Disturbing RF crashtest videos

Those seats are neither US nor Canadian. They are European.

I would love to ride down a crash like that. You can almost literally see the seat turn into a giant cradle wrapping around the dummy's body, head, neck and spine kept fully aligned. Aside from the last clip, things look good to me.

Pixels said:

Those seats are neither US nor Canadian. They are European.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

auto-correct on the loose..

My four year old watched them with me and thought it looked "fun". I don't have a problem with them. My son wishes he could be rear facing.

I believe there is a general misunderstanding about what a crash run down time really is. I am still of the opinion that most of those videos are true failiures because the seats are not in contact against dash/front seat. Here is why:

This is a quote from a very knowlegable professional, named Robert Bell who has been working in the field for 30 + years. Questioned by a blogger which child seat configuration is the safest here's what he says:

"Content Removed by Admin".

The safEST thing to do would be to never leave the house. Since this is impractical, all we can do is make children as safe as we can with what we have. In the US, it simply is not safe to place a rear facing seat in the front to be braced on the dash as airbags can deploy when they shouldn't. We know it is safER to rear face than forward face, as evidenced in your quote

Rearward facing seats in the rear are
disadvantaged by the rear seat back, which moves more than the dashboard,
but they are still superior to forward facing CRS in this regard.

Click to expand...

so that is what we do.

khanbulgarski said:

I believe there is a general misunderstanding about what a crash run down time really is. I am still of the opinion that most of those videos are true failiures because the seats are not in contact against dash/front seat. Here is why:

This is a quote from a very knowlegable professional, named Robert Bell who has been working in the field for 30 + years. Questioned by a blogger which child seat configuration is the safest here's what he says:

*quote removed*

Click to expand...

Okay. Again no expert here. However if you anchor a seat so hard in the car that it is not flexible than the only thing moving would be the child.

In those videos those first seats bend and move with the child as one unit. Protecting the child.

Forward facing may be different but after seeing those videos if I could rf my 3 yr old again I would.

auto-correct on the loose..

Brianna said:

The safEST thing to do would be to never leave the house. Since this is impractical, all we can do is make children as safe as we can with what we have. In the US, it simply is not safe to place a rear facing seat in the front to be braced on the dash as airbags can deploy when they shouldn't. We know it is safER to rear face than forward face, as evidenced in your quote so that is what we do.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the OP is saying that U.S. seats should be braced against the dash? The OP is in Bulgaria, this is the Canadian & International forum. From what I am reading, the OP is trying to have a discussion on these European seats and how they are performing in crash tests WITHOUT being braced on the dash and how that might improve if they ARE braced against the dash. Which is allowed in Europe for vehicles that have a switch to turn off the air bags. I believe there are European vehicles that do NOT have a switch and have advanced air bag sensors like we have here...can someone confirm that? I'm pretty sure I read either AD or another European poster say that at one point. So, the OP's suggestion of manufacturers moving sensors, could apply to those European vehicles without a switch.

So, my impression is that the discussion is about European seats and European vehicles, and the international forum is the appropriate place for this.

Baylor said:

Okay. Again no expert here. However if you anchor a seat so hard in the car that it is not flexible than the only thing moving would be the child.

In those videos those first seats bend and move with the child as one unit. Protecting the child.

Forward facing may be different but after seeing those videos if I could rf my 3 yr old again I would.

auto-correct on the loose..

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what we want. Then the internal harness system of the seat would do its job, and the EPS foam, and slow the child in a controlled manner. Unchecked movement of the entire system means that there is less time for stoping and more energy that can cause injuries.

I am stalking this thread.
These are where I seem to learn the most.

auto-correct on the loose..

My first thought was, despite the scariness of the 4th video -- seatbelt failure? -- I think that child is STILL better protected RFing. It's the shell that is taking the impact on the vehicle floor (or whatever) and the child is impacting the child seat. It would be a different story if that child were FF.

I don't *love* #3 but I am ok with it. It looks as if all three seats did their jobs.

TechnoGranola said:

I don't believe the OP is saying that U.S. seats should be braced against the dash? The OP is in Bulgaria, this is the Canadian & International forum. From what I am reading, the OP is trying to have a discussion on these European seats and how they are performing in crash tests WITHOUT being braced on the dash and how that might improve if they ARE braced against the dash. Which is allowed in Europe for vehicles that have a switch to turn off the air bags. I believe there are European vehicles that do NOT have a switch and have advanced air bag sensors like we have here...can someone confirm that? I'm pretty sure I read either AD or another European poster say that at one point. So, the OP's suggestion of manufacturers moving sensors, could apply to those European vehicles without a switch.

So, my impression is that the discussion is about European seats and European vehicles, and the international forum is the appropriate place for this.

Click to expand...

Yes, we have these branded child seats that have internal sensors that communicate with similar sensors located in the vehicle's dashboard which turn the airbag off. However, these are not very popular and the manual switch is much more trusted. Also, to my knowledge we do not have smart airbags so leaning against the seat/dash is not an issue.

Carrie_R said:

My first thought was, despite the scariness of the 4th video -- seatbelt failure? -- I think that child is STILL better protected RFing. It's the shell that is taking the impact on the vehicle floor (or whatever) and the child is impacting the child seat. It would be a different story if that child were FF.

I don't *love* #3 but I am ok with it. It looks as if all three seats did their jobs.

Click to expand...

For sure RF is much safer- no argument here. But RF is Safest when the seat is braced.

I don't think that is an absolute.

auto-correct on the loose..

khanbulgarski said:

For sure RF is much safer- no argument here. But RF is Safest when the seat is braced.

Click to expand...

Is there any data from the dummies that shows higher injury rates for unbraced seats?

Baylor said:

I don't think that is an absolute.

auto-correct on the loose..

Click to expand...

It is backed by serious science and research in Europe for European cars and seats. As would probably Adventuredad confirm it is also tested by 1/2 a century of experience in Sweden. No other practice in any country is coming even near the quality of those seats and the expertise the Scandinavians are having about RF, so I am prone to believe that when they explain the psysics of Crash run down time that is coming from the internal harness and the need for a seat staying in place they know what they are saying.

Brianna said:

Is there any data from the dummies that shows higher injury rates for unbraced seats?

Click to expand...

Not any that I have access to. Just statistics that is unparallelled and the knowledge that professionals in those countries do brace the seats. Also, the article that I posted from a person that is actually in the field and is explaining the theoretical science behind this idea. Also the videos that everybody consider to be a failure or malfunction of a sort are not, because those seats are not meant to be used unbraced. So technically it is an incorrect use. If those were braced they'd have stayed in place.

khanbulgarski said:

Not any that I have access to. Just statistics that is unparallelled and the knowledge that professionals in those countries do brace the seats. Also, the article that I posted from a person that is actually in the field and is explaining the theoretical science behind this idea.

Click to expand...

Do you have any links to that data? I would like to read it if in English .

So are you discussing this in the context that you believe all rf seats should be braced or european only.

auto-correct on the loose..

khanbulgarski said:

It is backed by serious science and research in Europe for European cars and seats. As would probably Adventuredad confirm it is also tested by 1/2 a century of experience in Sweden. No other practice in any country is coming even near the quality of those seats and the expertise the Scandinavians are having about RF, so I am prone to believe that when they explain the psysics of Crash run down time that is coming from the internal harness and the need for a seat staying in place they know what they are saying.

Click to expand...

We know of the low injury rates in Sweden- but that's not comparing apples to apples. To determine which is safer- unbraced or braced- we would need to compare Sweden, who braces, to another country or area that also rear faces to 4 but doesn't brace.

khanbulgarski said:

Not any that I have access to. Just statistics that is unparallelled and the knowledge that professionals in those countries do brace the seats. Also, the article that I posted from a person that is actually in the field and is explaining the theoretical science behind this idea.

Click to expand...

I understand the theory, but what kind of difference is there in reality?

khanbulgarski said:

I believe there is a general misunderstanding about what a crash run down time really is. I am still of the opinion that most of those videos are true failiures because the seats are not in contact against dash/front seat. Here is why:

This is a quote from a very knowlegable professional, named Robert Bell who has been working in the field for 30 + years. Questioned by a blogger which child seat configuration is the safest here's what he says:

Click to expand...

Your so-called expert seems to be neglecting the fact that the vehicle designers included seat belt stretch when they designed the vehicle. Seat belts are supposed to stretch, as it does increase ride down time. By bracing against a rigid structure such as the dash, you are all but eliminating that component of the vehicle's designed safety system.

Seat belts are supposed to stretch. They could make them with no stretch, or much less stretch, but they don't for a reason. If you look closely at a seat belt, you will see that it is made up of diagonally woven fibers. It is this diagonal weave that gives the seat belt its stretch. If the fibers ran the length of the belt, it would have much less stretch and the passenger would be more tightly coupled to the vehicle chassis. Coupling to the chassis is beneficial to a degree, but there comes a point where there needs to be some give. Seat belt design has accommodated this, by balancing tightly restraining the occupant and also stretching to allow more ride down time.

LATCH/UAS/ISOFIX belts and the internal harnesses on child restraints are also designed the same way. Some stretch is good.

Your expert mentions that many/most forward facing seats exceed the 550 mm standard limit for forward motion. If this is true, how are these seats legal? I know that in the US and Canada, any seat that is found to not comply with the standard would be recalled.

It is also worth noting that the child is NOT "cruis[ing], motion unchecked, forward in space" unless the seat and/or harness were too loose to begin with. If the seat was properly installed with a tight belt, and the harness was properly tightened, the motion is being checked by the seat belt and harness, which are stretching as designed to give the child more time to slow down.

Your expert also touts the tighter attachment of rigid ISOFIX. Again, he is neglecting that many seat manufacturers have designed a crumple zone of sorts into their rigid ISOFIX, because some give is desirable. The stretch of the webbing that was lost is replaced by a crumple zone. If the best performance was to be had by coupling the dummy to the chassis as tightly as possible, why would they intentionally partially de-couple them?

In the US, historically our seats have been made out of flexible plastics. Now we are seeing a trend towards metal frames and metal reinforcement, and at the same time we are hearing from the manufacturers that they are having to add other design components to the seat because the seat is too rigid. Too rigid, no flex, transfers too much energy to the child. And that is exactly what I was talking about earlier, when I said that watching a video doesn't tell the whole story - what were the injury measures experienced by these dummies? I'm sure that in the prototype stage, when these metal-reinforced seats were too stiff and were passing too much energy to the child, the crash test looked just fine but yet the dummies had extreme injuries.