Anyone find a child seat that fits?

[AznBRZer]

Originally Posted by Fang

I currently have a Recaro ProRide in the back for my daughter. Probably would only fit someone under 5'6" in the passenger front or shorter. It's pretty darn big, but the bottom base section fits nice and snug in the seat indent in the back. She loves the car and if i'm going out with her she asks for daddy's car and says "faster faster!" when we leave our development.

I'm guessing that she's front-facing?

[Fang]

Originally Posted by AznBRZer

I'm guessing that she's front-facing?

yes front facing, rear facing on the proride not even a midget would fit in the passenger front seat. the proride is huge

[cnk]

Originally Posted by wheelhaus

I can't remember if I've mentioned this already, but the Recaro Performance Sport fits great and my little 1.5yo girl LOVES it. Its forward facing only, so you can use it as early as 1 year old in some states. She gets so excited to climb into my car while clapping and giggling, saying "go go go!" lol

She's tall for her age, I think 33"? Can't remember exactly, but the passenger seat can be about 70% back and my wife is plenty comfy with lots of foot room for the little monster.

Just some advice about car seats in case you weren't aware. The new recommendation is to keep kids in a rear facing seat as long as possible and at least until they are 2 years old. Their spines are not strong enough to withstand a collision if they are forward facing.

[BigFatFlip]

Just wanted to update all the budding fathers out there. My daughter just graduated from her Chicco Keyfit 30 to a Chicco Next fit and a Britax Boulevard. I've installed both rear facing and both fit, but with the passenger seat moved all the way forward. Loading and unloading can't be done through the passenger side and requires a calm kid and some acrobatics through the driver side. The britax fits snug but requires a few towels to get the recline just right. The Chicco was a much better fit and a more adjustable recline, so the britax ended up in the outback. I've got another year before these can go front facing, so until then, my back is just going to have to take the punishment.

[Gopherboy6956]

I went recaro proride front facing and it works amazing.

[Kids Heart]

I went with the Cybex Aton Q for my infant. It's pricey but it has side impact load arms which I liked because the seat won't be in the center. I put him behind me without the base in the Euro style strap method. I'm 5' 10 and I only have to sacrifice one notch. The 3 year old is in the Diono Radian

[pondomoto]

I have a Chicco Keyfit 30 with detachable base. With the front seat almost all the way forward, the seat fits well in the back. Would be a very cramped ride for anyone in the front.

https://goo.gl/photos/cJ3pZdvyqnXTr4ze7

https://goo.gl/photos/JZRwoJ9DRAGHiT9A9

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by cnk

Just some advice about car seats in case you weren't aware. The new recommendation is to keep kids in a rear facing seat as long as possible and at least until they are 2 years old. Their spines are not strong enough to withstand a collision if they are forward facing.

The issue I have with that recommendation is that the assumption is based on you hitting someone. If you're rear ended they would be safer in a front facing seat.

Really comes down to what you think the the odds of you hitting someone vs being rear ended are, compared to the impact speeds.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by wparsons

The issue I have with that recommendation is that the assumption is based on you hitting someone. If you're rear ended they would be safer in a front facing seat.

Really comes down to what you think the the odds of you hitting someone vs being rear ended are, compared to the impact speeds.

Absolutely untrue. The rear-facing recommendation has to do with the position that the child is sitting in as opposed to which direction the impact is coming from. Taken from my personal experience, the rear-facing seat is more reclined, which changes the force vectors acting upon a childs body in collision. You also have to remember that there are two distinct events happening during a collision event, the initial sudden high-g acceleration and the opposite force that happens as their momentum slams them in the opposite direction.

Of course, we can always drive carefully and try to avoid collisions at all costs with children in the car. I'm willing to follow the recommendations of professionals in this case.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

Absolutely untrue. The rear-facing recommendation has to do with the position that the child is sitting in as opposed to which direction the impact is coming from. Taken from my personal experience, the rear-facing seat is more reclined, which changes the force vectors acting upon a childs body in collision. You also have to remember that there are two distinct events happening during a collision event, the initial sudden high-g acceleration and the opposite force that happens as their momentum slams them in the opposite direction.

Of course, we can always drive carefully and try to avoid collisions at all costs with children in the car. I'm willing to follow the recommendations of professionals in this case.

A more reclined position puts more compression forces directly on their spine than an upright position. Same reason you don't want 4/5/6 point belts on too small of an angle, in an impact it'll compress your spine. If you read the manual for rear facing seats you'll see that over ~3 months they're supposed to be more upright than when first born.

To minimize damage, you need to spread forces out over a larger area perpendicular to the direction of the force being applied. That's why if you're rear ended you don't have a back full of bruises, but if you hit head on you'll have bruising from the seat belts. Don't forget that a babies head is WAY heavier in proportion to their body than an adult, and in a crash you want all that weight (and their spine) supported by as much area as possible.

The recommendations are very much based on the fact that 60% of accidents are head on, and 20% are side impacts (leaving 20% for rear ending).

http://csftl.org/why-rear-facing-the...junkies-guide/

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by wparsons

The issue I have with that recommendation is that the assumption is based on you hitting someone. If you're rear ended they would be safer in a front facing seat.

Really comes down to what you think the the odds of you hitting someone vs being rear ended are, compared to the impact speeds.

Originally Posted by wparsons

A more reclined position puts more compression forces directly on their spine than an upright position. Same reason you don't want 4/5/6 point belts on too small of an angle, in an impact it'll compress your spine. If you read the manual for rear facing seats you'll see that over ~3 months they're supposed to be more upright than when first born.

To minimize damage, you need to spread forces out over a larger area perpendicular to the direction of the force being applied. That's why if you're rear ended you don't have a back full of bruises, but if you hit head on you'll have bruising from the seat belts. Don't forget that a babies head is WAY heavier in proportion to their body than an adult, and in a crash you want all that weight (and their spine) supported by as much area as possible.

The recommendations are very much based on the fact that 60% of accidents are head on, and 20% are side impacts (leaving 20% for rear ending).

http://csftl.org/why-rear-facing-the...junkies-guide/

And, according to the article you posted, car seats are designed to handle the majority of impacts, which, as you pointed out, are head-on/forward. Designing for every possibility while maintaining practicality is extremely difficult, so you compromise to design for the majority of situations. To extrapolate your opinion, it would seem that you think small children are safer in the front seat because they would be better protected from rear-ended crashes (while totally ignoring the majority of crashes are front-impact).

Your point about forward-facing being safer for rear impacts (while possibly true) is irrelevant to this conversation given the proof you provided.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

And, according to the article you posted, car seats are designed to handle the majority of impacts, which, as you pointed out, are head-on/forward. Designing for every possibility while maintaining practicality is extremely difficult, so you compromise to design for the majority of situations. To extrapolate your opinion, it would seem that you think small children are safer in the front seat because they would be better protected from rear-ended crashes (while totally ignoring the majority of crashes are front-impact).

Your point about forward-facing being safer for rear impacts (while possibly true) is irrelevant to this conversation given the proof you provided.

Did you even read the first post of mine that you quoted? I directly called out that in a head on crash they're safer rear facing. I've been rear ended half a dozen times at least (all minor), but I've never come close to hitting anyone head on. Based on my stats, my kid is probably safer front facing once he's bigger since the odds are against me hitting someone.

[eera]

Anyone knows if Graco Extend2Fit 3 in 1 convertible would fit okay??


http://www.toysrus.com/buy/booster-c...64704-80571606

[Hix]

I have the Recaro roaster seat in mine and it fits with plenty of room for my wife to sit in the front seat. The recaro is absolutely massive. There US more room back there than you think.