34" Minimum height for FF in the Scenera

tarynsmum

Senior Community Member

• Aug 10, 2007

• #1

Are all Cosco seats like that, or just the Scenera? I'm wondering because, judging by the CDC growth chart, a 1 year old who is 20 pounds and 34 inches (what would be the Scenera's minimums) would be 28th percentile for weight and +97th percentile (essentially off the charts) for height. At 2 years, 34 inches is roughly average (51%)

Is this the Scenera's way of trying to get parents to ERF (although it doesn't work, as most people don't even read that line, just the 20#, 1 year part )

Also, if other seats (namely the AOE) are like that, then it's one more thing I can tell my friend about her newly 1 year old (still RFing) child.

 

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus

Staff member

• Aug 10, 2007

• #2

I believe that ERF is what Dorel intended with the 34" minimum to FF according to techs who attended the Lifesavers conference, and it's applicable to all Dorel-branded seats. I'm not sure exactly when or what DOM time frame the minimum height to FF was first included in the manuals and product labeling, though, so older seats out there may not have the requirement in their instructions. It's at least as far back as April '06 DOMs for the Scenera, based on a spare Scenera with the 34" requirement I have in my stash of seats.

 

bobandjess99

Senior Community Member

• Aug 10, 2007

• #3

my dd, who has always been at or over 50% for height, was well over 2 by the time she was 34 inches, so *IF* parents followed their manuals, virtually ALL 12-24 months in dorel seat would/SHOULD be still RF.

hhhmmmm..question...as a tech, I *have* to follow the manual when installing a carseat, I was taught in class to NEVER install a seat against the manual, even if the parent asks for it, so if a parent has a dorel seat and a child under 34", can I refuse to install it FF for them??

 

N

niccig

New member

• Aug 10, 2007

• #4

My Cosco Touriva (which I am no longer using because of the notches :thumbsdown has a minimum weight limit of 22lbs and 34" height for forward facing. So baby has to be a little bigger/older to FF in it.

 

V

VLsMom

New member

• Aug 10, 2007

• #5

I've wondered this exact same thing too. 34" at a year is pretty uncommon. More like....a typical 2 year old's height.

 

V

VLsMom

New member

• Aug 10, 2007

• #6

hhhmmmm..question...as a tech, I *have* to follow the manual when installing a carseat, I was taught in class to NEVER install a seat against the manual, even if the parent asks for it, so if a parent has a dorel seat and a child under 34", can I refuse to install it FF for them??

Click to expand...

Yeah! "Technically" they should still be rear-facing because they don't meet the limits of the seat for FFing. What a dandy excuse!

 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor

• Aug 11, 2007

• #7

bobandjess99 said:

hhhmmmm..question...as a tech, I *have* to follow the manual when installing a carseat, I was taught in class to NEVER install a seat against the manual, even if the parent asks for it, so if a parent has a dorel seat and a child under 34", can I refuse to install it FF for them??

Click to expand...

That's a very tricky question, but for liability reasons I just don't think you could do anything but. The danger is that mom and dad could just refuse help and potentially put the child in the seat ff'ing anyways and then not have it installed properly either...

But yeah, I wouldn't install a seat against manufacturers directions. That's the seat they have, that's how it has to be used. If they're really upset over it, they can go get a different seat I guess.

 

safeinthecar

Moderator - CPS Technician

• Aug 11, 2007

• #8

When I get a parent who refuses to go by the manual for some reason, ie: insisting on putting their baby ffing at 11 months, I tell them flat out, that I can't do what they want without getting myself in trouble. However, I can, and do offer to teach them how to use their seat both rfing and ffing properly.That way we both win, I get to not be sued, since baby leaves the check correctly, and parent can install a seat properly, even if it is going the wrong direction. Then I document, Document, Document.

FWIW, the 34 inch standing height limit is a great excuss for erf, but we can hardly tell them that standing height is a guideline, and that it is set in stone at the same time.

Kimberly

 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor

• Aug 11, 2007

• #9

safeinthecar@mac.com said:

FWIW, the 34 inch standing height limit is a great excuss for erf, but we can hardly tell them that standing height is a guideline, and that it is set in stone at the same time.

Kimberly

Click to expand...

I disagree on this because we're talking about a minimum height vs. a maximum height. I know that the height is a guideline and some 17" kids very well may fit fine in a rf'ing seat that's rated for 19", but I do think when talking about a minimum height as opposed to a maximum, that it is a different ball game. Especially given the specific stance Dorel took at lifesavers.

And since moving a child ff'ing is a choice, as opposed to being sure that an infant fits the carrier properly, I don't think in the vast majority of circumstance that the minimums should be gone against when it comes to taking a step down in safety. :twocents:

Like you said, all you can do is educate, make sure kiddo leaves the check the proper way and document, but I do think a distinction can and should be made between height minimums and maximums. But that's my opinion. :thumbsup:

 

mimieliza

New member

• Aug 11, 2007

• #10

Are all of the harness slots reinforced for FFing on the Scenara? If you're only allowed to use certain slots for FF maybe the minimum height is to ensure the child is tall enough for those slots?

Just wondering... I've never read a manual for a Scenara.

 

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus

Staff member

• Aug 11, 2007

• #11

As far as I can tell from our Scenera and the manual, there is no restriction on which slots can be used FF. The 34" FF minimum height kind of rules out the usage of some of the lowest sets of slots by default, depending on the child's torso height/proportions.

 

SPJ&E

New member

• Aug 11, 2007

• #12

safeinthecar@mac.com said:

FWIW, the 34 inch standing height limit is a great excuss for erf, but we can hardly tell them that standing height is a guideline, and that it is set in stone at the same time.

Kimberly

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. It's one big contradiction to me and the way I see it, it's going to make the people we're trying to help, not trust us. If we tell them in one sentence that the stated standing height limits don't matter when rear-facing, how can we tell them they do when forward-facing?

Then you go into the thing about minimums and maximums and they're lost. The minimum height limits matter, but the maximum height limits don't, as long as kiddo has 1 inch above the head and is under the weight limit...oh and the minimum AND maximum weights must be followed exactly. It's just too much and it's too confusing. It's kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.

No offense meant toward anyone...that whole things just bugs me big time!