True Fit Questions

firemomof3

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #1

I bought the True fit with the hope that I could keep my 2y/o rear facing for a while longer. She is currently in the Uptown with room to spare. After lots of reading and measuring I think I can confidently I'm confused

 

Last edited: Apr 25, 2008

joolsplus3

Admin - CPS Technician

• Apr 25, 2008

• #2

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

...based on what measurements....?

 

firemomof3

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #3

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

Based on the fact that the manual for the True fit says that you can only use position 1 & 2 for rear facing but yet the Uptown says only that the child needs to be less than 36" tall. I'm so confused Am I just not getting it? Here are some pictures:

 

mominabigtruck

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #4

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

Yeah you can only use position 1 and 2 but the head in the shell rule still applies. As long as the child's head is contained in the seat by more then 1 inch, they're under the weight limit it doesn't matter what seat of slots you use as long as the straps fit.

I'm a little confused about where you coming from

 

scatterbunny

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #5

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

Right, straps can (and should) be below the shoulders (or at least very near the shoulders) for rear-facing, so it's not a big deal that the allowable rear-facing slots are lower than some other seats. As long as the straps are staying on the child's shoulders, not slipping off, and the head is contained within the shell, and the child is below the RF weight limit, it's fine to rear-face. :thumbsup:

 

keri1292

Well-known member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #6

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

You actually won't use the top slots on the Uptown for RFing even though you "could". There wouldn't be enough shell above the head. I'm not sure about the next slots. In my siggy Quinn is still even with the 2nd from the bottom slots of the MA, I doubt we'll make it to the 3rd before his head is within an inch of the shell.

 

firemomof3

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #7

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

O.K. guys, I understand now. I guess when I saw that my daughter's shoulders were even with the 2nd harness slot I got really nervous about the length of time she'd get rf with the true fit. Beside this scare, I'm very impressed with the seat, its exciting!

 

tl01

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #8

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

I guess for us it is irrelevant as DS would have to grow quite a bit to reach the third slot and he's 36" tall right now. He's just barely over the 2nd slot so I'm guessing overall he'd have to grown another 2-3 inches in height at least. I'm pretty sure he'll be over the 35 lbs RFing limit before then. Since the Uptown only FFaces to 40 lbs... overall I think the True Fit is a much better seat. Plus... DS has so much leg room and seems so comfy in the True Fit... it seems like a great extended RFing seat to us.

 

Patriot201

Car-Seat.org Ambassador

• Apr 25, 2008

• #9

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

Is there another set of slots above those ones that are at 14.5" (or so)?

I mean for FF, of course.

 

firemomof3

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #10

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

I mistakenly thought that for rf the shoulder straps could be slightly below the shoulders and thats it. Since thats clearly not the case, can someone please help me to re-label this thread? I don't anyone getting the wrong idea just because of my mistake!

 

Patriot201

Car-Seat.org Ambassador

• Apr 25, 2008

• #11

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

firemomof3 said:

I mistakenly thought that for rf the shoulder straps could be slightly below the shoulders and thats it. Since thats clearly not the case, can someone please help me to re-label this thread? I don't anyone getting the wrong idea just because of my mistake!

Click to expand...

To re-label:

Click on "Edit" and then "Go advanced." You can then change the title.

 

firemomof3

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #12

True fit questions

I can't change the thread title?

 

Patriot201

Car-Seat.org Ambassador

• Apr 25, 2008

• #13

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

firemomof3 said:

I can't change the thread title?

Click to expand...

What I posted above will change the thread title.

 

firemomof3

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #14

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

It allows me to change the post but not the thread title

 

CDNTech

Senior Community Member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #15

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

Just flag it for a mod... click on the little exclamation icon and tell them you need the title changed.

 

azgirl71

CPST Instructor

• Apr 25, 2008

• #16

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

I posted a link to the manual and a quote that states positions 1, 2 and 3 can be used for RF and positions 2,3, and 4 are for FF.
http://www.car-seat.org/showpost.php?p=421653&postcount=3

 

azgirl71

CPST Instructor

• Apr 25, 2008

• #17

Re: True Fit just not superior for extended rear facing!!

I sent this email to CS and to John Reidl

I am a CPST-IC and it has come to my attention that the True Fit has 2 different manuals. The one that is coming with the seats recently shipped from your sale state Positions 1 and 2 are the only positions that can be used for rear facing. However, in the online manual Page 37 celarly states
Shoulder Height Positions
Facing Direction Position
Rear 1,2 & 3
Forward 2,3 & 4
So which manual is correct?
Thanks
Lisa

Click to expand...

Hopefully we hear back soon

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2011

azgirl71

CPST Instructor

• Apr 25, 2008

• #18

I am tending to think the online manual is correct. The reason i say this is because it says 1st years on the front cover. Learning curve has recently changed to First years name on some products. The maual also has a date of 3/08. What does your say? YOu can find the print date on the bottom of the last page.

I will still wait for the official word.

 

firemomof3

New member

• Apr 25, 2008

• #19

I think its 1/08?

 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor

• Apr 26, 2008

• #20

azgirl71 said:

I am tending to think the online manual is correct. The reason i say this is because it says 1st years on the front cover. Learning curve has recently changed to First years name on some products. The maual also has a date of 3/08. What does your say? YOu can find the print date on the bottom of the last page.

I will still wait for the official word.

Click to expand...

My guess would be this is another case of revision after consumer questions about allowable slot heights. My understanding is that the stickers on the sides of the seat also clearly show only allowing positions 1 and 2 for rf'ing use. So they must have re-done the stickers as well and just updated the manual based on requests from parents. Which is fantastic.

Most kids will get enough growth room even using just the 2 bottom slots because the next ones up are high enough that most kids will outgrow by weight before they reach the next slots up.

For those who have the old seats though, it'll be interesting to see what Compass says about using the 3rd height rf'ing as well. Maybe this explains why they sold a bunch for $99 too? Wanting to clear the old stock for the new manual/new label stock... Still a darn good deal for the seat. :thumbsup: