Weight
Method readySample definition, scale method, repeat readings and grams are defined.
Public result: Published — Classic carbon 8–32 g / Ultra carbon 35–60 g / PP 12–91 g, per guardFirst-Party Evidence Hub
Football Shin Guard Testing & Research
This page documents how SAIWEI SPORTS measures and compares its own custom carbon fiber and PP plastic shin guards. The goal is to make every product claim traceable to a real sample, method, raw measurement, result and limitation — not to replace missing evidence with generic material claims.
Testing Status
What is ready — and what is not.
This status view separates method readiness from actual public product results.
Thickness
Method readyFixed locations, tool consistency and shell-vs-total scope are defined.
Public result: Published — carbon 5 mm / PP 5–8 mm, both incl. EVAImpact
Validation requiredMethod must lock impact device, sensors, metric, setup and repeat count.
Public result: Not publishedScratch
Method draftTool, load, pass count, scoring and viewing condition still require approval.
Public result: Not publishedPrint Durability
Method draftDry rub, wet rub and repeated-handling modules are defined as a framework.
Public result: Not publishedWater / Sweat
Method draftExposure liquid, time, method and evaluation criteria still need final SOP.
Public result: Not publishedUse labels such as Planned, In Progress, Published, Retest Required or Not Directly Comparable. A blank result should never be presented as a positive outcome.
Testing Methodology
One reporting structure for every test.
The evidence framework stays consistent whether the topic is weight, thickness, impact or print durability.
01
Define the sample
Record sample ID, material, size, dimensions, batch, backing, print finish and included components.
02
Identify the equipment
Record the real tool used — for example a digital scale, caliper, defined impact apparatus or repeatable abrasion method.
03
Define the conditions
State shell-only vs complete product, dry vs wet, measurement points, impact location, rub cycles, exposure time and other relevant conditions.
04
Repeat and record
Where practical, retain individual repeated readings instead of publishing only a single observation or average.
05
Publish the raw data
Include readings, units, sample ID, date, method version, result summary and limitations in crawlable HTML or a downloadable dataset.
06
Show the limitations
Different dimensions, small samples, batch variation, instrument resolution and method limits belong beside the result — not hidden in fine print.
Sample Definitions
The product being tested must be identifiable.
SAIWEI SPORTS’ Carbon and PP products do not have identical physical dimensions even when they share a size label, so exact sample definition matters.
Custom Carbon Fiber Sample
Weight & thickness samplesSample IDCFSM01–CFL02 (Classic) · CFUS01–CFUL02 (Ultra)
MaterialCarbon fiber
SizeEvery Classic and Ultra size — 2 guards per size
Product dimensionsMeasured per sample in the log below
Batch / dateNot recorded on the lab sheet
Backing / linerBonded EVA foam, included in all readings
Printed finishNot recorded on the lab sheet
Material documentationEvidence pending
Custom PP Plastic Sample
Weight & thickness samplesSample IDPPSM01–PPXL02
MaterialPP plastic / polypropylene
SizeEvery PP size — 2 guards per size
Product dimensionsMeasured per sample in the log below
Batch / dateNot recorded on the lab sheet
Backing / linerBonded EVA foam, included in all readings
Printed finishNot recorded on the lab sheet
Material documentationEvidence pending
Material identification rule: a carbon-looking surface pattern is not enough to prove material authenticity. Supplier / production documentation, material specifications, close-up edge or construction evidence and third-party verification should be used when available.
Test Modules
Methods first. Results only when earned.
Each module below is designed to receive real sample data later without rewriting the evidence logic.
Test 01
Weight Test
The test should identify the exact sample and size, define what is included in the measurement, zero the scale and record repeated readings in grams.
How much does each shin guard weigh, and are the samples directly comparable?
Carbon Classic result8–32 g per guard
Carbon Ultra result35–60 g per guard
PP result12–91 g per guard
ComparisonPublished — two readings per size
| Sample | Basis | Readings | Range — nominal | Per pair |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Classic | One guard, no packaging | 2 per size, 7 sizes | 8–32 g | 0.0184–0.0648 kg |
| Carbon Ultra | One guard, no packaging | 2 per size, 2 sizes | 35–60 g | 0.0692–0.1202 kg |
| PP Plastic | One guard, no packaging | 2 per size, 8 sizes | 12–91 g | 0.0303–0.1826 kg |
Summary ranges are shown here. Both individual readings for every size, the evidence gate and the limitations register are on the full test page.
Test 02
Thickness Test
Thickness varies across a curved product, so the test must define shell-only vs total construction, fixed measurement locations and repeated readings.
How thick are the current Carbon and PP shin guards at defined locations?
Carbon result5 mm
PP result5–8 mm
ComparisonSame basis, incl. EVA
| Sample | Basis | Reading | Derived | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon | Total construction | 0.45–0.50 cm | 5 mm | Includes the bonded EVA layer. Raw workbook reading. |
| PP Plastic | Total construction | 0.50–0.80 cm | 5–8 mm | Includes the bonded EVA layer, the same basis as carbon. Raw workbook reading. |
Test 03
Impact / Protection Test
An impact test should measure a defined variable under a defined, reproducible setup. It should never be turned into a blanket injury-prevention guarantee.
What metric will the final validated impact setup measure?
Method statusEngineering validation required
Measured metricNot yet locked
Public resultNot published
Test 04
Scratch Test
The scratch test should define sample, contact material, load or manual condition, pass count, direction, viewing condition and scoring.
How does the finished surface change under a repeatable contact condition?
Method statusDraft
Score systemNot formally adopted
Public resultNot published
Test 05
Print Durability Test
Both materials support custom artwork. The evidence question is whether the finished decoration behaves differently under the same dry rub, wet rub or repeated handling protocol.
Does either finished print perform differently under the same repeatable exposure?
Carbon resultNot published
PP resultNot published
ComparisonNo winner without same-method data
Test 06
Sweat / Water Test
Water and sweat testing must define liquid, exposure method, duration and evaluation. A short successful exposure does not automatically justify a permanent “waterproof” claim.
How does the finish change after a clearly defined water or sweat exposure?
Carbon resultNot published
PP resultNot published
Waterproof claimNot supported
External Research Context
Published lab data, cited in full.
Three groups of citable sources frame how shin-guard impact performance is studied: a direct carbon-versus-plastic lab comparison, the certification standards themselves, and finite-element fracture research. None of them tested SAIWEI SPORTS products, so none of it replaces first-party data. Every number below is given with its source so it can be checked.
Direct material comparison: Tatar et al. 2014
Tatar Y, Ramazanoglu N, Camliguney AF, Karadag Saygi E, Cotuk HB. The Effectiveness of Shin Guards Used by Football Players. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2014;13(1):120–127. PMID 24570615. Marmara University, Istanbul.
This is the only published study we found that runs custom carbon fiber shin guards and commercial polypropylene guards through the same impact rig. It compared two custom-made carbon guards with three commercial PP models (Nike Mercurial, Adidas UCL, Adidas Predator).
Samples tested
| Guard | Shell | Backing | Mass |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nike Mercurial | PP plastic, 4 mm | EVA 6 mm | 91 g |
| Adidas UCL | PP plastic, 3 mm | EVA 3 mm | 71 g |
| Adidas Predator | PP plastic, 3 mm | EVA 7 mm | 86 g |
| Carbon-1 (custom) | Carbon fiber, 3 layers ≈ 1 mm | EVA 5 mm | 65 g |
| Carbon-2 (custom) | Carbon fiber, 3 layers ≈ 1 mm | Neoprene 3 mm | 60 g |
Method
- A pendulum striker with a real cleat mounted on a SACH prosthetic foot hit instrumented artificial tibias (Otto Bock resin), pre-tensioned at 142.2 N (low) and 255.1 N (high).
- Transmitted force was read from load cells; contact pressure from 0.18 mm Tekscan F-Socket sensors.
- Two impact levels: low (input ≈ 824–878 N) and high (input ≈ 2,407–2,792 N).
- All carbon-versus-PP differences were significant at p = 0.000.
Results: transmitted peak force and impulse
| Guard | Low: force | Low: % of input | Low: impulse | High: force | High: % of input | High: impulse |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nike Mercurial (PP) | 54.48 N | 6.21% | 1.96 N·s | 262.41 N | 10.90% | 11.25 N·s |
| Adidas UCL (PP) | 79.36 N | 9.63% | 3.17 N·s | 242.30 N | 9.92% | 11.15 N·s |
| Adidas Predator (PP) | 77.08 N | 9.13% | 2.98 N·s | 256.30 N | 10.38% | 12.92 N·s |
| Carbon-1 | 24.03 N | 2.79% | 0.94 N·s | Excluded: the sample broke during the test series | ||
| Carbon-2 | 26.49 N | 3.03% | 1.01 N·s | 143.95 N* | 5.16% | 5.41 N·s |
* Carbon-2 took the hardest strike of the entire study (2,792 N input) and still transmitted the least force. Standard deviations are printed in the source paper.
What the numbers show
- Under matched low impacts the carbon guards transmitted 24.0–26.5 N against 54.5–79.4 N for PP, roughly one-third to one-half of the force.
- Under high impacts Carbon-2 transmitted 143.95 N against 242.3–262.4 N for PP: about 44% lower peak force, and 5.41 N·s of impulse against 11.15–12.92 N·s (52–58% lower).
- The ≈1 mm carbon shells weighed 60–65 g; the 3–4 mm PP shells weighed 71–91 g.
- Overall energy absorption across all guards was 90.4–97.2% at low impact and 89.1–94.8% at high impact.
Boundary: these were third-party products, not SAIWEI SPORTS guards. The sample was small (two carbon, three PP), the constructions differed, and one carbon sample broke during the series. The authors state the limited number of products restricts definitive judgments. This study informs our test design; it does not prove Saiwei Carbon is lighter, thinner, safer or better under impact.
Sources: full text at JSSM · PubMed Central (PMC3918547)
What the certification standards actually test
CE marking for soccer shin guards comes from EN 13061:2009. In the US, NOCSAE ND090 is the reference performance standard. Both certify at low impact energies, and EN 13061 explicitly targets lacerations and contusions rather than fractures.
| Standard | Impact test | Energy | Criterion |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN 13061:2009 | 1 kg drop hammer, center and side points | 2.0 J / 1.5 J | Transmitted force ≤ 2 kN |
| EN 13061:2009 | Stud impact | 14.6 J | No penetration of the guard |
| NOCSAE ND090 | 5 kg sphere, center and side points | 7.5 J / 1.4 J | Pass/fail per ND090 severity criteria |
Boundary: a CE mark or NOCSAE pass is not a fracture guarantee, and it is not a material verdict. The standards define a common minimum for common-play impacts. A guard that passes is comparable to other passing guards at those energies, not automatically protective against every tackle.
How much energy a tibia fracture needs
Shakib et al. 2024. Finite-element tibia and fibula impact models. Proc IMechE Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology.
- Computed tibia fracture forces of 1,595–2,612 N depending on impact location.
- Stud-shaped impactors were the most dangerous of the geometries tested, with the mid-shaft area near 35% of tibial height most vulnerable.
- Equivalent fracture energies of 54.8–68.6 J, roughly four times the ≈15 J ceiling of current industry-standard tests.
Boundary: simulation, not physical testing, and not Saiwei products. It helps explain the gap charted above: standards aim to prevent cuts and bruising in routine play, not to certify guards against fracture-level energies.
Absorption ranges across the wider literature
Reported energy-absorption percentages for shin guards vary enormously with impactor and method. The spread itself is the lesson: a single unverifiable percentage is not evidence.
| Study | Reported absorption range |
|---|---|
| Philippens & Wismans (1989) | 28–53% |
| Bir et al. (1995) | 41.2–77.1% |
| Francisco et al. (2000) | 11–17% |
| Ankrah & Mills (2003) | 86–93% |
| Tatar et al. (2014) | 89.1–97.2% across both impact levels |
Earlier ranges compiled from the literature review in Tatar et al. 2014.
First-Party Measurement
Product Measurement Data
Every size currently sold was measured on production samples by SAIWEI SPORTS. Two physical guards were measured and weighed per size, so each row below is a single sample rather than an average. Weight is recorded per guard, not per pair.
Sample Log — All Sizes
Method: flat measurement of the outer guard with a calibrated rule for width and height, a gram-scale reading for weight, and a thickness gauge for guard thickness. Two samples per size.
| Material | Size | Sample ID | Width (cm) | Height (cm) | Weight (g) | Thickness (cm) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Super Mini | CFSM01 | 7.5 | 6 | 8.8 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Super Mini | CFSM02 | 7.5 | 6 | 9.6 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Mini XS | CFMXS01 | 5.5 | 8 | 7.7 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Mini XS | CFMXS02 | 5.5 | 8 | 7.8 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Mini S | CFMS01 | 6.5 | 10 | 10.6 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Mini S | CFMS02 | 6.55 | 9.96 | 10.4 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Junior | CFJ01 | 7.8 | 12.1 | 16.5 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | Junior | CFJ02 | 7.9 | 12.1 | 16.9 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | S | CFS01 | 7.1 | 15.05 | 20.1 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | S | CFS02 | 7.14 | 15.08 | 19.2 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | M | CFM01 | 8.15 | 17 | 25.4 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | M | CFM02 | 8.15 | 17 | 27.5 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | L | CFL01 | 8.6 | 18.88 | 32.5 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Classic | L | CFL02 | 8.6 | 18.9 | 32.3 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Ultra | Ultra S | CFUS01 | 10 | 15 | 35.1 | 0.45 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Ultra | Ultra S | CFUS02 | 10 | 15 | 34.1 | 0.45 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Ultra | Ultra L | CFUL01 | 12.5 | 19.8 | 59.3 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| Carbon Fiber Ultra | Ultra L | CFUL02 | 12.5 | 19.8 | 60.9 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Super Mini | PPSM01 | 7.92 | 6.02 | 15.1 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Super Mini | PPSM02 | 7.92 | 6.02 | 15.2 | 0.5 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Mini XS | PPMXS01 | 5 | 7.9 | 12.1 | 0.6 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Mini XS | PPMXS02 | 5 | 7.88 | 12 | 0.6 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Mini S | PPMS01 | 6 | 9.65 | 17.8 | 0.6 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Mini S | PPMS02 | 6 | 9.65 | 17.9 | 0.6 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Junior | PPJ01 | 8.2 | 11.6 | 27.5 | 0.6 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | Junior | PPJ02 | 8.2 | 11.6 | 27.6 | 0.6 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | S | PPS01 | 7.58 | 14.9 | 35.5 | 0.7 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | S | PPS02 | 7.62 | 15 | 35.6 | 0.7 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | M | PPM01 | 8.5 | 16.4 | 51.5 | 0.75 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | M | PPM02 | 8.5 | 16.5 | 51.6 | 0.75 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | L | PPL01 | 9.45 | 18.75 | 63.7 | 0.75 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | L | PPL02 | 9.38 | 18.8 | 63.8 | 0.75 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | XL | PPXL01 | 9.8 | 20.8 | 91.2 | 0.8 | With EVA foam |
| PP Plastic | XL | PPXL02 | 9.78 | 20.6 | 91.4 | 0.8 | With EVA foam |
Measurements are first-party readings taken from production samples. Published figures are nominal: actual weight may differ from the value shown by up to ±5 g per guard and each dimension by up to ±3 mm through production tolerance, and further with batch and storage time.
Raw Data & Limitations
The summary must remain checkable.
Every published first-party result should be traceable to individual measurements, method versions and visible limitations.
Raw Dataset
Every published result is also served as a CSV, generated from the same readings this page renders rather than from a second copy of the numbers.
Test ID
Test date
Method version
Sample ID
Product size
Individual readings
Units
Result summary
Notes
Limitations
Shin Guard Weight Test · WT-1.0
Download CSV →
Dataset status: A file is offered only for a test whose readings are published, and Dataset structured data is emitted only on that test's own page. The remaining tests listed above still have no measurements, so they show no download and carry no Dataset markup.
