Miles By Motorcycle
established 11 years ago
Looking for Woman's GearSubscribe to this blog RSS Feed
    You must be logged in and belong to this group to post to this forum.
    1 of 27
    AGrip
    12 years ago
    I'm looking for an armored jacket and armored pants. I don't want to pay too much, but want good protection. Has anyone heard of Joe Rocket gear? I really like the look of this jacket:
    1
    Unfortunately, I'm lanky, so standard female stuff doesn't always fit me well.
    Does anyone know where I could find this brand gear locally to try it on? How about suggestions for other gear brands?
    2 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    I'm not a fan of Joe Rocket Gear mostly because they cater to the squids in a big way. It's typically mid-range gear. I haven't read any crash reports on it but as long as it has elbow, back and shoulder CE armor and reasonable stitching it'll likely be better in a crash than the old Hein Gericke.

    I would focus on pants first however. The old leather jacket is still plenty good and I've seen two guys fall hard on them and walk away with just bruises.
    3 of 27
    AGrip
    12 years ago
    I'm looking at getting both pants and a jacket, and want them to be able to zip the two together, and have them not look too mismatched.
    4 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    yea, exactly.

    I'm just saying that if you can't get both at the same time, get the pants first since you've got access to a decent jacket.

    But if you can get both, definitely do.
    5 of 27
    AGrip
    12 years ago
    I like that it has an extended back, since the other ones seemed a bit short. Maybe I'll see if Heyser Cycle Center has some of the female stuff I can try on.
    Honestly, I don't much care who they cater to. Me wearing it will make the squids look bad.
    6 of 27
    buffalo
    12 years ago
    You might want to check out Olympia which had a fairly good women's range last time I looked. Bob's carries them. If you find something you like there are good discounts and closeouts to be had now that we're getting to the end of "fair weather rider" season
    7 of 27
    jpcfjr
    12 years ago
    There is nothing wrong with Joe Rocket gear. I have a jr jacket and boots from when I started riding in '08. Since then they've really upped their game from what I've seen.

    As to who they market to, who cares. Get what fits you within your budget. Coleman Powersports has their stuff in stock. I'm going there today to order that damn Sena torture device so I will price that jacket for you.

    Consider a tour master leather jacket as well to get a longer riding season.
    8 of 27
    Yun Lung Yang
    12 years ago
    River road is a good company for women riding gear. Revzilla and motorcycle gear.com has sale on jackets etc.

    ICON also makes good looking women gear, but they are abit on the pricey side. I would suggest possibly going with armored jeans and a leather jacket.
    9 of 27
    Yun Lung Yang
    12 years ago
    10 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    That River Road jacket does not have CE or TF armor, it uses something called EVA Foam Armor which I have never heard of but seems, based on a quick google search, to be used in crafting.

    Has anyone heard of EVA Foam Armor or seen any crash test reports?

    Generally speaking you want to have something with CE or TF armor in the shoulders, elbows and back.

    For pants you want something that has CE or TF armor cover the knees and hip bones.

    Most low to mid-range jackets will come with a foam back protector which you then swap out for a real CE back protector.

    Who a manufacturer markets to matters because that influences where they spend their dollars and effort.

    For instance, Harley markets to Harley riders. Corner clearance, braking, acceleration, etc are secondary to other considerations for the market they target.

    So it does matter. A lot. The primary point to gear, the reason we wear it, is to survive a crash with minimal injuries.

    Back in the day, Joe Rocket marketed to the squid poseur crowd which means they marketed to people that are not very knowledgeable, discerning or technical. So there was no point in building safer more competent and serious gear for them. "All show, no go".

    I have the same problem with many of the producers of "stylish" gear. I just have no confidence that it'll do well in a crash.

    I haven't been able to find crash test reports on Joe Rocket after doing a bit of searching. Back in the day, they were pretty bad.

    But, as Josh mentions, it looks like maybe they have stepped up their game a bit as I'm not seeing the same quantity of laughably bad "gear" that they used to sell. When comparing jacket prices, you'll need to remember that some include more substantial back protection than others. I haven't looked at this jacket, but comparing the descriptions to analogous TourMaster descriptions I would suspect the back pad they include will not be adequate.

    I wonder how much they have to spend for the silly Honda logo they've put on there.
    11 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    As Duncan mentions, Olympia makes gear for serious riders. Wasn't Ali wearing Olympia gear?
    12 of 27
    rshaug
    12 years ago
    RevZilla has a large selection and very knowledgable staff who love to help. Drop them a note with what you're thinking and they can make suggestions. The also have a lot in stock in their store (maybe worth a day trip ride up to their store in Philly???). As to the Joe Rocket thing...my warm weather pants are JR and so are my current gloves and both are terrific. It's the quality of materials, contruction, and fit that count. I also have 2 FirstGear jackets (including the Kathmandu -waterproof- that is my most worn), and Alpinestars leather. Every manufacturer has made some crap, and even Icon makes some good stuff. Keep an open mind and get quality that fits.
    13 of 27
    rshaug
    12 years ago
    Yermo wrote:

    Has anyone heard of EVA Foam Armor or seen any crash test reports?


    Yermo, My Kathmandu and Aplinestars gear have EVA pads. Next ride you can pull them out and take a look. Great stuff...light and flexible until impact.
    14 of 27
    Jay
    12 years ago
    Yes, Ali loves her Olympia jacket and it was an absolute steal for $35 on the clearance rack at Bobs a few years ago. Not sure what type of armor it has, though.
    15 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    rshaug wrote:
    As to the Joe Rocket thing...my warm weather pants are JR and so are my current gloves and both are terrific. It's the quality of materials, contruction, and fit that count.


    I've never associated JR with quality in any measure, which is why I'm so negative about them and similar brands. But it looks like it's a case of the world having changed around me and, once again, me not noticing. Back in the day, which as I think about it was quite a bit longer ago than I thought, when I was last exploring gear, JR IMHO was unacceptably bad across the board. I guess I need to take a fresh look to see how they've stepped up their game.

    This has gotten me thinking more about branding, positioning, trust and how these affect engineering decisions. It dawned on me that early on in the development of a market brand matters because there are substantive differences between manufacturers. Mercedes Benz used to build substantially better cars than just about anyone else. That was their real brand. You paid your money and had the trust that the car was going to solve your problem better than a car produced by someone else. And it did, because it was a Mercedes and that brand meant something about the qualities of the product.

    But as market forces and economies of scale come into play and the market matures, substantive differences between manufacturers slowly disappear. Brand at that point begins to degrade into "style", for which I have little use. This is a problem that Mercedes is facing because we have gotten to the point where most cars are "good enough", even cars made in Korea. Once you get to this point, it really no longer matters who makes a given thing because there are few technical differences and it just becomes a matter of "identifying personally" with a given "style". This is the negative side of "branding".

    I suspect that's what's happening in the motorcycle gear market. Have we gotten to the point where most gear, even from the Hyundai's of the market, is "good enough" and I haven't noticed?

    I was thinking about bikes in this regard. I honestly can't tell you that I understand any real substantive differences between the big three Japanese manufacturers. They don't really have much of a separate identity in my mind. Kawasaki, edgy. Suzuki, fast. Honda, timid. Maybe? I do however still perceive a real difference between them and BMW. Somehow BMW has not allowed their "brand" to degrade into a "style", yet. Maybe this is why they continue to produce quirky yet extremely functional designs so that they are not, substantively, a cookie cutter commodity?

    So when I say brand matters, I am saying, by proxy, that quality matters. But if the world has changed and there is no substantive difference between manufacturers, then who ever builds whatever no longer matters and the value of brand disappears.

    This is one part of getting old that really sucks; you get a handle on a topic and then the world completely changes but you don't realize that your understanding is out of date.
    16 of 27
    Yun Lung Yang
    12 years ago
    I like to paint a greyer picture. Let's not dump style and function as mutually exclusive. While one may bend to function over form or form over function it is a spectrum not a extreme.

