First i-Size child car seat to fail Which? testsNuna Rebl i-Size rated as a Don't Buy
25 October 2016
In the latest Which? child car seat crash test results, one i-Size child car seat scored poorly enough to be rated as a Don’t Buy.
The Nuna Rebl i-Size scored so badly in our front-impact crash tests when tested rearward facing with a crash test dummy representing a three-year-old, that its score was downgraded overall, making it a Don’t Buy.
Avoid our other child car seat Don't Buys.
Nuna Rebl crash test results
The Nuna Rebl i-Size child car seat has passed the regulatory tests required by the UN ECE R129 standard to be sold as suitable for children from 40cm to 105cm tall, which is from birth to around four years old.
It's designed to be used rearward facing right up until your child reaches 105cm, which could be as old as four, or it can also be used forward facing from 15 months.
However, in our crash tests, the Nuna Rebl is the first i-Size car seat that we've seen fail some of our frontal-impact crash tests.
Our crash tests are severe, and our experts believe that they more accurately reflect what happens in real crashes than the UN legal minimum standards, which is why we see differences.
When tested with a crash test dummy representing a three-year-old child, with the seat positioned rearward facing, the seat was not up to withstanding the forces of the crash. The metal frame of the car seat base broke. Because of this, the risk of injury is very high as the child car seat could potentially crash into the passenger seat in front.
Which? members can read our full review of the Nuna Rebl, including results for crash tests when facing forwards, in our child car seat reviews from 26 October 2016.
Which? child car seat testing
We crash-test child car seats in two specially designed crash scenarios.
Our child car seat test results reveal big differences between seats. Some protect babies and children well, but others expose them to the risk of serious injury or even death. The best child car seats will provide protection from both front- and side-impact crashes – two of the most common types of crash.
Nuna crash test results
The crash-test results indicate that an older child using the Nuna Rebl i-Size child car seat in rear-facing mode could be at high risk of serious injury in the front crashes we simulated. We don't recommend you buy this seat if you're planning on using it as an extended rearward-facing car seat.
A statement from Nuna
A statement from Nuna says: ‘We would reiterate that the Nuna REBL meets and exceeds all the relevant UK government safety standards. It both meets and exceeds the ECE R129 standard as tested by the VCA (the UK executive agency of the Department of Transport and leading certification body). The German Automobile Club, ADAC, has performed what it describes as an ‘extreme test’, which is not recognised by the UK Department of Transport, or any other standard the industry is asked to comply with. We will not be conducting a product recall unless the recognised relevant national authorities deem the seat is unsafe. However, ultimately, what matters is our customers’ peace of mind – therefore, we are offering full refunds to any customer that does not feel that the rigorous UK government standards are sufficient. A refund can be obtained by contacting our customer service team Monday through Friday on 0800 952 0061 between the hours of 9am to 5pm or emailing us directly at firstname.lastname@example.org, or by contacting your retailer.’
Which? child car seat expert Lisa Galliers says: 'Which? is pleased to see that Nuna is now offering a refund to customers concerned, although it is not legally required to do so.
'We have been in contact with Nuna in the UK and have provided additional information on the issue, and hope that Nuna can work out what has happened with this seat.
'Which? crash-tests child car seats in two specially designed crash scenarios in conjunction with our European child car seat partners. The crash tests are severe, and our European car seat experts feel that they more accurately reflect what happens in real crashes than the legal minimum standards do, which is why we see differences.'