Forward facing rear seats for 90 - Baby Seat???

Hi all,

Does anyone know if -

a) You can fit rear, front facing seats in the back of a 90 which will
allow a child seat to be fitted? I spoke with Exmoor Trim this
afternoon and was told their seats are not suitable as the fold up in
the side - understandable. Does anyone do permanent fixture one?

b) If anyone does sell them - and someone has used them -do they seem
secure enough?

c) Is it best to put the car seat in the front passenger seat, using
the normal 3 point inertia belt? I'm a little uneasy about this mainly
due to my 18 month being in the front when he'd previously been in the
back of a Golf.


cheers
Gavin

[email protected] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone know if -
>
> a) You can fit rear, front facing seats in the back of a 90 which will
> allow a child seat to be fitted? I spoke with Exmoor Trim this
> afternoon and was told their seats are not suitable as the fold up in
> the side - understandable. Does anyone do permanent fixture one?

You can fix the seats by bolting them to the floor. The back and side leg
(both of which fold up) can be made stay out, they have little clamps which
would need a little extra to ensure they stayed secure.

>
> b) If anyone does sell them - and someone has used them -do they seem
> secure enough?

I got mine from Paddocks, they do seem to be strong enough.

>
> c) Is it best to put the car seat in the front passenger seat, using
> the normal 3 point inertia belt? I'm a little uneasy about this mainly
> due to my 18 month being in the front when he'd previously been in the
> back of a Golf.
>
I also bought some new 3 point inertia belts and they were easy to fit in
the back, I did add a bit of big angle iron to reinforce the top point and
floor mount.
>
> cheers
> Gavin

Too many journeys with the kids sat on the side seats and me having to brake
sharp made me fit the rear forward facing seats. You lose a bit of space in
the back as they take up some room when they are folded up. When they are
being used they take up a lot of room. Kids love them as they are high up
and they can see out of the front window and the sides. Some adults have
complained about being too high up. Just take them over a few speed bumps,
that shuts them up.

Nigel
--
nigel@leginDOTorg
1979 Lightweight

Nigel,

Any chance of a couple of pictures of your installation?

I can't find the seats on Paddocks site though - how long ago did you
fit them?

When I was spoken to by Exmoor they said their seats were not for child
seats due to way the side bar just rests on the floor....I'm wondering
if only bolting them is sufficent. Also concerned that the back of the
seat could fold in on the baby seat under a shunt.

cheers
Gavin

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone know if -
>
> a) You can fit rear, front facing seats in the back of a 90 which will
> allow a child seat to be fitted? I spoke with Exmoor Trim this
> afternoon and was told their seats are not suitable as the fold up in
> the side - understandable. Does anyone do permanent fixture one?
>
> b) If anyone does sell them - and someone has used them -do they seem
> secure enough?
>
> c) Is it best to put the car seat in the front passenger seat, using
> the normal 3 point inertia belt? I'm a little uneasy about this mainly
> due to my 18 month being in the front when he'd previously been in the
> back of a Golf.
>
>
> cheers
> Gavin
>

Be really sure that you know what you are doing with aftermarket
seats, just bolting them through the floor without attaching them
to something that wont let go in an accident. Same goes for seatbelts
and their anchorage points. The forces on seat mountings is very
high in an accident - I used to have some figures somewhere about
the weight of a 10kg in a 50kph full stop accident, but for the life
of me I cant find them now. It was something in the region of half
a tonne in force. No doubt someone can work that one out. I know
it convinced me that I would never allow anyone to carry a child
in my car in their arms or on their lap.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nigel,
>
> Any chance of a couple of pictures of your installation?
>
Me too. Could you mail some to me as well please. I'm in the same situation
2 kids + only benchs in the back = unhappy wife.
Dad gets to motor on his own in peace and quiet errrrrrrrrr hang on what am
i talking about??
Seriously a few ideas would be good.
Thanks

Graeme

On 15 Sep 2005 10:27:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Does anyone know if -
>
>a) You can fit rear, front facing seats in the back of a 90 which will
>allow a child seat to be fitted? I spoke with Exmoor Trim this
>afternoon and was told their seats are not suitable as the fold up in
>the side - understandable. Does anyone do permanent fixture one?
>
>b) If anyone does sell them - and someone has used them -do they seem
>secure enough?
>
>c) Is it best to put the car seat in the front passenger seat, using
>the normal 3 point inertia belt? I'm a little uneasy about this mainly
>due to my 18 month being in the front when he'd previously been in the
>back of a Golf.
>
>
>cheers
>Gavin

