. While this might be enough protection for a scooter rider in a 20km/h crash how would it fair in a crash on any of our iconic riding roads?

The last part of this series will look at seam strength testing and changes to the risk zone template.

Source: MotorbikeWriter.com

Part 4 – Seam strength and risk zones.

Over the past seven years, Europe has developed a new clothing protection standard (EN17092).

We have asked Dr Chris Hurren to explain the new European standard and what it means for Aussie riders.

Dr Hurren is a research scientist at Deakin University in Geelong where he and his laboratory works on protective motorcycle clothing. He worked with Dr de Rome and others to produce the protocol that is used by MotoCAP for their testing regime.

Dr Chris Hurren

This is the final in a four-part series explaining the new method for seam strength and new template for risk zones. Click here for Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Clothing standard: Seam strength

Seam strength of jackets and pants under EN17902 is tested using the same method as used for gloves in the European Standards for motorcycle gloves – EN13594. The test involves pulling a seam apart using a tensile testing machine and measuring the force it takes for the break to occur. The failure mechanism of this test is slightly different to that of the hydraulic burst method used in EN13595 for jackets and pants, so manufacturers have had to change some seam styles to achieve a pass. Significant comparison testing done with other published garment research has shown that there is a reasonable relationship between the two tests and that the newly set pass criteria appears to be fit for purpose. The introduction of EN 17092 should see improved seams appearing in garments getting Class AAA ratings as these seam strengths are relatively high. As the majority of motorcycle clothing on the market has previously not been certified for seam strength achieving this standard should see an improvement in seams.

The other big change introduced into EN17092 is the modification of the injury risk zones from the well know four zone system developed by Dr Woods into a new three zone system.

Zone 1 is defined as an area of high risk of damage such as to impact, abrasion and tearing (figure 1 a). This is still the location of impact protectors and higher performing protective materials. Zone 2 is defined as an area of moderate risk of damage to abrasion and tearing (figure 1b). Zone 3 is classed as an area of low risk to damage such as tearing.

It is unclear why the standard has downgraded the higher risk to abrasion areas of the buttocks, sides of the leg and parts of the arm. This appears to be contrary to scientific consensus validated by research both in Australia and abroad that show these areas to be of a high risk. An example of this is the Class AAA garment requirements for abrasion. The very small zone 1 area must meet the 120km/h AART test speed whereas the bulk of the body that is identified as zone 2 must achieve 75km/h. This is similar with the Class AA garment where the Zone 1 area must meet 70km/h and the Zone 2 area 45km/h. Considering that a piece of denim can achieve 75km/h this means that the minimum abrasion protection levels of the bulk of the Class AAA garment is relatively low and the Class AA even lower.

EN17092 Zone 1

EN17092 Zone 2 and 3

Images showing the new three Zone system (EN17092:2020)

There is also a different risk zone template for the AAA garment compared to the other garments. This increases the Zone 1 area for abrasion and tearing risk to cover some of the buttocks and crotch area. While this is an improvement in providing protection for some of the higher risk areas of the lower body it does not cover all the previously well-defined risks. It is also unclear why this injury risk is only present in the AAA garments and not in any of the other garment classes.

Hopefully this article has helped you to better understand the new standard. Enjoy your ride.

Click here for Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Source: MotorbikeWriter.com