Any experience with Clover leathers?

A mate has asked me whether Clover are rated highly as a motocycle leathers
manufacturer.

I've got no idea so thought I'd ask the FOAK.

So, any experience with Clover leathers here?

 

<Sticks head above parapet>

You will find their web site at www.clover.it; not to be confused, as
Antoine has, with www.clover.co.za - although their products
undoubtedly slide through the air and across the tarmac very well
indeed

IMHO:

IIRC, Clover were originally best known as a supplier of off-road
equipment: Moto-X stone shields and bike plastics, plus enduro
garments, for example. I used one of their textile jackets for green
laning about 15 years ago, and my main complaint was that the
waterproof PU coating to the inside of the shell delaminated and
peeled off after no time at all in a manner not unlike sunburned skin.

It is interesting that the RS-3 glove featured on their website is
claimed to be made from "sheepskin leather". As is widely known,
sheepskin is at the lower end of the abrasion and cut resistance
hierarchy (hair sheep - Nigerian hair sheep used to be particularly
good - fares better, but how many consumers will know the difference
between the two once it is dyed and turned into a clothing product?).

Other than this, there are the usual allusions to a number of the
featured garments being "protective", but no indication that they in
any way pass the EN 13595 tests. The certification for the back
protectors also needs clarifying; a few years ago Clover were
marketing back protectors tested against EN 1621-1, the limb protector
standard - 50 Joule impact/35 kN or below transmitted force - whereas
the back protector standard EN 1621-2 stipulates 50 J/18 kN (Level 1)
or 9 kN (level 2). The lower the transmitted force, the better, so a
back protector approved against the limb protector standard is not a
good idea.

In summary, not unlike their Italian compatriots Alpinestars (who
started out as a boot manufacturer), Clover have elected to diversify
into a bigger market. The garments have the generic Italian cut and
are probably manufactured from the generic Italian choice of leather.
Very dry and thus with a lower tensile strength than is favourable
(RiDE magazine recently reported that the test performance of a used
pair of Alpinestars trousers actually *improved* after two yaers wear
because they had been regularly treated with a leather preservative,
which would have put back elasticity into the fibre structure of the
leather and increased its "elongation at break" characteristics).

So, in conclusion; apparently typically Italian, and that is not
viewed as any form of recommendation by many around these parts. In
the absence of an independent mark of fitness for purpose (something
to which the Motorcycle Industry Association would prefer consumers
not to have access): caveat emptor.

HTH

</Sticks head above parapet>

 

Blimey! Thanks Paul!

 

Sorby says...

He knows his stuff, that lad.

 

Take a look at any of the literature or media handed out by rider
training schemes. Many - if not all - will carry a recommendation that
"protective clothing" is worn when riding a motorcycle. How many
reveal that there are actually standards by which the level of
protection afforded by these products can be determined? Even new
publications, DVDs, etc, which are in preparation will not include
reference to the standards, despite this deficiency in the
information contained in the content of the drafts having been pointed
out to the authors and other contributors. A number of these sources
of advice are targetted at novice motorcyclists - the very group of
inexperienced consumers who need clear and unambiguous information.

Now it could be argued that details of the standards for helmets are
not provided either, but it is an entirely different matter for
helmets since these are encompassed within the scope of legislation
and approved products are in the majority. Clothing is in opposite
phase.

It's "head above parapet" time again, folks.

Motorcycling is currently under threat from the possibility of
draconian measures from the Government to reduce casualties (when has
it ever been any different, some might say); but their (in)actions
with regard to even the mention of protective clothing standards
suggest the industry would prefer to be compelled to fit airbags and
leg protectors to bikes rather than honestly stating that standards
exist for kit that could reduce or completely prevent the 20,759
slight injuries [1] and reduce in severity the 6959 serious injuries
[1] per annum which appear on official records. [1] It has been
reported to me that in industry meetings the motorcycle manufacturers
have shouted down any and all efforts by the clothing contingent to
express the contribution their products can make to improving the
injury figures. Now why is that?

My position on this subject is as it has always been: make an
independent mark of fitness for purpose available and allow the
consumer to decide which products to choose in a competitive
marketplace. That mark now exists.

[1] Transport Statistics Bulletin "Road casualties in Great Britain:
Main results: 2003"