The problem with EN17092 (and why it’s not what you think it is)

In this video, we talk about the safety standard, EN17092 and why it’s not what you think it is.

To read our full, written article, click here – https://www.motolegends.com/reviews/the-problem-with-en17092

Why not pay us a personal visit? Click here for directions and opening hours – https://www.motolegends.com/customer-service/motolegends-shop

For the latest news and reviews, subscribe to our YouTube channel by clicking here – https://www.youtube.com/user/motolegends?sub_confirmation=1

To follow us on Facebook, click here – https://www.facebook.com/MotolegendsUK/

To follow us on Instagram, click here – https://www.instagram.com/motolegends_uk

Hi there this is Chris chaput motor Legends this morning I want to talk to you about en 17092 and why it’s not what you think it is now this is not a sexy subject but it’s an important subject because a lot of people are spending a

Lot of money buying what they deem to be or what they think is highly protective wear where often that’s absolutely not the case now it’s a dull subject but it’s an important subject and this is a video that you need to Watch En 1792 was a safety standard for motorcycle apparel that came into force in 2020 garments award awarded accreditation at the single a the double A or the AAA level depending upon how they perform in a series of prescribed tests single a is the lowest standard AA

A is the highest standard in some ways it replaced the more demanding standard known as en 13595 that was originally set up for professional Riders such as the police but so difficult was that standard to meet that few garments ever measured up so in the consumer Market became

Somewhat of a novelty rather than a meaningful aspiration I estimate that probably less than 50 products ever met the standard so it was largely disregarded now it was the French who led a charge for a new standard and eventually after lobbying that idea was picked up by Brussels and work began to

Create a new standard that would become mandatory for any manufacturer wanting to sell motorcycle wear within the EU but even though in the early days the French politicians had pointed out the high death toll amongst motorcyclist on French roads most people now accept that the standard was more about protecting

EU economies rather than EU motorcyclist the standard was to become a classic example of what economists call a barrier to entry that is to say it’s an administrative hurdle designed to make it difficult for companies outside an economic unit to compete within that market technically it has to be

Acknowledged the attaining the new standard 1792 is not particularly difficult but the bureaucracy involved the admin the access to test facilities and the costs have been enough to put off many companies outside of the EU and so from the politician perspective the politicians point of view the scheme has

Worked all kinds of companies from countries like like the US Australia and Japan have taken the view that the costs required to pass in 17092 simply outweigh the benefits so many brands that were available from those countries like America like Australia like Japan are no longer available within the EU

Now I’m not saying that 1792 is without Merit it’s a standard and without doubt it has cleaned the market of that poor quality clothing that purported to protect motorcyclist but actually did little more than lock the path so I 1792 was not and is not a waste of time it

Has set a bar and that’s got to be good for motorcyclists but is it ever the standard has been misinterpreted by some through Ignorance by others through design it has become in effect a marketing tool for Brands wanting to make claims about the their product’s ability to protect Riders and those

Claims are often simply not justified and often are just misleading the bottom line is that en 1792 is actually little more than an elaborate abrasion test it’s a standard that tests the outer shell of motorcycle garments for abrasion resistance for tear resistance and for the strength of the

Seams in a garment and that’s about it that’s in essence what en 1792 does we’re not suggesting of course that abras resistance is not important nobody likes the idea of losing skin as they slide down the road if that sliding goes on for too long wrong you’ll quickly be

Through to the skin then down to muscle cartilage and eventually bone now the results are never a nice sight it can hurt like hell it can take a long time to recover from and of course can require painful skin graphs but in a motorcycle accident this is not normally

What kills us or leaves us with life-changing injuries and that’s because in a road accident we don’t tend to slide that far sliding as one wag once put it is not a problem it’s the stopping that’s the problem it’s when we hit things that we really do ourselves

Damage it could be a road surface as we hide side off the bike and land on our shoulders it could be a tree a car a lorry a lampost a wall or a curb indeed anything that is solid and unyielding and frankly it matters not what’s the en

17092 rating of a garment is when this is the outcome it matters not whether it’s an a garment a double a garment or a AAA garment a stronger more abrasion fabric will not have a bearing on the situation in such cases it’s the armor that counts now for motorcycle clothing

You get protectors for the elbows the shoulders the knees the hips the chest and the back and their role is to absorb the energy of an impact all protectors are designed to protect specific bones and joints including of course the spine and by reducing the energy of an impact

Armor not only plays a crucial role in preventing fractures and breaks but also in reducing internal injuries yet armor warrants little more than a passing mention under en 1792 the legislation states that a pant above the single a level has to also come with h hips it says that jackets all jackets

Have to come with elbow and shoulder protectors it specifies the minimum sizes that are required in a garment but it makes no mention of a back protector even in the highest AAA rated garment nor does the standard make any mention of level one armor versus level two

Armor but if you are seeking a higher level of protection I assure you you want level two armor because level two armor absorbs twice as much energy as level one armor and it’s for these reasons that I think we cannot suggest that I 17092 is a serious safety

Standard it is as we’ve suggested largely an abrasion standard and as we’ve seen that’s just not the entire picture problem here is that when people are buying the gear they have simply assumed that a ablea rated garment is going to be safer and more protective to

