[CBR929RE]

So I was checking out some webstores and came up the Spidi Back Warrior back protector. Item
it comes in a lot of sizes but I'm kind of confused by them. Each height range has 3 different sizes. So if I wanted the one for 4ft9-5ft3 there's medium, large and xl to choose out of. so does that mean the medium is for people closer to 4'9" and the xl for closer to 5'3"? also I'm on the bubble being right around 5'3"-5'4" so should I go with the smaller 4ft9-5ft3 one or the 5ft3-5ft7?
anyone have any experience with this protector? it seems like it protects very well. and appears to meet CE level 2 protection standards. any other reccomendations on back protectors?

[license2ill]

It's a decent choice, and I'm glad Spidi has gone the route of making a better performing product, as a test of the former Warrior-badged piece in a French magazine showed it transmitting 20kN. THey advertize this one with actual numbers, 7.8kN for the CE average, putting it into the Level 2 range, but there are a couple that I've seen numbers for that beat it in the numbers, and are less expensive. The T-Pro Forcefiled(also now branded as the Joe Rocket Speedmaster) I've seen shown in numerous magazine tests at 6.5kN, the BMW vest at 4.5kN, Velocity Gear claims an uncomfirmed 4.9kN, and the old Knox X1 showed 6.6kN in that French mag article. I think those all can be had for around $150 or less.

The next questions become comfort and use. The T-Pro, BMW, and Velocity Gear pieces are all multiple impact capable, whereas many options are single impact-use. The single impact pieces are usually made with a honeycomb or EPS core that is permanently crushed with impact, where the multiple impact capable pieces use a nitrile foams and Astrosorb. The honeybomb and EPS core pieces are obviously more fragile, and typically bulkier and/or stiffer. I'm not sure if the Warrior uses EPS foam internally, which is very light in comparison, as light weight is something they mention heavily in their blurbs, but don't mention the exact materials. From a durability or reliability standpoint and value, that's another consideration.

As for the sizing, that is confusing, maybe it's a mistake? Either way, the CE standard(EN1621-2) requires a minimum coverage area based on the length of the protector itself, and proportional in all other lines, in the shape of a "t", and proportional for back length within the sizing for an outer garment. Not exactly sure how the sizing within the standard guidelines were developed, but I believe it's likely part of similar compromises that allowed some existing products that may not provide the largest coverage area, especially through the shoulder blades and lower back to be approved without modification or redesigns. Namely those made by Alpinestars and Dainese, as apparently those companies were majorly reluctant to devlop new items that met the medically-backed recommendations for proper force transmission, which ultimately led to the compromises of levels based on the froce transmission allowance, rather than impact energy range capabilities during the development of the standard.