Gear Pick: Forcefield Pro L2 Kevlar Back Protector

Gear -


Gear Pick: Forcefield Pro L2 Kevlar Back Protector

The protection specialists at Forcefield have updated their Pro L2 back protector with a new version that incorporates Kevlar stitched into the structure for increased strength and durability. This is a standalone, wearable armor-unit so it might be a bit inconvenient for everyday use but great for track days, adventure riding and weekend rides.

Price: $150

Gear Pick: Forcefield Pro L2 Kevlar Back Protector
Forcefield Pro L2 Kevlar Back Protector

Why we like it: You can never have too much protection, and your back houses some of the most important components in the human body. The best thing about Forcefield protection is that it feels soft and flexible when you wear it, but provides the CE2-level protection when and if you need it. So, if you are going to do the kind of riding where a highly-developed and engineered back protector is warranted, then check the Pro L2K. It’s a sound improvement on a tried and true formula.

Less expensive competitor: The Alpinestars Bionic Air back protector is a tad cheaper at $140 and is also slim, light and breathable, but is only certified to the CE1 standard, which is around half as safe.

You should also check out: Why stop at just your back? If you like the comfort and functionality of Forcefield armor, check out the Forcefield Pro Shirt protector; incorporating back, chest, elbow and chest armor; it provides a complete solution at $270.

  • Brian

    This is a great back protector though I haven’t gotten a chance to crash test it…yet. I picked mine up at ProItalia and wear it under my Dainese suit. It fits great, it’s lightweight (compared to others that I’ve used in the past) and vents pretty well. I use it on conjunction with their chest protector and I’m a fan. I’m such a fan of FF body armor that I use their rib protector for karting as well.

  • TRL

    CE2-level protection” is incorrect nomenclature and confusing to consumers.

    EN 1621-2:2003 Level 1 or Level 2 is correct. Several standards offer multiple protection levels and standards are not necessarily limited to only 2 protection levels. BTW a revised 1621-2:2014 will be available next year. The year of the standard is at least as important and may be more important than the performance level due to changes in the requirements at each revision.

    You might contact one of the manufacturers you deal with to have someone explain the CE standards more clearly.

    • Wes Siler

      Right, but instead of including an essay about 2304u93402934u:2342039434;2012 in every article, we’ll make things easy for consumers and simply state “CE1″ or “CE2″.

      What really needs to happen is for manufacturers to release their forces-transferred data, so we can actually make informed purchasing decisions based on real safety data.

  • TRL

    The concern is that the “CE1″ or “CE2″ does not exist as a permitted mark on a product, so consumers then ask a counter person (who may or may not know any more than the consumer) for something that does not exist. In addition, within standards, “1″ and “2″ are not used exclusively to describe levels, numeric nomenclature may reference other features/requirements.


    EN 1621-1:2012 is the current standard for Shoulder, Elbow, Knee, Knee+Leg, Hip protectors (available impact attenuation Level 1 and Level 2). The old standard only had one impact attenuation requirement and, therefore, no levels.

    EN 1621-2:2003, the current standard for back protectors, will be replaced by EN 1621-2:2014 next year. The 2003 version had 2 impact attenuation levels Level 1 and Level 2. The 2014 version is expected to have available Level 1 and Level 2 impact attenuation too.

    Some manufacturers, such as D3O, do post test results on their website and others mark them on the packaging or in the user manual. Might take a look at some user manuals, some manufacturers have written a book. Lots of information in them.

    • Wes Siler

      Right, but even the basic “CE” label is extremely misleading. For instance, Held’s motorcycle gloves wear the “CE” approved tag, but weren’t approved as motorcycle gloves, only as work gloves.

      All around, there needs to be far greater transparency with safety gear. Don’t even get me started on helmet standards. Or on sales people at gear retailers. Hopefully at RideApart we’re providing genuinely useful information that’s easy to understand and use.

  • TRL


    The explanation of exactly what the CE markings (including the motorcyclist pictogram, CE mark, standard number, etc. etc.) on your product mean is required to be in the user manual.

    • Wes Siler

      Try the “reply” button.

      Who read the user manual? And how clear is that language?

  • AHA

    Great company with great products. I have the Pro Sub 4 back protector and that’s probably the best out there(?) They also do a back protector gilet which is a really easy option for riders that aren’t AGATT—airo-vest/2427