Regarding my Britax comments...i have an advocate and a safety first convertible right now...advocate is by far the better seat...simply google ratings and the britax is always one of the top ones...both personal site ratings and from consumer reports...and they do a safety test...britax themselves does their own safety tests...
Yes, Britax does. They do the same testing Dorel does. There are standards that every seat has to meet. Beyond that we don't know what Britax does. Is their "True Side Impact Protection" (a trademarked term) true, or do they throw it against the wall and say it's got TSIP? There are no standards for SIP, so it doesn't matter what they do.
Consumer Reports does non standard testing, so their "results" cannot be compared to that of the manufacturers. In fact, they've retracted most of their carseat comments.
Take it like this. If I take your Advocate and drop it off the Empire State Building, what can I tell about how it will react in a crash? Not too much, the forces are different. So by doing non standard testing I get results, but maybe absolutely nothing usable to say how the seat will work in the way it's supposed to. Consumer Reports carseat pages are good for lining the litter box. NOT for parents to use. And they've retracted articles. Do a search here, not on google, for Consumer Reports.
As for finding ratings on google, people may give their opinions, and that's fine. However, safety ratings are NOT released, test numbers may mean nothing, and besides the NHTSA's ease of use ratings, there's little in terms of "This gets an A, that gets a B" that parents can use. Britax seats are remarkably easy to use, and comfortable. I will never disagree with you on that. However, I will stand, to the death, that with the standard tests as they are, a $45 Scenera is just as safe when used properly as a Britax Advocate. As such, since the Advocate is so pricey, and so un-economical, I cannot recommend it.
I agree RF is safer...i read the article that was recommended...it is a personal article not supported by many professionals...i'm not saying they are wrong..but how can one look at that information and be convinced and not agree with the information that britax puts out there..
Would you like the AAP articles?
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/3/550 That's the 2002 article. It states:
Children should face the rear of the vehicle until they are at least 1 year of age and weigh at least 20 lb to decrease the risk of cervical spine injury in the event of a crash. Infants who weigh 20 lb before 1 year of age should ride rear facing in a convertible seat or infant seat approved for higher weights until at least 1 year of age.3,4 If a car safety seat accommodates children rear facing to higher weights, for optimal protection, the child should remain rear facing until reaching the maximum weight for the car safety seat, as long as the top of the head is below the top of the seat back.3
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/121/3/619 AAP abstract on an article in the journal Pediatrics telling pediatricians to stop telling parents one year old. The rest of the article can be found at
http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/ipems/injury_prevention/CPS/assets/M-BullonRFCar.pdf.
http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/30/4/12-a 2009 articles stating that the AAP's recommendation is AT LEAST two, preferably longer.
Toddlers should remain rear-facing in a convertible car seat until they have reached the maximum height and weight recommended for the model, or at least the age of 2.
Here's an article from the British Medical Journal (in Britain they normally forward face between six and nine months):
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/6/398.abstract
Results: Children in FFCSs were significantly more likely to be seriously injured than children restrained in RFCSs in all crash types
I'm sorry, where are you seeing non professional opinions? The blog article was written by a member here, yes. It's a page to link to other studies, articles, and crash test videos.
We don't make this stuff up. We haven't got money for testing. Believe me, if we did there are SO many things we'd like to know. We only know what we see other studies releasing, and we've said for years that rear facing is safer. Finally three years ago the BMJ study was released, and it took another 18 months or so for the news media and the AAP to absorb it and redo their recommendations. The AAP hasn't done a policy change, just clarified their 2002 recommendation to rear face as long as possible.
i would still love to hear some comments about the frontier vs a convertible seat
Your daughter does meet the minimum for the Frontier. You mention Britax and their testing. They put two years and 25 pounds as a minimum on it so that children WILL rear face longer. Britax recognizes the benefits to rear facing as long as possible, and small kids generally don't fit well into the Frontier. Which I believe is because Britax wants kids to rear face longer.
Dorel has a 34" minimum on its seats to forward face. For the same reason that that way kids will rear face longer. They were the first to have 35 pound rear facing seats. Britax got 35 pound rear facing seats six years after Dorel. And they got 40 pound seats about a year after Dorel. They recognize the need to rear face longer, but they're much slower to execute it.
to add to this discussion...if i choose the convertible route...which ones would everybody recommend?
I'd turn your Advocates around. Then I'd look at the Sunshine Kids Radians, Safety 1st Complete Air, Learning Curve True Fit, Evenflo Triumph 65, and Graco My Ride. The Britaxes come in after that because they're shorter with less leg room and more money, but if they are what you love, they are safe seats that are easy to use.
Wendy