Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: PERSONAL
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
FOR PWC COMPETITION
Safety in Personal Water Craft Motorsports regarding the use of personal
protective equipment is vital component of enjoying a competitive
experience and should be regarded as top priority for participants to
educate and inspect equipment and design features of product selection
2014 Booklet on
PPE Safety
Considerations

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014
1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: How Protective is PWC PPE? – Page 2
Chapter 2: Branding Versus Testing – Page 6
Chapter 3: Back Protector – Page 8
Chapter 4. Review of Back Protector Standards – Page 17
Chapter 4: Leg Protectors - Page 20
Chapter 5: Neck Braces – Page 21
Chapter 6: Lifejackets – Page 29
Chapter 7: Helmets – Page 35
Chapter 8: Cameras – Page 61
Final: About – Page 64
CASE STUDY - PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) IN
MOTORSPORTS
HOW PROTECTIVE IS PERSONAL WATERCRAFT PPE?
Chapter 1: The Realities, Needs and the Myths of PPE Safety
Shawn Alladio – Water Safety PWC Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Historically PWC competitive associate bodies have failed to address safety in motorsports concerns
related to track safety and personal safety of competitors and teams. What does this mean?
Other power sport governing bodies and promoters have addressed safety concerns of their track design,
staff, equipment standardization and apparel needs, usually because of dissatisfaction from members or
an increase in injury/accidents. This includes the accessories that are utilized for safety or impact related
incidents and not limited to the environmental changes occurring during various methods of competition.
While there have been meetings and discussions which have not amounted to any official direction or
amendments regarding scientific reviews, there still have to date neither been a panel of experts that
addresses the PPE concerns of PWC competitive operations.
Personal watercraft race teams and participants are the core value supporters of the sport. They care
about their sport and invest readily into its competition spirit and supporting companies whom produce
quality products they can utilize to achieve their best performance. This is an essential partnership bond.
Read all the operational instructions, owner’s manuals and stay current on product recalls and notices.
You will have to update and replace your gear as needed. This booklet will assist the reader in making
sound judgment and selection respective to PWC required and recommended safety gear. When all else

2
fails, contact the company and or their representative directly to clarify your inquiry, best source is the
manufacturer for updates.
PWC participants at special events are passionate about their sport. They will produce only what is
required or recommended by governing bodies. The majority are committed to the sport, however we
have seen an extensive downturn in racing participation the past few years. Those that have remained
are funding the sport with their participation. They want to do better and expect the same for their sport
leadership.
In an effort to support their pursuit of competitive excellence but not at the expense of ignoring safety
inspections, values and product design claims that do not support real world test evaluations or theory
this study was conducted with current information.
Reference links are provided throughout the booklet for personal review. The teams decide what they are
willing to employ and place in use.
In partnership we will further advance the level of professionalism for safety in PWC events and we
believe this booklet will enhance the educational knowledge and what standards are current or what
standards are non-existent in exoskeleton protective devices.
We are reliant upon their input and experience and will do our best to seek counsel and support from
industry subject matter experts in the motorsports field in the hope that water contact evaluations are
placed in proper perspective for evaluation.
PIT CREW SAFETY
Have you ever heard a discussion relative to your pit crew, such as the person you employ as your
‘Holder’? Pit Crew and Holder safety are equally as important to the success of any event.
“Since 2002, NASCAR has implemented a rule where all over the wall pit members are required to wear
helmets, no visors needed, full fire suits, and gloves; while the gas man must wear a fire apron as well as
the suit. While it is not required yet, it is recommended that tire changers wear safety glasses to prevent
eye injuries from lug nuts thrown off the car and fuel spills. Some tire changers wear face shields or
goggles”.

3
Safety in Motorsports has an origin, and that is unfortunately derived from the loss of life at an event.
Tragic circumstances have driven the need for better safety measures.
Unfortunately in the PWC field, these incidents have not been tested, and we are not willing to endure
any tragic circumstances related to a lack of safety in racing.
As a leader in safety I have set firm standardization and best practices for our water rescue element,
however it is very difficult to find the fact from fiction regarding PPE.
We expect our teams and race members to enforce and insure that when they come to a race track they
are prepared and ready to do their job with the highest level of professionalism known in this sport.
COMPARATIVE SAFETY STUDY
F1 car racing suffered many horrific race deaths. The idea was not to race and die, it was to race for as
long as possible. Once the sport took responsibility, the attitude changed. It was then that the safety in
motorsports was awakened. NASCAR was next.
When NASCAR began applying safety in their motorsport they address several identifiable criteria:
1. Track Design
2. Safety Response and Staff Measures
3. Competitor Personal Protective Equipment
4. Vehicle Design and Modifications
Safety in NASCAR has evolved into one of the biggest concerns in the sport of NASCAR. Mainly after
the death of Dale Earnhardt, a seven time Winston Cup Series champion, NASCAR has decided to
change all of their safety policies, such as the use of the HANS device.
Since 2001, NASCAR has also changed the cars for the Sprint Cup Series and the Nationwide Series.
NASCAR's safety policy includes the racing fire suit, carbon fiber seating, and roof flaps.
They looked at historical data regarding other race track fatalities. They addressed the increased speed
of the race vehicles to track design and conditions.
They look at the common denominator of crashes, fires, survivability and safety for the responders and pit
crew members.

4
Let’s face the fear. Nobody wants to sustain a significant traumatic injury. Companies recognize the
need to supply product that supports reduction of this concern by designing products that can assist in
collisions or accidents.
But how are they evaluated and tested for safety ratings that produce results?
Everyone will have an opinion or a commentary to supply. They will be backed by personal experience,
listening to their peers, or the marketing promises of products.
When it gets down to it, we need to address the core realities of design, function and features applied to
these realities.
Until the PWC community equipment designers are prepared to present their products for professional
testing, it is safe to say we maintain no true safety record that can prove these products are preventable
measures.
Needless to say, this does not mean one will not wear or support products for bracing or impact.
We will not endorse products that have not undergone thorough testing and evaluation with an approval
from a recognized authority.
In the meantime we strive to educate, inquire and observe what the best practices and trends are in
current production and we will apply ourselves as those products are revealed that match standardization
for the best coverage and continue to share the dialogue and results.
Participant Injury Concerns
Cervical spine injuries are often due to hyperextension (head moves backward and the back of the head
touches the upper back) and hyper flexion (head moves forward and chin touches chest).
 Blunt Force Trauma
 Cervical Injury
 Spinal Injury
 Head Injury
The top five Personal Watercraft Competition Injuries are related to the extreme body stress with the
forces of action and vessel technical handling of the operator(s) and risk of injury during competition and
practice (training).

5
The percentage of injuries for PWC competitors is approximately 90% have sustained some form of
injury. Since injuries are so common many operators expect to receive at injury of varying degree at
some time, from minor contusion, concussion or fractures of bones or torn musculature or
ligaments/tendons.
The majority of these injuries occur during a fall onboard or overboard or a crash in competition or
practice. The speed of the vessel. Loss of temporary vision is a contributing factor.
Contact with the water surface or another vessel and the resultant forces are high, injuries can be
extremely serious in nature. More men are injured than women during competitions.
A majority of PWC related injuries are typically sustained by newcomers to the sport and most are lower
limb extremity injuries. The majority of injuries on a race track occur at the start to first turn buoy
(generally a left handed turn) at a turn that has a higher degree of bend in its arc. Also when the weather
and water conditions decline from flat or calm water conditions to increased water movement.
Accidents can also occur from the trailing wake of another vessel that draws or drafts the centerline keel
of the following PWC into a offset track line.
Since there are no brakes it is imperative that competitors have a thorough understanding of water
movement and their hull configuration with speed applied and the forces of action taking place to make
the best technical applications possible. Landing from jumps also creates a higher risk of injury.

6
There is some argument that devices can create a ‘fulcrum’ point that actually increases the risk of a
fracture or break depending upon the location, amount of forces applied and the type of product in use.
Due to the risk of injury in personal protective equipment is essential as operator maintains positive
efficiency of balance, physical conditioning and vessel control.
These are taken from a poll online regarding Closed Course racing, offshore/endurance racing, or
freeride/freestyle formats regarding stand-up, sport and runabout type of watercraft. They are not broken
down by vessel type or activity but used as a general overall consensus
1. Broken Ribs
2. Broken Tibia/Fibula/femur (Leg injury)
3. Broken wrist
4. Lacerations (sutures)
5. Fractured Pelvis/Hip injury
These injuries reflect the transvers plane of the body folding forward while underway on plane generally
resulting in forward impact with their Personal Water Craft of from impact collision of another PWC
striking them.
Freeride/freestyle injuries typically result in offset body trim landings or striking the hull with their head.
Injuries have also been sustained by spectators and media representatives who are in dangerous areas
off the track standing in waist deep water due to strikes from race boats.
Or from standing behind the starting line when they are struck by the jet thrust water stream, which may
include small pebbles or rocks.
BRANDING VERSUS TESTING
Most of the standards employed in this booklet are derived from the motocross industry examples mainly
because there are no current PWC studies to apply. The motocross examples are not water related,
tested or vetted through our aquatic oriented activity, which has a different measure of risk and impact.
There are currently no standards or testing procedures necessary to call a piece of cardboard "the best
protection system on the planet" in the United States. It seems ridiculous to buy gear based on marketing
hype, sponsorship deals, rumors, arbitrary crash experience, looks, feel, and name recognition.
Real, factual scientifically derived numbers should be the first reason for buying a piece of "protective"
gear, unless it simply makes you ‘feel better’. Confidence itself can also go a long way, along with proper
handling of a PWC underway not limited to physical fitness levels and a positive sportsmanlike manner.
When a company issues in their branding or marketing sales pitch a blanket statement and or
assumptions back up with zero safety or medical evaluation, this can prove dangerous.

