Britax gives a response on FB

yetanotherjen · Aug 24, 2010

I know this is a response to a c-s.org member but I don't know which one, sorry Anyway here it is (blanked the name, just in case)

__________, thank you for your comments and concerns. We have been reading all of your comments here and appreciate any and all feedback that we receive.

Let us explain why we are proud of the enhancements that we have made to our new line of... convertible car seats. Although a shorter shell limits the height the child can ride rear-facing, the new seat dimensions actually fit a greater percentage of children rear facing than the old design. With regards to rear-facing weight capacity, the former convertibles would at most accommodate a 68th-percentile 3-year-old or a 40th-percentile 4-year-old, whereas the new seats accommodate a 95th-percentile 3-year-old or a 70th-percentile 4-year-old. When it comes to height, the new seats accommodate a 95th-percentile 3-year-old and 70th-percentile 4-year-old rear facing as well.

At the same time, the shorter shell has also allowed Britax to improve rear-facing vehicle fit and achieve unprecedented forward-facing head excursion results which ultimately keeps more children safer longer not only rear-facing, but forward-facing as well.

yetanotherjen · Aug 24, 2010

And the response to the video posted on their FB that shows a child rfing well over the top of the shell

"Thank you all for your feedback. We would like to explain that the model used to showcase a higher, rear facing weight capacity was technically within the rear facing requirements of the seat. Although the angle at which the video was shot ...does not clearly reflect this, we did have two certified child passenger safety technicians on set to confirm proper fit. In fact, one of those technicians is a certified instructor as well.

We will be updating the video so that we do not continue to create any unnecessary confusion going forward. Thank you again."

love-pink · Aug 24, 2010

well at least they addressed the issue

i will be waiting for the updated video.

Maedze · Aug 24, 2010

I responded. What a RIDICULOUS answer. 95th percentile?!?!?! My kid isn't anywhere NEAR the 95th percentile.

Perhaps they transposed their human growth charts for that of miniature poodles.

arly1983 · Aug 24, 2010

I am still trying to figure out how less shell hight means more children fit?

The ONLY way I am see that is if the headrest counts, too, and it doesn't.

Seriously, can somebody explain if I missing something?

Cryssy Jane · Aug 24, 2010

I finally got to play with one of the new britax seats and the 12 month old (28lbs, 15.5 inch torso) has almost outgrown this seat rear facing. I was highly disappointed. My 2.5 year old god son, is 50% for weight and 75% for height and he's outgrown the new britax seats rear facing. So I don't know where they got the data for that statement.

Maedze · Aug 24, 2010

arly1983 said:
I am still trying to figure out how less shell hight means more children fit?

The ONLY way I am see that is if the headrest counts, too, and it doesn't.

Seriously, can somebody explain if I missing something?

Back to my "They think we're idiots" theory. Throw a whole bunch of numbers at them and they'll shut up! Never mind the fact that the numbers don't even make sense.

Dillipop · Aug 24, 2010

yetanotherjen said:
With regards to rear-facing weight capacity, the former convertibles would at most accommodate a 68th-percentile 3-year-old or a 40th-percentile 4-year-old, whereas the new seats accommodate a 95th-percentile 3-year-old or a 70th-percentile 4-year-old. When it comes to height, the new seats accommodate a 95th-percentile 3-year-old and 70th-percentile 4-year-old rear facing as well.

I think they must be talking about weight in the first set of percentile limits?

The problem was that with their old seats, tall kids still weren't able to max out the 35 pound limit. Now, with the shorter shell, I can't imagine more kids fitting. I think I'm going to pick up a marathon classic from Target before they are gone and go from there.

BookMama · Aug 24, 2010

arly1983 said:
I am still trying to figure out how less shell hight means more children fit?

I think what they're saying is that the increased RF weight limit means more kids will fit longer.

My DD1, for instance, outgrew our 33 lb. RF MA last summer. She would have outgrown a 35 lb. RF MA around April. She still fits (by height and weight) in the 40 lb. RF MA70.

So, I think that what they're saying is that the number of kids who outgrew the old MAs "prematurely" by weight is much greater than the number who will "prematurely" outgrow MA70s by height.

:twocents:

(FYI, to clarify - I'm not saying that Britax shouldn't have increased the shell height, and I'm not saying that the shorter shell is a good thing.

)

Jennifer mom to my 7 · Aug 24, 2010

Yes, I will ASSume they are talking about the weight. And yes, my 97th percentile dd would have fit by weight at just over 3, but no way by height!

Heck, even my 50th percentile 3.5 year old might not fit by height right now in the new seat, though he is over 35 pounds.

So, apparently all they got from us complaining about rf limits was the weight issue, not the height issue. I am saddened

Athena · Aug 24, 2010

yetanotherjen said:
With regards to rear-facing weight capacity, the former convertibles would at most accommodate a 68th-percentile 3-year-old or a 40th-percentile 4-year-old, whereas the new seats accommodate a 95th-percentile 3-year-old or a 70th-percentile 4-year-old. When it comes to height, the new seats accommodate a 95th-percentile 3-year-old and 70th-percentile 4-year-old rear facing as well.

Thanks, Jen, for posting this!

So my DD who is close to the 68th % in weight will outgrown our older 33 pound MA by weight before she is 3 yo? Does that sound right? I was already thinking about its limit, but figured I was just worrying prematurely as usual.

Maedze said:
I responded. What a RIDICULOUS answer. 95th percentile?!?!?! My kid isn't anywhere NEAR the 95th percentile.

Mine is!

So as an experiment it might be fun to test her in it at different ages and see when she actually outgrows it (if I had lots of extra time and BRU didn't get sick of me coming in to and trying their seat

). When I tried her in it I couldn't get a solid measurement, but maybe I'll get the chance to try again when she is more cooperative and with that cool tool with the ruler, paint sticks, and paperclip (from another thread). :thumbsup: I don't remember, does your DS have a long torso?

I am very disappointed.

Irishmama · Aug 24, 2010

Maedze said:
Perhaps they transposed their human growth charts for that of miniature poodles.

:ROTFLMAO:

DD2 is 2.5 and has about an inch rf growing room in her MA, she'd be nearly outgrowing the MA70 and she's 30 lbs! *sigh*

Maedze · Aug 24, 2010

Athena said:
Thanks, Jen, for posting this!

So my DD who is close to the 68th % in weight will outgrown our older 33 pound MA by weight before she is 3 yo? Does that sound right? I was already thinking about its limit, but figured I was just worrying prematurely as usual.

Mine is! So as an experiment it might be fun to test her in it at different ages and see when she actually outgrows it (if I had lots of extra time and BRU didn't get sick of me coming in to and trying their seat). When I tried her in it I couldn't get a solid measurement, but maybe I'll get the chance to try again when she is more cooperative and with that cool tool with the ruler, paint sticks, and paperclip (from another thread). :thumbsup: I don't remember, does your DS have a long torso?

I am very disappointed.

Since at three he has 2" clearance in the My Ride, I think it is fair to say that he is not long-torsoed. Pretty average looking little dude, really.

Admin · Aug 24, 2010

BookMama said:
I think what they're saying is that the increased RF weight limit means more kids will fit longer.

My DD1, for instance, outgrew our 33 lb. RF MA last summer. She would have outgrown a 35 lb. RF MA around April. She still fits (by height and weight) in the 40 lb. RF MA70.

So, I think that what they're saying is that the number of kids who outgrew the old MAs "prematurely" by weight is much greater than the number who will "prematurely" outgrow MA70s by height.

:twocents:

(FYI, to clarify - I'm not saying that Britax shouldn't have increased the shell height, and I'm not saying that the shorter shell is a good thing. )

I do find it hard to believe that a 5 pound weight increase accomodates more kids than you lose with a 1" shell height decrease. I guess it's possible, given the obesity epidemic.

Regardless, the vast majority of kids will make it 24 months rear-facing based on those I've seen in the Marathon 70 so far. Many will make 36 months. Beyond that, only those who are below average in height or have all their height in the legs will make it to 4-5 years (We have some photos of the extremes in the reviews forum and on the blog).

That's quite reasonable. Due to lack of education efforts, Most parents simply don't care about rear-facing beyond 2 years old. Many still turn at 1/20. What parents need is a seat that is easy to install and use; one that fits their kids well and fits a wider range of vehicles well. As technicians, that's what we need for them, too. Plenty of other seats meet this need even though they don't have the RF weight or height limits of the Radians. The Evenflo Symphony 65, the True Fit Premier and various other convertibles are all going to be very safe for kids for as long as they are installed and used correctly.

Of course, we all want to see a change in the guidance on the height limits from Britax. Increased rear-facing limits are a real safety feature. Nothing wrong with wishful thinking!

Maedze · Aug 24, 2010

And the Symphony 65, True Fit and other seats will all last longer than the new Britax convertibles, for half the price! (And are easy to install as well). Of course, that's what we've been pointing out for a few years now....and Britax has compounded the problem with its new line. At least the old version of the seat could get most kids rear facing to three, which was, if not FANTASTIC, quite respectable.

Wiggles · Aug 24, 2010

I think that they're looking only at weight when they talk about percentiles and are totally ignoring the height percentiles that they've eliminated.

SafeDad · Aug 24, 2010

Maedze said:
And the Symphony 65, True Fit and other seats will all last longer than the new Britax convertibles, for half the price! (And are easy to install as well).

If price is the main concern for a particular parent, there's even the Cosco Scenera that is a very reasonable convertible that often sells for less than 15% of the price at Walmart. We use them frequently in our program for replacement seats at events. I think it's great that today we have a wide variety of safe convertibles that all have advantages and disadvantages, such that almost everyone can find one that fits well and works well for them. Everyone has their own idea of price and value and features. If every model was a Radian XT or a Marathon 70 or a My Ride 65 or a True Fit, then we'd have some serious issues.

Choice isn't bad. It's good. Sure, Britax disappointed some of us advocates by not increasing the rear-facing height limits, especially those of us who had unrealistic expectations they were going to leap-frog every competitor in every way possible. Obviously, they made a compromise to fit well in smaller vehicles in order to appeal more to the masses, while significantly reducing the appeal to the small minority [of advocates] who intend to keep their kids rear-facing beyond 24-36 months.

They also made a lot of other improvements and produced a very nice convertible that will appeal to many parents and keep their kids safe for many years. Clearly, they didn't manage to produce the best or the safest seat for everyone. That seat does not exist.

Hypothetically, and just for conversation, suppose they change the RF height limits on models with a head restraint to allow the head to be even with the outer shell or maybe 1" from the top of the head restraint. Is it a great seat then? Or is it still a disaster for other reasons?

-apologies to everyone for the last post while logged into the Admin account. Can't fix it once there are replies lol.

Maedze · Aug 24, 2010

It's a bait-and-switch. They promised increased limits....and in effect they lowered them, because now fewer kids will be able to meet even the original limits, never mind the supposed new ones. I disagree that it has broad appeal. It has an even narrower target margin then it used to.

I made some commentary on the seat on my thread yesterday, but yes, I said that if they could make the head rest on the Boulevard and Advocate part of the height of the shell for rear facing purposes, that would make it about as tall as the True Fit. They have their precious compact design for small cars and it would still work as a rear facing seat for larger children.

As far as the rest of the design goes, I'm very interested in the SafeCell technology (although honestly I don't buy convertibles for their forward facing features. I don't care, because that's not what I use them for). The LATCH holders are a nice upgrade. I thought the recline adjust was poorly designed and flimsy and not at all organic. I can see the head rest adjustment breaking easily, as well, although those last two details didn't bother me, much.

babygirlsmom1005 · Aug 24, 2010

CPSDarren said:
If price is the main concern for a particular parent, there's even the Cosco Scenera that is a very reasonable convertible that often sells for less than 15% of the price at Walmart.

My daughter made it to almost 4 rear facing in a Cosco Scenera....the benefits of having light, short torso'd kids. Funny, she outgrew it RF'ing and FF'ing about the same time, she hit 35 lbs, installed FF'ing, her shoulders were over the top slots....

SafeDad · Aug 24, 2010

Maedze said:
It's a bait-and-switch. They promised increased limits....and in effect they lowered them, because now fewer kids will be able to meet even the original limits, never mind the supposed new ones.

What exactly did they promise and where?

I provided feedback over the last year or so on some prototypes. Throughout, my comments were mostly centered on shell/slot height and lockoffs. It's disappointing my priorities didn't match the choices they made in the final product, but I still think it is a very nice convertible. Of course, they didn't actually promise me that my suggestions would be implemented lol. Probably a good idea or they'd have a seat made with some super alloy shell that fit kids from 3 to 50 pounds rear-facing and 40-100 pounds front-facing with 19" slot heights and amazing shell height limits for both directions. But it would also weigh 35 pounds, cost $500 and only fit in a monster SUV.

Britax gives a response on FB

CPST Instructor

CPST Instructor

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Senior Community Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Admin - Webmaster

New member

New member

CPSDarren - Admin

New member

New member

CPSDarren - Admin

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics