Daytona gloves update

So, manufacturer says "these are all pretty much the same, so we only need
one certificate for the lot". Testers agree or disagree. But what does
that mean in practical terms? What sort of things would be sufficient
that a new model couldn't be added to an existing certificate?

If the rules are too complicated, or too badly communicated to the
manufacturers for them to understand/take advantage of, then the whole
process is failing and the tests are of less value. Not the test itself,
perhaps, but why would I bother to seek out certificated products if I
might reasonably believe that a lot of uncertificated gear is actually of
just as good a standard?

 

Different types or thicknesses of leather.
Inclusion of areas of textiles where leather was present before.
Inclusion of impact protection where none was present before.
Non-exhaustive listing)

In practice, the rules are quite simple. Your comments do have a
significant point in their favour, however, in that some manufacturers
find the "technical English" explanations provided by some test house
personnel to be difficult to comprehend. Part of my job is acting as
an "interpreter", explaining to manufacturers what the test houses
require of them. The motorcycle clothing industry is very "new" to the
whole idea of standards. Those that can be bothered to learn are on a
steep learning curve.

And why would you bother to seek out accredited products? Well, can
you *absolutely* guarantee that you can accurately distinguish
between substandard kit and that which is genuinely top notch apparel
at a glance? Now put yourself into the boots of a newcomer to
motorcycling! Yes, some kit out there is indeed capable of meeting
some or all of the requirements of the standards, but I have seen, for
example, garments made from thick leather sewn with weak thread Marks
& Spencer - or Agent Provocateur - wouldn't even use in their
flimsiest lingerie.

I say "sewn" and not "held together", because the thread in question
is often incapable of performing the latter task. Educated by
magazines that "the thicker the leather, generally the better",
consumers think they are getting a good product, and hopefully the
seams in such garments will start to fall apart before the wearer is
sliding down the road wondering why it hurts so much as the garment
unravels around them. I once inspected a suit where almost a complete
metre of seam run had failed catastrophically. Weak thread and running
topstitch only in a major impact area. Not much was left of the lining
below the failed seam, and what there was had changed colour from
white to burgundy...

An independent mark of fitness for purpose takes away all the
guesswork, wasted money and potential pain for the consumer. You pays
your money and makes a choice - but at least it can be an *informed*
choice.

 

Hm. Maybe I'd have been better asking what one (probably) could do and
still retain the certification.

Well, given two very similar products I'm likely to go for the one with
the CE mark rather than the one without. It gets a bit harder if there
are half a dozen products, only one accredited, and that one more
expensive/less stylish/less comfortable than the others.

 

Given my experiences in WG9 [1] and observations of some of the
posturing from the industry, I suspect some manufacturers woulkd
relish the opportunity to employ spoiling tactics by producing
uncomfortable, ill-styled and overpriced CE marked product just to
"prove a point" about how comfortable, stylish and cheap their
non-accredited products are. That isn't me being paranoid - if you
wanted to see paranoia in action, observing the industry delegates at
a good number of the WG9 meetings would have formed the basis of a
first class thesis for a psychology student.

Back in the mid-90s, the "Moto Q" brand I had developed and certified
for my employers was pitched at the same price points as, for example,
the Akito and Buffalo budget brands; yet our product was CE marked to
the "High Performance" (above Level 2 of EN 13595) requirements of the
Cambridge Standard and featured fitted impact protectors which, even
nine or so years on, would still exceed the requirements of EN 1621-1.
The Moto Q range dispelled the myth that CE marked clothing had to be
unattractive, uncomfortable and expensive, but we dropped it after
just over a year. Why?

Well, as I was once informed by the MD of a well-known German clothing
brand, the consumer expects to pay a premium for safety, and
accredited products will therefore always command a higher price. In
tandem to the Moto Q range, we had also launched the flagship "RS
Performance Protection" brand of gloves and garments, which went on to
win multiple RiDE and MCN product awards. Sales of the RS range took
off (thanks to a Best Buy" award for the "Sirius" jacket in one of the
very first issues of Ride about two months after we also went "live"),
and the Moto Q range was overshadowed. So, we put all our efforts into
developing RS Performance Protection.

I saw the directors of the company at the NEC show, and they are
planning a relaunch of the brand in 2005. Apparently there is still a
healthy demand for these award-winning models, and they have just
picked up another accolade in November's RiDE glove test. I left the
company eight years ago, and have no association with them, but it is
satisfying from both personal and professional perspectives to see
that the original philosophies are still being followed and still
delivering the goods!

[1] CEN/TC 162/WG9 - the European Standards committee for
motorcyclists' clothing

 

Not yet - but given what I am currently up to in the background,
there's plenty of scope for me to "name and shame" and be struck off
most of the industry's Christmas card lists... ;-)

Now you know why perforated leather is so popular in the Italian
motorcycle clothing manufacturer's products - simply tear along the
dotted line...

 

Paul Varnsverry wrote

Aha... while you're here, do you know of anywhere in the UK that's stocking
or about to stock those Halvarssons CE-standard fabric suits? I'm in the
market for some winter/wet weather gear, and reason that I might as well get
something decent ...

 

As far as I am aware, from the last time I spoke to the manufacturer
(www.jofama.se), they launched the product at Intermot in September
and several UK companies visited the stand, expressing an interest in
selling the product. However, I believe production does not commence
until February and they will be available from March or April, so this
unfortunately does not help with your Winter kit requirements.