Re: Neck Safety Device Comparison
These were the only places I could find that have the moto-r, but who knows if they have it in stock:
The 24 Hours of Lemons Forums → Lemons Newcomers → Neck Safety Device Comparison
These were the only places I could find that have the moto-r, but who knows if they have it in stock:
Weird...in every picture I've found of the Simpson Hybrids, they have rings that click into the belts.
However, in this video, it's self contained, and doesn't connect to the belts:
This company sells the hybrids with the option of no seatbelt anchors:
http://www.thrustmotorsports.com/shop/i … amp;p=3613
And simpson sells them with the option of including or not including the anchors as well:
I just found this and had a good laugh:
Plastic clips?!?
Good discussion:
http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=3010004
And a very interesting post from a HANS employee:
The defNder company was formed by employees who left Leatt Corporation. They were charged with theft of intellectual property by that company and lost a 200K lawsuit to Leatt. This is what put them out of business. After this fact, defNder admitted their design contravened the HANS Device patent and agreed to stop manufacturing and selling this product.
Edit:
So it turns out the guys that made the Defnder actually were previous employees of Leatt. Leatt sued them for violation of intellectual property rights. Leatt was awarded $200,000 dollars, as described here:
http://www.leatt-corp.com/stat_archive.htm
This may be what actually bankrupted them, and it might not have been HANS.
Edit again:
Looks like it might have been everyone that sued defnder:
Looks like Chrysler tried an interesting device, but it didn't quite pan out.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/chrysl … belts,810/
Chrysler Halts Production Of Neckbelts
APRIL 30, 1997 | ISSUE 46•52 ISSUE 31•16
DETROIT—Violent decapitations and permanent paralysis due to severing of the spinal cord are among the reasons cited by the Chrysler Corporation for its decision to recall all '97 automobiles containing the "neckbelts" safety feature.
"In the case of collision, it would appear that the neckbelts have a detrimental effect on overall passenger safety," read a statement released by the company Monday.
The recall, the most expensive in Chrysler's history, goes into effect early next week. In the meantime, the company is advising all motorists who use the neck belts to maintain a defensive driving stance at all times, as accidents may result in "crushed trachea, severe spinal and/or brain damage, and, in the most severe cases, sudden defenestration of the head area, as the entire region above the neck separates from the upper body, flying at tremendous speed through the breakaway glass of the windshield, rolling several yards into the street directly in front of the car," the Chrysler press release stated.
The neckbelts were developed with passenger safety in mind, say Chrysler spokespersons. "Our research showed that one of the biggest risks to motorists is the danger of passengers sustaining head injuries by striking the dashboard or the seat in front of them as their bodies are flung forward during a crash," Chrysler safety designer Robert McArdle said. "Our thinking was that by immobilizing the head and neck, this type of injury would decrease significantly."
The belts, McArdle said, were also intended to reduce the neck stress associated with whiplash. "Unfortunately, it appears that we were erroneous in this analysis as well," he added. "Even minor fender-benders seem to cause motorists wearing neckbelts to have their entire heads forcibly ripped from their torsos, landing in the front seat to the shocked screams of terrified onlookers."
Another negative side effect of the neckbelts is the psychological damage that may be suffered by eyewitnesses upon observing a convulsing, headless human body spontaneously jettison fountains of blood as the adrenaline-maximized heart furiously pumps quart after quart from the neck wound, coating the car interior, the Chrysler statement continued.
Neckbelt wearers are warned that a severed human head may remain alive for up to two minutes before blood loss, oxygen starvation and shock trauma cause it to lose consciousness.
"Brain death is something science still knows very little about," said Chrysler safety engineer Tom Savini, "but drivers should take note that law enforcement personnel have reported observing bouncing, rolling severed heads blinking their eyes and gasping for air as if attempting to speak minutes after separation from the torso on more than one occasion."
Savini said that such still-alive severed human heads "probably live out their last moments in a state of unimaginable agony," and urged caution on the part of drivers who wear the neckbelt device.
In addition to decapitation and paralysis, some consumer advocates have complained that the neckbelt safety devices inhibit side-to-side motion of the head, causing drivers to swerve wildly back and forth in order to maintain a clear view of the street. Other negative side effects cited include difficulty in breathing, eating and talking.
In the wake of industry-wide concern about the safety of the neckbelts, Chrysler is also reexamining the so-called "shrapnelizing" explosive dashboard which became a standard safety option on all new models in 1995.
"By splintering into literally thousands of rapidly spinning jagged fragments, which ricochet around the car's interior at tremendous speeds, tearing any living tissue inside to shreds in seconds, these dashboards may represent a significant safety risk to motorists," read a report submitted to CEO Robert Eaton by a Chrysler safety engineering team.
Many observers are comparing the Chrysler recall to the controversy surrounding the 1976 Ford Pinto, the economy-model compact which, when rear-ended, ignited its fuel tanks and became doused in flaming gasoline, causing passengers to ineffectually pound on the windows and scream as they were burned alive at superheated temperatures within, before exploding as a bomb does.
Try a HANS before you buy: RaceSuitRental now offers HANS devices for rent; you will still need a helmet with standard HANS posts installed or you could rent a helmet that is HANS ready. A team can share a single device providing they all have approximately the same neck size. Size Med will fit 14"-17" neck size and size Large will fit 17"-20".
I ended up buying a HANS. I definitely wanted SFI certification, and wasn't too keen on the R3 and other devices that have components between the seat and your back. I got the Sport II, no sense paying extra to save a few ounces.
Just found this:
After searching around a bit online, it looks like this became available very, very recently. It also looks like an exact copy of the DefNder. It has an adjustable back, it has side straps, it has the big flaps that go over the tops of the belts....it even comes with a case and a hat, just like DefNder.
