has anyone in here ever brought up the point that it is ridiculus for auto manufacturers to depend on a windshield to be a structural component of a car?
also has anyone seen the cases of the heavy suv's and 15 passenger vans that from the factory the roof will crush enough to kill the occoupants? does this worry anyone that even with a perfect installation there is the possibility that it is the vehicle design that may be the cause? how about all these crew cab diesel pu's they have a lot of weight and we expect the w/s to support the entire vehicle weight in a roll over.

The next thing the government is coming out with is metrorite protection. After all shouldn't the windshield support the roof if a meterorite hits it?
What about a vehicle going off a mountain road and falling 3-4 hundred feet. Shouldn't the w/s support the roof? Shouldn't we have to protect those soccer moms going off of clifs? Hey Glassgod did you ever figure out if you can use a 4d dodge slider in a 2d standard cab????????????????????

You have a very valid point and there has been discussion about this in the past 6 mos to a year. I am sure that 'someday', hopefully soon, car manufacturers will be forced to use better designs/stronger materials to deal with this issue. Anyway you look at it, just doesn't make sense to be relying on a windshield installation to potential affect whether a person lives/dies or ever walks again after a rollover accident.

I have heard they only crash test the vehicles at 35 mph anyway. So if someone is going faster than that and gets in a roll over and the new windshield flies out. Well it would seem to me the shop who did the install we be off the hook if they did a bad job. JMO

I hear you GW, but... There have been countless claims of people suing SUCCESSFULLY after they or a family member was killed after being ejected from the vehicle. Almost all cases they were traveling at higher speeds and during the accident, something "failed". It's no secret that the highest rates of death are when someone is ejected from the vehicle. The people that are ejected are NOT wearing seatbelts, but for some reason, they are still holding the car mfgs responsible. Heck, there was a case not long ago that Ford was successfully sued because someone was ejected (not wearing a seatbelt) thru the door glass and was killed. Their success came because they proved that Ford should have used laminated glass instead of tempered in the door. Keep in mind that the laws DO NOT require them to use laminated!!!!!! But yet they are liable???? My point is that anyone is a target under any circumstance up until the time they make the entire passenger compartment of vehicles into the equivalent of an F-16 fighter jet. Or I guess people could also just SLOW DOWN AND PAY ATTENTION to their driving?? Nah, that makes too much sense.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/03/E01-106007.htm
The more you search, there are far too many suits like this one out there.

The car’s windshield was what the name implied. It kept the wind out of your face and the rain out of your eyes (not always your lap). Windshields are made of glass, that substance we all depend on to pay our bills. Glass breaks, look at cartons with any type of glass in it and you will see “FRAGILE GLASS” written on it. Glass is associated with weakness i.e. he has a glass jaw or treat it like glass.
The auto industry has seen fit to promote glass to steel’s equal. They have incorporated glass into part of the car’s structural integrity. Glass stood upright is extremely hard to crush. Like an egg, If you take an egg in your hand lengthwise and try to crush it, it is extremely hard. Take the egg and hold it sideways and a five year old can crush it. Hey there’s an idea. Lets make the bumpers out of eggs standing upright.
I think we all agree how silly it is (apparently the Govt. does too because they are looking into this matter) to assign glass a major role in a car’s structural and safety design.
MARK1 Help me I can’t stop!
The fact is the windshield DOES have this major role and we have the responsibility to do everything we can to return the car with its safety and structural integrity intact.
If you agree to the job you agree to take the responsibility of doing the best you can to safeguard the occupants on impact or rollover.
If you want to use the “it should have never been designed that way” excuse to cut corners…EEEERRRRTTTT.. Wrong answer.
DO Not Pass Go....Do Not Collect Peanuts for Replacement. (00PS…Different Topic)

THis is yet another perfect example of what I keep saying, that this industry is hiding behind a 35 year old set of standards known as FMVSS, that were written long before structural WS installations existed, long before we had airbags bouncing off of those structural installations also.

This case used in the example does reference the side windows, not the windshield, but nevertheless, the point is that the car manufactureres are being held liable in numerous cases, some even when they prove in court that they have exceeded FMVSS by as much as nearly triple. In this case the occupants weren't belted; they didn't USE the safety systems Ford installed, yet, Ford lost. In another Explorer case, the belted driver died from alleged head injuries from roof crush after an estimated 5 time rollover, but the pic of the vehicle showed the roof only down about 6 inches over the driver! Ford still lost, even proving they exceeded FMVSS.

My question is, where does this leave this industry when we constantly quote "meeting" FMVSS as being acceptable?

The only protection we have at this point, is not to debate whether the auto manufacturers should, or should not have done what they have done, but rather to duplicate what they have done as close as humanly possible on any installations. In this way, the car manufacturer is the one holding the liability bag for the design, not the repairer. It is also the reason why we should not make any assumptions to what we 'think' is better, because we have NO (or at best very little) crash testing to prove that any changes we make 'are' in FACT better, or even equal for that matter if we use cheaper parts/materials. I believe this is the rock-solid foundation of AGRSS. When FMVSS are upgraded/strengthened, so will be AGRSS automatically. If 'we' change anything during a replacement, we are on unproven shaky ground.

Then also, there is the whole issue of using AM parts that may, or may not, meet FMVSS, and even if they do, and the car mfg EXCEEDED those specs in their design and manufacture, and they are being successfully sued anyway, how will we defend ourselves with that 35 year old standard, a standard that does not even apply to the ARG market ANYWAY?

This industry is being forced to use AM parts and materials to work within the supposed confines of pricing 'allowed' by insurers. But you should note that NO insurer is telling us what parts to use, but only what price they 'believe' is fair and reasonable for the job. WE as a repair professionals willingly 'accept the offer' given, or not.

Read the language in the new Farm O/A. THe repairer agrees to return the car to OEM specs relatively, and agrees to disclose to the car owner the parts used in the repair. Wonder why that language is IN there?

I don't. When this industry faces the jury, which has already happened, we will be facing a substantial portion of this 'percentage of responsibility' they speak of.

The only defense will be to have returned the car to OEM specs as close as humanly possible so the liabilty will lie with the people that designed and crash tested the vehicle, not with the repairer for returning it to the way they built it.

Sorry for the length, but I don't know how to say it shorter. And once again, I'm no lawyer, but I can read, and listen to what lawyers are saying. And it makes perfect sense.

Wow. Hot topic.

I have always thought relying on a WS for safety was dumb too. Its kind of one of those things everyone is thinking, but not really saying. I can understand the WS being important, but relying on it the hold up a roof in a roolover? Can we say NEGATIVE GHOSTRIDER!!!

sglass
did someone mention cutting corners? these are factory installs and the roof is collapsing because of the design.

Bqa I didn’t say you were cutting corners. There are a lot of people out there who would love any excuse to justify what they do. No need to be defensive.

I usually stay out of the mix on technical stuff, but I've a question. In one of the above post referenceing the strength of "upright" glass, and comparing it to eggs causes me to put forth the following question, in how many of the hundreds of current designs in vehicles does the windshield stand "upright"....in most isn't it slanted? Heck in some it's at probably a greater than 30 degree angle. Especially sports cars. Just Wondering??

True Louise.
Greater minds then our have figured out the angle of the glass and how much support it will provide. This is incorporated into the car's structural design.

If the job is done correctly, primers, driveaway time, good glass and urethane the glass will stay in. I have had 5 customers with major collisions or rollovers with no glass adhesion failure.

All of this just proves that a lawyer can prove anything to jury. How long before some sneaky attorney decides to sue a shop for not installing w/s in a dust-free, climate controlled environment. That is how they are done at the factory.
All the SDAT and installation paperwork does not mean anything once a good lawyer gets a hold of a jury that is not versed in the simple realities of real world installations. No matter what we do, a lawyer can make it appear we are NOT doing it the way the factories are. At some point we will probably have to do all of our work in filtered paint booths and wear TYVEK suits.

I think you are taking this point to an extreme. There is a definite difference between a proper install and improper install.

This is one of my favorite pics from the AGRR Hall of Shame. The person who submitted it said they used Liquid Nails. I love the 2x4's and bungee cord holding the windshield in place until it dries. Sheez.

Hey That's my road truck!!

Hey! Thats my auto glass van!!! I do installs out of that every winter!!!

The 2x4 is to keep the hood from flying off.