    Inbetween these variables are things on the spectrum that is subjective of one side to another. Is comfort a stylist element or a function element. Then we argue what is comfort for each individual in regard to motorcycle gear?

    Perceptually our relation to what is stylistic and what is function is also a matter of personal use and experience. To define such variable as the law is a bit of personal biases.

    What is necessary is best d etermine by the individual. Simply put. I find a lot of movies boring and regugitated bs from times before. But other younger people do not. Am I right ? No. Am I wrong? I would be if I discount the importance of what other value
    17 of 27
    rshaug
    12 years ago
    LOL, I have to take you for a ride in my Hyundai Genesis. Mercedes has not been building the best cars for years now. They imploded in quality about 10 years ago and have been struggling to recover. Toyota, once the crown jewel of build quality, has not held the top position for some time. Memory works both ways: you remember Mercedes as a quality brand probably from their cars of the 80's through the mid to latter 90's (versus the crap they produced at the turn of the century); and you're thinking of Hyundai from when they built vomitous little cars. Neither generalization is true today.

    Your comment "most cars are 'good enough', even cars made in Korea" had me laughing. A substantial number of cars made in Korea today are built far better than cars from Japan or Europe. When we were car shopping in 2009 I looked at Lexus, BMW (had one, liked it), Audi, Volkswagon, Cadillac (like the CTS-V), etc. A friend of mine said " I know you aren't brand fixated, you should check out the Genesis". We did, and we bought it. It is both human nature and the wonderful job that marketing sciences does that has us equate branding with a meaning beyond the name of the company

    Religion and Brand Preference are amazingly close, and it could be easily argued that they are in fact the same. A devout person will defend their religion based almost entirely on the dogma of their church and a set of historical documents outlining past achievement and presented in a particular way to elicit boith response and a sense of belonging. Or is that marketing? It can be hard to tell the difference (hint, there isn't a difference). Thus, the feelings and strong preferences you may have towards BMW, Mercedes, or Michelin are in fact the same that a fundamentalist Christian has towards Jesus and the Bible. Even the "surprise" that other brands which you may have previously thought "inferior" has a direct parallel in religion: "Wow, Jews/Christians/Muslims/Agnostics/Atheists/Wiccans/Etc DON'T eat their young? Who knew?"

    A lot of really smart people spend a lot of really substantial money, time, and research making sure that we feel exactly as we are supposed to about the brand images being created. That is why sports car manufacturers have started developping ways to create better engine sounds (BMW actually "plays" nice engine and exaust noise through the car's stereo), and why Mercedes uses heavy doors even though high-streangth steels and composits would be stronger and lighter (a hallmark of a "well built" Mercedes is the vault-like sound and heft of the door closing, though us engineers know that has nothing whatsoever to do with how strong or capable the door is...right?).

    Brand and Market sciences are really cool, in a "let's make the bald monkey dance" kind of way. Fun stuff.
    18 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    rshaug wrote:
    Your comment "most cars are 'good enough', even cars made in Korea" had me laughing. A substantial number of cars made in Korea today are built far better than cars from Japan or Europe.


    Yea, I need to do a better job of framing things. I was actually thinking back to the '50's and '60's with the Mercedes comment when differences in auto manufacturers were much more pronounced and you could actually buy truly horrible auto-mobiles. These days you are unlikely to buy a car that will not function. Back in the day, in this case 50 years ago, that was not the case.

    I was also specifically thinking about the ascendancy of Hyundai, which I've recently read about. But that makes my point. Cars are now complete commodities. It's very hard to buy a car that isn't "good enough" to get you around. It reduces to whatever your preference is. Sure maybe the windows fail, or you get an engine code, but in general cars now a days regardless of manufacturer are not actively dangerous.

    My comments on gear, which I did not frame as clearly as I should, is from the perspective not of "preference" or brand disloyalty but from the apparent misunderstanding that JR gear is no longer technically insufficient.

    Back in the day (10+ years ago?), and mostly what I had been basing my thinking on, was that I had been told by several sources, but did not verify myself, that JR gear was so technically inferior that it tended to disintegrate in crashes. In other words, it was actively insufficient for the task at hand when compared to other options available. So my comments were not about brand preference in the modern sense, but from the perspective that that brand did not meet minimum technical requirements. There have been so many other brands out there that produce adequate gear that I never had occasion to loop back around and re-evaluate.

    I suspect this is true of many "brands" that I do business with. There isn't enough time in a life to do careful evaluation of everything.

    But we are now in a market of commodities which I had missed.

    This is the same problem we had in my own little company,
    Link #4859
    Yermo
    11 years ago

    Stock Charting, Portfolio Management and Trading Software for Windows

    Personal Stock Monitor is a stock market charting, portfolio management and trading platform for Windows.

    http://personalstockmonitor.com
    . In the early days, we were one of very few products on the market that actually worked. We sold like crazy because of a simply technical superiority, which in retrospect is probably one of the worst things that could have happened. We didn't understand the forces changing around us nor did we understand how the market was evolving and things were moving towards commoditization.

    rshaug wrote:
    We did, and we bought it. It is both human nature and the wonderful job that marketing sciences does that has us equate branding with a meaning beyond the name of the company :-)


    Yea, once what a brand reduces to commodity then the brand just becomes the name of the company and that's when brand science takes over.

    Hyundai has done an excellent job distancing itself from it's previous reputation of producing technically insufficient cars. It's quite impressive as they really are creating some interesting vehicles these days. I read one article predicting their break into the luxury market.

    <p class="fv-error">User not found</p>Religion and Brand Preference are amazingly close, and it could be easily argued that they are in fact the same. A devout person will defend their religion based almost entirely on the dogma of their church and a set of historical documents outlining past achievement and presented in a particular way to elicit boith response and a sense of belonging. Or is that marketing? It can be hard to tell the difference (hint, there isn't a difference). Thus, the feelings and strong preferences you may have towards BMW, Mercedes, or Michelin are in fact the same that a fundamentalist Christian has towards Jesus and the Bible. Even the "surprise" that other brands which you may have previously thought "inferior" has a direct parallel in religion: "Wow, Jews/Christians/Muslims/Agnostics/Atheists/Wiccans/Etc DON'T eat their young? Who knew?"


    Indeed. I agree and have thought the same. However, when there is a substantive difference in manufacturers, by which I mean, something you can measure and quantify it's different. Religion is just brand loyalty.

    You could say that my brand loyalty is more akin to scientific inquiry. Back in the day, 80's, Metzeler made some of the best street tires on the market. They dominated for technical reasons. If you wanted to be safe, you ran Metzelers. Most other tires were rock hard and frankly not adequate for the task. You could measure and directly experience the technical advantage. The first set of Michelin's I ran, i forget which model, on my '92 K100RS, were crap. They didn't stick worth a damn. They were terrible in the rain.

    It wasn't until the Alaska trip that I understood the tire world had changed. These days I suspect we're in the world of commodity tires as well. I run MIchelins not because they are technically superior but simply because they are good enough for me and I enjoy the cornering feel a bit better than the Metzelers on my particular bike. I don't believe Michelin's are significantly better or worse from a safety, longevity, rain traction or any other metric that I could measure than Metzelers. As a result, I really don't care what tires I run any more. I like the PR3's. There are probably other tires I would like as well.

    As for Mercedes, yea I won't buy one that's newer than the one I have. They don't solve the problemsof transportation any better than anyone else now. They are just a brand, which is sad because they used to build truly great cars.

    BMW? That may be religion but they still produce bikes that are technically different and more usable for my particular riding. If my riding needs change and thus my technical requirements, then I may choose another kind of bike.

