TPro Forcefield vs. Bohn Monza Back
Protectors
Also: See the
wBW
reviews of the
Knox Stowaway
and Knox
Ricochet for comparison
We're still in shock, but for some reason the reviews of the
Knox Ricochet and Knox Stowaway back protectors we posted recently are among the most popular articles on webBikeWorld, generating lots of emails asking for more.
So let's consider this as "Back Protectors, Part III"(We
have a Part IV coming soon).
This time, it's the Bohn Monza Back Protector vs. the TPro Forcefield body
armor (or body armour) back protector.
What's in a name? The TPro Forcefield shown here is
actually a Joe Rocket Speedmaster back protector, which is widely available
in the U.S.A.
The Bohn Monza Back Protector, also shown here, is
distributed from Italy for Bohn
by a company called Furmor Protect, but it carries a "Soul Race" brand label. Just as the Joe Rocket product
information doesn't mention TPro, the Bohn Monza Back Protector doesn't
mention Furmor, so who knows.
Our guess is that the Joe Rocket and Bohn names have much
greater brand equity in the U.S.A. than the others, in addition to the
Rocket and Bohn established marketing and
distribution channels, so apparently this is what they call a symbiotic
relationship for the benefit of all.
Hey - as long as we motorcyclists
get good equipment at reasonable prices out of the deal, who cares?
The Joe Rocket website doesn't mention the origins of the
Speedmaster
protector, and when a webBikeWorld visitor tipped us off that it was actually
a TPro Forcefield, we weren't so sure. It looked like a TPro, but we
didn't know for sure until we purchased and received it.
When it
arrived, it came
with a TPro hanging label, a Ride Magazine (UK) "Best Buy" tag and
a Davies Odell (the manufacturers of TPro products)
official CE mark (Certificate of European Conformity) showing compliance to
Level 2 of the European
Personal Protective Equipment directive.
However, a close inspection of a colleague's TPro Forcefield
original and the Joe Rocket Speedmaster back protector indicate to us that
the Rocket version may be slightly different. Besides the logo on the
back, the Rocket version seems to us to be slightly shorter at the coccyx.
So what's different about these two back protectors when
compared to the Knox versions we reviewed recently? Both of the back
protectors shown here meet the more stringent Level 2 of the 89/686/EEC
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) directive.
Both
have been tested at approved independent "third party" neutral testing labs;
the SATRA
Technology Centre (UK) for the TPro Forcefield and Ricotest Srl (Italy) for
the Bohn. Both have been tested according to the EN1621-2:2003
specifications.
If your head is spinning with all these Euro acronyms and
secret engineering code, join the club. Let's just hope that somebody knows what
they're up to and that these numbers and standards actually translate to
safer products for motorcyclists.
From our point of view, the only criteria we can evaluate is comfort, because
we'd do most anything for our webBikeWorld visitors, we're not about to crash test these
babies any time soon. Voluntarily, that is!
This means that our comments will be focused on comfort
and other features, like the shape and amount of surface area that these back protectors
offer.
We've created a series of side-by-side photos following that
illustrate the features of these two brands of back protectors.
 |
 |
|
Bohn Monza Back Protector |
TPro Forcefield (aka Joe Rocket Speedmaster) |
|
Note: Both back protectors
worn over clothing for illustrative purposes. |
Size, Shape and Comfort
As you can see, there are some differences. The Bohn Monza Back
Protector in the left photo above carries most of its coverage (the section
that meets Level 2 certification) much higher on the back than the TPro
Forcefield in the right photo.
The Bohn protector is medially and laterally stiffer than the TPro, which, when combined with its higher mounting
position, makes it less comfortable, in our opinion. It feels rather like
wearing a piece of plywood or a Boogie Board on your back. This is
somewhat mitigated when it's corralled under a leather jacket, but it's
noticeable nonetheless.
The TPro Forcefield (aka Joe Rocket Speedmaster) back
protector is hands-down the most comfortable we've tried. It's about
15/16" thick and it sits perfectly flat, but the special TPro "Nitrex" shock
absorbing foam and the TPro "waffle" back are very flexible and will conform
to the shape of the rider's back without needing molded-in curves.
Adding to the comfort is the design of the shoulder straps on the TPro.
They originate closer to the top
center section of the protector, which helps to keep the TPro closer to the
rider's body because the straps pull it against the rider's back and help to
hold it (the protector, not the back!) in place.
The Bohn's straps are located at the top on either side of
the curved section of protection, and since the protector rides so high on
the user's back, the straps are located higher than the rider's
shoulders, so they don't offer the same secure feeling of holding the protector
close to the rider's body.
See the photos above and below and note the difference in
the shoulder strap locations where they wrap around the model's shoulders.
|
 |
 |
|
Bohn Monza Back Protector, side view.
