FMVSS 213 compliance testing

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by CPSDarren

Everyone has seat preferences, of course. Some people prefer one brand to another for any type of product. I guess I haven't observered widespread allegiance as far as recommending one brand of carseats exclusive of anything else.

Britax certainly does have an image of being a leader in safety and convenience features. Combined with having higher priced products, that combination will always attract a certain segment of customers. They've also been very proactive with the tech community via their intranet and the Safe Kids Buckle Up program. That certainly doesn't hurt from a PR standpoint, either.

No, of course not, educated technicians wouldn't think that. But there's still a wide spread 'parenting' belief that "Britax is best".

[Jeanum]

Donning the mod hat here for a moment: Please remember forum guidelines pertaining to language and keep it clean and professional as this is a public thread, and it presents the public face of the forum to the online world so to speak. Thanks!

[Kecia]

I would like to point out one very important piece of information that no one else has addressed as far as I can tell. While numbers are interesting and certainly worthy of discussion, it doesn't mean anything unless you happen to drive a test sled bench seat with lap-only seatbelts and your child is exactly the same size and weight of a Hybrid III test dummy.

Those numbers do not and cannot predict how a particular CR will perform in a real crash involving a real child in a real vehicle.

Personally, I'm much more intrigued by the TC videos or by any other NCAP testing data where they are really crashing actual vehicles. NHTSA 213 compliance test data is essentially worthless as far as I'm concerned. And I definitely wouldn't chose one seat over another based solely on those numbers.

Pick the CR that fits your child and installs tightly in your vehicle. Whenever possible - pick a vehicle that has good crash worthiness and side curtain airbags. Those are the factors that will really determine how well protected a child will be in a crash.

Just my

[CelticLabyrinth]

I think it's interesting in how some seats did poorer or better than expected. I've heard 5892384 million times around here about how the Radian is preferred for a FFing seat in a spot w/out a tether, yet the nautilus had better head excursion and HIC numbers than the radian.

Seats are, presumably, designed specifically to pass on that bench with those dummies (otherwise the seat would never see the market). It's interesting how far under the "pass" bar different companies and seats are able to get.

[BigDaddy]

Granted, I'm not as experienced as many of the members, but this thread confuses me.

The overwhelming majority of replies in the forums state that the best seat is the one that provides the best fit for your child and vehicle. Yet, with these results coming out, everyone starts talking about how much better or worse certain seats are, without any apparent regard to how those seats fit the test rig and/or dummy, or how well the test simulates real world conditions.

Can someone please tell me the difference... why would seats that performed better in this test be considered better, even if another seat provides a better fit? Or at which point should seats that performed well in these tests be considered, even if another seat provides a better installation in my vehicle?

[chickabiddy]

You are absolutely correct that proper fit is paramount, and our kids aren't shaped like test dummies and we don't drive around on test sleds.

You should, without a doubt, use a seat that fits your child and your car. There are very few* situations where I would recommend replacing a seat that works well for you. I would use these results as a starting point when shopping: I'd look first at seats that tested well (and were within my budget). If they fit my child and my car, I'd stop there. If they didn't fit well, I'd work my way down the list and I wouldn't look back, because I know that a good fit is the most important thing.

* And where I'd draw the line may be different from where another tech would. We all have biases, no matter how much we try not to.

[Pixels]

The whole purpose of FMVSS testing is to determine which seats are "good enough" and which aren't. Granted, they aren't going to exactly duplicate a real-world crash unless you are driving a test sled with lap-only belt or LATCH and the crash pulse perfectly mimics the test pulse and your child is an H-III dummy. Since that is practically a non-existent scenario today, does that mean the testing is pointless? I think there is much to learn.

Yes, it is important that a seat properly fits the child, fits the vehicle, and is used correctly every time. In many (most?) cases, there is more than one seat that fits those criteria. If you have a vehicle that does not or cannot have top tethers retrofitted, a seat that performs under the tethered standard is a better choice than one that performs poorly, if all the other factors are the same.

Originally Posted by CelticLabyrinth

I think it's interesting in how some seats did poorer or better than expected. I've heard 5892384 million times around here about how the Radian is preferred for a FFing seat in a spot w/out a tether, yet the nautilus had better head excursion and HIC numbers than the radian.

Up until now, we had no reason to think that any seat other than the Radian passed the tethered test without a tether. Sunshine Kids advertises the fact that they do. Graco (Nautilus) does not give us information about their test results. Now that we have data telling us that there are other seats that also pass the test, I'm sure the responses in the forums will change to reflect what we now know.

[Maedze]

This is FMVSS-Compliance. The whole point of the test is to find out if the seats work as the law requires them too. So yes, the testing results in this case are a very. big. deal.

[chickabiddy]

Many of us were careful to explain that we recommended the Radian because we *knew* how it tested and were comfortable with those results.

