Talk:Isofix

Case?

Shouldn't it be called "ISOFIX" instead of "Isofix"? http://www.iso.org/iso/search.htm?qt=isofix&searchSubmit=Search&sort=rel&type=simple&published=on seems to agree with me. 193.203.85.98 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISOFIX

ISOFIX cannot stand for "International Standards Organization FIX" because the organization is actually called International Organization for Standardization.

ISO comes from "equal", and is NOT an abbreviation of the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.148.200 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're partially correct. The International Standards Organization uses the prefix "ISO" in numbering its standards publications and is very well known as "the ISO"; but the name "ISOFIX" is the acronym "ISO" and the word "fix" formed into a single word. (Logically, if it were an abbreviation, it would be the acronym "IF".) --Rfsmit (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISOFix/LATCH

ISOFix and Latch aren't compatible, they're designed to different standards. I'm a little worried that the first paragraph implies that they are interchangable. I may find a reference and clarify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.68.140 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISOFIX and LATCH aren't "designed to different standards" -- they are in and of themselves different standards. This, however, does not mean the practical implementation of each is different; indeed, the two standards appear to have been defined explicitly in order that a single set of anchorage points may be placed within a vehicle to satisfy both standards' requirements.--Rfsmit (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LATCH

The 2002 Chevrolet-Geo Prizm Owners Manual defines "LATCH" as "Low Anchorages and Top Tethers for Children". Should this be listed as an alternative, or should it be noted that the definition is unclear? ISOFIX, upon which LATCH has come to be based (but notably, was not originally based), only defines the lower anchorages; the top tethers being an additional part.--Rfsmit (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DATES

The articel claims The full set of anchor points for this system were required in new cars in the United States starting in September 2002. and Under the current UN/ECE R14, all new vehicles produced since February 2013 are required to have ISOFIX lower anchorages and top tether attachments.

This is a contradiction. What is true, now, and what holds sway in which country? Very confusing article structure. It is unclear what applies to the US, what to EMEA, and what all over the globe. Adacus12 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]