Total hypothetical situation--but at what point would you NOT buy a higher weight seat to continue rear facing?

goodheartedmama · 11-06-2009, 04:37 PM

Let's say you have a 33 or 35 lb rear facing seat. Obviously the 40, 45 lb ones were not out when a lot of us bought seats (I happen to have a 40 lb seat, so it really is a hypothetical situation). Anyway, at what age would not go buy a 40 or 45 lb rear facing seat when your child outgrew their 33 or 35 lb rear facing seat?

fruitfulmomma · 11-06-2009, 04:43 PM

I am wondering that too... I have a three year old that has been ff for awhile because I didn't have a clue of the rf until this last year and now I am not sure it is worth it to buy her a new seat just to rf for 5 more pounds. Like, if I thought she would be in it for several more months that would be great, but if she is going to outgrow it in the next month or so, not so much. Hmm...

Maedze · 11-06-2009, 04:43 PM

Four or in the immediate vicinity of...

I replaced DD's 33 lb seat with a 40 lb seat at 3 years 4 months.

If she had been say, 3 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, and 12 minutes I probably wouldn't have.

(and yes, I'm being slightly saucy by including such a very SPECIFIC age

)

North_Of_60 · 11-06-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedze

(and yes, I'm being slightly saucy by including such a very SPECIFIC age

)

chickabiddy · 11-06-2009, 06:02 PM

For a physically and developmentally typical child, somewhere (less specifically) around 3.5.

**tinyactsofcharity** · 11-06-2009, 06:22 PM

Probably if my child hit 35 lbs after he was already 3.5, I would consider not buying another RFing seat but if it was in the budget without a huge stretch, I'd likely go ahead and get a 40 or more likely a 45 lbs RFing seat.

eclipse · 11-06-2009, 06:32 PM

I turned ds2 at around 3.5 when he was approaching the limit of his 32 lb Marathon.

I turned DD at 18 months or so and about 30lbs (or whatever was the limit of her seat). I didn't know quite as much about rearfacing at the time - if I had it to do over again, I would have gotten a new seat for her.

snoopy5386 · 11-06-2009, 10:13 PM

We went through this in the summer. DD has a 33 lb limit BLVD which was the highest weight seat on the market at the time she was born. We turned her this summer when she was 3 yrs 3 months and hit the limit. We knew we were going to have another baby in the spring and we can't fit two RFing seats in our car (small car, tall DH) so at most she would have been able to RF another 9 months or so. We decided it wasn't worth it at that point. If she was an only or we had a bigger car, I might have considered getting her a Radian.

DahliaRW · 11-06-2009, 10:51 PM

Around 3 probably.

sapphire_chan · 11-06-2009, 11:03 PM

Definitely not at 3, and at 2.5 I'd want to know the numbers. I know that after a year the advantage to being RF goes down. It becomes a case of being "better" instead of "necessary".

Also, height would be a huge factor. I'd be more likely to get the seat for a kid who had several inches of room in the shell of the new seat verses a LO with a long torso.

bobandjess99 · 11-06-2009, 11:03 PM

Me, personally? age 5+ probably not.

anything under 3 and I would literally sell my body to buy another Rfing seat.

Between 3-5...augh. It would be hard. I may or may not depending on whether it was easily affordable or not. If it WERE easily affordable, I'd buy a new seat sure. If it were only mildly to moderately difficult, I still probably would. If it were a serious hardship, I might not, especially towards the upper end of the range.

caemommy · 11-06-2009, 11:11 PM

this is interesting, because I have thought about it. I have an almost 3 yr old who is RFing in her Marathon. She's a lightweight (maybe 28 lbs?) but has a long torso. I know she will outgrow her seat RFing by height before weight. I'm going to just wait for the situation to occur and decide at that point. I'm not sure she'll hit 40 lbs before she's 6!

**tinyactsofcharity** · 11-07-2009, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

Definitely not at 3, and at 2.5 I'd want to know the numbers. I know that after a year the advantage to being RF goes down. It becomes a case of being "better" instead of "necessary".

Also, height would be a huge factor. I'd be more likely to get the seat for a kid who had several inches of room in the shell of the new seat verses a LO with a long torso.

