The other shoe drops. Thanks HANS

FYI:
Yesterday Dave Parker of OG Racing in VA posted this letter from NecksGen, maker of a very good Head and Neck Restraint.

Quote:

---

From: Farin Brady
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Subject: Important Notice



Until further resolution, NecksGen has been instructed by the US District Court in Atlanta to cease production of the standard three sizes of the NecksGen head and neck restraint. In this legal struggle with HANS, and now Simpson Performance Products, NecksGen has never been found guilty of patent infringement. Unfortunately the biggest loser in their ongoing effort to unfairly control the neckbrace market is the racer.



NecksGen has always prided itself as being an innovator of new design and in giving the racers an affordable option in the head and neck protection marketplace while still focusing on quality and versatility. NecksGen thanks its many loyal supports who value the free market and have supported the company by becoming a NecksGen customer.



We will continue to supply parts and support for the three standard models. NecksGen will continue to be innovative in its design and will work tirelessly to continue its philosophy that puts the racers’ needs ahead of the bottom line.



Thank you,



Farin Brady

NecksGen Inc

---

Cliff notes:
HANS wrote a spec, people make products that fit the spec, and HANS sues them out of business. This is #2 for HANS. (there may be others I am unaware of) It's my understanding that neither company got judgement against them, but that both threw up the white flag due to legal costs.

Since Simpson owns HANS, I sent them a letter which read like this:

Quote:

---

To whom it may concern:
Congratulations. Due to your involvement and ownership of the HANS brand, and the continued harassment and "Patent protection" that HANS deals out (most recently to NecksGen), I will never again buy a Simpson branded or owned product. HANS has, since their inception, attempted to monopolize and restrain free trade with it's involvement with SFI. Once you understand their actions over the long term history, you can see that the 38.1 standard is a massive disservice to the racing public. If not for HANS, we all could have higher performing and more consistent Head and Neck Restraints, for more reasonable prices. But the HANS company is out to maximize profits, which they have done successfully. I however will do everything in my power to ensure that they never get a cent from me.

Regards,

Jake Gulick

---

I couldn't find a way to contact HANS, so I posted this on their Facebook page. They were kind enough to let it exist for 15 minutes before removing it in its entirety.

Quote:

---

To HANS,

Congratulations. Due to the continued harassment and "Patent protection" that HANS deals out (most recently to NecksGen), I will never again buy a Simpson branded or owned product, nor a HANS. HANS has, since their inception, attempted to monopolize and restrain free trade with it's involvement with SFI. Once you understand their actions over the long term history, you can see that the 38.1 standard is a massive disservice to the racing public. Sadly, the specification was not written as a performance based spec, but an architecture based spec. Which, of course, limits innovation and design. If the UL had limited home lighting to bulbs with tungsten filaments, inert gas filled, with threaded sockets, we would have no innovation and no LED, HID sodium vapor or any of the other types of lighting. If not for HANS, and the restrictive 38.1 SFI spec, , we all could have higher performing and more consistent Head and Neck Restraints, for more reasonable prices. But the HANS company is out to maximize profits, which they have done successfully. I however will do everything in my power to ensure that they never get a cent from me.

Regards, Jake Gulick

---

Bottom line:
I've tested all of them, and I found the NecksGen to be a real contender. If you are in the market, you should think fast, and get them while they last. SCCA has no limit on the 38.1 cert, so buying one has no lifespan at this point. NecksGen promises to support it and sell parts into the future but can not sell complete units.

I get that businesses are in business to make money, but HANS positions itself like the patron saint of racing safety, yet we'd all be able to wear devices that don't fall off, and devices that provide superior performance if HANS and SFI were actually concerned with safety as their number 1 priority.

I wrote this up for another forum but will post here... thoughts/review on DefNder/NecksGen vs. Isaac vs. Hans:

Quote:

---

Quick review of the DefNder relative to the Isaac and HANS.

Fitment was easy peasy. I used the same holes that previously held my HANS anchors (and prior to that the Isaac anchors). Install was easy too as the helmet anchors use the same inner "washer" as HANS anchors so all I had to do was unscrew the external HANS mount and screw in the DefNder ones. I don't know that it could have been any easier.

I did go ahead and add in the littler washer/spacer things that come with the kit so that the yoke was a touch wider. I don't have a large neck by any stretch (16.5" shirt neck IIRC) but the extra clearance made it a bit easier to slide on.

Since I'd be using it in 2 different cars, neither of which are mine, I didn't have the ability to get all OCD with adjusting the straps before the race weekend (Daytona Chump). I test fit it in one of the cars the day before the race and the tether lengths felt spot on so I didn't bother messing with them at that point. The directions are pretty detailed on how to measure/adjust the tethers if you need to do so. In reading the steps, it's definitely a job for 2 people and I could see it taking 30-45 minutes of testing, measuring, adjusting, etc.

Putting the DefNder on was the same routine that I used with the HANS. Attach the yoke to the helmet and slide the yoke around my neck as I'm lowering the helmet onto my head. No better, no worse than a HANS here. Easier to do than blindly putting the pins in the Isaac once you're in the car but that was never a big deal either way, IMO.

Visibility was at least as good as a HANS and comfort was, IMO, better. The HANS was never what I'd call "uncomfortable" but I could definitely feel/notice the pressure from the CF yoke on my collar bones/chest. The DefNder can't be felt at all once the belts are cinched down as the yoke is made of webbing with plastic only at the ends. Belt routing during the driver change was a little tougher than the HANS b/c of the additional retention lips the DefNder has... it didn't really slow stuff up but it was a bit more difficult to get the belts in place. Bonus was that, once they were in place, I didn't have any problems with them slipping off while getting everything cinched down.

Visibility versus the Isaac was a touch better. One thing that I prefer with the HANS/DefNder over the Isaac is the lack of "rattling" when you turn your head. Since the Isaac is all metal, I would hear it pretty regularly when I moved my head. With the sliding tethers, it's silent.

Egress with the DefNder attached is comparable the HANS which are both worse than the Isaac. No surprise here. A nice feature of the DefNder are the 2 "quick release" straps that attach to the tether mounts. If you're getting hung up by the yoke assembly (or think you will), it's easy to pull these and disconnect the yoke from your helmet. Way easier than trying to unlatch the "regular" attachments that the HANS uses (especially if you're wearing gloves).

I felt safer with the DefNder vs. the HANS as one of the cars has a winged seat and the other doesn't. Neither car has a right side net. The extra lateral protection and belt captivity seems like a good idea given these aspects of the cars...

Price on these is very attractive, IMO. I picked this one up "never used" from someone on the forum here... came with the carrying case, hat, instructions, etc. The NecksGen is under $600 new so there's a definite price advantage over a new HANS (even if you find a used HANS, they still seem to go for ~$500-700+ pretty regularly). If you're lucky enough to snag a cheap HANS off eBay then maybe there's a good reason to go HANS but, otherwise, yeah...

The last advantage to the DefNder/NecksGen is that it's not a HANS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

I couldn't find a way to contact HANS, so I posted this on their Facebook page. They were kind enough to let it exist for 15 minutes before removing it in its entirety.

---

And I just posted it to the Simpson page. I expect it will be gone in the morning.

Between this and the mylaps thing...

You would think that if the SCCA really wanted to act in the best interest of its membership it would do something about monopolies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spa67

Between this and the mylaps thing...

You would think that if the SCCA really wanted to act in the best interest of its membership it would do something about monopolies.

---

LOL

SCCA acted as (effectively) a monopoly in amateur and semi-pro racing for decades. Why would they have anything against monopolies? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spa67

Between this and the mylaps thing...

You would think that if the SCCA really wanted to act in the best interest of its membership it would do something about monopolies.

---

This.

WE are the customers (and decision makers) in SCCA. If you have a problem with being forced into using a 38.1 compliant device- thus contributing to the monopoly- then it's time to vote with your feet. Push back on SCCA and their insurance people about rescinding the 38.1 requirement and revising the requirements to a more general standard that doesn't necessitate the HANS.

Matt

Quote:

---

WE are the customers (and decision makers) in SCCA. If you have a problem with being forced into using a 38.1 compliant device- thus contributing to the monopoly- then it's time to vote with your feet. Push back on SCCA and their insurance people about rescinding the 38.1 requirement and revising the requirements to a more general standard that doesn't necessitate the HANS.

---

I share your reservations on SFI 38.1 but I don't think that going someplace else is a viable alternative. As I recall, SCCA was about the last major sanctioning body to adopt the 38.1 standard for HNR devices. Racing with another group will probably put you with an early 38.1 adopter. A better approach might be to keep pressure on the CRB and the BoD to reexamine their HNR decision.

Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt93SE

This.

WE are the customers (and decision makers) in SCCA. If you have a problem with being forced into using a 38.1 compliant device- thus contributing to the monopoly- then it's time to vote with your feet. Push back on SCCA and their insurance people about rescinding the 38.1 requirement and revising the requirements to a more general standard that doesn't necessitate the HANS.

---

here's the deal with that.
As Terry points out SCCA was the last of the major sanctioning bodies in roadracing to require 38.1. NASA required it over a year before SCCA, as did PCA, BMWCCA, etc etc.

The board was sent letters. But those against 38.1 are a minority. the vast majority can't be bothered.
Racers are addicts. Addicts don't think critically very often. MOST racers might not like it, but they have more pressing matters to take up their brain space. Should they try new pads? Is that cold air intake going to add power? Does that dyno guy REALLy know his stuff? Not to mention the real world issues of "My wife is pissed because I spend time and money on a pointless sport"...

They look at the situation, maybe they kinda get it, but most of them are pragmatic and resigned to the fact that they can't fight city hall, and it's a stupid waste of time to try.

So, we get what we play for.

Our BoD was given many very smart suggestions, like: Use the 38.1 PERFORMANCE specs, and mandate a unit from a firm that has certifed testing done by Wayne State or Delco labs. There are boD guys who favor this approach.

But the Risk managers recommendation was to completely minimize litigation risk by following the industry standards, which, are using the 38.1 spec in it's entirety, like all the other sheep.

SCCA might know what a sham the SFI is, and that the spec sucks, but there isn't another good alternative out there. If Snell or SAE, for example, got into the testing/spec game, then it might be different.

SFI is making money, and conducts it's matters in order to maximize profits. It's business model is designed to force sanctioning bodies and companies to use the specs (that the companies building the products essentially write), and they make $ every single time a unit is sold.
But Snell is a not for profit organization, and would need significant funding increases to take on such a task.

SFI isn't really the issue here, as DefNder and now NecksGen were killed by patent law and fear of litigation costs. they complied with the 38.1 spec. yeah, being freed of that spec does give you more design freedom to achieve the goals of the HnR, but to blame the spec *in this case* is a bit of a circle. the problem is monopoly tactics by HANS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip42

SFI isn't really the issue here, as DefNder and now NecksGen were killed by patent law and fear of litigation costs. they complied with the 38.1 spec. yeah, being freed of that spec does give you more design freedom to achieve the goals of the HnR, but to blame the spec *in this case* is a bit of a circle. the problem is monopoly tactics by HANS.

---

The problem is a combination of the monopoly tactics by HANS as well as the VERY specific scope of the 38.1 spec. I run into this all the time at work where a spec for a certain "task" will be call out some very particular specs that can only be met by one particular product. Since the client can't specify the product, they make the specs only fit their favorite brand and it's up to the vendor (me) to figure out what magical device the client has chosen and then sell it to them.

Anyway, I see this as something very similar. In the end, it's legaleze and lawyer-speak working against free market in order to maximize the profits of a small few.

Quote:

---

SFI isn't really the issue here

---

It absolutely is! Take a deeper look at who SFI truly is and how new mfrs get into the big boys club and it becomes more evident. HANS is a bit part of SFI. They are not to be confused with SNELL who from what I can see actually does unbiased testing and cares about people who use their certified products. SFI is a joke IMO.

I'm fine with the patent aspect but when HANS and now really Simpson control the entire area of what's allowed and will not accommodate potentially improved designs, screw them. It's business, that's it. Sure isn't about our safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip42

SFI isn't really the issue here, as DefNder and now NecksGen were killed by patent law and fear of litigation costs. they complied with the 38.1 spec. yeah, being freed of that spec does give you more design freedom to achieve the goals of the HnR, but to blame the spec *in this case* is a bit of a circle. the problem is monopoly tactics by HANS.

---

As Matt points out, it's a spec that SFI "wrote" that narrows the design down to essentially a HANS.

The SFI exists in large part to limit free trade, and to make its companies money. It's not about quality, it's about safety, it's about a business model to force sales.

If the SFI WERE interested in our safety FIRST, the spec would have been written WAY differently.

Or, even if the spec were written poorly to start with, at least by NOW they would have reworded it.

It's a racket. A sham. A way for HANS to protect its rather inferior design.

The hybrid pro rage is sfi approved and not Hans. Though it too is. Simpson product.

Perhaps the gripe is with the FTC for allowing the monopoly?

I think it's a classic grey deal, not black and white. And Arnie has cultured a story of being an organization that has revolutionized safety in motorsports. And, he really has, to be honest. Now, could we be safer with better specs?? Of course! But to an outside person, they "look" pretty good.
I would imagine the FTC has bigger, and more juicy fish to fry.

Looking at the Hubbard patents US 4,638,510 Jan 27, 1987 and US 6,009,566 Jan 4, 2000 for the HANS, I can't see the difference between the first patent and the "improved" second patent. The first patent expired in 2007, and anybody can make that device. Hubbard has gamed the patent system to essentially reissue the first patent and extend the patent life.

Hubbard deserves everything made from the first patent, he invented something useful. The attorneys earned their $1,000/hour getting the second patent, but it does the public a disservice.

HANS frustrates me to no end. The HANS sticker on the back of my car is upside down for a reason...

Ditto

Oh, if I had a race car, and even though I abhor dumb needless stickers the rules don't force me to have (or aren't generatng income), I would certainly have one that says,

Quote:

---

"Have I told you how much HANS, and Simpson suck? And that goes for the SFI too!?"

---

Oh, if I had a race car, and even though I abhor dumb needless stickers the rules don't force me to have (or aren't generatng income), I would certainly have one that says,

Quote:

---

"Have I told you how much HANS, and Simpson suck? And that goes for the SFI too!?"

---