I was reading Afro's thread a minute ago about the guy who went round a motorway slip road at 90mph... on the other forum, one of the members was talking about buying a back protector or upgrading if you already have one in your jacket..

Now, the last time we had a serious discussion about this was about a year ago when T.C. was telling us that they do more harm than good, i.e. if you come off wearing one they sometime can actually increase the damage to your back rather than prevent it

Now, i always took T.C's advise as absolute and have since never bought a back protector (and very very rarely wear a rucksack for those who remember that thread too) but in the last couple of months i've started to get a little confused...

All these people in RiDe magazine for example, always do both road and track tests while wearing a big hefty protector some of which have 30years experience etc etc... i've also had a few conversations with experienced motorbikers who recommend them, and i'm always seeing sportsbike riders (road and track) with them bolted on....?

I was just wondering peoples oppinions on this subject... are they good, are they bad, does it make a blind bit of difference?

If i'd have never found this forum all that time ago i know i would have bought one by now.... i'm just wondering if that was the right decision?

Cheers all for your replies

It's not fashion that every MotoGP rider wears a hump (back protector) in their leathers.

Back protectors offer genuine protection against certain spinal injuries.

It doesn't matter how powerful a bike you have. Coming off at 60-70 on a 125 could result in severe injuries deoending on the anatomy of the spill (if a roll and tumble begins for example).

Invest in a quality external protector or upgrade the one in built into some jackets.

Seems like common sense to me, and if it works for the GP boys, it'll work for me.

As usual, this is all just my opinion.

I don't know about that last sentence Afro... except if you are talking about using it on track.

Working for Moto GP doesn't mean it will do the same for the rest of us on the streets.

A moto GP rider usually slides down the track...and that's it.
A everyday rider, can go flying over some car bonnet, roll all over the road, etc, etc... and the back protector on these situations might not work as well as for a Moto GP rider...

I suppose TC knows what he's talking about after all his experience about this subject come from the road accidents he investigated over the years and all his articles are based on real cases.

True JP...I was thinking of my experiences on track....There are a lot more variables on the road.

I still think landing on your back after a highside for example, whether on road or track, is a dangerous proposition, and padding along the spine can prevent more serious injury.

I should have worded that better really...

I completely agree with back protectors on track, but i'm wondering, with all those other variables on the road what everyone thinks

Wish we still had that thread by TC.. think it got left behind on the other forum

well,, I still have my concerns and doubts on Back Protectors....


I have read also many different and contradictory views from Mags, persons with a lot of experience etc...

Honestly I think we will never know the whole Truth,,,,,

as on the road there are many variables.....

I hope much more study goes into it,,, to make a back protector that is tested on typical road scenario... and that provide us with better odds...

In my view...

so 2 accidents...
One you land in a way that the back protector is pushed up on your neck and your head is pushed backwards, therefore damaging your neck ..

the other you land flat on your back, slide,, your body turn and you hit something solid with your back,, having the protector in between... back sore but nothig broke.




Although personally I do not use one...... my textile jacket has some foam padding and the Leather one a semi hard protector....


and I was going to buy one I would a soft or articulated one...
Personally I think it would be more confortable and more flexible, following the contours of the body......


but I am not Expert........

Yes, that's a good compromise....I only use the padding in my jacket but it is uprated from the standard stuff that comes with the jacket.

I think a back protector that stays in the jacket lining like this is the safesty type, as it cannot slide up and damage the neck.

My knowledge of armour comes from the military, re-enactment and CBT only.... however -

From what I understand, the biggest problem is the abrasion from sliding, not teh impact of hitting the floor. Someone has explained to me before that helms are only tested to a direct impact speed of something like a mere 7mph, but they will protect up to 120 because you just about never hit directly on to the road, but hit it at an angle instead (like the landing path of a plane).

Thus, it seems the ideal armour is impact absorbent, abrasion resistant plates on the salient points of the body, behind which is multi-layered padding to protect against blunt trauma frm the plates..... does that sound right?

This theory would seem to be supported by the fact that a lot of expensive leathers I've seen don't have rigid plates (because leather does that job already) but still have closed cell foam padding behind it (ie between leather and skin).

However, one of teh biggest problems I can think of is the one which has prevented me from buying textiles - the armour MUST fit your body to work effectively, otherwise you run the risk of damaging yourself in an off. I've already experienced this myself in steel plate armour.

The boys and girls of Moto GP can probably afford tailored armour plates. Most of us can't.

I hope this actually contributed in some way and someone finds it useful

A suitable back protector is a GOOD THING, and we all agree on that. However, you are much better off on the road with either the soft foam type or ideally the ones that are made of memory foam built into the leathers. The sort of crash you have on the road is a lot different to the crash you have on the track and with all the crap strewn around the roads you are likely to hit, the armadillo type back protector could do as much harm as good.

I'd like to get some of the Dainese leathers with the slot where their own brand protector is designed to fit. In the meantime I use a Knox protector that fits really well and makes me feel so much more protected.

The biggest problem on the road is that you don't slide very far, you tend to smash into things like lamp posts, brick walls, bollards and vehicles comming in the opposite direction. It is because of these things that extra back protectors do more dammage than good on the road, especially if they are not the correct size or fitted properly. On a track you tend to slide a long way before you hit anything on the road not so, for this reason alone a hard back protector is usefull on a track but can cause more severe injuries on the road. On the road the soft backl armour fitted in most bike jackets is certainly up to the task, with the added advantage that the emergency services can easily cut you out of a jacket if needed.

By the way Afro the hump on the back of racing leathers is nothing to do with back protection, it's an aerodynamic aid, and is in totally the wrong position to offer any back protection whatsoever.

My mistake...I thought the hump extended down the inside of the suit.

Just to add a little more here, it's not only the big classes of motorbike sport that has to have back protection.Even juniors in grasstrack have to have back protectors.I have been on and off riding as a passenger for a left hand grasstrack outfit for over 10 years and for at least the past 5 years(as far as I can remember) we have had to have them to, and at the end of a heat a official can ask to check if your wearing one.On the grass the accidents are more like the ones on the road than road racing circuits, and I can say that I wouldn't NOT wear one.My one and only meeting last year I had an accident and was knocked out for several minutes(after landing on my head), but I hit the ropes and more importantly the wooden stake.If I hadn't worn one the St Johns said that I wouldn't have been able to walk to the ambulance when I came to.
As others have said , that's just my opinion.

Andy

My thinking is that if you slide and then slam into an heavy object, then a well fitting back protector would be a lifesaver. A well designed one, like the Knox stuff, absorbs and spreads the impact so your spine dowsn't take it. So long as you do it up properly, it shouldn't be a problem.

I wouldn't be bothered to wear an independant back protector as I've got enough kit to put on before I twist the key I also don't like the idea of being strapped into one surely this would be uncomfortable too..

Textile stuff i have does have a piece of foam in there but how good that is is anybodies guess..

My crowtrees do have one fitted and it is part of the jacket you cannot remove it...this is comfortable and will not move too much as the jacket is made to measure it is not solid but is quite robust, in a stiff foam kinda way

I still wouldn't reckon my chances with a lamp post tho

Ride safe people

The way i see it... Anything that helps to keep your spin straight is a good thing

Long ago,,,, when I was delivering Pizza on a C90..

I had the unfortunate pleasure to meet a lamp post....
after been cut across by a car that realised it was on the wrong lane and want to turn right and not left....

needless to say ,, the lamp Post was un-harmed........

Again there is a lot of difference between grass track accidents and road ones, and for those low speed accidents there would be a benefit for a back protector, but I would never consider one for road use.
It's a free country, if you want to wear one on the road, do so, but the consensus of informed opinion says they are not the ideal solution for the road.

I have taken to wearing a knox back protector - one of the articulated ones. I am not 100% confident of its ability to stay in the right place in an off, but its comfortable to wear, and it seems like it out to be beneficial in more circumstances than not.

Reminds me of the arguments when wearing seatbelts in a car was to become compulsory - that in some circumstances it was safer not be wearing a seatbelt. Probably true, but on balance its beneficial in more circumstances than not. I feel the same may be true of the back protectors. Maybe in 8 of 10 accidents it helps and in 2 out of 10 it causes more damage. I made those figures up, but if it was something like that, thats reasonable odds

I'm going to get a back protector because the one in my textile jacket is small and flimsy. Jokingly flimsy. If they're fitted properly and do not slip on impact, they can only be a good thing surely?

BTW, can anyone recommend a back protector that covers the whole spine, goes to the top of your ass basically? I wear it under a textile jackets so have plenty of room to work with if it's thick.

I've got a Knox Countour, was £99 but worth the cash in my mind. It covers my whole back, not just the spinal area.

I have a clover one thats a bit like an armadillo, crunchy on the outside, soft on the inside. Its all "articulated" (nicks BA clever word for that ) so moves with my back. I only wear it with my textile jacket as it has no armour at all. And having seen whats happened to mates backs without any back protection, I won't ride without at least something there. Leathers have standard HG back pad in.

Perhaps its also relative to what you ride, and how?

A large cruiser at lower speeds may be inclined to simply slide on a corner, where as a sportsbike (due to probably higher cornering speeds) may be inclined to throw you off more physically?

I think the original debate was on the Fireblade forum hence the interest, but I'm not sure if I was on a Harley or a trail bike I would necessarily wear one. I'm probably wrong in that, but its a big bit of kit and pretty uncomfortable after a while...

Harley's certainly are big bits of kit, and very uncomfortable, especially when owners spend so much time pushing them everywhere.........

I always wear my back protector, even if just popping down the shops. It's comfortable to wear and seems pretty solid, and I would much rather being wearing it if I did have an off. I'm sure in some circumstanes it might cause some harm, but I think 99% of the time it would offer me protection. Like bornagain said the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

I think people seem to be getting confused as to the purpose of a back protector. A good one and there are loads of crap ones about is designed to only bend in one direction, the way your spine bends. It serves two purposes, to reduce the risk of spinal injury and to stop puncture injuries. It was invented by Barry Sheene and was originally made from about a dozen old visors. He gave the design to Dainese.

thats an armidillo nick mines articulated but the movement is only with the way my back moves. I haven't seen one that bends both ways

just a minor confusion...

designed to move only in the direction your back moves?

am i odd in the fact that i can flex my back forwards, backwards, tilt from side to side and, amazingly, twist (eg when looking over my shoulder)?


can you still do a shoulder check or lifesaver with a back protector that only bends "one way"?

having said that- I know nothing about back protectors

guess you'd have to see one to understand what I mean its just an armadillo it doesn't restrict movement backwards, but more prevents excess bending backwards .... dunno about you but my back isn't inclined to bend, it arches ......