Regardless AD had a friend who was extrememly knowledgable with carseats (works with them) look at the way my two - way is braced and said it was fine. In fact he said the following:
As regards the way it rests on the seat backs, there is no requirement for the seats to be in exactly the same position. It's generally a good idea for the Two Way to rest on both front seats, but this is not critical to the function of the Two Way.
The Two Way is designed to be a monocoque, which means that it can entirely carry the loads that can occur in a crash without any support forward. That brings us back to the question of why it's better for the seat to be fixed at the foot end in both slots.
Which would make your statement about needing a fixed place to brace the seat untrue. I'm not trying to be sassy just that translation is so hard and so much can be lost. It's better to talk to the people who know the facts rather than try to make assumptions, IMO
.
I obviously can't speak for all manufacturers and I'm not even familiar with individual brands really. My comments were based on general comments made by 2 organizations in Sweden. I agree that things can be lost in translation. I just wouldn't rule out the possibility that a swedish seat doesn't perform as well as a north American seat when it comes to use in north American vehicles. I could be totally wrong. But there has to be something that the agencies in Sweden know that we don't know when it comes to statements like I've quoted below...
I am wondering though what the guy meant by "That brings us back to the question of why it's better for the seat to be fixed at the foot end in both slots." Do you mind elaborating on what he was referring to? (Just because I'm naturally curious.
)
Interesting thoughts. I think it's an interesting discussion which helps to put some more focus on rear facing longer than currently.
Snowbird25ca raises some good points and questions as usual.:thumbsup: It's true that many families here have rf seats installed in front seat due to the many benefits and equal or greater safety compared to rear seat (Only rf and airbag disabled of course. No booster or older kids etc). Most rf seats were once upon designed to lean against the dashboard since if offers great safety. But most can also be leaned against front seat or used with a foot prop. Some seats, like the very sturdy Two-Way is tested without foot prop or leaning against a seat and still pass tough testing.
The people I speak to in the industry, some Canadians and Americans among them, disagree with the opinion of Swedish rf seats not passing US testing. FVMSS and ECE R44 are very similar, with some differences, but both are tough standards. It's possible that some minor adjustments would be made but it would not be a big deal.
Interestingly, and off topic, is that the FMVSS standard is a "self certification" standard. Which means for example Snowbird could test seats according to FMVSS and if they pass she could sell them in US and call her standard "Snowbird".
Actually, FMVSS standard being self certification means that manufacturers perform testing on their seats and determine whether or not they meet the standards as required by FMVSS. It's a pretty simple meets or doesn't meet. If the manufacturer determines that his/her seat meets FMVSS standards, then they can sell the seat in the US. They don't label the seat with any other standards like bob or carol or whatever - it's the FMVSS label that is what matters. Similarly in Canada - where we have CMVSS standards. Companies must obtain an identifying number that is placed on the national safety mark, but CMVSS standards are the same across the board and all manufacturers must at least meet them in order to sell their seat in Canada. Compliance testing is done and in the event that an issue is found the manufacturer will be contacted and worked with to hopefully fix the problem. A seat sold in the US only meets FMVSS standards, and a seat sold in Canada only meets CMVSS standards. No self-naming involved - the standards are pre-determined and all seats have to pass the same standards. Self certification simply means that the manufacturer is doing the testing and determining that it passes, submitting the paper work to the regulating body, and then marketing the seat without formal approval from the regulating body.
I am curious about the US and CDN experts who believe Swedish seats would pass standards testing here. Considering that there is nothing preventing a higher weight rf'ing seat from being sold in Canada, either the companies are choosing to not do the testing, or the seat doesn't meet standards. If they feel the seat meets standards, I don't understand why they wouldn't do the testing... It's a pretty bold claim to state that the seat would meet standards in another country but not do the testing and certify the seat. JMHO.
There is no concern for this. The recommendation is to install the seat wherever you like in the car. It's often said that the front seat is a good and safe place for your child (only rf and airbag disabled) but it's not at all a recommendation to use the front seat.
We can all speculate in what could happen but most Swedish seats are approved with foot prop or leaning against a seat. Your description sounds like fiction to me. Some are approved both ways, like Britax Hi-Way. And Two-WAy is tested without bracing or foot prop:
So is it approved to use the seat to the full weight limit without bracing or a foot prop then?
