NCT tints

goz83

My car failed Nct on what I would consider to be light tints. I can see quite clearly out the windows and asked for "legal tints" so it would pass the Nct. The tester said all tints are illegal, which I think is rubbish.

Anyway, I have the same tint used as a sun strip on the windscreen and the (insert insult here) failed the windscreen for tint, which is total garbage. At the same time, when I was leaving, I spotted taxi driver getting into his car with his new cert and he had a darker sun strip on his windscreen than I did, which wasn't very dark at all. What can be done about this? I didn't see the tester checking the glass with a light meter.

awec

This post has been deleted.

goz83

awec wrote: »

Sunstrip is a different kettle of fish I think, they can be darker but I believe there is limits as to how big your sunstrip can be.

If your tints are as dark as sunstrips on cars then I'd suggest they are definitely too dark.

If your front windows let in less than 65% light then they are illegally tinted. If you failed on this it's time to remove the tints.

Is there a figure printed on your NCT fail sheet?

The sunstrip is made of the tinting film. It's not dark. It's a few inches wide and does not interfere with my view at all. I've seen some that cover a lot of the windscreen, but this covers the same amount as cars with factory strips.

There is no figure. It just says "less than 65%" on all counts, so this is why I think the tints were not tested. They are a light black. I guess it's possible they are too dark, but I specifically asked for legal tint opacity when I was getting work done on my car a few months ago.

awec

This post has been deleted.

goz83

Here is a snap. You can see the sun strip. What do you think? A fail?

The windows look much darker in the pic I have to say. The passenger window is actually up in the photo, so you will get an idea of opacity from that. I know it was up, because the tints were only applied fresh that day.



An inside view, again, windows are up. Shows how light the tint is.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Our man in Havana

Didn't want to start new thread.

Tough. Do not bump old threads. Site rules.

goz83

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Tough. Do not bump old threads. Site rules.

I've no issue if you want to paste my the bumped section to a new thread. I just thought the thread was very relevant and old answers didn't need to be answered again.

Our man in Havana

Sorry that is a site wide policy.

challengemaster

Sticker type Sunstrips aren't allowed anyway. Completely illegal, covered here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72178490&postcount=3

And AFAIK, no level of tint on the front windscreen is acceptable. So whatever way you look at it, the sunstrip has to go.

And from the exterior pic, the tint on the front windows looks far too dark.

goz83

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Sorry that is a site wide policy.

I reported a bumped post over on another forum and the mod talked down to me about it and said the thread was still "kinda relevanr" even though it was about 2 years old. I will avoid bumping old threads though.

goz83

challengemaster wrote: »

Sticker type Sunstrips aren't allowed anyway. Completely illegal, covered here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72178490&postcount=3

And AFAIK, no level of tint on the front windscreen is acceptable. So whatever way you look at it, the sunstrip has to go.

And from the exterior pic, the tint on the front windows looks far too dark.

Your link only shows one post, which didn't really seem relevant tbh and had nothing else for context.

I have always had tinted visors on all my cars and vans and it has never been an issue before now. One I had on a van was a pure black vinyl strip, but it was a DOE, rather than NCT job.

I did say the external photo looked much darker than it is. The internal one is far more accurate, but i'm not saying it's definitely legal, because I don't know for sure. I just don't think it was actually tested. I would have stayed and argued and demanded for an actual reading, but I was in a bit of a rush.

challengemaster

goz83 wrote: »

Your link only shows one post, which didn't really seem relevant tbh and had nothing else for context.

I have always had tinted visors on all my cars and vans and it has never been an issue before now. One I had on a van was a pure black vinyl strip, but it was a DOE, rather than NCT job.

I did say the external photo looked much darker than it is. The internal one is far more accurate, but i'm not saying it's definitely legal, because I don't know for sure. I just don't think it was actually tested. I would have stayed and argued and demanded for an actual reading, but I was in a bit of a rush.

It's the only post important in that thread to the point I was making - under the act stated in that post, sticker type sun strips are deemed illegal.

NCT manual wrote:

Glass Windscreen

Reasons for failure
1 Windscreen missing.
2 Windscreen not marked as safety glass.
3 In vehicle registered on or after 1st January 1986 windscreen is not
marked as shown in Schedule 1 or to an equivalent standard.
4 Objects or stickers in drivers direct line of vision.
5 Damaged beyond acceptable limits. See page 26.
6 Glass has a visible light transmission level of less than 65%.

Glass Side and Rear Windows
Reasons for failure

7 Not marked as safety glass (if first registered after 1 July 1964).
8 Glass in front side windows has a visible light
transmission level of less than 65%.

In the case of a tinted sun strip, I'd imagine it's the fact that a portion of the windscreen doesn't comply with the visible light transmission level of 65%, therefore it's a fail.

Ronnie Beck

goz83 wrote: »

Your link only shows one post, which didn't really seem relevant tbh and had nothing else for context.

I have always had tinted visors on all my cars and vans and it has never been an issue before now. One I had on a van was a pure black vinyl strip, but it was a DOE, rather than NCT job.

