Britax gives a response on FB

[SafeDad]

I used the similar Cosco Triad (based on the original Touriva) for my older kids. I was sad when I had to toss it. http://carseatblog.com/?p=54

 

[BookMama]

Hypothetically, and just for conversation, suppose they change the RF height limits on models with a head restraint to allow the head to be even with the outer shell or maybe 1" from the top of the head restraint. Is it a great seat then? Or is it still a disaster for other reasons?

Then we'd hear from the "My child has outgrown the seat RF by weight but she's nowhere near the RF height limit! I'm so angry!" contingent.

I do hope Britax listens to feedback and considers using all or part of the headrest for RF height limits.

nak

 

[Maedze]

Then we'd hear from the "My child has outgrown the seat RF by weight but she's nowhere near the RF height limit! I'm so angry!" contingent.

So you're mocking all of us who are presenting a very legitimate concern and complaint? Really?

 

[Maedze]

What exactly did they promise and where?

I provided feedback over the last year or so on some prototypes. Throughout, my comments were mostly centered on shell/slot height and lockoffs. It's disappointing my priorities didn't match the choices they made in the final product, but I still think it is a very nice convertible. Of course, they didn't actually promise me that my suggestions would be implemented lol. Probably a good idea or they'd have a seat made with some super alloy shell that fit kids from 3 to 50 pounds rear-facing and 40-100 pounds front-facing with 19" slot heights and amazing shell height limits for both directions. But it would also weigh 35 pounds, cost $500 and only fit in a monster SUV.

Offering a seat with a 40 pound limit strongly suggests that the seat will, I dunno, hold a kid bigger than the one with the 35 pound rear facing limit.


The seat could have been designed to fit kids of a reasonable height without sacrificing on cost, weight or materials. Just because it has a few blingy features does not change the fact that it will not hold kids rear facing to 40 pounds. Or even 35, really.

 

[SafeDad]

I thought the recline adjust was poorly designed and flimsy and not at all organic.

I can't attest to organic-ness. I was just playing with it again and found that it locked into place very nicely and it was very difficult to force it to "pop out" of the position into another one while in a vehicle. (I couldn't get it to pop out at all and didn't want to apply any more force). The actual mechanism is a solid metal bar that goes into fairly deep slots in sturdy plastic guides on each side. It appears to be relatively robust compared to the previous design, at least by appearance. Obviously, I have no idea how well it will hold up long term. The only "flimsy" part is the actual tab that you use to adjust it, as it flexes slightly when you pull on it. I guess that is a little disconcerting, but it doesn't appear to reflect on the actual mechanism from what I can see.

 

[mimieliza]

I'm going to go against the grain and say I'm GLAD Britax changed the seats the way they did. The vast majority of parents turn their kids FFing way too early because it is so difficult to have a huge, hulking RFing convertible in their small-ish cars. It really is a problem. For instance, my DD was RFing in her Blvd until the 33 lb. limit, but it had to go in the center seat of my Forester. When it was behind the passenger seat, I (the passenger) had to sit with my knees crammed into the dash, and my seat was dangerously close to the airbag. Now I have two kids, so I can't use the center seat (Forester back seat is very narrow). DS is behind the passenger seat in a RFing Roundabout, which fits nicely, but we all know how quickly the RA is outgrown RFing. I know for sure that I will be looking at the new Britax convertibles when he starts to outgrow the RA RFing.

 

[BookMama]

So you're mocking all of us who are presenting a very legitimate concern and complaint? Really?

No, not really, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. My point is that no matter how a seat is designed, there will be something wrong with it. Height limit too short to get kids to the weight limit. Weight limit too short to get kids to the height limit. Seat too narrow for bigger kids. Seat too wide for some installations. Seat too upright. Seat too reclined. Etc.

I think that the "what were they thinking" threads that start up whenever an anticipated seat is released show that. (And this is not aimed at anyone in particular.)

 

[Maedze]

Yes, that's what I meant. I was applying force to shift the recline, and I felt the handle bending under my hand. I was worried I was going to snap it off in my hand, and, uh, I didn't want to buy it

I did like that the most upright setting seemed as upright as a combination seat.

