CE Ratings vs MotoCAP Testing: What Motorcycle Riders Need to Know

If you ride a motorcycle, you’ve probably seen terms such as CE Level 1, CE Level 2, A, AA, AAA and MotoCAP stars used when describing protective motorcycle clothing.

But they don’t all mean the same thing.

A garment containing CE Level 2 armour is not automatically an AA or AAA-rated garment. An AAA garment isn’t necessarily the highest-performing garment in every possible laboratory test. And a MotoCAP star rating isn’t another form of CE certification.

They measure different things.

Understanding those differences can help riders look beyond badges and marketing claims and make a more informed decision about the protective clothing they choose to wear.

At Two Wheel Appeal, we believe riders deserve to understand what has actually been tested, how it was tested, and what the resulting certification or rating really tells them.

First: CE Level 1 or Level 2 Armour Is Not the Same as A, AA or AAA

This is one of the most common sources of confusion when buying motorcycle clothing.

CE Level 1 and Level 2 Armour

When you see CE Level 1 or CE Level 2 applied to motorcycle armour, this normally relates to an impact protector assessed under standards within the EN 1621 series.

For limb protectors such as knee, hip, elbow and shoulder armour, the relevant standard is generally EN 1621-1.

Laboratory testing measures how much force is transmitted through the protector when it is subjected to a controlled impact.

Level 2 permits substantially less transmitted force than Level 1 and therefore represents the higher performance level within the standard.

But there is an extremely important distinction:

The Level 1 or Level 2 rating applies to the impact protector. It does not automatically classify the complete motorcycle garment as A, AA or AAA.

Learn more from 2WA:

www.twowheelappeal.com/blogs/product-performance/ce-level-ii-armor-explained-what-every-rider-needs-to-know

A, AA and AAA Apply to the Complete Motorcycle Garment

Modern European motorcycle protective clothing is classified under the EN 17092 series.

The principal protective classes riders will commonly encounter include:

Class AAA

The highest protection class within EN 17092 for this category of motorcycle protective garment.

Class AA

An intermediate protection class intended to provide a balance between protection and the ergonomic, weight and thermal considerations associated with motorcycle clothing.

Class A

A lighter protective class with lower protection requirements than AA or AAA and generally fewer ergonomic and weight penalties.

The EN 17092 series also provides for Class B and Class C garments with different intended protective functions.

The simple distinction is:

Level 1 / Level 2 = impact protector performance.

A / AA / AAA = complete motorcycle garment classification.

These ratings should never be treated as interchangeable.

Before EN 17092: EN 13595

Before EN 17092 became the modern European standard series widely used for motorcycle protective clothing, protective motorcycle garments could be assessed under the EN 13595 series.

EN 13595 was developed for protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders and incorporated performance requirements relating to areas including:

• impact abrasion resistance;
• seam and burst strength;
• tear resistance;
• restraint;
• and garment construction.

One particularly important component was its Cambridge impact-abrasion testing methodology.

That testing methodology remains highly relevant today because MotoCAP’s current abrasion testing is explicitly derived from EN 13595-2:2002.

Source:

MotoCAP — Guide to Designing and Manufacturing Motorcycle Protective Clothing:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/A%20guide%20to%20designing%20and%20manufacturing%20motorcycle%20protective%20clothing_0.pdf

What Was the Cambridge Impact-Abrasion Test?

Under the EN 13595 methodology, material assemblies could be evaluated using a Cambridge-type impact-abrasion machine.

A specimen is mounted to a weighted test head and brought into contact with a moving abrasive surface.

Rather than simply describing a material as “abrasion resistant”, this type of testing produces a much more useful measurement:

How long does the material construction resist abrasion before a hole forms?

The longer the specimen survives before being worn through, the greater its measured abrasion resistance under that particular laboratory test.

This methodology is particularly interesting because researchers have compared Cambridge abrasion performance with injuries sustained in real motorcycle crashes.

Research published in Accident Analysis & Prevention investigated whether the EN 13595 abrasion test was associated with actual soft-tissue injury outcomes.

The researchers concluded that the Cambridge impact-abrasion test was an appropriate method of assessing motorcycle clothing abrasion resistance and found that greater abrasion resistance was associated with a reduced probability of soft-tissue injury.

Their modelling estimated approximately a 19% probability of soft-tissue injury at the EN 13595 Level 2 criterion, compared with materially greater probabilities around the Level 1 criteria.

That does not mean a laboratory result can predict what will happen to an individual rider in a particular accident.

Motorcycle crashes involve enormous variations in speed, impact angle, road surface, tumbling, sliding, objects struck, rider position and countless other variables.

What the research does demonstrate is why objectively measuring the abrasion performance of protective clothing matters.

Research:

The relationship between motorcycle protective clothing abrasion resistance and soft-tissue injury in crashes — Accident Analysis & Prevention / ScienceDirect:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437517301196

EN 17092 Introduced a Different Abrasion Methodology

When EN 17092 was developed, the abrasion methodology changed.

Rather than using the Cambridge impact-abrasion test employed by EN 13595, EN 17092 uses the Darmstadt impact-abrasion method.

The Darmstadt apparatus is designed to reproduce particular aspects of a rider impacting a road surface and sliding.

Test specimens are mounted on rotating arms, accelerated to a prescribed velocity and released onto a concrete test surface.

Friction between the specimens and the surface decelerates the rotating assembly until it stops.

The specimens are then assessed against the requirements applicable to the relevant EN 17092 garment class and risk zone.

This is fundamentally different from the Cambridge method’s measurement of time to material failure on a continuously moving abrasive surface.

Does AAA Mean a Garment Protects You in a 120 km/h Crash?

No.

This deserves particular attention because EN 17092 test velocities are frequently misunderstood.

The nominal initial test velocities commonly associated with the highest-risk Zone 1 Darmstadt test are approximately:

EN 17092 Classification	Nominal Zone 1 Test Velocity
AAA	approximately 120 km/h
AA	approximately 70 km/h
A	approximately 45 km/h

These speeds are parameters of a controlled laboratory test apparatus.

They do not mean:

“AAA will protect you in a 120 km/h motorcycle crash.”

A motorcycle accident cannot be reduced to road speed alone.

A rider might slide, tumble, strike another vehicle or roadside object, experience several separate impacts or encounter vastly different road surfaces.

Vehicle speed immediately before a collision also isn’t necessarily the speed at which the rider subsequently contacts or slides across the road.

AAA is the highest EN 17092 protective garment classification.

It is not a guarantee against injury at a particular road speed.

No item of motorcycle protective clothing can provide such a guarantee.

Does AAA Mean Every AAA Garment Performs Exactly the Same?

No.

This is another important distinction.

If two garments satisfy the requirements necessary for Class AAA, both can legitimately achieve that classification.

That does not mean their materials, construction, armour coverage or absolute performance in every individual laboratory measurement must be identical.

One way of understanding this is to think of certification as establishing defined requirements for a particular classification.

A product demonstrates compliance with those requirements and receives the corresponding classification.

A comparative testing program can answer a somewhat different question by measuring and comparing how different products perform.

That is one of the reasons programs such as MotoCAP can provide riders with additional information beyond the certification label.

So What Is MotoCAP?

MotoCAP — the Motorcycle Clothing Assessment Program — is an independent consumer information program for motorcycle protective clothing.

Rather than simply reporting the manufacturer’s claims or CE classification, MotoCAP independently obtains motorcycle clothing through retail channels and subjects it to laboratory testing.

MotoCAP evaluates two broad areas:

Protection

and

Thermal Comfort

Results are then published so riders can compare the measured performance of different motorcycle garments.

Official MotoCAP website:

www.motocap.com.au

Current MotoCAP testing protocols:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/MotoCAP%20test%20protocols%201.3%20-%2023%20July%202024.pdf

MotoCAP Tests Finished Garments Purchased Through Retail Channels

This is one of the most important features of MotoCAP.

MotoCAP obtains garments through normal retail channels and tests the finished products being supplied to consumers.

Material specimens are harvested from different locations in completed garments so the material combinations actually present within the product can be assessed.

Why does that matter?

Because motorcycle protective clothing isn’t simply a piece of abrasion-resistant fabric.

It is a protective system incorporating elements such as:

• outer materials;
• reinforcement materials;
• liners;
• seams;
• stitching;
• closures;
• armour;
• armour pockets;
• material placement;
• and overall garment construction.

A strong material alone does not automatically create a strong motorcycle garment.

Testing a finished retail product allows MotoCAP to assess the construction riders actually receive.

