Is seems that lately most child restraint manufacturers have finally come around to the idea that new CRs should be relatively easy to install and easy to use properly. I don’t know what finally prompted them to see the light but I appreciate it. However, sometimes it seems like we take a step forward and then 2 steps back. The new Dorel “Safety 1st Designer/Eddie Bauer Deluxe” infant seat with front harness adjuster is a perfect example.
You’d think that the new front harness adjuster is a step in the right direction but a closer inspection reveals the truth – there’s no splitter plate! Instead they’ve sewn the 2 harness straps together in the back. This means you get all the convenience of a front adjuster but it’s a whole process to move the harness straps to different slots. Just to be fair – I will point out that my beloved 5pt FP Stay-In-View infant seat had a similar design. I hated it on the SIV too but I only had to move the straps once (there were only 2 sets of slots) and that seat didn’t have a chest clip so that was one less thing that you had to deal with. Plus, the SIV was made in 2000/2001 when, quite frankly, we didn’t expect too much from infant seats in general.
Anyhow, Judi was kind enough to provide everyone with a step-by-step pictorial of the process here. Every CPS technician (not to mention anyone who owns this seat or is considering buying one) should check it out. Needless to say – it’s ridiculous. Dorel probably saved themselves roughly $1 per unit by omitting the splitter plate. But at what cost to consumers and to the babies who ride in these seats? It’s not just a matter of inconvenience. We know that inconvenience is directly tied to misuse and misuse puts children at risk. I understand that business is business and saving a dollar here and there can really add up when you’re talking about thousands of units but c’mon – enough already. This is lame and totally unacceptable in this day and age.
It’s upsetting to me personally because the front adjust Designer infant seat initially seemed like a great option for CPS programs with tight budgets. But now that I know there’s no splitter plate, I won’t recommend it. If they add a splitter plate in the future, I’ll reconsider. If they add a splitter plate AND replace that awful, cheap plastic buckle with a “real” buckle with metal tongues (which is a whole ‘nother rant) then I’ll gladly recommend this CR to every agency in the nation with a CPS program – even if it cost $5 more.
It’s disappointing because this particular CR does have the potential to be a very good, economical infant seat if they make a few key changes. It does have a front adjuster, 4 sets of harness slots, energy-absorbing EPP foam and an adjustable base. You can even leave the handle up which is nice. Unfortunately, they ruined it when they skimped on the splitter plate.
Sometimes companies are so focused on saving money and reducing expenses that they lose sight of the bigger, more important picture. In this case, the bigger picture is making CRs that are safe, easy to use and hard to screw-up. It’s almost 2009 and no one can claim ignorance anymore. I understand that the market needs budget seats but if manufacturers make them harder to use just to save a buck or two on the manufacturing side – it’s not worth it. Those who know better are obligated to do better. That goes for all of us in this field and as far as I’m concerned – there are no exceptions.
“The fact that this particular model has 4 sets of harness slots means that the average parent will likely attempt to move the straps 3 times. That means 3 chances to lose the “S” clips, 3 chances to twist the harness straps, 3 chances to improperly attach the bottom of the harness to the S clips, etc.”
This is how I see it too.
Honestly, I think these harnesses are WAY too hard to adjust. A fellow car-seat.org tech and I had to install two Dorel infant seats with this type of harness slot adjuster, and had to change the harness height for both seats (twins). We had the manual and still couldn’t figure out quite how to do it – fortunately, our instructor had installed it before and . Yes, I’m sure we would have been able to figure it out eventually. But seriously, if two knowledgable, read-the-manual techs can’t figure it out, how can we possibly expect parents to figure this out and do it correctly every time?
I think it IS horrid.
(Oh, one other thing– personally, I prefer back-adjust infant seats of the ones I’ve used. Specifically, Graco SnugRide back adjust vs. front adjust– it was much easier for me to get it tight enough on a newborn. Now, mine are all long and skinny, so that may play a part, but I had a devil of a time tightening enough in the front-adjust one I used, and so did my mom.)
I’m sure they meant well; there was obviously SOME reason for this design. There was some reason engineers thought, “Oh, we have to solve this problem– let’s eliminate the splitter plate!” Now, obviously they didn’t consider the OTHER problems that could cause. But I’d love to hear exactly WHAT the purpose of this design is. Maybe they’ll explain it some time.
After viewing the pictoral, yes, it would be confusing if you had never seen it, but if the instructions are available, with some care, it wouldn’t be THAT hard (though more time-consuming than a splitter plate, for sure), but hopefully after the first time doing it it would be easier.
It’s fine to play devil’s advocate but I have to disagree with your logic. Splitter plates aren’t fool-proof but TBH I’ve never seen a front-adjust infant seat that had been improperly attached to the splitter plate. As for your theory that this design may help the seat fit small babies better – I’m just not buying that either. The KeyFit and the new Dorel SureFit/OnBoard infant seat are both rated from 4 lbs and both were designed to fit small babies well – and both have a splitter plate in back. I wasn’t advocating that they go back to the old rear-adjuster design either. I was merely pointing out my disappointment with their new, supposedly improved design. The fact that this particular model has 4 sets of harness slots means that the average parent will likely attempt to move the straps 3 times. That means 3 chances to lose the “S” clips, 3 chances to twist the harness straps, 3 chances to improperly attach the bottom of the harness to the S clips, etc.
Not to be a devil’s advocate, but with the issues that can come from splitter plates (being hard to get the straps on or off, having straps slip because of the size of the splitter plate), especially with a seat that is going to have straps close together and also straps that go low to accomodate a small baby, I’m thinking that this means it will be easier to tighten the straps as much as needed without the splitter plate stopping it as soon as this method will.
Also, it can’t catch on the base when the straps are loosened for loading/unloading baby or any of the other hangups that aren’t necessarily common, but are still a dangerous thing.
And we don’t change harness height very often, either, so I’d rather see this than stick with the rear adjuster.
Not to mention… let’s be grateful that no one has decided to put the horrid “you need a table knife or flat head screw driver” evenflo chase harness height adjustments.
And then, let’s not forget how often we see parents get creative because they can’t or don’t want to mess with splitter plates (especially the tiny ones)… do we really want to see straps tied together?? No.
This isn’t the easiest thing, but it’s not horrid.
Remember Dorel’s “tri-slot” multi-piece tether adjusters? Every year at conferences they announced it was being eliminated within a few months. That went on for years, but they did finally get rid of them. Same for shield boosters. Took years, but they finally disappeared. Same for the low top slots on the all-in-one models. It took years, but the new versions have finally improved that. In fact, it looks like these may be a very reasonable model now so I’ve been trying to obtain one for review (with no success so far).
Anyway, I can’t fault them too much for being slow to fix issues like these as long as they do eventually improve them. After all, the NHTSA can take a decade to attend to issues that are obvious to everyone else.
On the other hand, there really is no legitimate excuse for introducing new products that take a big step back like this. I’ll throw in the Nania Airway as another one that had a difficult harness to re-route.