I asked Graco about the Size 4 Me 70 height restriction

[SoCalCarSeatMama]

I keep seeing references to 40" limit, but I just looked through the manual (http://download.gracobaby.com/ProductInstructionManuals/PD205009A.pdf) and don't see any reference to it. All I see is the 40lbs and harness at or just below shoulders. Is there something stated on the actual seat which states 40", or is it on a page in the manual that I am missing? I want to make sure I update the data/measurements spreadsheet correctly with the information.

The 40" limit is stated on page 27 of the manual.

 

[Carrie_R]

Yeah, it's really buried in there. Which makes me question its importance and be tempted to use it for a taller child. Which frustrates me since I really don't want to go against the manual (w/o more info, anyways.) Grr.

 

[An Aurora]

How disappointing.

I have a 46", 37 lb kid that wears size 8 shirts... too bad we get seats last up here

 

[glockchick]

I don't know that I'd be ok with using it above 40". Here is a copy of my post on the other thread. I'll get a pic to go with it.

After seeing it, I don't think I'd be comfortable using it RFing with the child's head past the top of the shell unless that head rest is super reinforced. I have a mental image of it slamming into the seat in front of it and pushing the child's head forward towards their chest.

Remember, car seats are tested on a sled bench with no seat in front of them. I'd worry what could happen in a real world scenario.

How wiggly does the headrest feel? Does it come forward like the Britax? Any give at all?

See what I mean? Theoretically, the front seat would be moving forward at the same time, but it might not move as far as the car seat. That's what worries me.

 

[SoCalCarSeatMama]

I just received my second response from the Graco rep I spoke to on the phone yesterday and this is what she had to say in her email:

"Julie: Per our telephone conversation, the Size4Me 70 headrest will be restricted by the weight and height limits (40 lb and 40” rear facing) since the head rest also positions the shoulder belt locations. Please let us know if you should need further assistance."

I don't know that I'd be ok with using it above 40". Here is a copy of my post on the other thread. I'll get a pic to go with it.

After seeing it, I don't think I'd be comfortable using it RFing with the child's head past the top of the shell unless that head rest is super reinforced. I have a mental image of it slamming into the seat in front of it and pushing the child's head forward towards their chest.

Remember, car seats are tested on a sled bench with no seat in front of them. I'd worry what could happen in a real world scenario.

How wiggly does the headrest feel? Does it come forward like the Britax? Any give at all?

See what I mean? Theoretically, the front seat would be moving forward at the same time, but it might not move as far as the car seat. That's what worries me.

I agree completely. After now receiving two responses from two different people at Graco (and both stating the same thing), I have no intentions of using this seat past 40" nor will I suggest that others do.

 

[oliviaik]

Okay, so if the RF limit on this is 40" and the Radian is 1.5" from the top of the seat, then which one will allow rear-facing longer? Also, which one do you think is the better seat?

 

[An Aurora]

Okay, so if the RF limit on this is 40" and the Radian is 1.5" from the top of the seat, then which one will allow rear-facing longer? Also, which one do you think is the better seat?

There is no way of quantifying which one is better. I could say the Radian is better because it has a pink cover or this is better because it has pillows. Truth is, both are considered equal.

The Radian would last longer rf if you follow the height limit of this.

 

[armywife12]

Okay, so if the RF limit on this is 40" and the Radian is 1.5" from the top of the seat, then which one will allow rear-facing longer? Also, which one do you think is the better seat?

It would depend on the child's torso since there doesn't seem to be a headrest restriction on the Size4Me. If ppl won't use the seat beyond the shell height, though, it seems the Radian is significantly taller

 

[Cath3114]

It would depend on the child's torso since there doesn't seem to be a headrest restriction on the Size4Me. If ppl won't use the seat beyond the shell height, though, it seems the Radian is significantly taller

So is that the new word? Only to shell, not headrest?

 

[Carrie_R]

No, Graco has not said a word about that, just 40". Shell height has only been discussed as personal preference by a few cso users.

(Not trying to sound snarky, just be clear!)

 

[4boysmom]

HOT OFF THE PRESS: From FB-

Our apologies for not responding sooner! We wanted to verify that we're providing you with accurate information and ensure that we're addressing all of the questions that have come through --which were quite a few! With that, we hope the following provide you with the answers you're seeking. Sorry, in advance, about the length of this response, but again we want to make sure we're covering all of your questions. So here goes:

1) 1” rule in rear facing mode:
Due to the design of the Size4Me 70 head support, the 1 inch rule is not needed. When the harness straps are properly positioned at or just below the child’s shoulders, the head will be sufficiently below the top of the head support. The only restriction on height is the 40” height limit rear facing.

2) Rear facing limits for the Size4Me 70 Seat:
The Size4Me 70 car seat has a rear facing weight limit of 40lb and a rear facing height limit of 40 inches. These limits were established to allow the longest rear facing usage aligned with the new AAP guidelines while also allowing for proper vehicle fit and avoid interactions between the adjustable head support and front vehicle seats. These limits will accommodate a 95th percentile 3 year old boy and a 50th percentile 4 year old boy.

3) Head rest positions in rear facing mode:
There are no restrictions on the head rest for rear facing mode. All positions may be utilized. Based on our fit studies and the height and weight limits, most children will outgrow the rear facing mode by height and weight in head rest positions 4-6. Since the head rest also controls the harness positions, it is important to adjust the head rest so that the harness position is at or just below the child’s shoulders in rear facing mode.

Again, we're apologize for the length of this post, but hope it answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please email us at blog@gracobaby.com and we'll follow up with you directly to address your specific questions. Thanks! -Kristin

 

[LISmama810]

Well bummer.

 

[Cath3114]

Well, that kills it. Too bad. I could have seen this becoming the most recommended seat for ERF if not for the stupid 40".

ETA - not that it won't be recommended, just not as much for tall kids as it could be otherwise.

 

[Kat_Momof3]

I'm wondering why they don't give a reason for the height limit for rfing. I mean, Ruthie was long torso'd as could be (outgrowing the MA at 4, the Nauti just before 6yrs old) and would have fit so differently than another child at 40" with average build or leggy build.

Now obviously I have no idea how the seat does for leg room rearfacing, but I'm just wondering what their reasoning really is behind this limit?

I'd email this to them directly, but obviously I'm not a tech and not really in a position to really debate with them, so I'd love a tech to point this out to them and see what is said. Maybe we can get them to edit their limits.

 

[Cath3114]

I'm wondering why they don't give a reason for the height limit for rfing. I mean, Ruthie was long torso'd as could be (outgrowing the MA at 4, the Nauti just before 6yrs old) and would have fit so differently than another child at 40" with average build or leggy build.

Now obviously I have no idea how the seat does for leg room rearfacing, but I'm just wondering what their reasoning really is behind this limit?

I'd email this to them directly, but obviously I'm not a tech and not really in a position to really debate with them, so I'd love a tech to point this out to them and see what is said. Maybe we can get them to edit their limits.

I'm wondering if it was even tested past 40"

 

[armywife12]

So is that the new word? Only to shell, not headrest?

No, sorry for the confusion. I was just responding to those that say they aren't comfortable going beyond the shell.

 

[Spam]

I think they just went 40 and 40 because it's easy to remember. So why are height requirements ignored on all infant seats basically, but with convertibles a stated limit is a biggy? Don't all infant seats have a stated requirement? sr30 is 30lbs 30" sr35 is 35lb 32" etc, but I've always read here the height requirement doesn't matter as long as baby has a 1" of shell above the head, but isn't that going against the manufacture's stated limit? I get that they have test the seat with a dummy of certain requirements.

I don't think I'd have a problem going past the stated limit if the headrest feels secure, just like the CA, if my child still fit at 40". Austin weighed about 40lbs maybe just over at 40", I know probably not the norm, but for my kid it's kind of a non issue.

 

[Carrie_R]

After seeing it, I don't think I'd be comfortable using it RFing with the child's head past the top of the shell unless that head rest is super reinforced. I have a mental image of it slamming into the seat in front of it and pushing the child's head forward towards their chest.

Remember, car seats are tested on a sled bench with no seat in front of them. I'd worry what could happen in a real world scenario.

How wiggly does the headrest feel? Does it come forward like the Britax? Any give at all?

It feels quite solid, IMO similarly solid to the rest of the seat. I gave it a pretty decent wiggle (although not all-out because I didn't want to break a barely out of the box seat ) and it's more solid than a number of other seats I've used. The head being forced forward in such a manner wouldn't be a concern for me.

I think they just went 40 and 40 because it's easy to remember. So why are height requirements ignored on all infant seats basically, but with convertibles a stated limit is a biggy? Don't all infant seats have a stated requirement? sr30 is 30lbs 30" sr35 is 35lb 32" etc, but I've always read here the height requirement doesn't matter as long as baby has a 1" of shell above the head, but isn't that going against the manufacture's stated limit? I get that they have test the seat with a dummy of certain requirements.

Height requirements aren't supposed to be ignored. What I might opt to do as an informed "parental" decision is one thing, but as a technician, I am to tell parents by-the-book. Now I might tell a parent with a 29.75" child who has a 30" seat but 3" over their head to move baby soon, but not *panic,* and explain ramping up and where the requirements come from, but I would make sure they knew what the mfg states, why they state it, and allow them to make an informed decision.

We as techs were raked over the coals last year with the level line/40" issue(s.) It boiled down to them saying, "RTFM, follow TFM, and follow it to the letter," and I think all of the fuss has made people gunshy of making parental decisions. It's extremely frustrating when -- as Kat said -- we have a rule that really has no relation to the performance of the seat, because some 40" kids can be significantly taller in the torso than others (I have a 44" kid who still has inches above her in a Radian, and last year I had one who outgrew it at 42".) I don't understand why mfg can't figure out some sort of system that *makes sense* -- or if there really is sense behind why a 41" child is less safe than a 39" child whose noggins hit the exact same place on the shell, why no one can be bothered to explain it to anyone! 40" because we said so, without explanation to support it, is really frustrating to those of us who have spent the time to develop a broader understanding of crash mechanics (as they relate to carseats) and want to make the safest possible decisions for our (or "our" as the case may be) children.

/End rant.

 

[glockchick]

I agree completely! Drives me nuts that they can't give us a logical reason.

I reserve judgement until I get to see one in person.

 

[TechnoGranola]

I'm wondering why they don't give a reason for the height limit for rfing. I mean, Ruthie was long torso'd as could be (outgrowing the MA at 4, the Nauti just before 6yrs old) and would have fit so differently than another child at 40" with average build or leggy build.

Now obviously I have no idea how the seat does for leg room rearfacing, but I'm just wondering what their reasoning really is behind this limit?

I'd email this to them directly, but obviously I'm not a tech and not really in a position to really debate with them, so I'd love a tech to point this out to them and see what is said. Maybe we can get them to edit their limits.

Their FB comment quoted in post #31 gave a reason. Bolding is mine below.

These limits were established to allow the longest rear facing usage aligned with the new AAP guidelines while also allowing for proper vehicle fit and avoid interactions between the adjustable head support and front vehicle seats.