SaferMoto vests on the news!

[KnifeySpoony]

If it lowers the potential of injury between C4 and C5, but raises the potential between T11 and T12, is that 'better'?

Um.... obviously.

 

[stoltzf4]

 

[Enchanter]

Um.... obviously.

Yeah, my (poorly made) point was that many here are claiming prevention of injury by wearing the vest.

 

[JMardy]

Yeah, my (poorly made) point was that many here are claiming prevention of injury by wearing the vest.

What kind of data would prove the products efficacy?

 

[Lazerus]

What's your "goal" Enchanter? Aside from bashing a product that you don't believe in of course.

 

[JMardy]

This is why Alan bought the company (from me, by the way; in the interest of full disclosure):

 

[JMardy]

And here's my little crash test dummy imitation:
[youtube]BvlS1TvnWSU[/youtube]

 

[irishgixxer]

If air bags in cars have reduce injuries and saved lives I think this vest for $350 would be worth the risk of spending $350.................

 

[Enchanter]

What's your "goal" Enchanter? Aside from bashing a product that you don't believe in of course.

I'm not bashing the product (or the company). I'm questioning the customer claims that this technology will eliminate injury or death (or ambulance rides / hospital visit).

"I hope this technology helps reduce injury" is quite a bit different than "I wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for..." The last statement (and others like it) are being thrown around as fact, when that just isn't the case. The dynamics of falling riders are so very different that one cannot claim that one fall is an accurate representation of another. There are simply too many variables.

There isn't enough solid data to make the types of claims people are making in this thread. Right now, to me, it looks like a couple of owners /wearers are embellishing and in a couple cases flat out making shit up to either justify or rationalize their purchase.

 

[Enchanter]

If air bags in cars have reduce injuries and saved lives I think this vest for $350 would be worth the risk of spending $350.................

Uh huh. Automotive airbags have been tested in controlled environments with live animals and cadavers, and have government standards that they must adhere to. Pneumatic vests, not so much. That may not cause some people to be concerned, but I am.

 

[JMardy]

There isn't enough solid data to make the types of claims people are making in this thread. Right now, to me, it looks like a couple of owners /wearers are embellishing and in a couple cases flat out making shit up to either justify or rationalize their purchase.

WHAT KIND OF DATA DO YOU REQUIRE?

 

[Lazerus]

I'm questioning the customer claims that this technology will eliminate injury or death (or ambulance rides / hospital visit).

No device, of any kind, will ever be able to accurately deliver on a promise of that scope. Holy Grail being the exception, which is slightly more expensive

(more anecdotal blah) Every rider that I've spoken to after a crash while wearing an airvest has told me they were glad they had been wearing it, and explained how they felt it helped. Until that changes to even ONE explaining why they wish the WEREN'T wearing it... I'll keep wearing mine More protection for my chest/neck/spine? yesplzkthxbai

 

[OpsMan]

I have been a fan of these systems for some time. I have waited for the market to develop and for crash data to be released to help decide which manufacturer and model is best.

The market is showing acceptance, but I've seen no crash data or technical/medical analysis from which to determine the model that is best for me and if it would work for my application (aside from the "more padding always = good" argument).

Take the safermoto products...

My application is the track. I have a nice one-piece suit with hump. There are three products that look applicable to me,,..
1) MLV-C Vest http://www.safermoto.com/air-bag-vests/mlv-c/
2) Neck Vest http://www.safermoto.com/neck-vest/
3) Race/track Vest http://www.safermoto.com/air-bag-vests/race/track-vest/

Which is best for me ?

I can't find any comparisons of the three designs. It looks like no 1 provides some neck (1/2 wrap around I guess) and back and kidney area padding. No 2 provides wraparound neck (looks like full) but no back or kidney area padding, and no 3 has the word "Race/Track" in the name.

I like the apparent protection of the wrap-around "Neck Vest, but would loose the rib kidney padding of the MLV-C, and the MLV-C neck padding looks like 1/2-ish. What are the safety trades between the two amounts of neck padding, and loss of back and kidney area padding - I have no data to look at.

Then there is the Race/Track Vest. The name makes it sound like the thing for me, but I can't tell what the configuration is when deployed. there are no photos, or description of what body parts it is designed to protect. I'm guessing neck, I'm guessing more than 3/4 wrap-around (does that matter?) but looks too short for kidney area padding (is that a deficiency ?).

I'm not saying these are bad. If the data were out there I'd probably already have one. At the moment I think its just "more padding = good" and pick the model that puts the padding where you think you want it. I'd just be guessing.

I am waiting for more data....at a minimum, a manufacturers comparison of product protection and features would help.

 

[Enchanter]

WHAT KIND OF DATA DO YOU REQUIRE?

The 2008 JARI test dropped the test dummy a total of 18 times. Of these 18 times, only TWO were above 2ft (max of 2.5ft). 13 of these drops were on the dummy's back, the other 5 were on the stomach.

While the test did measure the g's from the head of the dummy, the test stand that was used was only large enough for the torso of the dummy. In other words, the head of the dummy hung over the side of the stand in an are labeled as 'cushion'. Also, a helmet was NOT worn during the test.

The test did not discuss whether the vest helped prevent a head impact. It is apparent that many people think that is an advantage of the vest.

The tested vest seems to have sections of airbag that are meant to limit head (fore and aft, side to side) and neck movement when inflated, but that wasn't tested for effectiveness or range of motion, yet it is one of the selling points.

Has the design or materials of the vest changed from the one tested by JARI in 2008? If so, have additional tests been performed?

If torso injuries have gone down, has there been a rise in injuries to other areas of the body?

In how many motorcycle crashes does the rider land flat on their back or chest without tumbling or twisting?

In how many crashes does the rider fall from a height of less than 2.5ft?

Is the impact with the ground the only threat to street riders?

 

[Enchanter]

There isn't enough solid data to make the types of claims people are making in this thread. Right now, to me, it looks like a couple of owners /wearers are embellishing and in a couple cases flat out making shit up to either justify or rationalize their purchase.

To clarify, I meant owners of the vest not owners of the company/distributor.

 

[MCCRASH]

I own the vest, but I completely understand where Enchanter is coming from. I will say, though, that there is a lack of good data regarding a lot of motorcycle protective equipment (other than helmets generally, which have been studied extensively). For example, I have heard from one source that there is no statistical evidence supporting the efficacy of a back protector in street use in preventing injury. The recent Snell versus ECE debate is another example, where the flexibility of the shell as tested in laboratories was a hotly debated item, with no actual crash data. Again, though, I purchased the vest primarily because of its high visibility characteristic, and the fact that acts as an airbag is a built-in bonus that I *believe* will reduce injury in some crashes on the street.

 

[Archimedes]

Not necessarily. Strengthening one area just moves/transfers the stress (failure point) to another area.

Well, that's a massive oversimplification. An airbag doesn't just strengthen one area and move stress to another area. It actually absorbs and dissipates energy. By your logic, car airbags should be causing people to snap at the waist.

 

[Archimedes]

I'm not bashing the product (or the company). I'm questioning the customer claims that this technology will eliminate injury or death (or ambulance rides / hospital visit).

Where is anybody saying that? Please quote one of those statements. There isn't any product on the face of the earth that can do such a thing and I don't see anybody in here saying the SaferMoto vests will do that.

All I've read so far is that people think that they can reduce risk of injury in many types of crashes, that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of these things doing so in real crashes and that they/we feel that it's better to have one on than not. No different than any other piece of safety equipment some people choose to wear and others don't.

 

[Archimedes]

I have been a fan of these systems for some time. I have waited for the market to develop and for crash data to be released to help decide which manufacturer and model is best.

The market is showing acceptance, but I've seen no crash data or technical/medical analysis from which to determine the model that is best for me and if it would work for my application (aside from the "more padding always = good" argument).

Take the safermoto products...

My application is the track. I have a nice one-piece suit with hump. There are three products that look applicable to me,,..
1) MLV-C Vest http://www.safermoto.com/air-bag-vests/mlv-c/
2) Neck Vest http://www.safermoto.com/neck-vest/
3) Race/track Vest http://www.safermoto.com/air-bag-vests/race/track-vest/

Which is best for me ?

I can't find any comparisons of the three designs. It looks like no 1 provides some neck (1/2 wrap around I guess) and back and kidney area padding. No 2 provides wraparound neck (looks like full) but no back or kidney area padding, and no 3 has the word "Race/Track" in the name.

I like the apparent protection of the wrap-around "Neck Vest, but would loose the rib kidney padding of the MLV-C, and the MLV-C neck padding looks like 1/2-ish. What are the safety trades between the two amounts of neck padding, and loss of back and kidney area padding - I have no data to look at.

Then there is the Race/Track Vest. The name makes it sound like the thing for me, but I can't tell what the configuration is when deployed. there are no photos, or description of what body parts it is designed to protect. I'm guessing neck, I'm guessing more than 3/4 wrap-around (does that matter?) but looks too short for kidney area padding (is that a deficiency ?).

The MLV-C wouldn't work for me on the track, as the canister got in the way when I tried to get low over the tank and go side to side. That said, I've seen other racers wearing that one in video, particularly some of the kids, so it must work for some people.

Regarding the Racer vest, don't know about the hump, but you're right, the coverage area is smaller and it does not go as far down the back or around the kidneys. I talked to Alan and he indicated that they assume people are wearing hard shell back protectors under it on the track. I couldn't find any inflated pictures of that one either.

 

[Enchanter]

Well, that's a massive oversimplification. An airbag doesn't just strengthen one area and move stress to another area. It actually absorbs and dissipates energy. By your logic, car airbags should be causing people to snap at the waist.

How does a air-vest dissipate the energy from impact? Why do auto airbags deflate immediately? Do moto airvests?

Why were automobile airbags changed to slow down the speed of deployment? Why are cars automatically deactivating the passenger airbags based on the weight in the passenger seat? Why are there laws mandating children to be in the back seats? Hint: Airbags can injure.

Where is anybody saying that? Please quote one of those statements.

One poster implies that you will not need an ambulance ride or a visit to a hospital, and another claims they know for a fact that the vest would have prevented death.