Another question about standing height limits.

I had previously asked a question about height limits rear facing. I now realize that rear facing height limits are pretty important. This question is about forward facing and booster seat height limits. If a child's shoulders are still below the tallest harness slot/belt guide height and they are within the weight limit does standing height limit still matter? For example:
My sister's DD1 is eleven years old. She is pretty much all legs. She is approximately 5' but because she is all legs she isn't five stepping in most vehicles. Her younger sister's Turbo Booster has a height limit of 57". Please note that DD1 NEVER uses the Turbo Booster as she is over the height limit, but I'm curious if it would still be safe for her to use?
Example two:
My DS3 (5) is also mostly legs. (Must be genetics! Lol!) He weighs about 43 pounds and is about 46" tall. Having a shorter torso he is able to fit with his shoulders about 3/4 of an inch below the top slots of the Cosco Apt 50 but has technically surpassed the standing height limit. (He doesn't ride in this seat)
What are you supposed to do if your child's shoulders are below the top harness slots/belt guide position and is within the weight limit, but have surpassed the standing height limit?

For a harnessed seat I follow them pretty well. Most kids have outgrown an Apt by 43" anyway. He IS all legs.

For a booster seat, I'm less stressed as long as the child is under the weight limit, and the belt fit is still good.

Wendy

I personally give them all pretty equal weight. In my case that's not much. I've never been given an explanation other than biometrics, which doesn't work for every child. That's a personal choice of course.

I check to make sure shoulders are under the straps (when ff) on a regular basis. For standing height limits I wait until the kids yearly physicals and find out their heights. If they're over the standing height limit I'll switch them. I watch two kids who have super long legs. It hasn't been an issue so far.

What I've always been told is that standing height limits are required by labeling requirements because parents commonly measure standing height and actually fitting the seat shell and harness heights are the most crucial aspects to pay attention to.

This article

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...joDfhQv1A&sig2=p33sMIKxN-MirtKbnyw-vA&cad=rja

has a great graph of how standing height and shoulder height correlate.

You also have to consider that in addition to head excursion, compliance testing looks at knee excursion. We don't talk about that as much because it's looking at a much less critical injury, but it's there and the biometrics take it into account.

Here's a very simplified hypothetical for you...Say a seat has a standing height limit of 45 inches and a top slot of 17 inches. Now, untethered HE and knee excursion (regardless of tether use) are approx. 32 and 34 inches respectively. A child 45 inch tall child with a 17 inch torso is going to be be somewhere around 50/50 for proportions, but if you take 4 inches off the torso and put them on the legs instead, you may be getting pretty close to hitting that KE limit and making leg injuries much more likely even though the two kids were the same standing height.

Theoretical leg risk aside, IMO, this is one of those issues where context plays a huge role in decision making.

When following standing height limits means simply switching a child to an equally safe option, IE: swap seats with a sib or change modes on the current seat for a child that is ready/safe in the next mode, or when a seat that lists a taller standing height is financially and practically attainable, there's really no reason NOT to follow the label.

When the choice is putting a child in a seat they are too young for or requiring mom to only eat meals on odd number days for 6 months to afford a new seat, the situation looks a bit different.

The link won't load for me, but your explanation makes sense. At least for forward facing. Rear facing standing height limits still make zero sense to me.

Agree with lgenne. It would be so nice if Evenflo took the standing height limit off the SureRide for RF. I'm sure that there are zero 40" tall children whose heads are within 1" of the back of that shell.

It's possible if they're all torso like my godson http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=243565

My girls have generally outgrown harnessed seats by torso height before the standing height limit. However, my youngest just outgrew the Scenera NEXT by standing height limit with maybe 1/2" of shell above her head. I felt more comfortable switching to a different backup seat at that point, especially since many other brands require 1" above the head.

For boosters, I figure the primary purpose is to position the seatbelt correctly. I'm okay using a booster above the stated height limit since my DD is still under the weight limit.