Any thoughts?
Just found this:
Any thoughts?
I like the design, but I'd say that if you want it, buy it quick. I'd bet that it will soon be enjoined pursuant to a patent-infringement lawsuit. Not commenting on the merit of said lawsuit, just the likelihood that it will be filed.
kornfeld wrote:Just found this:
Any thoughts?
I like the design, but I'd say that if you want it, buy it quick. I'd bet that it will soon be enjoined pursuant to a patent-infringement lawsuit. Not commenting on the merit of said lawsuit, just the likelihood that it will be filed.
So this looked so similar to the DefNder stuff that I looked at the addresses.
Address for DefNder:
1176 Greenfield Drive
El Cajon, Ca 92021 USA
Address for NecksGen:
1176 Greenfield Drive
El Cajon, California 92021
Amazing!
Surely it's a mere coincidence.
Cue the lawsuit in... 3... 2... 1...
I bet you I can buy one before they shut em down... bet ya I can!
Any thoughts on buying a design that is sort of brand new, but is coming from a company with at least some established history?
The established history, to me, is that they came out with a cool product and were sued to keep it from being sold, and they are now trying again. Unless they can successfully defend (pardon the pun) their product, I think a lot of folks are going to be on the fence.
The price isn't that different from a HANS setup from what I can tell, so that's not likely to help their position in the market.
Maybe the Hans patent is up now so others can manufacture a similar design. Should be good for us because prices will come down.
The HANS patent was filed on January 27, 1999 and was granted on January 4, 2000:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars … PN/6009566
I'm not sure if it's a design patent or a utility patent, but I'd bet it's the latter. Design patents last for 14 years and utility patents for 20 years. Either way, their patent hasn't expired yet.
Like I said, buy it quick, there's probably a cease-and-desist that's been issued already. Assuming that the guys doing this one are the same ones that did the d'fender, and given the fact that HANS sued the crap out of them before, this one is likely to be even uglier.
I thought Defnder ran into issues with Leatt, not Hans. Anyway, I'm glad to see they are back in business, especially since Simpson dropped the R3 Rage. More competition means better equipment and pricing for us.
The HANS patent was filed on January 27, 1999 and was granted on January 4, 2000:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars … PN/6009566
I'm not sure if it's a design patent or a utility patent, but I'd bet it's the latter. Design patents last for 14 years and utility patents for 20 years. Either way, their patent hasn't expired yet.
Like I said, buy it quick, there's probably a cease-and-desist that's been issued already. Assuming that the guys doing this one are the same ones that did the d'fender, and given the fact that HANS sued the crap out of them before, this one is likely to be even uglier.
This is the exact reason I would not buy the device. I have no doubt it looks like it will work well, and its a simple device so its not likely to break, but my concern would be with things like the anchors. Say you get a new helmet in a couple years and you need new anchors for some reason, or one of them breaks, or a tether breaks for some reason. Not saying defective but you know shit happens. Now you have a $600 paperweight if they get sued into oblivion again.
I'd rather buy an Issac and you know how much I hate that one, but at least they are around to support it if shit happens.
The thing is, I really like how they limit side movement with those straps, the HANS has nothing like it. Maybe that will be the linchpin of their argument in the lawsuit-to-come. But it's going to be an expensive argument to make. I wonder what % of their sale price is devoted to litigation defense?
The Court awarded a money judgment for $200,000 and enjoined IST “from any further misappropriation, use, disclosure, manufacture, importation, marketing, sales, or offers for sale of products containing Leatt’s trade secrets for a period of two years after entry of this default judgment.”
I'd read that to mean that after 2 years they could reintroduce the product. Reading post #84 .... hmmm surely they would know enough to not step in it again, and avoid similar pitfalls that will lead them back down the same Lawyer Lane again?
Something in the design/manufacturing has to be different enough .. or we're going to see the same thing over again.
Since its pretty clear its the same company under a new name, my guess is that they made sure that this new design is done in a way to avoid all the legal issues they had before. I wouldn't be surprised if the old company going under and forming the new company wasn't all designed by lawyers just so they could make sure to come out with this new skirting around the law suit design.
Since its pretty clear its the same company under a new name, my guess is that they made sure that this new design is done in a way to avoid all the legal issues they had before. I wouldn't be surprised if the old company going under and forming the new company wasn't all designed by lawyers just so they could make sure to come out with this new skirting around the law suit design.
You would think so. But I've had clients who thought that they were being "clever" in this way too. Assuming is a dangerous game...
Good discussion:
http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=3010004
And a very interesting post from a HANS employee:
The defNder company was formed by employees who left Leatt Corporation. They were charged with theft of intellectual property by that company and lost a 200K lawsuit to Leatt. This is what put them out of business. After this fact, defNder admitted their design contravened the HANS Device patent and agreed to stop manufacturing and selling this product.
Edit:
So it turns out the guys that made the Defnder actually were previous employees of Leatt. Leatt sued them for violation of intellectual property rights. Leatt was awarded $200,000 dollars, as described here:
http://www.leatt-corp.com/stat_archive.htm
This may be what actually bankrupted them, and it might not have been HANS.
Edit again:
Looks like it might have been everyone that sued defnder:
This is just a quote of my old post about the lawsuits. DefNder was started by people who used to work for Leatt. DefNder was then sued by Leatt for violation of IP rights; sued by HANS for patent infringement; and possibly sued by Safety Solutions (the company that came up with the R3 and the Hybrids).
The 24 Hours of Lemons Forums → Lemons Newcomers → Neck Safety Device Comparison