Question about Parental Decision

AnnaC · Dec 2, 2010

I hope I don't get flamed for this.

Okay, so I see people talk about parental decision on here a lot. So I have a question.

How would you feel about making the parental decision to not use the RF boot on an XTSL, and instead using pool noodles to get a more appropriate recline angle, say 35 degrees. Yeah, it sounds crazy. Yes, it hasn't been crash tested without the boot. But we know in general that pool noodles are safe to use to adjust recline. We know in general that a more upright angle is safe(er) when rear facing. And as far as we know, the boot's purpose is to help with the recline angle, not to change the safety functions of the seat.

Would that be any different than using a 35 degree angle on a RF CALX, and putting a kid taller than 40 inches in it? The manual says expressly not to. The CALX hasn't been crash tested that way. Yet a lot of people feel comfortable doing it- because convertible seats in general are safe(er) with an upright angle, and convertible seats in general are safe for children taller than 40 inches, as long as they otherwise fit in the seat.

Thoughts?

Pixels · Dec 2, 2010

Just for giggles, I experimented with installing the Radian without the boot. At least in my vehicle, the seat is totally unstable like that. You'll find my thread, complete with photos, if you do an Advanced Search and look for threads started by me with the word "hooey" in the title. I believe it's in CMCB.

babyherder · Dec 2, 2010

I wouldn't. Using seats rf until the head is an inch away from the top of the shell is a pretty standard thing. Removing the radian boot, not so much.

Evolily · Dec 2, 2010

I wouldn't. I've seen video of it installed that way, and with enough human force it will over rotate much of the time. Even if it seemed tight to me, I wouldn't trust it against crash forces.

jess71903 · Dec 2, 2010

Um, I don't know. Maybe if Russ was a trustworthy human. He claims that it has been tested without the boot and passed.

sunnymw · Dec 2, 2010

Do you think the little "feet" that slip under a seat help with the overrotation?

If so, do you still recommend pulling them out for a more upright install?

AnnaC · Dec 2, 2010

CelticLabyrinth said:
I wouldn't. I've seen video of it installed that way, and with enough human force it will over rotate much of the time. Even if it seemed tight to me, I wouldn't trust it against crash forces.

Anything you can link to?

jess71903 said:
Um, I don't know. Maybe if Russ was a trustworthy human. He claims that it has been tested without the boot and passed.

Really? If only I could trust his word...

sunnymw said:
Do you think the little "feet" that slip under a seat help with the overrotation?

If so, do you still recommend pulling them out for a more upright install?

Was that question directed to me? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Pixels · Dec 2, 2010

sunnymw said:
Do you think the little "feet" that slip under a seat help with the overrotation?

If so, do you still recommend pulling them out for a more upright install?

I don't think it's the toes of the boot, so much as the whole boot itself. Its presence keeps the butt of the seat from sliding back towards the bight, which keeps the whole thing upright. Without the boot, the butt of the seat ends up in the bight and the seat flat on its back.

And no, I don't recommend pulling the seat forward of the bight for a more upright install, for two reasons. One, it's never worked for me for more than a few seconds. It always ends up slipping back into the bight, and when that happens, there is usually enough slack in the belt that there is more than an inch of movement. The other reason that I don't recommend it is because it was mentioned on SKJP's Facebook page, and SKJP came back and said not to do it.

AnnaC · Dec 2, 2010

If they would just come out with a darned toddler boot we wouldn't even have to talk about this. No prospects of that, are there?

NannyMom · Dec 2, 2010

AnnaC said:
If they would just come out with a darned toddler boot we wouldn't even have to talk about this. No prospects of that, are there?

Several members here have tried installing it in their car w/o the boot. And the results they get, leave the child and the carseat flat on their back. Not a good situation.

There has been talk about a toddler boot. But because of the design of the belt path and the length of the latch connectors, I don't think a toddler boot is possible.

StPaulMom · Dec 2, 2010

That's tricky, because while it may be interesting to test an install without the boot just for kicks, SKJP and the manual very explicitly state that you MUST use the boot in the RF position and that you cannot use noodles or towels.

I dont see this any differently than if a parent wants use the RF recline while FF, or anything else that goes against the manufacture's direct instructions. Of course, parents can always choose to do what they want- even if it's wrong- but I would always strongly discourage it and explain why.

AnnaC · Dec 2, 2010

StPaulMom said:
That's tricky, because while it may be interesting to test an install without the boot just for kicks, SKJP and the manual very explicitly state that you MUST use the boot in the RF position and that you cannot use noodles or towels.

I dont see this any differently than if a parent wants use the RF recline while FF, or anything else that goes against the manufacture's direct instructions. Of course, parents can always choose to do what they want- even if it's wrong- but I would always strongly discourage it and explain why.

That's what I would traditionally think too. (And of course you know a lot more than me, as a tech.)

But then I started thinking- if I have to return this seat, my other choice was a CA. And I'm going to disregard manufacturers advice with that seat too(as far as recline), or else it won't even fit in my car. So I was just wondering what the difference would be.

LISmama810 · Dec 2, 2010

AnnaC said:
That's what I would traditionally think too. (And of course you know a lot more than me, as a tech.)

But then I started thinking- if I have to return this seat, my other choice was a CA. And I'm going to disregard manufacturers advice with that seat too(as far as recline), or else it won't even fit in my car. So I was just wondering what the difference would be.

Installing a seat as upright as 30 degrees is part of the CPST curriculum and is generally allowed. Dorel/Safety 1st is (just about) the only company who refuses to allow that. I'm not sure if it's really necessary for their seats to perform properly, or because it's a cover-your-butt move on their part. (I'm guessing butt-cover.)

Yes, installing the CA more upright would violate the instructions. You would need to make a parental decision to either follow the rules or return the seat if doing so would cause the seat to not fit in your car. (Or if you feel the seat isn't as safe that reclined, which is how I would feel when using it for an older kid.)

Others will disagree with me, but I do think there's a difference between employing a commonly used and generally approved tactic (making a seat more upright) and discarding a structural component of a seat. One is parental decision; the other is gross misuse.

StPaulMom · Dec 2, 2010

AnnaC said:
That's what I would traditionally think too. (And of course you know a lot more than me, as a tech.)

But then I started thinking- if I have to return this seat, my other choice was a CA. And I'm going to disregard manufacturers advice with that seat too(as far as recline), or else it won't even fit in my car. So I was just wondering what the difference would be.

Is there a reason the CA is your only choice (I may have missed a previous post, so please forgive me!)?

Anyway, I think there's a difference between commonly accepted methods (fudging a little bit on the recline angle for an older child while still using the seat as intended or using the 1" below shell instead of standing height for RF limits), and actually altering the structure of the seat to use it against manufacture's instructions.

dawnp15 · Dec 2, 2010

Pixels said:
And no, I don't recommend pulling the seat forward of the bight for a more upright install, for two reasons. One, it's never worked for me for more than a few seconds. It always ends up slipping back into the bight, and when that happens, there is usually enough slack in the belt that there is more than an inch of movement. .

This is what always happens to me too. I'm not sure if it's the leather seats or just the shape of our seats. But i can't get it to stay there for more than a few seconds before it slips back into the bite of the seat

carseatcoach · Dec 2, 2010

LISmama810 said:
Others will disagree with me, but I do think there's a difference between employing a commonly used and generally approved tactic (making a seat more upright) and discarding a structural component of a seat. One is parental decision; the other is gross misuse.

I will agree. I can (sometimes) support (even when I don't agree with) "parental decisions" that are made based on true knowledge of how child restraints function and the possible risks of those decisions. Choosing to structurally alter a seat so it will fit better in your particular vehicle is not, IMO, a well-thought-out "parental decision".

joolsplus3 · Dec 2, 2010

Too bad we can't be sure if he's honest about the 'tested without and tested just fine' news, because it installs beautifully in an Odyssey without the boot...much better than it did with the boot, with the same 'foot of the seat pressing into the seatback' geometry that many other seats have upon proper installation, like the Scenera.
But the worry that, indeed, gross misuse and parental decisions made me go back and put the boot on after a few weeks

AnnaC · Dec 2, 2010

LISmama810 said:
Others will disagree with me, but I do think there's a difference between employing a commonly used and generally approved tactic (making a seat more upright) and discarding a structural component of a seat. One is parental decision; the other is gross misuse.

Okay, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

joolsplus3 said:
Too bad we can't be sure if he's honest about the 'tested without and tested just fine' news, because it installs beautifully in an Odyssey without the boot...much better than it did with the boot, with the same 'foot of the seat pressing into the seatback' geometry that many other seats have upon proper installation, like the Scenera.
But the worry that, indeed, gross misuse and parental decisions made me go back and put the boot on after a few weeks

LOL

FTR, I got it installed just fine (in about 5 minutes!) just now.

Does it look okay?

Not touching back of passenger seat

A twist and a half of the buckle stalk

AnnaC · Dec 2, 2010

Pixels said:
Just for giggles, I experimented with installing the Radian without the boot. At least in my vehicle, the seat is totally unstable like that. You'll find my thread, complete with photos, if you do an Advanced Search and look for threads started by me with the word "hooey" in the title. I believe it's in CMCB.

Found it. That was interesting. Thanks!

Pixels · Dec 2, 2010

NannyMom said:
There has been talk about a toddler boot. But because of the design of the belt path and the length of the latch connectors, I don't think a toddler boot is possible.

They could do it, if instead of lowering the front of the boot (the feet), they added height to the back. It would leave the height of the belt path unaltered, while making the seat more upright. It would have the same effect as putting pool noodles under the butt of the seat, but in a controlled, tested, safe way.

Question about Parental Decision

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Ambassador

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

Active member

New member

Carseat Crankypants

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

New member

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics