Additional information on Orbit Infant System tests

Readers of our recommendation not to buy the Orbit Infant System may have had questions upon hearing the manufacturer raise a dispute about Consumer Reports’ test methodology, and whether that may have contributed to the seat failures in our tests.

Those tests found that the infant carrier detached from its car seat base in two of six simulated 30-mph frontal crash tests that Consumer Reports commissioned at an outside laboratory. (Update: Read our blog post Why we take intermittent test failures so seriously.) We conducted the tests using the guidelines for speed and impact crash simulations dictated by the federal standard for child restraints. The tests at issue are those we routinely perform when evaluating car seats.

We’re posting this blog to describe how our tests were conducted and to reiterate our “Don’t Buy: Safety Risk” Rating for the Orbit Infant System.

The manufacturer has essentially raised two concerns about our testing, the first of which has to do with the positioning of the harness strap that holds the infant in the carrier. 

In these tests we followed the guidance of the manufacturer’s instruction manual and used the dummy specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213. The manual states that the straps should be positioned even with or just below the child’s shoulders. We confirmed, and an outside expert verified, that when we used the top slot position for the harness the straps were indeed at or below shoulder level.

The manufacturer also raised a concern that the testing facility did not use the “StrongArm” mechanism on the seat to tighten the belts used to install the base. The StrongArm mechanism, when rotated, amplifies a person’s strength to help tighten the belts that hold the seat base in place when installed in a vehicle.

The manufacturer’s instruction manual says that the belt has reached “optimal” tightness when the seat base does not move more than one inch in any direction, and FMVSS 213 dictates a required range for belt tension. 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.

Lab personnel and our own engineering staff are certified passenger safety technicians trained in child restraint installation. We were troubled by the failures in the test and we feel it is important to make our findings public.

We continue to stand by our test results and recommend that parents who are looking for a convenient travel system choose an alternative instead, such as the $245 Graco Stylus Travel System 7U02GA03. It passed our tests and is a CR Best Buy.

Comments

[MetaEd]

One person wrote that the knob is irrelevant to the test failures. He wrote that the knob ensures the base is properly anchored to the car, but that the failure was not the base breaking away, but the seat detaching from the base. Is there anything to this?

Car seat owners must learn how to install the product the first time. Some have no previous experience with car seats. Some have no mechanical skills or common sense about mechanical things---or about much of anything. Some have weak reasoning skills. The product still needs to protect their children.

Because the point of testing car seats is to avoid preventable injuries and deaths of children.

If the directions leave room for interpretation, some of these people will install car seats wrong without knowing it. And that will cause preventable injuries and deaths of children.

@Joseph, I do not own an Orbit car seat. So I am like a new owner who is learning how to install the product from the manual. And the manual leaves me wondering if it is safe to turn the knob when the belt is already tight enough. My mechanical and reasoning skills are very good. If I owned an Orbit, I would probably figure it out. But what chance does a mechanically challenged person have of making the safe choice? 50-50? How many children does that put at unnecessary risk?

Several people argued: Orbit issued a statement defending the product, or Orbit cares about children, so the product is safe. Is that a reasonable argument? Several people (some who have not used the product) argued: you can see how well the product is designed, so the product is safe. Is that a reasonable argument? One person argued: their child was uninjured in a collision in the Orbit car seat, so the product is safe. Is that a reasonable argument? Do any of these arguments apply to a child in a car seat that has been installed unsafely?

Sheri who sells baby products writes that the Orbit is "completely different from anything else out there", and says the CR technician should "really do his/her homework and understand how it works prior to installing it". Wow. If an installation expert should do research before installing the product, what chance does a mechanically challenged person have of installing it safely?

Is it the job of the expert to do a best case test and try to show how safe a product is, or is it the job of the expert to try to perform a worst case test and try to discover flaws in the product? Is the installation manual not a part of the product? Is it not an essential part of the product safety? If the manual is reasonably open to interpretation, don't we want the expert to test the worst case interpretation? Isn't the worst case the one that puts children at greatest risk of injury or death?

[Joseph]

@MetaEd

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you are not actually a Orbit carseat user. The StrongArm on the carseat does not tighten the belt indefinitely so that you can tighten the belt beyond optimal tension where it becomes harmful to the carseat and the belt. You can sit there and turn the knob 100 times, but you will notice that after certain tension has been achieved, StrongArm will no longer "catch" and belt will not tighten beyond this tension level. I know your point is that consumer would also not be following the direction by over-tightening the belt, but way this product is designed and built, you are not going to over-tighten the belt by turning the StrongArm too many times.

Unless CR repeats the test with StrongArm engaged, I'm not convinced that Orbit carseat is an alarming safety issue as CR suggested in their report... and I think CR realizes this also... rather than suggesting that instruction is incomplete or vague, CR chose to release a report stating that Orbit carseat is dangerous and represents a safety risk... I think this action is misleading and bit malicious on CR's part.

If I recall correctly, the carseat comes with a tag hanging from the StrongArm that says something along the line of "Turn Me" on it. The manual has several references to the StrongArm and the instruction video clearly talks about using the StrongArm to tighten the base to the car. Judging by various comments and testimony of Orbit users, it seems that Orbit owners know that StrongArm is an important step in mounting the base to the car. CR used the same manual but came up with a different conclusion than most Orbit users in thinking StrongArm is not necessary for proper installation of the product... and CR keep insisting that their interpretation is correct. It just seem like CR is more interested in preserving its reputation (i've read about CR's previous retraction in 2007 due to their mistake) than publishing information that is fair and helpful to consumers. Very disappointing...

[Caren]

If I'm reading all of the arguments correctly I think the issue creating the conflict here is not one of whether the seat is or is not safe wtih the use of the StrongArm but whether the instructions implictly say that it must be turned. It might be intuitive to most of us to do so with the diagrams and videos and other manufacturers implications but unless the manual states "Turn the strong arm regardless of whether the OPTIMAL positioning is reached with or without its use" then it would be wrong of CR to do so. The only way to keep these tests fair is to set up guidelines and use those guidelines for all products. That often means following the letter of the instructions rather than the spirit of the instructions which might not seem fair but is sometimes the only way that such oversights are discovered.

I also think that Orbit would be doing themselves a greater favor to say, esp if they are reading the same CR report I am, that the entire problem can be rectified with a small change to the instructions rather than trying to take on the giant of CR. CR, though it does so in technical rather than layman's terms is not disputing that the seat could be perfectly safe with the use of the StrongArm system.

[MetaEd]

@Rachel

I am curious to read your answer to my questions:

The directions don't just say to turn the knob. They say to turn the knob until the belt tension is optimal.

Suppose you pull the belt tight with the loops as directed, and discover that the belt tension is optimal.

How far would you turn the knob, tightening the belt beyond optimal tension?

If you turn the knob, tightening the belt beyond optimal tension, are you following directions?

[Rachel]

MetaEd --

You say: "You say CR has admitted to not following the manufacturer's directions. I don't follow again. Whether or not they did follow the directions, they clearly don't admit it. In fact they insist that they did."

Here's the deal:

1. CR admits that it did not use Orbit's "StrongArm" knob. (See http://blogs.consumerreports.org/baby/2009/08/additional-information-on-orbit-infant-system-tests.html -- "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.")

2. The Orbit instructions clearly state that turning the StrongArm knob is a separate and specific step in the installation of the infant carseat. You must turn the StrongArm knob regardless of whether you are using a LATCH or non-LATCH system. (Turning the StrongArm knob is Step 11 with LATCH (pp 34-35 of instruction manual; Step 8 with non-LATCH (pp. 40-41 of instruction manual)).

As other commenters have noted, the Orbit instructions also specifically state that a user will generally have to turn the StrongArm knob "10 full revolutions." (p. 34 for LATCH; p. 41 for non-LATCH).

The directions do **not** indicate that turning the knob is unnecessary if the seat is tight enough.

Therefore, CR's admission that they did not turn the knob is an admission that they did not follow the instructions.

[Stedman]

I have always looked to CR for their Independent Reviews.

CR - you will lose all credibility with me (and a lot of other readers) if you don't do 2 things:
(1) RE-TEST ORBIT USING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS
(2) STOP PUSHING THE GRACO

If you guys don't do either of these soon, it proves you aren't independent.

[MetaEd]

@Amanda

You say Orbit wouldn't try to unfairly place blame on CR's procedures, because CR is the car seat "bible". I don't follow.

Orbit's sales depend upon their reputation with parents. And that depends a lot on what CR recommends. We agree about that.

If Orbit believes they are right, they will defend their reputation by blaming CR, even though they may alienate CR by doing so.

But if Orbit secretly suspects they are wrong, and choose not to admit it and ruin sales, they will still defend their reputation by blaming CR, in order to seem honest.

We observe that Orbit is blaming CR, so we know that Orbit either believes, or pretends to believe, they are right. We don't know which.

I would need to know that Orbit are scrupulously humble and honest, and then I could agree that they are not smearing CR. But I don't know that. So it is possible that they are honest, but it is also possible they are smearing CR to protect sales.

Are you an Orbit shill? Wouldn't you answer that question "no" whether you were one or not?

* * *

You say CR's recommendations of an alternate product is proof that they are partial to that product.

Of course they are partial. Some products are actually better than others.

Why does does it surprise you if they recommend what they think is the best product, as a substitute for the one that failed their test? That's why people look at CR. We want to know what CR recommends that we buy.

* * *

You say CR has admitted to not following the manufacturer's directions. I don't follow again.

Whether or not they did follow the directions, they clearly don't admit it. In fact they insist that they did.

The very article you are commenting on includes CR's claim to have followed the directions and to have tightened the belt to the specification given in the directions.

Maybe you think they CR should have turned the knob. The directions don't just say to turn the knob. They say to turn the knob until the belt tension is optimal.

Suppose you pulled the belt tight with the loops as directed, and found that the belt tension was optimal as specified in the directions. Then how far would you turn the knob?

In that situation, if you do turn the knob, tightening the belt beyond optimal tension, don't you agree that you are failing to follow directions?

This all points to a problem with the directions, not with CR's following them.

[Sarah M.]

I too am shocked that CR didn't follow the instructions on installing the car seat base. There is even a hang tag on the strong arm mechanism highlighting the need to turn it!!!! I have installed this base using the LATCH system in several different cars, each time following the SUPER SIMPLE instructions in the book. Each time it takes about two minutes from start to finish and couldn't be easier or SAFER. The seat itself looks like a safety pod which envelopes my child in what I consider, "the cocoon safe-zone!"

And the positioning of the safety harness is also critical. My baby is only on the second position (just barely) at 5 months and 15 pounds. I can hardly imagine him growing tall enough to go all the way to the top setting. At least not until he's nearly 10 or 11 months and closer to 20+ lbs.

SHAME for not retracting their erroneous report. I love Orbit and support them 100%, they are the little guy and producing amazing and safe baby products.

[Bob Eagen]

The manual has multiple pictures of a hand turning the knob. The instructions clearly say - turn the knob. If you ever demo'd the product in the store - they mention the knob. There's a YouTube video with close to 60k views that says "turn the knob" in the first 25 seconds. At no time does any part of the manual say - don't turn the knob. It's the key safety / convenience feature of the system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFOYQ2hv4h8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv30BpqMjOY&NR=1

And if any of this was confusing, wouldn't you call customer service? I'd think that CR would exert some common sense.

Outside of these non-Orbit owner comments, the only thing I find confusing is how CR can continue to leave this article posted. Orbit is saying they passed yet another test:

http://www.orbitbaby.com/support/safetystatement.html

[Amanda]

A few comments:

From a poster: "Two, Orbit may have been smearing CR." Why would Orbit be trying to do that? Everyone knows that many parents consider CR to be the "bible" of what kind of car seat to buy. Since CR (obviously) has problems following manufacturer's instructions and remaining impartial, this seems to be a flawed way to choose a car seat.

Need proof? EVERY time CR talks about the Orbit testing results, they push an alternate product on you to buy. Why wouldn't they just present their "data" and let the consumer decide what to buy?

After CR has ADMITTED to not following manufacturer's instructions and the NHTSA has independently tested and passed Orbit's car seat, I cannot believe that CR is going to stand by their flawed test results. Maybe the memory of the last time they had to retract testing results is too fresh in their memories?

SHAME ON YOU, CONSUMER REPORTS. Orbit is a small company and this is the sort of thing that could easily send them out of business, just when they were starting to compete with the big box brands. Or was that the plan?

[Lisa]

Actually it really isn't all that complicated. Any parents caring enough for their baby would have looked at the manual and just followed steps as indicated. If the color-coded pictures, illustrations and photos weren't clear enough, you can always watch the installation video which clearly explains the proper steps for installing the carseat.

[Brian]

Seems to me the problem is that the instructions are inconsistent. I too probably would not have used the "Strong Arm" if it made spec when I installed it by hand. Either way it sound like it is more complicated than it needs to be.

Still glad we have Britax.

[Katherine]

I don't know about an overtensioned belt from turning the knob, but I read Orbit's page on harness slot positioning. Based on the pictures, the top slot position seems wrong.

http://www.orbitbaby.com/why/library/harness_safety.php

[MetaEd]

I am looking at pp. 34--35 and pp. 39--41 of the Orbit manual. It says to pull the belt tight with the belt loops, and then turn the knob to the point of optimal belt tightness---which it defines as when the base upright cannot move more than 1" in any direction.

It would not surprise me if a professional seat tester at CR labs has the body strength to reach optimal belt tightness by pulling it tight with the belt loops. (CR claims this to be a fact and says this happened in the test of the product.)

Suppose the belt reaches optimal tightness as a result of pulling it tight with the belt loops.

In that case, an installer who turns the knob 0 times has plainly followed the directions to turn the knob to the point of optimal belt tightness.

An installer who turns the knob BEYOND the point of optimal tightness would be ignoring the directions to turn the knob to the point of optimal belt tightness. The consequence of over tightening could be an overtensioned belt. An overtensioned belt could tear or break and allow the base to fly off the car seat in a collision.

Orbit says an installer who does not turn the knob has failed to follow directions. For the sake of argument, let's say Orbit is right. Then the directions cannot possibly be followed when the installer pulls the belt to optimal tightness with the belt loops. The installer must either turn the knob 0 times (FAIL) or else turn the knob past the point of optimal tightness (FAIL).

I can imagine two different motivations Orbit might have for saying CR failed to follow directions.

One, Orbit may need the installer to turn the knob every time. It could be that turning the knob 0 times creates an unsafe situation. Maybe turning the knob is necessary for a reason other than tensioning the belt. If so, then a person who pulls the belt to optimal tightness with the belt loops cannot follow directions and still install the product safely. This limitation in the product would need to be fixed or else covered by the manual.

Two, Orbit may have been smearing CR. It could be that the product can be safely secured by pulling the belt to optimal tightness with the belt loops, and the product failed the test fairly. By emphasizing the instruction to turn the knob, and downplaying the instruction to turn it to the point of optimal belt tightness, Orbit can make it seem that the fault is in the CR test procedure, not in the product or the manual.

I have no connection or interest in either Orbit or CR, but I do want children to be safe in their car seats.

[Bob Eagen]

I posted a few days ago. As I re-read that CR didn't use the StrongArm, I believe publicizing this test is beyond being disingenuous. Yes - follow Federal guidelines. But how can you deliberately ignore the manufacturer's instructions - steps highlighted MULTIPLE times? It lacks common sense.

I think if accurate, the publicizing of this information is negligence on CR's part. In every instance of base installation, Orbit tells you to turn the knob. It's even highlighted that you need to turn it - sometimes up to 10 times.

CR needs to stop defending the test and run another one - this time following the instructions.

CONSUMER REPORTS
"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."

ORBIT INSTRUCTIONS (PAGE 41) http://www.orbitbaby.com/support/manuals/Orbit_InfantCarSeatManual.pdf

STEP 8.
"Turn the StrongArm Knob at the front of the Base clockwise."

CALL-OUT BOXED AND HIGHLIGHTED:
"As you’re turning the Knob, the StrongArm mechanism is amplifying your strength and tightening the Base into the car. Each installation varies slightly, but usually you turn the Knob almost 10 full revolutions. You know that you have reached the optimal tightness setting when the Base Upright cannot move more than 1” in any direction."

[Kraig]

Today I will be installing our new Orbit car seat for use with our 2 week old son. In preparing to do so I got on-line to review the installation videos and the installation manual. My main objective in getting on-line was to make sure I understood how to utilize the StrongArm such that I achieved the proper tension level. I've never installed a car seat before, but yet I understood that using that mechanism was going to be key for our son's safety. I find it beyond comprehension that CR would deliberately choose to ignore the use of that device. Indeed, that device seems to be a big leap forward in terms of helping parents achieve proper installation. Shame you on you CR! This headline gets you PR and seems to justify your existence. But the reality is that it undermines whatever credibility you may have left. I will not be renewing my subscription.

[Ken Klein]

I've read your report and Orbit's response. One thing that concerns me is the inconsistancy of the test results and the tension in the seat belts. You state that for all tests you were withing the 53.5 to 67 N tension requirements and you did not use the strongarm. Can you provide the tension data for each test? I'm wondering if the orbit is sensitive to this setting and tests conducted on the low end of the range result in failure. I have requested the same data from Orbit.

[Sheri]

Good to see that those who are in-the-know agree that this whole situation is absurd and irresponsible on the part of CU. As a retailer of specialty baby products and a mother who uses this product AND the wife of a CPS tech, I am shocked by the lack of accountability here. The Orbit Infant System was created by designers who set out to reinvent the travel system. Their car seat (and especially the base) is completely different from anything else out there, and it would be especially important for a CPS tech who has never encountered one to really do his/her homework and understand how it works prior to installing it.

Parents are panicking, a wonderful company run by good, honest people, is fighting a completely unjustified PR nightmare, and retailers across the country are dealing with the fallout. There's a huge domino effect here and CU should stop trying to defend what happened and fix it. Retest, and the results will either prove them right or (more likely) force a retraction. Do the right thing and be as quick to resolve this situation as you were to create it.

[KL]

Shame on you CR!

I have installed the base for the orbit system in many different vehicles. It is IMPOSSIBLE to install correctly without using the strong arm mechanism.

I am canceling my subscribtion and will never trust another review you put out on anything!!!

Is someone paying you off?

Show some credibility - run a retest and DO IT RIGHT!

[CPSDarren]

It is difficult to draw any conclusions unless you eliminate as many variables as possible. Scientifc method would suggest that Consumer Reports do at least a few things before creating hype and [potentially] unnecessary panic on this topic (as they did in 2007):

1) Repeat test at a separate lab, preferably one that is highly respected in the field

2) Repeat the test by following the manufacturers instructions

3) Compare the samples that passed with those that failed for any differences that may indicate a defect not present on all models

4) Purchase additional samples and conduct a similar number of tests of competitive models.

5) Have all results peer reviewed and publish the test methodology and results.

[Chris]

I actually spoke to the CEO of Orbit and he explained in detail his concerns with CR, including CR's failure to install the product correctly and CR's unwillingness to verify the test results with a proper installation. I have to say that I was initially very troubled with CR's safety warning. That said, after speaking to Orbit, reviewing the actual CR video and now learning that CR did not, among other things, install the base with the strong arm (a safety feature that is clearly part of the seat) I think it is CR that is being disingenuous. While CR used to be a trusted source of unbiased information, I am strongly suspicious of their claims. It seems as if they have turned into a "pay to play" operation. If CR stands by their warning, why don't they retest the system using the installation method recommended by the manufacturer? Better yet, why don't they and the manufacturer conduct a joint test and publish the results.

[Safety Blogger]

For a full explanation of our "Do not buy" designation, please read the letter from our President, Jim Guest, at this link:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/july-2009/from-our-president/overview/when-not-to-buy-it-ov.htm

[Gerald]

I'm curious how many "Don't Buy - Safety Risk" rating CR has ever issued. I don't recall this rating in the past and I wonder if there is more going on here than an "impartial review"? Could CR have some sort of issue with Orbit that is tainting its results? I do expect more out of CR than this, especially given its constant claims of "independence" and "impartiality".

I'd also expect something as serious as a "Don't Buy - Safety Risk" rating would be accompanied by some additional evidence, including the results from NHTSA testing. Perhaps CR should pay another "independent" lab to confirm their results?

[Kecia]

I have to wonder what kind of Child Passenger Safety Technician doesn'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.
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 CPS Techs 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 just ludicrous. If there is ever any doubt about integrity of the testing methods then you have to throw out the results and redo the tests correctly. I appreciate that CU is trying to help the cause and improve crash protection for children in motor vehicles. However, if they are going to tackle tough projects then they need to be committed to doing them right.

[Dubya]

Wait a second: so CR admits that it didn't follow all the manufacturer's instructions, yet it is going to stand by its testing? I think it was in science class that I learned that if you mess up an experiment's procedure, you can't count on the result. This test should be re-run with all the instructions being followed.

I really do expect more out of CR than this.