Rear-facing Radian 65 weight limits-confused

J

jackieeng

New member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #1

The radian 65 manual states: use only in rear-facing position with any infant weighing less than 22lbs.
And then it states: Maximum child weights: rear-facing 33lbs.
?huh? I don't get it...

 

G

Gypsy

Senior Community Member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #2

It is confusing the way it's worded, but let me try to clarify for you.

It means you MUST NOT use it forward facing for any child under 22 pounds, therefore it must ONLY be used rear facing up to 22 pounds, it MAY be used forward facing after that and it MAY be used rear facing until 33 pounds.

 

T

trailrunnermom

New member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #3

It sounds like it means: When you have a baby (regardless of age) who weighs less than 22 lbs, you must use the Radian rear-facing. They don't want a baby less than 22 lbs to be forward-facing at all.

Then the baby/child can continue to ride rear-facing to 33 lbs (or you have the option of letting them FF after 22 lbs and 1 year, but of course, if you're on this board, you wouldn't take that option!)

 

R

rlsadc

Senior Community Member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #4

It is saying that any infant weighing less than 22 lbs needs to be RFing in this seat..and then it is saying that you can rearface up to 33 lbs...22 is the minimum and 33 is the max... hth

 

J

jackieeng

New member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #5

OK that makes sense...
I will definitely keep DD in it for as long as possible. Can she be too tall for it and under 33lbs?

 

T

thepeach80

Senior Community Member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #6

I doubt it. You'd have to have a 16+" torso to outgrow it rfing.

 

broken4u05

New member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #7

The seat is very tall. I dont think you could grow out of it by hight RF first

 

J

jackieeng

New member

• Mar 15, 2007

• #8

I doubt it. You'd have to have a 16+" torso to outgrow it rfing.

Click to expand...

How do you measure the torso? From their butt(seat) to head?

 

joolsplus3

Admin - CPS Technician

• Mar 16, 2007

• #9

jackieeng said:

How do you measure the torso? From their butt(seat) to head?

Click to expand...

Bum to shoulders...so you know where their shoulders are in relation to the harness slots. Even my skiiiiiny tallish dd was no where near too tall for her Marathon when she hit 33 pounds at age 4.5, and the Radian is even taller, so no worries about outgrowing it RF by height.

 

J

jackieeng

New member

• Mar 16, 2007

• #10

thepeach80 said:

I doubt it. You'd have to have a 16+" torso to outgrow it rfing.

Click to expand...

OK...silly question (?)
My 2.5 yr old is under 33lbs and her torso measures approx. 13", does that mean she could potentially remain RF?
(measured shoulder to top of bum when she's sitting?)

I would think her legs would be bent, and can't be safe if there was an accident. I was just wondering...
I've never seen a child that old rear facing...
What should I do?

 

T

thepeach80

Senior Community Member

• Mar 16, 2007

• #11

Most of us here have older toddlers rfing. AJ rfed till 34 mos and Evan will probably rf till 4. The legs are fine bent and it's safer to rf than ff.

Check out this site for pics. You can click on them to see the whole pic.
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFalbum.aspx

Here's AJ in his Radian at 31 mos.
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum/AJ.aspx

 

A

arly1983

New member

• Mar 16, 2007

• #12

The legs being bent wouldn't be a problem. No child is too "old" to be RF. They either weight to much or are too tall. Every child is safer riding RF regardless of age. Even you would be safer riding RF.

 

CandCfam

New member

• Mar 16, 2007

• #13

Bent legs are not a hazard. There are NO reported injuries from a child having too long of legs when RF.
Yes, your DD could definitely RF, so long as her weight is w/in the limit of the seat.

 

T

trailrunnermom

New member

• Mar 16, 2007

• #14

jackieeng said:

OK...silly question (?)
My 2.5 yr old is under 33lbs and her torso measures approx. 13", does that mean she could potentially remain RF?

Click to expand...

Not silly at all!! There was a discussion of this earlier this week at:
http://car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=13285

I turned my 2-y.o. great-niece back to RF in the a new Scenera after reading all the info. on this board. She's 32 lbs.

Happy RF!!

 

joolsplus3

Admin - CPS Technician

• Mar 16, 2007

• #15

jackieeng said:

OK...silly question (?)
My 2.5 yr old is under 33lbs and her torso measures approx. 13", does that mean she could potentially remain RF?
(measured shoulder to top of bum when she's sitting?)

I would think her legs would be bent, and can't be safe if there was an accident. I was just wondering...
I've never seen a child that old rear facing...
What should I do?

Click to expand...

I bought the Marathon *just* so I could put my 29 pound 3 year old rearfacing, and she fit RF till 4.5 happily.

The Radian can be a considerably more difficult seat to install, but the safety benefits are worth it (we'll walk you through install issues if you can't find a good tech in real life to help)

 

J

jackieeng

New member

• Mar 16, 2007

• #16

I feel enlightened...
My cousin has her 18 month old in a RF seat and I thought she was just being neurotic! Shame on me
I' am soooo glad I found these boards.

Why don't we, as parents and consumers, know this information?
Why don't car seat manufacturers make this info better known?
Why do we have to search for this information?

I would never have known any of this if I hadn't initially asked a general car seat question and been lead to this site...

I'm arguing with my husband right now about this RFing issue b/c he can't understand why 'we' as consumers don't know this already. He can't see what the deal is and that DD is fine FFing. Everyone turns their child around at 1 year, right?...

Thanks ALL...
I'm passing this site on to everyone I know...

 

skaterbabs

Well-known member

• Mar 16, 2007

• #17

These pictures show why RF is so important:
http://www.windsorpeak.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=13&topic_id=44503&mesg_id=44503&page

It's not well known for many reason - some (a few) practical, many (too many) political. When my eldest was a baby, there were no seats that RF past 20 lbs, period. Not in the US. So babies had to be turned at 20 lbs regardless. Then they started saying 12 mos OR twenty lbs, whichever came first. Still babies died. Then they started saying 12 mos AND 20 lbs. There are fewer deaths now, but still too many since it's well known (in the medical community) that the spinal column doesn't fuse until 3-6 years of age. Unfortunately there's still this myth that muscle strength makes a diffrence.

www.cpsafety.com has lots of great RF information.