SKU: 51821428029
anoris cybex

anoris cybex Cybex Anoris T2

$22.17 $24.63
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on realestatemontenegro.me >

Pay in installments of $6.16 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 24 - Jul 29

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

anoris cybex Cybex Anoris T2The CYBEX Anoris T2 i Size Child Car Seat leads the world in forward facing car seat technology. A full body airbag integrated into a small, upgraded impact shield gives your child lots of leg room and a snug fit plus a feeling of freedom. Parents can keep a watchful eye via their rear view mirror and interact with their child easier, all essential in their development. Cutting edge fabric that makes it 6x more breathable along with the all round air

 

The CYBEX Anoris T2 i-Size Child Car Seat leads the world in forward-facing car seat technology. A full-body airbag integrated into a small, upgraded impact shield gives your child lots of leg room and a snug fit plus a feeling of freedom. Parents can keep a watchful eye via their rear-view mirror and interact with their child easier, all essential in their development.

 

Cutting-edge fabric that makes it 6x more breathable along with the all-round air ventilation, keeping them cool on hot days, while a retractable sun canopy shields them from the outside world.

 

After your child has outgrown the Cloud T i-Size and is over 15 months old and above 76cm the Anoris T2 i-Size is the ideal successor until they turn 7, if you want to turn your child forward facing.

 

 

UP TO 50% HIGHER SAFETY LEVELS* - CYBEX AIRBAG TECHNOLOGY

The Anoris T2 i-Size leads the world in child car seat technology with a full-body C-shaped airbag built into its impact shield. In a frontal or head on collision, the airbag inflates in milliseconds, less than a blink of an eye, to protect the child’s head, neck and body. This gives a level of safety up to 50% higher* than a usual forward-facing car seat and kids find the impact shield so much comfier than a harness system*. The Anoris T2 is the latest model of the ADAC award-winning Anoris series.  It truly is tomorrow’s car seat, today. 

 

DIRECT EYE-CONTACT - FORWARD-FACING FOR DIRECT INTERACTION

Let you and your child face the world together thanks to the forward-facing Anoris T2 i-Size without compromising on safety. Studies have shown that parents prefer to turn their child's car seats forward-facing so they can maintain eye contact via their rear-view mirror and enjoy those precious moments together*. Communication aids their development and every interaction helps forge that parent-child bond. 

 

FREEDOM TO MOVE - SMALL IMPACT SHIELD, LIMITLESS LEGROOM

A compact, cushioned impact shield which houses a cleverly designed airbag that only springs to life when needed means there is ample room for your child to move their upper body around to play or read. In a forward-facing seat, your child will have all the legroom they need to stretch their growing limbs to keep them happy and avoid cramp on longer journeys.

 

PRECISION-FIT SECURING, WEIGHTLESS FEELING - INTUITIVE, DEPTH-ADJUSTABLE IMPACT SHIELD

Onboarding is as simple as ever thanks to an innovative, one-click impact shield. Individual depth-adjustment settings allow for precise buckling and a better fit. Studies have shown that an impact shield is far more likely to be correctly fastened than a harness*. Smart design keeps the child secure but free to move, feeling free of the weight of the impact shield. Clunk, click, every trip!

 

UP TO 6X MORE BREATHABILITY* - ALL-ROUND AIR VENTILATION

Make every journey a breeze in the Anoris T2 i-Size thanks to its all-round air ventilation and smart mesh fabric which is up to six times more breathable than comparable fabrics. Precisely placed ventilation holes mean the air not only circulates but leaves the seat completely. Extra comfort comes from a specially upholstered impact shield (PLUS Fabric version only)

LONG USABILITY - FROM >15 MONTHS UP TO  APPROX. 7 YEARS

Safety that lasts longer. A spacious seat gives children room to grow up until they’re seven years old – three years longer than comparable car seats. It is easy and safer thereafter to switch to the 3-point seatbelt when the time comes. The impact shield and headrest are both fully adjustable for the perfect fit at any age. The industry-leading integrated airbag protects a range of body sizes for unparalleled protection over the years. (76 cm – max. 125 cm and 21 kg)

 

SUN PROTECTION - INTEGRATED SUN CANOPY

A retractable UPF50+ sun canopy provides excellent protection from sunshine and helpfully shields your child from busy surroundings. A mesh window improves airflow and keeps your little one feeling fresh on the move (mesh window part is not UPF50+).

 

REDUCES SIDE-IMPACT FORCES 20% - ADVANCED LINEAR SIDE-IMPACT PROTECTION

Side crashes occur in 25%* of accidents but the Advanced Linear Side-impact Protection of Anoris T2 i-Size reduces impact forces by up to 20%, transferring them into the car seat’s energy-absorbing shell and headrest. The protective wings fold out automatically when removing it from its box, one less worry when installing.

 

EFFORTLESS INSTALLATION - ISOFIX AND LOAD LEG

Stabilised by ISOFIX and a load leg, a strong connection is ensured between the Anoris T2 i-Size and the vehicle. Installation is intuitive, with the onboard safety LED indicators helping you check that the seat is set up correctly and ready to protect.

 

PERFECT SLEEPING POSITION- 3 RECLINE POSITIONS

Recline the seat so your child can enjoy a restful sleep on the road. A choice of three recline settings makes it easy to find the perfect comfortable position. If your child falls asleep sitting up, an easily accessible adjustment handle helps you recline the seat without waking them.

 

CENTRAL LED INDICATORS

A car seat can only protect if it’s set up right. The onboard safety assistant helps you install the seat and get your child secure every time. LED indicators show the status of the ISOFIX, load leg, impact shield and battery. Check your child is safe at a glance and start your drive in confidence.

DIMENSIONS:

71 cm / 44 cm / 75 cm

Weight: 12 kg

 

CHILD WEIGHT/ HEIGHT:

Age - From >15 months to approx. 7 years

Child weight - 21kg

Child Height – 76 – 125cm.

Please note some items may not be readily available and there may be a 1-4 week wait, please call to confirm the delivery date if product is needed urgently.

 

 

 

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 51821428029

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell anoris cybex

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.5 ★★★★★
Based on 10 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Birmingham, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
Whiting, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
R
Ross L. Meyer
Carnegie, US
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0. Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law. Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014
B
Verified Purchase
Brenda B.
Belleville, US
★★★★★ 5
My Grandchildren LOVED this!
Format: Hardcover
I read this out loud to my two grandchildren ages 4 and 6 at bedtime. They're so excited to be reading a chapter book and they LOVED it! The book's quirky sense of humor is great and it was fun to hear the kids giggle. We loved how the sloth appears in each story. They couldn't wait for the next night to read. Mr Angleberger- please write more!!!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2017
J
Verified Purchase
Jewels
Whiting, US
★★★★★ 5
Got my 8 year old to read!
Format: Hardcover
My eight year old hated reading and refused to pick up any book, until this arrived in the mail. He as usual refused at first to read it but I made him read a couple of pages, which he did and put it down but the next day he asked to read it and read the entire book in 30 mins. He said he loved it and it was really funny. Already have the 2nd book on its way.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2017

recommand products

Succulent Arrangement
25.55
Succulent Arrangement
28.27
A Breath of Zen Succulent Arrangement
23.78
String of Pearls Succulent
23.36
Succulent Arrangement
29.37