Radian manual says rear facing to 32"?

Radian manual has rear facing height limit of 32"

I am reading the Canadian manual for the Radian, and on page 4 it states

Maximum height rear facing 32 inches or 81 cm.

Click to expand...

DD's SafeSeat goes up to 32" and she's almost outgrown it, so it doesn't seem like the Radian is going to allow me to have her rear face much longer *if* I went by the manual.

I know that heights are usually a guideline and as long as your child is within 1" of the shell and within the weight, then child should be fine, BUT why would Sunshine Kids bother to put a 32" rear-facing height limit if it wasn't actually important to follow? It's obvious that there is scads of height room in that seat so 32" is way below outgrowing that seat, so it's not making a lot of sense to me right now.

And if I kept her in well above the height they have in their "warnings" section of the manual, what would happen with regards to liability if we were in an accident? Maybe insurance would give us trouble if she were hurt because we were using the seat well past the "warning" height?

I noticed that their U.S. manual for the Radian65 and Radian80 do NOT have this rear facing height restriction.

I also notice that Britax has the same heights listed for both RF and FF for the Marathon (shoulder height can be a bit lower for rear facing) and the weight is what is different for RF vs FF. That makes more sense to me than having a rear facing height limit WAY lower than the height of the seat like the Radian. But I couldn't seem to find Britax Canadian info which may also be different.

ETA: Radian manual for reference http://ca.skjp.com/Media/Radian_Premier_Manual_En.pdf (see "warnings" on page 4)

Confirmed by SKJP that rear facing height limit is 32"

I just spoke to the customer support # from the SKJP web page. He confirmed that the 32" height limit for rear facing does exist. He does not know why it exists though, but says that if it is there, it is there for a reason and should be followed.

So, although this seat may be good for extended FF in Canada, it is not that great for extended RF.

My only option right now then is the Marathon. If I decide to wait, I could see what the specs are for the Evenflo Triumph Advance, but it doesn't tether rear facing, and I really wanted one that tethered.

This makes no sense. We know that when a seat states a height "restriction" for FFing, that it's a guidline and the height that actually matters is the torso (taking into account the weight limits and tips of the ears rule too, of course). Two babies that are 32" overall could fit the seat very differently but neither would come close to within 1" of the edge of the shell. If there was a real reason for this, why wouldn't they give a max torso height or harness slot for RFing? I actually don't understand why all carseats state an overall height limit. I wish they would say something like <the average child outgrows this seat at about xx" tall> and further emphasize the torso height.

I love my Radians b/c my boys need them to get to 40lbs, and I've personally experienced great cs (short-strapped one replaced and new buckle tongues free) but I've heard so many stories of conficting info being given out that I tend not to trust things like this that don't make sense.

I agree with you 100%!! I even asked him those questions, "what about a baby with a long torso vs short torso, they will fit that seat differently rear facing, so how does 32" mean anything?". He had no answer for me. He said that basically, it is so THIS seat meets the safety requirements in Canada. We had talked about Transport Canada not having a height requirement for RF just before this so he wasn't meaning it was TC's requirement just that the seat had this limit RF so it would pass Canadian standards.

I wonder what standard is NOT met when a child is taller than 32" RF? I mean, does the seat tip one way or the other more than it is supposed to, does the child's head move like it isn't supposed to, or what? Taller kids are obviously safe RF in the U.S., so I wonder what part of the Canadian standards are NOT being met with a taller child in this seat.

The people that answer their phones are *not* trained technicians.

There are *no* rules from TC regarding height limits. Height limits are guidelines based on when they think the average child will outgrow the seat.

They have assumed that an child weighing 30lbs is an average height of 32", so that is the limit they have put on for RFing.

It works the same for FFing... they have assumed that an average child weighing 65lbs will be 51" tall and put that as the limit for FFing.

ALL height limits are *guidelines*, they are *never* set in stone.

The seat is outgrown rear facing when one of two things happen...

1. The weight limit is exceeded OR
2. There is less than one inch of hard shell above the head... and that is being conservative, most seats allow you to continue to rear face provided the top of the head is still contained within the shell (there is no one inch rule... just on infant seats and the Evenflo seats).

But then why does this 32" limit NOT exist on the U.S. seats? Why arbitrarily stick it in the Canadian manual if it doesn't mean anything? And why put a 32" height limit if the seat fits kids to 51"? It just doesn't make any sense. And if the manufacture states I can't use it RF after 32" RF, then if my child is injured in an accident at let's say 40" tall RF, then perhaps insurance will not pay out because I wasn't using the seat properly.

I've always believed what you have said about height limits UNTIL this lower limit has been placed on just the Canadian version of the seat. I am trying to find out if Britax has this 32" RF limit in their manuals. Maybe I just haven't read enough convertible manuals and maybe they all say it. In which case, I'd be more apt to not worrying about it. But, if it's ONLY the Radian, then I have a concern.

It's in more than a few other manuals... Graco, Cosco, Evenflo... I've seen it in all of them.

My guess is they think we are not smart enough to stop using the seat at 30lbs. Since the US one says it goes to 33 or even 35lbs, why not use it to that weight? They are most likely putting the height limit in there as one more way to get people to stop using it at 30lbs.

The dummy they test the seat with is more than 32" tall... I think he's closer to 36" tall, can't remember the exact number at the moment.

Well that makes me feel a bit better. Still not completely confident that insurance would pay for injuries sustained if I was using the sat outside of manufacturer's guidelines though! If Britax doesn't mention this limit, then I will stick with the Marathon for the reason that I wouldn't have to worry about liability in an accident.

In theory, we should be able to use it to 33 or 35 pounds. They need to quit arbitrarily changing limits between countries if limits do not exist. And if they've tested with a dummy taller than 32", then it's ridiculous to have a 32" height limit. If anything, the height limit should be the height of the dummy they tested with!

And my frustration is not at you at all! I appreciate the info you provide. With the way manufacturer's write their manuals, it's no wonder that so many car seats are misused.

And my frustration is not at you at all! I appreciate the info you provide. With the way manufacturer's write their manuals, it's no wonder that so many car seats are misused.

Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

I know where the frustration lies... don't worry.

Quite honestly, I don't think the height limit thing would ever hold up in court. If your child is that injured that you need a pay-out, imagine what they would have been like FFing, kwim?

technogranola said:

But then why does this 32" limit NOT exist on the U.S. seats? Why arbitrarily stick it in the Canadian manual if it doesn't mean anything? And why put a 32" height limit if the seat fits kids to 51"? It just doesn't make any sense. And if the manufacture states I can't use it RF after 32" RF, then if my child is injured in an accident at let's say 40" tall RF, then perhaps insurance will not pay out because I wasn't using the seat properly.

I've always believed what you have said about height limits UNTIL this lower limit has been placed on just the Canadian version of the seat. I am trying to find out if Britax has this 32" RF limit in their manuals. Maybe I just haven't read enough convertible manuals and maybe they all say it. In which case, I'd be more apt to not worrying about it. But, if it's ONLY the Radian, then I have a concern.

Click to expand...

I'm just agreeing with Jen for the most part.

Every single convertible seat sold in Canada, with the exception of the evenflo triumph which used a 1" of shell rule above the head the last time I read the manual, has a maximum rf'ing height limit of 32".

My understanding of the CDN standard in regard to height limits, is that a manufacturer is required to give one. Why they all give the same darn one though, I have no clue. I have to guess it's like Jen says though - they figure most kids won't be 32" before 1yr old and 20(22)lbs.

This is the situation I had when my dd was 18mos old. She was 21lbs, 13ozs. She was 32" long. She was in a rf'ing AO at the time, minimum weight to ff 22lbs, max rf'ing height 32". I called dorel, because I didn't know what to do. For one thing, I had wanted to keep her rf'ing as long as possible, but beyond that, she wasn't 22lbs yet. I was told, that she did not fit the seat and they couldn't tell me what to do because she was over the height to rf but under the weight to ff. Long story short, she got turned ff'ing while I was waiting for TC to call me back. Me being the "by the book" person that I am, figured it was more dangerous to exceed the height limit than to be out by a couple ozs weight. (She would've actually been over 22lbs following the fully clothed rule, but I didn't know that at the time.)

Transport Canada did call me back, and they told me that weight guidelines were set in stone, and that height was approximate as long as she still fit the seat with shell above her head. Of course the guy who talked me back joked about feeding dd mcdonald's to get her to chunk up those extra couple ozs quicker, but he said to not worry about the length limit.

In all honesty, it took me a lot to get over the 32" height limit hump before I turned dd back rf'ing last January, just because I'm such a "rules follower" about some things. Even when I know a rule isn't set in stone, it's still hard to go against it. Of course she only got another 5mos rf'ing before hitting the weight limit after that....

I guess my point is somewhat of a rant that it's dumb manufacturers put such a low height limit on CDN seats, and also an acknowledgment that it can be really hard to go against a written limit on a seat even when we know it's a guideline since all children grow differently. And that the customer service reps you get when you call any carseat manufacturer will reiterate what the limits are in the manual because that IS how the seat is labelled and meets CMVSS standards. Does it mean it doesn't meet the limits at 34"? NO. Because the crash test standard when rf'ing is measured by rotation - seats can't exceed 70* from vertical in order to meet CMVSS 213 standards. And the rotation of the seat is largely dependent on weight of the child & engineering, the height of the child is irrelevant when looking at if the seat passes. This is why height is really such a guideline...

On the flip side - if you put a more reasonable limit of 38" for a rf'ing limit on the MA, (my dd would've outgrown the MA rf'ing around 38",) you'd have some kids that would've truly outgrown the seat at 36", yet others would still fit.

And one last point, since I know this post has gotten way too long, On seat check forms there is a place for child's age, and child's weight. We check the fit of the child to the seat and that the child is in a seat appropriate for their age and weight. We don't even ask parents how tall their kids are. If the actual height # was really that important, it would be asked for every child and there'd be a spot for it on the form. Police don't care about the physical height #, tech's aren't looking for the physical height #, TC itself states that height limits are guidelines. The only ones who seem to really care about the limits are the carseat manufacturers themselves. And it's much easier to give a low limit you know every kid should still fit the seat at, then to give a higher limit and have some kids who still fit properly and some who don't - that one would be hard to explain in court if a kid within the printed height limit was injured due to not fitting the seat properly.

Just some thoughts.

eta: As for why it doesn't exist on US seats, who knows. Maybe for the same lame reason that we're stuck with 30lb rf'ing limits and they're not? Drives me batty - especially when you consider that you buy an AO in the US and the minimum ff'ing height limit is 34", yet the maximum rf'ing height limit in Canada is 32".

abemom2 said:

My ds is 3 years old, 21 LBS., and 33". He's tiny! Extremely skinny and short for his age.

I have to turn him around?!?!?

My dh would prefer having him FF, but bec. it means so much to me he leaves him RF. My DS2 weighs more, but is a little shorter, so I have more time.

Click to expand...

You absolutely do NOT have to turn him forward facing.

As long as his head is still contained within the shell of the carseat, he can remain rearfacing.

Legally, he can not even be forward facing. The limits on all new seats for forward facing are a minimum of 22lbs... he hasn't met that requirement yet.

Wow, he's tiny! Was he a preemie?

aidensmom02 said:

You absolutely do NOT have to turn him forward facing.

As long as his head is still contained within the shell of the carseat, he can remain rearfacing.

Legally, he can not even be forward facing. The limits on all new seats for forward facing are a minimum of 22lbs... he hasn't met that requirement yet.

Wow, he's tiny! Was he a preemie?

Click to expand...

Britax is still 20lbs even the MAs that just came out with 65lb stickers.

Are they all supposed to be changing over? Graco & evenflo are 20lbs too, but they haven't released any new seats in the last couple years, be interesting to see what the triumph advance shows up with for weight limits.

eta: :doh: Were you talking about the minimum weight on the Radian? I thought you meant all new car seats in general.

I read this and I was freaking out, DS1 is 76cm, 1y/o and 19lbs. I was happy last tiem he was weighed, because at the rate he's been going the remaining 3lbs minimum to turn him ffing gave me a lot more time to convince DH that he can stay rfing even longer.
I'm glad to see that he is allowed to grow more than 5cm before i have to find a new seat to turn him ffing in (as he won't be 22lbs to use the radian) and he can stay rfing in the radian.

dd9736 said:

I read this and I was freaking out, DS1 is 76cm, 1y/o and 19lbs. I was happy last tiem he was weighed, because at the rate he's been going the remaining 3lbs minimum to turn him ffing gave me a lot more time to convince DH that he can stay rfing even longer.
I'm glad to see that he is allowed to grow more than 5cm before i have to find a new seat to turn him ffing in (as he won't be 22lbs to use the radian) and he can stay rfing in the radian.

Click to expand...

Most seats have the 22lb weight limit for ff'ing anyways, but TC said straight out that the minimum weight had to be reached to turn kiddo (my dd,) ff'ing regardless of the height as long as there was hard shell above the head still. So I definitely wouldn't replace the seat. :thumbsup: