Recently Consumer Reports (CR) has claimed that they’ve identified a possible safety risk in models of the Orbit Baby infant carseat. Here at CarseatBlog.com we always take news like this very seriously even if we’ve been generally skeptical about previous CR findings and ratings. CR labeled the Orbit Carseat a “Don’t Buy: Safety Risk” after the infant carrier supposedly detached from its base in two of six CR-commissioned crash tests preformed at an outside laboratory. So, should we sound the alarm?
Well, first let’s closely examine what we know about the situation. CR claims they crash tested 6 of these carseats at an independent lab and in two of the tests (one had the seat installed with LATCH, the other was installed with a lap/shoulder seatbelt) the carrier detached from the base. Orbit baby responded by firmly standing behind their product. They claim that their own safety compliance testing contradicts the CR test results. “Our tests are conducted in the exact same lab that Consumer Reports and NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) uses. In all of our compliance tests, we have never seen the failures that Consumer Reports has reported. Since safety is of top priority to us, we immediately ran more tests as soon as we learned about Consumer Reports’ results. We ran multiple tests in the same laboratory that Consumer Reports used, with various testing criteria, including the exact criteria Consumer Reports used. All of these tests passed. We also receive reports of real-life accidents from Orbit Baby parents, and we have never had a report of a separation or injury with an Orbit Baby car seat.”
Orbit Baby is also disputing the test results based on information they received from CR regarding the installation of their product in the tests. Orbit Baby claims, and CR acknowledges, that the seats were installed without the use of the “StrongArm” mechanism whose function is to properly and sufficiently attach the base to the vehicle. CR states that “Lab personnel installed the Orbit bases in our tests to meet the one inch condition and within the belt-tension range of the standard without needing to use the StrongArm mechanism.”
Honestly, I have to wonder about “lab personnel” who don’t follow the manufacturer’s specific instructions on proper installation of the child restraint. “…without needing to use the StrongArm mechanism” means someone thought the rules didn’t apply to them. Obviously, they were super confident that their way was just as good or better. This is never a good sign.
As a CPS Technician-Instructor myself, I find it disturbing to hear that any infant child restraint detached from its base under testing conditions. However, I find it even more disturbing that the “lab personnel” or CPS Tech(s) on staff at CU are disregarding the manufacturer’s instructions when installing seats for testing purposes. And when CU stands behind the results even after admitting that the installation instructions were not followed to the letter – that’s not just irresponsible, it’s ludicrous. If there is ever any doubt about the integrity of the testing methods then you have to throw out the results and redo the tests correctly.
To clarify – I’m not defending the product. It’s possible that there could be legitimate issues here that CR has uncovered. But for the sake of all that’s good in this world, redo the tests (installing the seat the way it’s supposed to be installed) and let’s settle this! Additionally, it seems that there was originally a press video released by CR to the public that showed the Orbit Baby infant seat installed incorrectly without the base. When Orbit Baby brought this misuse to CR’s attention they “…acknowledged their mistake and have since edited the video”. To be honest, I never saw the original press video so I can’t vouch for this incident but if it’s true… well, that doesn’t exactly inspire a lot of confidence in their abilities, now does it?
Really, these blunders are NOT helping CU to regain any of the public trust or credibility that they lost after the last infant carseat testing debacle. I appreciate that they’re trying to help the cause and improve crash protection for children in motor vehicles. However, if they are going to tackle complicated projects and issues then they need to be committed to doing them the right way. Otherwise, they should stick to reviewing digital cameras and deck stains and leave the complicated stuff to qualified professionals.
Wow. What a great article. I have learned alot just by reading your post.I to feel disturbed when I hear of any child that might get hurt from a product that has not lived up to the manufactures claims. Something should be don about this and I thank you for bring it to our attention. Props to you
CU refers to Consumers Union, the organization that publishes Consumer Reports. They are often used synonymously.
The 3rd paragraph from the bottom, is CU supposed to be CR? Or is CU another organization and I missed earlier reference to it?
My husband and I have used the system for 5 months now. When we read the instruction manual it was clearly stated to use the strong arm. I feel consumer reports need to stop praising graco and retest the product correctly. It is a different concept from the usual car seat and I feel the testers were hard headed and thought they knew what they were doing when they were really just ignorant.
My wife’s due date is tomorrow. We have the orbit system and I, spending the money on this type of system, and my child’s life possibly being on the line, throughly read the manual. I first installed the belts as tight as possible, then started turning the knob.
WOW, the knob moves in order to put as much pressure evenly upon the bottom and back of the vehicle seats. There is even a built in level to insure the installation is proper. This part is why I am keeping the system.
With the screw action you can see how secure the base is. If it was secured only by the belt, I would have returned the system even without Consumer Reports testing.
I have never even used this stroller yet and the care the creators took in all the details is amazing. I believe in the product and am disgusted by Consumer Reports.
That was really stupid of them. They should re-test the seat and make an apology!
While I agree these may be typical misuse, that blame lies solely an unequivocally with the parent. Every single person on the planet is capable of using a car seat correctly 100% of the time. 95% of them make a conscious choice to either ignore directions, not follow them completely, not know about them, or “improve” them. Misuse is not the manufacturer’s fault, even if the misuse is common. Too loose harness straps is common, and if the kid is ejected from a too loose harness, how can we then say the seat itself failed because it is a “common” misuse. Most parents refuse to use a tether, but head excursion isn’t the fault of the manufacturer if the parent willingly ignored the instructions.
If my cake says to bake at 350 and I bake at 475 and it burns, it’s only my fault.
I just looked at the instruction and it says “Each installation varies slightly, but usually
you turn the Knob almost 10 full revolutions.” for the StrongArm. At least to me, the instruction does make it pretty clear that you should be using StrongArm to secure the base to the seat. If you reset the Base StrongArm position to 0 (as instructed in the manual), and you just secure the base using car’s LATCH system (as instructed in the manual), the base is very loose. If you rotate the StrongArm just few times, it’s pretty obvious that StrongArm does a very good job securing the base to the seat. There isn’t much any manufacturer can do about parents that do not care enough to follow instructions (like CR did) outlined, bolded, textboxed and color-coded, other than to make the system as easy as possible.
Opting to skip the StrongArm likely is a typical misuse for that seat. How often do we see parents skip using built in lockoffs or skip locking the belt? Usually the seat is way too loose, harness in the wrong slots, and harness too loose.
The StrongArm is just a built-in version of the Mighty-Tite. The instructions don’t say to turn the StrongArm until x number of clicks or anything like that. They say to tighten it until there is less than one inch of movement. The base was tightened until there was less than one inch of movement, therefore the StrongArm was tightened sufficiently. In this scenario, zero clicks were enough.
While it’s not a good sign that CR’s lab didn’t use the StrongArm, I just don’t see how using it would have made any difference with regards to the seat separating from the base, unless the seat-base attachments are somehow directly connected to the StrongArm.
I would really expect CR to cover their rears and follow the instructions to the letter. Who are they to say that it didn’t matter that they didn’t follow the instructions exactly? Isn’t that like parent saying, “meh, it’s good enough.” Good enough doesn’t cut it in crash testing.
I don’t think that the tightening of the base would be a typical misuse though.. I’d think that anything that makes installation easier and is clearly highlighted in the manual is more likely to be done correctly.
Had they used the strong arm and had the same results, I’d have concerns. But they blatantly disregarded the manufacturers instructions and then went on to say it didn’t matter.
Real world there is significant misuse, but the question comes, what degree of misuse testing is reasonable for a manufacturer to carry out? From what I’ve heard people say the Orbit base is very easy to use and install according to directions. I think ultimately it comes down to designing a seat that’s more difficult to misuse – which it sounds like Orbit has done… and beyond that, I don’t know how much we can expect. We tell parents not to misuse a seat because it could cause failure – perhaps this is proof of that? I really don’t know…
Orbit isn’t seeing reports of failures, which seems more reflective than 6 isolated tests.. I’m sure more than 6 people have been involved in collisions using their seats.
My initial reaction is to discount whatever CR says. They have a less than stellar track record in these matters. The fact that they admit to disregarding the instructions underscores that.
However, there’s a part of me that feels their screw ups mirror real world conditions. The base was not tightened according to manufacturer instructions and Orbit claims that the wrong harness slots were used. How often do we see that exact combination at checks? Fifty percent of the time? Sixty? So in cases with typical misuse, the base failed 1/3 if the time. That’s a little frightening.
I just added the following to the Consumer Reports blog on the topic:
“Looking past the question as to whether the results are legitimate or not, there were apparently failures. If some installation error on the part of Consumer Reports does eventually prove to be the cause of the failure, then it’s also possible a parent could make a similar mistake. One thing is certain, misuse can result in injuries. If you have any question about the safety of your child seat, please follow the link in the article above to the NHTSA inspection station list or http://www.seatcheck.net if you are in Illinois. There are also free events nationwide on September 12th, National Seat Check Saturday.”
Thank you, Kecia. I can’t say anything about the test results as far as being a legitimate concern or not. I am a little puzzled as to why Consumer Reports didn’t take extreme care to make sure everything was done according to instructions and standards, especially after their last crash testing blunder and subsequent retraction. I’m also curious to know who is their mysterious, “Outside child-safety expert who has experience in child-restraint crash testing.” It would be interesting to hear a statement from that person or from experts at the unnamed crash testing facility. Consumer Reports has the resources to do a great service in regards to additional crash testing of child restraints. It’s too bad their reputation in the child passenger safety field taints their results, even if they are legitimate.
Again. Again. It’s baffling. Again!
Very eloquently written, Kecia. Excellent!