Quote from: davipuunless your a 5' elf your not going to be able to zip the two together and lean foward. because of the ultra short cut of the jacket and the low rise of the pants, that sure is nice that they added a zipper, gee I just wish it was functional.

.

Um, no.  I'm 5'5", and they zipped together fine.

This may not be the most technically superior suit out there, but I wish I saw even half of the girls I see riding around on the back of bikes in t-shirts wearing it.  If you're going to wear nothing or this suit, I'd vote for this suit.  It's not like it's a leather thong or something.

your still a elf.  

Quote from: jen_If you're going to wear nothing or this suit

Certainly, if the other option is naked.  But for the same price or less, you can get much better protection.

Quote from: davipuBadger,  abrasion restiance is the most important thing no mater whare you ride.

Okay...didn't come out quite right...I'm not really arguing that.  The point I'm trying to make is that I would expect the safety profile for racing vs. street riding to be different, and maybe that's not true.  More accurately, it may be that the same gear satisfies the different demands of the most statistically significant incidents for all types of riding.

This is certainly not the case for autos (otherwise race cars would have airbags or regular cars would remove side windows), and not for airplanes (aerobatic pilots and test pilots wear parachutes, but they are counterproductive in almost all other cases).

So, what is the compromise between a 1 piece race suit and something else (assuming high quality)?  Is it that you get protection at 90mph worth of abrasion resistance in the suit, but only 40mph in something else? (or 5mph in the low-riding-flared-bottom-joe-rocket-single-stitch-tonka-plastic-POS-fashion-captive outfit [just trying to sum up RG's thoughts on the subject])  

Quote from: davipuif you use the crocadile analogy...

Ack...you've brought out the dreaded crocodile analogy!  Is that like the Chewbacca Defense?    New topic:  how would a crocodile fare in a lowside?  Discuss.

with it's tough skin and cartlage protuberences along it's spine, I'd give it 40 mph or about 75 feet of sliding before it wore down far enough to cause siginficant bleading.   which is the the most common cause of death is riding accidents. they can put you back together from a blob, but if you leak all of your go juice out onto the road you only have about 6 minutes till you have siginifacant brain dammage from lack of O2.   which is why abrasion restiance is the most important factor in good suits.

Quote from: BadgerAck...you've brought out the dreaded crocodile analogy!  Is that like the Chewbacca Defense?    New topic:  how would a crocodile fare in a lowside?  Discuss.

As long as he closes his eyes, I think he should be okay.

Also, realize what's available out there. Leather is still the most ideal, and most common, protective material out there for well over 100 years.

track =  higher speeds, less obsticals
street = lower speeds , more obsticals.  

statsticly you are getting around the same amount of energy transfers from the two different scenes although on the track your not going to slide sideways into a stop sign, and there is a siginifacant reduction of boulders on the sides of the track to reduce your sliding distance.  

one key point though, track riders have gear requirements that are required. street riders do not, this I am sure has a effect in the seriousness of injurys/ deaths of street riders.

Quote from: davipuone key point though, track riders have gear requirements that are required. street riders do not, this I am sure has a effect in the seriousness of injurys/ deaths of street riders.

Ja.  I see people go down at the track and walk away, where they would be limping and bleeding without the required gear.

Quote from: Roadstergal

Quote from: davipuone key point though, track riders have gear requirements that are required. street riders do not, this I am sure has a effect in the seriousness of injurys/ deaths of street riders.

Ja.  I see people go down at the track and walk away, where they would be limping and bleeding without the required gear.

No doubt.  Certainly track gear is good for the track.  But I expect that "going down at the track" didn't involve gettng hit by a 2 1/2 ton SUV.  Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I would think that the most common track incident (probably by a high margin) is a lowside caused by going into a turn too hot.  This is a specific situation that race gear is designed and ideally suited to handle.  What percentage of street crashes are the same situation?  Seeing as how the MSF class focuses so heavily on identifying and avoiding the "left turning car", I suspect that represents a significant % of serious accidents.  I also suspect that smacking into a volvo is a whole different experience than sliding across the asphault, and (perhaps incorrectly) that it would warrant different protection.

It could be that there is no good protection for those situations, and that's fair.

and 20 minutes to re-tech the bike and they are back out riding.

If you get hit by a car, you typically need both impact and abrasion.  Impact from the car, impact from the ground, abrasion.  In my hit, I still slid a lot farther than I fell.

If you've watched bike racers, they hit tirewalls, they highside and hit the asphalt, they hit other bikes or other bikes hit them.  That's not what you commonly see at yer basic track day, but that's exactly the kind of thing race gear is designed to protect against.  Multiple impacts and abrasion.

I think I'm gonna make a suit out of broken glass and syringes...  Actually make something MORE dangerous...

Welcome to another installment of....

The Phaedrus Fact Corner:

Badger and Jeff, pay special attention to Point 1.

Point 1 - There is no disagreement with Roadstergal. On anything. Ever. There is the wrong way and the Roadstergal way. Everything she does should set the standard for everyone else to follow. She knows what is best for her AND everyone else, just ask her. She is beyond refutation, and some of us lunk heads need to join her loyal "ditto" group and not oppose her views. "Resistance is futile". It does not matter if you are right or not, you can not argue with "brick walls". Nor can you change their mind. After sincere, honest efforts to do so, you will only find yourself doing this:  :dunno: And frankly, it isn't worth the effort. No offense to Roadstergal, but a bit more tolerance and a more open mind sure wouldn't hurt sometimes.

Point 2 - If Joe Rocket gear were truly unsafe, it would be recalled. No one would buy their products and they would go out of business. Is it the best protection out there? No, no one ever said it was. It does not really seem to aim to be. It aims to be entry level, protective gear for entry-level street riding motorcylists. I think it does that job well.

Funny thing is, no one is even disputing that RG's choice in gear for women is the best and most protective. She is probably right. Where she is wrong is saying that anything else is crap.

Point 3 - It does not matter if you are wearing a high quality leather suit or a leather thong and flip flops. If you are crushed into an SUV - like what happened here:

http://gstwins.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21276

...I don't think a $1400 suit would have saved you any better. Maybe against the burns, but not being crushed and flattened. Against road rash, yes, there is no doubt. But imagine blowing up, being decapitated, crushed flat, driven over top of, being snapped in half.  Sure puts thing into perspective.

Wait a minute, I need to read Point 1 again....

Broken glass and syringes!!!!!

Quote from: PhaedrusPoint 2 - If Joe Rocket gear were truly unsafe, it would be recalled.

So nobody sells half-helmets, chaps, or choppers anymore?  Or Harleys, for that matter?  These are all a LOT less safe than the alternatives.
There is no regulatory committee that tests all gear in the US and pulls the stuff that isn't as good as comparably-priced stuff.  All gear comes with a disclaimer blurb somewhere to fend off lawsuits.  Now see below.

Quote from: Phaedrusanything else is crap.

No, I said that this specific Joe Rocket line is specifically crap compared to the gear you could buy for the same price or less.

Quote from: RVertigoI think I'm gonna make a suit out of broken glass and syringes...  Actually make something MORE dangerous...

Around my parent's house there is an annual medieval faire (lots of jousting, walking around eating mammoth turkey legs, people saying "hail, sire", that kind of thing).  I used to go all the time.  I ran into this one guy wearing chain mail, but it was scraped and bent in a bunch of places.  Turns out that he's an actor (ahem..."Recreationist") in the fair, and rides in on his m/c every day (in full garb).  Some time before he had hit a gravel patch, dropped the bike, slid over the gravel and asphault for a while, got up, cursed, picked up the bike, and was underway.  When he told the story he specifically stressed that as he was sliding he was a little worried that he was going to catch fire from all the sparks coming up from his "gear".

My guess is he'd argue that steel is far superior to leather. (not very practical, though) *shrug*

Quote from: RoadstergalSo nobody sells half-helmets, chaps, or choppers anymore?  Or Harleys, for that matter?  These are all a LOT less safe than the alternatives.

Yeah, but aren't many of the half-helmets DOT approved? That doesn't mean they are "safe", but it does mean that it isn't "unsafe". Right? If it were "unsafe", would it still be DOT approved?  :dunno: The protection they give your head against the COVERED areas meet MINUMUM safety requirements. For some people, minumum is just not good enough.

I don't know much about Harley's, but I am sure they have been subject to factory and consumer safety tests. Choppers are not illegal, atleast not around here, but they are subject to certain safety requirements (seat and handle bar height, must have headlight, etc). Are they "safe"? No, but they are not relatively "unsafe" either according to the law.

There is a grey area between safe and unsafe; motorcycle riding is said to be inherently unsafe. Should we give it up completely? No! We should make REASONABLE efforts to find that gray area between safe and unsafe by wearing gear, riding smart, and using good judgement.

Quote from: RoadstergalThere is no regulatory committee that tests all gear in the US and pulls the stuff that isn't as good as comparably-priced stuff.  

Isn't that your job?  :kiss:

Quote from: RoadstergalAll gear comes with a disclaimer blurb somewhere to fend off lawsuits...

All gear? Is that right, ALL GEAR? Even the $1400 full piece leather suits? Hmm. So what you are saying is that ALL gear could POTENTIALLY be unsafe?   Why spend $1400 and still be potentially unsafe when you could spend $300 and be potentially unsafe? A shade of gray on the potentially unsafe scale is expensive!  

Quote from: Phaedrusyou can not argue with "brick walls".

On the flipside, brick walls don't tend to provide logical counterpoint...well there was that one, but...never mind.

I think it's different if you're actually trying to convince someone of something.  I'm not, I'm just looking for insight from people that know a lot more than I do about the subject.

because that extra 1100 will allow you to walk away from many more senieros.

like T-boning a volvo at 65 you are pretty much going to go flying over it impact the ground and slide about 200 feet give or take depending on the road surface.  your helmet will keep your brain from falling out while the cage driver is screaming at the 911 operator about a bike she disn't see and is too distracted about her fked up car to find the street address so by the time they trace the call and the cops arrive you have lost coushisness and are going to die from loss of blood.