Proposed Windshield Repair Standard

[Delta Kits]

The new joint NGA/NWRA ANSI Repair of Laminated Automotive Glass Standard (ROLAGS) has now been completed and is moving to the public comment phase. If you have a comment or objection to the new standard please let us know, or you can contact the National Glass Association directly at www.glass.org. The NGA will be fielding comments until December 12th.

Repair of Laminated Automotive Glass Standard (ROLAGS)

[Layne]

I have reviewed the proposed standard. All of it looks good to me.

I do question the inference that all personel must be trained in accordance with the proposed standard. While I have been in this repair program for some 9 years, there are others that have successfully performed repairs for 15 years or more. The standard does not make any allowance for those that have been successful technicians prior to this proposed standard. I might also add that this group has had the support of the insurance companies for many years.

I would like to hear some of their comments.

Let's keep in mind that these training seminars are situated in large metropolitan ares which requires "would be" techs to travel considerable distances and spend a good chunk of funds.

[repare-brise]

Very goob begining, but there are a few changes I would propose

In one section 7.9.2 finished pit no larger that 3/16, and in another (9.3) 3/8, I would suggest 1/2inch .

Section 7.9 should be eliminated altogether, section 7.10 covers it better.

8.2.11 should add polishing of the pit , polishing improves the optical clarity, and adds resistance to the elements(dirt does not stick to a polished surface)

Section 10 is inadequate(need more elaboration), it should include a basic number of hours, repairs, and customer relations training.

And Yes I will send my comments(with more detailed explinations) to the people responsable.

As for existing techs, a simple written exam and practical test should suffice, or a minimum number of testimonials from clients could also do the trick.

Merci

[DaveC]

8.2.7 Remove the air and inject repair resin.

Hmmm... I guess that this would make Delta equip. obsolete since pressure cycle is initiated first?

Would read better if at least a definition for Injector was added:

Injector - Specialized apparatus designed to introduce repair resin to a damaged area of a windshield by alternating between pressure (injection) and vaccuum (air removal) cycles.

Then, 8.1 could be changed to read something like:
8.1 Auto glass repair is a process that ultimately removes the air from the break and fills the break with a curable, optically matched resin.

And 8.2.7 could be changed to read somnething like:
8.2.7 Position and utilize injector(s), in accordance with injector manufacturer's instructions, to repair the damaged area.

Something akin to the above would be more friendly to some WSR manufacturers;)

[repare-brise]

Good point Dave(and if one wanted to make disparaging comments about Delta, you left the door wide open, but fortunatly Delta's reputation in the industry is above such comments), it's a good framework, but contrary to most things is lacking in depth(red-tape?) and scope. It is vague, but as Jeff stated it is open to comment and improvement, 5000 heads are better than 50!

Enjoy

[dgarza]

as usual I have a problem with 7.9-7.10. this mentality still makes no sense to me. you are IMPROVING something. why would it matter if it meets one of these cirteria if its going to look better anyway!?!?!?!? Oh well some people will never grasp that concept.

[Delta Kits]

In 8.2.7, it was not meant to be read as one before another. It simply says remove the air AND inject repair resin.

[Delta Kits]

Also, any comments or proposed changes can be made to Leo Cyr of the NGA at leo@glass.org

[Daveycrewcut]

I am making these suggestions for the following reasons:

ANSI is a voluntary organization.

These standards are not legislation. Words such as must, required and shall should not be used in ROLAGS

Our customers (the consumer) should always have the final say!

As a consumer, if I have a $100 deductible or higher, I may want to have a rock chip repaired rather than a replacement in order to save money (or the original factory seal). Even if the rock chip is in the DPVA, I may wish to choose repair. I want that option. (The recent tests done in England contracted by Belron showed that repairs done in the drivers’ line of vision had no significant impact on the drivers ability to see through the windshield. See AGRR magazine May/June 2005 issue.)

Why should a Combination break be repairable and a similar size bulls-eye break not be repairable? Let’s be uniform.

Why should an 18" long crack be repairable and not a 20", 25" or even a 40"? What difference does it make if a crack runs from one edge to another?

I am taking the time to make these suggestions because I feel that ROLAGS like AGRSS will be used to try to get costly, unnecessary and stilted legislation passed.

Daveycrewcut