Alpinestar Tech Air - Barcia A1 crash

1/22/2026 7:46am
AMetts wrote:
I agree its a great product but come on, "up to 95% reduction in impact" is the most generic open ended statistic you could put out...

I agree its a great product but come on, "up to 95% reduction in impact" is the most generic open ended statistic you could put out there. 

What I'm arguing is everyone seems to think this kept Barcia from being paralyzed but unlikely thats the case, I don't know the exact stats but the overwhelming majority of spinal cord injuries in our sport are from compression like landing on your head or feet with crazy force. 

I think its great and can prevent a ton of different injuries but people need to have a bit more realistic expectations of what's possible by simply an airbag on your torso, its like saying a good pair of boots will keep you form breaking your femur. 

 

27.6 Gs is a pretty standard amount of force for a MotoGP style high-side.

The devastating impacts are north of 100 Gs. A sudden and immediate stop. Usually the ones involving the head, neck and extremities. 

MotoGP style injuries to internal organs and the torso are just not that common in motocross. Maybe desert racing and Dakar, where speed and forward momentum is largely at play.

Justin Barcia did not walk away from that crash without a serious injury. That is all I am trying to impress upon people, which is clearly ineffective. 

We seem to be completely and totally dismissive of the seriousness of concussions, which is historically par for the course with this crowd.

11
Meister
Posts
3330
Joined
3/21/2013
Location
Canton, OH, USA
1/22/2026 8:34am

Nobody is talking about his concussion (nor ignoring it or down playing it) because its completely unrelated to potential injuries prevented or lessened by the chest protector. 

We understand he got a concussion. He landed on his head then body slammed. This thread is soley about the body slam. Not that he lawn darted right onto his head. If the headline read "He did not suffer mid body substantial injury, however did have a concussion."  Would that have sounded better to you? 

4
MX Guy
Posts
2712
Joined
7/18/2016
Location
Southern, CA, USA
Fantasy
1/22/2026 8:59am
Meister wrote:
Nobody is talking about his concussion (nor ignoring it or down playing it) because its completely unrelated to potential injuries prevented or lessened by the chest...

Nobody is talking about his concussion (nor ignoring it or down playing it) because its completely unrelated to potential injuries prevented or lessened by the chest protector. 

We understand he got a concussion. He landed on his head then body slammed. This thread is soley about the body slam. Not that he lawn darted right onto his head. If the headline read "He did not suffer mid body substantial injury, however did have a concussion."  Would that have sounded better to you? 

It’s not Alpinestars’ place to comment what did/didn’t happen in an area where their product is not being used. No helmet company would acknowledge what happened to a rider’s leg in a crash. No boot company would comment about what happened to their ribs. This is not the standard in this industry or any other industry. A company’s focus is on their own products, just like Alpinestars focused on what their product did. 

4
Meister
Posts
3330
Joined
3/21/2013
Location
Canton, OH, USA
1/22/2026 9:04am

Right. I think most understand that concept except those arguing this pieces inability to prevent/lessen potential injuries. 

The Shop

-MAVERICK-
Posts
67640
Joined
3/26/2015
Location
Ontario, CA
1/22/2026 9:10am
27.6 Gs is a pretty standard amount of force for a MotoGP style high-side.The devastating impacts are north of 100 Gs. A sudden and immediate stop...

27.6 Gs is a pretty standard amount of force for a MotoGP style high-side.

The devastating impacts are north of 100 Gs. A sudden and immediate stop. Usually the ones involving the head, neck and extremities. 

MotoGP style injuries to internal organs and the torso are just not that common in motocross. Maybe desert racing and Dakar, where speed and forward momentum is largely at play.

Justin Barcia did not walk away from that crash without a serious injury. That is all I am trying to impress upon people, which is clearly ineffective. 

We seem to be completely and totally dismissive of the seriousness of concussions, which is historically par for the course with this crowd.

"We seem to be completely and totally dismissive of the seriousness of concussions, which is historically par for the course with this crowd."

Yes, he walked away with a head injury. No one is dismissing that concussions are not serious. 

You're the one who is being completely and totally dismissive that his concussion was not related to the Tech-Air vest he was wearing. 

The product is not designed to protect riders from head injuries. 

The seperation between a helmet and the Tech-Air vest, and the function of what each piece of equipment is designed to protect, is for whatever reason, completely lost with you.

7
Beagle
Posts
1871
Joined
8/3/2023
Location
Toulouse, FR
1/22/2026 9:51am

27.6 G would put it among the highest impacts ever recorded for a MotoGP crash.

Marquez destroyed his arm after a 26 G monster highside. 

Can't recall anything higher than Baz 29.9 G 290 km/h crash.