[BigDaddy]

I understand the tests are important, and that a seat must pass. My question was in regard to how the results are being interpreted here. It's widely accepted that in the real world, a seat that has the best fit is safer, but that fact seems to be ignored when judging the results of these tests. I didn't see why this would be any different when comparing them. It seems that everyone assumes that all the seats fit the test rig and dummy perfectly, and that the results are a true reflection of the best protection each seat can provide. If the fit is so important in real world results, why shouldn't it be considered when judging these results. Perhaps, if the dummy was a different shape (I.E. taller and thinner, or shorter and fatter) as all kids are, the results could have been completely different, and seats that came out on top could have performed far worse and vice versa. I thought the main point of the test was to make sure the seats pass, not to rate which ones are better than the others, because there are so many factors that can't be incorporated into the test.

Considering that this thread is open for the public to see, I'd hate for someone to buy a seat based primarily on the numbers in this test, instead of how the seat fits. Especially, because the seats with better results may have performed differently with a child the size of their own.

[romanoma]

most of us members here do know that fit is one of the most important things to consider when choosing a seat, it just wasn't stated as a caveat to this thread. It is good for public viewers to see and know that when reading this thread.

Most of us here also agree that sled bench testing is woefully inadequate in telling us how a seat will perform with real kids in real life in a real crash. But our current situation is it is all we have. it is impossible to test all seats in all cars in all types of crashes. So this is a standard way to compare how seats perform and be sure they meet minimum requirements, albeit only in one narrow situation. This is the testing we are left with to try to make educated choices for our kids. So we try to extrapolate the data to our car/kid/situation. That may not be a perfect application, but it is the best we can do currently. If our musing and extrapolating is horribly misleading to public viewers, then maybe this thread should be moved downstairs (which I don't think it is, but perhaps just stating that these are opinions and not fact is enough).

I do think this data is important, as it is a way to see performance side by side, head to head, of different seats. We don't know for sure if a seat that tested well here will always perform well, but it is a good starting point. I'd rather start with a known good data point than a known less good data point.

There are obviously many factors to consider when choosing a seat, and while this is certainly not the most important, I think this data can help in making some decisions in specific situations, as in the "no top tether" scenerio.

[vonfirmath]

One thing this does make me wonder is if I should be planning to switch to the Nautilus sooner after my son goes FF rather than later.

It can't be immediate. We can't afford that, period.

If I'd had these numbers at the beginning of the summer, I might have gotten a Nautilus instead of a Roundabout 50 and turned my son then in one car.

[crunchierthanthou]

Originally Posted by vonfirmath

If I'd had these numbers at the beginning of the summer, I might have gotten a Nautilus instead of a Roundabout 50 and turned my son then in one car.

but he wasn't even two yet then. Focus on keeping him safest right now. Although the sled tests are a bit ambiguous, there is one thing we know for sure. Rear facing is several times safer than forward facing without regard to seat or vehicle. While it appears the GN performed better than a ff Britax convertible in this test, staying rf is safer in almost all cases. There are several lessons in this data, including to keep your kids rf if possible, and to use the tether when they must go ff.

[vonfirmath]

Well, that's why I got the Roundabout 50, to keep him RFing longer. With the Scenera we tried he'd have been FF immediately because I could only install it myself FF. So I convinced my husband to spend the extra money as "my" birthday gift to get the Roundabout 50 instead. The other thing we considered was a Nautilus since that is the seat we plan to get when he outgrows the current seats. Thus my comment.

I don't know whether to trust tethering in my car or not. The tether points are in a weird spot (which reminds me I need to get pictures taken. Someone asked!)

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by romanoma

We don't know for sure if a seat that tested well here will always perform well, but it is a good starting point. I'd rather start with a known good data point than a known less good data point.

Exactly.

It is not everything. It is not even the most important thing -- that would be choosing a well-fitting and properly-used seat of the appropriate type (rear-facing for children who can be, and top-tethered when forward-facing). But as far as objective data, it's all we've got, and I think it matters. I do not think anyone should toss a properly-used seat over these tests, but I think they're worth considering as part of the equation, especially when a new seat is needed anyhow.

But. Even if you (general you, not any specific poster) is uncomfortable using this data to choose a specific seat for a specific child in a specific car, there's plenty of valuable information. We see how top tethers reduce head excursion and head injury. And while I'm not done reading all the linked reports, it looks to me that in almost all cases, a 6yo tests better in a booster than in an untethered harnessed seat. I had suspected this, but if the data continues to bear it out, it's important news.

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

I understand the tests are important, and that a seat must pass. My question was in regard to how the results are being interpreted here. It's widely accepted that in the real world, a seat that has the best fit is safer, but that fact seems to be ignored when judging the results of these tests. I didn't see why this would be any different when comparing them. It seems t

That's because the premise that the best seat is the one that offers the best fit is BASED on the belief that ALL seats pass basic minimum standards.

If a seat does NOT pass, the fit becomes irrelevant. If a company (coughBRITAXcough) rides on the coattails of former greatness, and clear testing results show that it's not up to snuff compared to other brands, it's extremely worthwhile to have a discussion about that.