Limitations Register
Limitations should be shown beside the relevant result and retained when evidence is updated.
| Test | Current Limitation | Effect on Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Weight | n = 2 guards per size, weighed individually; single-factory production samples. Published figures are nominal: ±5 g per guard | Supports a per-size weight comparison; the size chosen moves the number more than the material does. A given guard can weigh up to 5 g either side of the figure shown, so read each row as the expected value for its size |
| Thickness | Single measurement point per sample; the EVA foam grade and thickness are not recorded separately | Carbon and PP thickness can be quoted on one basis, total construction incl. bonded EVA; shell-only thickness is not published for either line |
| Impact | Reproducible setup and metric not yet validated | No product protection winner |
| Scratch | Protocol still draft | No durability conclusion |
| Print durability | Same-method Carbon / PP data absent | No print-performance winner |
| Water / sweat | Exposure SOP and real data absent | No waterproof claim |
Update Log
Evidence should have a history.
When a product, material, supplier, construction, print process or method changes materially, the affected claim should be retested instead of silently carrying old data forward.
Date
Test / Data Changed
Version
Reason
Aug 26, 2026
Evidence framework published
Method-first v1
Initial public testing structure; raw product measurements pending.
Sep 9, 2026
External research context expanded with cited data
Research v2
Added Tatar et al. 2014 lab tables, EN 13061 and NOCSAE test energies, Shakib et al. 2024 fracture research and two original charts. First-party product results remain pending.
Sep 17, 2026
First-party weight test published
WT-1.0
Per-guard grams for all 17 sizes across the three product lines, with both individual readings retained per size instead of a single mean.
Sep 17, 2026
PP plastic weight and thickness re-read with the EVA foam layer in place
WT-1.0 (revised)
The earlier PP rows were bare-shell readings. Re-measured on the finished guard so carbon and PP share one construction basis; the "not directly comparable" note and the shell-only thickness caveat were withdrawn with it.
Evidence FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
These answers explain the method without claiming results that have not been measured.
How do you test shin guard weight?
We identify the exact sample and size, define whether the measurement includes one guard or the complete usable product, zero the scale, record repeated readings in grams, and retain the individual values. A Carbon-vs-Plastic conclusion is only made when the samples and measurement conditions are sufficiently comparable.
How do you measure shin guard thickness?
Thickness is measured at defined locations with the same tool and method. The page should state whether the value is shell-only or total construction thickness. Multiple readings are retained because a curved shin guard can vary across the surface.
Do you compare carbon fiber and plastic under the same conditions?
That is the goal for direct comparisons. If physical dimensions, backing, construction or another factor prevents an equivalent setup, that difference must be recorded as a limitation. We do not label two results directly comparable when the method does not support that conclusion.
What does your impact test measure?
The final answer depends on the validated test setup. The public method must identify the impact device, sensor, sample position, impact condition, measured variable, repeat count and limitations. No impact result is published until that setup is reproducible and documented.
What does published research say about carbon versus plastic shin guards?
In the only direct lab comparison we found (Tatar et al. 2014, J Sports Sci Med), custom carbon guards transmitted about 44% less peak force and 52–58% less impulse than commercial PP guards under matched high impacts, using ≈1 mm carbon shells at 60–65 g versus 3–4 mm PP shells at 71–91 g. Those were third-party products, so we cite the study as method context, not as a Saiwei result. Standards context matters too: EN 13061 and NOCSAE certify at 15 J and below, while finite-element work (Shakib et al. 2024) puts tibia-fracture energies at 54.8–68.6 J.
How do you test print durability?
Print durability should use a defined repeatable protocol such as dry rubbing, wet rubbing, water exposure, sweat exposure or repeated handling. The same artwork and comparable production conditions should be used when Carbon and PP plastic are compared.
Where can I see the raw results?
Published raw measurements appear in HTML tables on the Testing & Research page and, when available, in a downloadable raw-data file identifying the sample, date, method version, readings, units, result and limitations. A file is offered only for a test whose readings are published, and the Raw Dataset card names the tests that currently qualify.
How often are the tests updated?
Tests should be updated when a product, material, supplier, construction, print process, relevant production batch or method changes enough to affect interpretation. Meaningful revisions should be recorded in the Update Log.
Use the Evidence, Then Choose
Testing is not the final purchase decision. It provides the measurements, method and limitations behind that decision.