Did my 1st repairs yesterday!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 742
- Joined: June 16th, 2009, 11:28 pm
- Enter the middle number please (3): 3
- Location: NC
- Contact:
Re: Did my 1st repairs yesterday!
That should be 4 half turns for the rear legs for Delta or 2 full turns. Once that is done add one more turn to injector. Watch when applying vaccume or pressure that you dont have injector lift off glass or you will allow resin to run from underneath and allow air to re-enter break area. Ive been doing this for 19 months now and I learn all the time from this forum or I forget something and am reminded by others through the forum. The author of this topic gave a lot of insight as to how many, that purchase the kits, start out without attending the class. Little things make a big difference in the quality of the repair, such as proper adjustment of the rear legs. Have a good day!

-
- Member
- Posts: 169
- Joined: December 9th, 2003, 1:00 pm
- Enter the middle number please (3): 5
- Location: Vancouver,WA.
Re: Did my 1st repairs yesterday!
Ambient, I am a repair only business so I'll repair 8 on a shield if I can get high quality results. Is 8 common...no. I second Nomads advice of calling Delta for practice repair assistance. You'll be less frustrated and your repairs should be much better.
-
- Member
- Posts: 157
- Joined: November 1st, 2010, 4:05 pm
- Enter the middle number please (3): 3
Re: Did my 1st repairs yesterday!
Mr Bill is right. There was an old guy who did WSR in Honolulu about twenty or so years ago who was known as Charlie Puka Pau. Although I'm a certified geezer, I'm not Charlie. However;
1. My perspective is that the three repair limit is bogus. Anybody would have their work cut out for them attempting to prove that a specific repair was the cause of the vision hazard that caused the accident. Actually, is it not true that one of the main reasons for repair is to remove the light refraction (that causes the vision hazard) caused by the damage? This three repair limit sounds to me like another half-baked attempt aimed at the insurance industry by the NGA to drum up business for their glass replacement members. Remember, in the early 1990's the NGA started spreading rumors that repairing would cause glass to "spall" from the inner layer of glass and shower the vehicle's inhabitants with shards propelled at potentially lethal speed. The anti-repair lobbying to the insurance companies was one of the reasons for the formation of the NWRA. This issue has the same footprint. Personally I think that 200,000 mile glass, wiper-scratched and sandpitted (but sans rockchips, repaired or not) presents way more of a vision hazard than 30,000 mile glass with four or more competently repaired damage.
2. I have to agree with Glasstime and Nomad. There are an almost infinite number of variations to any category of damage. Performing at least 100 practice repairs before hitting the bricks is certainly not overkill. Upon completing my first 10 repairs I felt like a genius. After I had done a few hundred I realized that I knew just enough to make myself highly dangerous.
3. Heat is heat is heat. I"ve used bic-style lighters, moisture evaporators, the vehicle lighter and matches, a propane torch, heat gun, hair dryer and possibly a few more items that escape me. The application technique is important. The source is not.
4. The mere act of injecting resin into a break does not insure a reliable repair or guarantee its longevity and coherence. (see #2)
5. It's obvious (to me, anyway) that your comments about your lack of drilling technique and your description about the cosmetic appearance of your repairs indicates that you need a lot more practice (see #2). Many customers think that repairing will make damage "disappear" (and in large part we have that repair company whose name sounds sort of like the Latin word for "new" who sponsored all those TV ads for repair to thank for that perception). Although performing the perfect disappearing repair is neither impossible or even improbable, it remains elusive. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for perfection if your repairs aren't "beautiful". (see #2) This board is rife with posts hand-wringing about ugly or otherwise incompetent repairs. If you execute mediocre work, you can expect the customer to be critical, which will put you on the defensive , which is exactly where you do not want to be with a customer. And if the customer chooses to have someone else repair future damage you can reasonably expect that a competent technician will use your substandard effort for both comparison and insult. Your reputation will live on at least as long as that glass is in the vehicle; every inhabitant will have an opportunity to regard your work over every mile traveled. I hope you would agree that it would be better to have as many customers as possible regard beauty instad of ugly.
Cheers;
Puka Pau
1. My perspective is that the three repair limit is bogus. Anybody would have their work cut out for them attempting to prove that a specific repair was the cause of the vision hazard that caused the accident. Actually, is it not true that one of the main reasons for repair is to remove the light refraction (that causes the vision hazard) caused by the damage? This three repair limit sounds to me like another half-baked attempt aimed at the insurance industry by the NGA to drum up business for their glass replacement members. Remember, in the early 1990's the NGA started spreading rumors that repairing would cause glass to "spall" from the inner layer of glass and shower the vehicle's inhabitants with shards propelled at potentially lethal speed. The anti-repair lobbying to the insurance companies was one of the reasons for the formation of the NWRA. This issue has the same footprint. Personally I think that 200,000 mile glass, wiper-scratched and sandpitted (but sans rockchips, repaired or not) presents way more of a vision hazard than 30,000 mile glass with four or more competently repaired damage.
2. I have to agree with Glasstime and Nomad. There are an almost infinite number of variations to any category of damage. Performing at least 100 practice repairs before hitting the bricks is certainly not overkill. Upon completing my first 10 repairs I felt like a genius. After I had done a few hundred I realized that I knew just enough to make myself highly dangerous.
3. Heat is heat is heat. I"ve used bic-style lighters, moisture evaporators, the vehicle lighter and matches, a propane torch, heat gun, hair dryer and possibly a few more items that escape me. The application technique is important. The source is not.
4. The mere act of injecting resin into a break does not insure a reliable repair or guarantee its longevity and coherence. (see #2)
5. It's obvious (to me, anyway) that your comments about your lack of drilling technique and your description about the cosmetic appearance of your repairs indicates that you need a lot more practice (see #2). Many customers think that repairing will make damage "disappear" (and in large part we have that repair company whose name sounds sort of like the Latin word for "new" who sponsored all those TV ads for repair to thank for that perception). Although performing the perfect disappearing repair is neither impossible or even improbable, it remains elusive. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for perfection if your repairs aren't "beautiful". (see #2) This board is rife with posts hand-wringing about ugly or otherwise incompetent repairs. If you execute mediocre work, you can expect the customer to be critical, which will put you on the defensive , which is exactly where you do not want to be with a customer. And if the customer chooses to have someone else repair future damage you can reasonably expect that a competent technician will use your substandard effort for both comparison and insult. Your reputation will live on at least as long as that glass is in the vehicle; every inhabitant will have an opportunity to regard your work over every mile traveled. I hope you would agree that it would be better to have as many customers as possible regard beauty instad of ugly.
Cheers;
Puka Pau
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests