Review Ebay/Amazon Cheap Protection shorts

[Zimmerframe]

Product name: Ebay/Amazon Cheap Protection under shorts
Price paid: £25
Score (out of 10): 4

Bought these last year as I wasn't sure what it would be like to wear protection and an extra layer.

There seems to be a lot more alternatives now for cheap "armour/protection" shorts so these are less available than they used to be, the price seems to have dropped too.

The good :

They're cheap (for anything you plan to use with a Mountain Bike).

The thigh and coccyx/lower back armour is excellent with a flexible plastic plate over foam. I've had a good few offs in these and not damaged myself at all in those areas.

They're actually pretty robust and despite being worn and washed a million times are still like new.

The not so good :

There isn't much hip protection, this is just lightweight foam (similar to many other so called "armour" pieces) which pretty much does nothing other than add some thermal insulation.

The three pads on the "bottom" all end just slightly too far in, so you sit just on their tips. Which whilst not strictly uncomfortable, it still creates pressure points.

The way the shorts are stitched/finished, means you can't really wear these without some underwear - unless you're hard as nails or your skin and male/lady parts are like old leather. This can create rub/chafe issues and in summer, heat issues.

 

[Jackware]

Hey Zim, so is that a recommendation or not? Would you buy them again?

 

[Zimmerframe]

Hey Zim, so is that a recommendation or not? Would you buy them again?

Good question .. It's easy not recommend something because it has inherent faults. It's harder to recommend something as everyone's requirements will be different so you can really only give your experiences and findings ...

I've used them for about 18 months and in fairness, they've been really good. I've had some nasty off's and been bruised literally everywhere there wasn't padding/armour, so whilst I'm not hugely impressed with the hip pads, they obviously do something - I'm just getting fed up with buying "armour" when all they've done is stitch in a bit of soft foam which would only protect you from a high speed fly impact.

Would I buy them again... probably not. The leatt 5.0's are so much cooler to ride in with a more airy mesh and no requirements to wear anything underneath, you still have to peal them off after a ride though. They're not perfect on the protection side either, the coccyx pad is pretty limited, but better than nothing - ideally you want a longer back armour if you're wearing them. Just ordered some g-form pro x something bla blas to try out the g-form armour, these have good reviews and look to have good coccyx protection.

Most of the "cheap" <£30 shorts seem to use low quality eva foam, this compresses quite quickly and becomes thin and ineffective.

Most of the "expensive" >£50 shorts seem to use better quality foams but either not reactive or not laminated with other foams/plastics., so most of the reviews say things like "stupid bit of thin foam did nothing in a crash" - You can get a few MX/Moto with reasonable reactive foam coverage, but most would be too heavy and hot for most people cycling. So compared to many, especially for the price, these aren't too bad - as I've said, they've literally saved my ass quite a few times !

 

[Mikerb]

The difference with all options is the type of foam and how it is rated in EC tests. Many brands have their own name for impact foam that conforms to those standards but since all of them buy from EVA foam manufacturers and not make it themselves I suspect it is D30. Price is a good guide since D30 carries a premium even in a pair of gloves. My advice with any protective gear is to check whether it states what EC standard it conforms to.

 

[Mikerb]

...sorry...CE...not EC
EN1621 covers the minimum impact protection required for different body zones and the tests kit have to pass.
The standard applies to kit sold in the EU that claims to be a body protection. It is in fact a standard designex for MX/motorcycle gear and at organised events you can only use gear that has the EC stamp of approval. I dont think there is any similar standard for cycles.
One good reason however for buying kit from a brand that serves both MX and mtb markets.

 

[Zimmerframe]

Many brands have their own name for impact foam that conforms to those standards but since all of them buy from EVA foam manufacturers and not make it themselves I suspect it is D30.

I think D30 were pretty much first to the market with a foam which was identified as hardening on impact, initially in the skiing/snowboard market. They've spent a long time and a lot of money on marketing and becoming established as a well known brand.

There's lots of other types. Knox for instance make their own and supply to lots of companies. The Knox version is more chemically stable and is rated at 5/6 year life span. D3O is only rated at three years - as are many of the alternatives. Leatt advise you replace their stuff in 36 months, so it's possible they use unbranded D3O.

Forcefield are another one. Their armour is generally considered the best performing of all the reactive armours, rating generally well above class 2.. They are a rubber and shoe company and discovered theirs by accident when developing a shoe rubber.

SAS-TEC are another.

People should also be very careful when choosing armour and how they interpret if an armour has not CE conformity, Class 1 or Class 2.

Just because something has a Class 2 Back protector, doesn't mean that armour will necessarily protect you well. Like helmets, it's another very out of date rating system which doesn't really tell you very much. You can find several armours out there which will protect more of your body and do a better job of it which aren't CE rated because they're designed to protect the body, not just pass a test. To pass Class 1 or Class 2 it just has to limit force to a specific test area. It can still be an awfully designed back protector which leaves much of your back exposed to damage.

The CE guiding does help though when choosing between the different CE rated items, it at least gives you an idea if something will give that body part some basic protection - Class 1 , or much tougher protection - Class 2.

 

[Mikerb]

I think D30 were pretty much first to the market with a foam which was identified as hardening on impact, initially in the skiing/snowboard market. They've spent a long time and a lot of money on marketing and becoming established as a well known brand.

There's lots of other types. Knox for instance make their own and supply to lots of companies. The Knox version is more chemically stable and is rated at 5/6 year life span. D3O is only rated at three years - as are many of the alternatives. Leatt advise you replace their stuff in 36 months, so it's possible they use unbranded D3O.

Forcefield are another one. Their armour is generally considered the best performing of all the reactive armours, rating generally well above class 2.. They are a rubber and shoe company and discovered theirs by accident when developing a shoe rubber.

SAS-TEC are another.

People should also be very careful when choosing armour and how they interpret if an armour has not CE conformity, Class 1 or Class 2.

Just because something has a Class 2 Back protector, doesn't mean that armour will necessarily protect you well. Like helmets, it's another very out of date rating system which doesn't really tell you very much. You can find several armours out there which will protect more of your body and do a better job of it which aren't CE rated because they're designed to protect the body, not just pass a test. To pass Class 1 or Class 2 it just has to limit force to a specific test area. It can still be an awfully designed back protector which leaves much of your back exposed to damage.

The CE guiding does help though when choosing between the different CE rated items, it at least gives you an idea if something will give that body part some basic protection - Class 1 , or much tougher protection - Class 2.

All good knowledge. A while back I bought a hard shell jacket thinking that on top of soft armour would provide better protection for more rocky terrain that I only ever encounter on away trips to placrs like Wales. When I took a lolk at it the label said it was only designed as protection from flying stones ....not fall impacts! Have not worn it! On a hard fall on a trail centre rock garden my Leatt gear did the job without it.....so if you are intetested the hard stuff is for sale!

 

[Zimmerframe]

All good knowledge. A while back I bought a hard shell jacket thinking that on top of soft armour would provide better protection for more rocky terrain that I only ever encounter on away trips to placrs like Wales. When I took a lolk at it the label said it was only designed as protection from flying stones ....not fall impacts! Have not worn it! On a hard fall on a trail centre rock garden my Leatt gear did the job without it.....so if you are intetested the hard stuff is for sale!

I think you made the right call with your initial thinking.

A lot of the "roost" guards aren't CE rated, but they still do quite a good job of spreading impact.

The problem with soft armour is that if you hit a sharp rock for instance, the soft armour will harden in that area, so the rock won't puncture the armour - but unfortunately the whole pad won't firm up and the soft armour - by it's very nature - to be more flexible and lighter, wont' spread the impact force over a larger area - so you could still break ribs and so on for instance. By wearing the light weight roost guard over the top, you won't reduce air flow and won't be any hotter - but for the same impact, the guard would spread the load over a wider area and in turn, make the soft armour harden over a wider area so you'd be considerably less likely to break a rib/sternum and so on.

 

[Mikerb]

I think you made the right call with your initial thinking.

A lot of the "roost" guards aren't CE rated, but they still do quite a good job of spreading impact.

The problem with soft armour is that if you hit a sharp rock for instance, the soft armour will harden in that area, so the rock won't puncture the armour - but unfortunately the whole pad won't firm up and the soft armour - by it's very nature - to be more flexible and lighter, wont' spread the impact force over a larger area - so you could still break ribs and so on for instance. By wearing the light weight roost guard over the top, you won't reduce air flow and won't be any hotter - but for the same impact, the guard would spread the load over a wider area and in turn, make the soft armour harden over a wider area so you'd be considerably less likely to break a rib/sternum and so on.

I dont do sharp rocks! Only nicely rounded lumpy ones!

 

[Zimmerframe]

After trying the leatt 4.0's (3.0's with a chamois) and finding them not compatible for me on the chamois position (too far forwards). And now the Ion Scrub ones which were incredibly disappointing. I've dragged these out again.

The leatt's are still nicer made and have better hip protection. These still have better thigh protection and much better coccyx and lower back protection.

Today's test was with nothing underneath to see if it was bearable or not.

They're mainly mesh construction, so on their own, they're not hot. For the first 5 minutes I could feel one of the stitch lines against the saddle. Not sure if this was just because I did 110km yesterday and was tender, or I'm still a sissy. After 5 minutes I didn't notice it and they were fine for the rest of the ride. Planning to re-introduce them into circulation with the 5.0's which often get worn damp having not had time to dry off from the wash.

I didn't notice the arse pads today, maybe I pulled them up higher ? Maybe without underwear they sit better ?

 

[Mikerb]

I have probably mentioned this before..............probably in one of @Zimmerframe posts!!
I wear Under Armour compression gear under both armoured shorts and vests. Under Armour comes in a variety of different compression fits so need to go full recovery level, and they do both Heatgear (ie for hot weather) and ColdGear ( for cold weather). I use heatgear both seasons because the material is thinner. The benefits are really 3 fold. First comfort is increased, second the material is high wicking, and third it is anti microbial. Invariably I only ever wash the Under Armour garments and they can be washed and then dried in an airing cupboard in a hour or so.
A mid compression fit also lessens muscle fatigue. The only downside is that wearing under armour shorts then armoured shorts then bike shorts can make finding the old boy a little more tricky!!

ps wearing a pad/chamois direct next to your skin in not hygenic and can lead to problems.