Anti rebound bar vs Load leg

[cookie123]

Do they accomplish the same thing? Which would you prefer on your infant car seat? Discuss!

 

[lgenne]

I'm pretty sure they accomplish exactly the opposite things. I suppose I'd rather have a load leg, but I don't feel terribly strongly about either one.

 

[LISmama810]

Load legs prevent downward rotation. Anti-rebound bars prevent rebound (when the seat moves toward the back of the car after moving downward in a frontal collision). If downward rotation is limited (load leg, Australian tethering, European belt routing), rebound is also diminished (if it doesn't go down, it doesn't need to go back up). So I guess for that reason I'd go for the load leg.

 

[Hazelandlucy]

I would definitely get a load leg!

 

[TechnoGranola]

Load legs prevent downward rotation. Anti-rebound bars prevent rebound (when the seat moves toward the back of the car after moving downward in a frontal collision). If downward rotation is limited (load leg, Australian tethering, European belt routing), rebound is also diminished (if it doesn't go down, it doesn't need to go back up). So I guess for that reason I'd go for the load leg.

I agree with this comment about how it works. I am not sure if I would choose a load leg over the anti-rebound. In most vehicle I have had an infant seat in, my front seat is very close to the infant seat. While I know my seat is going to move in a collision, I'm thinking a car seat behind it is still likely to have some of its downward rotation stopped by my seat in front.

The crash test benches REALLY need front seats. This is what I get out of the question posed.

 

[cookie123]

I agree with this comment about how it works. I am not sure if I would choose a load leg over the anti-rebound. In most vehicle I have had an infant seat in, my front seat is very close to the infant seat. While I know my seat is going to move in a collision, I'm thinking a car seat behind it is still likely to have some of its downward rotation stopped by my seat in front.

The crash test benches REALLY need front seats. This is what I get out of the question posed.

I forgot about the seat being there. What kind of test sled does Canada have? I wonder if they have a front seat or not. Maybe that's why they require the top tether ffing.

 

[TechnoGranola]

I forgot about the seat being there. What kind of test sled does Canada have? I wonder if they have a front seat or not. Maybe that's why they require the top tether ffing.

Don't think ours has a front seat either. But we do have a rebound standard now. So all seats here have an ARB or have been designed with higher sides to prevent rebound. There are just a few seats that met our newer standard without having to change the shape or add an ARB.

 

[Kobain's Mommy]

The sled needs to be redesigned with the new technology. Make it more like a real life test, with a front seat and floor.

 

[seb3244]

What is leg load? I have an anti rebound bar on my dd1 who is 3 yrs 4 months's car seat that is a clek fllo. Are
Some of you saying if you have no anti rebound bar it is safer? Or in your opinion safer?

 

[LISmama810]

A load leg is a bar that extends from the the child restraint to the floor of the car. Only a couple US infant seats have one.

No one is saying seats are safer without an anti-rebound bar. Some of us are saying that if we had to pick between the two features, we'd take the load leg, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with anti-rebound bars. They just do different things.

 

[LISmama810]

I agree with this comment about how it works. I am not sure if I would choose a load leg over the anti-rebound. In most vehicle I have had an infant seat in, my front seat is very close to the infant seat. While I know my seat is going to move in a collision, I'm thinking a car seat behind it is still likely to have some of its downward rotation stopped by my seat in front.

Yeah, but there was that study a while back, about space between the seats... I don't remember the details, but as I recall, even with very little space, they still saw over-rotation. There's a very good chance I'm not remembering correctly though.

 

[Hazelandlucy]

I agree with this comment about how it works. I am not sure if I would choose a load leg over the anti-rebound. In most vehicle I have had an infant seat in, my front seat is very close to the infant seat. While I know my seat is going to move in a collision, I'm thinking a car seat behind it is still likely to have some of its downward rotation stopped by my seat in front. The crash test benches REALLY need front seats. This is what I get out of the question posed.

I know I have read some studies (probably posted them here) about how the front seats stopping rotation was actually causing head injuries. It was quite interesting about the spacing as well...better to be lightly touching already or so far forward there was no chance of interaction than a small gap.

I know consumer reports is working on a test for convertibles that includes the front seats.

The load leg seems to really prevent rotation and absorb a lot of force. I would love one especially for a big rear facing kid in a heavy convertible!

 

[murphydog77]

I know I have read some studies (probably posted them here) about how the front seats stopping rotation was actually causing head injuries. It was quite interesting about the spacing as well...better to be lightly touching already or so far forward there was no chance of interaction than a small gap.

I know consumer reports is working on a test for convertibles that includes the front seats.

The load leg seems to really prevent rotation and absorb a lot of force. I would love one especially for a big rear facing kid in a heavy convertible!

Yes, CR's new crash test for carseats includes a "blocker plate" which performs the duty of a front seat. The "bench" is also a vehicle seat--2010 Ford Flex--with a floor underneath. And the test is at NCAP speed vs. 30 mph.

To add to what Jennie said, it's more beneficial to have a load leg than an anti-rebound bar simply because the energy has already been dissipated.

 

[Carrie_R]

So when you have very little space between the front seats, there's going to be a benefit from the load leg because it's going to minimize the contact between the CRS & vehicle seat. In most crashes, the CRS is going to hit the front vehicle seat, causing a secondary collision, which is not ideal. So I agree with the consensus that I'd pick a load leg over anti-rebound, since the load leg eliminates most of the reason for anti-rebound mechanisms.

I was told at a conference recently that unless there is 12-18" between the top of a RF child seat and the vehicle seat in front of them, there will be contact. Once upon a time, I had also heard that having the seat braced was ideal because it did away with that second collision. For that reason, my preference is to have a seat that is braced and tethered when it's practical. (Although, to tell you how strongly I feel about it, the RF Radian which normally sits braced on my driver's seat and tethered to the track is currently in my living room, with a NextFit in the car, instead.) OTOH, when I have multiple seats available for a child, I'm unlikely to choose one that they're nearing the 1" rule on, because I don't see the use in taking a risk with ramping + contact, kwim?

I also drive with my (unoccupied) passenger seat way up when I have a FFing seat behind it so I definitely tend to overthink things

 

[TechnoGranola]

Well they better start redesigning car seats then if vehicle seats in front of them are a problem. 12-18"? Seriously? Even in our huge truck I don't think we have 12" when DH drives. Any vehicle I've owned, the vehicle seat is less than an inch from the child's car seat other than our huge truck.

 

[seb3244]

So I currently have my dd1 rear facing in a clek fllo and it touches the front passenger seat. Is this bad? She is 3 yrs old.

 

[joolsplus3]

So I currently have my dd1 rear facing in a clek fllo and it touches the front passenger seat. Is this bad? She is 3 yrs old.

It depends on the Fllo manual and the vehicle manual. If it's light enough pressure that you can slide a piece of paper between the Fllo and the seatback, and the Fllo manual says it can touch, then you're probably fine.

Vehicle manuals on newer cars do NOT allow bracing (sometimes you have to read the other sections of the manual, like the airbag section or cargo loading tips, because it tricks the airbag into thinking that the front seat is unoccupied or occupied by a small person, it can be bad if the airbag doesn't deploy at the right speed. So it's not about whether touching is bad for the child in the RF carseat, it's whether the person in the front seat will be harmed if the airbag is the wrong speed.

 

[seb3244]

It depends on the Fllo manual and the vehicle manual. If it's light enough pressure that you can slide a piece of paper between the Fllo and the seatback, and the Fllo manual says it can touch, then you're probably fine. Vehicle manuals on newer cars do NOT allow bracing (sometimes you have to read the other sections of the manual, like the airbag section or cargo loading tips, because it tricks the airbag into thinking that the front seat is unoccupied or occupied by a small person, it can be bad if the airbag doesn't deploy at the right speed. So it's not about whether touching is bad for the child in the RF carseat, it's whether the person in the front seat will be harmed if the airbag is the wrong speed.

Oh wow okay thanks. I'll check my manual tonight.

 

[Cnidaria]

If I recall correctly, Clek allows "light touching" but not "bracing" (forceful touching that changes the angle of the child restraint).