New Graco seat - rear faces to 40 lbs!!!

Kentuckychick wrote: I know we were just talking about this the other day -- the benefits of long term rearfacing and the new AAP guideline of waiting to turn forward until the age of two...

Graco has now come out with the first convertible seat that allows rearfacing to up to FORTY pounds! That's pretty awesome and should easily last any child til the age of two if not longer.

At $150 it looks like a pretty good deal too

Should be able to buy an infant seat and this seat and last a good 7 years easily.

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3532435

Danalana replied: That's cool! We got a new infant carrier for Carter (Chicco KeyFit 30), and it rear faces to 30 pounds...not too shabby for a carrier!
I didn't know about this turning them front-facing at 2 thing...is it law or just a recommendation?

Boo&BugsMom replied: Ok, I don't know about anyone else, but even before the age of 1, both of the boys legs were so cramped when they were rear facing. Even with a child seat that holds up to 40 pounds facing rear, their legs would have still been super cramped and I would have needed to change them the other way. I think it's great if someone can do that, but with the boys it would have been impossible with the length of their bodies and legs. Tanner especially who has never dropped below the 95th percentile in height. So, as much as I think it's a great idea, it's really not realistic for people who have bigger kids, IMO...unless they wouldn't mind driving around with their legs twisted like a pretzel in a car seat.

stella6979 replied:
I was thinking the same thing.

Kentuckychick replied: The new 2-year thing is the new recommendation - not law. Mainly because of all of the studies that have been done on wrecks that show the number of injuries from front facing being so much higher.

I love the Chicco Keyfit! That's such a nice seat. I think most of the babies in our center use that one. They've gotten very popular - good choice!

And as for the twisty leg thing... studies show that most kids do not mind at all and are actually more comfortable with their legs crossed or propped on the back of the seat than only being able to have them dangling over the edge. They showed that most kids were actually able to move their legs a lot more and get a lot more comfortable rear facing. I know when i'm in the car a lot of the times I sit cross legged so I understand that.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
They obviously haven't met my kids! I'd like to know the height of each of the kids they used for their "study".

Kentuckychick replied:
I think they used a variety of different sizes from the lower to the upper range of the height limits. But every child is different. The study did say that there were some children who complained or didn't enjoy rear facing... but that the majority had no problems with it.

It's also important to remember that rear facing seats are supposed to be installed at an incline so that when properly installed you should have a larger gap of space between the seat and the seat of the car.

Here's a picture of Caydence last year on her 2nd birthday rear facing. She was in the 93rd percentile of height at her appointment... I can't remember exact measurements but she fit very comfortably. (she was turned forward facing at 2 1/2)



She still had tons of leg room.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
It really depends more on how large or small your seating is in your vehicle, IMO. SUV's are roomier and tend to have larger wider seats, for example. Our mini-van has very narrow seating. Neither of the boys would have ever made it any longer rear facing. All kids are different.

Mommy2Isabella replied: TOTAL HONEST OPINION...

I couldn't get my child to face backwards if I wanted to. And they would be totally uncomfortable. My SIL showed me a photo the other day of a child rear facing and it looks silly!!!

A&A'smommy replied: WOW that is aweswome!!!!! Although being up to 40lbs Alyssa would still fit in it weight wise

Autumn will RF until two and if she is over 35lbs then I'm sure we will purchase this seat My childs saftey is very important to me

mom21kid2dogs replied: Olivia RF'ed until 2.75 years~til the day she outgrew the RF weight limit of her seat. I so wished I could get one that would have RF'ed longer. She has always been off the charts in height and weight (still is). We have a Chevy Prism. Seriously, the leg thing was never an issue for us.

boyohboyohboy replied: I have to agree with jenny, I have very tall kids, and before they weight limit was exceeded their legs were bent and very uncomfortable. They were so glad when they were finally turned around.
Jake is now 37 pounds and he is 42 inches tall, there is no way he could sit rear facing in our mini van and it is spacious.

Kentuckychick replied: The AAP is recommending it up to age two. I mean honestly... I don't know that many 1 year olds who are that tall. I mean I teach in a building where there are 20 1yo's and none of them are tall enough that rear facing would be uncomfortable. And about 1/3rd of them still rear face.

And for those who had children who were tall and there legs were bent... genuine question -- did they complain constantly or cry about being uncomfortable. I'm just wondering if they were actually uncomfortable... or if the position they were in was uncomfortable looking to you.

I don't think there's anything funny looking about rear facing seat photos (of course I'm not someone who promotes rear facing to five years or anything like that)...

But what's so funny about these;

http://www.childrestraints.co.nz/images/re.../rf_toddler.gif

http://media.photobucket.com/image/extende.../LScarseat2.jpg

http://blogpress.w18.net/photos/09/04/07/271.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/413178526_1ed79e024e.jpg

Mommy2Isabella replied:
My child's safety is very important to me as well. I haven't read the article but I am wondering why it is safer, I will go and read on why they say it is safer. My children HATED rear facing.

Mommy2Isabella replied: Call me silly ... I did my reading up and will be following this recommendation ...

jcc64 replied:

For whatever reason, that particular image of the rear-facing toddler is totally Photoshopped into another background. No idea why.
Ita about the rear-facing thing. I'm kind of shocked that so many parents, diligent about other safety issues, are so cavalier about car safety. Fwiw, EVERY doctor I know, undoubtedly b/c of the catastrophic injuries they've witnessed, has the most bad a*$ car seats on the planet for their own kids. I think rear-facing as long as possible makes a lot of sense in terms of severity of head injuries. My dd, still only 42 lbs at 6.75 yrs, only came out of her Britax Roundabout recently. Yes, she complained, but it was a non-negotiable parenting item.

Danalana replied: I see kids who aren't even restrained all the time, and it makes me so angry!! I told Richard we are 5-point harnessing as long as possible with all our kids...no matter how ridiculous they think it is. I see so many people breaking the law when it comes to child safety. I saw a girl leaving from church who had her baby (9 months old!) front-facing in her infant carrier. I didn't even know infant carriers could be installed to face forward I wish people would think more.

Danalana replied: And Jeanne, that picture is definitely photoshopped...weird!