Do all PROS use body armor?
- Thread starter xemini
- Start date
no
dainese
dainese
Seems like most Pros use only lower armor, some just knee pads. Dianese is the most comfortable
Many pros hardly use armor at all and I agree that Dianese is the most comfy.
I'd say most of the "older" guys where it more. The younger guys tend to just where lower, although on the nasty courses you will see it on the younger crew these days. Alot of the guys are wearing it, but it's hard to tell.
Many sponsors are now putting it in their riders contracts to wear armour.
the most, they don't use..
the most comfy is dainese
the most comfy is dainese
That's not true. Most do use body armour. The too cool for armor gang is a new phenomenon, and is going away pretty quickly as sponsors are fed up with injured riders.
when i was at the sugar national only about a 3rd were wearing any
body armor slows you down... lol:devil:
^ Okay, pro! ..
lol, jk, im always blowing my paychecks on parts, dont have enough for armor! lol
I broke 2 vertebrae and my shoulder, both while wearing full upper body armor. :trophy_brMani_UT said:
I rarely wear full upper anymore. I do for mud races and places I don't feel comfortable right away. As I get comfortable, I usually switch to just elbow pads.
psychobiker said:
Alot more were wearing it than you think I'm sure. There are alot of guys wearing back pads and just elbow guards so they don't really look like they are.
Some don't and some do. I just use kneepads, personally. I haven't found an upper body armour set that fits me without restricting movement or just feeling uncomfortable yet.
My doctor told my that for one of my major injuries body armour would have made my situation worse. This was just one situation however, and I am in no way advocating that people don't use armour.
My doctor told my that for one of my major injuries body armour would have made my situation worse. This was just one situation however, and I am in no way advocating that people don't use armour.
Everything is possible! You can definitely wreck yourself wearing full armor.profro said:
On the other hand, all I need to know is that one of my buddies in France skid on pavement crashing his bike. He was fine until he eventually wrapped himself around a tree. Now he is having fun in a wheelchair. With a backplate he would be walking. There are a lot of trees on DH courses. That's all I need to know.
i have the 661 assault upper body suit the back plate saved me from a good scraping on a sharp ledge as i fell backwards after a stall at sugar yesterday. i dont want to feel worse than i already doo
What injury is that, that body armour would make worse?konabiker said:
A superglued taint is all I can think of.Zutroy said:
If you are wearing a back plate, it can restrict your spines natural flexability and result in a more severe injury. This is what I remember from the Steve Wentz article in Decline from a year or 2 ago. I tried to find an archive, but the new Decline site only has a few recent back issues.Zutroy said:
For all Minnaar's fans.....
a little over three years ago, i suffered "sudden deceleration trauma"
i have no doubt that the full face helmet AND my upper body suit saved me from at least being paralyzed or worse.
oh, and as far as what doctors say.
after that crash, one said i'd not be able to ride a mt.bike again because of the "jarring effects".
that's one doctor who never saw the southernrocks trail we have.
or us riding it.
i have no doubt that the full face helmet AND my upper body suit saved me from at least being paralyzed or worse.
oh, and as far as what doctors say.
after that crash, one said i'd not be able to ride a mt.bike again because of the "jarring effects".
that's one doctor who never saw the southernrocks trail we have.
or us riding it.
AtTheGates said:
How do you say that?
In what language?hungryleprican said:
Are you asking how a spine protector can reduce flexability or cause an injury?
I believe this was according to the doctor of the rider in the article.
the 661 that I have is meant to articulate out and in, but its ability to flex inward is limited and will limit your backs flexability. Flexability helps prevent injury.
I'm not advocating that poeple not wear armor, just pointing out that there are times when wearing armor can be negative. Most of the time armor is going to do its job and protect you.
AtTheGates said:
Yes, that is what the doctor told Wenz. However, doctors are not experts in injury mechanisms. Some are, but most aren't, and most of the ones that are, tend to specialize in football injuries. One thing about the back pad is yes they restrict bending, but they also transfer that force across a wider area.
After checking out my Dainese shuttle suite and seeing all the scratches in the plastic I am very happy that I ride with body amour. Opposit Profro I have broken two collarbones both time with out my amour.
dhbuilder said:
There is also a difference is say the way a dainesse or 661 suits spinal protector work, verses something like a roost protector that only goes 1/2 way down the spine. In that case i could see the possiblity for it contributing to the injury, since you would have 1/2 bending and 1/2 not. However, even that situation is extremely rare, or someone woulda sued someone for the injury.
I didn't wear armour for a while but then broke my hand and went back to armour and bloody glad I wore it...
I am a doctor, and there are some data on the subject. Most of it comes from Moto GP racing, and dianese has been involved in some of it. There is some data from MX, but not really any on MTB DH. There are a few studies from a Doc in Reno (who also rides/ races DH) listing/compiling the types of injuries that happen, unfortunately, they didn't keep track of the type of armor that people wear relative to injury type, only if they had a helmet on.Zutroy said:
What people are referring to about the armor making certain injuries worse is all referring to a moto study that showed that if you are wearing a back plate (like the Dianese) ,then although your risk of mild back fractures, like spinal process fractures is less, it actually increases the risk of a neck fracture in a head impact (lawn dart) type of accident. It's thought that if you go head first to the ground, your helmet is likely to skid, causing your neck to hyperextend. The back plate is made not to extend and therefore acts as a big lever arm focusing all the stress to your neck. Thats why most of the road moto guys wear neck peices.
anyone try wearing the 661 shoulder brace? I just dislocated my shoulder this weekend and I think I might ewar that for a little while when I start riding in a month or so. P.S. the one day I wore armor I think it saved me from shattering my shoulder or worse.
AtTheGates said:In what language?
Are you asking how a spine protector can reduce flexability or cause an injury?
I believe this was according to the doctor of the rider in the article.
the 661 that I have is meant to articulate out and in, but its ability to flex inward is limited and will limit your backs flexability. Flexability helps prevent injury.
I'm not advocating that poeple not wear armor, just pointing out that there are times when wearing armor can be negative. Most of the time armor is going to do its job and protect you.
Ohh I see how that would work but how many times have you heard of somthing like this happening due to wearing body armour?
i've been seeing a few people showing up here with purpose built neck collars.LaytonDH said:
i think those are a good idea.
i personally tend to have more confidence when i'm properly armored up.
it is somewhat restricting, but i don't think i've ever really been aware of any mobility issues while i'm in mid run.
and CBJ, you know as well as i that profro is part android.
LaytonDH said:
Yeah, every so often i hit up medline and pubmed to see what's going on and I haven't been able to find much.