Why Consumer Reports Still Says Don’t Buy the Orbit Infant Car Seat
The short answer is simple: Consumer Reports has tested child car seats since 1972, and we take any failures seriously. In the past year alone, we’ve tested 31 different child and infant car seats. Of those, the Orbit Infant Car Seat was the only one that failed our tests. Two out of six Orbit seats detached from their bases in our simulated 30 mph frontal crash tests. We have examined our methodology in detail and believe our tests were properly conducted. We’re concerned about the seat’s safety, and do not feel comfortable recommending it to parents because – when it comes to child safety – we believe no failure is acceptable.
It’s not the first time that Consumer Reports’ view on safety has differed from that of a manufacturer or the government. These differences aren’t surprising given our respective roles in the marketplace. Consumer Reports does not certify that products meet federal safety requirements—that’s the manufacturer’s responsibility. Nor do we conduct compliance testing to confirm that products are legally fit for sale—that’s for the government to do. Consumer Reports independently compares how well products perform from a consumer perspective. And when we find a product that we believe poses a hazard, we advise you not to buy it.
For those who want to know more about how our tests were conducted, why we disagree with the manufacturer’s objections about our methodology, and why we are sticking with our Don’t Buy Rating, see the detailed questions and answers below.
Where did CR get the Orbit Infant Car Seats for its tests?
How were the seats tested?
How did the seats perform?
What does a CR “Don’t Buy” Rating mean?
What has the manufacturer said?
How did CR handle the seat installation?
What has NHTSA said about CR's installation?
What have other experts said about CR’s tests?
Why has CR decided not to run additional tests?
What are our testers' qualifications?
What’s CR’s experience testing car seats?
How did these tests differ from our 2007 car seat tests?
How did the seat perform in NHTSA’s tests?
What does it mean to “pass” the government test?
Are there safe alternatives to this seat?
What should I do if I own the seat?
Are other Orbit Baby products safe?
Where did CR get the Orbit Infant Car Seats for its tests?
All of the Orbit Infant Car Seats used in our tests were bought anonymously by Consumer Reports at retail. Consistent with our policy, we do not rate samples provided by manufacturers. We pay for them the same way you do.
How were the seats tested?
Orbit Infant Car Seats were tested at an outside lab that specializes in car seat testing. The same lab is used by the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA) for car seat testing, and was used in the government’s recent tests of the Orbit Infant Car Seats. It was also used by Orbit Baby for the manufacturer’s seat tests.
Simulated crash tests of the rear-facing infant seats were closely supervised by our program manager of vehicle and child safety Jennifer Stockburger and automotive safety engineer Michelle Tsai, both of whom are engineers and certified Child Passenger Safety (CPS) technicians. Tests were overseen by the manager at the outside lab, who is also CPS certified, and conducted by other trained lab technicians.
These are the same tests that Consumer Reports routinely performs when evaluating car seats. We have a 37-year history of testing car seats and in the last year tested 31 seat models, including the Orbit seat (15 infant and 16 convertible car seats). (See What's CR's experience testing car seats?) We conducted the tests using the manufacturer’s instructions on seat installation. And we were guided by specific standards for speed and impact crash simulations in the federal standard for child restraints (the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard—FMVSS 213). Our crash tests simulated a head-on 30-mph crash and used a 22-pound CRABI dummy, which represents a 12-month-old child.
Three Orbit seats were tested using the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) system to install the base. We also installed two seats using a 3-point (lap-and-shoulder) seat belt. And finally one seat was tested with just a lap belt.
How did the seats perform?
We saw failures with the Orbit Infant Car Seats in two out of six tests: Once when the car seat base was attached using the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) system, and again in one of the instances when the base was installed with the 3-point (lap-and-shoulder) seat belt. We tested two seats as part of our normal test procedure. When one seat detached from its base, we purchased another four seats to see if the failure was reproducible – and we did see a second failure in one of the four seats.
The point of failure with the Orbit seat occurred when the carrier detached from its seat base in two test runs.
In all six of our simulated crashes, the Orbit seat base remained attached to the sled bench. (The sled bench is used in simulated crash tests as a requirement to meet government standards, and substitutes for a vehicle seat.)
The four other Orbit seats did not detach from their bases. And neither did two samples from each of the other models tested in this batch of infant travel systems, the Graco Stylus and the Eddie Bauer Adventurer.
Based on those two failures, Consumer Reports rated the Orbit Infant System Don’t Buy: Safety Risk.
Return to Top
What does a CR “Don’t Buy” Rating mean?
Consumer Reports’ tests are designed to help parents to make decisions about which car seats to buy. We test seats for crash protection, guided by minimum standards for speed and crash dynamics used in government tests. We also compare car seats in terms of how well they perform in areas such as “ease of use” and “fit to vehicle.” We give car seats an overall Rating that tells you which seats may be a good value for your family. Don’t Buy: Safety Risk is our strongest negative recommendation, and indicates our opinion that there is a serious safety risk. In this case, it means we don’t recommend the Orbit Infant Car Seat.
Our view is that when it comes to safety, no test failure is acceptable—and that’s especially so where child safety is concerned. Of the 15 infant seat models we have tested this year using in each case the same minimum standard, simulated frontal impact tests, and conducted in the same specialized lab, the Orbit Infant Car Seat was the only one of the samples we bought and tested that detached from its base.
Another reason the failures raise such serious concerns for us is that the tests run by Consumer Reports followed minimum standards for safety. We conducted simulated frontal crash tests at 30 mph, the speed required by government standards. But other safety tests go beyond those parameters. For example, when the government evaluates the crashworthiness of vehicles and assesses the effects of frontal impacts on adult passengers as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), it conducts crash tests at 35 mph. Though child seats are not normally included in NCAP car evaluations, when they have been, some child restraint recalls have been initiated based on seat failures in these tests even when those same seats met conditions of the minimum FMVSS 213 standard. Consumer Reports believes that seats with a sufficient safety margin should consistently pass tests run at the minimum standard for speed, and also perform well in tests conducted at slightly higher speeds seen in some real-world crashes.
Note that Consumer Reports’ Don’t Buy Rating doesn’t necessarily mean that a seat has failed to comply with government safety standards. The manufacturer is responsible for testing to ensure its seats meet the government standards. And only the government can set those standards and confirm that a particular seat passes or fails. (See How did the seat perform in NHTSA’s tests? and What does it mean to “pass” the government test?)
Return to Top
What has the manufacturer said?
We notified Orbit Baby, the manufacturer based in Newark, Calif., of our findings before we published the results and invited the company to review our test procedures and findings at our Yonkers headquarters. Following that review, Orbit Baby’s chief executive officer, Joseph Hei, said in an e-mailed statement: “Orbit Baby has never received any report of a child being injured while in an Orbit baby seat. We do not believe the test results obtained by Consumers Union are indicative of the safety of our Infant Car seats. Our car seats are used by children, including our own, and safety is our top priority. We strongly believe in the quality of our product.”
The company said that it had run extensive and regular compliance testing in the past in the same independent lab used by Consumer Reports, and that every seat had passed. It also said that upon being notified of our test results, it had conducted more tests at the same lab to see if they could replicate our findings, and found no failures.
How did CR handle the seat installation?
Orbit Baby has raised concerns about the way seats were installed in our tests, and suggested this may have led to our observed seat failures. We respectfully disagree with the manufacturer’s suggestion that our tests were not properly conducted.
The manufacturer raised two specific concerns about our testing: The first has to do with the fact that we did not use the patented StrongArm mechanism when installing the base. The Orbit instructions say to turn the StrongArm knob to amplify your strength when tightening the seat belts that secure the base, and note that the belt has reached “the optimal tightness setting” when the seat base does not move more than one inch in any direction. The installation directions on the seat base direct as follows: “If the base moves more than 1 inch, turn the StrongArm clockwise or reinstall the Base according to the instruction manual.” (See left.) In each of our tests, lab personnel checked to see that the base met the 1-inch movement criteria and was at “optimal” tightness without needing to use the StrongArm.FMVSS 213 also dictates a required tension range for the belts used to attach the seat base to the bench (12 to 15 lbs). Lab personnel installed the Orbit bases to meet that requirement as well, again without needing to use the StrongArm.
Some Orbit Infant System owners have commented on our blogs and said that they don’t understand how we installed the base securely without using the StrongArm feature.
While it may be helpful or necessary to use the StrongArm to ensure that the base can move no more than one inch in any direction when the seat is installed in a car, our lab tests are conducted using the federally mandated sled bench. The bench enables easier access to the belts (including from behind the seat) and is softer and flatter than many vehicle seats. These design features often make it easier to install child seats on the sled bench than in a real car. We confirmed that our installation met the optimal installation outlined in the Orbit manual and the tension requirements of the federal standard.
Based on the details outlined above, again we respectfully disagree with the manufacturer’s claims that we didn’t follow the instructions. We believe that installing the seat as described above should not cause the seat to fail a minimum standard test—and if it does, we think there’s a problem with the seat.
Car-seat installation in the real world is not an exact science. Installation can vary from family to family, and car to car. And the top three installation issues for parents include choosing the correct harness position and tension and getting sufficient vehicle-belt tension. (See NHTSA's research on this issue.) Parents have a right to expect that seats will be engineered with enough margin of safety to accommodate some variations in installation. If a seat’s ability to stay attached to its base depends upon parents using a middle slot instead of the higher slot for a child the size and weight of the 12 month CRABI dummy—when trained CPS technicians and lab personnel all used their best judgment to select the higher slot—we believe that seat doesn’t meet the standards it should to protect a child.
Return to Top
What has NHTSA said about CR's installation?
Consumer Reports and Orbit Baby also shared their test results with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the federal
agency that regulates car seat safety. The agency recently ran its own
tests on the seat (See How did the Orbit Infant Car Seat perform in NHTSA’s tests?). In a later update on their Web site, Orbit Baby reported that a letter to Consumers Union from NHTSA “…Confirmed that the magazine’s original tests of the Infant Car Seat deviated from their official government’s test procedures and were NOT configured correctly according to FMVSS 213”. Orbit suggested this “improper test set up” contributed to what it called our "inconsistent results." We believe this characterization of NHTSA’s comments about our tests is misleading and could be confusing for consumers.
In NHTSA’s report on the research tests (not their letter to Consumers Union) the agency describes two ways in which our tests deviated from FMVSS 213. First it notes that for some of our tests we installed the Orbit Infant Car Seats using a 3 point (lap-and-shoulder) seat belt. Consumer Reports routinely performs crash tests using the 3-point belt configuration (in addition to the LATCH system and two-point lap belt required by FMVSS 213) because this belt system is featured on many newer cars. Second, NHTSA notes we did not use the StrongArm as instructed in the Orbit manual. As we’ve explained, our testers were able to achieve the required belt tension specified by the owner’s manual and the FMVSS standards without needing to use the StrongArm. While it notes differences in protocol, NHTSA does not say that these deviations from their standards invalidate Consumer Reports’ tests or our results.
In addition to regulating the protocol for performing FMVSS 213 tests, the government has recommended practices for contract laboratories such as the one used by Consumer Reports. For rear facing infant seats the agency recommends that the harness be placed through the slot at or below the level of the dummy’s shoulder. In the case of the Orbit seat and 12 month old CRABI dummy, NHTSA's report on its research tests states that it believes the middle slot is the appropriate one. After noting that Consumer Reports placed the harness through the top slot, however, the agency concludes ".......use of the top slot is permitted by FMVSS No. 213.”
Orbit has sharply criticized Consumer Reports’ use of the top harness slot. An article on the company's Web site states: “Correct harness positioning has an especially large influence on crash testing results…. Improperly securing the test dummy allows it to accelerate upwards in a significant way, resulting in unpredictable test conditions.” Again, while Consumer Reports' harness installation differed from NHTSA's, the agency clearly states that our installation is permitted and it does not question the validity of our tests.
Consumer Reports tests are designed to determine comparative performance in a variety of areas, including safety. We are guided by FMVSS 213 and follow specific standards for speed and impact in assessing performance around crash protection. But our tests are designed to allow us to assess comparative performance, and we don’t claim to replicate the government’s tests exactly or to follow all FMVSS 213 test protocols. As an example, the government tests in some areas that we simply don’t cover (such as an Aircraft Passenger Seat Inversion Test). For more information, see How did the seat perform in NHTSA's tests?
What have other experts said about CR’s tests?
Consumer Reports regularly confers with outside experts when developing
tests. Before publication of our results in this case, our test
findings were reviewed by an outside child-safety expert who has broad
experience in child restraint crash testing.
Consumer Reports also commissioned an independent consultant to review our tests. Brian O’Neill, former president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which runs its own large crash-test program, was given access to all Consumer Reports documents concerning the project. His report concludes, “After reviewing the Consumers Union reports of its tests of the Orbit Infant System, the response of the manufacturer, and the comments posted on the blogs I believe the CU warnings about this infant carrier are justified.”
Read O’Neill’s report and conclusions.
Why has CR decided not to run additional tests?
Consumer Reports has already done three rounds of testing on the Orbit Infant Car Seat. We initially tested two seats, and observed one failure. We conducted a second round of tests to see if the failure was reproducible and tested four additional seats, experienced a second failure (a total of two seat failures out of six tested seats). Finally, we purchased two more seats and tested their performance without the base to give owners of the Orbit seat a safer alternative installation.
After a detailed review, we believe our tests were performed correctly. And we have decided not to run additional tests at this time.
Return to Top
What are our testers' qualifications?
Consumer Reports child passenger safety staff members who closely supervised these tests are engineers and certified Child Passenger Safety technicians (CPS) trained in child restraint installation. As part of this certification, our experts have worked in the field helping parents to install their car seats, so they understand the nuances of seat installation in lab and real-world conditions. Tests were overseen by a CPS certified test manager and conducted by technicians at a lab that is certified to run car seat tests for the government, and also conducted seat tests for Orbit Baby. Many of our testers are also parents who regularly move their own child seats from one test car to another.
We take proper car seat installation very seriously. CU has been a vocal advocate for following proper seat installation for many years. In all reports that touch on child safety related to cars, we encourage parents to read and carefully follow instruction manuals. We’ve also suggested that parents make sure that their car seats are properly installed at child seat checkpoints. Find the one nearest to you.
Our work in this area has taught us how challenging car seat instructions can be for parents to follow and we draw on our experiences to push for improvements. We’ve actively promoted labeling clarity and ease of use for car seat manuals and instructions. We recently submitted comments on this topic to NHTSA (August 2007), to assist them in developing guidelines for universal symbols used in car seat and vehicle instructions. Our comments specifically addressed improved labeling and education regarding top-tether usage, LATCH improvements, and improved prominence for labels that identify LATCH hardware in the cars.
Return to Top
What's CR's experience testing car seats?
Consumer Reports has a long history of testing infant car seats, beginning with crash-tests run for the magazine's August 1972 issue: We rated 12 out of 15 of them Not Acceptable.
Between 1972 and 1977, Consumer Reports tested child seats four times, making it the only publication then regularly crash-testing safety seats and reporting the results to consumers and the government. The day after we released our 1974 report, the government proposed a stronger child-restraint amendment and as of January 1, 1981, all manufacturers of child safety seats had to certify that their seats would pass a rigorous crash test.
Today we continue to test child safety seats in order to help consumers to make educated decisions about which car seats to choose for their children. Simulated crash tests not only provide a “check” that seats are meeting the minimum requirements of the standard as child seats are self-certified by their manufacturers but their performance in those tests help us to rank those that reduce a child’s potential for injury better than others. Our testing also includes significant information relative to the seat’s Ease-of-Use and Fit-to-Vehicle assessments. Our CPS technicians and safety experts regularly provide comments to the government on proposals for new standards.
How did these tests differ from our 2007 "side impact" car seat tests?
In this 2007 case, a series of misjudgments and a key
misunderstanding between Consumer Reports and an outside lab led to the
publication of erroneous crash test data for a batch of infant car
seats. Our report was withdrawn just 14 days after it was first
published, when evidence first surfaced that it was flawed. (See How Our Car Seat Tests Went Wrong.)
These recent tests differed significantly from the flawed tests we reported on in 2007. Those tests evaluated seats in conditions exceeding the minimum standards recommended by FMVSS 213, both in speed and in crash orientation. In 2007, in addition to frontal crash tests, we ran side impact crash tests which is where the test flaws occurred. Our 2009 tests of Orbit Infant Car Seats were in conditions based on the current minimum federal standards for sale of seats, which specify no more than a 30-mph speed and are confined to frontal impact.
After the 2007 tests we took a number of steps to prevent car seat testing errors from happening again, all of which benefited the 2009 tests which included the Orbit Infant Car Seat. These 2009 tests involved much closer interaction with the test lab in coordinating test procedures and conditions, and a review of all data by an independent industry expert. All tests were overseen by trained CPS technicians. And when we discovered failures, as already noted, we ensured that we had the ability to repeat failure modes using additional samples. Finally, before we published our Don’t Buy Rating, we also shared all of our data with the manufacturer and asked for its comments and response.
Return to Top
How did the seat perform in NHTSA’s tests
Consumer Reports and Orbit Baby had each shared the results of our respective crash tests with NHTSA and asked the agency to review the matter. As we reported last week, in a letter to Consumers Union NHTSA said that the agency had run two subsequent rounds of tests. The first round of compliance tests took place at the same outside lab used by Consumer Reports and Orbit. Tests followed the standards for 30-mph simulated crashes required by FMVSS 213. None of the four seats tested for compliance detached from their bases. The agency’s compliance-test report concludes that the Orbit Infant Car Seat “met or exceeded” the standard safety requirement.
As part of its continuing research, the agency later ran a second round of tests in the same outside lab replicating Consumer Reports’ test configurations and installation methods. Again, none of the four seats used for that research test detached from their bases. The agency said that it had also reviewed its database for safety related incidents associated with the seat, and had not found any consumer complaints concerning safety issues. (See the agency’s report on its research tests.) It determined that “no further action is currently warranted” and said that it will continue to monitor the Orbit Infant Car Seat and include it in its annual compliance test program.
Return to Top
What does it mean to “pass” the government test?
To meet the government standards, car seats must perform at or below certain required thresholds. For example, car seats must perform so that the test dummy registers data below allowable maximums (for head and chest injury criteria and that the seat does not exceed allowable maximums for back angle (rear facing).
The program relies on self-certification—that is, manufacturers independently perform these tests and are responsible for making sure that they are in compliance with the regulations. NHTSA runs its own tests on a sub-set sample of seats from the market each year to confirm manufacturers’ reported results, but does not test all seats every year.
In this case, the “pass” finding means that the Orbit Infant Car Seat met or exceeded the government safety requirements.
Return to Top
Are there safe alternatives to this seat?
For those in search of an alternative stroller system, Consumer Reports recommends the Graco Stylus Travel System 7U02GA03 ($245). It passed all of our tests and was named a Best Buy.
We want to respond to people on our blogs who asked whether we were paid by Graco to promote their seats. We pride ourselves on being an independent and objective organization, and our recommendations are based solely on our testing. We don’t accept fees or free samples from any manufacturer and we don’t accept advertising.
