At Renchlist, we review retro and urban motorcycle gear after using it like you do for a minimum of 500 miles. That’s about 12 ½ hours in the saddle at an average speed of 40 mph.
It’s more than enough time to get a clear picture of how a piece of gear feels and functions. But also, it gives ample time to observe quirks that may come with extended ownership. At that point, we also begin to see limited signs of expected wear and tear.
What Gear Do We Review?
All riding gear reviewed on Renchlist is protective, i.e. it’s passed the local safety standard for the region in which it’s sold.
Helmet Certification – DOT FMVSS No. 218, Snell M2025D and M2025R or ECE 22.06
Trousers, Leathers and other Protective Clothing – EN 17092
Gloves – EN 13594:2015 – [Level 1 or 2]
Boots – EN 13634:2017 [Level 1 or 2]
How We Source Gear for Testing
Most of the gear reviewed on Renchlist is purchased by me or sent from the moto brands. I regularly decline to review gear
How We Test Gear
We use motorcycle gear, accessories and consumables the same way you do, so we can accurately portray how it functions in the real world under the riding conditions for which the gear is intended.
How We Rate Gear
We use a 5-star rating system with a defined rubric for each category of gear reviewed so we can objectively judge each piece of gear we review fairly. This approach also offers clarity and ensures that the depth of information you see across various reviews is consistent.
Retro Helmets Review Rubric
| Criteria | 1 Star (Poor) | 2 Stars (Fair) | 3 Stars (Average) | 4 Stars (Good) | 5 Stars (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Poor | Fair | Average | Good | Excellent |
| Fit & Comfort | Very uncomfortable with significant fit issues: may cause pressure points. | Some comfort issues with noticeable fit adjustments needed. | Decent comfort with some minor fit issues. | Comfortable fit with minor adjustments needed. | Exceptional fit and comfort: secure and natural feel. |
| Ventilation | Poor ventilation: significant overheating during rides. | Subpar ventilation for a retro design: prone to heat build-up. | Average ventilation typical for retro designs: acceptable airflow. | Good ventilation for a retro: performs well under normal conditions. | Excellent ventilation considering retro design limitations. |
| Value | Not a good value: overpriced considering quality and features. | Overpriced for the quality offered: better options are available. | Reasonable price considering material and production costs. | Fair value: priced competitively for retro styling. | Excellent value: high-quality materials and/or craftsmanship justify the cost. |
| Style | Lacks authentic retro styling: poorly executed design. | Basic retro design with limited attention to detail. | Standard retro look: reasonably appealing design. | Well-executed retro design: visually appealing to many riders. | Outstanding retro design: highly appealing and authentic look. |
Retro Motorcycle Gloves Rubric:
| Criteria | 1 Star (Poor) | 2 Stars (Fair) | 3 Stars (Average) | 4 Stars (Good) | 5 Stars (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Style & Looks | Lacks any retro appeal: poor materials and design: feels cheaply made. | Basic retro style but with limited attention to detail: lacks distinctive vintage elements. | Reasonable retro look with adequate materials: generally appealing but not standout. | Well-executed retro design with quality materials and stylish, appealing aesthetics. | Outstanding, authentic retro look: high-quality materials with meticulous attention to vintage detail. |
| Fit & Comfort | Uncomfortable with significant fit issues, restrictive, or causes pressure points. | Some discomfort or awkward fit: may need frequent adjustments during wear. | Decent fit with minor comfort issues, suitable for casual rides. | Comfortable fit for most riders: fits well with minor adjustments needed. | Exceptional comfort with a natural, snug fit: ideal for long rides with no need for adjustments. |
| Performance & Functionality | Lacks key functionality: poor grip, dexterity, or protective features: inadequate in most riding conditions. | Basic functionality: subpar grip and dexterity, minimal protection, sufficient only for occasional short rides. | Performs adequately in standard conditions: reasonable grip, dexterity, and basic protection. | Good performance overall: solid grip, dexterity, and protection for regular use. | Excellent performance in various conditions: superior grip, dexterity, and protective features. |
| Value | Overpriced for the poor quality and features offered. | Costs more than it should for the level of quality and functionality provided. | Reasonably priced, but better options may exist at similar price points. | Good value considering the quality, features, and retro styling. | Excellent value: high-quality materials, superior performance, and retro design justify the cost. |
Best Gear Lists
When Renchlist creates ‘Best’ lists of gear, you’ll find a combination of our opinions based on gear we’ve reviewed directly and and universal rider opinions. When we use rider opinions, we’ll aggregate feedback from several sources to highlight consensus, as well as common positive and negative feedback.
Affiliate Disclosure
Affiliate relationships support this website but do not influence our opinions . Read more here.