[shankar.balan]

It is almost a foregone conclusion that over the next 6 months we will see that our overall Fuel consumption statistics will indicate a 10% upward trend - largely contributed to by decreased FE!

[condor]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Sorry Parwath. The fact that there are frustrations in my chosen profession does not automatically entitle me to drive irresponsibly.

Sorry Rajan, But it does not have to be frustrations as much as actual working conditions.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

It is almost a foregone conclusion that over the next 6 months we will see that our overall Fuel consumption statistics will indicate a 10% upward trend - largely contributed to by decreased FE!

Now that you mention it.
5th of may I removed the film.
And I only had ONE, on the rear.
This is the trend for the past month.


I have not been driving any differently.
But I do know that Now the knob is on 2, rather than 1.
The rear and front screens are what let in most sun when its right overhead, so effectively, everything the rear screen was stopping, now its not.


PS:the last figure also had some "servicing" done by Harpreet thrown in, so that could partially be responsible ...

[MAS]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Now that you mention it.

+1

My Fiesta's mileage has come down after removing the sun control films. In the city, my car used to return a mileage of 5.4 - 5.6 litres/100 km and after the removal of sun control films, the consumption had gone up to 6.0 - 6.2 litres/100 km, a whopping 10% increase.

I can clearly see the reason for the increased consumption - The automatic aircon works extra hard to cool down the cabin to the set temperature.

[supremeBaleno]

@mayankk / MAS, did you factor in the fact that May would be the hottest month and thus anyway the a/c would have to work harder ? Should we not wait for a few more months
and take readings. In my case, I drive with blower at 1 for most part of the year, but in May/June I would have to move to position 2 due to the weather being hotter.

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

The petitioner has blamed safety of women, criminal activities and blabla for an apt reason to remove sunfilm. What amaze me why in the USofA they have not made sun films illegal in spite of all the terror attacks and car bombs and what not.

As msdivy mentioned, the states in US also have restrictions regarding sunfilm usage. But instead of finding fault with the reasons behind the petition or find fault with the SC ruling, why don't we just comply with the MVA rule which clearly states that sun-film is illegal ?

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

As to the security aspects: sadly, I can only say, "welcome to the world." You just leave your car visibly empty, as a discipline.

Indeed, one would think common-sense would prevail in avoiding such incidents by taking care to ensure that we dont keep costly stuff visible in the cars, but instead of doing that, the rant is against dark tints no longer being allowed to hide these stuff from view, notwithstanding the fact that film has been illegal from the beginning.

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

there is a real and more important rationale which is not discussed anywhere - accidents due to poor visibilty. As a matter of fact, that is discussed in length in the judgement too.

That was brought up early on in this thread by me and others as one of the benefits of not using films on glass. So, why don't we as responsible motorists just look at that valid rationale which helps avoid life/material damage to self/others and laud the SC for finally enforcing a rule which was there from the beginning and which we were flouting all this while ? This thread would also be irrelevant then, instead of being used to list superfluous reasons against the ruling.

[s.prashanth]

near my office, cars parked on the road with sunfilm are being photographed and challaned. They are sticking violation tickets on the drivers window. Luckily my car with sunfilm was not challaned. I have 70% VLT Huper Optik sunfilm all round.

[vikram_d]

My car's windows have "DOT32 M13 AS2 tinted" written on them. Can somebody help me decipher what this means?

[raghu.t.k]

Originally Posted by Anand123

... I think the cops haven't taken this seriously. Yesterday I saw a Fiesta which is used by a superior police person with full black tints!

Nice to hear that, but surprised the that the police are not leading by example, unlike Chennai. Anyway as long as they dont trouble the public, its fine

[Shreyas Aterkar]

Haven't seen any one get caught in Mumbai due to the sun films. I myself have very light sun film (RTO approved) but haven't been stopped. May be because I drive during the rush hours and the cops are busy regulating the traffic than catching people with sun films.

[druva]

Originally Posted by vikram_d

My car's windows have "DOT32 M13 AS2 tinted" written on them. Can somebody help me decipher what this means?

google throws up... Car Windshield Markings

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by condor

Neither BMTC nor the contract is not above the Supreme Court. Hence, the ad's must go.

They don't have to go completly. They can still paste it in the area below the windows. One of the reason for pasting the ads in windows all these days was the 8400 series city buses have an exceptionaly larger glass area than other buses, wheras in other buses the window is small and the metal area is bigger.
Another reason was, it was easy to clean the glass when the stickers have to be changed/removed. In the case of pasting on metal, the painting of the bus will be affected. So, if a particular bus has no takers for a month, it will have to be repainted, costing money to tax payers and environmental degradation.

[sumathindra]

This car owner agreed for the film removal. A gang of 4 pounced on the windows and the job was done in 15mins. Damages 500/-

There suddenly seems to be lots of film removing professionals...

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by druva

google throws up... Car Windshield Markings

some more info
CRG Research Report - 1967-69 Camaro Window Glass

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

@mayankk / MAS, did you factor in the fact that May would be the hottest month and thus anyway the a/c would have to work harder ? Should we not wait for a few more months
and take readings. In my case, I drive with blower at 1 for most part of the year, but in May/June I would have to move to position 2 due to the weather being hotter.

I havent got any figure under 9 ever.
The lowest prior to this was a 9.7.
but hey, lets wait what the next fillup shows..

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

That was brought up early on in this thread by me and others as one of the benefits of not using films on glass. So, why don't we as responsible motorists just look at that valid rationale which helps avoid life/material damage to self/others and laud the SC for finally enforcing a rule which was there from the beginning and which we were flouting all this while ? This thread would also be irrelevant then, instead of being used to list superfluous reasons against the ruling.

Biju, I am in total agreement with this. Any film or anything else that hampers visibilty, especially during night times, is an accident waiting to happen. I was never in disagreement with the ruling. I never supported the privacy and theft arguments.

My only concern is, why ban even those films that provide a lot of benefits without compromising on safety? 3M CR70 for example, when applied to the side windows, rejects 50% solar energy, filters 98% UV Rays but still maintains the VLT much higher than the 50% prescribed. So what potential harm can come out of that?

As I have mentioned multiple times in muliple forums, my fight is not to get a stay order or reversal of the SC ruling. My fight is to get the CMV rule amended to allow law abiding citizen the luxury of comfort where possible, without violating the purpose of the law.

People who resort to curtains and chipkoos are defeating the purpose of the law and endangering themselves as well as fellow road users, aren't they?

Originally Posted by vikram_d

My car's windows have "DOT32 M13 AS2 tinted" written on them. Can somebody help me decipher what this means?

DOT13 - YAU BONG CAR GLASS CO., LTD.
ON LOK CHUEN, NEW TERRITORIES HONG KONG

M13 is the model number of the glass, internal to manufacturer

AS2 - American Standard 2, indicating that the glass is tempered glass with VLT > 70%.