Crash tests

An overview of the special purpose car seat crash testing and findings

Tests Products tested Assessment process Meetings Findings

Crash testing and research

Since 2020, AuSAP has generated more than 240 independent tests, assessments and research activities across specialty vehicle restraint systems.

This evidence includes independent crash testing, product assessment and related research undertaken across four testing facilities, helping improve product safety, clinical practice and informed decision-making.

Highlights

40 products assessed
135 independent crash tests under AuSAP
100+ additional research crash tests
14 products published on MACA's National Product Register

Products tested:

Importer (participant), Product(s), (Manufacturer – Country)

Stabilo Multiseat (2021)

(Stabilo – Poland)

Carrot 3000 (2013, 2022)

Carrot XL (2017, 2022, 2023)

(Seeds Co. Ltd. – Japan)

Hero-NXT (2021, 2022)

Hero-XL (2024)

IPAI-LGT (2021)

IPAI-MAX (2025)

IPAI-MINI (2026)

Kidsflex 2 (2022)

Kidsflex 3 (2022)

Kidsflex 1 (2026)

Kidsflex 2 (2026)

Starlight-NXT (2022)

(Hernik GmbH – Germany)

Special tomato soft touch booster seat (2021)

(Special Tomato – United States)

IPS 2000 series (2013)

Spirit Car Seat (2013)

(Inspired by Drive – United States)

*Note: Crashlab 2013 data was used for assessments against the AuSAP Test and Assessment Protocol

Baffin.1 (2021)

Qai (2026)

Simon Car Seat (2024)

(LIW Car Technology – Poland)

Axkid Nextkid (2026)

Commander (2022)

Defender (2021, 2022)

Hercules Prime (2023)

Hercules Small (2024)

(Thomashilfen – Germany)

Quokka (2021)

Stingray i-light, Size 2 (2026)

Wallaroo (2021)

(Etac – Australia)

Assessment process

Following testing and assessment the AuSAP Expert Committee reviews the AuSAP Test and Assessment Protocol's Parameter Assessments for each product. The Parameter Assessment assigns ‘good’, ‘acceptable’, ‘marginal’ or ‘not acceptable’ against each of the selected criteria tested, and is used as an internal guide for discussion by the Expert Committee.

This assessment process does not allow for direct comparisons between products, due to their often unique designs in providing for the needs of children (and older occupants) with disabilities and medical conditions. This is unlike other independent programs, such as Australia's Child Restraint Evaluation Program which applies star ratings.

Importer/manufacturer meetings

A key strength of AuSAP and its participants is a shared commitment to collaboration and learning.

Following review by the Expert Committee, the findings are openly shared at meetings with Australian importers and overseas manufacturers. It is reinforced in these meetings that AuSAP is not a certification program, and is using selected criteria from AS/NZS 1754. Therefore we expect to find some results that the manufacturers have not experienced previously (e.g., component failure).

Where an AuSAP finding is not acceptable (e.g., product component failure, structural failure) the overseas manufacturer is provided an opportunity to consider changes to their product and follow-up testing.

It was a pleasure to meet you and your team! It is very interesting to hear what your organisation is doing for special needs transport. I wish this could be similar in other countries.
Hans-Georg Hoeft, Export Sales Manager, Thomashilfen, Germany

Findings

The following highlights the status of each product. Where a product has not met the AuSAP Test and Assessment Protocol, this may be due to a minor component failure, or a more significant finding (e.g., submarining of the dummy). In addition, since commencing AuSAP a number of products have been withdrawn from the Australian market.

AuSAP is an ongoing program and this list is regularly reviewed and updated to reflect current results.