There is nothing magical with the Swedish cars. We drive the same cars as Canadians or Americans do. You have some more SUV's but other than that differences in vehicles are small. Most Swedes tether or anchor their seats just as you would in your car, without any special equipment or "d-rings" and it works very well.
I'm going to play complete devil's advocate here.... but how do you know what difference is a small one in a collision?
What exactly is your standard in terms of rotation in a rf'ing restraint? I'm talking specifically about the number of degrees the seat is allowed to rotate. What angle of inclination is the crash test bench that the tests are done on? The CMVSS bench has a 7* angle and the FMVSS bench has a 15* angle. This difference is enough that seats can pass on the FMVSS bench and fail on the CMVSS bench...
I have gotten this question before and triple checked it. I have spoken to people in the industry about it. Some airbags today vary force depending on weight of person in the seat for example. The additional forces in a collision on the front seat/passenger caused by a rf Swedish seat is insignificant. It's not a worry. I'm assuming a correct install but that's obvious.
I guess again it comes down to how much additional force is there on the front seat? How do you know whether or not it's a worry? You can't pick your collision ahead of time to be able to predict the forces involved and what may or may not influence the outcome...
How frequent are rear end collisions in Sweden? Are your vehicle seats designed such that in a severe rear end collision the front seat could collapse backwards or move backwards? (Older vehicles it's common for the seat to completely collapse backwards, some newer vehicles have designs that are intended to allow the front seat to pivot backwards to slow the deceleration of the occupant of the seat - how would the force on the adult occupying that seat be impacted if there was a seat tethered to the front seat?)
There is absolutely nothing stopping Swedish car seat manufacturers from certifying their seats to CMVSS standards if they so wished. Our weight limit goes to 65lbs in harnessed seats - that means if they could show their seats complied to CMVSS standards they would be able to sell them here. We also don't have any limitations on design in CMVSS standards - so foot props would be allowed... So I wouldn't make the leap of faith that they meet FMVSS and CMVSS standards.
I happen to have this quote saved from the other forum. The post itself was removed and I was asked to update it because parts of the original post were edited due to concerns about copyright. So far as I know the parts that were sent to me via PM when the post was removed are the parts that weren't affected by the copyright issue, so I'm going to post them here. AD may very well recognize this because it was originally provided by him.
Quote:
From VTI: (one of the most respected crash test facilities in the world. Crash testing and advocate of rear facing since 1965)
När barnet växer ur babyskyddet är det dags att titta på bakåtvända bilbarnstolar. Detta sker vanligen strax före 1 års ålder, i vissa fall kanske redan vid ca 6 månaders ålder.
Denna typ av stol är vanligen avsedd att monteras bakåtvänd i framsätet lutad mot instrumentbrädan. Utbudet är idag relativt stort. Se till att stolen du väljer passar i din bil. Stolen måste luta mot instrumentbrädan, absolut inte mot vindrutan. Man kan ganska enkelt förbättra anliggningen mot instrumentbrädan om man under barnstolens bakre kant, dvs. bilbarnstolens fotände, placerar en liten kudde eller hårt hoprullad filt så att lutningen mot instrumentbrädan blir mera "effektiv". Man ska dock inte lägga någon stoppning under hela barnstolen, då den lätt blir vinglig. Stolen behöver stödet från personbilssätet. Rent allmänt anses dock placering i framsätet gynna trafiksäkerheten jämfört med att föraren skall försöka kontrollera ett krånglande barn i baksätet.
From VTI: (one of the most respected crash test facilities in the world. Crash testing and advocate of rear facing since 1965)
When the child grows out of baby protection, it is time to look at rear-facing child seats. This is usually done shortly before 1 year of age, in some cases may already be at about 6 months old.
This type of chair is usually intended to be mounted facing backwards in the front seat leaning against the dashboard. offerings are now quite high. Make sure the seat you choose can fit in your car. The chair must lean against the dashboard, certainly not against the windshield. One can quite easily improve anliggningen against the dashboard when the child seat's rear edge, ie. child safety restraint system fotände, put a small pillow or blanket CONVOLUTED hard so that the inclination towards the dash will be more "efficient". It will not add any padding throughout barnstolen, then it becomes easy wings. The chair needs assistance from the car seat. In general, however, placement in the front seat promote road safety compared with that driver will try to check a krånglande children in the backseat.
~~~
Quote:
From NTF (Highly thought of impartial safety organization which works closely with researchers):
Quote:
Vilken plats i bilen anses vara den säkraste att placera bilbarnstolen?
Svar:
Vilken som är den säkraste platsen i bilen kan man inte säga förrän efter eventuell olycka. Montering baktåvänd i framsätet lutad mot instrumentbrädan ger en fast yta att luta bilbarnstolen mot. Instrumentbrädan är starkare än t ex ryggstöden på bilsätena.
From NTF (Highly thought of impartial safety organization which works closely with researchers):
Quote:
What place in the car is considered the safest place child safety restraint system?
Answer:
What is the safest place in the car can not be said until after the accident. Mounting baktåvänd in the front seat leaning against the dashboard provides a solid surface to lean against child safety restraint system. The dashboard is stronger than eg backs of bilsätena.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
From VTI (Crash test institute)
Ur krocksäkerhetssynpunkt finns flera fördelar att ha barnet i framsäte utan krockkudde. Skaderisken är något lägre vid en frontalkrock om barnet sitter i en bakåtvänd stol lutad mot instrumentpanelen, jämfört med en bakåtvänd bilbarnstol i baksätet lutad mot framstolens ryggstöd. Vid en sidokollision är barnet mer skyddat på mittplats bak, än i framsätet. Krockar från sidan är dock ovanligare än frontalkrockar.
From VTI (Crash Test Institute)
From the crash safety are several advantages to having the child in the front without an air bag. the risk of damage is slightly lower at a head of the child sitting in a rear-facing seat leaning against the instrument panel, compared with a rear-facing infant in the back leaning against the seat backs. In a side impact is the child more protected location on my back, than in the front seat. Collisions from the side, however, is rarer than frontal crashes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll note that I'm not placing this here to get into a debate of front seat vs. rear seat, rather that from reading it it says "intended to be mounted facing backwards in the front seat leaning against the dashboard" in the first quote, and talks about the dashboard being stronger than the backs of the seats in the 2nd quote. (At least I'm thinking that's what bilsätena means.)
No, the translation isn't perfect, but when I put the quotes into a translator I tried a number of different translators to get one that made the most sense for all the quotes overall. If AD wishes to take the time to translate it word for word, I won't argue and say it's impossible that that translation is wrong, but it was the best I found at the time.
I just think it's worth giving strong consideration to the fact that Swedish seats may not perform the way we would expect them to in comparison to north American seats. There has to be a reason why bracing surface is mentioned repeatedly, and quite frankly I don't trust that we know things are identical between Sweden and North America when it comes to cars. I know for a fact that a number of carseats sold between US and Canada are different in small ways despite looking the same to the average onlooker... Until I see crash test data showing what the downward rotation is with a 54lb rf'ing child, and knowing what happens if the front seat back collapses on top of the child restraint in a rear end collision - or other factors, I have no confidence in the ability of a Swedish seat to protect children in a north American vehicle. Plus I just plain think it's overkill to buy one for a 3yr old child who is over 35lbs and safe to ff.
(Just my personal opinion.)
Now I will add at the end of this all that reviewing the quotes I can see where there are some assumptions I've made on my end. The number of quotes that I sorted through that mentioned the bracing though led me to believe that there's a reason why it's being mentioned. The last quote mentions that front seat is preferable because there's less likelihood of the child's head impacting the front seat. If nothing else this does equate to it not being advisable to use a Swedish seat to the same height limits as one would in Sweden. They may allow tips of the ears in terms of height allowance, but I certainly wouldn't want the head to be above the top of the shell of the seat with a back seat installation, and as we know front seat installation in north America isn't an option 99% of the time. (To this I'll add that it's only a general rule that I'm aware of in terms of tops of ears to the top of the shell being allowed. I'm not sure if it's universal among all rf'ing Swedish seats or not.)
I do want to make it clear that I'm not saying Swedish seats are death traps. I'm simply saying that we don't have enough information to assume that they're safe in north American vehicles. We don't know how they perform or how the crash dynamics compare, and there is no oversight- so far as ongoing safety goes, by any federal body in either the US or Canada if someone did import one.
I guess it all comes down to balance of risks. I have a low tolerance for risk, and since 35lb limit seats get most kids at least to age 2 - which is the period of time that we know rf'ing provides the most extra protection, I don't see it being worth the extra risk. :shrug-shoulders:
