I had an Advocate 65 prior to buying this 70 model, but the extra EPP foam lining the shell (the advocate 65 has no foam on the side of the shell...... what gives Britax?), collapsing honeycomb base, smoother belt path to smooth out the CS feature, and stronger/more integral mounting bars convinced me to drop another 300 bucks on the 70. Some guys get a new iphone when a new version is available, I get another car seat. The CS feature is junk on the Advocate 65, but it doesn't get in the way as long as you pay attention and get the straps tight enough (I always just ignored the click and kept on pulling/guiding the straps). My wife was getting very irritated with the CS feature on the 65 and said "the new one is ten times better". The 65 had sharp edges where the belts feed through the back of the seat causing the belt tension between the back of the seat and clicker to be high, but not tight enough around your child. The 70 model has smooth curves though the back of the seat so tension in the clicker area equals tension around your kid.... much better.
I've read countless posts by "certified technicians" saying the air bladders on the Advocate are a waste of money. I've read reviews where people say it's "Twice as safe" with the air bladder. My assessment is that many of these people are making statements beyond their understanding. To become a certified CPS technician you take a 4-day class and pay 75 dollars, not an impulse and momentum physics class. Be careful what you believe in online reviews. It's also well known that companies have departments that talk up their products in online reviews and talk down the products of their competition so you really never know.
Consumer Reports is apathetic to the Advocate's air bladders. They state they do not test side impacts and subsequently rate the Advocate lower than the Boulevard (same model without air bladders) because it costs more. What this amounts to is they completely ignore the air bladders potential in their rating, don't test for it, reduce it's overall rating because it costs more and then make a small comment about the fact it may help in the small print. A few years back they did some side impact testing and published a worrisome review about American car seats (European seats were better in their test). They retracted the article for some litigious reason I believe (excessive testing or something.... but just the same the European seats were not flying off the base whether or not it was an excessive test). For this reason Consumer Reports will never get another dollar from me. They are being lazy and litigation weary instead of jumping in head first and creating an excellent side impact test that would reveal the value or lack of value of side impact technologies from all the manufacturers. For now people that just look at the rating dots will never know CS is throwing out safety features from the ratings because they don't test for side impact, which they say result in a large percentage of fatalities (***shaking head***). As of Jan 2011 an "Excellent" safety rating from CS is only referring to frontal testing and side impact appears to have zero weight in their rating system.
Here is my opinion based on an engineering background. Because crash dynamics are complicated, I don't want any of these statements to be taken as a God given fact in the application of every car wreck. I'm taking the time to write this because all the one-line negatories from certified technicians. I'll just state the simple laws of physics that apply in these types of situations so you can decide if you want to spring for the air bladders or not. It is very likely that if the OUTSIDE of the advocate impacts another object in a crash be it a caving door panel or the bumper of a jacked up truck, the air bladder will slow down the rate at which your child's head goes from motion to rest because the air bladder functions just like an air bag in your car (a balloon that is not air tight but allows for forces to be dissipated over a longer time (milliseconds longer). The time it takes for your child's head to go from motion to rest is inversely related to the impact force your child's head will experience. In simpler terms the the slower they slow down, the lower the maximum impact force they will experience. This is why air bags are in all cars now, they slow down how fast you come (measured in small factions of a second) to rest greatly reducing maximum force. Maybe any wreck that these features come into play is unsurvivable I don't know.... It makes me go cross eyed when a certified tech says "the air bladders on the advocate don't do anything". I'm not certain they are as valuable as Britax says they are, but geeeezzz. Ask yourself this: If you are wearing a hockey mask (similar to your child's seat shell) and your greatest enemy gets one free swing at your face with an Aluminum baseball bat, would you or would you not opt to place an air bag on the front of your hockey mask?
If your seat is in the center of the car and nothing impacts the air bladder, then it won't help. An example would be a side crash in which the seat was mounted in the middle and the car did not crush and nothing penetrated the interior of the car. In this scenario the base of the seat would hold the upper part of the seat (via the car belt/latch) in place while your child hits the inside reducing their velocity and momentum to zero. In this situation the air bladder does not help.
What my assumptions lead me to believe is that if you are putting your seat right next to the vehicle's door with a good chance of something hitting the side of the seat (or another person), or the seat pivoting and slamming on the interior door panel in a side impact or roll, then the chances the air bladders will be advantageous are high, where as if your seat will be in the center there is less of a chance (but not zero) this feature will lend a helping hand in an accident. I have a minivan with the seat mounted in the middle and I still believe strongly in my extra investment for the air bladders based on the impact and momentum laws of physics and the potential of objects penetrating the cabin space from the side and hitting the car seat. The added cost of the bladders for how much safety they add may be on the expensive side, but I'm willing to pay 20 percent more for a seat that is 10 percent safer (I'm making these numbers up I don't know how much safer it is). I want maximum protection and am willing to pay for it and deal with the extra size.
I've observed that the 70 exhibits less torsional rigidity compared to the 65. I believe this is due to the honeycomb collapsing base. I'm not convinced this is a bad thing, in fact it may be intentional.
Buying a seat is confusing and there seems to be more bad information than good information out there. From what I can tell the people we trust to regulate/test the car seat industry seem to have dropped the ball. I think the Advocate is one of the best choices I have, but I get this feeling that the manufacturers in America have whipped our officials into keeping things easy/cheap for them. There was a good article in the Chicago Tribune a couple years ago in which HALF the American car seats performed poorly in a government study (including Britax). The conclusions of the article/test was basically..... finger pointing and "we need to do something better".
I think Britax should be rewarded for developing and marketing products that exceed the pathetic regulation system. It's a shame they have to ride lower on the ratings because there is no standardized test for the types of impact that hurt more kids.
Good luck!
**************************************************************
Update 3: Amazon is currently selling a "Previous Version" and a "Current Version" of the Advocate 70 CS. Since I just bought my fifth Advocate from Amazon that happened to be this "Current Version" I felt compelled to transfer the effort I put into reviewing this identical product from the "Previous Version". A phone call to Britax today (2/2/2012) confirmed that there is no difference between the two versions of the advocate 70 other than the model number.
**************************************************************
Update 2: As you read below you will see that I think this is a good seat and recommend it for people concerned about safety. That being said I'm hoping Britax engineers will read this and quit building the CS feature into their seats. As I state below the CS feature of the 70 model is much better than the 65 model, however, it's really just a gimmick. It offers ZERO value to the seat other than letting Britax add another feature on the feature list. The click is almost never enough tension (even if you groom the belt and tighten it around your kids legs first). One should always check the tension of the belts with their hand. I'm willing to bet that parents that rely on the click are not properly tightening the straps. The 70 model is still easy to tighten on your kid, but the CS feature needs to go Britax. The 65 model's CS feature/belt path is well below average in terms of usability. I own two Advocate 65's and one Advocate 70 and would pay 50 dollars right now to remove the CS feature on all of them. Don't let this point cause you to buy another seat. This is still a great seat.
Another complaint, and again this is just nit picking as I do honestly recommend this seat: The 65 model had an excellent head rest/upper belt feed-through adjustment drive screw. They replaced this with a pull handle above your kids head in the 70 model claiming it was an upgrade..... Nope. I think this was a cost reduction redesign.
Read more ›