I did say the external photo looked much darker than it is. The internal one is far more accurate, but i'm not saying it's definitely legal, because I don't know for sure. I just don't think it was actually tested. I would have stayed and argued and demanded for an actual reading, but I was in a bit of a rush.

From current NCT manual:If an inspector deems that the windscreen or front side windows are excessively tinted, the level of light transmission
of the window should be tested using light meter capable of measuring the amount of light transmitted through the
windscreen and the side windows along side the driver to an accuracy of ± 3% and suitable for reliable use in an
inspection centre environment.

He has to check it with a meter.

**** me there is an app for everything.
I don't have a iphone so no idea if this works
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightmeter/id320768222?mt=8

goz83

challengemaster wrote: »

It's the only post important in that thread to the point I was making - under the act stated in that post, sticker type sun strips are deemed illegal.



In the case of a tinted sun strip, I'd imagine it's the fact that a portion of the windscreen doesn't comply with the visible light transmission level of 65%, therefore it's a fail.

With respect, that's an assumption you're making. The sunstrip is not in my direct line of sight. The test sheet states that the windscreen is tinted, which only a portion is. That portion is tinted on many, many cars and they do not fail the nct. It's certainly possible that the light transmission is below 65%, which would be a fail on the side windows, but the sunstrip failing is a joke. The only thing it helps block is the sun burning my bloody eyes out (when i forget my shades). Direct line of sight, is not the very top of the windscreen, where tax, insurance, nct and parking discs are often stuck, beside the rear view mirror and toll tag etc etc. Doesn't make any sense to me.

challengemaster

goz83 wrote: »

With respect, that's an assumption you're making. The sunstrip is not in my direct line of sight. The test sheet states that the windscreen is tinted, which only a portion is. That portion is tinted on many, many cars and they do not fail the nct. It's certainly possible that the light transmission is below 65%, which would be a fail on the side windows, but the sunstrip failing is a joke. The only thing it helps block is the sun burning my bloody eyes out (when i forget my shades). Direct line of sight, is not the very top of the windscreen, where tax, insurance, nct and parking discs are often stuck, beside the rear view mirror and toll tag etc etc. Doesn't make any sense to me.

You've merged two fail points together, and are coming to wrong conclusions based on that (and your bias that you think you're right).

Objects on the windscreen in direct line of sight - that's a fail.

light transmission below 65% - fail.

These are individual items, independent of eachother. It doesn't matter if the excessively tinted portion of the windscreen isn't in direct line of sight, it's still a fail as it's excessively tinted.

With regards to "other cars that have passed", that's a quality control issue with the NCT in general, and something you have no control over, so it's essentially a moot point. There's an issue with your car, other peoples cars are irrelevant. Fix the issue.

goz83

challengemaster wrote: »

You've merged two fail points together, and are coming to wrong conclusions based on that (and your bias that you think you're right).

Objects on the windscreen in direct line of sight - that's a fail.

light transmission below 65% - fail.

These are individual items, independent of eachother. It doesn't matter if the excessively tinted portion of the windscreen isn't in direct line of sight, it's still a fail as it's excessively tinted.

With regards to "other cars that have passed", that's a quality control issue with the NCT in general, and something you have no control over, so it's essentially a moot point. There's an issue with your car, other peoples cars are irrelevant. Fix the issue.

My intention was to separate the two issues, while pointing out their obvious connections. I would certainly agree that there are quality control issues with the nct. I bet a brown envelope in the passenger seat would have promised me a pass. The problem is that the rule relevant to this is open to interpretation. I think its fair to say that the sunstrip does not obstruct my view, rather it enhances my viewing quality. It's also not anymore in my line of sight than the rearview mirror.

If sunstrips are illegal, then so too should sun-visors be. They (when pulled down) cover far more than any sunstrip would, and they are not opaque. Would you agree?

Funny thing is I didn't ask for the sunstrip. The guy doing the tinting just added it and I liked it for style and functionality.

goz83

Did some extra research and most stuff points to a sunstrip being illegal, which makes me wonder why some cars have them as factory standard. Some people say that your wipers shouldn't cross the strip line and others say as long as it's above your visor when down it's ok. I still don't see it as an obstruction and I certainly don't agree with a blanket ban on them.

My car also failed on corrosion, alignment and an insecure brake line too, so i'm not just picking holes for the sake of it. I will be getting those issues sorted today. I genuinely think the rule is stupid, unless there is a reasonable reason why people would want a sunstrip. Will they make sunglasses illegal next? What about wearing baseball caps while driving (personally would agree to that one ). It's the same rubbish with mobile phones while driving. You're still allowed to hold a burning cigarette, or apply make-up, or eat a happy meal while driving. Stupid.

nutts_77

Fix all the failed issues. No more hassles.

Gary ITR

Is your sunstrip inside the track of the wipers?

goz83

Gary ITR wrote: »

Is your sunstrip inside the track of the wipers?

The wipers overlap the sunstrip, but the sunstrip is on the inside of the windscreen. The wipers just about touch the very top of the screen. Car is in today getting the corrosion sorted.