Crash Testing/Neck loads on FF seats vs KWP

tarynsmum · Mar 28, 2012

OK, I was asked to make a new thread. Sorry for ANOTHER KWP thread, but I didn't want to 1) derail the OP, and 2) the info get lost in a long thread...

This article was posted in another thread, and I would like to discuss it. So, it appears by the first document (that I can't read, so it's difficult) that the shield booster had the highest neck loads. But then in the graph, it was lower than the harnessed seat (or at least A harnessed seat). Would anyone care to talk some more about these? A part of me says "it passed FMVSS standards" but then, did it pass with booster standards or FF/harnessed seat standards? I also want to try to compare apples to apples as much as I can.

Then there was also this graph, which is next to impossible for me to break down (since I don't know what all seats were tested). Both links were originally posted by _juune

ETA: I also posted the article on Kiddy USA's FB page, to get a response from them.

TechnoGranola · Mar 28, 2012

Here's the thread where the info was originally posted if anyone wants to thank/rep that poster too. http://www.car-seat.org/showpost.php?p=2219379&postcount=38

Sent from my iPhone using Car-Seat.Org

_juune · Mar 28, 2012

I don't want to appear like a troll just dropping links and running off

I had never paid much attention to shield seats, as I intend to ERF my child as long as possible. I had heard that shield seats have lover neck loads and just took it for a fact, therefore I feel that it is important to share the info/links. The German Auto-Motor-Sport test result .pdf is obviously about the same test as this article here, in case it's origin seems shady or someting. Also the results are a few years old, maybe the seats/concept has been improved since, if that is possible.

As for the numbers in the .pdf v.s. the graph -- "Q1" is a dummy representing 1 year old child and "Q3" is a dummy representing 3 year old child; in the graph Kiddy with the Q3 dummy is pretty much in the middle, no contradiction to the other results, if I understand it correctly. In the .pdf it is written that group I seats were tested with a 15 kg dummy, it's no Q1.

LISmama810 · Mar 28, 2012

Without being able to read German, I have no idea what the first article is trying to say. The graph appears to show rear-facing and forward-facing seats? So not apples to apples.

The second chart shows that rear-facing seats performed better in HIC than forward-facing seats.

I might be wrong, but I thought the HIC criteria are the same for boosters and FF harnessed seats, in the US at least.

I believe Pixels recently explained how some injury criteria (chest loads?) are typically higher in RF seats than FF seats, which might be where Kiddy's ludicrous claim of being safer than RF comes from.

Anyway, does the shield provide better protection than a harness? No idea.

sailingdaddy · Mar 28, 2012

tarynsmum said:
This article was posted in another thread, and I would like to discuss it. So, it appears by the first document (that I can't read, so it's difficult) that the shield booster had the highest neck loads. But then in the graph, it was lower than the harnessed seat (or at least A harnessed seat).

The text doesn't really say anything interesting, it's just a spacefiller...

Which graph? There is no graph in the pdf document ?

The Kiddy seat got the worst measurements in 3 out of 4 values, and second to worst in one.

The other graph, which is on facebook compares neck loads in a large number of RF and FF seats, and using different dummies, but for only a few values are the seat/dummy combination identified. Kiddy has a low value for the Q1 dummy, but it's not clear how many seats were tested with Q1.

/Marcus

nmb · Mar 28, 2012

LISmama810 said:
Without being able to read German, I have no idea what the first article is trying to say.

If you open the page with Google Chrome it'll translate for you. =)
(it's not perfect but enough to get the gist of it)

Pixels · Mar 28, 2012

I posted this on the other thread but the question was re-asked so I'll re-answer it.

The ONLY differences between harnessed and booster standards in FMVSS are the installation method (obviously) and tethered head excursion. Boosters are not required to have tethers and therefore are not required to pass the tougher, tethered head excursion standard. All forward facing seats, harnesses and boosters, must pass the untethered standard as well as the injury standards (head injury, chest injury). Neck strain is not measured.

All that said, I'm 99% sure it's classified the same as a harnessed seat.