 

[Maedze]

No, not really, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. My point is that no matter how a seat is designed, there will be something wrong with it. Height limit too short to get kids to the weight limit. Weight limit too short to get kids to the height limit. Seat too narrow for bigger kids. Seat too wide for some installations. Seat too upright. Seat too reclined. Etc.

I think that the "what were they thinking" threads that start up whenever an anticipated seat is released show that. (And this is not aimed at anyone in particular.)

Ok, I can understand that. But in this case, I disagree that this is one of those 'debatable features'.

For example, I am not complaining overtly about the recline mechanism. Nor would it prevent me from buying the seat.

I am not opposed to discrepancies between the height and weight limit, either, as long as they are both sufficient to do the job they should do. For example.

It never phased me that the old Britaxes were rated to 65 lbs forward facing. They got most kids to booster maturity, even if the average kid would outgrow it around 40-50 pounds.

Likewise, I wouldn't object, say, if they rated the seat to 55 pounds rear facing, but had a shell that would be outgrown rear facing by most kids around 40 pounds. At that point the seat is functional (keeps almost all kids rear facing to four) with a little built in padding to reflect the occasional large child and the growing obesity crisis.

The seat does not functionally keep the average kid rear facing to 3-5 years. It doesn't even come *close*.

Rate it however you want, but for heaven's sake, make it functional!

 

[Maedze]

I'm going to go against the grain and say I'm GLAD Britax changed the seats the way they did. The vast majority of parents turn their kids FFing way too early because it is so difficult to have a huge, hulking RFing convertible in their small-ish cars. It really is a problem. For instance, my DD was RFing in her Blvd until the 33 lb. limit, but it had to go in the center seat of my Forester. When it was behind the passenger seat, I (the passenger) had to sit with my knees crammed into the dash, and my seat was dangerously close to the airbag. Now I have two kids, so I can't use the center seat (Forester back seat is very narrow). DS is behind the passenger seat in a RFing Roundabout, which fits nicely, but we all know how quickly the RA is outgrown RFing. I know for sure that I will be looking at the new Britax convertibles when he starts to outgrow the RA RFing.

I could appreciate this argument more if it weren't a false dichotomy. BOTH things can be achieved, a narrow profile AND keeping kids rear facing longer. It's not one or the other.

 

[bobandjess99]

I . When it comes to height, the new seats accommodate a 95th-percentile 3-year-old and 70th-percentile 4-year-old rear facing as well.

.

Okay. I will limit my comments to ONLY this one particular statement.


How on earth..i mean..how on EARTH can they possibly make this claim??????
Rearfacing HEIGHT accomodation is determined by TORSO + HEAD length. (seated height).
Is there a growth chart somewhere of this height by age? Because I don't know of one. The only growth charts I know of are full standing height charts. Which are 100% completely useless in determining rearfacing height limitations, since we all know kids of the same overall height can have DRASTICALLY different torso vs. legs measurements. Looking at a growth chart, it looks like they took about the 40 inch height line, which is about 95th percentile for a 3 yo, and about 40% for a 4 year old, and used THAT number to determine who would "fit" into their seats. Uh no.
We all KNOW it doesn't work that way. (FORTY inches? Really?? )

So Britax **Show me** the chart you used to determine how many kids would fit into your new seats. Because unless you have a growth chart of seated height you can show me, showing me that 95% of 3 year olds are way smaller than almost all 3 yo *I* know, I don't believe a word you're saying. The proportions on a 40 inch tall child who would be able to fit into your seats would be....unusual, to say the least. Now granted, I live in the midwest, and we don't get nearly as many freakishly long-legged supermodel types around these parts, but I honestly can't imagine these seats lasting NEARLY as long as you claim they will last.

 

[Maedze]

Honestly, if a 40 inch child fit in the new seats with an inch of clearance above his head, I'd be concerned enough to call a developmental doc :-\

 

[SafeDad]

Offering a seat with a 40 pound limit strongly suggests that the seat will, I dunno, hold a kid bigger than the one with the 35 pound rear facing limit.


The seat could have been designed to fit kids of a reasonable height without sacrificing on cost, weight or materials. Just because it has a few blingy features does not change the fact that it will not hold kids rear facing to 40 pounds. Or even 35, really.

Well that's the problem we face with a lot of limits. For just one example, the 80 pound limit on the Radian 80/XT isn't very realistic, either, compared to, say, a Frontier 85. Sure, a few kids might make 80 pounds in the Radian before they outgrow it by height, but not very many. I think that was Bookmama's point. You can target a certain percentile, but there's just no way to fit every kid to all possible limits. Without an industry standard, it's just numbers that appease the buyers at big box retailers.

Again it goes back to the average parent and what is likely to keep their kids safe in typical use. That is usually very different than what appeals to an advocate who can guarantee a correct installation and fit to child for their own kids in almost any child seat. The reality is that most parents would be better served with that Cosco Scenera and a Frontier 85, given how most typically transition from rear to front facing.

 

[Maedze]

Nope, it's not realistic, but it's a seat that will get almost ALL kids to a safe boostering age. So it's FUNCTIONAL.

You keep saying, "What parents *usually* do". Well. Yeah. If they Blingiest Bling they can buy won't LET them do what they ought, why should they make the effort?

 

[Cilia]

I really would like to see how my DD1 fits in the MA70. She is 4, 39 inches tall (35 %) and 7% for weight. I wonder if she would still fit rf? But she will most probably not cooperate and sit in one for me...

 

[Jennifer mom to my 7]

I'm going to go against the grain and say I'm GLAD Britax changed the seats the way they did. The vast majority of parents turn their kids FFing way too early because it is so difficult to have a huge, hulking RFing convertible in their small-ish cars. It really is a problem. For instance, my DD was RFing in her Blvd until the 33 lb. limit, but it had to go in the center seat of my Forester. When it was behind the passenger seat, I (the passenger) had to sit with my knees crammed into the dash, and my seat was dangerously close to the airbag. Now I have two kids, so I can't use the center seat (Forester back seat is very narrow). DS is behind the passenger seat in a RFing Roundabout, which fits nicely, but we all know how quickly the RA is outgrown RFing. I know for sure that I will be looking at the new Britax convertibles when he starts to outgrow the RA RFing.

But, you are talking about a subaru, and on top of that, a forester! You need a crow bar to get any seat rf in that, and the old marathon did pretty okay, even if the passenger needs to eat a bit of dashboard.

Lose an inch of torso height in the new seats, and my dd wouldn't not have made it to the 25 months she did in the decathlon with the 33 pound limit. She would have lost the extra height the decathlon had. The myride should last at least as long in height as the older britax seats, so why by the new? if you lose height.


Of course, this is all an advocate argument, and not a true life argument, as Darren has stated. Yes, us advocates, who really liked the older britax seats, when that was all there was, were hoping great things out of the new ones, but we are very dissappointed. But Joe Shmoe will not be.

 

[SafeDad]

Nope, it's not realistic, but it's a seat that will get almost ALL kids to a safe boostering age. So it's FUNCTIONAL.

Even the "lowly" Cosco Scenera will get almost ALL kids to a safe age to be front facing in a 5-point harness.

You keep saying, "What parents *usually* do". Well. Yeah. If they Blingiest Bling they can buy won't LET them do what they ought, why should they make the effort?

As you know, I believe parents ought to do what is suggested by the American Academy of Pediatrics. That is, use their convertibles rear-facing until they reach the highest weight or height allowed by their car safety seat’s manufacturer. Then they should be in a front-facing 5-point harness until they are ready for a booster. In fact, almost every convertible carseat on the market LETs them do what they ought to do, based on recommendations by the AAP, Safe Kids USA, NHTSA, etc, etc.

But reality is indeed what parents *usually* do. Most don't even make it rear-facing to the 24 months old that we advocates would love to see. Even though extended rear-facing is very important, it is not the only important feature for a child seat.

As a side note, I am usually pretty successful getting parents to keep their kids rear-facing beyond 1/20, some even go back to RF after they have switched. Beyond 24 months, I have much less success. I almost never see kids come into an event rear-facing beyond 24 months around here, with the rare exception of the very carseat savvy parent. Some of these parents even know it's safer to be rear-facing. It's not completely unlike smoking in the house around your kids. Everyone knows it's safer for them if they make a change, but there are other reasons that keep them from doing it. At least with carseats, there are other factors aside from rear-facing capability that can allow them to keep kids safe even if they start forward facing somewhat earlier than recommended (provided it is beyond the minimum of course).

 

[Maedze]

It's a bit of a false argument to jump from "Because parent's don't" to "Then Child Restraint manufacturers have no reason to". That simply isn't true.

Widespread potential must go before a paradigm shift. If the average Joe buys the safest seat (you know, a Britax), and it CAN'T get his kid rear facing beyond 2 years, he has no reason to believe that he should, nor is he likely to buy a different seat at that juncture. After all, if BRITAX doesn't believe it's important, why should he?

You'll forgive me for saying it, but the old-timers seem far more ready to defend Britax than some of us new-comers. Yeah, I've only been a technician for three years, but I've been a parent since 2004. I didn't have to deal with car seats in the late 90s the way some did, but I've never been a fan of comparative grading, anyhow.....or social promotion

 

[Jennifer mom to my 7]

Even the "lowly" Cosco Scenera will get almost ALL kids to a safe age to be front facing in a 5-point harness.



As you know, I believe parents ought to do what is suggested by the AAP. Use their convertibles rear-facing until they reach the highest weight or height allowed by their car safety seat’s manufacturer. Then they should be in a front-facing 5-point harness until they are ready for a booster. In fact, almost every convertible carseat on the market LETs them do what they ought to do, based on recommendations by the AAP, Safe Kids USA, NHTSA, etc, etc.

But reality is indeed what parents *usually* do. Most don't even make it rear-facing to the 24 months old that advocates would love to see. Even though extended rear-facing is very important, it is not the only important feature for a child seat.

As a side note, I am usually pretty successful getting parents to keep their kids rear-facing beyond 1/20, some even go back to RF after they have switched. Beyond 24 months, I have much less success. I almost never see kids come into an event rear-facing beyond 24 months around here, with the rare exception of the very carseat savvy parent. Some of these parents even know it's safer to be rear-facing. It's not completely unlike smoking in the house around your kids. Everyone knows it's safer for them if they make a change, but there are other reasons that keep them from doing it. At least with carseats, there are other factors aside from rear-facing capability that can allow them to keep kids safe even if they start forward facing somewhat earlier than recommended (provided it is beyond the minimum of course).

And I think this is the problem. The pediatricians don't even advocate for what the AAP suggests, that is rear facing to the limits of the seat.

So, in my opinion, I really think education is key, and then parents can decide what seat will be best for them.

Until every parent knows that rear facing to the limit of the seat's rear facing capacity, or at least age 2, we have a lot of work to do when people come here and other parenting sites. WE need to let them know that the AAP recommends this, and send them to the info, since the Pedis don't seem to be doing it.

Education first. Then higher weight harnessing seats.

Like has been said, the "average" baby will get to age 2-3 rear facing in a scenera. Sadly, most of my kids wouldn't have, which is why I am here, on this site.

 

[Maedze]

And I think this is the problem. The pediatricians don't even advocate for what the AAP suggests, that is rear facing to the limits of the seat.

So, in my opinion, I really think education is key, and then parents can decide what seat will be best for them.

Until every parent knows that rear facing to the limit of the seat's rear facing capacity, or at least age 2, we have a lot of work to do when people come here and other parenting sites. WE need to let them know that the AAP recommends this, and send them to the info, since the Pedis don't seem to be doing it.

Education first. Then higher weight harnessing seats.

Like has been said, the "average" baby will get to age 2-3 rear facing in a scenera. Sadly, most of my kids wouldn't have, which is why I am here, on this site.

I disagree. Education and good seats, concurrently. You can't expect parents to follow even close to best practice if their seat won't allow it.