The impact energy in your test (assuming you just dropped the weight) is ~98 joules. Impact velocity is ~15km/h. It is important to note that usual impact speeds exceed 30km/h and the mass is way greater than 2-3kg/cm squared. While your test shows that armor makes a difference, it does not paint an accurate picture of what damage occurs at real life speeds. A more accurate measurement would be to drop that 10kg weight from 4-5+ meters and see the result on a ballistic gel dummy with bones and everything, wearing armor.
@waterspark - Thanks for the comment and calculations, I take it the figures are for the 2 kg / 3 m drop? As mentioned the test is for a comparison and not a massively scientific endevour. Unfortunately I experienced a real life impact at appx 25 mph / 40 kph / 11 ms-1 which saw me break a few bones on unarmoured parts and due to a shear effect one that was armoured. I have also had a couple of minor dinks where my armoured elbow, shoulder, hip and knee hit the deck and I wasn't even bruised [apart from one time where a 'friend' then ran over my leg]. I don't have either the facilities for a 5 m drop or the budget for a set of ballistic gel dummies at £300+ a pop for torsos, it would be nice if I had to redo the testing. The 'Beaker' to my 'Professor Bunsen Honeydew' was unwilling for me to drop the 2 kg weight onto his arm from 3 m for some reason so the tests were done as described.
@@TheRantyRider Armor isn't "does nothing". It does absorb SOME energy. Issue is that it doesn't even remotely absorbe enough, to ASSUREDLY keep people safe if they land badly. It will still reduce the damage somwhat. Keep in mind that energy of moving body is propoeritonal to velcity squared.
@martonlerant5672 - Thanks for the comment. No armour that could be reasonably incorporated into riding kit could prevent injury in any circumstance, my accident [see other comments] could only have less injuries if I had left home a minute later. I doubt that every motorcycle accident will need armour that will stop a bone being broken, but any reduction in the energy transfer can reduce or eliminate injury. I'm aware that kinetic energy is ½mv² but the film is a qualitive rather than a quantitive comparison. Given the option of nothing except a couple [at best] mm of leather vs leather and armour that will absorb some, if not all of the impact I will go for mitigation any time. As per my closing comments it is up to the rider to decide, as it is in warm weather for them to decide that trainers, shorts and a T-shirt paired with a multi-hundred pound helmet is a good form of protection rather than full body covering riding kit.
@martonlerant5672 yeah a few youtubers have got their knickers in a twist over f9s comments like this youtuber in their blind ignorance have completely missed the point of the video and done a reply that's not a representation of anything other then dropping a 3k weight on the floor.
@anti-cheaterchannels2153 - Thanks for taking the time to comment. I took a while to film this as a reply to Ryan, and rather than going off on a 'you must wear body armour' rant I tried to show that it will mitigate an impact. The weights I used were 2 kg and 10 kg rather than the 3 kg you mention and as per the film and other comments are not a scientific study and qualitive rather than quantative. Ryan's comments that the manufacturers base their armour on the minimum requirements are appropriate, as is the fact that car manufacuturers will meet the minimum safety standards for thier products to comply with legislative requirements. I hope that you don't think that I have made this in 'blind ignorance', I was showing that an impact is mitigated by armour rather than completely eliminated. I have had the unfortunate experience of an impact where I ended up having metal implants and the armour saved my joints in the most part. I will continue to wear armour as it will reduce the impact energy if I have another dink, I will also wear a helmet, gloves and boots as all of these will help in the event of an 'off'. I could not show truly high energy impacts on realistic ballistic gel and simulated bone items due to cost and needing a lab to do it in. Having walked away from high speed track crashes, one of which I was also run over by a following bike I would wear the best protection there is. As I mention, the choice of armour or not is down to the individual, in the UK we have to wear an approved helmet only, anything else is optinal. Having to give first aid to skinned hands to a rider that had a slow speed dink while not wearing gloves because 'it is a warm day' makes me even more certain that protection is best.
Thank you very much for this. I have put the armor in my gear to the test over and over through the years in lower speed offroad crashes and I can definitely attest to how it takes what might be a smashed knee, bruised shoulder or broken elbow and reduces it to a "walk it off" level. While I agree with F9 that the foam armor isn't going to do much at a 60 mph crash into a concrete barrier, to me Ryan did a disservice to the motorcycle community by not pointing out this detail well at all. The author of the study RyanF9 cites even has come out and said that F9's interpretation of the data was incorrect. I used to be a huge F9 fan, but their advice has taken a huge nosedive lately in favor of "hot takes" to get views.
@Spoonboy79 - Thanks for the comment. One thing I didn't like about Ryan's film is the lack of links to the quoted sources, as someone who studied physics he knows better than to not quote data sources. I'm a bit ambivalent about the film, if it wasn't from FortNine I would have dismissed it as clickbait, but even a good channel can have a bad day. If you have a link or source of the author's statement that Ryan's interpretation was incorrect can you post it here? Overall I like the FortNine channel, the film I am replying to may be a little misjudged, especially by the comments section. I hope it will continue to be entertaining, high quality and honest. Ryan's film is his take on the armour protection value, as is mine.
@experimentalcyborg - Thanks for the comment, I don't thnk that Ryan missed the point so much as tied to prove the one about the armour not being as protective as he would like while not paying attention to the reduction rather than elimination of injury.
I believe what Ryan was saying was that current body armour standards won't protect that much in high impact collisions. I think you sort of proved this too. And he made a personal choice about his own safety, his personal choice to toss the armour. And I think that is ultimately the point - it's our choice - and Ryan gave us information so we can make informed choices. Some of us wear full face helmets to latest standards, others wear DOT pot helmets. Some people wear full body hi-viz, others wear all black clothes. Questions you should ask: Where do I ride? How do I ride? What risks are there in those situations? Reasonable ways of mitigating those risks? I took the knee pads out of my riding pants. I left in the elbow pads of my riding shirt. I wear a black leather motorcycle jacket, ECE full face helmet, gloves, and a Helite airbag vest. My choice. However, I don't commute through busy traffic, I don't ride in bad low viz weather, I stick to mostly open road, low traffic roads. At the end of the day, you decide your comfort and risk tolerance.
@pnwdrifter5680 Thanks for the comment. I would have to search out all the figures and run the calcuations to see what sort of speed the impact tests are based on. With regard to the 'where', 'how' and 'what questions in my case it is: Where: On road and off, high speed roads, low speed roads, towns [under duress rather than my choice]. How: I would say appropriate for the conditions, but then everyone does. I am advanced trained though. What: There are always the unforseen risks. An empty country road can have deer run across it [ czcams.com/video/m1ssl3XawBs/video.html ]. I commented earlier about Ryan's choice of airbag without knee or elbow protection and the mitigation of impact by armour [even a leather jacket witout armour will absorb a little energy] and it is personal choice as to what is worn. If you rode with my mate Jim behind you a suit af armour is a good idea with his proclivity for running me over if I come off on a track.
@@TheRantyRider proclivity. Awesome! haha. Keep the rubber on the road. Yeah, off road is a totally different beast. For. me, that's lots of hard armour, and a neck brace.
Some time ago I went with a couple of mates to motocross school - big boots, helmet and thin kit. as road riders we were pitifuly slow until we saw some clamshell chest and back armour, the psychological effect of wearing something that is designed for stone protection meant that we rode faster.
@pnwdrifter5680 - There is truth in that. While I don't ride any differently in one piece leathers, two piece leathers, textiles or 'lower half in overalls 200 yard post ride check' being without anthing that felt protective was a very strange feeling. Even with the kit I was pitifully slow and fell off a lot!
Great video, I love when people do their own science. Quick question on your results for the body armour, do you think using packing foam would miss represent your results? By that I mean that bone is brittle, packing foam is elastic (to a point) and so potentially the impact with the body armour is being masked by being under the elastic limit of the foam. That doesnt mean that the body armour does nothing, it clearly does in your test, its more a case of its quite hard to compare the damage done to foam to that which would occur to bone. I dont know how you could test to solve this problem, maybe test using ceramic tiles underneath a very thin layer of foam to mimic bone under a thin layer of muscle/skin? Either way great video!
@jacobc6482 - Thanks for the comment. The packing foam was used purely to see if there was any difference as it's a control, as was the wood under the foam and both are more flexible than the drive I did the tests on. I was thinking of getting a leg of lamb or similar to show the damage, but the problem is being sure when it is that the bone breaks. I also considered just a bone from the local butcher but again, I would need a few to avoid fatigue failure of the bone through repeated testing. The test is qualative rather than quantitive, there is a difference that can be seen but there is so much more that can be done in a lab by people that have the right kit. To be honest I thought that there would be some damage to the foam even with the armour, and if I could get a more stable platform I would have dropped the 10 kg weight from greater heights as well. The damage to the wood showed that considerable force was passed through the foam in the 'no armour' tests. I can report through experience that level 1 armour protected my shoulder and elbow joints in an accident in 2017, my humerous broke between the armour. Due to the nature of the accident my femur fractured at the neck, but due to the shear forces involved no amount of armour would have prevented this. The mid femur and tibia breaks were also rotational and unarmoured.
@@TheRantyRider Thanks for the responce! I definatly agree armour helps alot, I find it really bulky most of the time which is anoying. From what I've seen the best thing available (other than a good helmet) is an airbag backpack that has armour built into the backpack and an airbag that protects the neck.
@jacobc6482 - thanks for the commnet. I'm not completely convinced by airbag backpacks as they may get less effective if not worn properly. Integrated into jackets they are less likely to move as they can't be worn too loosely. Of course in the event of a multi vehicle collision the best thing would be the driver or rider paying attention, I speak from experience!
@briholt100 Thanks for the comment, as mentioned elsewhere in my 'big' accident my arm broke between the two sets of armour protecting my elbow and shoulder. The 3 m test would be a moderate highside onto the ground,
@@TheRantyRider well, yeah. Any high side will put you in the air head first. I'm thinking of all the ways one can fall, many would be cushioned by armor. Not all.
@yusriyahbagheri8843 - Thanks for the suggestion, I should have thought of that. The foam did spring back in the same way that flesh would and the wood underneath showed signs of damage in the unarmoured test. The foam was also pierced in the unarmoured tests. I may redo the tests in future but my new neighbour already doubts my sanity after seeing me up a ladder dropping lead weights onto a bit of foam.
Besides being an April joke, Rian did not tell anyone has to give up wearing body armor. Just that they are not making the job as good as they should do. Of course wearing any protection is absorbing shocks better than bare skin. But the benefit of wearing the "regular" armor is really not up to the cost, discomfort and pretensions of the manufacturer...
@yveslegrand9826 - Thanks for the comment. Indeed Ryan did not advise anyone to give up armour, I perhaps could have been clearer in the film about that. Manufacturers can make the armour more protective, but this would be make kit far bulkier and less flexible than it is with the current armour installed, you mention that the current armour is uncomfortable, so imagine wearing a race spec armour not just on your back but on all your joints as well. I did find it a bit odd that Ryan showed what looked like elbow or shoulder armour and said he wouldn't wear it but wears an inflatable backpack. In a rolling/tumbling accident the elbows and knees can wallop the ground with some force and I would rather these be protected, if only a bit.
@arpytrooper2604 - if you look at FortNine's airbag film, Ryan is wearing a torso and pelvis set, but then in the body armour film says that he wouldn't wear something that would protect his elbows and knees. It's a bit like wearing a helmet but no gloves and trainers instead of boots, you are emphasising protection for one area but neglecting others. In the film 'Faster' the head medic for MotoGP is interviewed and says that the injuries have migrated from the body and head to the hands and feet as protection has improved. Given the choice between a broken hand or a broken arm I would go for the hand - and this is from expirience. No amount of protection will eliminate injuries, but reduction of harm is a benefit in the majority of incidents. I wear armour in my jacket and trousers, boots, gloves and a flip-up helmet year round, all of which have helped protect me in an accident a number of years ago.
The impact energy in your test (assuming you just dropped the weight) is ~98 joules. Impact velocity is ~15km/h. It is important to note that usual impact speeds exceed 30km/h and the mass is way greater than 2-3kg/cm squared. While your test shows that armor makes a difference, it does not paint an accurate picture of what damage occurs at real life speeds. A more accurate measurement would be to drop that 10kg weight from 4-5+ meters and see the result on a ballistic gel dummy with bones and everything, wearing armor.
@waterspark - Thanks for the comment and calculations, I take it the figures are for the 2 kg / 3 m drop? As mentioned the test is for a comparison and not a massively scientific endevour. Unfortunately I experienced a real life impact at appx 25 mph / 40 kph / 11 ms-1 which saw me break a few bones on unarmoured parts and due to a shear effect one that was armoured. I have also had a couple of minor dinks where my armoured elbow, shoulder, hip and knee hit the deck and I wasn't even bruised [apart from one time where a 'friend' then ran over my leg].
I don't have either the facilities for a 5 m drop or the budget for a set of ballistic gel dummies at £300+ a pop for torsos, it would be nice if I had to redo the testing. The 'Beaker' to my 'Professor Bunsen Honeydew' was unwilling for me to drop the 2 kg weight onto his arm from 3 m for some reason so the tests were done as described.
@@TheRantyRider
Armor isn't "does nothing".
It does absorb SOME energy. Issue is that it doesn't even remotely absorbe enough, to ASSUREDLY keep people safe if they land badly. It will still reduce the damage somwhat.
Keep in mind that energy of moving body is propoeritonal to velcity squared.
@martonlerant5672 - Thanks for the comment. No armour that could be reasonably incorporated into riding kit could prevent injury in any circumstance, my accident [see other comments] could only have less injuries if I had left home a minute later. I doubt that every motorcycle accident will need armour that will stop a bone being broken, but any reduction in the energy transfer can reduce or eliminate injury.
I'm aware that kinetic energy is ½mv² but the film is a qualitive rather than a quantitive comparison. Given the option of nothing except a couple [at best] mm of leather vs leather and armour that will absorb some, if not all of the impact I will go for mitigation any time.
As per my closing comments it is up to the rider to decide, as it is in warm weather for them to decide that trainers, shorts and a T-shirt paired with a multi-hundred pound helmet is a good form of protection rather than full body covering riding kit.
@martonlerant5672 yeah a few youtubers have got their knickers in a twist over f9s comments like this youtuber in their blind ignorance have completely missed the point of the video and done a reply that's not a representation of anything other then dropping a 3k weight on the floor.
@anti-cheaterchannels2153 - Thanks for taking the time to comment. I took a while to film this as a reply to Ryan, and rather than going off on a 'you must wear body armour' rant I tried to show that it will mitigate an impact. The weights I used were 2 kg and 10 kg rather than the 3 kg you mention and as per the film and other comments are not a scientific study and qualitive rather than quantative.
Ryan's comments that the manufacturers base their armour on the minimum requirements are appropriate, as is the fact that car manufacuturers will meet the minimum safety standards for thier products to comply with legislative requirements.
I hope that you don't think that I have made this in 'blind ignorance', I was showing that an impact is mitigated by armour rather than completely eliminated. I have had the unfortunate experience of an impact where I ended up having metal implants and the armour saved my joints in the most part.
I will continue to wear armour as it will reduce the impact energy if I have another dink, I will also wear a helmet, gloves and boots as all of these will help in the event of an 'off'. I could not show truly high energy impacts on realistic ballistic gel and simulated bone items due to cost and needing a lab to do it in. Having walked away from high speed track crashes, one of which I was also run over by a following bike I would wear the best protection there is.
As I mention, the choice of armour or not is down to the individual, in the UK we have to wear an approved helmet only, anything else is optinal. Having to give first aid to skinned hands to a rider that had a slow speed dink while not wearing gloves because 'it is a warm day' makes me even more certain that protection is best.
The ending joke killed me. Nice video, have a like
@vinylattic6901 - Thanks for the comment and the like.
Thank you very much for this. I have put the armor in my gear to the test over and over through the years in lower speed offroad crashes and I can definitely attest to how it takes what might be a smashed knee, bruised shoulder or broken elbow and reduces it to a "walk it off" level. While I agree with F9 that the foam armor isn't going to do much at a 60 mph crash into a concrete barrier, to me Ryan did a disservice to the motorcycle community by not pointing out this detail well at all.
The author of the study RyanF9 cites even has come out and said that F9's interpretation of the data was incorrect. I used to be a huge F9 fan, but their advice has taken a huge nosedive lately in favor of "hot takes" to get views.
@Spoonboy79 - Thanks for the comment. One thing I didn't like about Ryan's film is the lack of links to the quoted sources, as someone who studied physics he knows better than to not quote data sources.
I'm a bit ambivalent about the film, if it wasn't from FortNine I would have dismissed it as clickbait, but even a good channel can have a bad day. If you have a link or source of the author's statement that Ryan's interpretation was incorrect can you post it here?
Overall I like the FortNine channel, the film I am replying to may be a little misjudged, especially by the comments section. I hope it will continue to be entertaining, high quality and honest. Ryan's film is his take on the armour protection value, as is mine.
Yeah, i think F9 doesn't miss often but when they do it's pretty badly lol
@experimentalcyborg - Thanks for the comment, I don't thnk that Ryan missed the point so much as tied to prove the one about the armour not being as protective as he would like while not paying attention to the reduction rather than elimination of injury.
I believe what Ryan was saying was that current body armour standards won't protect that much in high impact collisions. I think you sort of proved this too. And he made a personal choice about his own safety, his personal choice to toss the armour.
And I think that is ultimately the point - it's our choice - and Ryan gave us information so we can make informed choices. Some of us wear full face helmets to latest standards, others wear DOT pot helmets. Some people wear full body hi-viz, others wear all black clothes.
Questions you should ask: Where do I ride? How do I ride? What risks are there in those situations? Reasonable ways of mitigating those risks?
I took the knee pads out of my riding pants. I left in the elbow pads of my riding shirt. I wear a black leather motorcycle jacket, ECE full face helmet, gloves, and a Helite airbag vest. My choice. However, I don't commute through busy traffic, I don't ride in bad low viz weather, I stick to mostly open road, low traffic roads.
At the end of the day, you decide your comfort and risk tolerance.
@pnwdrifter5680 Thanks for the comment. I would have to search out all the figures and run the calcuations to see what sort of speed the impact tests are based on.
With regard to the 'where', 'how' and 'what questions in my case it is:
Where: On road and off, high speed roads, low speed roads, towns [under duress rather than my choice].
How: I would say appropriate for the conditions, but then everyone does. I am advanced trained though.
What: There are always the unforseen risks. An empty country road can have deer run across it [ czcams.com/video/m1ssl3XawBs/video.html ].
I commented earlier about Ryan's choice of airbag without knee or elbow protection and the mitigation of impact by armour [even a leather jacket witout armour will absorb a little energy] and it is personal choice as to what is worn. If you rode with my mate Jim behind you a suit af armour is a good idea with his proclivity for running me over if I come off on a track.
@@TheRantyRider proclivity. Awesome! haha. Keep the rubber on the road. Yeah, off road is a totally different beast. For. me, that's lots of hard armour, and a neck brace.
Some time ago I went with a couple of mates to motocross school - big boots, helmet and thin kit. as road riders we were pitifuly slow until we saw some clamshell chest and back armour, the psychological effect of wearing something that is designed for stone protection meant that we rode faster.
@@TheRantyRider risk homeostasis - more kit we wear, the crazier we ride.
@pnwdrifter5680 - There is truth in that. While I don't ride any differently in one piece leathers, two piece leathers, textiles or 'lower half in overalls 200 yard post ride check' being without anthing that felt protective was a very strange feeling.
Even with the kit I was pitifully slow and fell off a lot!
Great video, I love when people do their own science. Quick question on your results for the body armour, do you think using packing foam would miss represent your results?
By that I mean that bone is brittle, packing foam is elastic (to a point) and so potentially the impact with the body armour is being masked by being under the elastic limit of the foam.
That doesnt mean that the body armour does nothing, it clearly does in your test, its more a case of its quite hard to compare the damage done to foam to that which would occur to bone.
I dont know how you could test to solve this problem, maybe test using ceramic tiles underneath a very thin layer of foam to mimic bone under a thin layer of muscle/skin?
Either way great video!
@jacobc6482 - Thanks for the comment. The packing foam was used purely to see if there was any difference as it's a control, as was the wood under the foam and both are more flexible than the drive I did the tests on. I was thinking of getting a leg of lamb or similar to show the damage, but the problem is being sure when it is that the bone breaks. I also considered just a bone from the local butcher but again, I would need a few to avoid fatigue failure of the bone through repeated testing.
The test is qualative rather than quantitive, there is a difference that can be seen but there is so much more that can be done in a lab by people that have the right kit. To be honest I thought that there would be some damage to the foam even with the armour, and if I could get a more stable platform I would have dropped the 10 kg weight from greater heights as well.
The damage to the wood showed that considerable force was passed through the foam in the 'no armour' tests. I can report through experience that level 1 armour protected my shoulder and elbow joints in an accident in 2017, my humerous broke between the armour. Due to the nature of the accident my femur fractured at the neck, but due to the shear forces involved no amount of armour would have prevented this. The mid femur and tibia breaks were also rotational and unarmoured.
@@TheRantyRider Thanks for the responce! I definatly agree armour helps alot, I find it really bulky most of the time which is anoying. From what I've seen the best thing available (other than a good helmet) is an airbag backpack that has armour built into the backpack and an airbag that protects the neck.
@jacobc6482 - thanks for the commnet. I'm not completely convinced by airbag backpacks as they may get less effective if not worn properly. Integrated into jackets they are less likely to move as they can't be worn too loosely.
Of course in the event of a multi vehicle collision the best thing would be the driver or rider paying attention, I speak from experience!
Yeah, armor is good for the distance dropped from about riding hip height to the ground. That's gravity.
But at 60 mph Into a car armor won't help.
@briholt100 Thanks for the comment, as mentioned elsewhere in my 'big' accident my arm broke between the two sets of armour protecting my elbow and shoulder. The 3 m test would be a moderate highside onto the ground,
@@TheRantyRider well, yeah. Any high side will put you in the air head first.
I'm thinking of all the ways one can fall, many would be cushioned by armor. Not all.
@briholt100 - Indeed so, there are freak accidents that defeat all sorts of safety features.
Would be really cool if you did the same testing but with something like a modeling clay to show the permanent deformation.
@yusriyahbagheri8843 - Thanks for the suggestion, I should have thought of that. The foam did spring back in the same way that flesh would and the wood underneath showed signs of damage in the unarmoured test. The foam was also pierced in the unarmoured tests.
I may redo the tests in future but my new neighbour already doubts my sanity after seeing me up a ladder dropping lead weights onto a bit of foam.
Besides being an April joke, Rian did not tell anyone has to give up wearing body armor. Just that they are not making the job as good as they should do.
Of course wearing any protection is absorbing shocks better than bare skin. But the benefit of wearing the "regular" armor is really not up to the cost, discomfort and pretensions of the manufacturer...
@yveslegrand9826 - Thanks for the comment. Indeed Ryan did not advise anyone to give up armour, I perhaps could have been clearer in the film about that. Manufacturers can make the armour more protective, but this would be make kit far bulkier and less flexible than it is with the current armour installed, you mention that the current armour is uncomfortable, so imagine wearing a race spec armour not just on your back but on all your joints as well.
I did find it a bit odd that Ryan showed what looked like elbow or shoulder armour and said he wouldn't wear it but wears an inflatable backpack. In a rolling/tumbling accident the elbows and knees can wallop the ground with some force and I would rather these be protected, if only a bit.
@@TheRantyRider why is it odd that he said he wouldn't wear one thing and then goes on to not wear that thing and instead wear something else
@arpytrooper2604 - if you look at FortNine's airbag film, Ryan is wearing a torso and pelvis set, but then in the body armour film says that he wouldn't wear something that would protect his elbows and knees. It's a bit like wearing a helmet but no gloves and trainers instead of boots, you are emphasising protection for one area but neglecting others.
In the film 'Faster' the head medic for MotoGP is interviewed and says that the injuries have migrated from the body and head to the hands and feet as protection has improved. Given the choice between a broken hand or a broken arm I would go for the hand - and this is from expirience.
No amount of protection will eliminate injuries, but reduction of harm is a benefit in the majority of incidents. I wear armour in my jacket and trousers, boots, gloves and a flip-up helmet year round, all of which have helped protect me in an accident a number of years ago.