Source:

MotoCAP Test Protocols:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/MotoCAP%20test%20protocols%201.3%20-%2023%20July%202024.pdf

MotoCAP Still Uses EN 13595-Derived Abrasion Testing

This is where the history of motorcycle protective-clothing standards becomes particularly interesting.

While modern EN 17092 garment classification uses the Darmstadt abrasion methodology, MotoCAP’s published protocol describes its impact-abrasion method as a:

modified version of EN 13595-2:2002.

In other words, MotoCAP continues to use a Cambridge-type impact-abrasion methodology derived from the earlier EN 13595 testing regime for its comparative assessment of motorcycle clothing.

MotoCAP measures the time between the specimen contacting the abrasive surface and a hole forming.

That measured performance contributes to the garment’s abrasion score.

This provides riders with information about measured abrasion performance rather than simply identifying the certification class achieved by the garment.

Source:

MotoCAP Test Protocols:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/MotoCAP%20test%20protocols%201.3%20-%2023%20July%202024.pdf

Why Doesn’t MotoCAP Simply Use EN 17092?

Because MotoCAP and EN 17092 serve different purposes.

EN 17092 is a European standard series used for the classification of motorcycle protective clothing.

MotoCAP is an independent consumer comparative testing and rating program.

MotoCAP’s role isn’t to issue CE certification.

Its purpose is to independently measure protective garments and provide consumers with comparative information about their performance.

MotoCAP’s own technical guidance discusses the transition from EN 13595 to EN 17092, including the change in abrasion-testing methodology and protection zones.

Source:

MotoCAP — Guide to Designing and Manufacturing Motorcycle Protective Clothing:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/A%20guide%20to%20designing%20and%20manufacturing%20motorcycle%20protective%20clothing_0.pdf

MotoCAP Doesn’t Just Test Abrasion

A common mistake when comparing motorcycle clothing is to focus entirely on abrasion resistance.

Abrasion resistance is extremely important.

But it isn’t the entire protective system.

Imagine a garment made from extremely abrasion-resistant material whose seams burst apart when the rider hits the road.

Or excellent impact armour that doesn’t adequately cover the vulnerable area or moves away from its intended position.

Neither scenario provides the protection that might be assumed by looking at the fabric or armour specification alone.

MotoCAP therefore assesses several important aspects of the completed garment.

For jackets and pants, the MotoCAP Injury Protection rating incorporates:

50% — Impact Abrasion Resistance

How effectively the garment’s material combinations resist abrasion.

30% — Impact Protection

Performance associated with the garment’s impact protection system.

20% — Burst Resistance

How effectively materials and seams resist structural failure.

These components are combined to determine the overall MotoCAP Injury Protection result.

Source:

MotoCAP Test Protocols:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/MotoCAP%20test%20protocols%201.3%20-%2023%20July%202024.pdf

Why Burst Strength Matters

Abrasion-resistant material can only protect the rider effectively while the garment remains sufficiently intact.

If an important structural seam fails during an accident, the rider’s skin can become exposed even if the material immediately beside that seam has excellent abrasion resistance.

MotoCAP therefore takes specimens containing seams from completed garments and subjects them to burst testing.

Higher-risk areas of the garment receive greater weighting within the assessment.

This examines something riders don’t always see advertised:

Can the garment’s construction remain intact under significant loading?

Protective motorcycle clothing therefore requires much more than a strong fabric.

It requires the complete construction to work together:

Protective material + appropriate seams + suitable stitching + appropriate material placement + sound garment construction.

Source:

MotoCAP Test Protocols:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/MotoCAP%20test%20protocols%201.3%20-%2023%20July%202024.pdf

Why Armour Coverage Matters

Another major source of misunderstanding is motorcycle armour.

Two protectors can both legitimately carry CE Level 2 certification while providing very different physical coverage when fitted inside garments.

Impact attenuation tells us how effectively the protector reduces transmitted force when that protector is struck under prescribed laboratory conditions.

But on a motorcycle, riders also need their armour to:

• cover the vulnerable area;
• sit in the correct position;
• fit the rider appropriately;
• and remain in its intended location as effectively as possible.

This is why simply saying “CE Level 2 armour” doesn’t tell riders everything about the protection provided by the complete garment.

MotoCAP’s assessment considers impact protection within the garment system, including factors associated with coverage and positioning.

This is why armour dimensions, garment fit, armour pocket design and retention can all matter.

More information from 2WA:

www.twowheelappeal.com/blogs/product-performance/how-to-choose-armoured-motorcycle-pants-the-complete-buyers-guide

MotoCAP methodology:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/MotoCAP%20test%20protocols%201.3%20-%2023%20July%202024.pdf

What About Kevlar®, Aramid and Other Abrasion-Resistant Materials?

Material names alone don’t provide a complete protection rating either.

Kevlar® is DuPont’s well-known para-aramid fibre.

“Aramid”, however, describes a broader family of synthetic fibres.

Simply saying a motorcycle garment “contains aramid” doesn’t necessarily tell the rider:

• which fibre has been used;
• its material weight;
• the construction of the textile;
• the percentage or composition;
• the number of layers;
• where the material is positioned;
• how much of the garment it covers;
• how the garment is stitched;
• or how the finished construction performs under abrasion testing.

Materials matter enormously.

But material specification and finished-garment performance are not the same thing.

That is another reason independent testing of completed protective garments can provide useful additional information.

Learn more:

Visit the 2WA Product Performance information centre:

www.twowheelappeal.com/blogs/product-performance

Is MotoCAP More Stringent Than Modern CE Garment Classification?

This question requires a more nuanced answer than simply yes or no.

MotoCAP and EN 17092 aren’t directly interchangeable testing systems.

They have different purposes, methodologies, scoring systems and requirements.

However, MotoCAP deliberately retains important testing methodology derived from the earlier EN 13595 regime — particularly Cambridge-type impact-abrasion testing — while modern EN 17092 uses a different garment classification structure and the Darmstadt abrasion methodology.

The transition from EN 13595 to EN 17092 has generated debate among motorcycle protective-equipment specialists because the standards contain substantially different testing methodologies and performance requirements.

MotoCAP itself documents important differences between the two European standards, including the change from Cambridge to Darmstadt abrasion testing and changes to the protection-zone system.

Independent PPE specialists have also argued that some requirements under EN 17092 are less demanding than those previously specified under EN 13595.

That criticism should not be interpreted as meaning that EN 17092 certification is worthless.

Far from it.

AAA remains the highest protective garment classification within EN 17092.

What it does mean is that riders should understand what AAA represents, what methodology produced it and what additional information independent comparative testing may provide.

MotoCAP comparison of EN 13595 and EN 17092:

www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/A%20guide%20to%20designing%20and%20manufacturing%20motorcycle%20protective%20clothing_0.pdf

Independent discussion of changes between the standards:

www.pva-ppe.org.uk/information-resources/changes-mc-standards/

CE vs MotoCAP: The Simple Comparison

	EN 13595	EN 17092	MotoCAP
Primary purpose	Protective clothing performance standard	Protective garment classification	Independent consumer comparative testing
Abrasion methodology	Cambridge	Darmstadt	Modified EN 13595 Cambridge methodology
Protection zones	4	3	4
Abrasion assessed	Yes	Yes	Yes
Structural integrity assessed	Yes	Yes	Yes
Impact protection considered	Yes / associated requirements	Yes / applicable requirements	Yes and incorporated into rating
Finished garment independently purchased through retail channels	Not an inherent requirement	Not an inherent requirement	Yes
Comparative consumer performance score	No	No	Yes
Consumer star rating	No	No	Yes
Separate thermal comfort rating	No	No	Yes

So Which Rating Should Motorcycle Riders Trust?

The answer isn’t about choosing one system and ignoring the others.

They provide different information.

CE Level 1 / Level 2

Provides information about the tested performance level of an impact protector under the applicable standard.

CE A / AA / AAA

Provides the classification achieved by a complete motorcycle protective garment under EN 17092.

MotoCAP

Provides independent comparative laboratory testing and consumer ratings based on finished motorcycle garments obtained through retail channels.

Real-World Crash Evidence

Real-world rider experiences can provide another useful source of information about how protective clothing has behaved in actual accidents.

However, no two motorcycle accidents are identical, and individual crash outcomes cannot substitute for controlled laboratory testing.

Together, certification, independent testing and real-world evidence can provide riders with a much more complete picture than any one source viewed in isolation.

Certification Is the Beginning of the Conversation — Not the End

Protective motorcycle clothing is a system.