NHTSA and the government made an extremely poor, in my opinion, decision to not release clear, annual safety ratings of child restraints. Advocates and technicians owe it to the community they serve to learn as much as they can about these products so certain companies (coughBRITAXcough) are forced to change.

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by vonfirmath

One thing this does make me wonder is if I should be planning to switch to the Nautilus sooner after my son goes FF rather than later.

It can't be immediate. We can't afford that, period.

If I'd had these numbers at the beginning of the summer, I might have gotten a Nautilus instead of a Roundabout 50 and turned my son then in one car.

For a less than two year old? No, that certainly wouldn't have been an improvement in safety.

[BigDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maedze

That's because the premise that the best seat is the one that offers the best fit is BASED on the belief that ALL seats pass basic minimum standards.

If a seat does NOT pass, the fit becomes irrelevant. If a company (coughBRITAXcough) rides on the coattails of former greatness, and clear testing results show that it's not up to snuff compared to other brands, it's extremely worthwhile to have a discussion about that.

NHTSA and the government made an extremely poor, in my opinion, decision to not release clear, annual safety ratings of child restraints. Advocates and technicians owe it to the community they serve to learn as much as they can about these products so certain companies (coughBRITAXcough) are forced to change.

That's not what I was talking about at all.

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

That's not what I was talking about at all.

Ok, so we're on two different wavelengths here.

What I was understanding you saying is that you were concerned a discussion about the testing results would give parents the wrong idea when we tell them to buy the seat that fits their child.


Can you clarify?

[BigDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maedze

Ok, so we're on two different wavelengths here.

What I was understanding you saying is that you were concerned a discussion about the testing results would give parents the wrong idea when we tell them to buy the seat that fits their child.


Can you clarify?

Basically, what I was saying is considering all seats must pass these tests...

We all know the safest seat is the one with the best fit, and that doesn't seem to be taken into consideration when everyone is interpreting these results. My point is that if the safest seat is the one that fits the best, that means that these tests aren't telling you which seats are the safest, they are telling you which seats fit a test sled and a dummy the best.

So, if a parent drives a test sled and has a crash test dummy, then these results may actually reflect the safest seat for them, but for those that don't, they may erroneously buy an ill-fitting seat, based on the results and interpretations posted here.

[chickabiddy]

I think most of us have been very clear that proper fit and use (rear-facing to the limits, top-tethered when FFing) is the most important thing. No one is suggesting tossing properly used seats to shop strictly by the numbers on the list. That would be foolish. But, IMO, it would also be foolish to dismiss these results -- unlike the TC tests (which were not intended to test the seats themselves), these are standardized and a good snapshot of how the seats perform under certain conditions.

[BigDaddy]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy

But, IMO, it would also be foolish to dismiss these results -- unlike the TC tests (which were not intended to test the seats themselves), these are standardized and a good snapshot of how the seats perform under certain conditions.

I'm not dismissing the results at all, they serve their purpose of telling which seats pass the minimum standards, I'm just saying that the numbers shouldn't be used as a rating system to determine the best seat, because the best seat depends on the situation, and different seats will behave differently in those situations.

[Maedze]

No one is rating the best seat. People are discussing that the numbers are not reflective of how companies represent themselves. That's very important.

Honestly, there needs to be an annual, thorough rating system involving front and side crashes at different speeds and angles. The numbers need to be organized and made public. Until that happens, we take what we can get, including this, and use it to make deductions and hopefully force companies to improve.

[jujumum]

I just sorted the spreadsheet by age and HE numbers. Many of the seats have better HE scores with a seatbelt only (no tether) than some others (namely Britax) with a seatbelt and top tether.

Why is it always recommended to use a top tether across the board?

In my van (no lower anchors), only Britax seats can fit in the row with the top tether (due to my fixed buckle stalks). Any seat can fit in the 3rd row with no tether. Based on the TC videos and these scores, I'm leaning towards putting my nearly 4 yo in a different seat in the 3rd row (namely a GN). Is something wrong with my logic and this plan?

On another note, I drank the Britax koolaid a long time ago. Why? Why was I a 'believer'? Because, when I had my first two I couldn't afford a Britax. There is this perception out there (not on this board, of course) with the masses that Britax is the most expensive and the best, and that since it has a name and costs so much more, then it must be better. I had a hard time converting to a GN (we now have one in DH's van). Although I loved the seat, I felt that it didn't cost enough and I didn't want to be cheap by buying a made in China less expensive seat. I wanted the Britax - made in USA and $$$$.

Now, I feel like I've been dupped by the Britax mythology and disappointed and somewhat angry at the company. Based on the TC videos, these scores, and actually comparing the design and construction of the GN compared to the Britax convertibles & FN, it is my new love. Oh, and the video of the harness ripping through the MT ff also helped to cure me of my Britax blindness (seeing as the MT is the cousing of the FN).

[TechnoGranola]

Am I correct that the largest dummy used for RF was teh 12 month dummy? And as such, there are no results as to how these seats perform RF for older/larger children?