Britax HUGS Q

Morganthe

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #1

I'd like to know if anyone else shares my frustration or is it just me being an overworried mum. DD has been testing out the Regent in our car for the last 3 days. After I installed it with 3pt + top tether she liked it so much better than when it was reclined. She now has lots of leg room too.

Anyway, I've noticed that there is absolutely no way I can get the harness near as tight as she wore her Maxi-cosi harness. She was happy even when I couldnt' get a finger inbetween.

With the Regent, HUGS just get in the way.. adding more bulk & edges instead of helping the straps to lay flat against her. If it's anywhere near as tight as the M-C, the chest buckle is very uncomfortable up against her breastbone rubbing against the edge of the Hugs strap. So she wears it more freely than her MC. Whether or not she has the neck pads make little difference. Those things are so short, they don't really help at all.

While the set up is not 'loose', there's just so much extra space, I truly believe that if I was in a front or rear end accident, she'd be thrown at least 1/2 inch against the straps instead of firmly held in place. Is this what Britax design calls for? Or is my daughter ultra sensitive to all that vinyl bulk on her chest and should they be even tighter to be safe?

Love the seat. Hate the strap system. With all the additions to the basic harness, I just don't appreciate the design

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #2

Hmm, I'm able to get Hayley's straps really tight, even with the HUGS.

 

Morganthe

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #3

I wonder if it could be that dd's torso is so short in proportion? She's about a 1/2 inch under the second slots and everything just seems so crowded on her narrow chest. Her clothes are bunching up too. Poor tyke

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #4

Maybe, I don't know. This is Hayley when she was just under the second-to-bottom slots, the straps are tight on her and the HUGS don't seem to be overly large or in the way.

 

Y

Yoshi

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #5

When we had the Regent, I noticed that too.....it seemed tight on DD's hips and at tummy, and at the shoulders (not able to pinch at all) BUT, over her chest, there was space between her & the harness. I believe that is ok, as the design of the straps made it sit farther away from her body, but snug on all the "points" of the 5 PT. (2 shoulders, 2 hips, & 1 tummy) Is that what you mean, or is it really loose? Maybe because the harness is new, it is stiffer, so it is less likely to "drape"???? KWIM? I dislike the HUGS also. They were just too much "stuff" in the way.

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #6

I guess with it put that way, maybe there is more slack in the harness over her belly, where the HUGS are, than anywhere else...but I don't judge tightness in that area. If it's tight over her hips and tight at her shoulders, it's tight enough that I can't pinch any webbing vertically.

 

Morganthe

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #7

I think Tina's picked up on my concern AND my dislike of the HUGS too. Hayley's picture, to me, is almost what dd has. It's the slump of the straps down the belly that makes everything, imo, just loose. I guess you could consider it tight on the 5pts, that slack just bothers me. But I've been used to an extremely tight harness for years with absolutely no excess. :shrug-shoulders:

I have picts now of the Regent with the recline bar, but I'll try to get photos tomorrow as she fits into it without. Such a difference now. She likes not being so leaned back too. She never sat back in her stroller unless she was sleeping. My eager beaver always wanted to see the world

 

B

beebear23

Senior Community Member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #8

If you look in my siggy you'll see pics of my son in the REgent.. He's 39-40" and is just under the 2nd to bottom slots. I haven't really noticed any difference, but then, I'm used to using the HUGS on his MA and WZ...

I can guarantee his straps are super tight though.. He doesn't complain(everyone else complains for him) and he is used to it.

 

jessclear

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #9

I dislike the HUGS also. I hadn't been using them RF since it's not necessary, but just got a new seat and have been trying them out for "extra" safety. However, I can't get the harness tight enough with them on there. Of course, my DD is only 1yr, and 28.5" and 17.5lbs. The HUGS take up her whole torso almost. I think I will take them off again tomorrow. Is it really safe without them?

 

S

southpawboston

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #10

it is safe RFing, but NOT safe FFing. they are REQUIRED when FFing and the seat will NOT conform to FMVSS213 standards without them. basically the HUGS were added to britax carseats because the shells failed crash tests without them... something about head or neck excursion being farther than allowed. this was years ago and i don't know if britax still needs them on their current models to being them into conformance. but then britax brilliantly marketed them as a safety feature (they're even patented!) when in fact they were, in effect, a patch to make a carseat conform to federal standards. :thumbsdown:

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Jun 17, 2007

• #11

The only seat that failed without the HUGS was the Super Elite, IIRC. Once they were required for the Super Elite Britax started putting them on all the higher weight limit harnessed seats.

 

Morganthe

New member

• Jun 18, 2007

• #12

scatterbunny said:

The only seat that failed without the HUGS was the Super Elite, IIRC. Once they were required for the Super Elite Britax started putting them on all the higher weight limit harnessed seats.

Click to expand...

So they're not really needed for safety reasons? That might answer the other question I've had niggling around in my head about why the Fisher Price version of their seats lack HUGS and still are tested safe.

Hmm, I'm probably going to end up calling Britax about these things to find out the whole story. If they're no longer required for safety, they could be the reason why their straps don't tangle as badly as they do :shrug-shoulders:

It's getting returned while dd is at class today & MC is being switched back in. If it wasn't for the whole rigamarole of those annoying twisty straps + HUGS, I'd put the Madison as the main contender over the untried Recaro just due to how well it fits in the Camry without the recline bar. The top is just barely visible in the rear view mirror. I can't put anyone on the outboard seats, but oh well. If anyone bothered to visit, I'd just transfer the Radian. Those two seats do work extremely well in tandem with one another. I think I could even fit Radians on each side of the Regent

 

jessclear

New member

• Jun 18, 2007

• #13

If HUGS are no longer needed to be safe, why are they still required? I hope I can get used to them once DD if ff.

 

skaterbabs

Well-known member

• Jun 18, 2007

• #14

They MUST be used, we do not know what will happen if you're in a crash and they have been removed.

 

Suzibeck

Active member

• Jun 18, 2007

• #15

I do not like the HUGS either. I don't know if Britax has crash tested the current seats without HUGS, so we don't know if the seats fail without, or are just safer with, or what.

My guess is that the FPSVD failed over 55 lbs without, that is why it doesn't go to 65 lbs. That is just a guess however but since the shell is the same, why else would it have a lower harness weight limit?

So, maybe the other Britax seats really only need the HUGS for the heigher weight limits, but too many people would forget that, lose the HUGS... so they require it for all? Just thinking at the keyboard here.

I'll continue to use the HUGS in any case, even though they bug me. But, if our MA ever gets crashed, it will be replaced with a Radian or Recaro most likely.