Foonf crash test results

ADS

mevs mom

New member
I don't think so.

http://us.diono.com/en/safety-center/radianrxt-crash-test-results

Diono doesn't post specific numbers.

I'm sure you cannot take these numbers at face value because we are not engineers. However taking them at face value they appear to have better numbers for a FFing 3 yo over a RFing 3 yo.

The head injury criteria (HIC) for FFing is 434, and 521 for rear facing.

The chest acceleration is 35 for FFing and 41 for rear facing.
 

Brigala

CPST Instructor
That's what the Clek rep said last year - that the crash test data showed the 3 year old dummy as the "tipping point" where the numbers came out better FF than RF.

He was careful to point out that crash tests with a dummy don't necessarily reflect real world injury risk and he was not implying that children riding in a Foonf would be safer FF than RF at any particular age, provided they still fit within the RF limitations of the seat of course. But he said the numbers show how effective their crumple zone technology for FF kids was.
 

jubgulia

Active member
So basically all Diono is saying is that they passed the testing that all carseats have to pass? How is that helpful?
 

TechnoGranola

Forum Ambassador
During the prototype travel, I was also told the numbers were better for FF. It was told to me in a matter of fact way, and I got a vibe he was saying it was safer FF. He repeated several times that the the numbers were better FF. It bugged me at the time as it was being said to several store owners and employees (i.e. the sales staff). I wish he'd phrased like he did with Brigala.

As for the numbers, who was explaining that chest g's are higher RF? And that the body can take much higher g's when RF? Hopefully they pop in.

Anyone know how HIC is measured when RF?
 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician
During the prototype travel, I was also told the numbers were better for FF. It was told to me in a matter of fact way, and I got a vibe he was saying it was safer FF. He repeated several times that the the numbers were better FF. It bugged me at the time as it was being said to several store owners and employees (i.e. the sales staff). I wish he'd phrased like he did with Brigala.

As for the numbers, who was explaining that chest g's are higher RF? And that the body can take much higher g's when RF? Hopefully they pop in.

Anyone know how HIC is measured when RF?

I think Pixels is the one who explains it best, but yes, my understanding is that chest Gs are usually (always?) lower FF than RF.
 

tl01

New member
During the prototype travel, I was also told the numbers were better for FF. It was told to me in a matter of fact way, and I got a vibe he was saying it was safer FF. He repeated several times that the the numbers were better FF. It bugged me at the time as it was being said to several store owners and employees (i.e. the sales staff). I wish he'd phrased like he did with Brigala.

As for the numbers, who was explaining that chest g's are higher RF? And that the body can take much higher g's when RF? Hopefully they pop in.

Anyone know how HIC is measured when RF?

If I makes you feel any better, he said that at our local store too and they have it on display rear facing with the arb so hopefully at least at that store part of the sales pitch will be rear facing.

For me, I opted to buy the Foonf in hopes it is safer forward facing since I can't rear face my 2.75 year old.
 

Brigala

CPST Instructor
Well, the conversation I had with him was approximately a whole year ago, and I can't say that I remember the entire thing accurately. But I think he was asked point-blank by someone in the group if he was saying kids over 3 were safer FF than RF and he said that he wasn't saying that. He also didn't say definitively that they'd still be safer RF after that point; what he said was that for the dummy smaller than 2 years old the numbers were better RF and for the 3 year old dummy they were better FF, but that you couldn't perfectly extrapolate real world crash protection based on those numbers because there were too many variables. He also said the numbers were important because of the real world fact that very few parents will RF past age two (and really not many past age one) and they were doing their best to protect those FF kids as well as they possibly could.
 

Meghoya

New member
So, does this mean I should actually turn my 4 year old FF in the Foonf? She is 42" and 43lbs. I thought I was keeping here safer by RF, but now I wonder. WWYD? Thanks.
Meg
 

canadiangie

New member
So, does this mean I should actually turn my 4 year old FF in the Foonf? She is 42" and 43lbs. I thought I was keeping here safer by RF, but now I wonder. WWYD? Thanks.
Meg

A 4 yo in a ff seat that is top tethered is going to be very well protected in a crash. At this point it's completely up to you. Rf after the age of 4 is gravy. :)
 

Kecia

Admin - CPST Instructor
Just wanted to chime in to say that I've had the same conversation with the same person at Clek. For the bigger dummies, their numbers are better FF than RF but they realize that's no guarantee of anything in a real world crash.

Knowing what I know about how the seat is made and the revolutionary REACT system, that knowledge would definitely make the decision to turn before the seat was technically outgrown in the RF position less stressful *for me*. IMHO, if you have a compelling reason to turn a 2, 3 or 4 year old who is currently RF in a Foonf, I would tell you not to guilt yourself too much over the decision.

As for Diono - they don't release actual numbers and I agree with that decision. Actually, I wrote a whole blog about it. http://carseatblog.com/4852/when-trust-us-isnt-enough/

For anyone who wants to better understand how HIC is calculated - here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury_criterion
 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician
Knowing what I know about how the seat is made and the revolutionary REACT system, that knowledge would definitely make the decision to turn before the seat was technically outgrown in the RF position less stressful *for me*. IMHO, if you have a compelling reason to turn a 2, 3 or 4 year old who is currently RF in a Foonf, I would tell you not to guilt yourself too much over the decision.

I should have clarified my previous response. If you're going to turn a kid FF anyway (and at 4, that's beyond reasonable, IMO), by all means do. But a couple good crash test numbers don't suddenly make FF safer than RF. Not to say one shouldn't FF, just that it shouldn't be done based on the premise that it's safer.
 

Kecia

Admin - CPST Instructor
I should have clarified my previous response. If you're going to turn a kid FF anyway (and at 4, that's beyond reasonable, IMO), by all means do. But a couple good crash test numbers don't suddenly make FF safer than RF. Not to say one shouldn't FF, just that it shouldn't be done based on the premise that it's safer.

ITA! I don't think we have enough published data to say where the tipping point really is, or if there even is a tipping point. However, my eyes have been opened to the possibility that perhaps at some point maybe FF really is safER than RF even though it doesn't make logical sense (to me) that it ever would be.
 

Meghoya

New member
Thanks, ladies. Though I have to admit I am still confused. She is fine with facing either way (no other reason to FF her). She was FF in our Boulevard ( because she hit the limits) for a year, but when it expired and we got a Foonf she was happy to go rear facing and I thought that would be much safer. I guess I will keep her rear facing now, but the crash test results make me wonder. She is cozy that way, I just want to use the seat in the safest possible way.

Mg
 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician
The foonf isn't the only seat with Chest G numbers better forward-facing than rear-facing. In glancing over some numbers the other day, some seats have better numbers RF, some are better FF, and sometimes if depends on the size of the dummy (and possibly LATCH vs belt, although I didn't really look). That said, the numbers were always very close to each other. Like, one would be 38 and another would be 40. There wasn't a huge variation between RF and FF for individual seats, at least not that I saw.

I'm also not sure Chest Gs are really such a big deal. Does anyone know? I've never heard of a kid dying from chest Gs, you know?

By all means forward-face a 4-year-old if you want to, but like I said, don't do it because the Chesf G number is possibly a couple points "better" (assuming that fewer really is better).
 

safeinthecar

Moderator - CPS Technician
The foonf isn't the only seat with Chest G numbers better forward-facing than rear-facing. In glancing over some numbers the other day, some seats have better numbers RF, some are better FF, and sometimes if depends on the size of the dummy (and possibly LATCH vs belt, although I didn't really look). That said, the numbers were always very close to each other. Like, one would be 38 and another would be 40. There wasn't a huge variation between RF and FF for individual seats, at least not that I saw.

I'm also not sure Chest Gs are really such a big deal. Does anyone know? I've never heard of a kid dying from chest Gs, you know?

By all means forward-face a 4-year-old if you want to, but like I said, don't do it because the Chesf G number is possibly a couple points "better" (assuming that fewer really is better).

Chest Gs ade an important measurement, but only in relation to maximum tolerance levels. The human body can withstand many times greater chest Gs without injury rfing than ffing. I can't recall the exact numbers and the file is too big for my kindle, but the study you want is " Human tolerance and crash survivability"
 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob
Staff member
Yeah, and another thing to take into account is that we can't measure neck protection criteria very accurately with the dummies we currently use (at least, that's what my reading has indicated to me.) We can guess based on the other numbers we have but a dummy neck does not measure the same forces that could cause neck injury in a human child.
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,656
Messages
2,196,897
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