I understand the tests are important, and that a seat must pass. My question was in regard to how the results are being interpreted here. It's widely accepted that in the real world, a seat that has the best fit is safer, but that fact seems to be ignored when judging the results of these tests. I didn't see why this would be any different when comparing them. It seems that everyone assumes that all the seats fit the test rig and dummy perfectly, and that the results are a true reflection of the best protection each seat can provide. If the fit is so important in real world results, why shouldn't it be considered when judging these results. Perhaps, if the dummy was a different shape (I.E. taller and thinner, or shorter and fatter) as all kids are, the results could have been completely different, and seats that came out on top could have performed far worse and vice versa. I thought the main point of the test was to make sure the seats pass, not to rate which ones are better than the others, because there are so many factors that can't be incorporated into the test.
Considering that this thread is open for the public to see, I'd hate for someone to buy a seat based primarily on the numbers in this test, instead of how the seat fits. Especially, because the seats with better results may have performed differently with a child the size of their own.