Legal Alternatives to Sun Film

[Enigmatic]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

That seems to be the most viable end to this drama. I am expecting permissions to install light films combined with a VLT certificate, in similar lines to the PUC. But in the meantime, traffic police are going to have a field day ripping of films, challaning and polluting the environment indiscrimnately. If they just stick to the darker varieties, then no harm done, except the pollution bit.

Hope springs eternal

Rajan

Hoping for the same here.

The only problem is that the SC remains closed from the 14th of May to the 1st of July and that's the reason why no big sunfilm corporation has filled an appeal yet.

The good thing however is that the cops aren't that active on the verdict in Dehradun as of now

[PrideRed]

Not sure of this, how about changing stock window glasses with darkened windows(not the sticker).
Wonder why don't manufacturers sell darkened glasses(something like your sunglass)? Now that sunfilms are banned, right time to include this as a feature and yes, charge for that.

[i74js]

In high rise buildings with large glass facade, the new generation spectrally selective coatings are now available. There are two kinds of arrangements:

1. Natural sun light reactive coatings - similar to photocromatic glasses but much better in performance

2. Electrically controlled coating, in which the darkness of the fenestration / window glass can be decided by you depending upon how much mix of light and heat is required inside the building (in this case car) - during summers and winters, this is where they are better then tinted glasses (pre installed by car manufacturers) and films (after market and is now illegal) as in winters heat is required within the car (I personally don't like the blower throwing hot air during winters, if it's sunny outside why not let the short wave radiations do their job rather than conduction and convection through air).

Various such experiments have been carried out on the AC coaches of trains and are operating successfully. The operation of a train coach in terms of inside usage (Air conditioning) and changing orientation while moving are exactly similar to the automotive usage pattern.

The technology requires some kind of capacity building and training along with equipments to do the task at at Garage Level / Repair Shops, I don't think it's too distant if the Government stays with the SC decision. I still remember having faced difficulties in getting puncture repair of tubeless tyre few years back and now almost all shops take up repair jobs for tubeless. Selective coating - not far, I can imagine in a year or so, the market players cannot miss out on this opportunity.

Players like Saint Gobain have ready available solutions and can be made commercially available automotive sector.

Spectrally selective paint coatings - YouTube

Looking at the total glass area in a car, it will be well within the reach of everyone, provided the suppliers don't make it premium to earn extra money.

[Fullrevs]

I hear certain Maruti Suzuki dealers in bangalore are willing to tint/shade the glasses based on the customers requirement.Has to be an expensive option if the glasses need to be removed, treated and then installed back.

[Bh.P]

I think any option altering the view from outside-in is illegal. The supreme court has just re-iterated what was written in the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989, rule 100 (http://www.tn.gov.in/sta/cmvr1989.pdf). According to their interpretation, the manufacturers are to deliver the car with the said VLT, and it has to be maintained as such, no alterations after manufacture.
So sticking anything to the glass, or putting anything near the glass which alters the VLT from the delivered/registered state is illegal.

The rule has remained the same. Just that the cops did not understand it earlier, or were not aware of it.

Not that I concur with the logical aspect of the law. Just stated what I think has transpired. So, technically, if anything has to change, the law has to be amended. The recent SC ruling did not introduce any new law.

[Enigmatic]

Originally Posted by Bh.P

I think any option altering the view from outside-in is illegal. The supreme court has just re-iterated what was written in the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989, rule 100 (http://www.tn.gov.in/sta/cmvr1989.pdf). According to their interpretation, the manufacturers are to deliver the car with the said VLT, and it has to be maintained as such, no alterations after manufacture.
So sticking anything to the glass, or putting anything near the glass which alters the VLT from the delivered/registered state is illegal.

The rule has remained the same. Just that the cops did not understand it earlier, or were not aware of it.

Not that I concur with the logical aspect of the law. Just stated what I think has transpired. So, technically, if anything has to change, the law has to be amended. The recent SC ruling did not introduce any new law.

Actually the SC has changed the law a bit .

The Motor Vehicles Act 1939 , Section 100 , clause 2 states the following :-

The glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%, and shall conform to Indian Standards.

This allowed for citizens to use sun films and other alternatives as it contained the following words " shall be maintained ". Hence the citizens were allowed to use sun films and alternatives long as it did not reduce the visibility of the front and back windscreen to less than 70 % and the side windows to less than 50 %. Which meant that you were not infringing the law unless and until you stayed within the permissible limit of VLT.

However the new SC verdict contains the following provisions according to clause 27 :-

For the reasons afore-stated, we prohibit the use of black films of any VLT percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country. The Home Secretary, Director General/Commissioner of Police of the respective States/Centre shall ensure compliance with this direction. The directions contained in this judgment shall become operative and enforceable with effect from 4th May, 2012. 28. With the above directions, we partially allow this writ petition and prohibit use of black films of any percentage VLT upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses. However, there shall be no order as to costs

What this has done is prohibit the use of any material on the windscreen and the side windows hence one is no longer allowed to " maintain " the amount of light transmission even if it is less than 70 % for the front and rear windscreen and 50% for the side windows.

[PatchyBoy]

This is already being discussed here.