If I was going to carry my child in a Land Rover it would be

a) because there was no other option
b) in a centre seat position only

Side impact, roll-over and offset head-on protection is virtually
non-existent in 90. There is no major structure outside the main
rails, apart from the occasional outrigger. The oft-spouted nonsense
about them being the safest vehicle on the road is exactly that.

Precious cargo and all that...

If you do decide to do this, I would put the child in the front,
obviously rear-facing. I would also ask your Land Rover dealer if
they sell / recommend a seat that has been tested in that position.
You may also find that the seat belt is too short to wrap around the
seat - the seat we had in the Discovery was only just long enough. I
had to make a judgement between putting Charlotte in the centre with
only a lap belt or at the side with a full 3 point belt. In the end I
decided that the best position was in a Volvo...

flame suit at the ready....




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

Tim,

Thanks for the input - I'm all ears.

The main reason we are switching from the Golf is due the type of roads
my wife now spends 80% of her time on - namely country 'B' roads/Single
lane with passing points. She has nearly been wiped out twice now but
idiots going too fast for the road and conditions. Being unable to see
'over' the hedges and therefor to see what's coming up is the one of
the reason we felt a 90 would do the job.

My son is 19months old so his seat is forward facing. I've tried it in
the 90 and it fits as well as the Golf with no movement. Have'nt tried
the middle seat yet - that will be done tomorrow.

If we're still not convinced then I can see a 110 coming up...

cheers,
Gavin

On 16 Sep 2005 04:27:49 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Tim,
>
>Thanks for the input - I'm all ears.
>
>The main reason we are switching from the Golf is due the type of roads
>my wife now spends 80% of her time on - namely country 'B' roads/Single
>lane with passing points. She has nearly been wiped out twice now but
>idiots going too fast for the road and conditions. Being unable to see
>'over' the hedges and therefor to see what's coming up is the one of
>the reason we felt a 90 would do the job.
>
>My son is 19months old so his seat is forward facing. I've tried it in
>the 90 and it fits as well as the Golf with no movement. Have'nt tried
>the middle seat yet - that will be done tomorrow.
>
>If we're still not convinced then I can see a 110 coming up...
>
>cheers,
>Gavin

I can't remember how old Charlotte was when she went forward facing.
From memory it's recommended that they weigh 15kg(?) before going
forward facing - something to do with development of neck muscles.
Babies have disproportionately large heads which can snap the spine in
a heavy collision. My only observation is that the lack of any
crumple zone will make this effect even worse. But if your lad is
anything like Charlotte he'd have been playing merry hell about
looking "the wrong way" from about a year old!

I hate to say it, but for this job I'd have chosen a Freelander or
even a Mitsubishi / Toyota / Nissan for preference. Much better
comfort and crash performance whilst retaining the high driving
position.

Fair to say though that not having a crash in a 90 is infinitely
better than having one in a Golf.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

Tim Hobbs wrote:
> The oft-spouted nonsense
> about them being the safest vehicle on the road is exactly that.

Is it?

http://www.roadlincs.com/Content/Car/Docs/makemodel.pdf

Go to page 10. These are actual Govt statistics based on 4 years of
actual injury accidents, not some theoretical or lab-based NCAP tests.

You will see the Defender and Discovery get the lowest scores of all
vehicles, roughly three times better than a Volvo.

DaveP

[email protected] wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> Any chance of a couple of pictures of your installation?
>
> I can't find the seats on Paddocks site though - how long ago did you
> fit them?
>
> When I was spoken to by Exmoor they said their seats were not for
> child seats due to way the side bar just rests on the floor....I'm
> wondering if only bolting them is sufficent. Also concerned that the
> back of the seat could fold in on the baby seat under a shunt.
>
> cheers
> Gavin

www.paddockspares.com
Series section
Upholstery
about half way down the page

Can take some pics tomorrow, beer and curry time now.

Nigel

--
nigel@leginDOTorg
1979 Lightweight

On 16 Sep 2005 07:27:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Tim Hobbs wrote:
>> The oft-spouted nonsense
>> about them being the safest vehicle on the road is exactly that.
>
>Is it?
>
>http://www.roadlincs.com/Content/Car/Docs/makemodel.pdf
>
>Go to page 10. These are actual Govt statistics based on 4 years of
>actual injury accidents, not some theoretical or lab-based NCAP tests.
>
>You will see the Defender and Discovery get the lowest scores of all
>vehicles, roughly three times better than a Volvo.
>
>DaveP

Site is broken at present.

However, if it is the report I read previously (and it may not be) the
survey showed that in fatal accidents the survivors were most likely
to be driving a Defender.

That has since been interpreted as meaning that Defenders are the
safest vehicles on the road. What it actually shows is that

a) accidents are more likely to be fatal if the other car is a
Defender
b) Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first place

This is despite the likely lower average speed and lower annual
mileage of many Defenders over cars. It also neatly excludes
collisions not involving other vehicles (e.g. with trees, walls and
other items that cannot donate a crumple zone).

YMMV, but if I had the choice of car to drive into an accident (of any
type, but especially involving leaving the road, hitting a solid
object or other high vehicle) I'd put Defender at the very bottom of
my list.

No crumple zone
No airbag
No ABS
No roll cage
No side protection
High centre of gravity
Masses of hard structures in cab
No belt pre-tensioners






--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

Stepping aside from my original post, but I think I'm put off driving
my Discovery now let alone a 90 with my boy in it..

I can see both being sold now and a nice safe Eurobox be purchased.

Do Land Rovers have ANY safety devices?

Gavin

On 16 Sep 2005 09:17:30 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Stepping aside from my original post, but I think I'm put off driving
>my Discovery now let alone a 90 with my boy in it..
>
>I can see both being sold now and a nice safe Eurobox be purchased.
>
>Do Land Rovers have ANY safety devices?
>
>Gavin

Discos and Range Rovers can be had with airbags, ABS and other such.
Not sure about belt tensioners. Roll-over protection is better since
the roof is not designed to be unbolted. But I don't know exactly
what is in the roof of a Disco / Range Rover. I don't know what
side-impact protection exists in the various Disco model years - not
much in the 200-300 series I think.

Freelander and current RaRo / Disco have structural strength in the
bodyshell. Freelander / Range Rover has no separate chassis at all -
it is a monocoque with crumple zones and intrinsic strength in the
sills, including side-protection in the doors.

RaRo Sport and Disco 3 have a chassis AND a structural bodyshell. I'm
not sure how far forward the chassis goes, but I'd be very surprised
if there isn't a substantial forward crumple zone.

All the current models bar Defender have ABS, aribags and various
traction controlly stuff.





--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

so Tim Hobbs was, like...
> On 16 Sep 2005 07:27:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Tim Hobbs wrote:
>>> The oft-spouted nonsense
>>> about them being the safest vehicle on the road is exactly that.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> http://www.roadlincs.com/Content/Car/Docs/makemodel.pdf
>>
>> Go to page 10. These are actual Govt statistics based on 4 years of
>> actual injury accidents, not some theoretical or lab-based NCAP
>> tests.
>>
>> You will see the Defender and Discovery get the lowest scores of all
>> vehicles, roughly three times better than a Volvo.
>>
>> DaveP
>
> Site is broken at present.

Looks OK to me.

> However, if it is the report I read previously (and it may not be) the
> survey showed that in fatal accidents the survivors were most likely
> to be driving a Defender.
>
> That has since been interpreted as meaning that Defenders are the
> safest vehicles on the road. What it actually shows is that
>
> a) accidents are more likely to be fatal if the other car is a
> Defender
> b) Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first place

Sounds like it's not the same report, then. This one examines the stats for
two-car injury accidents 1996-2000, and scores cars according to the
statistical likelihood of death or serious injury from being in said
vehicle, standardised. Defender/Disco scores 1 (1% likelihood of
death/serious injury in 2-car injury accident), Volvo 900 3 (3%, etc),
Fourtrak 4, Suzuki SJ 6, and so on.

It does not take into account the likelihood of the vehicle to have an
accident in the first place (although I would have thought Def/Disco were
quite low down on the list anyway, being comparatively slow and unattractive
to the boy racer brigade).

> It also neatly excludes
> collisions not involving other vehicles (e.g. with trees, walls and
> other items that cannot donate a crumple zone).

I take your point there. Other people's crumple zones are so comforting.

> YMMV, but if I had the choice of car to drive into an accident (of any
> type, but especially involving leaving the road, hitting a solid
> object or other high vehicle) I'd put Defender at the very bottom of
> my list.
>
> No crumple zone
> No airbag
> No ABS
> No roll cage
> No side protection
> High centre of gravity
> Masses of hard structures in cab
> No belt pre-tensioners

YMMV too - there is a stack of anecdotal evidence of people walking away
from accidents in Land Rovers (trees, walls, 60ft drops into rivers, as well
as other cars) when in other vehicles they might have been much worse. Yes,
might - it's all a bit imponderable at this level. You have to make your
own choices. I am perfectly happy carrying my own or other people's kids in
my Disco, or the Series.

Have a look at this little bit of local news:

http://www.thisispembrokeshire.net/pembrokeshire/news/NEWS9.html

4WD tractor broken in two, Discovery with damage to front end, but not as
serious as you'd think from the state of the tractor. Happily, all
occupants were OK. I'm not sure a normal car would have stood up as well.

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:04:01 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>so Tim Hobbs was, like...
>> On 16 Sep 2005 07:27:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Tim Hobbs wrote:
>>>> The oft-spouted nonsense
>>>> about them being the safest vehicle on the road is exactly that.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>>
>>> http://www.roadlincs.com/Content/Car/Docs/makemodel.pdf
>>>
>>> Go to page 10. These are actual Govt statistics based on 4 years of
>>> actual injury accidents, not some theoretical or lab-based NCAP
>>> tests.
>>>
>>> You will see the Defender and Discovery get the lowest scores of all
>>> vehicles, roughly three times better than a Volvo.
>>>
>>> DaveP
>>
>> Site is broken at present.
>
>Looks OK to me.
>
>> However, if it is the report I read previously (and it may not be) the
>> survey showed that in fatal accidents the survivors were most likely
>> to be driving a Defender.
>>
>> That has since been interpreted as meaning that Defenders are the
>> safest vehicles on the road. What it actually shows is that
>>
>> a) accidents are more likely to be fatal if the other car is a
>> Defender
>> b) Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first place
>
>Sounds like it's not the same report, then. This one examines the stats for
>two-car injury accidents 1996-2000, and scores cars according to the
>statistical likelihood of death or serious injury from being in said
>vehicle, standardised. Defender/Disco scores 1 (1% likelihood of
>death/serious injury in 2-car injury accident), Volvo 900 3 (3%, etc),
>Fourtrak 4, Suzuki SJ 6, and so on.
>

I still can't read it for some reason - could be my PDF reader is
buggered. If the survey only looks at injury accidents it is already
skewed - it could (and I don't know any more than anyone else does) be
that more minor shunts in Defenders result in a whiplash injury and
thus improve the figures for that vehicle. Lies, damn lies etc!

The high driving position and higher weight of a Land Rover is a
helpful factor (to the occupants) in a collision with a soft subject.
The reduced speeds also help - I felt much safer driving the Discovery
than I do the Volvo, but maybe that made me MORE vulnerable.

There's no right answer, as you say.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

On or around Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:58:37 GMT, "Roger & Lorraine Martin"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>Be really sure that you know what you are doing with aftermarket
>seats, just bolting them through the floor without attaching them
>to something that wont let go in an accident. Same goes for seatbelts
>and their anchorage points. The forces on seat mountings is very
>high in an accident - I used to have some figures somewhere about
>the weight of a 10kg in a 50kph full stop accident, but for the life
>of me I cant find them now. It was something in the region of half
>a tonne in force. No doubt someone can work that one out. I know
>it convinced me that I would never allow anyone to carry a child
>in my car in their arms or on their lap.

seat belt mountings are 7/16" UNF nuts welded to suitable reinforcing plates
and same welded or otherwise fixed under the floor. I'd tend to the view
that for ordinary floors you want a minimum of 100x100x3 mm for your
reinforcing, presuming space to fit it. In the event of a shunt, that plate
has to pull through the floor for the belt to fail.

somewhere, I have specs for the forces that seatbelts/mounts should test to,
which are quite high as you say, and are also different depending on what
kind of belt or what position on the belt.

Oh, and WRT young children - holding onto the young child, with the adult
belted, is about the best you can do if no better solution like a proper
child seat is available. Much better than belting around the adult and
child - the adult's weight against the belt rather tends to try and cut the
child in half.

the "correct" solution isn't always possible. But you can try for
least-damage.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

On or around Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:19:17 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Side impact, roll-over and offset head-on protection is virtually
>non-existent in 90. There is no major structure outside the main
>rails, apart from the occasional outrigger. The oft-spouted nonsense
>about them being the safest vehicle on the road is exactly that.

well, yes, but...


how come you get all these pictures of landies that have been rolled and the
occupants survived?

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

On or around 16 Sep 2005 04:27:49 -0700, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>Tim,
>
>Thanks for the input - I'm all ears.
>
>The main reason we are switching from the Golf is due the type of roads
>my wife now spends 80% of her time on - namely country 'B' roads/Single
>lane with passing points. She has nearly been wiped out twice now but
>idiots going too fast for the road and conditions. Being unable to see
>'over' the hedges and therefor to see what's coming up is the one of
>the reason we felt a 90 would do the job.
>
>My son is 19months old so his seat is forward facing. I've tried it in
>the 90 and it fits as well as the Golf with no movement. Have'nt tried
>the middle seat yet - that will be done tomorrow.

I've fitted child seats to a vehicle with fixed lap belts only - provided
you get the belt good and tight, and well-positioned on the seat, it'll hold
it in OK. Presumably the inertia-reel type lap belts work equally
effectively, but that's not what you get in the middle of a 90.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

On or around Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:02:13 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>On 16 Sep 2005 07:27:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>Tim Hobbs wrote:
>>> The oft-spouted nonsense
>>> about them being the safest vehicle on the road is exactly that.
>>
>>Is it?
>>
>>http://www.roadlincs.com/Content/Car/Docs/makemodel.pdf
>>
>>Go to page 10. These are actual Govt statistics based on 4 years of
>>actual injury accidents, not some theoretical or lab-based NCAP tests.
>>
>>You will see the Defender and Discovery get the lowest scores of all
>>vehicles, roughly three times better than a Volvo.
>>
>>DaveP
>
>Site is broken at present.
>
>However, if it is the report I read previously (and it may not be) the
>survey showed that in fatal accidents the survivors were most likely
>to be driving a Defender.
>
>That has since been interpreted as meaning that Defenders are the
>safest vehicles on the road. What it actually shows is that
>
>a) accidents are more likely to be fatal if the other car is a
>Defender
>b) Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first place

I've yet to see statistics used to prove that balck is white, but I'm sure
it could be done.

besides, the point at issue is whether your kids are safe inside the
defender, not whether when someone else runs into you *they* get hurt. How
many accidents are *caused* by defenders? How many are other people driving
into them?

>YMMV, but if I had the choice of car to drive into an accident (of any
>type, but especially involving leaving the road, hitting a solid
>object or other high vehicle) I'd put Defender at the very bottom of
>my list.
>
>No crumple zone
>No airbag
>No ABS
>No roll cage
>No side protection
>High centre of gravity
>Masses of hard structures in cab
>No belt pre-tensioners

You could of course try not driving off the road into a tree in the first
place...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

On or around 16 Sep 2005 09:17:30 -0700, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>Stepping aside from my original post, but I think I'm put off driving
>my Discovery now let alone a 90 with my boy in it..
>
>I can see both being sold now and a nice safe Eurobox be purchased.
>
>Do Land Rovers have ANY safety devices?

all them hard things in the cab deter you from driving in such a way as to
hit stuff in the first place...


There were a series of adverts which gave the strong implication that if you
drove a volvo it didn't matter what you drove into or what drove into you,
*you'd* be safe, thanks to 27 air bags, and guess what, a rigid
structure...(albeit with crumple zones on the edges).

personally, "drive a volvo into anything and you won't get hurt" didn't
really do it for me as a message. I'd prefer "don't drive into things".

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1