Installing infant seat w/o a base.

[akearney3]

Looking back at CR's erred crash test results in 2007, I noticed that most of the problems the seats had were that most twisted on the base or flew off the bases (evenflo discovery) when hit at high rates of speed.

QUestion: Is it safer to install an infant seat without the base? I guess what I'm asking, would the car seats that were tested in 07 have failed so badly if they were installed w/o the base?

P.S--I'm going to get either a Graco SR or SS1 for my baby due next month. I have a BLVD waiting for her when she gets bigger.

Thanks in advance!

[Maedze]

The CR testing was fundementally flawed. There are many, many, many things to be concerned about when you are installing a seat. What you need to keep in mind is that if you install a seat according to manufacturer's directions, you have fundementally increased the safety to the point that worrying about potentials based off a flawed study is going to do little more than give you a stomach ulcer :p

Infant seats in their bases, assuming the seats are not damaged and are properly installed and used, are very, very, very safe.

Both Graco infant seats are great baby seats that are easy to use and easy to install. You are going to be fine using the base :)

[Pixels]

The CR tests may have been flawed in that they did not test what they were trying to test. But they did provide valuable information about side impact crashes at 70 mph!

But no, I would say that it is safer to use a seat with the base. It's just too easy to make installation mistakes, and the more times you do it, the more chances you have to make a mistake. If you only do it rarely, you can take the time to make sure it's right.

[mykidsmylife]

That is what gets me. We frequent 80MPH on the Autobahn here.
Baby girl will be using a Snugride with base and I will just have to pray all turns out okay for all if anything were to happen.

But either way is safe. The base it just easier. :)

[Maedze]

The CR tests may have been flawed in that they did not test what they were trying to test. But they did provide valuable information about side impact crashes at 70 mph!



I'm not sure they even did that. CR has a history of making absurd recommendations. I've never gotten the impression that they know what they're doing. I'm not even sure they know how to properly install seats. For that reason, unless I see an independent certified testing agency that makes its testing processes open to an impartial party (like SafeKids), mimic these results, this is just not something I think is even justified worrying about.


MBML, remember that while you are traveling at that speed on the highway, impacts very rarely actually happen at that speed. Brakes are nearly always applied prior to the impact, which reduces the speed significantly.

[Pixels]

I'm not sure they even did that. CR has a history of making absurd recommendations. I've never gotten the impression that they know what they're doing. I'm not even sure they know how to properly install seats. For that reason, unless I see an independent certified testing agency that makes its testing processes open to an impartial party (like SafeKids), mimic these results, this is just not something I think is even justified worrying about.

They used an independent to conduct the actual testing. That is why there was a problem with the tests. There was a miscommunication about the speed they wanted the tests run at. When CR said 35 mph, the testing company thought they meant 35 mph combined velocity after the impact. But since (in the tests) the struck vehicle is stationary, and it is only the impacting vehicle that is moving, after the impact they move off together at about half the impacting vehicle's original velocity.

The test was supposed to be run at 35 mph for the striking vehicle, the combination moving off together at about 17.5 mph. The test was actually run so that the combination moved off together at 35 mph, simulating a 70 mph impact.

Whether or not the independent is a certified agency, I don't know off the top of my head.

[safeinthecar]

The other thing is that, not only was the speed off, the pulse and the weight of the sled was off as well.

Basically, the test in no way resembled the way energy is actually transfered in vehicle crashes.

[Defrost]

I have also read about cases where the belt guides used for baseless infant seats have broken off completely - it unclear what factors caused this, as it was in real-life crashes.

The important thing to remember is that not all crashes are survivable, and that the best we can do is to install the carseats according to the manufacturer's instructions, make sure our kids fit their seats, and use them correctly every time.

ETA: I forgot to add - the CR report did NOT provide valuable information about side-impact crashes at 70mph. They provided information about side IMPACTS at 70mph. That type of crash is statistically rare and often not survivable for any occupant.

[Pixels]

ETA: I forgot to add - the CR report did NOT provide valuable information about side-impact crashes at 70mph. They provided information about side IMPACTS at 70mph. That type of crash is statistically rare and often not survivable for any occupant.

What's the difference between a side-impact crash and a side-impact?

[zeo2ski]

I'm guessing side impact means a stationary vehicle hit by a moving one, as opposed to a side impact crash where both vehicles are moving and crash into each other.

[Defrost]

Right, that's basically it - what they wanted to test was how well the seats would do in a "typical" side-impact crash, the type that can be survivable in many cases. This would be kind where a driver doing the speed limit accidentally runs a red light, but still sees the vehicle in the intersection and is able to brake/swerve before hitting it.

What they actually tested was more like a vehicle running a red light at 70mph and hitting a car on the side, without ever slowing down or swerving - which isn't typical. 70mph is highway speeds, and most of the time you won't ever be sideways in the path of a vehicle going that speed who won't even try to stop when he sees you. In that type of crash, the car itself has so much intrusion, and so much force is applied to the people inside, that even if the carseat works perfectly, the impact alone will likely kill or severely injure the child anyway.

It's kind of like saying "Ooo, this brand of carseat has been tested for use underwater!" But your kid can't breathe underwater anyway, so what's the point?

[ketchupqueen]

Hey, I need a seat that's been tested underwater for use in my aqua-car! Which one is that? :p

[Defrost]

You have a baby with gills??? This I gotta see... ;)

[ketchupqueen]

What, didn't you ever watch Bedknobs and Broomsticks? It's magic!

[joolsplus3]

That is what gets me. We frequent 80MPH on the Autobahn here.
Baby girl will be using a Snugride with base and I will just have to pray all turns out okay for all if anything were to happen.

But either way is safe. The base it just easier. :)


Most crashes have a huge degree of deceleration before the impact... think: skidmarks on the road. 97% of crashes still occur below about 30 mph, no matter what the speed limit is or how fast people drive. :) (much faster than that, and the odds it's unsurvivable go up a lot).

[Pixels]

Hey, I need a seat that's been tested underwater for use in my aqua-car! Which one is that? :p

But does the bed have a seatbelt on it for you to install the seat?

[ketchupqueen]

No, we have an aqua car. With seatbelts. No beds for us.

It is animated, though.

(The kids hanging on to the bed as it zoomed through the air always really bothered me as a kid.)