Opinions verus documented facts

[Asphalt_Carver]

I love the Internet!  Where else can one find a plethora of information in a very short period of time?

However, a drawback of this is that anyone can post information while claiming that it is factual without referencing their source or documentation.  Now, does this turn me into "Footnote Man?"  No, and I don't have a desire to start a flame war. But, there are posters who claim very specific information about the safety ratings of gear but don't back up their "expertise."  

To those who have expertise, it is very much welcomed by someone like me who needs all the help they can get, but please give us some background rather than just your opinion.  I want to know that I am getting the truth versus opinion.

[jschmidt]

I know a great deal about gear but I couldn't refer you to a source. It's knowledge accumulated over years. I think you'll find this true of most experts on any subject, particularly one on which there is so little actual research. You may have an unrealistic expectation.

Is there some specific thing you'd like to validate?

[license2ill]

There's a lot of folks that would like to think they ar experts, based on simple indibvidual experiences that don't add-up to much of anything. There's more of them in any discussion of motorcyclist clothing than there are sustainable facts. The thing you want to look for is documentation, like CE-approval, or another form of valid testing, like that done by Ride Magazine product comaprisons. Other than that, the community is lacking in real info that isn't hugely skewed by subjective and small world opinion, that resembles religious fervor.

Here's some links. Follow the discussions, check the advertizing info, and eventually you can make some deductions about how the industry works and how the community maintains knowledge or ignorance based on those options.

www.pva-ppe.org.uk

http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/75.html

www.ridetriangles.com

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/symp_motorcycle_safety/symp_motorcycle_safety.htm

www.smf.org


Thre's plenty more, when more questions arise.

[Scratch33]

Where else can one find a plethora of information in a very short period of time?

I have it on good authority that plethoras died out in the Yurassic period.

[Sea Dog]

The thing you want to look for is documentation, like CE-approval, or another form of valid testing, like that done by Ride Magazine product comaprisons.

So how is a magazine's product comparisons considered "valid" testing?  I like Ride Magazine very much, but I consider their opinion as just another datapoint when purchasing protective gear.

[Rogue]

There's a lot of folks that would like to think they ar experts, based on simple indibvidual experiences that don't add-up to much of anything. There's more of them in any discussion of motorcyclist clothing than there are sustainable facts.

I've got a real problem with that statement of yours.  You are 100% wrong.  And this is obvious since you do NOT have a motorcycle nor ride a motorcycle.  

Reading about something definitely adds more information to absorb.  It also gives you information you may never know unless you actually look at a product and try them on yourself.

The part where you are wrong is in experience.  How do you know what works in the real world and what doesn't unless you have actually ridden a motorcycle?  Someone can tell you that their riding suit has the best safety, is 100% waterproof, comes in a variety of sizes & colors, lots of pockets, etc., etc.,  But most of that don't matter a whole lot if you have no clue what works when you are doing 500 mile days versus 150 miles.  Is a one piece suit better than a two piece?  I can come up with lots of examples.  Some waterproof materials are not created equal.  Some are more comfortable than others.  Not every test mentions this and actually tests it in driving rain.  Another example, how do you know if a rain suit is better suited for someone as opposed to a waterproof liner?  Have you ever worn a rain suit that went over your regular riding apparel?  Have you done so for long periods?  At what speeds?  Do you know the difference between a race boot and a sport-touring boot?  Besides the obvious use of materials and added safety features the race boot has?  How do you know which type of opening you prefer (velcro, snaps, etc.)?  Do you know what it is like to use a heavy helmet vs a lightweight helmet?  What affect does ventilation have on a short ride/long ride/cold weather/warm weather/wet weather?  What effect does the shape of the helmet have on aerodynamics when worn with certain types of windshield or no windshield at all?

You see what I mean?  I don't think you do judging by your very statements above.  You believe experience don't mean shit.  That simply reading about test results gives you ALL the right information.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Just like motorcycles and motorcyclists, riding gear is a very individual thing.  Only long term experience with lots of miles in a variety of conditions will give you the ability to really know what works for you and may work in general to a lot of riders.  It is not an exact science.

[matkal]

I've got a real problem with that statement of yours.  You are 100% wrong.  And this is obvious since you do NOT have a motorcycle nor ride a motorcycle.  

Reading about something definitely adds more information to absorb.  It also gives you information you may never know unless you actually look at a product and try them on yourself.

The part where you are wrong is in experience.  How do you know what works in the real world and what doesn't unless you have actually ridden a motorcycle?  Someone can tell you that their riding suit has the best safety, is 100% waterproof, comes in a variety of sizes & colors, lots of pockets, etc., etc.,  But most of that don't matter a whole lot if you have no clue what works when you are doing 500 mile days versus 150 miles.  Is a one piece suit better than a two piece?  I can come up with lots of examples.  Some waterproof materials are not created equal.  Some are more comfortable than others.  Not every test mentions this and actually tests it in driving rain.  Another example, how do you know if a rain suit is better suited for someone as opposed to a waterproof liner?  Have you ever worn a rain suit that went over your regular riding apparel?  Have you done so for long periods?  At what speeds?  Do you know the difference between a race boot and a sport-touring boot?  Besides the obvious use of materials and added safety features the race boot has?  How do you know which type of opening you prefer (velcro, snaps, etc.)?  Do you know what it is like to use a heavy helmet vs a lightweight helmet?  What affect does ventilation have on a short ride/long ride/cold weather/warm weather/wet weather?  What effect does the shape of the helmet have on aerodynamics when worn with certain types of windshield or no windshield at all?

You see what I mean?  I don't think you do judging by your very statements above.  You believe experience don't mean shit.  That simply reading about test results gives you ALL the right information.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Just like motorcycles and motorcyclists, riding gear is a very individual thing.  Only long term experience with lots of miles in a variety of conditions will give you the ability to really know what works for you and may work in general to a lot of riders.  It is not an exact science.

 
(no applause smilie)

[jschmidt]

emphasis on "stupid."

[chornbe]

I know a great deal about gear but I couldn't refer you to a source. It's knowledge accumulated over years. I think you'll find this true of most experts on any subject, particularly one on which there is so little actual research. You may have an unrealistic expectation.

Is there some specific thing you'd like to validate?

+1

In the context of bikes, a lot of scraped knuckles, hours in the garage and time spent looking for custom solutions to specific problems lend to one's knowledge. And educated opinions aren't bad.

Example:

"I rode a Harley the other day and didn't like the way it handled. I think they handle like sleds."

vs.

"All harleys are 1930s tractors and handle like them. Never ridden one and never will."

















PS... I still want a road king

[MDHCO]

What is expertise?  We relate our experiences.  

Example: My Fieldsheer gear blocks the wind nicely, isn't to bad in the rain, but the zippers are failing one by one.  One leg, one pocket, and the fly so far.  

Blocking the wind, and water resistance are subjective opinion.  The zipper failures are fact, which given the replacements are of different a size and material, can be documented.  

The value of this forum is if you were considering Fieldsheer gear and posted that.  If twenty responses praised the gear and only mine found fault, you'd feel fairly comfortable purchasing it.  However if the majority have similar problems, you may consider a different product.  

 



 

     

[SuperHans]

I've got a real problem with that statement of yours.  You are 100% wrong.  And this is obvious since you do NOT have a motorcycle nor ride a motorcycle.  

Reading about something definitely adds more information to absorb.  It also gives you information you may never know unless you actually look at a product and try them on yourself.

+1

Someone giving advice on motorcycle gear that doesn't ride is ludicrous. I can't even fathom the motivation behind it.

Telling someone to buy a specific brand because it provides maximum protection, but not taking into consideration such things as comfort, heat management, etc., is silly.