Note shoulder straps at the top. |
TPro Forcefield (aka Joe Rocket Speedmaster),
side view. Note the shoulder straps are holding the
protector closer to the rider's body. |
Belt and Adjustment
We also found that the belt on the Bohn Monza Back Protector does not seem as comfortable or
adjustable as either the Knox or TPro products. The Bohn belt has some
elastic on the sides, but its design seems to prevent the elastic from
flexing when the belt is secure around the front of the rider's stomach.
 |
 |
|
Bohn Monza Back Protector, belt and elastic. |
TPro Forcefield (aka Joe Rocket Speedmaster),
belt and elastic. |
The TPro belt has a wide section of elastic, and it seems to
stretch farther and more secure than the Bohn. The belt on the TPro
also seems longer than the other back protectors we've tried and it fits
over a too-big waistline with room to spare, although the difference in
length between these two is negligible, so it must be the design.
Padding
As we mentioned in the previous reviews, all of these back protectors
seem stiffer (harder) than we expected. Apparently, this is normal.
But the TPro Forcefield stands out in this regard also; although we wouldn't
call its padding plush, it is slightly softer than the rest and when
combined with the flexibility of the entire protective section, it's more
comfortable than the others.
 |
 |
|
L to R: TPro Forcefield, Bohn Monza Back
Protector |
L to R: TPro Forcefield, Bohn, showing the
inside (i.e., the fabric that sits against the rider's back). |
Conclusion
Any of these back protectors are probably 100% better than no back protector
at all, although we can't comment on their ability to actually reduce
trauma. For that, we have to trust the European PPE directives,
because there is no standard for this type of equipment in the U.S.A.
After riding with these for several weeks on different types
of motorcycles, with different types of clothing and in all sorts of
weather, our consensus is that the TPro Forcefield is the most comfortable
and least obtrusive back protector we've tried.
But wait -- there's more! We're in the process of
evaluating the Knox Cross Shirt and Knox Cross Sport Shorts, which are
"wearable" armor. The shirt has a built-in back protector in addition
to elbow and shoulder armor.
We're very pleased to learn that many of our visitors are
very serious about motorcycle safety and learning about the best protective
equipment they can afford. We've read some testimonials from riders
who claim that they would have been severely injured if not for their full
leathers, back protectors and other equipment.
| Product
Review: TPro Forcefield Back Protector & Bohn Monza Back Protector |
| Available
From:
Action Stations (Bohn).
Davies Odell
(TPro ). Joe
Rocket (Speedmaster by TPro) |
List Price: $139.99 (Joe Rocket); $149.99 (Note new
lower price for the Bohn
Monza). |
| Colors: Black |
Made
in: Unknown |
| Review Date:
December 2005 |
Note: For informational use only. All material and
photographs are Copyright © webWorld International, LLC - 2000-2009. All
rights reserved. Read the
Terms and Conditions. See the webBikeWorld®
Site Info
page.
►Reader Comments and Owner Feedback
Please
send
comments to
Comments are ordered from most recent to oldest.
From "G.K." (5/09): "I just found your review on the
Bohn vs. Joe Rocket (Forcefield) back protectors and wanted to let you know
the Joe Rocket protector is only Level 1 & not a Level 2 certified
protector.
I, as you, thought the same thing on inspection so i sent a email to
Forcefield inquiring about the difference between their T-Pro sold on their
website and through Johnson Leathers here in the USA and the Joe Rocket
version and the reply was that the regular Forcefield was Level 2 & the JR
is only Level 1.
Now before this gets confusing they are both EN1621-2, but there are 2
levels within that standard which are Level 1 and Level 2 based on the Joule
rating.
So basically the Joe Rocket style Forcefield is the same Level 1 as most
other back protectors on the market (e.g. Alpinestars Tech, etc.) and fall
into the basic CE back protector EN1621-2 but that (-2) is not Level 2, it
is just the section that defines back protectors, not the actual sub-level
of rating based on Joules i.e.. Level 1 or Level 2."
From "Oleg S." (1/09): "As someone who bought the Forcefield a
couple years ago I just wanted to chime in on long-term use of the
protector.
All in all it holds up well (I haven't had a chance to
actually "test" it) but one problem area I noticed is with it's Velcro
straps.
The underside of the the strap where the "loop" or "wool"
material attaches is not stitched through, and is held only at the edges, so
after even minimal amount of wear the straps have become deformed and the
material on the underside has turned baggy and bunched up.
I'm assuming I will solve this problem myself by stitching
through it to hold it in place, but it seems like it should have been a
simple fix on the manufacturer's side. I can provide images if
necessary to illustrate the issue."