Review Racer Motion top 2

[carlbiker]

Product Image:

Product name: Racer Motion top 2
Price paid: £179.99
Score (out of 10): 7

Review: This continues on from the previous Forcefield Pro top review....here I attack myself with a heavy metal object just to prove a point regarding CE1 vs CE2

Its a great top but sadly let down by only having foam padding in the chest which is also stitched in so cant be upgraded! The elbow, shoulder placements are fantastic but the CE1 pads need to be about 20% larger, perhaps like the SAS-Tech CE2 counterparts which would help to finish it off nicely. The back is also CE1.


I'll not go into detail @Zimmerframe has already covered this with an excellent and far more thorough review than mine, this is merely to just give an 'in the flesh' perspective.

If the pads were larger and the chest adaptable it would have had an 8.5, be nice to have some token padding for ribs, muscles and things but if lightweight is the goal then this ticks alot of boxes! The zipper arms are a nice addition too.

 

[Zimmerframe]

Product Image: View attachment 41634

Product name: Racer Motion top 2
Price paid: £179.99
Score (out of 10): 7

Review: This continues on from the previous Forcefield Pro top review....here I attack myself with a heavy metal object just to prove a point regarding CE1 vs CE2

Its a great top but sadly let down by only having foam padding in the chest which is also stitched in so cant be upgraded! The elbow, shoulder placements are fantastic but the CE1 pads need to be about 20% larger, perhaps like the SAS-Tech CE2 counterparts which would help to finish it off nicely. The back is also CE1.


I'll not go into detail @Zimmerframe has already covered this with an excellent and far more thorough review than mine, this is merely to just give an 'in the flesh' perspective.

If the pads were larger and the chest adaptable it would have had an 8.5, be nice to have some token padding for ribs, muscles and things but if lightweight is the goal then this ticks alot of boxes! The zipper arms are a nice addition too.

Excellent !

I can't remember exactly, but I think to pass CE1 (back) it has to limit to 18kn force transmitted from a 50joules impact (or something like that). CE2 is 9kn force transmitted. The Forcefield CE2 is top of the class with 6kn transmitted - hence why it felt so much better than the CE1 D3O (18kn) back protector.

The forcefield is also unusual as the chest armour is the same as the back. The CE1 and CE2 for chest/elbows/shoulders is a different test to the back test. CE2 for that is about 18kn !! So you probably won't find anything which has chest protection like the forcefield as it only has to be 30% as effective to pass CE2 .

CE2 it has to limit

 

[carlbiker]

Excellent !

I can't remember exactly, but I think to pass CE1 (back) it has to limit to 18kn force transmitted from a 50joules impact (or something like that). CE2 is 9kn force transmitted. The Forcefield CE2 is top of the class with 6kn transmitted - hence why it felt so much better than the CE1 D3O (18kn) back protector.

The forcefield is also unusual as the chest armour is the same as the back. The CE1 and CE2 for chest/elbows/shoulders is a different test to the back test. CE2 for that is about 18kn !! So you probably won't find anything which has chest protection like the forcefield as it only has to be 30% as effective to pass CE2 .

CE2 it has to limit

So really its more about thickness, 12mm for the FF top = 4 x 3mm layers so each layer is giving 0.5 CE in effect?

 

[Zimmerframe]

So really its more about thickness, 12mm for the FF top = 4 x 3mm layers so each layer is giving 0.5 CE in effect?

Sort of. The effect is more compound.

If you use d3o as an example. 16mm gives ce1. But only another 30% ish thickness 21.5mm, gives twice the protection.

That 30% is more weight, less flexibility and more insulation though.

Proportional, your increasing in mass and thickness considerably less than your getting extra protection.

 

[Zimmerframe]

gives twice the protection.

I say gives twice the protection.... In a way that's just how we interpret the numbers .. CE2 9kn's transferable force, CE1 18kn's transferable force.

So based on "the tests" only half the impact energy is received, but that doesn't directly mean that CE2 is twice as effective ..

I guess we need to understand at least the basics of the test and understand what that really means (and then conclude that we don't care as it's only a number )

Prop your eyes open with matchsticks ..

So, the test is a 5 kg flat impactor hitting the armor at a speed of 4.47 m/s (energy 5x4,47x4,47/2=50 J "Joules").

This is 50 J of energy is roughly equivalent to dropping a 1 kg mass from a height of 5m (E=mGH).

But as the results are in Kilo newtons, that doesn't help us visualise how much energy actually makes it through.

To work that out we need 1 kg × 9.81 m s−2 × 5 m) ÷ 0.5 m = 98.1kn

So for CE1 limb/chest protection :

Less than 35 kN , with no single test result exceeding 50 kN.

And CE2

Less than 20 kN.

So if we make things simple and call our 98.1kn, 100kn instead .., then CE1 stops about 65% of the energy and CE2 stops about 80% of the energy.

For CE2 back - I've stolen this from wikipedia as I can't be bothered writing out my own crap ..

The test apparatus and procedure is similar to that of EN 1621-1:1997,[1] but with a different impactor and anvil configuration. The impactor is a rounded triangular faced prism, of length 160 mm, base 50 mm, height 30.8 mm and radius 12.5 mm. The anvil is a radiused cylinder, with its axis orientated to the direction of impact, of height 190 mm, diameter 100 mm and rounded end radius 150 mm. When tested to the procedure defined in the standard, the two levels of performance are:

Level 1 protectors: The average peak force recorded below the anvil in the tests shall be below 18 kN, and no single value shall exceed 24 kN.
Level 2 protectors: The average peak force recorded below the anvil in the tests shall be below 9 kN, and no single value shall exceed 12 kN.

So, roughly - CE1 stops about 76%-82% of the energy and CE2 stops 88%-91% of the energy

The tests, and how we interpret the results are obviously hugely simplified compared to real life incidents.

Conclusion - CE2 is not TWICE as protective ..