7
A few years ago lifejackets used to be called (PFD’s) Personal Flotation Devices. The common term now
is to use ‘lifejacket’ so those who use them realize the relationship to ‘life saving’ for practical use.
Regarding lifejackets, there used to be 100 to 50 miles per hour impact ratings that were quickly
endorsed in the boating safety community. Lifejackets are your single most important safety item.
This was a great idea for the consumer so they would realize that their lifejacket at falls averaging those
speeds would not break apart of create a failure ensuring they would stay intact. This did not ensure that
the person wearing them would not suffer any injury.
The problem is the assumption of an ignorant or uneducated user believing this would prevent injury. The
terminology is no longer a factor in sales due to the ignorance of the user believing this would prevent
injury at high speed falls into the water.
It does our community no good will to make assumptions and not to address safety concerns regarding
PPE. Consumer products should be reviewed by a team of orthopedic physicians and biomechanics
experts to determine the viability of product design, construction materials and safety claims. That is what
standardization requires, effect and professional testing regarding impact and the forces of action applied.
We will follow online dialogue that asks the questions regarding protective personal equipment. Although
we have no studies or evaluations conducted by authorized testing organizations for PPE that are sold
within the Personal Watercraft industry, we are forced to delve into what other motorsports have been
experiencing.
Through this research we begin to discover that there is a common thread of concern. There are no
products currently for waterborne speed events select for PWC use that are tested and endorsed by any
governing or sanctioning safety board or medical review.
It can be very confusing, but after some discussions and some simple research I have found a few
companies that offer CE certified back protectors and specify compliance with the proper back protector
standards (MOTOCROSS ONLY).
The standard establishes a unified testing procedure to be used by clothing or protector manufacturers
who intend to have their products qualified for sale in Europe and who want to offer their protective wear
in all countries of the European Union. The result of this testing procedure determines whether
manufacturers can market the protective equipment as "protectors" or simply "protective padding".
All of the certified back protectors are only good for a single-use due to the structure and/or crushable
materials used to absorb impact, though a few offer better protection for multiple impacts during a crash.
Types of compression due to hyperextension and hyper flexion
1. Wedge compression fracture is caused by the result of hyper flexion
2. Burst compression fractures are caused by vertical and little horizontal movement and descend
squarely onto the head
3. Garden-variety compression fractures are the most common
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/824380-overview
Regardless of all the chatter, commentary and theory do not result in reality. The only true markings of
product testing will be those who are authorized by a scientific group of applied sciences, checks and
balances comparing various brands and their claims.

8
Chapter 2: BACK PROTECTOR
The most important question I offer for discussion to a medical board would be should these devices be
worn ‘over’ a lifejacket or ‘under’ a lifejacket? Which would increase coverage or decrease coverage due
to risk of impact? Does this mean that the lifejacket should be replaced upon a strike along with the back
protector? Who will be responsible for inspections and maintenance?
Most of the CE certified back protectors employ some sort of deformable aluminum honeycomb to handle
the impact energy. In most cases these are one use devices. This means you need to destroy them after
a strike or any direct impact.
There is also some debate as to the value of a back protector as most back injuries in motorcycle
accidents seem to come from flexion or torsion to the trunk of the body and not impact strikes. There is no
study of water use applications during motorsports events on the water, so we only have land based
comparisons.
The CE BACK PROTECTOR standard is labeled EN1621-2. The test is performed with a 5kg “kerbstone”
dropped from one meter to create the test impact force of 50 Joules The standard contains two levels of
energy transmission performance. 18kN passes LEVEL 1 "basic" compliance and 9kN passes LEVEL 2
"high performance" compliance. So LEVEL 2 protectors allow 50% less energy to reach the spine/ribs.
The CE LIMB/JOINT PROTECTOR standard is labeled EN1621-1. It allows joint/limb armor to transmit no
more than 35kN of force for all levels. Both of the CE body armor standards (back or limb) use the same
amount of energy as a starting point, 50 joules.
However, limb/joint armor ratings are based on performance at an initial force of 50 joules, 75 joules, or
100 joules, leading to 3 levels of performance within this standard. All 3 levels allow no more than 35 kN
of energy to transmit: LEVEL 1 (50 joules), LEVEL 2 "high performance" (75 joules), and LEVEL 3
"extreme performance" (100 joules).
“Astrene” gel/foam is the highest rated material used in body armor (extreme performance level in 8mm
non-perforated thickness), followed closely by varying thickness and perforated forms of “Astrosorb”, and
T-Pro’s four layers of “Armour-Flex” material.
http://www.pva-ppe.org.uk/ PART%203...20EXPLAINED.html
Here's an excerpt from the link above with an explanation of the current CE Back Protector Standards:
"There has been criticism of the standard from medical experts who consider the transmitted force levels
too severe; citing decades of automotive research which indicates 4 kN is the maximum force the brittle
bones which form the human ribcage can withstand before they fracture.
Four kiloNewtons is the requirement adopted in standards covering, for example, horse riders' body
protectors and martial arts equipment.”
Attempts to reduce the transmitted force requirement to 4 kN and to correspondingly reduce the 50 Joule
impact energy requirement were strongly resisted by industry, who claimed consumers would be

9
confused by different impact energy requirements between EN1621-1 and EN1621-2.
In truth, it was in the industry's commercial interests to test both types of protector at 50J, since they
could then extol the efficacy of back protectors which, when struck with the same impact energy as limb
protectors, transmitted only 9 or 18 kN compared to 35 kN. The consumer would be unaware that subtle
differences in the impactor and anvil were responsible, and still less aware that 9 kN was still more than
double the safe limit supported by medical experts. Furthermore, during the late 1990s, some companies
had used the wholly inappropriate EN 1621-1 to CE mark their back protectors.
Commercial objectives were given priority over consumer safety.
Despite these concerns, EN1621-2 represents a starting point from wholly unsafe products should be
rendered obsolete and unsellable. It will be important, however, for consumers to ensure back protectors
are marked with the correct standard number, if they are not to mistakenly purchase an old stock.
Finally, there are a small number of back protectors on the market which have been dual-tested against
the requirements of EN1621-2 and also against a 4 kN transmitted force requirement. Reading the
manufacturer's technical information will disclose which the superior products are.” Don't we only wish
that was true.
So there are two levels that are considered passing, but both of these levels fall within that 1621-2 back
protector standard. However, 4kN is the medically recommended level of transmitted force, but is NOT
actually required by the current CE back protector standard, and most protectors cannot provide this level
at the 50 Joule impact level.
Keep in mind that when a protector is just labeled as CE Approved, and no mention is made of the level
of performance, it probably implies Level 1 compliance, but the claim should be verified (European sold
models must comply by law).
Here's a list of all of the back protectors I have found (BUT IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE, TECHNOLOGIES
HAVE CHANGED AND COMPANY DESIGNS), starting with the LEVEL 2 rated protectors, followed by
some LEVEL 1 protectors, and finally by those that are NOT RATED and/or offer no performance data or
verification of claims:
BKS is the only motorcycle clothing manufacturer that offers back protectors that meet the medically
established 4kN energy transmission level with their Astroshock model protector.
BKS also offers limb/joint armor that meets the CE 1621-1 standard's highest rating, the "extreme
performance" energy absorption level (35kN@100J).
They seem to have the right attitude and the highest quality merchandise available, but they are also THE
most expensive producer of leather motorcycle apparel on the planet. Should we really have to pay
$3000.00 for the kind overall protection we need?
Nobody else claims suits that are 100% CE approved as a whole (abrasion, tearing, seam burst, and
impact).
Why is there only one manufacturer willing to meet the baseline testing requirements and apply for
certification? It’s a sad statement about level of respect we are shown as consumers by the majority of
gear manufacturers.
http://www.bksleather.co.uk/techno.htm
T-Pro offers similar products, their website is full of good info and their products clearly stand-out as the
highest-rated in crash protection.

10
Both BKS and T-Pro protectors and body armor are effective for multiple impacts during a crash event,
and are made with no hard plastics which should be much more comfortable and is potentially safer than
products made with hard materials.
The most interesting piece of info from the T-Pro Body Armor site:
"Back Protection for Motorcyclists--Only a few motorcyclists receive a direct blow to the spine causing
serious injury; more spine injuries are probably due to direct blows to the shoulders and hips. The
products commonly known as motorcyclists back protectors, if correctly designed and constructed may
alleviate some minor direct impacts on the back, but will not prevent skeletal or neurological injuries to the
spine in motorcycle accidents."
It appears that most riders’ assumptions about the use and effectiveness of back protection is more than
even the highest rated protectors can live-up to in actual performance.
This information won’t stop people from purchasing a back protector, but it certainly gives us a better
understanding of what to expect at current levels, so as not to be fooled by stories or sales pitches to the
contrary.
Is minimizing spinal, scapular, rib, and kidney bruising worth the cost of most of these protectors? Most
would agree with that statement.
T-Pro's Forcefield back protector is CE certified to the 1621-2 LEVEL 2 standards, making it one of the
few that advertises meeting this higher level. They also claim that the "Armour Flex" material will absorb
multiple impacts with the same effectiveness.
However that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be used again after a crash, but, just like a helmet, it
will protect against second or third blows in the same area in a crash.
T-Pro also makes a chest protector/harness system, the 8100 harness, that they say conforms to the
1993 Swedish Off-Road Standards. I’m not familiar with the requirements for that certification. I would
assume that off-road standards wouldn’t be ideal for street-speed impact protection, and I would consider
1993 to be archaic in terms of technology and materials advancements. How stringent that standard is,
and if it applies favorably for street protectors?
Johnson Leather, in the U.S., sells the T-Pro Forcefield products, as well as what looks to be the BKS
"Astroshock" back protector inserts under their own name, and BKS now also sells a re-badged version of
the T-pro Forcefield protector as well.
http://www.tprobodyarmour.co.uk/ff_back.html
http://www.johnsonleather.com/armor/

11
DAINESE
Dainese doesn't tout or even mention CE approval anywhere on their website, but I did manage to find
some info on the Dainese protectors from MotoLiberty's website. Dainese makes quite a few different
models, not all advertise the same levels of protection, but most appear to be certified. They use an
aluminum honeycomb structure, similar to the Knox protectors.
"The Dainese folding back protector--Paraaschiena Ripegabile, is made with a hard plastic tortoise-shell
type construction. It has an optimum shock absorption capacity which easily superseded the tough test at
the highest level, EN1621-2 LEVEL 2." It also has the added convenience of being foldable for storage.
The Dainese Wave 2 protector is CE rated LEVEL 1.
The BAP protectors are also CE approved, LEVEL 1.
The Back Space and Gilet Space models are also CE approved to the LEVEL 1 standard, passing with
15kN of transmitted force in tests.
http://www.dainese.it
http://www.motoliberty.com/prod_detail.asp?ProdID=34
Knox was the first company to apply for CE approval for their KC protectors back in 1997, under the
previously established limb/joint protector standards (EN1621-1). For a while, Knox was the only
company that offered a certified protector.
All of the Knox protectors are approved to the current and proper 1621-2 standard (Level 1). They claim
to surpass the basic requirements, but not higher level compliance. They offer the largest coverage area
of any of the protectors available with all of their models.
The Stowaway model is flexible enough to roll-up for convenient storage, and comes with its own storage
bag and is still approved to the LEVEL 1 standard.
http://www.planet-knox.com/Knox/index.asp
Alpinestars states that their Tech Protector and RC back pad inserts are EN1621-2 approved (LEVEL 1).
http://www.alpinestars.com/_lp/moto_protection.htm
Spidi offers two families of back protector options, the Airback and Warriors.
The Airback protector is CE Level 1 approved according to the Italian Spidi website. However, SpidiUSA
doesn’t mention any of this info. The European versions are updated and not yet available in the U.S

12
which could explain these differences.
The Warrior “mid” and “low” options are LEVEL 1 approved, but offer very little coverage area, focusing
on the lumbar region with no shoulder blade coverage. Spidi touts the Airback protector as being more
effective because of its shoulder blade coverage and the nature of most initial crash impacts hitting the
shoulder blade region.
It is also confusing with the standard and compact Warrior protectors. I noticed a difference the photos of
the Spidi Warrior protectors on the Spidi USA website vs. the Italian site (English version). The US
website shows a Warrior protector that looks different than the Warrior protectors on the Italian website.
Again, I was told that the European version is updated and not yet available in the U.S which would
explain these differences.
Both Spidi websites state that the regular and compact versions of the Warrior are compliant with the CE
Directives for PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), which have nothing to do with the actual testing
performance or standards for the equipment. The Directives are simply an ethics code and basis for
testing procedures and standards operations. This is a very misleading statement regarding the
effectiveness of these products. Have they been properly tested and certified to the EN1621-2 standard?
It certainly doesn’t appear that way.
http://www.spidi.it/spidi-jsp/index.jsp?lang=en
http://www.spidiusa.com/Category.php...ory=protection
http://www.ce-marking.org/directive-89686eec-PPE.html
The Giali protector claims CE approval. No mention of level. It is a European model, so it is probably
properly approved to the LEVEL 1 standard.
http://www.motorcycle-uk.com/giali/G...rotectors.html
Clover, another European brand, has a couple of models specified to meet LEVEL 1 standards, no word
of availability of Clover protectors in the U.S.
http://www.bbbikeshop.co.uk/acatalog...ctors_329.html
Kobe back protectors claim CE approval as well, but no mention of which standard or level.
http://www.1888fastlap.com/kobe_fast...ck_protect.htm
Fieldsheer makes claims in their marketing copy for the X20 back protector that leaves the specifics to the
imagination by not directly referring to the standard that their protector has passed.
"The X20 back protector provides protection internally using a new "honey comb" plastic core, proved to
exceed all European CE standards."
Maybe I'm over-analyzing, but if you read it carefully, what is that really saying? Has it been certified? Has
it been tested as a whole? Is the design or the final product proven to CE levels? All CE standards?

13
I have received confirmation from an X20 owner that it is properly rated to the 1621-2 LEVEL 1 standard.
Not the best, as they make it sound, but properly rated and certified nonetheless. It would have been
easier, if they just would have stated that in their ads.
www.fieldsheer.com
Helimot carries a German brand of protectors, Erbo. The models on Erbo’s own website are shrouded in
a Cordura cover. I don’t know if they are the same models sold by Helimot, but Erbo states that those
protectors are CE LEVEL 1 approved.
Helimot has an interesting theory behind their TLV protector, but makes no claims of protection (It’s an
American market product). I have heard stories of the owner of Helimot performing "real world" tests with
a hammer for skeptics. Uh sorry, I'd rather have repeatable measurements than seat-of my-pants
guesses at what crash forces are going to feel like. These dramatic exhibitions should be saved for
differentiating the meaning of the data, rather than basing your presumptions of efficacy on them.
http://www.helimot.com/catalog/other...tlv_data.shtml
http://www.helimot.com/catalog/other...ack_data.shtml
Knox makes reference to improper use of CE claims by other companies. They don't name names, but it
appears to be in response to Bohn's non-certified CE labeling practice. Bohn uses a CE label without
actually being certified. Bohn also does not specify which standard they are referring to in their marketing
statements of "exceeding CE specs" or "built to European CE standards".
An article on the British Motorcycle Federation website implies that unnamed companies are being sued
for improperly using the CE mark and not complying with the proper specs for back protectors. I cannot
find any actual information that directly refers to Bohn or the standards that Bohn allegedly meets or
exceeds.
http://www.bmf.co.uk/briefing/index....ef24.inc.shtml
Bohn lists the Pro-Racer protectors as being "made to European CE standards", though they have NOT
actually been certified. Is Bohn referring to the correct back protector standard when they make this
claim? Well, Bohn’s claim was not only made prior to the existence of the 1621-2 back protector standard,
but they have still refused to submit for proper testing and certification.
Bohn makes no certification, rating, or other protection claims with any of the Carbon/Kevlar models or
the Pro-Racer Motard version, and offers no performance data or levels or verification of protection for
those model either.
The Bohn X-Ploit chest and back harnesses claim to be "made to the Scandinavian Off-road Protection
Standard." No word on whether these protectors are actually certified to that standard either. I don't know
too much about the Swedish(Scandinavian) off-road standard, but it was instituted in 1993 and is
probably not at the current level required by CE for street use items.
Bohn's website offers no specific information regarding which CE specs are being met and how it is being
proven. I find this claim to be blatantly deceptive and deceitful. Such claims should be backed-up with
formal proof. Any company that tries to tag-on to safety standards and markings without actually providing
open evidence or paying for the right to market its products using the standard is not selling in good faith.
The other claim by Bohn is that their protectors can be used for multiple crashes.

14
This goes against all other information about the only materials in use that will absorb the necessary
amount of energy to meet the 1621-2 standard. So far, there are no companies that meet the proper
standards without using materials that permanently deform after a crash impact or multiple impacts during
a single crash, just like helmets.
But they do offer-up some gems, like this quote from Eric Bostrom:
"After testing at the Jan 2000 Laguna Shakedown Eric reported: '...really comfortable, and made me feel
safe on the bike' "
Boy that was convincing, haha. Yes, that is the entire testimonial.
http://www.bohnarmor.com/bohnarmor/index.asp
http://www.actionstation.com/proracer.html
Impact Armor claims their protectors are "Designed to exceed ALL European CE specifications for
armor", but are NOT actually CE certified and do not provide any performance data either.
The CE had not introduced the 1621-2 back protector standards at the time that statement about the
"design" was originally published. There is no reference to the proper standard, and the lack of open proof
leaves that statement worthless.
Impact Armor relies on testimonials from unpaid professional racers, but nothing in the way of proven
results of crash worthiness or protective levels in their marketing or correspondence.
I had email correspondence with Michael Braxton, owner of Impact Armor. He seemed friendly, but
unwilling to divulge any real information about how his Impact Armor protectors have performed in tests.
In fact, I got the gist that they haven't been tested at all or at least in the current form. He focuses on
theory and a “patented design“, but the design and theory need to be proven by repeatable testing of a
final product to be worthwhile.
In fact, in Mr. Braxton’s allusions to CE, the website states that “prototypes were submitted for testing to
the Cambridge Institute in Britain”. Results of these “prototype” tests are not shown, and the assertion is
qualified by a statement about a 6-year long “wear ability program” as if they were the same issue.
Also, the “patented design” is not in reference to a protective feature, but a convenience feature that
allows disposal and replacement of damaged components after an impact-use.
A patent doesn’t say anything about the design’s effectiveness. This all amounts to a lot of hype without
actually saying anything substantial about the actual crash-worthiness of the product. I inferred that these
theories were tested in the early '90s while working with T-Pro.
I don't know the complete history of T-Pro and Impact Armor or Michael Braxton, but I am leery of his
evasiveness and lip service to safety and standards in our correspondence, though his intentions did
sound sincere at times. However when it comes to safety, somebody's sincere intentions won't buy a cup
of coffee.
One statement he made did bother me though:
According to Braxton, “Frankly, the cost, time and bureaucracy to obtain CE certification is just not worth
the hassle... And if you did subject yourself to the process, the quality of your product is treated no
differently than the others.…”

