What's your view on the CA?

ChckLiz · Apr 14, 2010

I have 'hopefully' sold an item on CL for real this time

yay.. and I'm going ot have more money than I thought to spend on a new seat for Jonah. I really like the TF but I'm also leaning towards the CA too. Just a couple of questions.

Does it sit up on a base or is it pretty low on the seat like the TF?? And would it definitely get me to 3 *possibly longer if he still fits*?

TIA!

bobandjess99 · Apr 14, 2010

Uh...the CA is huge. It sits low. ME loves it....that's ours there in my sig.

Here's the deal....shell height wise, it's the absolute tallest seat for RFing on the market. Much taller than even the radian. The problem? Dorel, in their infinite stupidity, has listed a 40 inch height limit for rearfacing. Many people are fine with exceeding the listed heightlimit, as long as there is still an inch abnove the childs head. To give you an idea of perspective, a child with average proportions at 40 inches tall is gonna have at least 6 inches of shell over their head still....so, it dedpends on what dedcision you want to make about following the 40 inch limit versus the one inch of shell above the head limit. If you follow the 40 inch limit.,.,youve got until the kikd is 40 inches tall...which is about 4 years old for a 50% percentile kid. If yougo by shell height and 1 inch over the head....you have until 40 pounds....I would wager many 6 year olds will fit *by height* in the CA rearfacing.

wendytthomas · Apr 14, 2010

The CA actually states in the manual you can use it up to the top of the headrest, not 1". Or 40". Duhhhh. They obviously didn't look at what 40" looks like when they said the top of the headrest is ok. Piper had 1.5" of room above her head rear facing at SEVEN years old. She's usually at the 3% for weight, and she would have outgrown the CA by weight rear facing, not height. The TF would have gotten her to 35 pounds rear facing. She *just* fit at seven years (1" even above her head). The Radians would be maybes on 40 pounds, no way would she fit rear facing at 45 pounds.

I like the seat.

Wendy

DahliaRW · Apr 15, 2010

LOVE LOVE LOVE my CA. I don't have the new one with the base, that might make it a bit higher, but it sits really quite low on the seat. Not as low as the radian, but still very low and way lower than the britax convertibles. Takes up less room front to back then my SS1 when installed around 30 degrees. It also is nice and light, was really easy to haul on and off the plane! If you travel thats' a plus.

If you ignore the 40" thing it'll easily get just about any kid to 4yo rfing by height. Ironically, I think my ds2 will outgrow it by weight before height (even with the 40" thing) rfing, go figure!

ChckLiz · Apr 15, 2010

Good! It sounds like a good seat! Jonah would probably outgrow it by the height part first as that's in the 95% and has been since birth.. weight used to be that high but it's only in the 20-25% :thumbsdown: *kid wont eat* I may really consider this seat. I found the orange colored one on BRU for 180 and I'm in LOVE with that color!

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Apr 15, 2010

If he continues on his curve, he will be 40 inches at about 3 years 3 months. Hmm, he might not even be 35 pounds by then. Although, would most likely still fit the CA by height if you go by the 1 inch rule.

Maedze · Apr 15, 2010

Jennifer mom to my 7 said:
If he continues on his curve, he will be 40 inches at about 3 years 3 months. Hmm, he might not even be 35 pounds by then. Although, would most likely still fit the CA by height if you go by the 1 inch rule.

The CA does not use the 1" rule. DOREL allows occupants to reach the TOP of the fully extended shell.

My four foot child still fits rearfacing by height in the CA with room to grow.

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Apr 15, 2010

Maedze said:
The CA does not use the 1" rule. DOREL allows occupants to reach the TOP of the fully extended shell.

My four foot child still fits rearfacing by height in the CA with room to grow.

I know that

Just saying it. ANd some don't agree with it, just like some are willing to ignore the 40 inch rule

I would probably ignore the 40 inch rule, just like others ignore the 36 inch rule for rf in the scenera

Maedze · Apr 15, 2010

Jennifer mom to my 7 said:
I know that Just saying it. ANd some don't agree with it, just like some are willing to ignore the 40 inch rule

I would probably ignore the 40 inch rule, just like others ignore the 36 inch rule for rf in the scenera

Some don't agree with what

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Apr 15, 2010

Maedze said:
Some don't agree with what

Sorry, with using the seat to the top of the headrest, because of ramping up the seat.

Maedze · Apr 15, 2010

Jennifer mom to my 7 said:
Sorry, with using the seat to the top of the headrest, because of ramping up the seat.

Oh, who feels that way?

I don't see the need to be concerned, especially considering the 1" rule was a relict of seats with no hip straps.

This seat has hip straps, and is so tall that the danger of over rotation is nil unless the seat in front has been removed/folded down. If the harness is at/below the shoulders, meh.

Dorel may be being over cautious with the silly 40" limit and so forth, but they aren't likely to make a limit that's actually dangerous for a child.

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Apr 15, 2010

It has been said around here several times, by different people, about not being comfy with the head even with the top of the seat. Don't remember specifics.

No need to debate me about it

But really, anyone here as a regular knows the benefits of rear facing, and can make their own parental decisions on these matters (stated height limits, 1 inch rule or top of seat, recline angle, even).

What we have to do, is get the info out to others (like people who work in the insurance industry and get crash info, and feel their tiny 15 month old is just as safe forward facing because all the stuff she has seen has been compared to the child being in nothing)

mommycat · Apr 15, 2010

I seem to remember reading someone say there may be a reason to limiting the height in either the CA or the Radian, when those first came out with the higher wt limits in Canada (where the CA has a 36" limit, even more annoying), because as you put more weight in the seat and distribute it higher up the shell, the seat "wants to open up" in a crash and might fail (the sides buckle outwards). I can't remember the exact details of who said it, whic seat it was or the circumstances of the conversation where the info was given. Anyone else remember anything like this? Am I dreaming things up?

Maedze · Apr 15, 2010

mommycat said:
I seem to remember reading someone say there may be a reason to limiting the height in either the CA or the Radian, when those first came out with the higher wt limits in Canada (where the CA has a 36" limit, even more annoying), because as you put more weight in the seat and distribute it higher up the shell, the seat "wants to open up" in a crash and might fail (the sides buckle outwards). I can't remember the exact details of who said it, whic seat it was or the circumstances of the conversation where the info was given. Anyone else remember anything like this? Am I dreaming things up?

I really don't see how that would work. The fear of excessive weight is overrotation. If Dorel has certified the seat for use to the top of the fuly extended shell, the shell is not going to open up.

That sounds like someone who once told me that a CRS MUST go in the side position, not the center position, because in the center position things might come through the windshield and crush the child's face

. Just sort of an odd train of thought with nothing to back it up.

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Apr 15, 2010

ANd isn't the scenera rf limit in Canada only 32 inches?

Plus, my dd at 40 inches would have been near the top of complete air, when other 40 inch kids would be way lower in the seat, so the logic seems backward to me. A longer torsoed, shorter child will have more mass on the back of the seat, kwim?

Now, sk is adament on the 53 inch forward facing limit on the radian, even though they say you can use the seat with the shoulders over the harness slots.

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Apr 15, 2010

http://car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=96993&highlight=rear+facing+height+limits

Here is a thread on the dorel response to the 40 inch limit, and someone who says they would use the actual shell and 1 inch rule, rather than the top of headrest

Madeline410 · Apr 15, 2010

I love my CA

It was a pain going from a Blvd to a CA just because they are very different, but it has grown on me quite a bit. I just bought a 2nd one

mommycat · Apr 15, 2010

Maedze said:
I really don't see how that would work. The fear of excessive weight is overrotation. If Dorel has certified the seat for use to the top of the fuly extended shell, the shell is not going to open up.

That sounds like someone who once told me that a CRS MUST go in the side position, not the center position, because in the center position things might come through the windshield and crush the child's face . Just sort of an odd train of thought with nothing to back it up.

Jennifer mom to my 7 said:
ANd isn't the scenera rf limit in Canada only 32 inches?

Plus, my dd at 40 inches would have been near the top of complete air, when other 40 inch kids would be way lower in the seat, so the logic seems backward to me. A longer torsoed, shorter child will have more mass on the back of the seat, kwim?

Now, sk is adament on the 53 inch forward facing limit on the radian, even though they say you can use the seat with the shoulders over the harness slots.

I wasn't saying we can never decide to go beyond the limit - as you can see DS2 is still RF in that 32" Scenera. But I do feel that there is some grey area there where we can't really be sure, 100%, that there isn't a valid reason for limiting the height at some point. Especially taking into consideration that the Canadian CAs and Radians came out with limits which are higher than the old "standard" of 32" but oddly enough neither used the 1" rule, and the limits were different from the US limits. It begs the question, WHY? What is going on behind the scenes when these decisions are made? Why these limits, why so different, why why why. The "top of the headrest" thing with the CA makes it even stranger. Maybe they are trying to accommodate a child with a giraffe neck and really long skull but is still within the total height, which means that there will still be a significant amount of their weight lower in the seat...

I understand that a longer-torsoed, shorter child will have more weight higher up, but then maybe that's why they chose a lower limit than we think is possible to fit? It would all be so much easier if they went with sitting heights or inches of shell!!!

This is the thread I was remembering, by the way, and it was post #11 that started the really interesting discussion:
http://car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=102028

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Apr 15, 2010

but, I'm not a tech, and can't read it

And I don't know if I read it when I did have access, either. Bummer.

mommycat · Apr 15, 2010

Oh! Sorry, I didn't notice it was in the tech forum.

What's your view on the CA?

New member

Senior Community Member

Admin - CPST Instructor

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics