Britax gives a response on FB

[Wiggles]

I, personally, believe that EVERYONE in this thread is barking up the wrong tree.

You know where we need to go if we want longer rear-facing seats?

The government. We NEED to get those stupid test-benches changed so that we can have the lovely seats like the Multi-Tech in North America.

The seats EXIST that will get children to a good age rear-facing. I'm sure the companies would LOVE to bring them over here WITHOUT having to make new molds and everything to completely redesign a seat. Being able to release an older product as brand new? Talk about dollar signs!

But with the test benches they use in North America, we cannot get to a higher rear face limit and have a seat that will fit in a small-ish car. THIS is the answer, I'm sure of it.

The Radian XTSL goes to 45 lbs, but it over-reclines SO easily and takes up SO much space in so many vehicles. Imagine a Radian with a support leg to make it more upright, so it didn't take up so much space? THAT would be an INCREDIBLE seat.

But we can't get much better AT ALL until we can have support legs.

So why not focus on THAT issue?

 

[SafeDad]

I, personally, believe that EVERYONE in this thread is barking up the wrong tree.

You know where we need to go if we want longer rear-facing seats?

The government. We NEED to get those stupid test-benches changed so that we can have the lovely seats like the Multi-Tech in North America.

The seats EXIST that will get children to a good age rear-facing. I'm sure the companies would LOVE to bring them over here WITHOUT having to make new molds and everything to completely redesign a seat. Being able to release an older product as brand new? Talk about dollar signs!

But with the test benches they use in North America, we cannot get to a higher rear face limit and have a seat that will fit in a small-ish car. THIS is the answer, I'm sure of it.

The Radian XTSL goes to 45 lbs, but it over-reclines SO easily and takes up SO much space in so many vehicles. Imagine a Radian with a support leg to make it more upright, so it didn't take up so much space? THAT would be an INCREDIBLE seat.

But we can't get much better AT ALL until we can have support legs.

So why not focus on THAT issue?

You are exactly right. I suspect the reason is that market forces can bring change to the consumer product market much faster than the government even gets to the stage of soliciting input on a topic. I mean, even a private organization like the AAP hasn't updated their policy from a minimum of 1 year and 20 pounds in what, decades? I wonder what it will take for the government standards to follow, once the AAP does finally change.

 

[SafeDad]

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 :-\

We have photos in the blog and review forum. The moms can probably give you the name of their docs for a consult;-)

 

[arly1983]

If smaller convertibles were their true motivation, why in the world didn't they redesign the old roundabout and make it make the shell a little taller and the base a little smaller: BAM! then you have close to the current RA55!

Then make the do the same for the MA, BV, etc, so they have taller shells! They would have had a more rounded out line up of seats that cater to even more customers.

I know that LOTS of people, even on here, have lots of love for the little roundabout including myself.

 

[a_js]

with the test benches they use in North America, we cannot get to a higher rear face limit and have a seat that will fit in a small-ish car. THIS is the answer, I'm sure of it.

For those of us not in the know, can you elaborate on why (please)?

 

[SafeDad]

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

That depends how you define average. As I asked elsewhere on this thread, the new seats may well fit a 50th percentile 4 year old, defined by the CDC. We have photos of two different kids demonstrating this. Without a clear definition of average, anyone can claim anything.

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.

It may not be exactly one or the other, but the two are clearly opposing factors. Increased height will generally reduce installation space to the front vehicle seat, all else equal.

 

[jjordan]

For those of us not in the know, can you elaborate on why (please)?

It was kind of alluded to in her original post, but the issue is that the test benches in the US don't have a place for a foot prop, like those used in high weigh RF seats in Europe. Moreover seats in the US need to be able to pass testing with just a 2 point lap belt installation, so a seat that needs a foot prop won't be able to pass.

 

[Wiggles]

For those of us not in the know, can you elaborate on why (please)?

Okay, so the test bench that we use in North America doesn't have a floor. So you cannot TEST a carseat with a support leg. You HAVE to be able to use the seat without it over-reclining in the tests without the support leg and you can have an 'optional' support leg.

Now, when you have a 45 lb kid in a Radian XTSL, we see a LOT of complaints that you cannot get the seat more upright than the minimum 45 degrees. Some people can't even get it that upright--it reclines more with that much weight. So if you had a support leg, it would be a rigid bar that prevents the kid's weight from over-reclining either in day to day use OR in an accident.

But you NEED a floor to 'brace' that support leg on! And we therefore NEED a new test bench that better replicates the environment of an actual car in an actual crash!

 

[rosey2007]

I, personally, believe that EVERYONE in this thread is barking up the wrong tree.

You know where we need to go if we want longer rear-facing seats?

The government. We NEED to get those stupid test-benches changed so that we can have the lovely seats like the Multi-Tech in North America.

The seats EXIST that will get children to a good age rear-facing. I'm sure the companies would LOVE to bring them over here WITHOUT having to make new molds and everything to completely redesign a seat. Being able to release an older product as brand new? Talk about dollar signs!

But with the test benches they use in North America, we cannot get to a higher rear face limit and have a seat that will fit in a small-ish car. THIS is the answer, I'm sure of it.

The Radian XTSL goes to 45 lbs, but it over-reclines SO easily and takes up SO much space in so many vehicles. Imagine a Radian with a support leg to make it more upright, so it didn't take up so much space? THAT would be an INCREDIBLE seat.

But we can't get much better AT ALL until we can have support legs.

So why not focus on THAT issue?

You make a very good point.

 

[BookMama]

We have photos in the blog and review forum. The moms can probably give you the name of their docs for a consult;-)

According to the 2000 CDC chart, that's 36 pounds and 40" tall if I read it correctly (for boys, a bit less for girls). That's about the size of BookMama's DD who is almost 5.

Just to confirm, DD1 is 41.5" and 37.5 lbs. That's 42nd and 43rd %iles, respectively. She is not particularly leggy or short-torsoed. (That was DS!) She'll be 5 in early November.

 

[dmpmercury]

How much height is lost in the new britaxs compared to the old? I am in the minority but there are plenty of seats on the market right now with tall shells to accomadate older kids rear facing. The complete air and radian have really tall shells and heigher weight limits. The true fit has a really tall shell for skinnier tall kids. I think this is a good seat for trying to rear face in a tight spot when you need a seat that doesn't take up much front to back room but will still get you pretty far rear facing. For smaller kids its should work fine. My 4 year old has plenty of time left in the old style marathons height wise so losing a little shell height isn't a big deal when you have small kids. There are situations where tall shells just don't fit and I'm glad there is another option for those of us in that situation. There are spaces where none of the tall shell seats fit even with a low base.

 

[yetanotherjen]

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 :-\

Ummm I'm sorry but hasn't it already been discussed that children can all have different torso heights? Really?!?!??!?! My son is 41" and guess what he had just over 1" and there is NOTHING wrong with his growth not everyone has huge children. This comment ticks me off as much as an earlier one ticked you off. I realize that you are disapointed and angry at Britax but to make a comment like this and insinuate that children that can fit in a seat you don't think they should be able to, have health issues!?!?!?!?! It is a VERY poor way to prove your point.

 

[APmama2MAK]

So I couldnt take it any more and had to go try the new britax seats out today. My child who wasnt even on the growth charts at all until last month has 2 inches of growth. He doesnt have an especially long torso, or a big head and not in diapers. I realize it could take some kids 2 yrs to grow 2 inches in torso growth but he recently grew an inch in under 20 days and it was almost all torso sooo I wouldnt risk it.

Not to get into all the other debates going on in the thread but I really didnt believe britax would spend money and time to make a SMALLER seat, but I guess they did.

 

[SafeDad]

How much height is lost in the new britaxs compared to the old?

From my review photos in the review forum, at least one half of an inch. Possibly up to an inch, depending how you measure.

I am in the minority but there are plenty of seats on the market right now with tall shells to accomadate older kids rear facing. The complete air and radian have really tall shells and heigher weight limits.

As a side note, for the Complete Air, it has a great theoretical limit based on the shell height. Unfortunately, the manfuacturer's instructions effectively tell you to discontinue rear-facing with a 40" child. Of course, a parent could choose to do otherwise.

 

[Athena]

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

I would love to see that (and would probably buy one then), but can they? If it passes tests, then wouldn't they have already done that?

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.

:yeahthat: IMHO, many parents don't know all about height limits and will be misled by this.

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.

Yes, they are a hard car to work with, especially for a tall family. This is why I was so excited about the new Britax seats letting me push my front seat back a few more clicks. Honestly, if it would last my DD a year, I might buy it because of those few more clicks. It would be worth $160 for the RA55 to me. That is how bad Foresters are. And it's a lot less money than a new car.

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.

:yeahthat:

 

[Athena]

Right, and do you know how many parents drive Subarus in my neck of the woods (Oregon)? I know MANY families who own Foresters/Imprezas and Marathons who were chomping at the bit to turn their 12-month-olds FFing because it was so darn uncomfortable/impractical to have them RFing. Sad, but true. And what's worse is, I CAN'T BLAME THEM!

Yes, this has been a big challenge for us to keep DD2 RF. And I feel like it requires a greater risk for the person riding in our front passenger seat, something I try to block out and not think about, and the reason I was so hoping this seat would help us.

I think that for most of us on this board a seat with the easiest install isn't worth the Britax price tag... but for someone who isn't as into carseats? Yes, it is.

Yes, I am one of those people. That is why I still like their easy installation.

For one thing, most of the time they don't know that their seat can be installed at a more upright angle.

Yes! With DD1 we were seeing the local police station tech and he never told us it could be more upright and I don't think he even knew that.

If smaller convertibles were their true motivation, why in the world didn't they redesign the old roundabout and make it make the shell a little taller and the base a little smaller: BAM! then you have close to the current RA55!

Then make the do the same for the MA, BV, etc, so they have taller shells! They would have had a more rounded out line up of seats that cater to even more customers.

I know that LOTS of people, even on here, have lots of love for the little roundabout including myself.

That is a good question. Why aren't they offering a taller option anymore?

As a side note, for the Complete Air, it has a great theoretical limit based on the shell height. Unfortunately, the manfuacturer's instructions effectively tell you to discontinue rear-facing with a 40" child. Of course, a parent could choose to do otherwise.

Yes, this has been a concern of mine because it does not seem like an estimate of when a child would typically outgrow it RF, but something very different.

 

[SafeDad]

I would love to see that (and would probably buy one then), but can they? If it passes tests, then wouldn't they have already done that?

Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on whether or not the limit was related to a safety/standards issue or something else. For example, it could have been used just for consistency of message or simply for concerns over the potential of unknown liability issues. This is all pure guesswork of course. My interpretation of some emails I've received in response to my feedback is that there may be some possibility to consider a change but that it would definitely require further review. Don't read too much into that. I suspect it's a long shot which I why I say it's probably wishful thinking at this point;-)

Anyway, the same sort of thing applies to the Complete Air mentioned above. According to the manufacturer, you can't use it for rear-facing children above 40 inches. Even so, some people choose not to adhere to this instruction. At least with the Boulevard and the Advocate, you have the sturdier head restraint section which perhaps might mitigate the risk of ramping or whiplash while rear-facing. Well, it's just a theory, but no less valid than guessing why Safety 1st chose 40" for the Complete Air!

Case in point, when the original Marathon was released, the instructions allowed the top of the ears to be at the top of the shell for the maximum rear-facing height limit.

 

[Athena]

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[cpsaddict]

IMO, Britax and the new seats are being judged a bit harshly. In the US, the misuse rate is 90+%. Britax made a seat so easy to install, that it could help that. Hopefully, other manufacturers could take a hint on that. OTOH, Britax could take some hints from other manufacturers, too. The US is simply not at the "rf until 3 at all costs" bandwagon. I also don't think it's realistic to say that Britax should just bring the Multitech here. We don't have the same cars, types of infrastructure, etc. In Sweden, they have been ERF for years and years. It would take a miracle to get all of the US onboard with that, at this time. I am a Britax fan and I am so excited to get my new Marathon this week. That said, I really considered several other seats, both more expensive and less expensive. Runner up was the Symphony. However, I can and will pay more for a seat that tethers rf and that isn't the Radian. I also would not pay full retail for the MA, but I wouldn't pay full retail for any carseat.There are so many things that make Britax worth it to me and I feel that many regular, non-carseat geek parents will feel the same. So what if they believe it's the safest thing out there, provided they use it correctly?

 

[tarabelle]

Britax isn't catering to the small group of folks, like us, who will RF to 3 or 4. We are a very small, yet very vocal group of people. They're catering to the majority aka the general public, and in most cases it's hard enough to get them to RF to 2. They've addressed the size of the seat, lack of leg room and made the seat easier to use.

I'm on a local forum and while the Britax bubble there is unreal they are more indicative of the general population than we are here. The biggest complaint is the size of the current seats RF and lack of leg room RF and also how difficult it is to get their child in/out of the seat. These are the justifications they're using to turn their kids FF before age 2.

Am I disappointed in the seat height being lowered? Of course, but I know for 90% of the general population, it won't matter anyways. People tend to follow the mantras they hear like 1 and 20 to turn FF and 4 and 40 for a booster, 8 and 80 for a seat belt. If we can get them to take baby steps and RF to 2, or harness to 5 or 6 and keep them in a booster until they properly fit in a seat belt, then I think that is a major step forward. Until those things happen, car seat manufacturers will continue to defer to the general population who happen to be the bulk of their customers.