Question New Infant Seat Ratings and Testing from Consumer Reports. What do you Think?

[tl01]

:yeahthat:

I love that they're using something that more closely resembles an actual back seat vs the dinosaur NHTSA requires.

Obviously, this still only gives us a snapshot of real-life situations, but it's good for mulling over.

Agreed! I'm totally thrilled it isn't the old test bench! I'll go out on a limb and say I wish they would test seats on two different back seats and compare if seats fair the same on both.

 

[mimieliza]

I think I am somewhere between yes and maybe. I think people want ratings, and I like knowing how my kids seats fare in testing. However, I am skeptical about CR testing and am worried about the panic that might ensure. It goes against the "safest seat fits your child, vehicle, budget and is used correctly every time" message.

I think this has necessarily been the message because we had no way of objectively evaluating which seats perform better in an accident. As a parent, I would like to have this information when choosing a seat. The seat still needs to fit my child, fit my vehicle, and be used correctly every time, but among seats that meet those criteria, I want to know which one will be most likely to perform well in an accident.

For example, right now I'm considering a harnessed FFing seat for my seven-year-old, because I've been unhappy with the booster fit in my DH's car. The Nautilus, Pioneer and Frontier all would fit my needs - but which one should I choose? It would be nice to know objectively if one performed better than the others. Or maybe they are all about the same, and I can go with other considerations, like price, convenience features, or even color.

 

[SafeDad]

Agreed! I'm totally thrilled it isn't the old test bench!

And the new bench with a floor also allows them to test models with load legs. For example, they stated the Cybex Aton 2, "“Performed better than any of the models in our new crash performance test." Perhaps due to the load leg that could not be even used on the NHTSA standard 213 sled!

 

[cookie123]

They did do some research for this. If I recall, I believe the conclusion was indeed that small cars would require the seat moved all the way forward to fit some infant seats. Obviously, it's impossibly expensive to test with varying distances for each model, but such is the situation with every test. If your vehicle seat varies from a Ford Flex? If you moved the front seat farther back? Results could vary!



There definitely are differences. There are a few bases, some shared across platforms. Some models share carriers as well. While they received "Better" ratings, I was a little surprised at the somewhat lower overall ratings for the SnugRide 35 and 40 models.

The Orbit Infant G2 and Maxi-Cosi Prezi had higher head injury measures than others. I am trying to get some clarification on this. The Evenflo Embrace 35 and similar Snugli Infant seat detached from their base after rebound, but CR said the dummy remained protected and the carseat undamaged, resulting in the "Basic" rating. The Graco SnugRide (22) Classic Connect exhibited cracking on the base. I am also trying to verify if multiple samples of these seats were tested and had similar results.

I didn't see this information on the blog. Did I miss it somehow? I also was just up and bleary-eyed!

 

[Jessica61624]

I didn't see this information on the blog. Did I miss it somehow? I also was just up and bleary-eyed!

The detail report is up for members.

 

[Brigala]

And the new bench with a floor also allows them to test models with load legs. For example, they stated the Cybex Aton 2, "“Performed better than any of the models in our new crash performance test." Perhaps due to the load leg that could not be even used on the NHTSA standard 213 sled!

I was wondering this exact thing about the Aton 2.

Will CR be publishing their full ranking or will they just be publishing the Best/Better/Basic info?

I'm dying of curiosity to know how the Onboard Air stood up in comparison to the other ones in the "Best" category. Of the seats that were available at the time (2010), this was the one DH and I intuitively felt would offer the best protection. I'm so incredibly curious to know how our intuition stacks up with the CR tests.

 

[murphydog77]

The full report is online right now. I would imagine they will be publishing the print report in their June edition since the May magazine has already been delivered.

 

[SnoGurl]

I read the blog, but some of the links aren't opening for me, so a quick question..

Are they giving two ratings? One on the basis of the crash test, and one combined crash test+other factors? When I read the blog the first time, I got the impression that it was crash test+other factors only, then the second time and reading some of the comments I get the impression that there's two ratings?

 

[jjordan]

I read the blog, but some of the links aren't opening for me, so a quick question..

Are they giving two ratings? One on the basis of the crash test, and one combined crash test+other factors? When I read the blog the first time, I got the impression that it was crash test+other factors only, then the second time and reading some of the comments I get the impression that there's two ratings?

I am curious about this, too. I can understand taking price into account for overall ratings, since that is one of the things that people look to CR for (a "good buy" for their money). However, when it comes to safety equipment, there are lots of people who will want to make a decision completely apart from cost, especially if the cost difference is an amount that will not strain their family's finances.

On the flip side, I am a bit concerned about people taking the crash test ratings as a definitive "which is safer" answer, when any given crash is likely to have variables that are not taken into account in the test situation.

 

[SafeDad]

The detail report is up for members.

Some of their content was not included in our media kit that we had permission to use and the rest is presumably copyrighted. So, we did not publish everything they have online, only an overview and some quotes. Presumably, like their auto ratings, this would encourage at least an online subscription?

I read the blog, but some of the links aren't opening for me, so a quick question..

Are they giving two ratings? One on the basis of the crash test, and one combined crash test+other factors? When I read the blog the first time, I got the impression that it was crash test+other factors only, then the second time and reading some of the comments I get the impression that there's two ratings?

Yes, I tried to clarify this in the blog. We focused on the Crash Protection rating, but there is also an overall score number assigned to each model, just like with autos. That overall rating includes the crash protection rating as well as a variety of ease-of-use and fit-to-vehicle factors. The models with the highest overall combined scores received "Recommended" status, while a few models with above average overall ratings and below average price points were "Best Bets".

We happen to think our reviews at CarseatBlog cover all those ease-of-use and fit-to-vehicle issues and are far more in depth, so we did not focus on the overall ratings other than to mention some top rated models. On the other hand, we cannot possibly conduct our own crash tests and we thought the new testing methods would be of more interest to readers since no one else is doing this.

I am curious about this, too. I can understand taking price into account for overall ratings, since that is one of the things that people look to CR for (a "good buy" for their money). However, when it comes to safety equipment, there are lots of people who will want to make a decision completely apart from cost, especially if the cost difference is an amount that will not strain their family's finances.

On the flip side, I am a bit concerned about people taking the crash test ratings as a definitive "which is safer" answer, when any given crash is likely to have variables that are not taken into account in the test situation.

That is our concern as well. Limiting your buying choice to only a model with a "Best" rating does not seem appropriate at this time, given that there is still a lot we don't know. I suggest that any model with a "Better" or "Best" rating is a very safe choice and the difference is perhaps only important if you can't decide between two models for any other reason.

 

[mrosehughes]

I think it's grand. It seems like they really did their homework this time in terms of the testing procedures, and in general I'm a huge fan of more data/more testing. And their wording makes it clear (I think) that all the seats are 'safe', but some performed better in these specific situations than other.

 

[SnoGurl]

Yes, I tried to clarify this in the blog. We focused on the Crash Protection score, but there is also an overall rating number assigned to each model, just like with autos. That overall rating includes the crash protection score as well as a variety of ease-of-use and fit-to-vehicle factors. The models with the highest overall ratings received "Recommended" status, while a few models with above average overall ratings and below average price points were "Best Bets".

We happen to think our reviews at CarseatBlog cover all those ease-of-use and fit-to-vehicle issues and are far more in depth, so we did not focus on the overall ratings other than to mention some top rated models. On the other hand, we cannot possibly conduct our own crash tests and we thought the new testing methods would be of more interest to readers since no one else is doing this.

Thanks for the clarification Darren! My concerns were basically the same as jjordan's, so I just wanted to make sure there was two ratings.

And I agree that the reviews at CarseatBlog do cover those issues far more in depth-- and that's what I like about them. I'd like to be able to read the reviews and see the crash testing rating on CR, and form my own conclusion. While I realize there are some features that make a car seat in general easy to use, I happen to think 'ease of use', cost, etc are very subjective items to measure (depending on car, income, etc!), so I just wanted to confirm that that CR was doing multiple 'rankings' so to speak of infant seats. Thanks again!

 

[nannykates]

I am a big fan of the best better basic wording. Im also glad that most of the frequently recommended seats are on the best and better lists and there is plenty on both lists that I dont feel chosing a seat because its on the list is problematic.

Id actually like to see iihs do fit ratings on all seats. I feel like the strap height stuff is just plain hard to find anywhere but here, but is so important to "fits the child".

 

[oakster]

And the new bench with a floor also allows them to test models with load legs. For example, they stated the Cybex Aton 2, "“Performed better than any of the models in our new crash performance test." Perhaps due to the load leg that could not be even used on the NHTSA standard 213 sled!

I'm actually really curious about this. I'm somewhat skeptical of CR testing in general (car seats and otherwise!) but this is one of the few side-by-sides I've seen comparing the Aton and the Aton 2 with the load leg. We have an Aton that we plan to use again for our second child this fall, and I'd debated whether it might make sense to get the new base for it (since, as I understand it, the original Aton is compatible with the Aton 2 base with the load leg). But there wasn't really much to go on as far as how much of a difference that might make safety-wise. This makes me think that it might be a very good idea to do it--but then I wonder how much to trust their testing methodology...

 

[SafeDad]

Right. In their actual ratings online and presumably if it appears in print, you will see the overall combined score number on a mini bar chart first. Then you will see all the other columns of things that factor into the overall score. One of those columns is the Crash Protection rating. In terms of the overall number, the Chicco Keyfit had the highest overall ratings scores by a good margin. The Cybex Aton 2 was apparently had the best crash protection rating, but trailed the Keyfit and Combi Shuttle overall.

 

[SafeDad]

And of course there are still unknowns about whether it is optimal (if permitted in instructions of course) to have a rear-facing seat braced against the front vehicle seat, barely touching, barely not touching or some distance away. Contact with the vehicle seat may not always be a bad thing. And in a real vehicle, that vehicle seat back could be moving as well, perhaps more or less than the simulated one on the sled. For example, could it reduce rotation, like a load leg would do? I think these questions are far beyond the scope of these results, but could be examined in future testing with this type of sled.

 

[happiness-and-balance]

I think the wording is great.

I would love to know, however, why the Prezi has high head injury numbers? It has a lot going for it in the head protection category, and has an ARB. :scratcheshead:

 

[Nedra]

The Car Seat Lady weighed in with some thoughts that I found interesting: http://thecarseatlady.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/csladdressescr/

 

[SafeDad]

CarseatBlog is taking a little more time to respond in detail to to the new ratings, perhaps in the next week or two. In general, I thought most of CR's comments and ratings were more reasonable than in the past, though obviously everyone will have their own varying opinions on which seats should rank above others. For example, I like the Cybex Aton 2, but thought it was pretty fairly rated all-in-all. They did say it was the best performer in their crash testing after all. That it had a slightly lower overall score than some other good products is nothing to be alarmed about, in my opinion. I'm excited to see the Aton Q which should resolve some of the feedback we provided them in the past as well. I am surprised at how some of the Graco products did. In terms of ease-of-use and vehicle fit, I would have thought some would have done a bit better, at least in my experience with them.

Overall, the key I think is not to get upset that your own seat or a favorite product didn't get the top overall score or placed below another seat you absolutely dislike for some reason. I know that can be difficult to do, because I've been burned in the past by top rated products including carseats and others. I think many of the models that had above average ratings are reasonable choices and also agreed with our Recommended Products at CarseatBlog. Of course there are exceptions, but I didn't expect them to have the same exact methods, evaluations and opinions as we did at CarseatBlog!

Obviously, they have their own standards and weightings and what products they liked and disliked in their testing, like anyone who reviews or recommends products does. I'm sure there will be more discrepancies found. If you're looking to find a flaw that caused one particular product to do well or to do poorly, it's pretty likely you'll find some comparison to validate it. I've found various ones in the past in regard to autos and carseats. I'm also sure we have discrepancies at CarseatBlog as well! That doesn't necessarily mean their ratings and crash testing are inherently flawed, though.

As I've always said, CR is usually a good resource on many products, but it should be only one of many sources used to choose any product that has significant value or safety/health implications. Buying a blender? Sure, look no further. But for a carseat or a vehicle, CR should not be the only thing you read; there are at least a few other good resources on selecting the right carseat for your child that should all be consulted! www.carseatblog.com comes to mind as a good one;-)

 

[canadiangie]

The Car Seat Lady weighed in with some thoughts that I found interesting: http://thecarseatlady.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/csladdressescr/

The US SR35 allows for Euro belt routing when the seat is used without the base?