[Elias]

Forgot where I was reading it, but I read that foam or a ‘soft’ back protector is safer than hard shell back armor because in an impact, the hard armor will directly transfer the impact, but foam will slow it down (even if it is slight). I just got to thinking about how it makes sense, but I feel that hard back armor would make me feel more safe…I mean, soft armor isn’t exactly a twin size mattress strapped to your back.

My rationality is that the hard armor will help protect my spines curve, and in an impact my back wouldn’t snap in half as easy because the hard armor maintains its shape, whereas soft armor folds like a mouse pad.

Thoughts…

[eon]

I posted a link recently to a clothing company that makes bike gear with soft armor. The guy who runs that place make vehement arguments against hard armor. He argues it does not absorb the impact but simply spreads it around. That does not sound too bad to me. Would you rather be hit with a hammer or a hammer and a nail? Having a combination of both would seem like the best solution. Spread the force around and then absorb that lesser force.

If you are looking for a back protector (and have faith in the CE testing methodology, that guy does not), then the best one around just now is the Forcefield Pro Sub4.

[Author]

Posts