CA 40" rule

[Lenae]

Share |

This is pretty hypothetical, DS is just under 38 inches, so I'm not worried about it, just wondering.

I just bought a CA in Swap, it's going to be our backup/travel seat. DS will probably only ride in it one time RF, this December. As a backup seat, it will be used FF here on the island. But what if my DS were 40 inches and I wanted to RF him? I know no one can reccomend going against manufacturers instructions, but how many of you make the parental decision for yourself? I know some are comfortable disregarding the level to line rule, so how about this one?

[carseatcoach]

This has been done many times before.

I do not have a Complete Air, a rear-facing child, or a child anywhere near 40", so any answer on my part is theoretical.

I think there's a pretty good chance that the manufacturer is sticking hard to an arbitrary limit. But I think there's also a chance that they know something they're not telling. And with plenty of seats on the market that allow rear-facing past 40", I wouldn't choose to use my child to find out whether the limit is arbitrary or not. I'd get a new seat or FF if the child was over 3.5 or thereabouts (proper use trumps best practice).

ETA that Dorel eventually grudgingly approved a more upright use. They're still sticking to 40" afaik.

[Lenae]

I'm sure it has been done before, a lot probably, but I searched (which I'm terrible at, I don't know if I use the wrong words or what, but I never get any good results) and I was still wondering.

[Brigala]

Hypothetically I think I would ignore it. At least, I wouldn't follow it religiously. I would feel comfortable with a 41" child who has plenty of head room left in the seat using it for RF.

My daughter is mostly torso and I suspect she'll get within 1" of the top of the CA before (or about the same time as) she hits 40".

The other rule I disregard is the "child's head can be even with the top of the shell" one. On that, I go more conservative. I am really uncomfortable with it.

I understand "Proper use trumps best practice" but I also think RF is important enough that if a different RF seat isn't an option the safety benefits of RF outweigh what can only be a minor decrease in safety by a very small technicality of misuse. In other words, I can believe that a 41" child is less safe RF than a 39" child, but I have a hard time believing a 41" child is safer FF than RF.

I would still advise parents to follow the rule. But if my daughter hits 40" and still appears to fit RF in her CA, if I still have reason to use the CA I wouldn't turn her immediately.

[momtotwogirls]

Using it more upright I am comfortable ignoring the 40in rule with adequate head room. My youngest is like 37.75in tall with a 12 in torso so even if she grows those 2inches in her torso she will still have like 3-4 in above her head. We havent used the seat in a few months and really Ive only kept it this long because I cant get a good install with the frontier in my husbands car. I would love to get rid of it though.