Vent back at square one.

MaggieQ · May 29, 2011

I'm just so frustrated right now, with the super latch issues and the strict 40 inch rule on the CA. I feel like it's a few years ago and nothing RF past 35#. My niece is 36# at 3, but too tall to RF in anything but those 2 seats. My only options are to risk her safety by A) FF too soon, B) use the CA against manufacturer limits, C) use super latch. I cannot get the radian installed with a seat belt in my 07 camry.
What's the point of all these "advances" in car seats? It would have had the same outcome had they never existed. She just hit 36 #.
End rant.

Sent from my EVO using Car-Seat.Org

Jillybeans5 · May 29, 2011

How long is her torso? I tried my 43" tall 5 yr old in DS4's Momentum RFing just to see if he fit. He fit in it by height, but he is obviously over the 40 lb rf weight limit so couldn't ride in it that way. I just thought I'd mention it because I know a lot of people seem to overlook it. My nearly 3 yr old is 36# and will definitely outgrow it by weight before height. My kids aren't long torso'ed but my 5 yr old is just a hair above the 3rd slots on the Maestro for reference.

kalamos23 · May 29, 2011

I know what you mean, I just bought an xtsl to keep dd rfing and for ds to grow into and I am really hoping that something else comes out before ds starts getting close to the limits. I will check out the momentum, but I really need a 45lb rfing seat, which limits me to the radian.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Car-Seat.Org

Jessica61624 · May 29, 2011

I feel the same way! Luckily DS is young and I have time.

Ninetales · May 29, 2011

I know what you mean.

bnsnyde · May 29, 2011

There needs to be a new seat on the market with 50 RF limit and a shell that is very tall BUT that installs way better than the Radian and does not take up the whole car b/c it reclines like crazy.

Just changed my 3-year-old RF today again, in the Advocate new style that goes to 40lbs. At 34 lbs. I'm not going to use a 35 lb. limit seat at this point. But they shortened the shell, so...she won't fit for long.

Radian not a good option for multiple reasons, such as those you listed, unless I change her seating position which is not possible right now.

We have an Evenflo Advance that she TOTALLY fits in RF for a LONG time, but it goes to 35 lbs. RF. Just nuts! I might buy the new version if it comes to that to keep her RF. But first I'll change her seating position and try the Radian once the babies get older. Now I need them 2nd row to access them.

MaggieQ · May 29, 2011

She is long torsoed! She's sleeping, I'll measure her in the am, but her torso is longer than her 5.5 yr old brother. Wears 5-6 tops in girls. Her head is even with the top of my eft 65. I'll check out the momentum, thanks, isn't it about the same as the triumph? She still fits RF in the smart seat (unless there are RF slot limitations, I didn't read the manual)but I don't have $300 unless I sell my 2 seats in swap.

Sent from my EVO using Car-Seat.Org

Jillybeans5 · May 29, 2011

I think the Momentum is a little taller than the EFT65 but it might not be a big enough difference if she is already even with the top of the EFT65.

I can measure it if you want so you will know if its even worth looking into.

ketchupqueen · May 30, 2011

I'm, um, totally fine with going over the 40" CA limit. Their reasons for it make no. sense. whatsoever. To each their own on that decision, obviously.

bobandjess99 · May 30, 2011

I too, am one who completely disregards the 40 inch limit on the CA (and every other seat on the market with a stated height limit - I use the 1 inch rule)

But..I would think that you COULD install the radian with seatbelt in your car? What about it makes it impossible to install?

MaggieQ · May 30, 2011

I, too completely disregard stated heights but dorel has said the seat fails any taller and my girl is tall!

My buckle stalks are the perfect length between not long enough to go all the way in the belt path and not short enough while twisted to be low enough to not go in at all...

That makes no sense. The buckle plus the latch plate makes it impossible, I swear. I could try in the middle, but its the same buckle....

Sent from my EVO using Car-Seat.Org

Keeanh · May 30, 2011

MaggieQ said:
I, too completely disregard stated heights but dorel has said the seat fails any taller and my girl is tall!

My buckle stalks are the perfect length between not long enough to go all the way in the belt path and not short enough while twisted to be low enough to not go in at all...

That makes no sense. The buckle plus the latch plate makes it impossible, I swear. I could try in the middle, but its the same buckle....

Sent from my EVO using Car-Seat.Org

There's a sticker on the side of the CA that clearly shows a child's head even with the top of the shell (the main shell, not the headrest). So I'm going with that and pretending my kids have short legs. And, serious question here, what if a child didn't have legs? Or had a condition which caused their legs to be abnormally short? That "total height" thing is baloney. I'm ignoring their height limit because my 2yo is already at, or possibly over, the 36" Canadian limit.

Evolily · May 30, 2011

Keeanh said:
There's a sticker on the side of the CA that clearly shows a child's head even with the top of the shell (the main shell, not the headrest). So I'm going with that and pretending my kids have short legs. And, serious question here, what if a child didn't have legs? Or had a condition which caused their legs to be abnormally short? That "total height" thing is baloney. I'm ignoring their height limit because my 2yo is already at, or possibly over, the 36" Canadian limit.

That's my hangup, also. A, for instance, has a condition that makes his legs somewhat shorter than he would have otherwise (not by much, but still, somewhat shorter).

And am I to believe the physics changes when you cross the Canadian border, where they have an even shorter limit?

I get why they have the limit, I just don't buy their reasoning beyond "it's because the general public won't pay attention to torso height"

emandbri · May 30, 2011

Is there anyone nearby who could help try to get the radian in? It would be worth a shot. I wonder if it would work with the old boot? The old boot worked better in my sienna.

ketchupqueen · May 30, 2011

I, too completely disregard stated heights but dorel has said the seat fails any taller and my girl is tall!

But that STILL doesn't make sense!!! Because, my kid is under 40" but is nearing 1" from top of the shell (where they said it fails) if installed at 45 degrees, but I know kids OVER 40" who have waaaay more room. Also, I think if installed more upright and braced (when allowed by vehicle) it would negate the overrotation issue... Yeah. They are asked a question and they answer it with a different wording of the SAME THING that we had an issue/question about.

We STILL have yet to speak to an actual engineer about this issue.

arly1983 · May 30, 2011

ketchupqueen said:
But that STILL doesn't make sense!!! Because, my kid is under 40" but is nearing 1" from top of the shell (where they said it fails) if installed at 45 degrees, but I know kids OVER 40" who have waaaay more room. Also, I think if installed more upright and braced (when allowed by vehicle) it would negate the overrotation issue... Yeah. They are asked a question and they answer it with a different wording of the SAME THING that we had an issue/question about. We STILL have yet to speak to an actual engineer about this issue.

:yeahthat:

I would go over it in a heartbeat and use the 1 in rule.

SavsMom · May 30, 2011

ketchupqueen said:
But that STILL doesn't make sense!!! Because, my kid is under 40" but is nearing 1" from top of the shell (where they said it fails) if installed at 45 degrees, but I know kids OVER 40" who have waaaay more room. Also, I think if installed more upright and braced (when allowed by vehicle) it would negate the overrotation issue... Yeah. They are asked a question and they answer it with a different wording of the SAME THING that we had an issue/question about. We STILL have yet to speak to an actual engineer about this issue.

I totally dont buy the 40" rule either. My 3 1/2 year old is about 38" but is only on the 2nd harness setting on the CA rear facing - she has tons of shell over her head, she has long legs. I just dont see how they can say 40" when each child fits in a seat differently.

Sent from my Vortex using Car-Seat.Org

jessi f · May 30, 2011

I'm another one ok with going over 40"

One of the very first things I was concerned about last year when I first joined this site was DD being over the stated height limit on her infant seat. After searching the issue and reading thread after thread of people being assured it's fine as long as there was plenty of shell over baby's head and she was under the weight limit I realized she was fine.

I think it's silly to have the 40'' limit but theyre not the only manufacturer that does this. And my personal opinion is that they stand by it bc of liability. What if they tell us to disregard the height limit and a 42" child is injured bc of something completely unrelated and unavoidable? Just my opinion :twocents:

KaysKidz · May 30, 2011

MaggieQ said:
My niece is 36# at 3, but too tall to RF in anything but those 2 seats. My only options are to risk her safety by A) FF too soon,

How is having a 36# 3yr old FF, 'ff too soon'??? At her age/size, I would have ZERO issue with her being FF. She certainly wouldn't be 'ff too soon'. She may not rear face as long as you'd prefer, but she's certainly well within the limits to safely be FF.

carseatcoach · May 30, 2011

We have educated, informed, conscientious, concerned people disagreeing about whether to follow Dorel's 40" rule. There are countless threads about it so I don't want to engage in that again here. But I completely agree with PP that a 3yo is safe FFing and top-tethered. She may be safeR RFing, but she is safe in a properly used, tethered, FFing seat.

I'm pretty sure we are not going to see 50# RFing seats in the US. Current testing standards make that all but impossible. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't think it will happen. This means that some kids will have to FF before age 4-5. That may not be exactly what the parents want, but it is not unsafe.

This reminds me of when the Kyle David Miller video first came out, and parents were frantic because they believed boostering was unsafe.

Properly and appropriately used boosters are safe.

Properly and appropriately (after RFing options are outgrown) used forward-facing, tethered, harnessed seats are safe. A child in a properly used seat is safer than 95% of the other kids out there on the roads today.

Vent back at square one.

Senior Community Member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Senior Community Member

Active member

CPST and ketchup snob

Senior Community Member

Senior Community Member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

CPST and ketchup snob

New member

New member

New member

Senior Community Member

Carseat Crankypants

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics