[6thElement]

My Leatt Moto GPX brace is now coming into its seventh year for DH riding.

I like that newer braces no longer have the support brace right down the middle of your back on your vertebrae , considering the above two as a replacement and looking for opinions.

Bueller?

 

[Udi]

I'm pretty sure the split rear brace/strut is entirely a marketing ploy to cater for idiots, and is something Leatt eventually gave into since it's easier to make the change than try to convince people it isn't a problem. The strut (even while singular) was always engineered to fracture well below the fracture strength of the portion of your back it rests against, and something they documented thoroughly.

So if that's the only reason you're looking at replacement I don't think there's any physical need (if yours isn't damaged), but by all means upgrade if you want.

I'd try both and get whichever one you're most comfortable with, fit is a very personal thing. I like Leatt and I like the fact that it's medically-backed (even if that's a marketing ploy too), but they have SERIOUSLY dropped in quality since the original braces. I've the pleasure of owning the DBX Pro Carbon brace which I've had for years, and it's a beautifully lightweight and rigid monocoque carbon structure with engineered break-points where needed. The replacement Leatt product (DBX 6.5, same design as the 5.5) is a flimsy piece of shit, with so much flex at the clamps that I question its performance over the old braces - and at the very least is substantially cheaped out with the carbon monocoque all gone in favour of thin and flimsy cosmetic carbon with the rest plastic.

 

[mykel]

Udi

Any recommendations of company/model that seems to be made decently?
I have never had a brace on me body, but am seriously thinking about looking at one.
Not too much to look at locally without several hours of driving, so having a short-list of ones that seem of decent design and quality would be a great asset.

Cheers!

m

 

[6thElement]

Video here that covers some of the main models:

 

[Udi]

Udi
Any recommendations of company/model that seems to be made decently?

I've only got experience with the Leatt braces (virtually all) and the Alpinestars BNS (regular and carbon). I liked both lines of braces, aside from the noticeable drop in quality on the latest Leatt items. In fairness the latter issue likely doesn't have much functional impact (otherwise I'm sure they wouldn't be selling them), but I prefer the more rigid braces - given their purpose is to mechanically restrict displacement and transfer forces. Increasing flex also increases displacement - which might benefit a helmet liner but not a neck brace (in my non-medical opinion) - especially considering there are already many points of flexure in the protection system (helmet moving on head, brace moving on body, compression of padding/skin/flesh/etc).

I really like the previous gen top-end Leatt DBX (or GPX) "Pro" (or "Pro Lite") full carbon models. All those models are essentially the same. There still seem to be plenty brand new floating around on ebay (and probably in shops), prices are lower than they were new, with parts availability looking reasonably good as well.

In terms of protection I found the Leatt and Alpinestars BNS roughly comparable, since it's essentially just a function of restriction (i.e. height of sides, front, and back - assuming zero flex/deflection). The very first generation of Leatts were taller and more restrictive, but the ones I like could be considered 2nd generation and were pretty similar to the Alpinestars dimensionally.

For the sake of a fair comparison, the latest Leatt braces (5.5 / 6.5 / etc) are easier to adjust (tool free) compared to the previous ones (4mm allen key), but I don't think that's very important since you generally set a brace up once and leave it.

 

[Harry BarnOwl]

I never thought this day would come, but I'm going to have to disagree with Udi. I've owned a dbx 5-5 for about 18 months now, and I believe the chassis is perfectly stiff enough, at least as stiff as it needs to be in the directions required to do it's job (for what it's worth I'm also a mechanical/composites engineer). The brace deals with the redistribution of forces by compressing various profiles into your neck and chest muscles; from this perspective, I see very little room for the brace to flex much, if at all Udi? Honestly I think it's a solid construction.

The big advantage of the 5-5 over previous generations is the profile sits much lower, which will make a huge difference to how much you actually want to wear the brace. I have a few friends who got rid of their previous generation leatt's after a few rides because they couldn't deal with it hitting the back of their helmets on steep stuff. In contrast, I forget I'm wearing mine until I bin it.

As an owner, I think the build quality is really good. I haven't noticed any pivots developing play and the open/close mechanism works flawlessly every time. I also really like the fact that it's all plastic and rubber as you can just hose it down when it gets muddy. I would 100% recommend it, but as with all of these things you should really try all the options and see what's most comfortable for you. Whilst Leatt has all of their published work (some of which is actually genuinely original, some a little more dubious), there's only so many ways you can design one of these things, and I don't doubt that the others work the way they're supposed to.

 

[MinorThreat]

I'm pretty sure the split rear brace/strut is entirely a marketing ploy to cater for idiots, and is something Leatt eventually gave into since it's easier to make the change than try to convince people it isn't a problem. The strut (even while singular) was always engineered to fracture well below the fracture strength of the portion of your back it rests against, and something they documented thoroughly.

That was my thought the first time I saw the twin-rear-pad setup from Leatt - - that they were just trying to win back some market-share from the popularity of the Atlas.

I like Leatt and I like the fact that it's medically-backed (even if that's a marketing ploy too)...

That is why I've stuck with my Leatt. Designed by a C-spine specialist and with actual testing data to back it up.

For the record, mine is the pre-DBX-generations Moto-GPX Sport (non-carbon version of the old GPX Club) and I'm still happy with its fit.

 

[Nick]

I have the Leatt 5.5 and would buy again.
Wearing it is pretty much invisible. Its light and comfortable. To be honest, it's was the adjustability and the split rear thoracic brace that made me choose this model.

 

[Bikael Molton]

Yeah the weight difference on the 6.5 vs the old GPX i have is ridiculous.
BUT, if it is truly too flexy to protect you, then it's just ugly carbon man-jewelry.

 

[Udi]

I never thought this day would come, but I'm going to have to disagree with Udi. I've owned a dbx 5-5 for about 18 months now, and I believe the chassis is perfectly stiff enough, at least as stiff as it needs to be in the directions required to do it's job (for what it's worth I'm also a mechanical/composites engineer). The brace deals with the redistribution of forces by compressing various profiles into your neck and chest muscles; from this perspective, I see very little room for the brace to flex much, if at all Udi?

Fair points - my opinion on this stems from the fact that I've experienced all of their braces (particular at the higher end) - if I'd only tried the 5.5 and 6.5 I'd probably think they were fine, it was just a shame to see they've taken a very clear hit in quality (for the sake of reducing mfg cost) over the previous version. Grab a DBX Pro/Pro-Lite carbon and compare to the 6.5, as a composites engineer you'll just cry. The difference may be less noticeable comparing the midrange braces. As I did say - I doubt it affects the functionality substantially.

I just feel the 6.5 brace should cost a lot less given the clear reduction in quality, or preferably, let the high-end product justify its cost with its quality as it did originally.

The big advantage of the 5-5 over previous generations is the profile sits much lower, which will make a huge difference to how much you actually want to wear the brace.

There have been 3 generations in terms of height, and 1-2 is a much bigger jump than 2-3 (which are fairly close). I think it's important to note however that the protection these braces (any brand) offer is proportional to the height. While it's no use if people don't wear them (and I know plenty like you describe), they're also not much good if they aren't creating some restriction. It's up to each rider to decide which balance they are comfortable with I guess.

Alpinestars had an interesting biomechanical testing section in their original BNS manual (they tested with cadavers), it's a good read if you can find it online somewhere.