Let us respect the OP's request and take this over to the other thread

Originally Posted by rohan_iitr

As we all are aware that use of any sun control films in motor vehicles has been banned by the Supreme Court of India. There are other threads to discuss whether the judgement was correct or not, so we will not discuss it on this thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss other legal / borderline options for suncontrol in our cars.

Rajan

MODS: Can these discussions be moved?

[mail2vm]

I was in hyderabad for few days recently. I noticed that at least 90% of the cars still have the sun films. when asked on whether cops stop them, the answer was "NO". Lucky HYD..

In bangalore, the cops already started their work of stopping to collect money (Rs.100/- fine). I found the window curtains from Amritras India little better than the rest available in the market.

I called the bangalore seller & was informed that the company received lot of orders after the ban on sun films. The waiting period is 30-45 days now.. It costs around Rs.4000+ for the full car..

[V-16]

I wonder if the ban also includes the clear sun films. The ones that are put on the windscreens. It provides 100% visibility while keeping the UV rays out. Should work shouldn't it?

[libranof1987]

Originally Posted by V-16

I wonder if the ban also includes the clear sun films. The ones that are put on the windscreens. It provides 100% visibility while keeping the UV rays out. Should work shouldn't it?

The moment cops see a film pasted on the glass, they'd fine you. An average cop will lack both the common sense and technology to verify whether it is indeed 100% visibility.

Not worth the risk IMO.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by V-16

I wonder if the ban also includes the clear sun films. The ones that are put on the windscreens. It provides 100% visibility while keeping the UV rays out. Should work shouldn't it?

Gogi, none of the clear sunfilms offer 100% visibility. The lightest I have seen is 75% which is very rare. The most popular is 70%. So if you have a 70% film on glass that is OE 70% your effective visibility 49% which means it's illegal.

On the other hand 70% films will never be noticed and you probably will never be pulled over if you have them all round. Only problem is cost. 70% VLT films like 3m CR-70 cost Rs.7750 for front windshield alone. For the sides and rear the total cost will be close to 18-20K.

[V-16]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

The moment cops see a film pasted on the glass, they'd fine you. An average cop will lack both the common sense and technology to verify whether it is indeed 100% visibility.

Not worth the risk IMO.

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Gogi, none of the clear sunfilms offer 100% visibility. The lightest I have seen is 75% which is very rare. The most popular is 70%. So if you have a 70% film on glass that is OE 70% your effective visibility 49% which means it's illegal.

On the other hand 70% films will never be noticed and you probably will never be pulled over if you have them all round. Only problem is cost. 70% VLT films like 3m CR-70 cost Rs.7750 for front windshield alone. For the sides and rear the total cost will be close to 18-20K.

Viddy, the front windscreen films are advertised as 99.9% visibility. I doubt they are in 70% visibility criteria as 30% deficient visibility is a huge problem. The 30% criteria is/was for all round sun film. with a 70% visibility film on the windscreen night driving would be a nightmare. I have had these "Clear glass" windscreen films installed in two of my cars. Both from Garware and they cost me approx 3200/- for the front windscreen only. By the looks of it, it is 100% clear to the naked eye and it really helps if your car has been out in the sun for a long time. No piping hot steering wheels, much reduced heat in the vehicle and of course faster cooling once the ac is switched on. One drawback i noticed on a Beige dashboard, of my Honda City is that in the day, there is an increased reflection which is irritating but at night, its absolutely clear. Of course the cost for the entire car would be formidable or almost as much as V Kool. The orders are against using tints, when the film is clear, they should have no problem. Im guessing, the sun film manufacturing companies will take it up with the authorities. In the very near future i foresee, clear films being sold for a fraction of a cost they are sold now.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by V-16

Viddy, the front windscreen films are advertised as 99.9% visibility. I doubt they are in 70% visibility criteria as 30% deficient visibility is a huge problem. The 30% criteria is/was for all round sun film. with a 70% visibility film on the windscreen night driving would be a nightmare. I have had these "Clear glass" windscreen films installed in two of my cars. Both from Garware and they cost me approx 3200/- for the front windscreen only. By the looks of it, it is 100% clear to the naked eye and it really helps if your car has been out in the sun for a long time.

Gogi, I have the same Garware on my Figo. The ones I have are called Garware Icecool Shield meant for the front glass. They are extremely light and have a slight green tinge to them. But the spec sheet clearly mentions 70% VLT. Also, the Garware distributor for South India confirmed these are the lightest tints they manufacture and nothing lighter than this is available. They cost similar to what you mention as well.

3M has CR-70 which are also equally light without the green tinge but that too is 70% VLT. These are not noticeable at all.

[V-16]

Hmm then you may have a point. My other car has a 3M which was slightly more expensive but by the looks of it, st least from my perspective it was almost clear. It also read 99.9% clear so i thought they meant it. But these things when put are absolutely not noticeable, as tints. Lets see what happens and better sense prevails on such law makers.

[brar]

I was thinking of tinting the glasses in my car with a glass tinting spray. If any cop stops me, I can claim that these glasses are factory fitted. Can such a thing be pulled off?

Found one such spray online : softys.ca: VHT Smoke Window Tint Spray