FWIW, you can Aerostich's take on Cordura vs. Kevlar if you
click here, then scroll down to "2001 Catalog Sidebars," then click on "The Straight Story on Kevlar." Sorry I couldn't figure out how to post a directly link.
I agree with Mike on this one. I often read marketing hype 10-15 times just to see if I can identify where the slick marketing folks are playing on words. And, I keep coming to that conclusion after reading "The straight story on Kevlar". A good portion is bashing Kevlar in the raw form. So what, I am not aware of any gear being made with 100% Kevlar. But, it does do a good job of making someone cautious of Kevlar before getting into the details of their competitors gear that use a Kevlar blend suit.
Now, that it has been established in the readers mind Kevlar has flaws they move on to the gear from competitors. They clearly state it loses some of the fire-resistant qualities, just like nylon. WHAT? Look at the beginning of the article when they mention their material, Cordura® nylon. Keep reading and they mention their fabric as Cordura® (which is a type of nylon), but when it come to catching fire they don't want Cordura® to look bad so they use the word nylon. To me this is a play on words so a reader just not come to the conclusion "So, your suit will catch fire also?". I have been riding 18 years now and have never came in direct contact with an open flame. Maybe, just maybe, I ride to safe since I have never ridden though a ring of fire. It also mentions hot components or high friction. But, what are the temps that this fabric melts? Does this the Cordura® melt at 200 degrees and the Kevlar blend melt at 150 degrees? Or, does the Kevlar blend melt at 1000 degrees? The article calls out that both fabrics can melt, but which one will melt at a lower temperature?
The next section mention some competitors suits are designed and approved specifically for road racing. So what, I don't want to compare a road racing suit to a suit not designed for road racing. They could have compared the competitors normal road gear against their road gear. Instead they compared an apple to an orange and failed to mention the competitors normal road gear.
All-in-all I don't consider this article to offer much valid info. The article seems to be a marketing thing to me. On the flip side everything could be true and the writer did a poor job of writeing the article. However, I don't think that is the cases since no tests results and numbers are given in the article.
Just my opinion!!!