[Sameraz]

Take two riders, wearing the same gear.  They happen to go down at a fairly low speed.  One happens to land just right and ends up with bruises and a with a wear hole in an outer layer the size of a half dollar in the fabric and some scrapes on the riding gear overall.  The other person lands in a fashion that tears open a seam, strained fabric tears, they incurs more injury.  The first says the gear "did its job", the second says "worthless crap".  Who is right?

That's why any one person's opinion is just a data point.  Yes, real personal experience, no denying that, but its just a single experience.

My suggestion is to read as many motorcycle forums you can and follow as many threads about gear and gear failures as you can.  The more "single experiences" you read about, the more accurate an image you can develop about any particular brand or gear item.  Sure, read manufacturers articles and sites, but remember, they are there to sell their product.  Most magazines are supported by selling ad space, so...probably not best to trash an advertisers product in your pages.

There are definitely products and brands that I tend to shy away from because I have read of failures, but there are others that have been noted as being good by many, but failed utterly according to a few.  

[Bigfoot]

 
(no applause smilie)

Also with you on this. I see license2ill, the bicycle, non motorcycle, riding fool is still around.  Take your comments elsewhere.  

[Global Rider]

Anyone can post information while claiming that it is factual without referencing their source or documentation.

You mean like the guy that put an aftermarket exhaust system on his motorcycle raving about how much extra horsepower its giving him...without actually putting it on a dyno to confirm the manufacturer's claims.   If he did, he'd actually find out he is producing less power at the RPMs he is at most of the time.

Or the guy that uses synthetic oil claiming how much slicker it is, yet his fuel consumption hasn't changed. If its so much slicker...why hasn't he increased his mileage by 10 MPG.

And those are the same poeple you can sell a canoe to in the middle of the Sahara.  

One of my favorites that I wrote up on another forum...

Just this morning, I was reading an article in a poplular motorcycle magazine when I came across an ad for a windshield on one of the pages.

It showed an artists's drawing of a rider abord an R1200RT with a vertical line down the center; one half with the stock windshield and the turbulent vorticies coming off it and impacting the rider's arm and shoulder as well as the side of the helment, and the other half with the aftermarket windshield and the turbulent vortices coming off it and just skimming the rider's arm and shoulder as well as being well clear of the helmet.

Well maybe that drawing depicts the truth, and maybe it doesn't, but if they are really trying to depict vortices, why not do it in a wind tunnel with smoke. And even at that, it isn't the be all and end all considering varying conditions (riders, models, etc).

Then in another magazine, another windshield supplier claimed a whopping 12.8 miles per gallon increase in mileage. That worked out to an over 27% increase in mileage. This test was performed on "their" 30 mile long test loop. It fails to mention if both tests (with and without windshield) were performed on the same day under the same conditions. A run with a good tailwind will give you far better mileage as compared to a run with a headwind. A 27% increase? Their claims may be true, but a 27% increase, somehow I doubt it.

Working in a standards lab, its my nature to question claims and measurements, and I'll usually pick them apart.

[jschmidt]

Example: My Fieldsheer gear blocks the wind nicely, isn't to bad in the rain, but the zippers are failing one by one.  One leg, one pocket, and the fly so far.  

jThis is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The problem with Fieldsheer build quality and especially their zippers is well known. I can't cite a source for it, but I sure could have related it if asked. Some stuff you know from lifetime learning and pattern analysis. It's perfectly good knowledge that has validity.

I do agree that simple personal experience can lead you in the wrong direction in a variety of ways.

I think the comments about License are always interesting. People don't like him personally so they always dismiss and belittle him. But the fact is that he knows more empherical information about gear than almost anyone here. Seems to me that makes him more valuable than most of his detractors, particularly since they are perfectly willing to send you in the wrong direction in order to belittle someone they don't like.

