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.
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.