    <p class="fv-error">User not found</p> A lot of really smart people spend a lot of really substantial money, time, and research making sure that we feel exactly as we are supposed to about the brand images being created. That is why sports car manufacturers have started developping ways to create better engine sounds (BMW actually "plays" nice engine and exaust noise through the car's stereo), and why Mercedes uses heavy doors even though high-streangth steels and composits would be stronger and lighter (a hallmark of a "well built" Mercedes is the vault-like sound and heft of the door closing, though us engineers know that has nothing whatsoever to do with how strong or capable the door is...right?).


    Indeed, or the special 'stoppers' lexus et al put in their doors to achieve the same artificial sound. Back in the day, the doors were the strongest made and had that sound. Now they keep them for historical branding reasons which goes to what I was saying. It's a world of "show", not "go". Brands are important in a world where "go" dominates, where the difference between one brand and another is the difference between solving your problem or not.

    And there-in lies my error. I was still stuck in the world where I would never let anyone who's skin I care about wear JR gear. But maybe the world has changed and it merits re-evaluation. To some degree, my time horizons are just too long.

    <p class="fv-error">User not found</p>Brand and Market sciences are really cool, in a "let's make the bald monkey dance" kind of way. Fun stuff.


    Indeed.
    19 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    Perceptually our relation to what is stylistic and what is function is also a matter of personal use and experience. To define such variable as the law is a bit of personal biases.


    There-in lies a problem. You buy gear to protect yourself in a crash. That is it. That's why it's called motorcycle gear.

    There are simple technical requirements for motorcycle gear that are not a matter of opinion.

    Motorcycle gear needs to:

    1. not disintegrate on pavement when you hit at highway speeds.

    2. protect your vulnerable breakable bits such as shoulders, head, elbows, hips, knees, spine.

    3. it needs to let you move freely enough so that it does not interfere with your operation of the bike.

    If these are 'preferences' that are not technical requirements, then why wear gear at all? Just wear clothes and let it be a fashion statement. Wearing gear sucks. It's uncomfortable, heavy, hot, etc. Should one wear gear just so one can have the appearance of a serious rider?

    If we live in a world where the technical difference between manufacturers is not substantive, (i.e. that your chances of walking away unhurt is the same regardless of the manufacturer, of similar types of gear, you choose) then it doesn't make any difference.

    Maybe now it's the case that any manufacturer is good enough and that all you have to decide is 'what kind' you want and then you just pick your form preference or lowest bidder regardless of brand. I dunno.

    Back in the day, the choice you made had a direct impact on how likely you were to walk away from a crash. I'm a big believer in context, and that is the context in which I was railing against JR gear. My error was not to articulate that context carefully.
    20 of 27
    Yun Lung Yang
    12 years ago
    ... You totally took one segmentof what I mention and created a black and white biases of me being stupid versus you being sensical. My whole point is just that. It's a gradient and it's not mutually exclusive. It's not that good looking gears have no protection or uncomfortable crap is always more protective. You also don't wear race gear on the road. If you prescribe to total protection the. You would wear extreme race gear all the time with full grain leather and not the top grain stuff from 90% of the mfg. you would also wear the most extreme racing boots. But you don't do that because you argue you ride on the street. But here lies my argument. It's a matter of personal use and experience.
    21 of 27
    jpcfjr
    12 years ago
    Meanwhile, somewhere in Maryland there is a young woman named Audrey curled up on the floor gently rocking back and forth and quietly weeping. Over and over she asks "why?", "why?"
    22 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    But you don't do that because you argue you ride on the street. But here lies my argument. It's a matter of personal use and experience.


    My apologies. I misunderstood and the last thing I want to do is step on any toes. As a contrived extreme example, I thought you were saying something akin to If some new rider said "I want to ride in assless chaps on the back of this sport bike because that's my style." you would think that's ok since form and function need to balance in this grey area and it's a matter of personal choice.

    To that I would disagree. I tell them "NO!" emphatically and show them road rash videos. No grey area.

    But I think you misunderstood my point.

    You could say my objection is that it's a matter of expectation. If you want to ride without gear, that's your business. Right? But you /choose/ to ride at that level of protection weighing the pros and cons. If you want to put style over function, that's your preference as well as long as you do not have the expectation you're protected when you aren't.

    More contrived examples to convey the context of my point. Consider a new rider who asks "should I buy this stylish brain bucket helmet that's neither DOT nor SNELL approved."? I suspect we would all agree that it's also no grey area. We would all say "no, that doesn't protect you".

    /That's/ the issue. If someone wants to make a style choice to take additional risk they need to do so consciously and not under the illusion that they are protecting themselves.

    From what I knew, JR gear is like having a helmet that's neither DOT nor SNELL approved. in other words, I was under what appears to be the mistaken understanding that their gear is complete crap and won't do anything to protect you in a crash. This is true of much of the "stylish" stuff out there. It just doesn't protect that well while letting people believe they are doing the "responsible" thing.

    And clearly, it looks like my information on JR was dated because, maybe, gear has improved to a degree where there isn't as much difference in manufacturers as there used to be.

    It was not my intention to step on any toes. I've seen quite a number of significant accidents. I've seen people who were wearing good gear walk away with just bruises from highway speed accidents they had no right surviving. And I've seen the opposite as well.

    Good gear saves lives.
    23 of 27
    Ian
    12 years ago
    Yermo wrote:

    There-in lies a problem. You buy gear to protect yourself in a crash. That is it. That's why it's called motorcycle gear.


    It can also make your ride safer by:

    keeping you warm/cool
    keeping you dry
    making you more visible
    reducing fatigue
    protecting you against insects, flying pebbles, hail, etc.

    And so on. Crash protection is the most significant of a number of important safety features.

    Also, there is price. People can only buy the best gear that is available at their price point.

    I have some Joe Rocket pants. When I met Yermo in Idaho he almost turned around and went home when he saw them! They're not bad. Not great, either, but considering the price paid and how much better they are than the jeans that I always wore before, they offer pretty good protection.

    Audrey, the best way to know what to get is to try stuff on. It sucks to order something online or by phone and then find out later that it doesn't fit right or isn't comfortable. It may take a little shopping around to find the right gear. Good luck!
    24 of 27
    Yermo
    12 years ago
    Ian wrote:

    I have some Joe Rocket pants. When I met Yermo in Idaho he almost turned around and went home when he saw them!


    I had blocked that horrible memory ...

    Then again, us trying to build a fire in imminent danger was priceless.
    25 of 27
    AGrip
    12 years ago
    So I went to check out some of the Joe Rocket gear at a local dealer. I was not impressed. First, the selection of only pink and purple gear was a bit offensive to my eyes(and sense of self). B, the materials used felt wholly inadequate. Lastly, the CB certification rating misdirection was disconcerting. Something to the effect of "adheres to the European CB certification standards." (in other words, it's not certified)

    Next stop was Bob's. I tried on a few different things, including some Rev-It gear. The pants were all a little short, the sleeves were all 3/4 length on me, and once the jacket and pants were zipped together, it just seemed a bit lacking in room for adequate range-of motion. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a manufacturer who makes women's gear in a "long" version.
    So, even with the salesman, Matt (?), saying that the Olympia is less form-fitting and more blocky, I tried some on. It actually seemed a better fit for me overall. The pants were longer, the waist tapered in, and the sleeves were also less lacking. I may need to get longer gloves, though, since they still barely meet the cuffs of the jacket. Even crouching, or leaning forward on a bike, with the back zipped to the pants, it didn't chafe in any particular area. SUCCESS!
    I am now the proud owner of an Olympia Women's Switchback Jacket

    1
    and the Olympia Ladies Airglide 3 Mesh Tech Overpants
    1

    With some expert advice (read "Yermo's suggestions") I will be trying a different armor in the knees for more comfort. In adjusting to the new gear, after a short ride last night, I have realized that I may have freakishly long legs, and will need to move the knee armor down even further than the lowest setting. It's a good thing I'm handy with a sewing machine. I'll let you all know how it goes.
    Back to Thread Index