The material matters.

Its weight and construction matter.

Where protective materials are positioned matters.

Abrasion resistance matters.

Seam strength matters.

Impact attenuation matters.

Armour coverage matters.

Armour retention matters.

Garment fit matters.

And independent testing matters.

No single badge can communicate all of those things.

2WA Is Actively Pursuing CE Garment Certification

Two Wheel Appeal is actively working toward independent CE garment certification for selected protective motorcycle clothing within our range.

We see CE garment classification and independent performance testing such as MotoCAP as complementary — not competing — measures of motorcycle protective clothing.

Achieving an A, AA or AAA classification provides riders with an internationally recognised classification under the applicable European motorcycle protective clothing standard.

Independent comparative testing can then provide additional information about how a finished garment performs across areas such as abrasion resistance, impact protection and structural integrity.

Our objective isn’t simply to place another badge on our products.

It is to continue testing, measuring and independently verifying the protective performance of the motorcycle clothing we develop — and to give riders clear information about what those results actually mean.

As additional 2WA garments complete independent certification and testing, verified results will be published so riders can assess the evidence for themselves.

Why Two Wheel Appeal Believes Riders Deserve More Information

At Two Wheel Appeal, we don’t believe riders should have to make a safety decision based solely on a logo, material name or certification badge.

That’s why we believe in explaining the protective materials used in motorcycle garments, how protective clothing is constructed, what different certifications actually mean and what independent testing can — and cannot — tell riders.

We believe:

CE garment classification

CE-certified impact protection

independent MotoCAP testing

transparent material specifications

and

real-world rider experience

each provide different pieces of information.

None can guarantee that a rider won’t be injured.

Motorcycling involves inherent risk, and no item of protective clothing can eliminate that risk.

But riders can make better decisions when manufacturers are transparent about what their products contain, how they’re constructed, how they’re tested and what those results actually mean.

Don’t just dress for the ride.

Understand what you’re wearing for the slide.

Continue Learning About Motorcycle Protection

CE Level II Armour Explained

Understand what CE Level 1 and Level 2 actually measure and why armour coverage and positioning matter.

www.twowheelappeal.com/blogs/product-performance/ce-level-ii-armor-explained-what-every-rider-needs-to-know

How to Choose Armoured Motorcycle Pants

Learn how protective materials, armour, fit, coverage and construction work together.

www.twowheelappeal.com/blogs/product-performance/how-to-choose-armoured-motorcycle-pants-the-complete-buyers-guide

Armoured Motorcycle Shirts: How Much Protection Do They Really Offer?

Understand the protective construction of motorcycle shirts and what separates purpose-built riding apparel from ordinary fashion garments.

www.twowheelappeal.com/blogs/product-performance/armoured-motorcycle-shirts-how-much-protection-do-they-really-offer

2WA Product Performance

Explore more information about motorcycle protective materials, construction, armour and performance.

www.twowheelappeal.com/blogs/product-performance

MotoCAP

View independently tested motorcycle clothing and MotoCAP’s published testing information.

www.motocap.com.au

Technical References & Further Reading

MotoCAP — Motorcycle Clothing Assessment Program
www.motocap.com.au

MotoCAP Test Protocols — Version 1.3, 23 July 2024
www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/MotoCAP%20test%20protocols%201.3%20-%2023%20July%202024.pdf

MotoCAP — Guide to Designing and Manufacturing Motorcycle Protective Clothing
www.motocap.com.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/A%20guide%20to%20designing%20and%20manufacturing%20motorcycle%20protective%20clothing_0.pdf

Research into motorcycle clothing abrasion resistance and soft-tissue injury — Accident Analysis & Prevention / ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437517301196

PVA-PPE — Changes in Motorcycle Clothing Standards: EN 13595 and EN 17092
www.pva-ppe.org.uk/information-resources/changes-mc-standards/

Important Safety Information

This article is provided for general rider education.

Laboratory testing, certification, protective classifications and independent ratings cannot predict the outcome of an individual motorcycle accident.

Crash dynamics vary considerably, and no motorcycle protective clothing can prevent all injuries or guarantee protection against injury or death.

Always select motorcycle protective equipment appropriate to your riding conditions, ensure it fits and is worn correctly, and replace protective equipment when its condition may compromise its intended performance.