Return to Top
What should I do if I own the seat?
For those who already own an Orbit Infant System, we recommend that you strap the infant carrier directly into the back seat of the vehicle, without the car seat base. We tested the seat in this configuration to see if it offered a safer alternative for seat owners—and based on our result, this arrangement is safe. Correctly installed this way, the infant carrier passed our tests when it was secured using either a two-point (lap) belt or a three-point (lap and shoulder) belt. Obviously this makes the product somewhat less convenient to use.
Used as a stroller, separate tests have also shown the Orbit Infant System to be perfectly safe.
Return to Top
Are other Orbit products safe?
We have tested other Orbit products and found them to be safe. Last year we evaluated the Orbit Toddler System, which is tested in the same base with a larger 3-year-old dummy and similar speed and attachment protocols (no StrongArm) and had no issues. The Orbit Infant System also performs well in its capacity as a stroller.
Return to Top
Previous
Posted by: M. M. Miller | Nov 19, 2009 5:00:20 PM
It's a $1000 transport system that failed multiple times at relatively low speeds when professional testers installed it in a way that seemed safe.
You can get cheaper systems that didn't fail and are dirt simple.
As a tired parent, concerned about their children and looking to save money -- why on earth would you spend another second thinking about the Orbit system?
Posted by: CR is no longer reliable | Nov 18, 2009 1:05:38 PM
CR will just not own up to their mistake. In their report, they clearly state that they did not use the "strong arm" feature, which is the "patented" feature of the orbit! In their recent response up above, they still admit to not having used it but that it was because "The bench enables easier access to the belts (including from behind the seat) and is softer and flatter than many vehicle seats.". Even on a flat surface, you still have to tweak the strong arm so unless you're telling me that the CR lab personell coincidentally got the right setting in every one of the 6 tests to not even tweak the "strong arm" feature ONCE, they are complete BS. I personally know of 5 ppl who have cancelled their CR subscriptions due to these incompentent tests....
Posted by: Jon | Nov 16, 2009 5:30:24 PM
The question basically comes down to this:
1) Is the intermittent failures that Consumer Reports (CR) witnessed solely a result of not installing using the StrongArm knob?
The only way to prove this is to do a bunch of tests on a bunch of car seats, both using the StrongArm and doing it the CR way (not using the StrongArm knob at all).
2) If it is clearly the case that installing the car seat properly using StrongArm results in no intermittent failures whatsoever (as opposed to not using StrongArm), then the question is whether the instructions are clear on the need to tighten the seat down using StrongArm. Thus far, everyone except for CR seems to think the instructions are quite clear on this. If the instruction are in fact quite clear on this (and it seems to be the case) then CR's labeling the Orbit "not safe" due to improper installation makes as much sense as CR under-inflating tires and claiming said tires are a "safety risk".
A product should not be considered a safety risk if intermittent failures occur only when a user clearly is misusing or improperly installing it despite clear instructions concerning proper use.
Posted by: Heather W. | Nov 9, 2009 2:43:32 AM
One thing your readers need to be made aware of when comparing the current crash test (30 mph) and the NCAP crash test (35 mph) you're suggesting is there's a big difference in speed. A 5 mph increase in speed in a crash test isn't a "slightly higher speed" when you consider physics. The force will change exponentially in that 5 mph increase, not incrementally. The energy increases with the square of the velocity, which is an increase of 36%. Considering that injury occurs when there's a swift change in velocity, that mere 5 mph increase greatly increases the chance of injury. FMVSS 213 requires child safety seats to pass at 30 mph, a test more severe than 97% of real-life frontal crashes. I agree that child safety seats should be crash tested in NCAP-tested vehicles--we have much to learn from that. But remember that our current seats are very safe and are *saving lives* every day.
