my conversation with a recaro ENGINEER

i spoke with an engineer for recaro north america this morning. before i divulge what he told me, i would ask everyone NOT to go calling recaro to speak with the engineering staff, out of respect for the guy i spoke to who was exceedingly generous with his time for me. recaro CS were very reluctant to put me through to engineering in the first place, and since i couldn't claim i was a CPST with technical questions, i had to use a little subterfuge and claim i had a technical question about my own RYS as an owner and consumer (which is valid, i guess, so it wasn't really subterfuge ). the engineer was very nice and after establishing a good rapport with him (i'm an engineer by training as well so we had that going ) he allowed me to ask him some pointed questions about the como/signo. i profusely thanked him for his generous time (over 1/2 hour!) and am truly grateful to have spoken with him. so i hope his answers to my questions will satisfy everyone's questions here about the como/signo, based on all the big questions that have been circulating unanswered.

here it goes:

como/signo RF tethering:

NOT APPROVED OR ENDORSED BY RECARO AT THIS TIME. when i asked him if the testing had been done with/without, he said he was "not at liberty" to answer. so we don't know if it was tested and failed, or if it simply wasn't done. this engineer seemed intimately familiar with the data out there and other seats on the market, and commented that RF tethering is really a mess, and depending on the vehicle and RF tether points chosen (since there is no standard or approved attachment point like there is with top tether anchors, and they may be off center or at extreme angles), it can make the difference between improving or worsening the crash test results of a given seat-- ANY seat. he also had some not very nice things to say about britax's allowing their seats to be RF tethered given the lack of standardized tether points (or non-existing points) in cars. for this reason, recaro is not comfortable endorsing the practice. they are currently evaluating whether or not to allow it in the future, and if (big IF), it would likely apply retroactively to all current shipping comos/signos. but as of now, RF TETHERING IS NOT ALLOWED.

como/signo 34" versus below 1" from top of CR:

he was aware of this discrepency in the manual (and said he knows they're going to get flooded with calls about it, and are training the CS staff on how to reply), but said it was necessary to put it in there. he said that the 34" statement is a dumbed-down, statistically average number based on population averages designed to give parents who have no idea about their kiddo's torso or leg length, an "estimate" of whether they should be FF or RF in the seat. he said that owners and CPST's at seat checks can treat it as a guideline, and it is not set in stone. however, the 1" below the top of the shell statement is a REQUIREMENT, as is the 35 lb limit (which we pretty much knew).

straps folding over at the buckle tongues (all harnessed recaros):

this was my YS question that got me put through to the engineer . he was unaware of the problem, and he said that according to IMMI, folding over at the tongues does not pose a safety hazard and thus is not a "defect". however, if it poses a comfort issue to kiddo, then they can treat it as a warranty defect and can replace the straps IF you send in pictures convincingly documenting the problem. he said that the cause is due to the geometry of the 5 points of the harness system, and that the same harness on one seat may be prone to folding over while not on another seat. he welcomes people to send in pics of any YS or como/signo that has this problem for them to evaluate a redesign of the buckle tongues. interestingly, he was very surprised that SKJP is willingly handing out replacement tongues for their radians without a release of liability (since the end user is altering/disassembling the seat). this is something recaro will NOT do for customers for liability reasons. so for any como or future signo owners, if you experience the harness folding @ the tongue problem (based on the recent pics of comos, it *appears* it will have the same problem as my YS), please send in pics to force recaro to address it. this is my biggest gripe with the RYS.

RYS retesting for HWH:

there was some discussion circulating about this, but it is not happening soon. they are completely re-evaluating the YS for a future version, but they have no immediate plans to retest it for higher limits. if they do, it will be on a revised version and current YS's won't be grandfathered. so existing current shipping YS's will never be re-certified for higher weight limits.


i hope his replies to my questions helps everyone with the new comos. personally, i am a little disappointed about the RF tethering, but on the other hand, the more i research this area myself, the more i see potential pitfalls and caveats. in the end, this is not going to stop me from buying a signo.

southpawboston said:

straps folding over at the buckle tongues (all harnessed recaros):

this was my YS question that got me put through to the engineer . he was unaware of the problem, and he said that according to IMMI, folding over at the tongues does not pose a safety hazard and thus is not a "defect". however, if it poses a comfort issue to kiddo, then they can treat it as a warranty defect and can replace the straps IF you send in pictures convincingly documenting the problem.[...] so for any como or future signo owners, if you experience the harness folding @ the tongue problem (based on the recent pics of comos, it *appears* it will have the same problem as my YS), please send in pics to force recaro to address it. this is my biggest gripe with the RYS.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Southpaw, You have addressed many of the issues I myself was having. I am so glad you were able to speak to an engineer

Also, I will be sending in pictures of our Como as I agree, that is surely my BIGGEST gripe with the Como.

That's all good to know. The answers regarding rf tether and height were along the lines of what I thought.

Thanks for your persistance in getting through to someone who was knowledgeable. :thumbsup:

Thank you for going to the trouble of finding out this information. I feel much better knowing that an engineer provided the information, rather than their CS reps as it seems the reps are not knowledgeable about the car seats and have been giving out conflicting information.

Thank you! That was incredibly useful information. Now why on earth don't they have the engineers answering the phones?


I, too, know how to talk to engineers. Not because I am one, but because I was raised by one

(Send your girls to me when they're a bit bigger, and I'll teach them how to make sure that every conversation they have with you goes to their advantage. Teehee. )

Well, I called Recaro before reading this thread and spoke with the Program Manager for the Como/Signo program, whatever that is. He, too, spent a long time on the phone with me and told me that:

Re: RF past 34": They only tested dummies up to 34"; NHTSA mandates that a child's head must be 1" below the top of the seat shell, BUT that Recaro recommends that the seat NOT BE USED RF PAST 34". He was adamant about that, saying that it would be a liability issue and Recaro would not be responsible if the seat was used against the manual, which states that 34" is the max for RF. He did say that my DS may very well be safe RF'ing past that 34" limit, but that they cannot recommend or endorse it. **Edited to add after looking at my notes, I forgot to mention- this guy did tell me that the seat was NOT tested with a RF tether and they were looking into doing so at some point, but it's still in the planning stages.

Re: RF Tether: same as what the guy told SPB- no rf tether, no matter where you are trying to anchor it. He said that there were many misunderstandings with this issue- and that people were calling Gayle and they were using the term "tether" incorrectly when they meant to say "LATCH connectors". I told him that this was a BIG misunderstanding and that many people were planning to buy their convertibles based on this info, and that Gayle really should have the correct info to answer technical questions.

Re: the SIP head pillows: My DS is very uncomfortable w/them in- but he's a 2.5yo toddler- not an infant. I asked if they were necessary, since my DS is older, and they don't fit the same that they would on an infant (they ride on the sides of his face, mostly)He said that they were required when the bottom 2 harness slots are being used, period, regardless of comfort.

He also said that if my DS's legs were crossed, it might be an indication that he was getting too tall to RF. I told him that every CPST I had spoken with assured me that his neck and spinal cord were at much greater risk in a collision than his legs. He then agreed with me.

He's going to discuss these issues with someone else and email me back. I told him that I would need to return the seat if my DS cannot RF past 34", since he's 33.5" now and I'm not about to turn him around at 27lbs.

"Re: the SIP head pillows: My DS is very uncomfortable w/them in- but he's a 2.5yo toddler- not an infant. I asked if they were necessary, since my DS is older, and they don't fit the same that they would on an infant (they ride on the sides of his face, mostly)He said that they were required when the bottom 2 harness slots are being used, period, regardless of comfort."

Really, I am starting to be highly annoyed by this crap. I was told that it didn't matter as long as the child was mature enough. Either it is or isn't and I am sick of hearing conflicting information. So back on the phone I go and this time annoyed.

Yeah, it's starting to annoy the crap out of me, too. We're hearing that 34" is just a guideline, and we're hearing that it's a mandatory limit, the headrest pillows are for SIP and comfort, but if they're uncomfortable, remove them, but WAIT someone else says it's not okay to remove them....

I'm getting really close to returning my seat to BabyOnTheGoAtHome.com. It makes me really nervous to hear all this conflicting info. I love the seat and I want it to work, but I am not going to turn him FF when he grows half an inch; my 7yo weighs 39lbs, my 4.5yo weighs 29 (maybe 30) lbs and my 2.5yo is holding steady at 27lbs. My kids are too light to be RF at 2.5.

well it would seem that the answer i got regarding the 34"/1" rule was completely different from the answer zephyrblue got. but this brings me back to my original thought-- how can a 34" dummy even be relevant without knowing the dummy's torso length and leg length? was the dummy at 1" below the top of the shell or 6" below? this would seem to make the answer i was given by the engineer more realistic than the one given by the program manager.

oy, and to think i finally had this all straightened out. i think i just want to cancel my pre-order and go with a marathon/BV. then at least i might not get the growth potential that i would from the recaro, but at least everything i'd be doing would be officially approved by britax.

You and me both, SPB....I was about to keep my second Como but if that is all true....

If I was getting a Como I would have no problem keeping the child RF until their head was 1 inch from the top.

I would go with what the Engineer said and what is commonly done with other seats as well.

But I likely wouldn't because I like that rear facing tether a little too much. Lol

Ok, no one answered at Recaro so I sent an email because the use of this headrest does effect my decision to use this seat.

Arly, I called the 1-800 number and got an answer, when I called the regular number, I got voice mail. Not sure which # you called, but JIC.

I uninstalled the Como (DS hasn't even gotten to ride in it yet!) and am going to put DS in DD's MA for now until I figure out if I can keep the seat. The head insert and the RF issue are going to be the deciding factors whether we keep the seat, too.

Thanks, I will call the 800 number. I have it installed right now RFing and I hate to uninstall it AGAIN...

YOU MUST USE THE HEADREST IN THE BOTTOM TWO SLOTS!

I just talked to Paul (Product Manager, nice guy) and he talked to me for like 15 mins and took the time to explain why and offer suggestions to prevent overheating.

Why: It is to reduce the air gap inbetween the side of the shell and a small child's head so that in a side impact, the head does not accelerate before impacting the side of the shell.

Also, that the como was ONLY tested and approved for use with the bottom two slots WITH the headrest. It will NOT proform in a side impact as intended WITHOUT the headrest.

So no, Recaro will not recommend use of the como without the headrest in the bottom two slots. He said "no exceptions period"

Sooooooo I can go put in the headrest or uninstall it.

southpawboston said:

but this brings me back to my original thought-- how can a 34" dummy even be relevant without knowing the dummy's torso length and leg length?

Click to expand...

Are you sure he didn't mean a 34lb dummy? Because there is no 34" dummy, or if there is, it isn't a NHTSA dummy. The 3yo dummy is 37.2" and 34.1lb, so I'm guessing that's the one he meant. If it was, then we do know its seated height -- 21.5"
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/bio/child/hybIII3ydat.htm

arly1983 said:

YOU MUST USE THE HEADREST IN THE BOTTOM TWO SLOTS!

I just talked to Paul (Product Manager, nice guy) and he talked to me for like 15 mins and to the took the time to explain why and offer suggestions to prevent overheating.

Why: It is to reduce the air gap inbetween the side of the shell and a small child's head so that in a side impact, the head does not accelerate before impacting the side of the shell.

Also, that the como was ONLY tested and approved for use with the bottom two slots WITH the headrest. It will NOT proform in s side impact as intended WITHOUT the headrest.

So no, Recaro will not recommend use of the como without the headrest in the bottom to slots. He said "no exceptions period"

Sooooooo I can go put in the headrest or uninstall it.

Click to expand...

This makes sense to me and is what I was trying to think of how to explain it. Lol

He (I spoke to Paul, too) told me that the dummy was indeed 34 inches. And that was why the 34" rule is stated in numerous places throughout the manual- that's the maxium height that was tested RF so they cannot recommend or endorse a child taller than that RF.

Can someone explain to me why it's crucial to prevent head acceleration while using those 2 bottom harness slots, but not the 3rd slot and up? My DS will not tolerate the headrest, period, and it does not fit him properly, given the size and position of his head relative to the harness slots (where the headrest attaches). But the 3rd harness slots are over his shoulders, so I cannot use those while he's RF.

The way he explained it was that that it must be used for the bottom two slots and then for as long as comfortable but by the time the child is to the 3rd slots the head would be higher in the shell where the sides came out more and also their head would be larger. He was nice but very firm.

See, I told him that my DS's head was much larger than an infant's head who would be similarly positioned in the 2nd harness slots, and he said it didn't make any difference. I'm looking at the shell and I'm not seeing a difference in width between where his head is now and where it'll be when he moves up another slot