[TheTick]

There's a lot of folks that would like to think they ar experts, based on simple indibvidual experiences that don't add-up to much of anything. There's more of them in any discussion of motorcyclist clothing than there are sustainable facts. The thing you want to look for is documentation, like CE-approval, or another form of valid testing, like that done by Ride Magazine product comaprisons. Other than that, the community is lacking in real info that isn't hugely skewed by subjective and small world opinion, that resembles religious fervor.

Here's some links. Follow the discussions, check the advertizing info, and eventually you can make some deductions about how the industry works and how the community maintains knowledge or ignorance based on those options.

www.pva-ppe.org.uk

http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/75.html

www.ridetriangles.com

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/symp_motorcycle_safety/symp_motorcycle_safety.htm

www.smf.org


Thre's plenty more, when more questions arise.

This is like a virgin giving advice on how to fcuk.

[jschmidt]

This is like a virgin giving advice on how to fcuk.

Perfect example of my point.

[TheTick]

Perfect example of my point.

The point is that you have no sense of humor.

[1moreroad]

L2I has never said he doesn't ride a motorcycle IIRC.  How do you know he's not listing the bicycle to mess with you?

Ride magazine has documented how they do tests.  The tests appear well thought out.  They are also consistent -- all gear is tested the same.  Some of you that are claiming that L2I's sources are invalid because you think he doesn't ride are the same ones who nodded along with Motorcyclist's helmet test "proving" Snell is no good.  Why is one set of test data valid and the other not?

The CE rating looks at force attenuation and coverage.  The acceptable amount of force that reaches the body is based on survival or injury levels.  If the armor in the gear attenuates a certain impact force below a certain level it is rated.  This is not some sinister cabal trying to decide what can and can't be sold to you.  This is a certification that you know that whatever piece of gear you are buying has armor that will meet a certain minimum standard.  Buy whatever you want but know that if the armor is CE then it will protect you a certain amount.  Don't buy CE, and you don't know what you will get.  More knowledge is a good thing.

L2I doesn't comment on quality control or comfort.  IIRC, he's never commented on Fieldsheer's zippers failing over of the long run.  He HAS shown photos of A-stars stitching failing in a simulated crash.  He (along with 1 or 2 other members of this forum) believe safety trumps all other considerations.  Most of us (including me) will disagree with that and consider other factors such as all-day comfort and price.  Why argue?  Why not use the information presented by L2I as a factor in selecting gear?  Most members of this forum come here with preconceived notions that they don't want challenged anyway.  They want affirmation.  Come here with an open mind and weigh the facts.  Otherwise you'd never believe that the guy who got the wettest last weekend in 11 hours of rain was wearing an Aerostich, and the guys who stayed the driest were wearing rain suits over leather.

Andecotal evidence has little value unless you know you will crash the same way twice.  What is useful that L2I doesn't acknowledge is statistical data -- who crashed at what speed in what conditions multiplied over many, many users.  Most descriptions in the Gear section fall far short of anything useful to include in data.  KeithU has presented data about Roadcrafter suits that is IMO valid (and affirms their safety).  Aerostich has collected this data and it, too, affirms that their suit is good enough to keep selling.

[Rogue]

L2I has never said he doesn't ride a motorcycle IIRC.  How do you know he's not listing the bicycle to mess with you?

Dude, he's been hanging around the Politics and Off Topic Forum for years now.  Slamming members, making nasty personal attacks, etc.,  He has pissed off a lot of members.  He has admitted to having no motorcycles, nor any experience whatsoever.  I was around when that fool crawled out of a rock in Politics in the old ST.net.  He's a mountain biker.  I have no clue why he is here.  I think he enjoys the attention and the shitstorms he creates in Politics.  

Until he proves he rides a REAL motorcycle, then his opinions about rider apparel & equipment don't really mean shit.

Just read the first sentence to his post above.  He doesn't believe experience counts for shit!  What does that tell you about this guy?  It's up to you to listen to him or not.  I'm just calling him for what he is.