I have some experience installing the Orbit Baby infant seat base and know that it is a base that installs tightly with very little effort. I see that installation of the base was done by following the directions on the label provided on the base. Was the instruction manual consulted? I do agree that the label on the base is unclear about use of the StrongArm; however, it is very clear in the manual that the StrongArm must be used before checking for 1" of movement at the belt path. Perhaps Orbit Baby should issue a Consumer Advisory and replace that label with one that matches the instructions in the manaul. I'm surprised if you're not turning the StrongArm on the basis of installing the base using the label alone. I'm aware that many parents skip reading the manual altogether, but Orbit has gone to great lengths to make theirs one of the easiest to read. By saying that you followed the label alone gives parents your tacit approval to not read the manual.
I'm also concerned about your choice of experts to review your crash tests. With all due respect to Brian O'Neill, formerly of IIHS, does he have any expertise in context of child passenger safety other than to say more design should be done at the vehicle level in the back seat for our youngest passengers? I've been in the CPS field for 8.5 years and I've not come across his name in our professional forums or at our professional meetings. I respect him as an expert in vehicle safety and trust his opinion in vehicle crash testing, but why didn't you find a CPS expert to evaluate your tests?
CPS techs are here to help parents install, understand, and use their seats correctly. To have a major magazine, one that people trust, not follow directions on a safety item is unbelievable. If the failures had occurred when the directions for installation were followed to a "T," then it would be much easier to believe the outcome of the tests. But since the instruction manuals don't appear to have been read and experts in the field not consulted, how can I trust the outcome of the tests? How can I trust any future CR testing at all?
Posted by: Ben | Nov 7, 2009 5:18:09 PM
Actually, Jennifer Stockburger is not a verifiable Child Passenger Safety technician. Until she's listed in the national registry (as her colleague Ms. Tsai is), she really shouldn't be giving "expert" opinions.
https://ssl13.cyzap.net/dzapps/dbzap.bin/apps/assess/webmembers/tool?pToolCode=TAB9&pCategory1=TAB9_CERTSEARCH&Webid=SAFEKIDSCERTSQL
Same link: http://tinyurl.com/6oe32h
Posted by: CPSDarren | Nov 7, 2009 2:15:24 PM
Consumer Reports still continues to eschew basic scientific method. In over two months, both Orbit and NHTSA have conducted additional tests in resposne, some apparently using the exact same laboratory. None have supported CR's findings. Even so, I see no indication here that CR has done a thing to further verify their findings in that time. I suggested the following in response to the last blog ( http://blogs.consumerreports.org/baby/2009/08/additional-information-on-orbit-infant-system-tests.html ):
"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."
Without having done this, CR is essentially putting into question the repeatability of all sled crash testing. This is an extremely serious matter, yet there seems to be no interest in taking these necessary steps to confirm such a serious finding. Why?
Without that effort, this is starting to bring back memories of the Suzuki Samurai debacle. If a serious safety risk does potentially exist in a product, then do what it takes to absolutely confirm the finding in an open and independently monitored manner, rather than just keep talking about it and simply generating publicity. After all, our children are potentially in harms way. We want to know if there is a risk, without any doubt or double talk.
Posted by: WorriedFather | Nov 5, 2009 4:39:53 PM
If Consumer Reports admittedly did NOT test the way that NHTSA and Orbit Baby tested, did they test outside of the parameters offered by Graco and other carseats? In other words, if Consumer Reports is defending its method as a "possibility" that consumers might install that way, shouldn't they try all the different possibilities for mis-use or "different" installations on all of its recommended carseats?
Posted by: protectiveparent | Nov 4, 2009 8:13:31 PM
Give me a break. Again! What do you have it in for this company? From what I have read and my research Orbit Baby is focused on quality and safety.
It doesnt make sense that you keep promoting the Graco everytime you mention Orbit Baby. This has become juvenille. Tit for tat. Let it go already. You already gave them the do not buy warning. Let it go. If something happens in real life you can all feel vindicated and say I told you so. Otherwise - stop already - it really makes you look petty.