southpawboston
New member
i know that ISOFIX has had a spotty implementation in europe becuase it doesn't work well in a broad range of cars for fitment reasons, and that is why LATCH has become the prominent standard in the US.
but i found this presentation which outlines test results comparing LATCH and ISOFIX and their effect on side impact, specifically head containment and chest loads:
http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004/wp29grsp/TRANS-WP29-GRSP-35-inf19e.pdf
warning: link is to a PDF file.
basically they conclude that ISOFIX (or rigid LATCH) does a better job at containing head movement than LATCH, because of less transverse (side to side) movement and vertical rotation of the seat. they not only tested ISOFIX versus LATCH but also top tether versus no top tether, and the results of that are interesting as well.
i have always had the suspicion that the more rigid the attachment of the CRS, the better (which is why i don't like the 1" rule for belt path movement). this report would seem to agree with that.
but i found this presentation which outlines test results comparing LATCH and ISOFIX and their effect on side impact, specifically head containment and chest loads:
http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004/wp29grsp/TRANS-WP29-GRSP-35-inf19e.pdf
warning: link is to a PDF file.
basically they conclude that ISOFIX (or rigid LATCH) does a better job at containing head movement than LATCH, because of less transverse (side to side) movement and vertical rotation of the seat. they not only tested ISOFIX versus LATCH but also top tether versus no top tether, and the results of that are interesting as well.
i have always had the suspicion that the more rigid the attachment of the CRS, the better (which is why i don't like the 1" rule for belt path movement). this report would seem to agree with that.