News Foonf weight limit in Canada

unityco

Ambassador - CPS Technician
snowbird25ca said:
Interpretations to me seem to imply that it could change again down the road if someone interprets it slightly differently in the future? Or am I being pessimistic?)

Come stand beside me in the cynical zone, lol. *I'm* thinking back to the imagined 'Canada must have a unified 30lb RF limit' debacle. :whistle: I could well see this spreading. :thumbsdown:
 
ADS

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor
I did some digging this afternoon and have seen the specific section of the regulations that I'm assuming were being referenced. It really is as simple as the dummy that has to be used in order to rate a seat above certain limits. Seeing as Diono rated the Radians to 44" maybe they've found a way to test with the 6yr old dummy? I don't know... I do know that 43" is the cut-off for the 3yr old dummy and any height rating above 43" requires testing with the 6yr old dummy.

Based on the info shared though I'm wondering if it is also related to the test procedure? Like the way the dummy is positioned etc?

I'm really wondering what Diono and Peg have done for testing... was it a question about how the dummy was being positioned? Or something else?

On the bright side, I can totally live with 40lbs being the max that rf seats top out at if Diono and Peg end up dropping their limits in the coming months. It still makes 30lbs look like the dark ages, lol - and is still going to get most kids to age 4...
 

Shanora

Well-known member
I don't like that the Regulations can be interpreted in any which way the Manufacture decides. This leave a ton of room for errors. ALso with the 2012 regulations wouldn't ALL seats have had to pass the SAME regulations. I for one am NOT impressed by this. I honestly feel that I was lied to, and to my face at that. THEY KNEW about all the regulations... its not like its January here people... its freaking NOVEMBER... they'd had 11 months to figure all this out... and only just NOW 2-3 months AFTER telling both US and Canada that it would RF to 50lbs they've changed their minds. This does NOT sit well with me.
Kinda like the way Russ was for Sunshine Kids perhaps. Say one thing, and then turn around and say something completely different to someone else.

I dunno man. Like I said before, I don't know where I stand with this company anymore.
 

ctfirstaid

CPS Technician
Well said! If more technicians and instructors stayed up to date the way this group has on new product things would be so much smoother.

Looks like the big issue with here is they couldn't get it to pass standards at 45 or 50. Keep in mind even seats that are passing at 45 aren't making it by much
 

TechnoGranola

Forum Ambassador
I've got a bunch to say but I've been saying it all day via text with others so I'm too tired right now to repeat myself. But I did want to say that those who've mentioned the FF technology have hit the nail on the head. This seat IS designed to be the best FF seat they could make. Clek then says it was then made to be the best RF seat within the parameters of keeping the best FF seat.

So RF was secondary. And I've never felt warm and fuzzy about it. It was always a bit of a hack to me. Add on a giant plastic wedge which makes the seat almost touch the roof in some vehicles (mine) all because of the gigantic crumple zone for FF. Have nice rigid latch for FF but for RF throw in the old flexible one. Create an ARB bar that can only be used in the most reclined position; which leaves Canadians with only one recline option when RF.

For those reasons, I was always hesitant about getting the seat. Why would I pay $499 for FF innovation that I had no desire to use? But the 45# RF weight limit was keeping the seat on my list.

Then they said 50#. SOLD! Now that was something I'd pay $499 for, the longest RF seat in Canada. Then pull the rug out from under my feet and give me 40# RF. Well that's the way to force me to use the FF innovation at some point...but still for a short period of time so not really getting that innovative value. So what I am left with for $500? A monkey. Not sure I need to match my Oobr that bad.

--Sent from my iPhone using Car-Seat.Org
 

Pixelated

Moderator - CPST Instructor
I need to read things from the source to fully get it.

From Transport Canada's Test Method 213 - Child Restraint Systems (I added in the rounded up imperial units for ease of reading), http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-mvstm_tsd-tm-2130_e-670.htm:

2.4 Anthropomorphic test device: For the dynamic tests, select all anthropomorphic test devices (ATD) specified in paragraphs (a) to (c), as required, for testing a child restraint system for use by children whose mass and height are within the ranges indicated in the statement referred to in paragraph 218(1)(d) of the RSSR.

(a) A restraint system that is designed to be used by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 10 kg (22lbs) but not greater than 18 kg (40lbs), or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 850 mm (33.4")but not greater than 1100 mm (43.3"), shall be tested with

(i) the CRABI 12-month-old infant ATD conforming to subpart R, part 572, chapter V, title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States (revised as of October 1, 2009); and

(ii) the Hybrid III 3-year-old child ATD conforming to subpart P, part 572, chapter V, title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States (revised as of October 1, 2009).

(b) A restraint system that is designed to be used by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 18 kg (40lbs) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50lbs), or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm (43.3") but not greater than 1250 mm (49.2"), shall be tested with

(i) the Hybrid III 6-year-old child ATD conforming to subpart N, part 572, chapter V, title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States (revised as of October 1, 2009); or

The section of the RSSR referenced above states that the restraint itself must have a label indicating:

(d) a statement indicating — in units based on the International System of Units followed by the corresponding imperial units in parentheses — the mass and height range of the children for whom the manufacturer recommends the restraint system when it is used in a forward-facing and, where applicable, a rear-facing position;

So with a rear-facing height limit of 46" and weight over they need to bump to the next category - the 6 year old - who apparently does not fit by height.

Since the Radian gives a height limit of 44" -- over the 43.3" cut-off -- and a weight limit of 45lbs I would infer from this that they also needed to have tested with the 6 year old dummy. I am very curious.

Wasn't there a seat recently with a 43.3" height limit and there was some wondering about where the heck that number came from? Now we know. SecureKid 100 maybe?

As an aside...I did not know that the regulations state very specifically what clothing the dummies are to wear, and the temperature the clothing is to be washed and dried at --

(b) for the Hybrid III 3-year-old child ATD, subpart P, thermal knit, waffle-weave cotton-polyester underwear or equivalent, a size-4 long-sleeved shirt having a mass of 0.090 kg, a pair of size-4 long pants having a mass of 0.090 kg and cut off just far enough above the knee to allow the knee target point to be visible, and children’s size 8 canvas oxford style sneakers weighing not more than 0.26 kg each;
 

Jessica61624

New member
Pixelated said:
I need to read things from the source to fully get it.

From Transport Canada's Test Method 213 - Child Restraint Systems (I added in the rounded up imperial units for ease of reading), http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-mvstm_tsd-tm-2130_e-670.htm:

The section of the RSSR referenced above states that the restraint itself must have a label indicating:

So with a rear-facing height limit of 46" and weight over they need to bump to the next category - the 6 year old - who apparently does not fit by height.

Since the Radian gives a height limit of 44" -- over the 43.3" cut-off -- and a weight limit of 45lbs I would infer from this that they also needed to have tested with the 6 year old dummy. I am very curious.

Wasn't there a seat recently with a 43.3" height limit and there was some wondering about where the heck that number came from? Now we know. SecureKid 100 maybe?

As an aside...I did not know that the regulations state very specifically what clothing the dummies are to wear, and the temperature the clothing is to be washed and dried at --

I want to say its the maestro.
 
S

SoCalCarSeatMama

Guest
I need to read things from the source to fully get it.

From Transport Canada's Test Method 213 - Child Restraint Systems (I added in the rounded up imperial units for ease of reading), http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-mvstm_tsd-tm-2130_e-670.htm:



The section of the RSSR referenced above states that the restraint itself must have a label indicating:



So with a rear-facing height limit of 46" and weight over they need to bump to the next category - the 6 year old - who apparently does not fit by height.

Since the Radian gives a height limit of 44" -- over the 43.3" cut-off -- and a weight limit of 45lbs I would infer from this that they also needed to have tested with the 6 year old dummy. I am very curious.

Wasn't there a seat recently with a 43.3" height limit and there was some wondering about where the heck that number came from? Now we know. SecureKid 100 maybe?

As an aside...I did not know that the regulations state very specifically what clothing the dummies are to wear, and the temperature the clothing is to be washed and dried at --


Okay, but the US testing uses the same parameters that you quoted above (down to the clothing worn), so how did the seat pass in the US but not Canada? Though they haven't even said it didn't pass, they just said the 6yo dummy didn't even fit rear facing which makes absolutely zero sense to me because it had to of fit in order for it to "pass" in the US. I'm in US myself so the weight limit doesn't affect me, but the dishonesty affects me because I had considered buying a Foonf myself. I hate being lied to. :(
 

unityco

Ambassador - CPS Technician
Pixelated said:
As an aside...I did not know that the regulations state very specifically what clothing the dummies are to wear, and the temperature the clothing is to be washed and dried at --

I remember seeing a News story about the dummies the Americans use and how there was a crisis in their program because the particular pink (HAD to be pink) drawers required by the standard were no longer being made, lol.
 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor
How do you know this?

--Sent from my iPhone using Car-Seat.Org

There are a lot of questions about 45lb limit seats and how they're passing. They're just not public because there aren't clear answers...

As an aside...I did not know that the regulations state very specifically what clothing the dummies are to wear, and the temperature the clothing is to be washed and dried at --

Yep, there are all sorts of fun things in the test procedure that only us geeks who go read in depth know about. :cool:

I don't like that the Regulations can be interpreted in any which way the Manufacture decides. This leave a ton of room for errors. ALso with the 2012 regulations wouldn't ALL seats have had to pass the SAME regulations. I for one am NOT impressed by this. I honestly feel that I was lied to, and to my face at that. THEY KNEW about all the regulations... its not like its January here people... its freaking NOVEMBER... they'd had 11 months to figure all this out... and only just NOW 2-3 months AFTER telling both US and Canada that it would RF to 50lbs they've changed their minds. This does NOT sit well with me.
Kinda like the way Russ was for Sunshine Kids perhaps. Say one thing, and then turn around and say something completely different to someone else.

I dunno man. Like I said before, I don't know where I stand with this company anymore.

I don't think this is a case of a manufacturer deciding to interpret things in a way that suits them. What the general population doesn't understand (and please know that I'm not trying to talk down to anyone here because I'm sure that some of you do know this, but maybe not everyone,) is that there are always some questions that aren't spelled out in the standards as clearly as they coudl be. There is a big one at present that I know of, but I'm quite content for it to stay silent so it's not something you're going to see me speak of on c-s.org until it becomes public in some other way.

The thing is, that Transport Canada is staffed by people. And then there are the people who write standards, and the legal team. The people who write them, understand the intent, and discuss it with the current legal team. They communicate with the manufacturers. But then take away the people who wrote the standard, throw in a new legal team to interpret the standards when somebody asks a question, and *boom* you get an answer that nobody was expecting.

This isn't the manufacturer's problems. This is a TC problem at it's root. The manufacturer is trying to get a solid answer from TC to make sure that they are certifying the seat so that it meets TC standards.

I don't think this even has anything to do with old standards vs. new standards - all of those numberings are reflecting back in 2009.

Many moons ago I read about the Canadian rf'ing test procedure and the US rf'ing test procedure, and there was a difference in the test procedure between the two countries. I wouldn't be surprised if this difference in test procedure is more where the exact problem is - that the 6yr old dummy fits with the US test procedure but not the Canadian test procedure.

I don't have any really solid answers, but I do know that a company isn't going to take a PR hit like this and say that the change is based on something that has come from TC if it isn't actually based on something that TC has just recently clarified.

I have stayed off of the Facebook thread since my last post because there is a blatant lack of logic being used. If this is a new interpretation, it is quite possible that Peg and Diono have been testing differently and we're going to see a lowering of their rf'ing weight limits. The existence of a 45lb rf'ing seat doesn't mean that it is automatically being tested the way that was just clarified. I would *hope* that it is - but I don't know because I'm not an engineer working for any of the companies.

Somebody posted on the facebook thread that the seats would be recalled if it turned out the wrong test procedure was being used. In reality, there would most likely be a running change made. Transport Canada doesn't have the power to force recalls. And if this is something that is because of a test procedure, they might not even ask a company to recall, they may just ask for a running change.

All I know for sure is that if Clek is saying they can't test the seat with the 6yr old dummy according to the Canadian testing procedure in the Foonf, then they can't. I'm sure they didn't want to drop the rf'ing weight limit anymore than we wanted to see it dropped.

What I don't know and can't guess, is how Peg and Diono are testing their seats. I'd really be interested in hearing the exact clarification requested and to know what other companies are doing. But just because a smaller seat is rated to a higher rf'ing weight limit doesn't mean that they've been using the same testing procedure that Clek has just received clarification that they have to use.

Yes that sucks, and no, regulations shouldn't be that way. But welcome to the world of Transport Canada. That's where the blame needs to sit... not on the company who is trying to do the right thing by requesting clarification prior to manufacturing and shipping their seats.
 

Pixelated

Moderator - CPST Instructor
Okay, but the US testing uses the same parameters that you quoted above (down to the clothing worn), so how did the seat pass in the US but not Canada? Though they haven't even said it didn't pass, they just said the 6yo dummy didn't even fit rear facing which makes absolutely zero sense to me because it had to of fit in order for it to "pass" in the US. I'm in US myself so the weight limit doesn't affect me, but the dishonesty affects me because I had considered buying a Foonf myself. I hate being lied to. :(

I think -- and I have not looked it up to read in depth -- that the US allows the smaller dummy to be weighted to a higher weight rather than bumping to the next heavier, and also taller, category -- I thought I'd read that here somewhere but I could be imagining it. Perhaps the parameters are different? I don't know.
 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor
Okay, but the US testing uses the same parameters that you quoted above (down to the clothing worn), so how did the seat pass in the US but not Canada? Though they haven't even said it didn't pass, they just said the 6yo dummy didn't even fit rear facing which makes absolutely zero sense to me because it had to of fit in order for it to "pass" in the US. I'm in US myself so the weight limit doesn't affect me, but the dishonesty affects me because I had considered buying a Foonf myself. I hate being lied to. :(

I believe it has to do with the testing procedure itself. The actual positioning of the dummy - assuming that that part stayed the same in the old and new standards. Just my guess.

Bottom line is that we have to remember that this was an interpretation from Transport Canada. And the very use of the word interpretation speaks volumes to me.

As an aside, how many people would really rf their kid to 50lbs? Just saying... :whistle:
 
S

SoCalCarSeatMama

Guest
As an aside, how many people would really rf their kid to 50lbs? Just saying... :whistle:

Hehe my oldest didn't hit 50lbs until he was 7 so certainly not him! My middle is 4 and 45lbs so possible there, and my youngest won't hit 50 until likely 9 or so....so 1/3 of my kids possibly could have used it until 50lbs ;)
 

Shanora

Well-known member
Its the Principal of the matter. Being told BY Clek it would be 50lbs here in Canada and the US, and then less than 3 months later being told nope its 40lbs. Thats where my issue stands. Chris seemed like an awesome guy, and I'm not going to fault him, he's just the messenger. But you DID tell him Trudy that they would be best to keep being transparent and honest with the public, other wise they'd end up down the same road that Diono was.
 
S

SoCalCarSeatMama

Guest
Its the Principal of the matter. Being told BY Clek it would be 50lbs here in Canada and the US, and then less than 3 months later being told nope its 40lbs. Thats where my issue stands. Chris seemed like an awesome guy, and I'm not going to fault him, he's just the messenger. But you DID tell him Trudy that they would be best to keep being transparent and honest with the public, other wise they'd end up down the same road that Diono was.

There is no way that testing was completed and passed when they said it was, or else they never would have had this 50lbs goof in the first place for Canada. I just don't see it. I think they are very eager and excited to get this seat out and make it the best it can be, but I think they have got ahead of themselves. JMHO.
 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor
Its the Principal of the matter. Being told BY Clek it would be 50lbs here in Canada and the US, and then less than 3 months later being told nope its 40lbs. Thats where my issue stands. Chris seemed like an awesome guy, and I'm not going to fault him, he's just the messenger. But you DID tell him Trudy that they would be best to keep being transparent and honest with the public, other wise they'd end up down the same road that Diono was.

I honestly believe this clarification *just* came down the pipes from TC in the last week. I'll send an email and see if I can get any specific clarification.

Believe me when I say that TC can be really really stupid and sucky at times when it comes to interpreting things. I have no doubt that when Clek announced it was going to be 50lbs in Canada, they fully planned it to be 50lbs.

I think the bigger lesson learned is that it's better to exceed someone's expectations by surprise on some things... but I can't fault them for announcing the 50lbs when they first tested it to that because it was really exciting.

On the transparent side - Clek has told everybody now, vs. waiting until the seat hit the market and everyone got their seats and manuals and wondered why the heck it was only 40lbs when they'd been promised higher...
 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor
There is no way that testing was completed and passed when they said it was, or else they never would have had this 50lbs goof in the first place for Canada. I just don't see it. I think they are very eager and excited to get this seat out and make it the best it can be, but I think they have got ahead of themselves. JMHO.

Ah, never underestimate the power of a government agency to change the rules of the game based on a simple question... Case in point, we had seats that only had 32" height limits in Canada for years and years and years because of one person who worked for Transport Canada making a comment that pretty much everybody followed. That's the same reason why we didn't have seats above the 30lb rf'ing weight limit until the True Fit came to Canada - in those cases the regulations weren't actually being interpreted, it was just somebody in a position of power telling the companies something and them doing it because they didn't want to cause trouble.

Clek has been in the process of getting ministerial approval to use CMVSS 213 and 213.1 on their NSM. I'm sure this has led to some in depth discussion that really could've caused some "new" things to come out.

People are often fast to blame companies and disbelieve them or accuse them of lying when they don't like the message being given, but we can't forget that there are other things at play here.

Everything all comes back to "interpretation" in this case. It sucks, but it is what it is.
 
S

SoCalCarSeatMama

Guest
On the transparent side - Clek has told everybody now, vs. waiting until the seat hit the market and everyone got their seats and manuals and wondered why the heck it was only 40lbs when they'd been promised higher...

But really, they haven't told everyone, they simply made a change on their website and waited for someone to notice. They didn't make their own post on FB, they didn't/haven't yet sent out an email to retailers, or an email to the consumers which have provided their email addresses for news regarding the Foonf....they simply responded to someone's question on their page. Something this important shouldn't just be discovered by perusing comments made by other's on a company's FB page. Sure they changed the stats on their website, but for those that had already pre-ordered with the assumption that they were at least getting a seat that went to 45lbs that has been quoted since the beginning of this seat, only to open it up and see 40lbs? I'd be one unhappy camper. Regardless of why the seat's limit was changed, the way they have addressed (or lack thereof) this change is what speaks volumes to me.
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,655
Messages
2,196,895
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top