I pretty much agree with this.
I'll admit to being one of the biggest "not trusting the regent/Britax in general" people on this board...(chances are, it was a post of mine the OP saw that made her make this thread, lol.)
The regent testing that failed on this last years test was dismissed as not being performed correctly. Okay. I can accept it might have been a testing error. But - the regent also failed in the prior round of testing - when it was correctly tested. I think people are forgetting that little nugget of information. Coincidentally, right after that prior round of testing, is when the new regents came out and the "advisory" and all the stuff about recline bar, etc. Was it really coincidence? Was it really a new modl? Or was there a lot of FAIL going on during the internal, undisclosed Britax testing that caused them to go so far as to modify the regent instructions? I don't know.
I also am VERY leery of the HUGS system being required for FFing, always have been. It is, imo, quite obviously a way to circumvent the chest G and head excursion numbers for the bigger kids. Frankly, I want MY kid in a seat that can pass those tests with flying colors without a bunch of tricky recline bars and hugs/force distributors, etc.
I'm also looking at the numbers. Yes, supposedly, a pass is a pass, and that's it. But it isn't. We can say it is officially, but I want the best I can for my kids. Now - I admit - we do NOT KNOW whther or not the testing numbers correlate to real-life protection. But..when I see a seat just barely coming in under the required limits, and a bunch of other seats meeting those limits easily, sometimes without tether even, etc, does it make sense in my mind to go with those seats? Yep, sure does.
I also admit the seats that had shells break/straps pull through in the TC testing made me exceptionally nervous. Again, I will say that it was NOT JUST britax marathons, but some other seats as well, that failed in that way. Thos other seats are now also on my "do not use" list (for personal use, not necesarily my professional recommendations) So, i'm not singling out Britax just to be a Britax hater or anything, lol.
At this point, in 2010, we have a plethora of seats available that test better, last longer, and are cheaper. Why on Earth would you not use one of them?
Back to the specific issue of the regent. Besides the fact that it has not passed testing at least once that was legitimate, then the whole advisory, recline bar, different belt path for different weights stuff that SERIOUSLY makes me wonder about it - I have to think about the Swedes. They don't FF harness. Now - is it possible they are so right about the RFing for 4-5 years thing, but yet wrong about the Ff harnessing thing? Sure, maybe. BUT - maybe not. I've seen some of teh testing(translated), and I do have significant concerns about neck loads in a FFing harness. I know the stock example of the race car driver..but again, the race car drivers HEAD is also secured by the helemt, which is tethered..which means that while the racecar drivers torso is secured by the body harness, the head is ALSO prevented from flying forward. In a FF harness child seat, that is not true. The body is restrained while the head flies forward..putting ALL of the force of the impact onto the neck that we are supposedly trying to protect. I absolutely believe some of the "give" that happens in a 3-point seat belt, where one shoulder and side of the body is allowed to fling forward to mitigate all of that force going onto the neck, might be vital to survival in some cases.
I also hear about the "if they aren't mature enough to sit properly in the booster, a 5 pt is safer". Okay..I can allow that there is probably some validity to this argument, but i also believe that, in the case of non-SN kiddos, this is also where discipline comes into play. Pleas understand, I'm not saying a 3 year old should be in a booster, EVER, but that by about age 5-7, (which is how long the vast majority of kids will fit into a non-regent harnessed seat), it shoudl be possible for 99% of typical children to achieve the maturity and discipline required for a booster.
now, pleas understand, I am not saying that a 3-4 year old child should be put into a booster over a regent. If you have one of the truly gigantic kids who has outgrown the nauti or other big harnessed seat prior to being 4.5-5 years old, i would recommend a regent and probably even use one myself, if it came down to it. Sure. But over 5? nope. I'd booster train and booster.
I absolutely don't believe that harnessing "as long as possible" is safest. I don't believe we have any data to back up that claim, especially when we are talking about 7-8-9+ year old kids in a regent.
So..ya..there's my book, lol.