1
1/22/2026 10:59am Edited Date/Time 1/22/2026 11:00am
Beagle wrote:
27.6 G would put it among the highest impacts ever recorded for a MotoGP crash.Marquez destroyed his arm after a 26 G monster highside. Can't recall anything...

27.6 G would put it among the highest impacts ever recorded for a MotoGP crash.

Marquez destroyed his arm after a 26 G monster highside. 

Can't recall anything higher than Baz 29.9 G 290 km/h crash.

26 Gs recorded as "Contact between bike and right arm." I don't even know why they bothered to release that data. It is also unremarkable, if not plain stupid. 

Great for PR, obviously.

11
AussieParaMX
Posts
1724
Joined
7/30/2009
Location
Mount Waverley, VIC, AU
1/22/2026 3:05pm Edited Date/Time 1/22/2026 4:19pm
Why are people so determined to shit on progress? This is far an an away a massive safety improvement using a technology proven to increase safety and...

Why are people so determined to shit on progress? 

This is far an an away a massive safety improvement using a technology proven to increase safety and crash outcomes in cars, street bikes, rally bike racing and now supercross.


Like in the Dakar and in MotoGP this should be compulsory in any professional supercross race.


Anyone arguing against it can only argue semantics and whether or not every injury in every scenario will be absolutely stopped 100%. The answer is ‘it won’t and helmets don’t stop all head injuries but they stop a fuck load and are compulsory, this should be the same’ 

Beagle wrote:
Well said, I bet eventually they will be mandatory but it will take some years to get there. In MotoGP Dainese and Alpinestars developed the tech...

Well said, I bet eventually they will be mandatory but it will take some years to get there. In MotoGP Dainese and Alpinestars developed the tech since about 2008, then it was made available to competitors so that other riders could keep their sponsorship with another company while wearing Alpinestars or Dainese airbag under their regular suit (modified to fit this).

Airbags became mandatory in MotoGP (and Moto3 and Moto2) in 2018. By that time, Dainese and Alpinestars had a decade of experience with MotoGP riders, other brands had had time to catch up and were well on their way to develop and certify their own tech.

The argument that if it was safer all pro riders would be using it is ludicrous. The tech effectiveness had been well demonstrated by 2018 with drastic reduction in upper body injuries but some top MotoGP riders were still choosing to not use it simply because they favored ultimate performance (did not like the moderate extra bulk and weight) over their own safety. Even after they became mandatory, a world champion had been reportedly faking it by wearing a suit with the airbag light on but without any actual airbag in it just because he didn't have the same feeling with it.

Yeah we shouldn’t look to the pro’s performance choices to determine safety choices.

The technology is clear.  The path forward is clear.  And yet the knuckle daggers continue to argue because they have to be right about some pointless semantics.

The future is airbags baby 


 

2
hubbardmx50
Posts
2835
Joined
11/17/2016
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA
1/22/2026 6:02pm
flyinb501 wrote:
I am very interested in buying one, but two things that are holding me back.  1. I'm hesitant to ditch my neck brace.  I broke my...

I am very interested in buying one, but two things that are holding me back.  1. I'm hesitant to ditch my neck brace.  I broke my neck many years ago (before neck braces came out), and I've been religious about wearing my neck brace ever since.  I'm a big believer in the braces ability to limit range of motion to help prevent neck injuries, and it doesn't restrict me to the point that it hinders my riding or prevent me from tucking my head if need be in a crash.  I honestly don't even notice it when I'm riding.  I'm not sure the tech-air would offer the same neck protection as a neck brace.   2. The heat.  I have an A4 chest protector currently, and in Florida that thing is already pretty hot as it is.  I'm not sure I can deal with something much hotter, but maybe it's not as bad as I think.  Interested to hear other people's opinions.

I had been wearing neck braces religiously for 15 years before switching to the tech air. I have one ride in it and it's not too bad. If anything, I'd say riding in a neck brace and chest pro is way more hot and uncomfortable than the Tech Air. 

2
HackMan162
Posts
536
Joined
2/16/2007
Location
Austin, TX, USA
1/31/2026 3:01pm Edited Date/Time 1/31/2026 3:03pm
Just making sure I understand - the air vest is capable of preventing paralysis and preventing damage to vital organs such as the liver and kidneys.Sounds...

Just making sure I understand - the air vest is capable of preventing paralysis and preventing damage to vital organs such as the liver and kidneys.

Sounds like the panacea we’ve all been waiting for. 

I frankly don’t know why they’re stopping at the chest. They should just make an entire inflatable body bag.
 

-MAVERICK- wrote:
Take it from someone who is paralyzed. Had the technology been around when I was riding, I more than likely would not be in a wheelchair...

Take it from someone who is paralyzed. Had the technology been around when I was riding, I more than likely would not be in a wheelchair. I probably would not have bruised my sternum, broken ribs, punctured a lung and collapsed the other either. 

I burst my T5-T6 vertebrae, but my spinal cord is still intact. The force of the impact I sustained was enough to cause just enough damage to leave me a paraplegic. 

How this would have helped. Easy. The airbag would have significantly reduced the amount of force transferred to my body, therefore protecting vital organs. 

I was wearing a full roost deflector at the time. It protected me from getting scrapes, but they are not designed to reduce the force of an impact. Sure, it'll take some of the brunt out of getting hit by rocks, dirt, and things like that, but that's about it. 

I'm not saying it will save everyone who crashes from receiving body damage or catastrophic injuries as each crash and force of impact is different, but yes, it can absolutely save people from organ damage and paralysis. 

There are other members on here who are paralyzed. Maybe they'll chime in on whether or not this would have helped them. 

If you can't see how this technology is a significant step towards improving the safety of riders, I can't help you. 

My 2¢.

Well said Mav. I wish this thing was available 5 years ago when I had my big dinger that ended my days of riding. I suffered an aortic dissection, among other internal injuries and broken bones. I was fortunate and lived through it and healed without them having to crack my chest open. However, the leading vascular surgeons say I am 300-500% more likely to die if I ever have that kind of chest impact again. So I haven't been back on a bike since Mar 2001.

The aortic dissection is caused similar to a concussion, the forces of decelleration against the rib cage, tears the aorta because the heart keeps moving. This chestpro has the possibillity of greatly limiting those forces.

3
AussieParaMX
Posts
1724
Joined
7/30/2009
Location
Mount Waverley, VIC, AU
1/31/2026 3:29pm
Just making sure I understand - the air vest is capable of preventing paralysis and preventing damage to vital organs such as the liver and kidneys.Sounds...

Just making sure I understand - the air vest is capable of preventing paralysis and preventing damage to vital organs such as the liver and kidneys.

Sounds like the panacea we’ve all been waiting for. 

I frankly don’t know why they’re stopping at the chest. They should just make an entire inflatable body bag.
 

-MAVERICK- wrote:
Take it from someone who is paralyzed. Had the technology been around when I was riding, I more than likely would not be in a wheelchair...

Take it from someone who is paralyzed. Had the technology been around when I was riding, I more than likely would not be in a wheelchair. I probably would not have bruised my sternum, broken ribs, punctured a lung and collapsed the other either. 

I burst my T5-T6 vertebrae, but my spinal cord is still intact. The force of the impact I sustained was enough to cause just enough damage to leave me a paraplegic. 

How this would have helped. Easy. The airbag would have significantly reduced the amount of force transferred to my body, therefore protecting vital organs. 

I was wearing a full roost deflector at the time. It protected me from getting scrapes, but they are not designed to reduce the force of an impact. Sure, it'll take some of the brunt out of getting hit by rocks, dirt, and things like that, but that's about it. 

I'm not saying it will save everyone who crashes from receiving body damage or catastrophic injuries as each crash and force of impact is different, but yes, it can absolutely save people from organ damage and paralysis. 

There are other members on here who are paralyzed. Maybe they'll chime in on whether or not this would have helped them. 

If you can't see how this technology is a significant step towards improving the safety of riders, I can't help you. 

My 2¢.

HackMan162 wrote:
Well said Mav. I wish this thing was available 5 years ago when I had my big dinger that ended my days of riding. I suffered...

Well said Mav. I wish this thing was available 5 years ago when I had my big dinger that ended my days of riding. I suffered an aortic dissection, among other internal injuries and broken bones. I was fortunate and lived through it and healed without them having to crack my chest open. However, the leading vascular surgeons say I am 300-500% more likely to die if I ever have that kind of chest impact again. So I haven't been back on a bike since Mar 2001.

The aortic dissection is caused similar to a concussion, the forces of decelleration against the rib cage, tears the aorta because the heart keeps moving. This chestpro has the possibillity of greatly limiting those forces.

I second Maverick. 

I had t9/10 break in a desert race from an impact with a tree.  Cord damaged but not completely severed. I have very little doubt that an airbag would have prevented enough of the damage to prevent paralysis.


TBH I was wearing a soft back body armour and I think turtle shell back protection may have also prevented it. But science says the force has to go somewhere and the airbag provides a place for the force to go unlike almost all other protection which mostly either spreads the force to a larger area or transfers it to the end point of a brace.  The air absorbs the force.  It’s so simple (conceptually) but so effective 
 

2

Post a reply to: Alpinestar Tech Air - Barcia A1 crash

The Latest