XT Headrest position when using lower slots - official word from Russ

Kat_Momof3

New member
he told me that carseatblog was right.... there is an error in the manual that they are fixing.

he sent me the update

 
ADS

fyrfightermomma

New member
Not even very little. My HUGE 22 month old who 95% for height and weight (35" and 32 lbs) doesn't fit well.. Most kids her age have been FFing for a year

The bottom of the headwings come to above her ears. There is no way they are even close. She'd be the 3-4th slot from the bottom too. Not seeing how they say a kid on the 3rd slot would be ok. I mean, all kids heads and neck lengths are different.
 
Last edited:

scatterbunny

New member
Not even very little. My HUGE 22 month old who 95% for height and weight (35" and 32 lbs). Most kids her age have been FFing for a year

The bottom of the headwings come to above her ears. There is no way they are even close. She'd be the 3-4th slot from the bottom too. Not seeing how they say a kid on the 3rd slot would be ok. I mean, all kids heads and neck lengths are different.

So it seems Sunshine Kids fully expects everyone to practice extended rear-facing (to the limits of the seat), expects that the headrest will fit forward-facing children properly by the 3rd/4th slot, and expects parents to not care that a seat they bought for the extra SIP won't even provide that extra SIP until the child is at least 3yo. :confused: I would not be a happy parent if I bought this seat for a younger child.
 

Maedze

New member
I'm not even sure they expect parents to practice ERF. I think they wanted to keep the folding option of the seat and so designed the headwings only to descend so far as the bottom could still be folded up.


I agree with another posted on the board who commented that the 'folding' feature should be restricted to the Radian65.
 

scatterbunny

New member
I'm not even sure they expect parents to practice ERF. I think they wanted to keep the folding option of the seat and so designed the headwings only to descend so far as the bottom could still be folded up.

Couldn't they have made the wings go down as far as they needed in order to fit even the smallest babies who will be using the seat, and specify that in order to fold the seat, the wings need to be moved up? :shrug-shoulders: I don't see why the folding feature should limit the adjustability (I don't think that's a correct word, spellcheck is flagging it, but I don't care :p) of the wings.
 

BABYGIRLLYNDSEY

Well-known member
Is there a photo of the seat in the folded position? I'm curious what it looks like with the head wings and all. Thanks!
 

Kat_Momof3

New member
I think everyone should bug SK till they change it.

I mean, I get that the head doesn't have the problem of going forward out of the shell when rf, but what about the small ffers that we know are out there?

I doubt they'll believe it without pics, but all it would take is finding a way to make it work with where the tether is connected (I believe that is what prevents it from being able to be made to go lower)
 

Maedze

New member
Bean the Third is 18 months, 24 pounds, average sized kid. Still rearfacing of course, but most parents would have him FF. And he is only on the second slots of his R65.
 

zeo2ski

Well-known member
Bean the Third is 18 months, 24 pounds, average sized kid. Still rearfacing of course, but most parents would have him FF. And he is only on the second slots of his R65.

Yes, but that's RFing, if he was FFing he'd move up a slot so they're above his shoulders, right? So he could then technically have the wings lowered but that doesn't mean they'd be a good fit!

Here's what I got: he'd be on the 3rd slots for FFing, this little guy is only 10 mos, but 56% height (17+" seated height) so a short 12 mos old could actually fit just like this:
xtbaby.jpg


On the other hand, here's him set up for Rfing and the wings all the way up. Look how close they are to the top of his head--so in between right now and when he moves up to the 3rd slots RFing, the top of his head would smack into the bottom of the wings while they're all the way up, yet he couldn't have them down according to the rules and even if it were allowed, it would still be in a bad position and do more harm than good IMO:
xtinfant.jpg


And my 2.5 year old who is AT the height limit for Rfing in the BLVD is on the 3rd slots of the XT and the wings are almost all the way down. I can't see a 12-24 (even 30) mos old fitting these wings either up OR down. I'm extremely disappointed and would not have bought or returned this seat except that I only need it for the RFing height for my 2.5 year old. For a FFing 3+ year old though, it's awesome.
 

fyrfightermomma

New member
And my 2.5 year old who is AT the height limit for Rfing in the BLVD is on the 3rd slots of the XT and the wings are almost all the way down. I can't see a 12-24 (even 30) mos old fitting these wings either up OR down. I'm extremely disappointed and would not have bought or returned this seat except that I only need it for the RFing height for my 2.5 year old. For a FFing 3+ year old though, it's awesome.

That's my dilemma also. Both my kids are on the 2nd from the bottom slot (probably could be 3rd since they are right *at* it. HOwever, according to their rules, if you are using those slots the wings must be all the way up.

I am NOT ok with that. If I move them all the way up, my older child in a side impact will smack her temple on the bottom of the wing a little a la old Touriva style. My younger one also would hit the top side of her head.

So since they are a almost a good fit for my older daughter, even though she is on the second slots, I made the parental decision to use the wings. They will do MORE harm all the way up than down.

You are right though.....they don't seem to work all the way down or up for kids. It's a very odd design.

I really got it for DD2 to FF in a few months, but unless she sprouts a massive torso, the wings are not going to be right on her, and not safe in my book
 

Pixels

New member
Yes, but that's RFing, if he was FFing he'd move up a slot so they're above his shoulders, right? So he could then technically have the wings lowered but that doesn't mean they'd be a good fit!

Here's what I got: he'd be on the 3rd slots for FFing, this little guy is only 10 mos, but 56% height (17+" seated height) so a short 12 mos old could actually fit just like this:
xtbaby.jpg


On the other hand, here's him set up for Rfing and the wings all the way up. Look how close they are to the top of his head--so in between right now and when he moves up to the 3rd slots RFing, the top of his head would smack into the bottom of the wings while they're all the way up, yet he couldn't have them down according to the rules and even if it were allowed, it would still be in a bad position and do more harm than good IMO:
xtinfant.jpg


And my 2.5 year old who is AT the height limit for Rfing in the BLVD is on the 3rd slots of the XT and the wings are almost all the way down. I can't see a 12-24 (even 30) mos old fitting these wings either up OR down. I'm extremely disappointed and would not have bought or returned this seat except that I only need it for the RFing height for my 2.5 year old. For a FFing 3+ year old though, it's awesome.

For RFing, I'm happier with the fit in the first picture (wings lowered). Ramping up the seat would only put his head more securely between the wings. In the second picture (wings raised), if his head were to the side like it is in the pic (oh, say, he's sleeping, or just looking around), if he ramps up then his head smacks into the bottom of the wing.

FFing, I really don't know which is better. Protection (and possibly harm) from wings coming part way down the head, or no protection at all.

I think they need to reword the rules on wing position, to reflect that the same size child will be on different slots based on RFing vs FFing. Something along the lines of "If the child's shoulders are below the third slots, then the wing should be all the way up. If the child's shoulders are at or above the third slots, then the wing should be just above the shoulder" would take care of it, and not confuse things (ie If the child is RFing and on xx slots, then ... but if the child is FFing and on xx slots, then ... gets complicated and difficult to remember).

I wish that there was a chance they'd redesign and make the wings lower more before I get my XT (probably this summer). That would certainly solve the problems. Oh, can you imagine if they went ALL the way down? Then the seat would hug a newborn's body better.
 

zeo2ski

Well-known member
That's my dilemma also. Both my kids are on the 2nd from the bottom slot (probably could be 3rd since they are right *at* it. HOwever, according to their rules, if you are using those slots the wings must be all the way up.

I am NOT ok with that. If I move them all the way up, my older child in a side impact will smack her temple on the bottom of the wing a little a la old Touriva style. My younger one also would hit the top side of her head.

So since they are a almost a good fit for my older daughter, even though she is on the second slots, I made the parental decision to use the wings. They will do MORE harm all the way up than down.

You are right though.....they don't seem to work all the way down or up for kids. It's a very odd design.

I really got it for DD2 to FF in a few months, but unless she sprouts a massive torso, the wings are not going to be right on her, and not safe in my book
ITA. The XT is an awesome, awesome idea, but in practical, typical use, I can see those wings doing some serious harm even in some cases where the child would be better off without the extra "SIP" but the average parent is going to go by the rules (which BTW, if I didn't see the carseat blog I wouldn't know they changed it...) regardless of where the wings actually fall on the child. I think SKJP is asking for trouble if they don't revamp this.
 

zeo2ski

Well-known member
For RFing, I'm happier with the fit in the first picture (wings lowered). Ramping up the seat would only put his head more securely between the wings. In the second picture (wings raised), if his head were to the side like it is in the pic (oh, say, he's sleeping, or just looking around), if he ramps up then his head smacks into the bottom of the wing.

That's an excellent point, I hadn't even thought of it that way. I'm so glad this seat is not for him! I'm very happy with the fit on my older DS, who the seat is actually for, but for a smaller baby or toddler:thumbsdown:
 

snowbird25ca

Moderator - CPST Instructor
One thing I notice with the newborn baby doll is that the wings would push the baby's head forward if the head was right on them.

So if I was to guess, I'd say they just don't want them being used for small babies period. Even if they slid lower for smaller kids, I don't know they'd actually want them used on the bottom 2 slots anyways. :shrug-shoulders:
 

Defrost

Moderator - CPSTI Emeritus
Couple thoughts:

1. They can't make the wings go lower because the tether's in the way. I suppose they could move it, but I'm guessing it's specifically designed that way for RF tethering and moving it would mean giving up that option. Just at a guess.

2. Those headwings are completely covered in foam, IIRC. I think it's a bit alarmist to compare them to the Touriva notches.
 

itzmeigh

New member
Couple thoughts:

1. They can't make the wings go lower because the tether's in the way. I suppose they could move it, but I'm guessing it's specifically designed that way for RF tethering and moving it would mean giving up that option. Just at a guess.

2. Those headwings are completely covered in foam, IIRC. I think it's a bit alarmist to compare them to the Touriva notches.


1. Britax managed to make a "winged option" of the Marathon where the wings work for everyone. So it can be done. I'm really not liking this new XT. And I was hoping I would because I loved my BLVD and I am really liking the Radian and I always thought that if the Radian had wings I'd like it even more. (I was wrong. At least not with those wings!)

2. I don't care what it's covered in really. I just don't think it's a good idea for my infant's head to slam into it if it doesn't have to. Sorta like Radian's "one inch over" rule. Sure you CAN. But why would you want to? There are certain extreme cases where I could see it (maybe) but just not an every day risk for a normal child that I am willing to take.


I like my Radians. I just am not happy with this XT. I will not be the least bit surprised to see it redesigned in the very near future. This just really pushed me a little harder towards the True Fit and MAN I'm fighting that love...
 

Pixels

New member
Couple thoughts:

1. They can't make the wings go lower because the tether's in the way. I suppose they could move it, but I'm guessing it's specifically designed that way for RF tethering and moving it would mean giving up that option. Just at a guess.

2. Those headwings are completely covered in foam, IIRC. I think it's a bit alarmist to compare them to the Touriva notches.
1. I haven't seen one IRL, but have seen pics of the tether in the way. Couldn't they just recess the tether slightly, or else put a notch in the back of the headrest so that it would pass over the tether? Like they put the notches in the RFing foot for the anti-skid strips.

2. Did I miss something? I didn't see anyone comparing them to the notches of death.

My concern with hitting the bottom of the headrest is that surface is not designed to be hit. The inside is covered in EPS, and is designed to be hit. It is reinforced appropriately for that scenario. I doubt that the bottom of the headrest is also designed to be hit.

I will not be the least bit surprised to see it redesigned in the very near future.
:yeahthat:
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,656
Messages
2,196,896
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top