15
Frankly, I think that the “quality of your product” would be revealed by performance testing. What does he
really mean by that statement? Does it sound arrogant or just ignorant? Either way, it’s certainly
laughable. Apparently it’s less of a hassle to claim something meaningful without paying for its use, but he
is certainly willing to reap the benefits of the association.
According to Paul Varnessy, head of PVA Technical File Services, “It actually costs less to test and certify
a motorcycle suit than it does the average pair of safety shoes - as proven by the fact that the first
companies to achieve EC type approval were the small, UK manufacturers of bespoke motorcyclists’
clothing.”
www.impactarmor.com
Teknic makes no specific claims of protective levels or performance results with their 4 or 7 link
protectors, but they also sell the CE approved Knox back protectors.
http://www.teknicgear.com/pages/coll.../4_7_link.html
http://www.forcefieldbodyarmour.com/product/extreme-harness-adventure/2347
Joe Rocket's website says very little about their GPX back protector. It is NOT shown to be CE certified. It
is, however, made with the same material that BKS uses in their body armor, "Astrosorb", one of the
highest-rated foams used in LIMB/JOINT armor, but make no reference to the thickness used or
performance results, just that it is one-piece.
Other companies have stated that Astrosorb alone will not meet the CE back protector standards.
http://www.joerocket.com/catalog/ite...roducts_id=233
The NJK, another American model that offers nothing about protection levels or certifications:
The Italian made UFO back protectors. Don't know about their availability in the U.S., or certification, but
they are likely properly approved as a European product.
There are plenty more out there, the important thing is to know what to look for before you spend any
more money thinking you have the safest possible piece of equipment.
In the end you have to ask yourself just how much limited personal experience, limited arbitrary crash
experience, limited knowledge of the real forces at work in any crash story, and the beliefs of others in
what they have heard through the grapevine will get you the right answers.
The problem with any of that information is that it is never complete or accurate, no matter how well-
intentioned it may be.
Is any of this sort of speculation going to satisfy your motivation to part with your money?
What information will provide you with the safety expectations you have decided are appropriate?
The need for a Snell-type standard in the US that is clear, comprehensive, and concise is the only
solution.

16
We have no standards for motorcycle gear in the United States, which means somebody can slap a piece
of cardboard together, and call it the world's best protection system ever, and it may even look the part.
I'm also sure that you could find some racers or average Joe's to swear by it as well.
Perpetuation of poor information and marketing hype leaves too much to our own speculation as the
basis for our protective measures.
All of these questions, and any misinformation, marketing hype, and rumors can be avoided with a simple
testing procedure.
Snell labeling for helmets has been largely successful and we need to demand something similar for the
rest of our body. If "something is better than nothing" then "something better" can be just that.
Back protectors were designed for road crashes.
Water impact and forces of action and speed contact via physical body positioning is far different in terms
of contact, gear coming loose, and the protective measures are vastly different and not comparable.
What does our PWC industry offer in comparison to the motorcycle industry? At least this company is
trying. What are the bare bone facts per marketing and standard approvals and what do they mean to the
user?
Do not forget this: Contact with water, any garments/protective gear that is LOOSE will ‘catch’ and can
create a ‘SNAP BACK’ or catch point effect!
I have to give these companies some credit they are trying, but there is not a testing or evaluation
standard. So what does this mean in terms of product use and function?

17
REVIEW OF SAFETY STANDARDIZATION FOR BACK PROTECTORS
IMPACT LEVEL STANDARDS
4kN is the medically recommended level of transmitted force.
This is the maximum force which the human ribcage can withstand before they fracture.
Performance Levels
All three levels of performance allow no more than 35 kN of energy to transmit
 Level 1 - 50 Joule ‘Initial Force’
 Level 2 - ‘High Performance’
 Level 3 - ‘Extreme Performance’
1. EN1621-1
(BASIC) 5kg ‘kerbstone’ test impact force of 50 joules dropped 1 meter 18kN passes. This is the least
desirable and inappropriate level for back protection, products that fall in this category appear to be
unsafe.
2. EN1621-2
(HIGH PERFORMANCE) 5kg ‘kerbstone’ test impact force dropped 1 meter 9kN passes allowing 50%
less energy to reach the spine/ribs.
These are considered with dual tests, and most back protectors cannot even provide this basic standard.
 CE LIMB/JOINT Protector Standard - Meets energy absorption level (35kN@100J)
 CE RATED LEVEL 1
 CE APPROVED, LEVEL 1
What should you look for?
- First look at the Product Description.
- Second look at the Product Specifications.
Do you see any commentary in writing that reflects a direct relationship and substantiated claim to the
any of the following:
1. Level of Performance
2. Approval (abrasion, tearing, seam burst and impact rating)
3. Rating
4. Energy Transmits Level

18
Jet Tribe-TsunJet Ski Deflector
Product Description Excerpts:
“PWCs are getting faster and more powerful every year. But in 2011, riders are still relying on motocross
equipment not designed for PWC use to protect themselves from the hazards of high speed racing.
What's wrong with that picture? PWC riders need just as much protection as their land cousins and they
deserve protection they can call their own. This thing has clear overlapping polycarbonate panels to
protect that ever so precious spine of ours while not covering the ridiculously cool Flying Skulls print that
decorates the Race Vest. Break-away plastic rivets and 6-point velcro mounting keep it in place. Built-in
water drain vents ensures that water doesn't weigh it down. And it's a great piece of lightweight armor
should the Zombie Apocalypse ever happen. How's that for multi-purpose?”
PWC Back Deflector Skull Model
● High impact injection molded polycarbonate plates.
● Articulating sections conform to the curvature of your back.
● Break-away plastic rivets and 6-point velcro system mounts back deflector to the RS-16 Race
Vest securely.
● Built-in water drain vents ensures that water does not get captured but flows through without
weighing down the vest.
JTG Stealth 71 Back Deflector
 Eva Compression Molded Outer Shell.
 Impact Cell Internal Core.
 2 Layers of ABS Plastic Sheets.
 Laminated Poly Carbonate Cells.
 Universal Fit for any Jettribe Side-Entry Vest: RS-16, RS-17, Moto-1, Moto1-G2, JetPilot
Side-Entry and QuakySense, Fly Side-Entry Vest.
 IJSBA, TJSBA Race Compliant.
 Floats Independently.
http://www.tsunamijetski.com/jtg-11433s-pwc-back-deflector-smoke/

19
KNOX CONTOUR BACK PROTECTOR
http://www.jazzmotorsports.com/knox-contour-tour-back-protector-p-318887.html
 Highest performance and ultra light so you forget you are wearing a back protector!
 CE approved to Level 2 of EN1621-2.
 Transmits only 6KN of energy.
 Ultra light weight at only 600g.
 Engineered and formed in a 5 layer mould that follows the contour of the back.
 Fully adjustable and removable kidney protectors in soft PU give added performance.
 Quick release straps that also cross over for increased comfort.
 Technically advanced spacer fabric for breathability and antibacterial waist straps with Coolmax for comfort.
 Optional CE approved chest protector can be purchased separately.
 With additional coccyx protection
References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jaDCBXnfnk
http://www.jobesports.com/products/pwc-gear/accessories/shield-back-protector/
This one is CE approved but exactly what does that mean in terms of protection and impact?
http://www.landway.com.tw/back-protectors.shtml
This manufacturer doesn’t even give a proper description of the benefits or justifications medically in
terms of PWC use?

20
Chapter 3: LEG PROTECTORS
Are there any ratings for leg protectors available as a support device? In motocross they have strong
supportive designed boots that cover the entire lower leg. I couldn’t find anything regarding leg protection
ratings.
Leg Protectors or leg guards are sold as a protective device for lower limb coverage. What coverage is to
be expected? Contact with another Personal Watercraft on a race track and at what angle or force or
pressure applied?
How many lbs. per square inch of pressure can these devices manage before failure of the human
frame?
What type of strike are they going to deflect and how secure to the body are these products? When we
discuss impact, it is either water impact, body impact to our own PWC or impact from another PWC.
Many times on the race track as a course marshal I would pick up neck braces and discarded leg
protectors! How were these riders losing them?
Sometimes it was from the jet thrust or bow water spray leading up to the first turn from other race craft,
other times it was their body digging into a turn or their bow plunging below the water surface and forcing
a hard plume of water against their body in the footwell.
Or the elastic binders (fasteners) would age or did not fit the competitor body frame properly. They often
would slide down on their legs not staying in place. These products also have a lifespan to them and
should be replaced and they should be inspected for damage and cared for accordingly.
The kinetic energy that is transferred at point of contact can run all the way up to ‘blunt force trauma’.
This can also be a ‘pin’ between the seated straddle position on their PWC against the hull pressure of a
competitor boat. On a runabout the seated position typically places a bend at the knee joint.
The angle of contact and force applied would need to be measured inline from the knee to the ankle joint,
One would need an exoskeleton protection such as a hull, cage or physical barrier to reduce or offset
some of that energy applied, made of construction material that can take many kN’s of force
http://worldwidewatersports.co.uk/product.php?product=262
These are just water spray related
http://www.justwatersports.com/contents/en-uk/d108_pwcbodyarmour.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ649Nlu5Yc
Great advice on the replacement of the product from impact.
Race Guards went out of business for leg protectors, Dianese is not making any more

21
Chapter 4: Neck Braces
“Fiine 2008: The MFF command a study INRETS, a laboratory of Applied Biomechanics at the Faculty
Hospital north of Marseille, France. After a year and a half years of study, preliminary results are provided
by the FFM at the awards ceremony held in Paris in November 2010. Jacques Bolle, president of the
federation, said that "The protections flexible neck provide no gain protection. The collars rigid type Leatt
Brace, may in some cases offer additional protection, but not sufficient for the FFM make them
mandatory. At the announcement of preliminary results of the experiment in Marseille, we have reopened
the case, and conducted our own investigation by going on site in south and exploring the tests
conducted by some manufacturers. Our investigations suggest large areas of shadow. Impossible at
present to define the real usefulness of these protections. Only certainty, they provide no additional
danger to the driver in an accident. The intégbralité this broad survey and comments from experts should
be read by all those involved.”
Excerpt below from Dirt Rider
http://www.leatt-brace.com/
RESPONSE FROM DR. JOHN BODNAR
I want to applaud Pete Peterson and the staff of Dirt Rider for taking the effort to produce a very balanced
report on a topic of major importance to the motorcycle community. There are many misconceptions in
the area of neck injuries and the issues of neck brace usage in our sport. This article presents the facts
as they stand today and hopefully will continue the discussion of protective gear in motorcycling,
especially in off-road and motocross riders. The topic of motorcycle safety is one that at times can seem
to take a back seat to other issues, and Dirt Rider has performed a genuine service to all riders in
bringing this article to the forefront.
John A. Bodnar, MD
Medical Director, Asterisk Mobile Medical Center
RESPONSE FROM JIMMY BUTTON
“I am happy to see someone finally presented a non-bias story on it and just gave the facts.”
RESPONSE FROM DR. STEPHEN SWISHER
I’m an emergency physician at Mammoth Hospital, in Mammoth Lakes, CA. We treat motocross injuries
every summer, particularly during the Mammoth Motocross. An increasing number of our patients arrive
wearing neck braces. Often the brace was broken in the crash. Many of these riders tell me they
wouldn’t have walked away from the crash without a neck brace. Sounds promising.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to separate promise from reality. Currently there’s no large, randomized
controlled trial to show that the braces have any effect. In fact, there are few studies regarding neck
braces. Most neck brace research thus far is manufacturer-sponsored and potentially biased (bias can
be unintentional–the desire for a study outcome can lead you to that very outcome).
Quality research takes time and large numbers of patients. For example, it took years to establish that
ski/snowboard helmets actually decrease the rate and severity of head injuries. The medical literature is
filled with promising therapies and interventions that never panned out. It’s too early to say whether neck
braces will be shown to be beneficial, like ski helmets, or of no benefit, like antibiotics for the common
cold.
And here’s the counter-narrative. In my practice, every patient who walked away from a crash wearing a
neck brace was matched by a patient without a neck brace who also walked away from a
crash. Although I’ve treated several hundred motocross patients, it’s unclear to me whether the neck
braces make a difference. My patient numbers are simply too small for a trend to be noticeable.

22
I want to believe in neck braces. The theory behind them seems sound. They aren’t cheap but they aren’t
expensive either. It’s unlikely that they increase the risk of other injuries such as clavicle fractures. It’s up
to you.
Stephen A. Swisher, MD
Mammoth Hospital
Mammoth Lakes, CA
RESPONSE FROM DR. ERIK SWARTZ
I was honored, and fortunate, to be contacted by Mr. Peterson as he was developing this excellent article
on the practice of wearing neck braces in motorcycle riding. My primary area of interest actually concerns
the management of catastrophic head and neck injury in equipment intensive ‘collision’ sports, such as
American Football. I conduct research on this topic and also serve on the National Football League’s
Head, Neck, and Spine’s Subcommittee on Safety Equipment and Rules.
Obviously motorcycle riding and American football are similar in that the participant typically wears
protective equipment to prevent injury, such as a helmet. So, I was immediately intrigued with the concept
of a protective neck brace to mitigate spine injury, primarily because of my lack of familiarity with the sport
and its associated injury mechanisms. I was also keenly interested since my uncle is a long time
participant in Enduro racing, and has had his share of crashes and injuries.
When first confronted with a new protective device or design I tend to be of a skeptical mindset until I am
convinced of its merit. After reviewing materials that were provided to me I was immediately impressed
with the detailed work that one of the neck brace companies had already undertaken to produce validity
and reliability data for their product. These efforts are commendable, and clearly are critical, in
manufacturing a device that not only does what it is designed to do, but equally important, doesn’t do
anything it’s not supposed to do. These efforts should not be halted, however.
Rather, companies should be willing to accept that validity, reliability, and effectiveness of a product
designed to prevent (or minimize) injury is essentially a never-ending pursuit and empirical data should be
reproduced externally, and independently wherever possible. Internally produced data and anecdotal
claims are of a lower level of evidence in the medical and scientific communities.
Another element I was pleased to see with one of the company’s materials, and also reflected in the
article, is that the manufacturer of a neck brace is careful with the claims they make regarding its
products’ protective capabilities. For example, when I first looked at the device my initial conclusion was
that it would not help prevent spine injuries due to an axial load mechanism, (when an impact is directed
at the crown of the head and compresses the cervical spine) the most common mechanism for serious
spine injury in American football. It was refreshing to see that the company states from the outset that
their product is, indeed, not designed to prevent injury from this mechanism.
The tempered claims of the protective equipment a manufacturer enhances the confidence in the claims
the manufacturer makes about what the product can do. We have recently seen the US Federal Trade
Commission investigate and charge companies regarding deceptive claims made about the health
benefits of their products, most notably with products that claim to reduce the risk of concussion. A
cautious marketing strategy for any manufacturer of protective equipment is warranted.
Finally, I would like to comment on a side effect, sort of speak, inherent to the introduction of new
protective equipment into any sport or activity. Namely, a phenomenon described by others as ‘risk
compensation’ means that individuals may increase their threshold of risk if they feel more protected. An
easy example I tend to use to describe this is with sky-diving. Most people’s threshold for risk is such that
if standing at an open door of an airplane in flight, thousands of feet off the ground, most would probably
not elect to jump out of the plane. However, give a person a parachute that will protect them from harm
and their threshold for risk is now elevated so much that they feel safe enough to change their behavior
and accept the risk of jumping from the airplane.

23
American football experienced an unfortunate outcome of this risk compensation in the late 60’s and 70’s
when helmet designs moved to incorporating a hard outer shell and a facemask. Players began to use
their heads during tackling (spearing); a behavior that previously was avoided because their helmets did
not afford much protection; and the rate of catastrophic neck injuries sky rocketed. Therefore, we
navigate a fine line between protecting participants of sport from injury, and avoiding the unintended
consequences that might come from them gaining a false sense of security. Honestly, from my
perspective it’s hard to imagine motorcycle riders doing anything more risky than they already are, but I’m
always mindful of the individual that assumes higher risk because they feel more protected.
Erik E Swartz, PhD, ATC, FNATA
Associate Professor, Clinical Coordinator
Athletic Training Education Program
University of New Hampshire
RESPONSE FROM ATLAS BRACE
OUR DESIGN
Atlas is extremely unique when it comes to neck brace technology. Every Atlas Brace is based our
patented flexible technology. By incorporating flex into the neck brace, our goal is to not only reduce the
forces on the head and neck, but also for the brace itself to dissipate and possibly reduce those impact
forces before they are transferred to other areas of the body. By sitting around the spine and sternum,
and using dual chest and back supports we increase the surface area that the brace rests on the body,
which can help to spread out the impact forces rather than concentrate them in small areas. This flexible
technology creates many unique characteristics that are not possible to achieve with rigid designs, and
which is why we believe so strongly in our products.
OUR MISSION
Atlas’ mission was to create a testing method that could get as close to mimicking real life as possible.
We use a 3rd party team of experts to perform our testing, so we are able to obtain un-bias results that
are not under our own influence or design. The bulk of Atlas’ impact testing is performed by Dynamic
Research, Inc. (DRI) in Torrance, CA by their extremely knowledgeable staff of Bio-Mechanical Engineers
and Doctors, who are regular off road motorcycle riders themselves that understand what kind of
dangerous scenarios they may be faced with.
DRI has previous experience testing braces, and had multiple ideas on how to not only better the
technology and the testing performed on them. Their team started from scratch to come up with
something radically different that would provide us with useful repeatable tests, and more accurate data
from scenarios which we see in real life.
HOW WE TEST
Since most crashes riders experience are very violent and can include multi-directional forces, a better
real-world testing method was needed. DRI was able to create a custom built, forward/downward
pendulum test rig (think Superman in flying position) that not only measures deflection in the direction of
our choice, but also compression to the head and neck caused by the body’s weight crashing down
behind the head as it typically does in various motorcycle crashes. With our one of a kind test rig we are
able to repeat multiple controlled impacts into a custom built adjustable-angle surface. These mimic
various scenarios of common crashes, including the “lawn dart” scenario of a rider going over the bars,
and impacting head first into the ground, or an upcoming obstacle. This type of testing gives us extremely
useful, and repeatable data that we can use to further develop our products.
Our Dummy is made up of an instrumented upper torso surrogate fitted with a Hybrid III head-form and a
Motorcycle Anthropometric Test Device (MATD) neck, which was specifically developed (and certified) by
DRI to be more realistic for data acquisition during motorcycle crash scenarios than a standard car crash
type neck. Instrumentation on the surrogate includes a 9 accelerometer array mounted inside the Hybrid
III head-form for measurement of linear and angular accelerations as well as a 6-degree-of- freedom
upper neck load cell that monitors three dimensional forces and moments. A digital high speed video

24
camera collecting data at 1000 frames per second is used to capture all impacts. The complete upper
torso fixture is illustrated in
Fig. 1, and the MATD neck is shown in Fig. 2.
In all our testing, each test scenario was performed with, and without an Atlas Brace to provide
comparative results. We were very pleased to find positive results in every impact scenario we performed,
and that in each situation wearing an Atlas Brace was successful in reducing the forces to the head and
neck, comparative to not wearing a brace in the same impacts. Although this does not in any way
guarantee an injury will prevented or reduced, it does give us extremely valuable data related to our
products positive performance while helping to further the development and understanding of impacts that
riders may experience and how we can better control these forces. While our testing is unique and not
directly comparative to some of our competitors testing, we still feel very strongly that neck braces are a
vital component of rider safety, and should be highly considered as part of every rider’s program.
CERTIFICATION
In addition to our lab testing performed in the USA, the Atlas Brace is lab tested in Europe to meet
various CE standards. The Atlas Brace conforms to the requirements of the European Directive
89/686/EEC concerning Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). CE is the only current certification for
neck braces, and Atlas is proud to meet these requirements.
THE REAL WORLD
Often times devices which perform extremely well in Lab scenarios pose multiple challenges in the real
world. During the initial design phase of the Atlas Brace we found this to be a very difficult to overcome,
and searched for the best way to combine mobility and comfort, with safety and protection. Since the
development was led by a former professional motocross racer, we were able to carefully develop this
mix over a 3 year period. We credit a huge portion of this to our real world rider testing, input, and
feedback, as well as the developmental input from DRI who had a big influence on how to create a
controlled flexible design that would provide the safety results we were looking for. The results are exactly
what we hoped for, and we believe that having former Champions Ryan Villopoto and Jake Weimer
choose to wear our product shows that we have created a great product. When asked about riders who
choose to wear, or not wear a neck brace, this is what Ryan Villopoto had to say: “For me, it’s a choice I
make, and even if a neck brace only helped me one percent, that’s a one percent advantage I have and
it’s only going to help.”

25
RESPONSE FROM LEATT CORPORATION
In our history there have been many articles written about our neck braces and neck braces in general.
No journalist has ever before gone into such detail and found so many independent, qualified resources
for information and opinions. All we have ever tried to do, here at Leatt, is make a business out of helping
protect riders and for this detailed article we owe thanks to Dirt Rider for effort, investment and integrity to
publish this.
Leatt has an open door policy on our science, technology, testing and test results. It has been this way for
many years now and even our legal team has said that full disclosure reduces liability and promotes
informed decisions by riders. Sadly, in my 36 years of motorcycle industry experience, most legal advice
about safety products is “say nothing”. In our opinion that advice just leads to confusion,
misunderstandings and more injured riders. It concerns us that some other safety product companies
either don’t have the test procedures and test results or choose not to share them. I just don’t see how
that policy benefits the riders or the companies and we can only hope they change their policies.
Yes, I work for Leatt. But I am also a rider and racer. I had a motorcycle shop owner I did business with
who was tragically killed in a desert race crash from a neck injury. I was a supplier to that shop of
protective equipment and remember how helpless I felt facing his wife and knowing that there was
nothing made, at that time, to help protect from that injury. I don’t have to work at Leatt, I choose to. Dr.
Leatt didn’t need to make neck braces; he already had a nice career. We all choose to do what we do for
the riders.
Provided by Phil Davy, Leatt International Marketing manager and Leatt USA General Manager
Leatt Video – http://youtu.be/fJ5NvChWbpo
END NOTES FOR MAGAZINE STORY
Below are the endnotes to the May 2013 Dirt Rider feature story “The Neck Brace.”
As the story pointed out under in the “The Trouble with Numbers” section, “It’s very difficult to find medical
statistics on SCI from off-road and motocross crashes; too many of these statistics are from streetbike
crashes, and many of those don’t even show if the rider was wearing a helmet.”
In nearly all cases the statistics are for general injuries and do not take neck brace effectiveness into
account, since none of the studies cited here collected that data.
These endnotes then should be thought of as information on injuries, in most cases from motorcycle
crashes, but there is no conclusive “with a neck brace vs. without a neck brace” motorcycle crash injury
statistics that could be found during the writing of this magazine story.

26
Another challenge is that these documents are not easily available for people outside the
medical/research field. I have included a few helpful links for readers who want to read the full studies.
The links will lead you to an Abstract (summary), and you will have to subscribe/pay to see the entire
document.
These endnotes are supplied to assist you if you want to delve deeper into this topic of neck protection
effectiveness. If you’d like to share insight or information with Dirt Rider please email
to DRMail@sorc.com and cc pete.peterson@sorc.com.
[1]
I will use for this first endnote some AMA motocross statistics that are unpublished but were provided to
the authors of the Leatt White Paper. For this data see Table 2-6 on page 17 of the Leatt White Paper
(http://www.leatt-brace.com/images/uploads/library/LEATT_WHITE_PAPER_FINAL_rev1.pdf ), or check
their General Injury Statistics page
(http://www.leatt-brace.com/images/uploads/accident_form/Injury_Stats.pdf )
Which reference some AMA Motocross statistics that shows that approximately 29% of spinal fracture
injuries in the very small collection of motocross crash data resulted in spinal cord injury. This percentage
is not very reliable since it was drawn from such a small body of date.
Drawing from a larger pool of data-
[Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Robertson A, Giannoudis PV, Branfoot T,
Barlow I, Matthews SJ, Smith RM. Spinal injuries in motorcycle crashes: Patterns and outcomes. The
Journal of Trauma. 2002;53:5-8.
- shows approximately 20% of spinal injuries resulted in spinal cord injury (25 out of 126).
Here’s a link to get access to this paper on a ‘subscribe to read’ site that hosts papers from many medical
journals –
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2002/07000/Spinal_Injuries_in_Motorcycle_Crashes__Patterns.2
.aspx
[2]
From Dr. Chris Leatt, “The incident of neurological deficit depends on the study group e.g. MVA [motor
vehicle accidents] vs. dirt bike accidents. The risk of spinal column injury may be 3 – 7%, of these
approximately 20% plus may have a neurological deficit, but for the dirt bike groups the study groups are
relatively small and statistical significance difficult to prove. The [Leatt] white paper includes this topic.” A
neurological deficit generally means full or partial loss of muscle groups and organ function, and that
neurological deficit can be temporary, incomplete, or complete.
[3] [these same references are used for endnote 5]
[[EN – concentration in thoracic area]] –
These statistics are possibly misleading since so many motorcycle spinal cord injury statistics are
gathered from motorcycle riding on streets (motorcycle or scooter), and it was pointed out to me during
my research for the Dirt Rider story that in many of these studies the details surrounding the rider’s gear
and the crash are not available.
This is frustrating for the sake of researching the effectiveness of neck protection in motocross and off-
road motorcycle crashes, but in the grand scope of things it is overall good news, as was pointed out to
me, that these types of injuries are rare enough that gathering a large enough body of information is
difficult. The references to the medical journals, however, are –[same reference cited in endnote #1]
[Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Robertson A, Giannoudis PV, Branfoot

27
T, Barlow I, Matthews SJ, Smith RM. Spinal injuries in motorcycle crashes: Patterns and outcomes. The
Journal of Trauma. 2002;53:5-8.
journals –
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2002/07000/Spinal_Injuries_in_Motorcycle_Crashes__Patterns.2
.aspx
[Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Robertson A, Branfoot T, Barlow IF,
Giannoudis PV.Spinal injury patterns resulting from car and motorcycle accidents. Spine. 2002;
27(24):2825-2830.
journals –
http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Fulltext/2002/12150/Spinal_Injury_Patterns_Resulting_From_Car_a
nd.19.aspx
[Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Shrosbree RD. Spinal cord injuries of
motorcycle accidents. Paraplegia. 1979; 16:102–12.
[Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Kuppferschmid JP, Weaver ML, Raves
JJ, Diamond DL. Thoracic spine injuries in victims of motorcycle accidents. Journal of Trauma.1989;
29:593–596.
journals –
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/1989/05000/Thoracic_Spine_Injuries_in_Victims_of_Motorcycle.
9.aspx
Gorski TF, Gorski YC, McLeod G, Suh D, Cordero R, Essien F, Berry D, Festus D. Patterns of injury and
outcomes associated with motocross accidents. The American Surgeon. 2003; 69; 10: 895-98.
[4]
These are the specifications of the test dummy that the Leatt Laboratory uses –
Hybrid III 50
th
percentile Anthropomorphic Test Dummy with:
 Chest Potentiometer
 3 x Uni-axial Head Accelerometers
 6-Axis Upper Neck Load Cell
 6-Axis Lower Neck Load Cell
 2 x 2-Axis Clavicle Load Cell
 3 x Uni-axial Chest Accelerometers
 2 x Tri-axial Head Gryometers
 MATD & Hybrid III neck
Hydraulic Automotive Impact Pendulum – 6.5m vertical lift = ±40km/h impact
High Speed Camera – PhotronFastCAM SAE3 – 1000fps @ 1024×1024
Non-flicker lights – Dedo DLH 200D
Data Acquisition Unit – 28 measured channels – SoMateDAQ Lite
Post-Processing software – nCodeGlyphworks
HBM PACELine CMC 120kN piezoelectric force transducer
Various S Beam Load Cells
Shaft Encoder for shaft rotation measurement

28
Inverted Impact pendulum for unrestraint torso testing
Horizontal Impact pendulum for unrestraint torso testing
Helmet drop tower to test according to various test standards – up to 10m/s impact
CE drop tower for PPE certification testing
Fatigue tester
Slow tension / compression testing equipment
6m Vertical Drop tower for dynamic material testing
Various temperature chambers
R &D workshop with the following capabilities:
 Carbon Fibre / Kevlar / Fibre Glass Layup
 Precision Drilling
 Milling Machine
 Grinding Room
 Spray Painting
[5]
See endnote 3
[6]
SVEMO letter
Leatt looked into the Internet rumor of a rider in Sweden being cut with a shattered neck brace.
Leatt couldn’t find any evidence of this rumor being true, and their search actually resulted in a letter from
SVEMO (The Swedish Motorcycle and Snowmobile Federation) stating that none of the fatal injuries from
that year were associated with head or neck trauma or with neck braces.
You can read that letter, it’s posted on Leatt’s website, with this link –
http://www.leatt-brace.com/images/uploads/library/FIM_Sweden_Letter.pdf
The magazine feature story and this web story are, as has been mentioned before, not an end point, but
just a discussion of information available today.
Hopefully more information will becomes available, more advancements in protective gear will be made,
and more discussion will help share all the facts, concerns, theories, and advice with motocross and off-
road riders.
Read more: http://www.dirtrider.com/features/the-neck-brace-web-component/#ixzz2tQQ8TbX0

29
Chapter 5: LIFEJACKETS
Impact reality, is your lifejacket properly fitted, sized and maintained for spills, falls and contact at speed?
This lifejacket below does not have a Silkscreened ‘LOT NO.’ That area is left blank. Does this make it
illegal? Will my lifejackets that have no ‘LOT NO.’ be considered non-approved?
The answer is this is an illegal Lifejacket.
These items are required:
1. MODEL NUMBER
2. LOT NO.
3. Type
4. USCG Approval Number
USCG Approved have LOT NO’s that are silkscreened of each panel with the corresponding Serial and
approval certifications for each design.

30
If you are using a ‘one size fits all’, you must then appropriately affix the sizing straps so they are secure
against the frame of your body and the loose webbing ends are tied back and secure.
(c) Lifejacket lots. A lot number must be assigned to each group of lifejackets produced. No lot may
exceed 1000 lifejackets. A new lot must be started whenever any change in materials or a revision to a
production method is made, and whenever any substantial discontinuity in the production process occurs.
Changes in lots of component materials must be treated as changes in materials.
Lots must be numbered serially. The lot number assigned, along with the approval number, must enable
the lifejacket manufacturer, by referring to the records required by this subpart, to determine who
produced the components used in the lifejacket.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/160.176-15

31
The History of Underwriter Laboratories (UL)
History
UL has a proud history that continues to motivate us each and every day. For more than a century we
have employed exacting scientific processes and the highest ethical principles to deliver trusted results.
Today, we are still focusing on the next generation of safety challenges, helping new geographies, new
industries and new stakeholders create safer living and work environments.
Products Certified to Underwriter Laboratories (UL) Standards for Safety
Lifejackets are certified under the following product categories in accordance with requirements in one or
more of the UL standards identified for each category.
Flotation aids and special-use devices (OPZY) - Includes Type III PFDs, such as buoyant vests and
jackets. Devices to be worn are designated as Type III and Type V special-use devices evaluated for a
specific restricted activity (UL 1123).
Near-shore buoyant vests (OQFZ) - Includes Type II devices intended for use on uninspected
commercial vessels less than 40 feet in length that do not carry passengers for hire (UL 1123, UL
1177).
Buoyant throwable devices (OPPR) - Buoyant cushions, horseshoe and ring buoys suitable for use on
recreational boats less than 16 feet in length, and as throwable devices for recreational boats (UL
1175).
Inflatable personal flotation devices (OTDG) - Inflatable PFDs for use on either recreational boats or
commercial vessels, as indicated on the product markings (UL 1180).
Hybrid PFDs (OTHZ) - Wearable PFDs with both inherently and inflatable buoyancy intended for use on
recreational boats (UL 1517).
Rearming kits (OTFQ) - Rearming kits for inflatable and hybrid personal flotation devices, intended for
field installation by the consumer (UL 1180).
Immersion suits (NCPR) - Immersion suits designed to minimize thermal shock upon entering cold
water, to lessen the effect of hypothermia, and to provide flotation for the wearer while in the water (UL
1197).
Commercial ring buoys (OUDX) - Commercial ring buoys intended primarily for use as throwable
devices on merchant vessels, but also suitable for use on recreational boats less than 16 feet in length
and all canoes and kayaks (UL 1516).
Lifesaving equipment components (OPET2) - Components intended for factory installation in complete
lifesaving equipment that is to be investigated as part of the overall end product lifesaving equipment. (UL
1191).
Fabricated parts of foam flotation material (OTAW2) - Material traceability of skived die-cut and other
fabricated parts. These fabricated parts are intended to provide a mechanism for identifying such factory
installed materials when used in the end-use product (UL 1191).
Marine lifesaving device components (OPET2) - Includes components for marine lifesaving device
components such as thread, fabrics, foam, hardware, inflation systems, etc.

32
Products certified to ULC Canadian requirements
PFDs are certified under the following product category in accordance with requirements in one or more
of the following standards.
CAN/CGSB 65.7 - Life Jackets
CAN/CGSB 65.11 - Personal Flotation Devices
CAN/CGSB 65.15 - Personal Flotation Devices for Children
CAN/CGSB 65.16 - Immersion Suit Systems
CAN/CGSB 65.18 - Closed Cell Polymeric Foam Materials
CAN/CGSB 65.19 - Textile Components of Life Jackets and Personal Flotation Devices
Personal buoyant water safety products (ZDTQC) - PFDs, life jackets, and immersion suits intended
for use on recreational boats.
Products certified to 46 CFR federal regulations
PFDs are certified under the following product categories in accordance with applicable requirements in
the Code of Federal Regulations defined within 46CFR
Life preservers and life jackets (OTPS) - Type I personal flotation devices designed to turn
unconscious wearers face up in the water. Certified life preservers and life jackets are approved by the
Commandant, United States Coast Guard (USCG), and are marked with a USCG approval number.
Special-use Personal Flotation Devices (OUFV) - Special-use personal flotation devices approved by
the Commandant, United States Coast Guard (USCG) and marked with the Coast Guard Approval
number. The USCG has designated these devices as Type V PFDs. Devices designated as Type V have
special or restricted provisions associated with their USCG Approval as marked on the device.
Improper size and fit of lifejackets will not be tolerated at a PWC event due to safety and boating
laws and regulations
Improperly sized and fitted lifejackets are a disaster for use, when you hit the water at high speed
ejections they can catch, create a drag effect and ride up over your frame. This can cause the fast tech
buckles to break apart, rendering the lifejacket useless.
CE Approval ISO lifejacket approval
Lifejacket ISO Approval
Since July 1995, it has been illegal to sell Lifejackets or Buoyancy Aids that have not been tested to
European or International specifications.
Every Lifejacket and Buoyancy aid sold by Marine Warehouse is fully approved and carries the relevant
CE or ISO mark.

33
There are several classifications for ISO Approval:
CE standards deal with various categories of buoyancy performance, the big four are shown below. The
rating is for an adult size so smaller sizes have proportionally less buoyancy:
ISO12402-5, Covers 50N buoyancy aids, providing a minimum of 5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry
this approval include our specialist range which includes anglers vests, waterski vests, PWC vests,
wakeboarding vests, and the various dinghy and canoe vests.
ISO12402-4, Covers 100N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 10kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this
approval include our orange foam range of lifejackets for both adults and children.
ISO12402-3, Covers 150N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 15kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this
approval include the majority of our Manual and automatic lifejackets for both adults and children.
ISO12402-2, Covers 275N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 27.5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry
this approval include our specialist range of lifejackets for offshore use.
Buoyancy explained
Newtons, are a measure of force. 10 Newtons (or 10N in lifejacket speak) is equivalent to 1 kilogram of
buoyancy. So a 150 Newton lifejacket (or 150N) provides 15kg of buoyancy. Remember these are the
minimum buoyancy requirements for the European standard, so the actual vest or lifejacket may provide
more.
Kids life jackets are commonly rated as 100N or 150N but they don’t actually have that much buoyancy.
For example a kid’s foam lifejacket size 10-20kg has 30N of buoyancy.
What else does ISO approval cover?
ISO approval also covers other features not just buoyancy ratings. These include the design,
performance, specification of materials used in manufacture, and even the information that the user guide
provides. For example our Harness jackets are approved to ISO12402-6 in addition to the standard
certification.
Lifejacket CE/EN Approval
Every Lifejacket and Buoyancy aid sold by Marine Warehouse is fully approved and carries the relevant
CE or ISO mark.
Testing is carried out at the Fleetwood Testing Laboratory in Lancashire who are accredited by The
United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to the ISO 17025 standard.
CE approved Lifejackets
All Marine Warehouse Lifejackets carry
the relevant CE or ISO approval.
Testing is carried out in the UK by the
Fleetwood Testing Laboratory.
Fleetwood are known in the industry as
having rigorous standards.

34
There are several classifications for CE Approval.
CE standards deal with various categories of buoyancy performance, the big four are shown below. The
rating is for an adult size so smaller sizes have proportionally less buoyancy:
EN393, Covers 50N buoyancy aids, providing a minimum of 5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this
approval include our specialist range which includes anglers vests, waterski vests, PWC vests,
wakeboarding vests, and the various dinghy and canoe vests.
EN395, Covers 100N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 10kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this
approval include our orange foam range of lifejackets for both adults and children.
EN396, Covers 150N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 15kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this
approval include the majority of our Manual and automatic lifejackets for both adults and children.
EN399, Covers 275N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 27.5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this
approval include our specialist range of lifejackets for offshore use.
Buoyancy explained
Newtons are a measure of force. 10 Newtons (or 10N in lifejacket speak) is equivalent to 1 kilogram of
buoyancy. So a 150 Newton lifejacket (or 150N) provides 15kg of buoyancy.
Remember these are the minimum buoyancy requirements for the European standard, so the actual vest
or lifejacket may provide more.
Kids life jackets are commonly rated as 100N or 150N but they don’t actually have that much buoyancy.
For example a kids foam lifejacket size 10-20kg has 30N of buoyancy.
What else does CE approval cover?
CE approval also covers other features not just buoyancy ratings. These include the design, performance,
specification of materials used in manufacture, and even the information that the user guide provides.
The author freeriding, photos by David Pu’u

35
CHAPTER 6: HELMETS
Let’s check in with the helmet issue. What makes a good helmet for PWC usage? Don’t let branding
claims persuade your purchase. Along with a Lifejacket this is your most important investment for
personal safety. Choose wisely! Water testing standards ARE NOT the same as land based, however
with that differences of the forces of action and body movement it is far more difficult to assess safety with
crashes on the water and in the body positions with the increased speeds of newer PWC’s. We will take
a look at what is available, even though it is severely limited.
“Sorting out differences in helmet ratings”. Here is an interesting article for your review in the New York
Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?_r=0
DOT- Department of Transportation
http://www.motosport.com/blog/the-big-list-of-dot-snell-ece-approved-motocross-helmets#DOT
HELMET SAFETY STANDARD TESTING
There is not one true ‘water standard helmet’ available today on the market that has been thoroughly
tested. Our PWC sport utilizes motorcycle ‘motocross’ style helmets. The problem we have is fit and
sizing. Once you get your motorcross helmet wet the interior foam panels will start to decompress and
lessen the fit you first enjoyed.
These are things you must consider in purchasing your helmet. If the helmet ‘rides down over your brow it
does not fit you properly. Likewise if your goggles ride down on your nose it does not fit you head
properly. NOTE: FreeRide and Freestyle helmets come under a lesser classification of CE Standards.
Due to the ‘snap back’ effect of striking the forward part of your PWC or falls to the water, a visor is not
advisable and can assist in neck injuries due to snap back effect. The same thing goes for affixing a
filming camera to your helmet.
SNELL has set the safety standard testing for helmets. The Snell Memorial Foundation is a non-profit
founded in 1957 after the death of William "Pete" Snell, who died in 1956 after sustaining injuries to his
head in a car race. Snell standards raise the bar compared to those set by DOT and are updated every
five years. The current standard of M2010 allows a peak acceleration of 300g and uses five different anvil
shapes. The number of tests and actual testing is much more rigorous than DOT.
Achieving a Snell standard designation is voluntary and manufacturers submit their helmets for testing.
Snell also randomly buys Snell approved helmets and re-tests them for compliance. Snell has questioned
the validity of DOT's criteria on gravity constant measures as they were taken from helmet standards in
1972.

36
However, in 2005 an article in Motorcyclist magazine criticized Snell standards as too excessive. It was
reported that a softer absorption material would transfer less g force to the head as opposed to the harder
material used in Snell helmets. Though Snell offered a rebuttal at the time, the M2010 standards
addressed some of those criticisms.
ECE Certification
The ECE or United Nations Economic Commission for Europe is actually the most common internationally
recognized helmet certification as more than 50 countries have adopted the ECE standards for helmets.
The ECE standard, like DOT, favors impact absorbing helmets. The current standard is known as ECE
22.05.
ECE standards are similar to DOT standards in that it tests helmets on penetration, impact attenuation,
retention and peripheral vision. There are some differences most notably the peak acceleration energy
allowed for impact attenuation is 275g and ECE tests for abrasion resistance on how well the helmet
shears away. DOT requires extensions from the helmet, like snaps and rivets, to be no more than 5mm;
ECE requires no more than 2mm.
Unlike the DOT standard which relies on the manufacturer being honest, the ECE batch tests helmets
prior to public release to ensure quality before the helmet leaves the factory.
TRIFECTA
When a helmet passes all three testing measures.
Reference Material:
http://www.motosport.com/blog/the-big-list-of-dot-snell-ece-approved-motocross-helmets#DOT
How do helmets work?
Helmets are normally comprised of four elements; a rigid outer shell, a crushable liner, chin straps or a
retaining system, and fit or comfort padding. The rigid outer shell, when present, adds a load-spreading
capability, and prevents objects from penetrating the helmet. The liner, usually made of EPS (expanded
polystyrene) or similar types of materials, absorbs the energy of an impact by crushing. The chin strap
when properly buckled and adjusted along with the fit padding helps the helmet remain in position during
a crash.
Helmets work like a brake or shock absorber. During a fall or crash, a head is traveling at a certain
speed. Since the head has weight and is moving, there is a certain amount of energy associated with the
moving head. When the helmet along with the accompanying head impacts an unyielding object, a rock, a
wall, a curb or the ground, the hard shell starts by taking the energy generated by the falling helmet
(head) and spreads it over a larger portion of the helmet, specifically, the internal foam liner. The foam
liner then starts to crush and break which uses up a lot of the energy, keeping it from reaching the head
inside. Depending on how fast the head is traveling, and how big, heavy and immovable the object is, the
faster the head slows down, and the more energy is present. In short, everything slows down really
quickly. A helmet will effectively reduce the speed of the head by breaking and crushing which reduces
the amount of energy transferred to the brain. The whole process takes only milliseconds to turn a
potentially lethal blow into a survivable one.
Why should you replace your helmet every five years?
The five-year replacement recommendation is based on a consensus by both helmet manufacturers and
the Snell Foundation. Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production can affect liner
materials. Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, as well as normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet
degradation. Petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly
encountered materials may also degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading
performance.

37
Additionally, experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of
helmets over a five-year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the
standards. Thus, the recommendation for five-year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from
a prudent safety philosophy.
If a helmet is altered from its shell integrity, say if a person drills a hole or a series of mounting holes for a
GoPro camera, this will void the warranty and security of its construction. Shall the IJSBA allow only
‘glued in place’ helmet mounts?
Why does Snell make my racing association upgrade to the newest Snell Standards?
Each association and/or track has the responsibility for the safety of its members or participants, which
generally creates a unique set of issues that must be dealt with, and rules to be set accordingly. Snell
recommends the latest Snell Standards to all consumers who need head protection.
Why won't Snell certify some types of helmets like flip up front designs?
Snell does not dismiss out of hand any helmet design that strays from the conventional. Snell does not
point out any design specifications other than general requirements in its standards. We are, however,
always concerned with innovations and new designs that may affect helmet's ability to protect the wearer,
or in some cases helmet's potential to cause injury. At present the Foundation has not had the
opportunity to test any of the flip up front type helmets for certification. We do not find any fault with these
designs as long as they are used according to the manufacturer’s instructions and meet all of the
requirements of the standard. We will also certify any size of helmet as long as it meets the same
requirements as any other Snell certified helmet.
Where's the Snell label located?
There are two forms of the Snell serialized label. The most common is the adhesive label, but there is
also a cloth type for the M, SA and RS standards. The adhesive label, or decal is usually affixed
somewhere on the inside of the helmet. If it is not readily visible, check underneath the flaps of the
comfort padding. The cloth type labels a generally sewn onto the chin strap and folded over. If a
thorough search fails to turn up a decal, then regardless of any claims or advertisements, your helmet is
not part of the Snell certification program and does not have the confidence of the Foundation.
What are the differences between the SA, M and K standards?
The SA standard was designed for competitive auto racing while the M standard was for motorcycling and
other motorsports. The K standard was released to accommodate helmets used in karting. There are
three major differences between them:
1. The SA standard requires flammability test while the M and K standards do not.
2. The SA and K standards allow for a narrower visual field than the M standard (Some SA and K
certified helmets may not be street legal).
3. The SA and K standards include a rollbar multi-impact test while the M standard does not.
Who/What is Snell?
William "Pete" Snell was an amateur auto racer. He died needlessly in a racing event in 1956 when his
then state-of- the-art helmet utterly failed to protect him. In memory of Pete, a number of his friends,
colleagues and fellow racers including Dr. George Snively, formed the Snell Memorial Foundation to try
to improve helmet design and capabilities, and to encourage the development and use of truly
protective helmets.
Snell certification services are conducted on a fee for service basis. Charges are levied for testing and
for the Snell certification labels which go into each Snell certified helmet.

38
These are the only revenues. Snell’s directors and staff (www.smf.org) are not allowed any financial
connection with the helmet industry. This is customary for any not-for-profit organization serving the
public interest. Further, Snell’s charges to the industry are minimal.
The real costs of Snell certification go into the additional engineering and quality control necessary to
meet Snell Standards. The value is in the helmets. Helmets must meet the government requirements or
they are not eligible for sale. Snell motorcycle helmets distributed for sale in the US meet DOT
requirements. It’s the law.
And there is no real cause for conflict between Snell Standards and those who prefer the mandatory
minimums set forth in the United States’ DOT standard or in ECE 22-05 now required in Europe. Snell
Standards are voluntary. Manufacturers choose to produce Snell certified helmets and riders choose to
wear them.
The reason Snell has been able to set standards and certify helmets for the last fifty years is that many
riders, experts and manufacturers agree that Snell Standards and Snell certification demand more than
the mandatory minimums. There are at least two dimensions to helmet performance: momentum and
energy.
The helmet must control the momentum transfer between the wearer’s head and the impact surface, that
is; it must be sufficiently soft to keep the g’s within safe levels. But the helmet must also manage the total
impact energy. Because once the energy management is exhausted, the helmet loses all capacity to limit
g levels.
Any remaining shock will, instead, test the physical limits of the rider’s bone and tissue. There seems to
be no upper limit to the amount of energy management a rider might ever need. And street riders
certainly need as much or more than riders in many competitive events. Snell Standards look for all the
energy management any rider, street or competition, could reasonably be expected to wear.
DOT requires only a fraction of the impact energy management demanded in Snell Standards and ECE
22-05 demands even less than DOT. But there is no official objection to helmets managing more than
these mandatory minimums. And there is a considerable gap between these minimums and the most
that current technology can provide. Snell certification identifies helmets with premium levels of impact
management and, in so doing, serves those who choose to build those helmets and those who choose to
wear them.
The Snell Memorial Foundation has been actively conducting and supporting research to understand the
nature and severity of head and brain injury and to increase head impact protection in such activities as
bicycling, motorcycling, auto racing and other non-motorized recreational activities. Basic studies of injury
mechanism and protection, as well as field research related to injury severity and causation have been
undertaken.
What's a batch test, and is it better than RST?
Batch testing is another form of compliance checking. It is a common method used by many European
and other country's Governmental Standards as well as some of the private ones. Batch test schemes are
used to test many types of products. It's called a batch test is because a manufacturer will produce a
batch of product and be required to submit a certain number of samples from the batch for testing, or in
some cases test data collected by the manufacturer these products to the organization requiring the test.
The drawbacks of batch testing are that the system may be manipulated too easily. Unscrupulous
manufacturers could make sure the tests performed on their products in their own lab, or by a hired one,
indicate that they technically are in compliance with the requirements of the standard. Additionally, if it is
required that the batch helmet samples are tested at an outside source, it is possible to make sure the
helmets selected will perform as required.

Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

Semelhante a Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing (20)

Mais de K 38

Mais de K 38 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing