Why Don't they increase lowest FF weight?

LuciaBella · Jul 22, 2010

I don't get it, why does it have to be 20 lbs? Why not 30 or even 25? We all know a 20 lb child regardless of age is not big enough to sit forward facing, so why don't the CR manufactures increase the limit to say FF 30-50lbs? Then it's one year AND 30lbs.

Has anyone mentioned this before or sent an email out to CR companies??
Just curious!

joolsplus3 · Jul 22, 2010

Because the 9 month old dummy weighs 20 pounds and it performs exceptionally well in crash testing. There's no incentive to change, I guess. (it's SIDE impacts that are deadly to front facing toddlers, frontal crashes are no more deadly to them than to RF kids, that's why you see the SIP on seats improving vastly, so that kids can be protected without the huge societal leap it would take to get people to RF longer).

Dorel has been 22 pounds, 34 inches, and one year to go FF in it's seats for a long time, they deserve some credit, and the True Fit is 23 pounds. Britax gets a slap and a kiss for changing their seats from 22 to 20 a couple years ago, but putting 25 and 2 on the Frontier... Graco and Sunshine Kids have always been 20, though

Maedze · Jul 22, 2010

Because at the end of the day, child restraint manufacturers are looking to clear a profit. They are interested in child safety but no one manufacturer is likely to make any substantial changes that will send the average Joe running for a competitor's product.

Think about it, the average parent uses an infant bucket for a year, then buys a cute, cozy looking convertible and converts it forward facing.

If he discovers that the Graco My Ride has a 30 pound forward facing limit, he'll just by the Evenflo Triumph 65 at the same price point with a 20 pound forward facing minimum.

Unfortunately for real change to be made, it would have to be a standard/law/requirement/policy from above.

I'm hesitant to base anything on weight limits because we all know how varied children would be, but I would be perfectly comfortable with AGE limits. For example, an age minimum of 3 on any harnessed seat in forward facing mode would bypass the issue of weight minimums entirely, ensure that all children under three are rear facing, and force manufacturers to discontinue or redesign seats that won't function to the third birthday rear facing, like the Comfortsport.

Pixels · Jul 22, 2010

I have contacted one manufacturer about it. The response was basically the seat performs well at 20 pounds, and it's up to the parents if they want to keep their child RF longer.

Reading between the lines, it's marketing. If a parent is looking forward to turning their 20 pounder on their first birthday, and the parent notices the minimums for FFing, they won't buy that seat, they will buy a seat with a 20 pound minimum.

LuciaBella · Jul 22, 2010

Maedze: That makes sense to do an age limit, 3 might be extreme but 2 is totally reasonable.

Joolsplus3: Isn't the whole reason why we RF until the kids are in college based on reducing head excursion and protecting the brain stem for the smaller children, etc...? I don't see how a side impact collision will be any different if the child is forward or rear facing?

pixels: there just needs to be more marketing for RF longer and being smart about car safety.

Maedze · Jul 22, 2010

The oft-touted rear facing CHOP study actually showed the greatest degree of difference for forward facing and rear facing children in SIDE impact accidents, not front accidents.

While I'll disagree with the fearless leader that there is *no* difference (clearly, there is some), the bulk of the benefit lies in the most consistently deadly of accidents, side impact accidents.

To compare, side impact accidents account for 7% of accidents, but 30% of the deaths.

LuciaBella · Jul 22, 2010

Wow, thanks for that. I thought the most deadly for FF children was frontal collisions. Do you by any chance have the link to the study? It would be great!

menfusse · Jul 22, 2010

I agree too that it would be more productive to push for an age limit. Kids sizes vary so much. There are plenty of 1 year olds that hi 30lbs well before turning 2, and would certainly go FF if they legally can. If it's law/policy/standard practice to make it ok to turn a child at 2 or 3, regardless of weight then it's easier to enforce and easier to explain why.

Plus, I'd have one very incensed kindergärtner on my hands who would still be required to RF at the 30lb minimum rule. I have no issues with allowing a child of this age to FF if they choose, regardless of size, as long as they meet the minimums of the seat they are in.

bree · Jul 22, 2010

LuciaBella said:
Wow, thanks for that. I thought the most deadly for FF children was frontal collisions. Do you by any chance have the link to the study? It would be great!

According to the 12-23 month old study, for 12-23 month olds, rear-facing provides the most benefit in frontal collisions. For 0-23 months as a whole and the 0-11 month group, rear-facing provides the most benefit in side impacts. You can read the study here. Table 3 is a good spot to see all the numbers.

"Compared with the RFCS group, the children in the FFCS group were more likely to sustain ISS 9+ injuries in side crashes (OR = 5.53, 95% CI 3.74 to 8.18), and in all crashes (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.20). The benefit of rear facing had borderline significance when considering frontal crashes alone (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59). When the previous analysis was repeated for infants and 1 year olds separately, the use of an RFCS was beneficial for infants in side crashes and all crashes, and for 1 year olds in frontal crashes and all crashes, with ORs ranging from 1.79 to 6.16."

Chely7425 · Jul 22, 2010

The one problem I see with putting AGE as the sole limit for FF is that we don't have a ton of seats available with super high FF limits. Up until the past couple months there were no seats other than the Radian that I could RF my 26 month old in, so while I do think kids should stay RF longer that means they need to come up with more seats that can accomodate that.

Pixels · Jul 22, 2010

Ideally, seats would have a limit like 1 and 20 and (3 or 30), but that just gets too confusing. Heck, a lot of people don't get that it's 1 and 20, not 1 or 20.

joolsplus3 · Jul 22, 2010

Heh, fearless leader, I like that...

(You're right, Maedze, they are marginally better protected when RF in frontal crashes, but it's not statistically significant in the best study we have at the current time, and not statistically significant is akin to saying no difference).

http://carseatblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/rear-facingforbestprotection.pdf

Results: Children in FFCSs were significantly more likely to be seriously injured than children restrained in
RFCSs in all crash types (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.20). When considering frontal crashes alone, children
in FFCSs were more likely to be seriously injured (OR = 1.23), although this finding was not statistically
significant (95% CI 0.95 to 1.59).

Wiggles · Jul 22, 2010

It would be really hard on parents of children who are very lightweight to keep them rear-facing. My brother, who had a growth disorder that made him 2 years behind in growth, would have had to rear-face until he was... I want to say 5 or 6 if the limit was 30 lbs. I think he hit 40 lbs at 6 or 7 and that was after a huge and sudden growth spurt. Not that rear-facing longer is a bad thing, but it just seems like it would be overkill and alienate a LOT of parents if there was no other option whatsoever.

carseatcoach · Jul 22, 2010

I would support a 2-year minimum over an increased minimum weight.

Maedze · Jul 22, 2010

Another reason I'm not a fan of 40 lb minimums on boosters. I understand what they're trying to achieve with that one, but there ARE 35 pound 7 year olds out there who are pefectly safe in good boosters. I think it's a particular shame that the Parkway SG, with its nifty SG clip making it PERFECT for smaller booster riders, eliminates the entire market of small 4-5 year olds out there who would benefit from that clip a lot more than, say, a 50 pound 6 year old.

I'd like to see 4 and 30 on boosters, and 3 and 20 on forward facing restraints. (Yes, I know everyone is saying two is a reasonable minimum, but I'm fantasizing, LOL).

carseatcoach · Jul 22, 2010

I'd go 4/30 highbacked boosters, 6/40 on backlesses, and 2/20 on FFing. I support of best practice, but I also lean fairly libertarian.

christineka · Jul 22, 2010

I'd increase the weight limit to 25 pounds. After a year, difference between kids' sizes are enormous. There are some gigantic two year olds who weigh 40 pounds or more. Then there are the 2 year olds who have just made it to 20 pounds.

I'd just make the minimum for ffing 1, 25 pounds, and 36 inches.

Babywearing Meghan · Jul 22, 2010

honestly though if they changed it to 35 lbs there would be 6 year olds that had to rear face still.. I think they ought to change it to 25 lbs though.

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Jul 22, 2010

Maedze said:
Another reason I'm not a fan of 40 lb minimums on boosters. I understand what they're trying to achieve with that one, but there ARE 35 pound 7 year olds out there who are pefectly safe in good boosters. I think it's a particular shame that the Parkway SG, with its nifty SG clip making it PERFECT for smaller booster riders, eliminates the entire market of small 4-5 year olds out there who would benefit from that clip a lot more than, say, a 50 pound 6 year old.

I'd like to see 4 and 30 on boosters, and 3 and 20 on forward facing restraints. (Yes, I know everyone is saying two is a reasonable minimum, but I'm fantasizing, LOL).

My dd would not have made it to 3 rear facing in any seat but the radian, and at the time the radian only had a 33 pound limit for rear facing

She barely made it to 2 (25 months) and was close to the 1 inch from top of shell in a decathlon (which for the time, had a pretty tall shell). She would have completely outgrown a scenera at that time.

I completely agree with you on the booster thing, though. There are many many times I try to explain this to people on other boards when they ask why only 3 and 30 on most high back boosters.

christineka said:
I'd increase the weight limit to 25 pounds. After a year, difference between kids' sizes are enormous. There are some gigantic two year olds who weigh 40 pounds or more. Then there are the 2 year olds who have just made it to 20 pounds.

I'd just make the minimum for ffing 1, 25 pounds, and 36 inches.

My dd was 36.5 inches tall when she outgrew that decathlon. If I did not have a higher end seat, she never would have made it to 36 inches rear facing.

Pingbns · Jul 22, 2010

Is'nt putting a low minimum enabling them?, Are CR co. using the parent lack of knowlege to it's own use, obviusly the want the CR's to do what they are designed to do , I think it is just a mind set for all and something has to cahnge.

Why Don't they increase lowest FF weight?

LuciaBella

Guest

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

New member

LuciaBella

Guest

New member

LuciaBella

Guest

New member

Car-Seat.Org Ambassador

New member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

Carseat Crankypants

New member

Carseat Crankypants

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics