[IronH4WK]

^ i don't own a SX4, but you might wanna check the writing on the glasses. Usually the transparency is mentioned on the glass; not sure if Maruti cars have have that.

[shreeps]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

A question to SX4 owners. I had got a pre-owned SX4 from True Value and the sales guy said that the tints on it were factory fitted and noting additional was stuck. So I was thinking what I had was legal and did not bother to check in detail. Couple of days back I was checking the glass and then only noticed that there was sun film stuck to it.

I plan to get it removed tomorrow. But my question is this: Does the SX4 come with any sort of tint from the factory itself? Either sun film or tinted glass? If I remove what is stuck, will I end up with a plain glass or will there be some level of tint.

SX4 ZXi atleast the new VVT version definitely doesnt come with any kind of factory fitted sun film or glass tint. It will be plain glass I am afraid.

[KarthikK]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

But my question is this: Does the SX4 come with any sort of tint from the factory itself? Either sun film or tinted glass? If I remove what is stuck, will I end up with a plain glass or will there be some level of tint.

No manufacturer provides / sticks extra film on a glass as far as I know. If they do it, they provide glasses with tint%. The previous owner would have got those aftermarket films fitted on purchase. Tru-value might have confused you by saying 'Factory fitted' instead of 'Dealer fitted'.

Now for the factory fitted glasses which came with the SX4, I am sure you will have some amount of tint. My 2006 Swift comes with windows having a greenish tint (within permissible VLT % of course) of around 20-25%. It is also mentioned on the current gen Swift's brochure as a 'feature' (Tinted glasses).

If an ancient 2006 Swift ZXi costing 6L comes with this, I am 100% sure Maruti would be having the 8-10L SX4 (which came after 2007) also with factory-fitted tinted glasses.

As Ironh4wk said, you can check the reading on the glass, that will give you more information on what the tint % is.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Daewood

How would you see the road if the vehicle ahead of you is a cargo vehicle or bus. If you follow the mandatory distance between 2 vehicles, there is absolutely no need to peep through the rear glass of the vehicle ahead of you.

Being in Chennai, are you able to maintain the mandatory distance between the vehicle in front / rear? Our cities/traffic is different from the US - in the US everyone goes on marked lanes, traffic is mostly cars/trucks with almost no bikes. Compare that to our roads which are packed with all kids of vehicles you can think of from bullock-carts to bikes to trucks and maybe a few cm of space between vehicles. In such situations, we need all the visibility that is available to avoid accidents, instead of blinking through heavily tinted glasses.

Originally Posted by benbsb29

I would prefer not to have my family or even me for that matter appear as a sitting duck. If sunflims within the earlier approved limits help maintain a certain level of privacy and associated safety, then why is it wrong?

Given the crimes we hear about from Blore, the only way to not be a sitting duck would be to sit at home. And regarding privacy, even if you apply films on already factory-tinted glasses to stay within the legal limt, you would have to put the light / costly stuff that Patchboy and some others had on their cars and these will not provide the darkness required for women to stay unnoticed in the car. So, then you will have to put dark films above the legal limit, which apart from being in violation, has issues with visibility.

Originally Posted by benbsb29

My wife asked a very pertinent question : If the argument against having sun films on cars is to prevent crimes against women, what about cars which are owned and driven by women?

What about them ? To take Blore as an example since your wife drives there - She is in a car driving a little late from work. She has the option to lock the doors and the windows. Windows are breakable I agree, but is that something that normally happens in Blore ? Also she is not really in a remote place with no human presence for some goons to stop and break the glass, right ? I am not trying to play down a perceived threat, but trying to understand if really women are stopped in their cars, windows broken and at threat in Blore or this is just a fear ?

Originally Posted by 2cents

By your argument ogling and leching are lawful. And so will be eve-teasing as long as it isn't physically intrusive. No body in this thread is arguing for films beyond permissible VLT(70-50).

There is a very thin line between looking and ogling, and the interpretation can depend on the person being looked/ogled at and the one indulging in it. Are you saying that you have never ever looked at a girl in your life other than your wife ? Should you have been charged with eve-teasing because your gaze lingered a little longer than what someone considers normal ? I dont know about your place, but while travelling through Chennai in my car, I have not observed people roaming the streets just to ogle at women in cars. Yeah there will be the odd person(s) who are out for trouble, but they can be anywhere - in the mall, at the beach etc and not just looking for women in cars.

Originally Posted by 2cents

Having a few month old child, I know the need for privacy every time I take my family out within the city - a drive that can sometime last over an hour. My films are within the 70-50 limit, and the little privacy it provides is indispensable when my wife has to feed our child.

Women know how to feed kids in the privacy provided by cars with even factory tints. If you think that is tough, how would your wife feed the kid when she has to travel for an hour or more in our trains or a plane ? Don't women feed kids in trains where even a 2TAC coach has atleast 4 people in a small space ? Planes are even more open. None of these options provide any semblance of privacy that even a plain-glass car can provide. And BTW, again I doubt people stare at women feeding kids - be it in cars or trains or planes. Usually men move away physically or move their gaze in such situations.

Originally Posted by 2cents

If plain interpretation is all we expect of the judiciary then language teachers should be made judges. The role of the learned judge is to interpret the spirit behind the law, and the best way for that spirit to be adhered to keeping with the changing times, if need be.

Let us atleast give them credit for knowing their job - I am sure you will agree that it is not a bunch of illiterate people who just sat over a couple drinks and decided without going into the details, "hey let us ban sun-films". And regarding going by the spirit of the law, the problem is each one of us interprets the spirit differently as can be seen from this thread itself. Many want all the darkness that is possible for reasons ranging from safety to privacy to prevent kidnapping, while some are OK with being within the legal limit. If laws get interpreted to each one's liking, one can guess what the result would be.

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

Young couple travel on bikes and in cars and so do families. Privacy is an equal right for both.

Sir, first things first, I am not sure why such a big rant related to sex, adultery and what not about a simple comment about privacy for young couples. Agree that I should have added a smiley and maybe elaborated, but I thought people would get the gist - what I meant was "maybe young couples in love would like to have sun-film provided privacy on the roads to maybe not get spotted by the brother/father of the girl or maybe for some romantic discussion in the car". Can we now leave all the sex-in-the-city discussion here and get back to sun-films ?

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

I dont want anyone to target my child when im a bit late to pick him up from school.

If you are late to pick up your kid from school, I don't how does sun-film on your car protect him from kidnapping ? While waiting for you at school, is he not vulnerable and that too by your belief, because I dont think we have a culture of kids being kidnapped from schools. And your location shows as "pot-hole city" - not sure which city this is in India, but other than maybe Bihar where kidnappings used to be the norm till recently (now not so I understand), I dont know any place where this happens as a norm. Yeah, in Chennai once in a while someone kidnaps a kid for ransom - mostly an employee/relative of the parents, but does sunfilm solve this. I am clueless.

After all this debate, it is funny to go to the "bad driver's thread" where we crucify someone for not driving in the lane or not adhering to the speed limit or for carrying a load on his bike etc. But we are OK even with sticking the darkest tints on our cars, which is in violation of the law. But hey we are above the law, right because we can interpret the law to what we want. But others should behave. Way to go.

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

Does the SX4 come with any sort of tint from the factory itself? Either sun film or tinted glass? If I remove what is stuck, will I end up with a plain glass or will there be some level of tint.

Not an SX4 owner/user, but since my Baleno and even our plain-jane M800 came with tinted glasses, I am sure the SX4 will also have it.

EDIT : BTW, yesterday's Hindu newspaper had a picture/article of a person removing sun-films from all the cars (a whole stable of white/cream Corollas could be seen in the pic) of the Madras High Court judges in the court parking.
Laudable that they are showing the way !!!

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

What about them ? To take Blore as an example since your wife drives there - She is in a car driving a little late from work. She has the option to lock the doors and the windows. Windows are breakable I agree, but is that something that normally happens in Blore ? Also she is not really in a remote place with no human presence for some goons to stop and break the glass, right ? I am not trying to play down a perceived threat, but trying to understand if really women are stopped in their cars, windows broken and at threat in Blore or this is just a fear ?.

Yes there has been instances where women esp were targeted at late evenings.

Office to my home is about 3km, but in that stretch itself there are atleast 5 lonely areas which can be quite scary for anyone and things have happened also. Mind you this is in the middle of the city and the so called IT housing hub.

I even dread to leave my sun glases around in the car these days. Yes my old car was broken into while parked next to the office. Unless one goes through such an experience, no amount of debate will make one understand the harsh reality.

Hope and pray no one has to!

[PatchyBoy]

At the risk of being repetitive, posting for the benefit of all new-comers to this thread, who have not been able to go back and read this thread in it's entirety:

• All glasses in any car will have a slight tint - even the ones on low end entry level cars. It may not be perceivable to the naked eye
• When the manufacturer advertises as tinted glass, it would mean a noticeable tint, usually in a shade of Grey/Green/Brown
• Though the specified minimum VLT for side windows is 50%, most cars stick to 70%
• This is a cost cutting measure, as it enables the Glass manufacturer to fabricate both side windows as well as rear windscreen from the same sheet of annealed plain glass
• The maximum achievable VLT for any glass is ~92%
• Such glasses are called High-Visibilty / High-Clarity glasses and are actually more expensive
• There is no such thing as 100% VLT glass
• Finally, to reiterate - no film of any VLT is allowed, irrespective of the fact that the film may not actually be visible to the naked eye. That is the SC ruling
• If you decide to retain your high visibilty film, you are still breaking the law and taking your chances.

Hope this helps.

Rajan

[srishiva]

I had my Accord broken into and taken away from my apartment car park area which was very much inside the city. Police found the car 2 days later with the wheels removed. Sorry this happened in the U.S

What does all the discussion happening here got to do with sun films? I dont like the judgement because it penalizes people who have the legal sun films on their cars. Otherwise, I guess we should follow the law. How many people complaining here had legal tints with their glass/sun film combination?

The international ISO spec is 70% all around, we in India had the luxury of having 50% on windows. We were just spoilt with non enforcement of the rule and we are now complaining.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

------snip snip here--------
What about them ? To take Blore as an example since your wife drives there - She is in a car driving a little late from work. She has the option to lock the doors and the windows. Windows are breakable I agree, but is that something that normally happens in Blore ? Also she is not really in a remote place with no human presence for some goons to stop and break the glass, right ? I am not trying to play down a perceived threat, but trying to understand if really women are stopped in their cars, windows broken and at threat in Blore or this is just a fear ?
------snip snip there--------

Dont know about bangalore, but there's an instance right here on the forum, with Sugeeta, when her phone etc were snatched at one of THE busiest intersections in delhi, in prime peak hours.
So, yes, I would like to employ any and every measure of safety possible, whatever part of the country it may be in ,and however perceptual and placeboic it may be, for my wife or any family member.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

But we are OK even with sticking the darkest tints on our cars, which is in violation of the law. But hey we are above the law, right because we can interpret the law to what we want. But others should behave. Way to go.

I don't understand to whom your half page preaching in intended to, for nobody in this thread has argued for pasting the darkest of tints.
We are only agitated because the CMVR only says, you need to maintain the visibility at 70% and 50%. Banning sunfilms because the cops can't afford a VLT meter is what's stupid. It's akin to banning all cars that can go beyond 40kmph in cities, because our cops can't afford to buy speed guns.

Originally Posted by srishiva

The international ISO spec is 70% all around, we in India had the luxury of having 50% on windows. We were just spoilt with non enforcement of the rule and we are now complaining.

Are you sure the side curtains in Mercs and Beemers allow for 70% visibility. I bet they aren't. (or) Checkout the Evoque that comes with really dark privacy glass in some variants and is sold in one of the countries with the strictest safety regulations, UK.

[PatchyBoy]

On A lighter note, the RTO officials in Bangalore have come up with a very novel way of measuring VLT.

Roll down your windows half-way and hold a newspaper against the glass from the inside. If one can still read the newsprint through the glass, then it is OK, even if you have films.

Funny that different states/agencies interpret the ruling in different ways.

And just to make it funnier, frosted glass also has >50% VLT and 0% visiblity

Rajan

[volkman10]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

On A lighter note, the RTO officials in Bangalore have come up with a very novel way of measuring VLT.
Roll down your windows half-way and hold a newspaper against the glass from the inside. If one can still read the newsprint through the glass, then it is OK, even if you have films.

If this is true then the 70/50 VLT would pass this crude test!

Cheers!

[laluks]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

On A lighter note, the RTO officials in Bangalore have come up with a very novel way of measuring VLT.

Roll down your windows half-way and hold a newspaper against the glass from the inside. If one can still read the newsprint through the glass, then it is OK, even if you have films.

Funny that different states/agencies interpret the ruling in different ways.

Rajan

Really?
What a way to test the same!!
But is it not contempt of court that they don't peel away those films though it passed their "Newspaper test"?

[mkaysaw]

Just found the following article on Autoblog:
This is what a lifetime of sunshine can do to truckers

Can I ask the HC and Indian legal system, who will i blame if and when such a thing happens to me?
I spend more than 4 hours a day, every day in my car, and with UV levels higher then the ones stateside, its bound to be a bigger problem not just for me, but for a majority of the people who read this article.

From Autoblog:

" This picture of a 69-year-old trucker in The New England Journal of Medicine is striking. You can clearly see the effects of his 28-year career behind the wheel, with each wrinkle plotted out across his skin like a road map. The left side of his face got this way due to sun exposure, what those dermatologists who read NEJM call dermatoheliosis, a "thickening and wrinkling of the skin."

But what's really surprising is to see the full image of both sides of his face, and just how different the right side looks. Since UVA rays pass through window glass, those long hours in the saddle led to enough sun exposure to cause the more pronounced skin damage, according to the report.

Northwestern University dermatologist Jennifer Gordon, who is treating the man, told Fox News that he didn't wear sunscreen. Fortunately, the man has not yet developed skin cancer, according to the report. To keep yourself from winding up with similar skin damage, the American Academy of Dermatology suggests using sunscreen with at least an SPF 30 rating. And to this trucker, might we suggest considering evening out his skin's fortunes behind the wheel of a big rig in Australia? "

[needforspeed88]

Got my sunfilm removed 3 days back, right on the deadline day. Suddenly everything feels so bright and airy inside the car but it gets hot pretty quickly when parked under the sun. I had a very dark sunfilm both on the sides and the rear windscreen and i decided to be on the right side of the law than against it.

And to all those DIYer's do not attempt to remove the glue by yourself it gets quiet messy. I got it washed after i got the film removed.

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by Daewood

I don't understand to whom your half page preaching in intended to, for nobody in this thread has argued for pasting the darkest of tints.
We are only agitated because the CMVR only says, you need to maintain the visibility at 70% and 50%. Banning sunfilms because the cops can't afford a VLT meter is what's stupid. It's akin to banning all cars that can go beyond 40kmph in cities, because our cops can't afford to buy speed guns.

Are you sure the side curtains in Mercs and Beemers allow for 70% visibility. I bet they aren't. (or) Checkout the Evoque that comes with really dark privacy glass in some variants and is sold in one of the countries with the strictest safety regulations, UK.

I just said what the spec says and am not sure its binding and countries follow them as law. I mentioned it since the SC in its judgement had mentioned it and to show that our law doesnt follow it for the window glasses.