Ride in than a single a rated garment and that a AAA rated jacket or pant is going to be safer to ride in than a double a rated jacket or pant and certainly more protective and safer than a single a rated jacket or pant but that

Is actually a long way from being the reality there’ll be many cases where double A garments are more protected than AAA garments the same actually goes for single a rated garments there’ll be some a rated garments that are more protective than double A- rated garments or even AA a rated gar garments and

That’s because the armor plays such a fundamental and crucial role in protecting the rider and so in some accidents an AA rated jacket with a back protector will be more protective than a AAA rated jacket without a back protector so how about an a-rated jacket with a level two back protector and

Level two armor throughout such a jacket will be much more protective than an AAA rated jacket like this one that comes with fairly diive level one armor in the elbows and shoulders and no back protector whatsoever there’s another issue and it’s the size of the armor now this

Admittedly is a level one protector from d3o we love D30 but it is what it is you will find a level one protector like this in some ablea rated jackets this by contrast is a level two rated protector from Stadler this piece of of armor actually exceeds the highest level two

By 60% in an accident this one is going to absorb much more energy and provide much more protection than this one if we look at jeans or pants this armor level one armor comes in a Dai Triple A rated Gene here is a level two protector level

One level two here’s a level two protector that comes in a vson double a rated pant which do you think would absorb more energy and then there’s this one this is a piece of level two armor exceeds level two by 60% comes from Stadler obviously that’s going to absorb even more energy

Yet none of this none of these issues form any part of En 1792 as another example here’s a level two shoulder protector from an A rated Rucker jacket it’s simply enormous it gives you complete coverage of the entire shoulder area that protector is going to give you far more protection

Than this also level two protector from this doublea rated alpen Stars jacket as you can see and so we ask the question how can 1792 be taken particularly seriously as an all-encompassing safety standard when it takes no heed whatsoever of chest and back protectors it doesn’t take into consideration

Whether the armor is level one or level two and does not factor in the size of the protectors in a garment there is of course one final irony to all of this 1792 as we’ve suggested concerns itself almost exclusively with a braz resistance and what happens to the outer

Shell of a garment when you slide down the road but armor as would do as was documented in a well-known Australian study plays a hugely significant role in abrasion resistance we’ve seen lots of garments over the years that have worn through in an accident we have never

Seen a protector that is worn through wherever you wear a protector you will significantly increase the abrasion resistance of the Garment in that area a level two protector is going to give you more abrasion resistance than a level one protector and a large protector is going to give you more abrasion

Resistance than a smaller one and so even when it comes down to abrasion resistance alone en 1792 still only tells half the story despite the somewhat dubious motivations that lay behind I 1792 we applaud the standard it’s not nothing okay so it’s impacted a little on the

Choice that we have here in the market but undoubtedly 17092 has kept out of the EU many garments that were wholly inadequate and that’s a good thing but companies and organizations have a propensity to deconstruct complex subjects in order to convey whatever message suits their own purposes so

Don’t fool for the simplistic suggestion that somebody’s triaa rated jacket or pants is safer than somebody else’s double a rated or single a rated jacket or pants it’s simply never that cut and dried even the writers of the en 17992 standard acknowledge that AAA garments wouldn’t be comfortable to ride

In and that’s why we have no quals in championing this Rucker single a rated Nala jacket you see it comes with huge level two armor throughout enormous back protector that large shoulder protector I showed you large elbow protectors plus a big back protector and a chest protector because of the stretch in the

Fabric which is why it’s been downgraded from double A to single a it is an insanely comfortable jacket to wear but because of the armor there aren’t many jackets that I’d rather wear in an accident many motorcycl C reject the Nala however because they cannot see

Past the single a rating a lot of people it would seem are more interested in ticking boxes than in getting to understand how gear Works they don’t understand the limitations of I 1792 and so they’ll often end up buying a suit that’s far less comfortable than the

Nala but also nowhere near as protective if they do have an accident now recently a national insurance company set up an award scheme with the aim of highlighting the safest most protected products in the market in my view that was a cynical exercise in virtue signaling that company is not

Intending or was not intending to invest a single penny in independent research upon registration by the brand they would award a gold badge or a gold star whatever it was to Any Garment that was rated AAA under en 17092 but as we have seen Ian 1792 is not an all-encompassing safety standard

Or even an indicator as to how a garment will perform in an accident it’s just about the outer chassis so any scheme that’s based on en 1792 is I’m afraid flawed and we object strongly to this scheme because it is totally misleading we understand the appeal of course of a

Scheme that requires no Financial investment and no effort but we don’t think it’s on because people would assume that if a national or Nationwide organization issues a safety award there’ll be something to back it up and I’m afraid in this case there simply isn’t of course there are many other

Considerations when it comes to riding safely here at Moto Legends is a company we are not big on chasing AAA rated garments because all too often they are not particularly nice to ride in we are however particular proponents of a concept known as passive safety now passive safety is all about being CED

When on the bike about being dry when it’s wet about being warm when it’s cold and about being cool when it’s hot and about not being so encumbered that if something goes wrong we can’t react it’s a more subtle approach than the pursuit of what might be termed active safety

That is heavier and stronger materials it requires more thought and a better understanding as to what keeps us safe when we’re out on the bike but unfortunately you can’t achieve it merely by ticking boxes