500% "better" is a WHOLE LOT though. That makes it more "necessary" in my book until age 4.

allisonrose · 11-07-2009, 12:49 AM

This is a topic I've mulled over a bit. I have a True Fit which has a tall shell but only a 35 lb RF limit. I got it just before any of the 40 lb seats were released.

I think sapphire_chan touches on an important piece of information: height matters too. I've heard that the MyRide has a shell slightly shorter than the TF so if my son is going to outgrow the TF by height than it won't do me any good to buy a MyRide even though it has a higher weight limit.

an_aurora · 11-07-2009, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allisonrose

This is a topic I've mulled over a bit. I have a True Fit which has a tall shell but only a 35 lb RF limit. I got it just before any of the 40 lb seats were released.

I think sapphire_chan touches on an important piece of information: height matters too. I've heard that the MyRide has a shell slightly shorter than the TF so if my son is going to outgrow the TF by height than it won't do me any good to buy a MyRide even though it has a higher weight limit.

True, buuut most kids won't outgrow the MR by height before around 4. The chances of a 35 lb kid outgrowing the TF by height? Pretty much nil. The chance of a 40 lb kid outgrowing the MR? Slightly higher, but still low enough that I wouldn't discount the MR as a possibility.

petra_william · 11-07-2009, 04:17 AM

well, since ds is likely to reach AT LEAST 5 years of age before outgrowing his britax multitech (55lbs rf limit!!) it really is hypothetical....

Quote:

Me, personally? age 5+ probably not.

anything under 3 and I would literally sell my body to buy another Rfing seat.

Between 3-5...augh. It would be hard. I may or may not depending on whether it was easily affordable or not. If it WERE easily affordable, I'd buy a new seat sure. If it were only mildly to moderately difficult, I still probably would. If it were a serious hardship, I might not, especially towards the upper end of the range.

i agree with this

**Latte Mama** · 11-07-2009, 06:05 AM

This is a question that I've thought about. I think around age 3 ish or so. But as PP said, height matters too. My 14 month old is 25 lbs but starting to shoot up like a weed. I think he'll be one of those tall, skinny kids.

Regardless, he's in a Blvd now and when he hits 35 lbs, I'll definitely get him one of the higher limit seats.

Pumpkin_Pie · 11-07-2009, 06:19 AM

My son is 31 months and just outgrew his Marathon RF'ing (he hit 32.2 pounds) and I bought him a Complete Air. I desperately wanted a 45 pound Radian, but it didn't fit in my car well AT ALL. If a newer seat comes out that RF's higher than the Complete Air before he hits the limits of his seat, I will do whatever is within my power to keep him RF'ing. It doesn't bother him at all to be RF'ing, and I don't mind squishing both of us in there to buckle him in.

Honestly, I don't care if he is tall enough, or old enough to FF, I will keep him RF'ing as long as I possibly can. End of story for us.

Maedze · 11-07-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

Definitely not at 3, and at 2.5 I'd want to know the numbers. I know that after a year the advantage to being RF goes down. It becomes a case of being "better" instead of "necessary".

This is really not an accurate reflection of the facts.

When the original study, years ago, was done, no one kept their children rear facing to a year. People kept them rear facing (if they did at all) until they could sit up, and then they got flipped forwards.

The only child restraints available at the time maxed out at 20 pounds. Some parents kept their children rear facing to the max of those seats.

The study compared parents who went to the max (20 pounds, usually around a year) or turned much earlier. It was found that the first set of children had a higher rate of survival in accidents.

It was NEVER intended to suggest that children were fine to forward face at a year. That was the practical reality created by seats that couldn't go rear facing beyond that.

A more recent study proved that this information is outdated, inaccurate, and based on circumstantially limited data. So yes, keeping a child over one year facing is not just better, it's NECESSARY.

Twinklefae · 11-07-2009, 08:21 AM

I think sapphire_chan meant that past two (ie. one year of EXTRA rear-facing time past what is legal) it starts to become better vs. necessary. At least that's how I read it.

I would stop putting myself out to buy another seat around three.