comparing the Regent and the Radian 65 (with pics)

supercrunch

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #1

First of all...I am dumbfounded by how my 3 year old and 6 year old have the same torso height.

My ds is 39.5" and 31 lbs, and my dd is 45.5" and 39 lbs (and apparently all legs, lol)


But without further adieu...

Regent and Radian 65 next to each other

dd in the Regent

dd in the Radian (the cover slots are a tad lower than the seat slots, so she has about 1/2" or so before she needs to be moved up)

ds in the Regent

ds in the Radian

I definitely prefer the size of the Radian (as the Regent won't fit while allowing a 3rd adult passenger, which we need often, but my dd prefers the comfort of the Regent. She likes how it sits further out on her neck. She should fit in the Regent for years and years. She has about 6" until she is even with the top slots.

 

cryswilkins

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #2

Wow your DD is all legs!! You have a dancer there. I have never seen them side by side but I assumed that the radian was MUCH smaller.

 

ThreeBeans

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #3

Cute.

Look at all the HAIR your dd has

 

supercrunch

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #4

She loves her long hair, and cries every time we get it trimmed. If she keeps it up her hair will be as long as her legs, lol.

 

3acorns4Christy

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #5

Thank you for posting these. I have been curious for a long time on what they looked like side by side. In a couple years I will be getting the Regent for my son.

 

E

easterbun

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #6

cryswilkins said:

Wow your DD is all legs!! You have a dancer there. I have never seen them side by side but I assumed that the radian was MUCH smaller.

Click to expand...

The difference from the side is quite dramatic. I am surprised though, that the shells are nearly the same height - I assumed the Regent was much taller.

 

2

2bugsmom

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #7

Thank you so much for posting this. I just drove 45 minutes away to compare the 2 with my DD. I got there and forgot my camera. I had wanted to be able to show my husband.

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #8

Wow, your dd is ALL legs! Hayley fit that seat like your ds at 39 inches; she had to be moved up to the second-to-top slots at 41 inches tall.

Great pics.

 

bobandjess99

Senior Community Member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #9

It seems to me that the secpond highest sloits on the regent seem comparable to the highest slots on the Radian, is that the case in real life? Because the radian slots are supposedly only 18, whereas the regent second slots are at 19, right? But it just looks like they are about equal in the pics.....

 

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus

Staff member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #10

Yes, that has been my experience with how DD1 fits height-wise in the Regent and Radian 65. Her shoulders are just about at the second slots from the top in the Regent, and a hair below the top slots in the Radian. The Regent is installed using the recline bar, and the Radian has the FF only recline foot extended but still seems a bit more upright.

 

supercrunch

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #11

I just grabbed my tape measure, and the second highest slots of the Regent are right around 17.5". The top slots of the Radian are just a hair over 17".

...although in my Marathon vs. Radian thread a while back, my ds had over an inch and a half more room in the Radian than the Marathon.

I would say the Radians top slots are functionally 18"
(based on the way a child sits in the seat)

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #12

The second-from-top slots of the Regent measure about 17.5-18 inches. Hayley is hovering at those slots right now.

 

CDNTech

Senior Community Member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #13

Thanks for posting these! From the pictures it looks like the Radian's top slots are in between the Regent's second from top slot and top slots.

It honestly doesn't look like the Regent gives a ton of extra growing room over the Radian. Both seats definitely have their niche they fit into.

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #14

It's funny how someone can see the same pics and come to a totally different conclusion. I look at those, see that girl almost even with the second-to-top slots of the Radian and about even with the second-to-bottom slots of the Regent, and see a HUGE difference.

Hayley is about even with the 17.5-18 inch second-to-top slots of the Husky right now, which would put her about even with the top slots of the Radian. She's still got at least two years to go in a Husky/Regent, with plenty of room for comfort; in a Radian she'd only have ANY grow room at all if I were okay with letting her use it with shoulders over top slots, which I am not.

 

supercrunch

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #15

I think that my dd has a year or two left in the Radian...but I think the Regent could easily get her to 9 or 10.

 

C

cobbergal

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #16

Thanks so much for posting those pictures - it is clear to me that the SKR will be a better fit in my tiny VW (I also have an infant carseat in the backseat, too - if I only had one child, I would get a Regent).

 

cookie123

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #17

Interestingly, it looks like there's about the same neck room between the harness on both the seats. Is that what you guys think?

Peg

 

A

arly1983

New member

• Jul 2, 2007

• #18

There is, some people measured it....

It is the small chest clip pulling the straps inward that are the problem..