How are you feeling about the Regent after the recent testing?

a_js

New member
After reading NHTSA's FMVSS213 results this morning, I'm feeling nervous about using a Regent. According to the testing (I'm using the 6 year old, tethered, seatbelt install as an example) the HIC and HE numbers seem pretty high. But then I read that there was something wrong with the test bench--well, shouldn't they have re-run the tests or left it out altogether? What kind of sense does it make to say 'these numbers suck but we're pretty sure they're wrong'?

As an aside, it's kind of funny how the chest load number, which was the big deal last time, is apparently just fine now :p

So. Your thoughts? Will you keep using it?
 
ADS

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus
Staff member
I'm honestly wishing I could put my DD1 back in her Regents based on our booster options which I'm less than thrilled with at the moment after seeing the TC and some EU testing of the Olli and Monterey. She's topping off the Regent by height though so it's no longer an option for her, although I intend to hand our 2 Regents down to DD2 if she tops out our other HWH seats by height before she's truly booster ready.
 

lovemyfamily

New member
Where are these results?

I was actually feeling pretty good about the Regent after TC. Now I don't want to read something to make me question that. GRRRR!
 

Raegansmom4

New member
Was this the old testing before the post-advisory Regents were made? This resulted in the recline bar and changes w/ lbp vs sbp rules.
 

Connor's Mom

New member
No, this is the newer testing--link here.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/testing/comply/fmvss213/index.html

If you open the top (1/09) link, you'll see a big spreadsheet, and it's Sheet 2 of the excel file.

Am I looking at the wrong thing because this is what I see, the P near the end meaning it passed with both dummy sizes:

181 Britax Regent (E9L3969) 6 Yr. Old W (FF)(U) N N N/A N/A 681 808 N/A P 640722
182 Britax Regent (E9L3969) 3 Yr. Old (FF)(U) Y N 619 50.8 615 732 N/A P 640722
183 Britax Regent (E9L3969) 6 Yr. Old (FF)(U) Y N 746 51 686 798 N/A P 640722
184 Britax Regent (E9L3969) 3 Yr. Old (FF)(U) Y N 722 59.9 683 795 N/A P 640722
185 Britax Regent (E9L3969) 3 Yr. Old (FF)(U) N N 407 53.5 869 826 N/A p 640722
 

Pixels

New member
I don't really feel any differently today about the Regent than I did two days ago. For a child who needs the harness height, it's the right seat.

Peggy, see the last line, with the 3yo dummy? The 869 is head excursion, and it's limited to 813 mm when tested without the tether. NHTSA chose not to pursue the high result as a possible noncompliance because there was a problem with the test bench. The back of the bench was not properly reinforced, which may have pushed the child restraint forward.
 

Connor's Mom

New member
I don't really feel any differently today about the Regent than I did two days ago. For a child who needs the harness height, it's the right seat.

Peggy, see the last line, with the 3yo dummy? The 869 is head excursion, and it's limited to 813 mm when tested without the tether. NHTSA chose not to pursue the high result as a possible noncompliance because there was a problem with the test bench. The back of the bench was not properly reinforced, which may have pushed the child restraint forward.

Gotcha. :thumbsup:
I don't ever plan on using our Regent un-tethered so I guess for me it is a mute point. I will continue to use our Regent without being worried.
 

a_js

New member
I dunno. To me, this

183 Britax Regent (E9L3969) 6 Yr. Old (FF)(U) Y N 746 51 686 798 N/A P

versus this

Nautilus 8J00BRV 6 Yr. Old (FF)(U) N N 428 56.5 566 785 N/A P

I interpret that as: the Regent, with a tether, had much worse numbers for head excursion and head injury criteria than the Nautilus did without a tether.

I'm not claiming to be a crash testing official or even know very much about it, but that's how I see the math.
 

Gypsy

Senior Community Member
I wish they would change the way they measure head excursion. It's something that's bothered me for a long time now.

Currently, they measure from a point BEHIND the vehicle seat. The problem here is that some seats are SO thick - like the Regent, and other seats are paper thin like the Scenera - yet they are measured from the same point.

Ideally (IMO) they should be measured from the front of the seat - where the child's head rests, IMO that would give a more accurate measurement of how far forward a seat allows the head to move.

It's also important to note that provided there is plenty of room between the child and the front seat - low head excursion on a Regent isn't a big deal - again because of how thick it is. It doesn't mean the neck is being stretched further, it just means the head moves forward from that point more even if only because the Regent is a thick seat.

ETA: the whole point of head excursion is to see how likely it is that a child will come into contact with the front seat - I understand that. That's a big problem for head injuries. However, most people see those numbers and think OMG that's BAD even if their child has a lot of room, more than necessary in the vehicle between them and the seat in front of them. I think a lot of people think it measures how far the neck will stretch, and that's not the case. So is a high number bad? depends on the car!
 

Raegansmom4

New member
The Regent was made for big tall kids like my 4 yo dd who is 42 in and 46.6 lbs. She is just on the top slot of the GN but on the 3rd in the regent w/ tons of grow room. I'd rather "risk" the regent than move her to a booster earlier than I'd have to. Bet the regent tests better for HE than a booster! Don't get me wrong - I LOVE our GN and am saving it for dd2 since she's a shortie-pants, but the GN may not be able to get my just-turned 4 yo to a safe boostering age of 5.5 to 6. That's why I snagged a Regent before they were gone.
 

Pixels

New member
I do not think head excursion measures how much a child's head and neck will stretch. I have a compact car, and I KNOW I don't have the 30ish inches of head excursion room allowed by FMVSS. It's important for me to pick a seat that will reduce the likelihood that my child's head will strike the vehicle interior, and head excursion (as currently measured) is the best way to measure that.

As for measuring neck stretch, they already can do that (though it's not required by FMVSS). There are instruments in the dummies that can measure neck elongation. Measuring from the front of the seat doesn't measure how much the child's neck will stretch because it doesn't take into account other factors, like how much the seat allowed the dummy's entire torso to move forward with the head. Remember the TC videos with the harnesses ripping out? Those dummies had very high head excursion, but I'll bet they had very little neck stretching.
 

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants
Bet the regent tests better for HE than a booster!

The 6yo dummy in a tethered Regent had head excursion of 686mm and a HIC of 746.
The 6yo dummy in a Compass B510 had head excursion of 411mm and a HIC of 498.
The 6yo dummy in a Turbobooster had head excursion of 531mm and a HIC of 311.
The 6yo dummy in a Monterey had head excursion of 428mm and a HIC of 419.
 

a_js

New member
ETA: the whole point of head excursion is to see how likely it is that a child will come into contact with the front seat - I understand that. That's a big problem for head injuries. However, most people see those numbers and think OMG that's BAD even if their child has a lot of room, more than necessary in the vehicle between them and the seat in front of them. I think a lot of people think it measures how far the neck will stretch, and that's not the case. So is a high number bad? depends on the car!

That's a really good point and one I had not considered. In our case, driving a very compact (Toyota Matrix) car, it does make a difference. Particularly when DH is sitting in front of where the carseat is installed, as he needs more leg room than I do.
 

bobandjess99

Senior Community Member
The 6yo dummy in a tethered Regent had head excursion of 686mm and a HIC of 746.
The 6yo dummy in a Compass B510 had head excursion of 411mm and a HIC of 498.
The 6yo dummy in a Turbobooster had head excursion of 531mm and a HIC of 311.
The 6yo dummy in a Monterey had head excursion of 428mm and a HIC of 419.

ya, that. As Someone pointed out in the other thread, actually, with the 6 year old dummies, boosters frequnetly gave better numbers than hwh seats. DEFINITELY something to think about, especially since we KNOW that sweden, who has done extensive testing, also came to the same conclusions in regards to FF harnessing.
I have to say, given the mounting evidence, I do not know that I plan to FF harness "to the max" anymore. I have to consider that moving to a booster within this next year might be the better option. While the thought of her in her harness makes me feel safer, I do have to honestly question whether or not being in a boster, and therefore spreading those forces out over more than just her neck, might be safer.
 

mommaon112903

New member
The 6yo dummy in a tethered Regent had head excursion of 686mm and a HIC of 746.
The 6yo dummy in a Compass B510 had head excursion of 411mm and a HIC of 498.
The 6yo dummy in a Turbobooster had head excursion of 531mm and a HIC of 311.
The 6yo dummy in a Monterey had head excursion of 428mm and a HIC of 419.

So Josef is in a Monterey and an old-style Parkway (which of course was not tested) and I :love: them both for the deeper wings than the Turbo but I am reading this correctly that the Turbo has lower HIC than the Monterey?

Out of *these* boosters which one would be the *best*? I know fit plays a major role but which one of these particular boosters faired the best when you are talking the number game.
 

myliljunebugs

New member
So Josef is in a Monterey and an old-style Parkway (which of course was not tested) and I :love: them both for the deeper wings than the Turbo but I am reading this correctly that the Turbo has lower HIC than the Monterey?

Out of *these* boosters which one would be the *best*? I know fit plays a major role but which one of these particular boosters faired the best when you are talking the number game.

I'm going to assume that it is because the turbo booster has a much thinner head rest area than the Monterey? So the Monterey starts out at a disadvantage...


If DS would ride correctly in a booster I would switch him today. My car is fairly large though so I'm just going to have to deal with it for now. I'm going to try him every few months in a booster though, I was originally planning on waiting til his 8th bday.
 

Raegansmom4

New member
I guess my biggest point it this - I feel my dd will be safer in the Regent than moved to a booster before she is mature enough to sit properly in the booster. She is a wiggly kid at just turned 4 this past Wednesday. Do I plan to leave her in the Regent until she's 7 or 8? Probably not. Will I leave her in it until she's 5.5 or 6? Yes. Would the GN maybe get her to 5.5 or 6? Maybe, but probably not. That's 1.5-2 years from now, and I don't think the GN would last her that long in the harness. At this age (just turned 4) - technically "old" enough and heavy enough for a booster (46.6 lbs), I will never think a booster is safer than the Regent. Comparison numbers or not. I'd never discourage extended harnessing to any parent. Too many kids are put into boosters too early as it is, let alone scaring them into thinking HWH seats are "dangerous." Same as all the TC videos are scaring parents into thinking untethered or non-ARB rfing seats are dangerous.
 

mommaon112903

New member
I agree 100%...a booster MUST be properly used for a child to ride in it, otherwise ANY properly used harnessed seat is safer for that child.

I guess my biggest point it this - I feel my dd will be safer in the Regent than moved to a booster before she is mature enough to sit properly in the booster. She is a wiggly kid at just turned 4 this past Wednesday. Do I plan to leave her in the Regent until she's 7 or 8? Probably not. Will I leave her in it until she's 5.5 or 6? Yes. Would the GN maybe get her to 5.5 or 6? Maybe, but probably not. That's 1.5-2 years from now, and I don't think the GN would last her that long in the harness. At this age (just turned 4) - technically "old" enough and heavy enough for a booster (46.6 lbs)QUOTE]

Josef was *just* moved out of his Regent a few weeks ago. Now granted since he was 5.6yrs he has not been in his Regent much at all, but he is officially full-time boostered as of two weeks ago. The Regent is the ONLY seat to get us this far harnessed and it is still a great seat for a child who *needs* the extra harness height.
 

a_js

New member
I guess my biggest point it this - I feel my dd will be safer in the Regent than moved to a booster before she is mature enough to sit properly in the booster. She is a wiggly kid at just turned 4 this past Wednesday. Do I plan to leave her in the Regent until she's 7 or 8? Probably not. Will I leave her in it until she's 5.5 or 6? Yes. Would the GN maybe get her to 5.5 or 6? Maybe, but probably not. That's 1.5-2 years from now, and I don't think the GN would last her that long in the harness. At this age (just turned 4) - technically "old" enough and heavy enough for a booster (46.6 lbs), I will never think a booster is safer than the Regent. Comparison numbers or not. I'd never discourage extended harnessing to any parent. Too many kids are put into boosters too early as it is, let alone scaring them into thinking HWH seats are "dangerous." Same as all the TC videos are scaring parents into thinking untethered or non-ARB rfing seats are dangerous.

In your situation, with a wiggly, tall kid I would probably do the same. Everyone's got a different situation. Your 4 year old is basically the same size as my 5.5 year old (he's 44" tall, but same weight). And there is no way he was ready for a booster at 4; he still isn't. But he's got another 6-12 months in the Nautilus, so we'll just roll with it for now.
 
Last edited:

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,655
Messages
2,196,895
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top