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.

[1moreroad]

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

That's just it, they're not his opinions.  He is citing some of the most comprehensive testing done by any motorcycle magazine in the world as well as standards of force transfer I believe determined through a mix of lab testing and a Hurt-style accident survey.

A little attitude on an internet forum bugs you?

I wouldn't know about his PO attitudes -- I don't go there.  This is a MOTORCYCLE forum.

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.

Because they have a standardized tests and consistently apply the same one to every piece of gear they test.

http://www.ridetriangles.com/nav?page=ridetriangles.contentspage&view_resource=2712064

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

 

[jschmidt]

The people slamming him here don't like him. They'd rather you ignore his information because they don't like him. This is a more compelling purpose -- for them -- than helping you learn what you'd like to know.

It's sad really...

[Rogue]

The people slamming him here don't like him. They'd rather you ignore his information because they don't like him.

I don't care if you ignore his info or not.

I'm calling him for what he is:  A person who believes experience doesn't count.  That's because he doesn't have ANY experience in riding at all.  

[Rogue]

That's just it, they're not his opinions.  

He just gave you an opinion:  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.

Ah well....what do I know.

[Nesbocaj]

Truth be that.  +1

L2I, keep on, keeping on. (70's style statement of support)


The point is that you have no sense of humor.

[JonS]

Testing gear over a short period gives some indication what you can expect from the item, but I would put far more faith in someone like Dantes Dame's opinion on boots or gloves for example. She rides many thousands of miles a year. There are many members here who do the same.
 On the other hand, I would not pay any attention to someone who gives his opinion with absolutely no experience on a motorcycle. A person like that wouldn't even know what to look for in a product test.
 I actually put riders opinions on the same level as magazine opinions. All are taken into account and I draw a conclusion. Unless its something like an Aerostitch suit that has been praises over and over, its always something of a crap shoot with the info putting the odds in a more favorible light.

[Headmanbrewing]

MOST people's experiences don't mean very much.  Not because they don't know anything, but because they don't do side by side testing of different products under the same conditions.  My favorite example would be tires.  When I see a review of XX tire model, most of the reviews seem to say, "My old YY tires sucked. As soon as I put these XX tires on, Wow what a difference!"  The problem I see, is that the new tire owner doesn't remember very well what their YY tires were like when they were brand new.

The best way, IMO, is blind testing.  Get two identical bikes, set them up with two different tires, and ride them both under the same conditions.  Unfortunately, most of us don't have those kind of resources.  The best we can do is read the tests that are done by the bike mags, that can afford to do these kind of tests.  

Our other option is to be more like Dante, etc., that ride tons of miles a year.  That sounds good to me!!  

[Global Rider]

So how is a magazine's product comparisons considered "valid" testing?

In the majority of cases, its not. Magazines don't have the expertise or labs to do the necessary testing. Simple tests can be done, but reputable magazines like Motorrad have thorough testing done by labs for them. Of course, testing costs money and thats why quality magazines cost money.

A product comparison of all weather riding suits that use various proprietary products (Gore-Tex, Sympatex, Polo-Tex/Premium Polo-Tex, Drygate, etc) is of limited use unless the test includes moisture transfer rates under various conditions. A 100% waterproof suit can mean many things...from a totally unbreathable suit which is uncomfortable to wear (feels like you're in a sauna) to a high end suit that is comfortable to wear.

[license2ill]

In the majority of cases, its not. Magazines don't have the expertise or labs to do the necessary testing. Simple tests can be done, but reputable magazines like Motorrad have thorough testing done by labs for them. Of course, testing costs money and thats why quality magazines cost money.

A product comparison of all weather riding suits that use various proprietary products (Gore-Tex, Sympatex, Polo-Tex/Premium Polo-Tex, Drygate, etc) is of limited use unless the test includes moisture transfer rates under various conditions. A 100% waterproof suit can mean many things...from a totally unbreathable suit which is uncomfortable to wear (feels like you're in a sauna) to a high end suit that is comfortable to wear.

Ride Magazines tests are sourced out to the Cambridge Facility labs and tests are conducted by the origninator of the majority of information that goes into the CE testing standards and protocols for motoryclist protective equipment, Dr. Rod Woods. It's as legit as it gets.

[jschmidt]

...My favorite example would be tires.  When I see a review of XX tire model, most of the reviews seem to say, "My old YY tires sucked. As soon as I put these XX tires on, Wow what a difference!"  The problem I see, is that the new tire owner doesn't remember very well what their YY tires were like when they were brand new...

I've always found this hilarious too. While that's the most obvious example of buyer-bias, we shouldn't forget things like: "My bike is much faster after an oil change with X oil," "My new slip-on added at least 10 horsepower," and "These levers make me much faster!"

Enthusiasm for a product is often found in direct proportion to its price. The "butt dyno" is about as useful a tool as a ripped condom.

Anecdotal evidence is, however, a useful data point, but just that. The Fieldsheer example is a good one. I don't think anyone tested the zippers, but I have heard dozens of owners complain about them. Over time, the pattern becomes clear. Another example might be the FZ TPS.

[license2ill]

I've always found this hilarious too. While that's the most obvious example of buyer-bias, we shouldn't forget things like: "My bike is much faster after an oil change with X oil," "My new slip-on added at least 10 horsepower," and "These levers make me much faster!"

Enthusiasm for a product is often found in direct proportion to its price. The "butt dyno" is about as useful a tool as a ripped condom.

Anecdotal evidence is, however, a useful data point, but just that. The Fieldsheer example is a good one. I don't think anyone tested the zippers, but I have heard dozens of owners complain about them. Over time, the pattern becomes clear. Another example might be the FZ TPS.

Ride mag has tested zippers in their comparisons, though I can't recall any Fieldsheer products in any of those articles, it's a point to be looked at with any manufacturer, but of ocurse there is little outside info about zippers, except the glaring anecdotes of the Fieldsheer Highlander suit. The Frank THomas leather suits that were recalled for bad zippers failed lab tests in the Ride mag tests, which wasn;t a cause for concern with durability or convenience, but one of protective value. I'm amazed how questions of melting points comes up every so often, yet no one ever discuses zippers in terms of portective value at all, ever. And chunky, thick, heavy zippers are not the easy answer either. Within the Euro standards, nylon coil zips are preferred, and it's apparently the number of teeth and their design that give the tensile strength to a zipper, not size of the teeth, and of course that's not hing to say about how it' sewn into the garment. Just repeats the need to buy using an encompassing label like EN13595 for any type of supposed protective garment.

[Global Rider]

I've always found this hilarious too. While that's the most obvious example of buyer-bias, we shouldn't forget things like: "My bike is much faster after an oil change with X oil," "My new slip-on added at least 10 horsepower," and "These levers make me much faster!"

I already mentioned those and yes, its totally hilarious.  

Actually, if some riders lost 30 pounds of fat, they'd get better performance results over the slip-on that really didn't add any horsepower. Not only do you not spend money, you save some, get more performance and feel better. A win x 4 scenario.

But farkle acquisition in most cases is nothing more than filling some need due to boredom. They farkle the bike out, get bored, sell it and then start all over again with another bike.  

[jschmidt]

I already mentioned those and yes, its totally hilarious.  

Actually, if some riders lost 30 pounds of fat, they'd get better performance results over the slip-on that really didn't add any horsepower. Not only do you not spend money, you save some, get more performance and feel better. A win x 4 scenario.

But farkle acquisition in most cases is nothing more than filling some need due to boredom. They farkle the bike out, get bored, sell it and then start all over again with another bike.  

It's OK to have a hobby. Making it more important than a leisure activity is what leads to fuzzy thinking.

[1moreroad]

But farkle acquisition in most cases is nothing more than filling some need due to boredom. They farkle the bike out, get bored, sell it and then start all over again with another bike.

The opposite is true, too.  Someone purchases some bike item and then needs to rationalize that purchase as being noticeably better after spending all their $$ on it.

It's OK to have a hobby. Making it more important than a leisure activity is what leads to fuzzy thinking.

 

[Global Rider]

It's OK to have a hobby. Making it more important than a leisure activity is what leads to fuzzy thinking.

If you call farkling, a hobby. I'd sooner spend my money wisely to get the most out of the limited amount. But on the subject of hobbies...

Motorcycling...to some its a phase, to some its a hobby and to some, a passion.

[Global Rider]

The opposite is true, too.  Someone purchases some bike item and then needs to rationalize that purchase as being noticeably better after spending all their $$ on it.

Of course! Few can admit to being a fool by being sucked in by ads resulting in buying a product that doesn't deliver, and even worse, as you've mentioned, if they've spent $$ on it. Its fun to hear them defend their purchase to the death on some of the threads.

[RickC1957]

  All I know....is everyone and his little brother told me HELD gloves were the cats meow...and  $155 later I have come to the conclusion they SUCK....I'll remember that lesson....and buy for MY comfort and on MY budget Funny I always did great buying high quality gear on a budget.