CAN/CGSB 44.232 Chair Testing

CGSB has been reviewing its CAN/CGSB 44.232 – Canadian General Standards Board – Task Chairs for Office Environments.  The ballot officially closed November 11th.  Did you cast your vote or were you too busy digesting the “other” vote that came out a few days prior? Micom did vote NO to this proposed standard. I spoke to a few influential committee members; they were going to cast a “no vote” as well.  In my post on the previous version of this draft standard I was wondering why there was so many comments on a standard that has been there for quite some time.  After all seating is seating is…  Unfortunately I could not attend the meeting when these comments were discussed.  If you review, below, the test-by-test comparison I prepared, you will see that as a result of these comments many changes were brought to the standard.  I hate to be a “nay sayer” however, I have to confess I disagree with quite a few of these changes and I also question if consideration was given to the impacts on the industry as well as the impacts on the current product offering.

For example; side chairs, historically, were never part of this standard.  The specification manufacturers had to meet to sell to PWGSC (Public Works and Government Services Canada) was GPD-6.  Side chairs are now in the 44.232 proposed draft; so far no problem.  However the foam performance requirements from GPD-6 have been drastically changed if you compare them to the current standard.  And by the way; ask three experts questions on foam used for chairs; you will get three answers that are altogether completely different… foam is a sticky topic and changes should be done very carefully.   Furthermore; in GPD-6 side chairs only had to meet three dimensional criteria and only a measuring tape was required for the measurements.  Now we have to use the BIFMA Chair Measuring Device and a side chair would have to meet 12 new dimensional criteria that they obviously never designed to meet to start with.  From a technical standpoint all of this is possible; is this practical?  With all due respect; I am not sure the question was asked and this needs to be considered.

For task chairs, many changes were made to the standard as well.  The most staggering one for me is the fixed seat depth requirement of 415 mm.  In the 2008 version of the standard a chair with such a seat depth would have qualified as a shallow seat depth.  Should this new standard be voted in as it is; it would become the norm.  Are our kids growing shorter that we are?  Funny, I was under the impression it was the opposite… Personally, I would not want to sit in a “shallow” seat.

On the good side, the proposed standard now allows for self-counter balancing mechanisms that cannot qualify to the current standard’s version.  F