Syllieann · Mar 28, 2012

According to the translated chart, the KWP is much worse than the others on: HIC, neck force, and "contact force". I'm not sure what they mean by "contact force" but it sounds like you want it low and kwp is highest. For chest accel, kwp is worse slightly worse than 2 of the harnessed seats and slightly better than the 3rd harnessed seat. To summarize, both rf and ff harnessed is safer than kwp. Is that what everyone else got from it?

leelee · Mar 28, 2012

Forgive me I know this off topic but I posted a question on kiddy's Facebook page about rollover protection and the response realy rubbed me the wrong way too. I was realy looking forward to this seat but between reading this thread and the response on facebook I'm defiantly having doubts about this seat.

canadiangie · Mar 28, 2012

leelee said:
Forgive me I know this off topic but I posted a question on kiddy's Facebook page about rollover protection and the response realy rubbed me the wrong way too. I was realy looking forward to this seat but between reading this thread and the response on facebook I'm defiantly having doubts about this seat.

Can you share the fb response?

TechnoGranola · Mar 28, 2012

canadiangie said:
Can you share the fb response?

:yeahthat:

Pixels · Mar 28, 2012

Besafe Izi Comfort X1 Isofix
HIC 611
Head acceleration 58 g
Neck strain 1.5 kN
Chest acceleration 41g

Maxi Cosi Priorifix
HIC 587
Head acceleration 54 g
Neck strain 1.7 kN
Chest acceleration 44 g

Romer Safefix Plus
HIC 668
Head acceleration 65 g
Neck strain 1.8 kN
Chest acceleration 59 g

Kiddy Infinity Pro
HIC 845
Head acceleration 69 g
Neck strain 2.2 kN
Chest acceleration 47 g

I assume that the boosters were tested with a different dummy than the harnessed seats, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, but the neck strain numbers are right in the same neighborhood or slightly higher in the boosters than in the harnesses.

Baylor · Mar 28, 2012

I don't like that answer either. It is one of those nonanswers.

canadiangie · Mar 28, 2012

Baylor said:
I don't like that answer either. It is one of those nonanswers.

What answer?

christineka · Mar 28, 2012

The answer kiddy gave is that it's not tested for rollovers and neither are other seats- or at least there is no standard for rollover testing, which I'm certain is correct.

This is what I said to previous fan:
All manufacturers are not required to perform a roll over per government tests. We are working with a local department that we are considering running the test with. At this point, nothing is defined. You have to realize as well since there is no testing requirement, every manufacturer will test to what they believe is the correct way. Since there is no standard testing procedure, there will be many variables to consider and nothing will be apples to apples (manufacturer to manufacturer). The protective shield actually sits across your child's lap and is instrumental in fastening the LATCH or vehicle belt (whichever you use). Your child will be very snug. If for any reason you want to return it because you are not satisfied you could contact customer service and I'm sure they could help you out.

Pixels · Mar 28, 2012

I should probably explain some about what those numbers mean.

Head acceleration is used to calculate HIC, so it's pretty redundant. HIC is Head Injury Criterion, which is the result of an equation to calculate the probability and severity of head injury. Lower numbers are better. Mild concussion is likely with numbers from 150-500. Severe concussion is likely with numbers from 500-1800. Life threatening or death is likely with numbers from 1800 and up. The cutoff for FMVSS 213 is 1000.

Neck strain, well lower is better.

The cutoff for chest acceleration in FMVSS 213 is 60 Gs for 3 milliseconds. Lower is better.

LISmama810 · Mar 28, 2012

I'm not really sure what answer people were expecting regarding roll-over testing. There is no standard, and I don't believe any seat has ever claimed to be tested for such a scenario. Even if it were tested, without a standard, how would we interpret the results?

The closest we have is inversion testing for seats to be certified for airplane use. Is the KWP approved for use on a plane in shield mode? If so, that tells us something. If not, it might or might not tell us something.

ketchupqueen · Mar 28, 2012

And even if not FAA approved it often means it just wasn't treated because it was either too large for airplane seats (like the Regent) or the plane belt wouldn't work with the belt path (like the Zeus 360.)

LISmama810 · Mar 28, 2012

ketchupqueen said:
And even if not FAA approved it often means it just wasn't treated because it was either too large for airplane seats (like the Regent) or the plane belt wouldn't work with the belt path (like the Zeus 360.)

Right, that's why it said it might or might not tell us something.

(FWIW, Vera told me that the Zeus actually did pass testing but they didn't label it as such because they couldn't imagine anyone actually flying with it.)

LISmama810 · Mar 28, 2012

Oh, and DO we know if it's FAA approved? I vaguely remember that it isn't, but I might be making that up.

Crash Testing/Neck loads on FF seats vs KWP

Senior Community Member

Forum Ambassador

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Forum Ambassador

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

CPST and ketchup snob

Admin - CPS Technician

Admin - CPS Technician

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics