If you knew that the fit and finish of replacement glass met or exceeded O.E. specifications, would it really matter who manufactured the glass?

Since there are concerns about the quality, fit, and finish of some replacement glass pioeces, wouldn't we all benefit if there was an independent testing group who certified that the fit and finsih of this maker's replacement glass met or exceeded OEM specifications?

Wouldn't a certification process such as this allow you to safely shop for the best replacement glass price?

Since AGRSS is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the safe replacement of auto glass, might this be a worthwhile endeavor for them?

If AGRSS was founded and was supported by companies in the auto glass replacement industry that keep safe installation as their primary goal, wouldn't this make sense?

On the auto repair side there is a testing group, CAPA, who certifies that aftermarket parts meet or exceed OE specs. Is there or should there be something of this sort for replacement glass?

All glass sold in the USA must meet the federal standards for constuction (FMVSS 205)which is assured by display of the DOT#. The only difference between OEM and ARG glass is the fit or appearance. Which means that the tech will have to take a little longer to make adjustments in the fit or bonding.

The reason most techs like the OEM glass is that it is easier to sell against competition that sells ARG and that it fits well with few adjustments necessary.

There will never be an independent testing group becuase the US government dictates construction through ANSI Z26.1

AGRSS has addressed the quality of glass through the requirement that all glass installed must meet ANSI Z26.1 (FMVSS 205).

Even if the glass meets or exceeds these standards, you still have the glass with a distortion or a fit that's not quite right. One or my customers likes to say that the glass "waves back at him". I'm sorry but I refuse to install a piece of glass in a customers vehicle that I wouldn't put in mine.

In 18 years I have learned that no one BRAND of glass is better than any other brand based soley on the BRAND or LOGO on the glass. Some brands "fit" better for certain part# than others do, regardless of the brand on the "bug".

I also agree with Bob above, that the primary reason I would not install certain brands is from my personal experiences with then on the whole. Just as with certain vehicles I may prefer one brand over another because of the ease of use and the rate of warranty based on my experience with that particular part#.

Just because a windshield might pass a "drop ball" test and is SAFE, it does not insure that it fits right, has no distortion, etc.

HAL - I believe it would be impossible and perhaps even unjust to try to name one BRAND as the "best glass" for the reasons stated above.

But to answer your main point "If you knew that the fit and finish of replacement glass met or exceeded O.E. specifications, would it really matter who manufactured the glass?" I would say no it would not matter who the manufacturer was. But the proof is in the pudding as they say. Much like a lot of things these days, anyone can SAY they are the best, or manipulate the facts to convince others, but personal experience will usually win out.

Hal,
Were you ever offerd the opportunity to attend a PPG PROSTARS CE Class? I have taught the classes for several years. The original class we presented included a "check fixture" which we could sit different brands of glass onto. The agents/adjustors attending the class could then see how the bends and size of the glass matched up to the check fixture which simulated a vehicle pinchweld. I had purchased four different brands personally to make sure PPG was not "hand picking" the windshields. Even I was suprised be the amount of difference in size and bend between brands.
After they looked at each one we would tell them if it was considered a factory equivelent glass(meets not only governement specs but also the Car manufacture specs) or if it was aftermaket.
Even agents and adjustors that were using glass companies that specialize in aftermarket replacements expressed concerns after attending the class.

These check fixtures are used by companies that either want or have to meet the Car manufatures specs where as an aftermarket glass may or may not fall within these tolarances.

I appreciate your ideas and time. If you have not attended one of these classes I highly recommend it. I do know at one time Safelite was attempting to begin offering a class, but it was my understanding that they did not address issues relating to fit and finish.

Thanks for your responses. I appreciate your patience with my questions. It seemed like CAPA parts certification worked so well to identify quality aftermarket parts for the Collision Repair Industry, that such a certification program might help ease identification of quality glass products as well.

I understand that simply meeting Federal specifications doesn't guarantee fit or finish.

I am convinced that a parts certification process would help identify the better fitting glass products.

We do rely on your judgment to make the best selection of replacement glass. Thanks for your continued efforts.

Best Holiday Wishes

Hey Hal,

Merry Christmas to you and yours!!

Respectfully, Hal,

Do you really beleive that CAPA works? CAPA is the laughing stock of the collision repair industry. MQVP runs a close second....and is bankrupt, as I recall.

CAPA was concieved, created, funded, and implemented by mostly insurer, with some aftermarket parts mfgs in the wings.

Their credibility as an "independent" certification entity is questionable at best.

INsurers are already specifying the price of AM parts in claims settlements. THe repairer holds the liability bag for installing them. If you want us to use them, step up and assume the liability with the repairer.

Finally, how will this supposed independent testing certification organization determine equivalence to OEM specs when they don't have them in the first place to know what they are?

The OEM glass mfgs know what it takes to pass the car mfgs crash testing and safety system/crash management system requirements of the car mfgs. SHame on them if they don't incorporate that into their products that they sell us.

"Fit and finish" is fine, and words commonly used in the collision side, evolving to phrases like "functionally equivalent" and "equivalent in terms of fit, finish, and function". So be it, but we aren't talking about a fender here, we're talking about one of the most important parts of the crash management system; the SAFETY SYSTEMS of the car. Big difference.

If they're so good, in light of car mfgs cutting costs to avoid bankruptcy, then why aren't they using these "equivalent" parts at the factory to save costs?

If you want them accepted, then have the AM mfgs step up and prove that they are equivalent.

In writing please. I personally am not satisfied with funny terms like OEE, "Original Equipment Equivalent", no matter how many times your adminsitrator repeats it, especially with no proof to back it up.

How about an ARG fit olympics for the manufacturers at the next AGRSS gathering. Have them sign up for the competition and have independent sources gather the windshields for the competition so there isn't any picking and choosing by the manufacturers. Surely someone would donate the use of a few check fixtures. Check for fit ,clarity, and overall finish details.

HAL - what if we could prove to you that your administrators glass parts were some of the worst "fit and finish" on the market? Would this change anything at State Auto?

I think we all know where this is going. You want to buy the cheapest glass on the domestic market, SGC, have it certified as good or better than OE to save yourself $$$, and then pass the liability for installing those parts back on to the service providers in case the parts fail.

I understand there is incredible competition in the insurance industry these days. But continued policies that "discontinue" certain types of coverage (State Farm chip repairs) and installation of "OE equivalent" parts only further undermine your industry and play into the belief many insured’s already have of the insurance industry in this country. That being you are all "crooks" and "look for every opportunity to screw the little guy" as one customer recently put it.

As always I value your input and ideas!

just legal gambling that the ins. cos. controll the odds. (profit)

Hal

Who wants you to ask these questions?

Attaboy, OMG......

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Hal brings up this "CAPA" comparison right after the Farmers Group case over aftermarket parts is settled.

lol lol

Hal - I would have to agree with everything Mark1 just said. Thanks Mark1 for saving me a lot of time preparing a proper response.

Hal, every quality oriented collision repairer absolutely detests aftermarket collision parts with the exception of maybe radiators and condensors. Ask anyone that installs hoods, fenders, fascias, etc..., in collision and they will all admit to holding their breath when pressured by insurance companies into installing them on otherwise perfectly good cars.

The only parties that ever benefitted from aftermarket crash parts are the Insurance companies and CRAPA executives:

Simply put, these parts steal from the consumer (loss of value), they steal from the business owner (loss of production efficiency), and they steal from the technician (loss of their money and minds for working with such garbage when the real thing is available).

Insurance companies and networks have reduced the glass industry into the lowest common denominator already; leave it alone or install them yourselves.

Hal,

Any windshield manufacturer can make a perfect windshield that fits exactly the same as the OEM.

The question is repeatability !

Windshields are not stamped out like fenders. Each one is individually bent and laminated. The quality goals of the manufacturer determine how many windshields are actually checked for proper fit.

The same goes for distortion in the windshield.

Curving a glass imparts distortion to it. The amount of distortion is a by-product of the speed of the production line and the quality control procedures of the manufacturer.

Some are better than others.

Unfortunately, it seems as if the insurance companies don't care !

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. Perhaps the CAPA model could be improved--but it was a needed start. It seems like a workable / reliable glass certification program would result in a WIN/WIN/WIN situation for consumers/shops/insurers.

We [the insurers] guarantee the repairs when we make referrals--so we do want quality parts at a competitive price. We don't want complaints or redos. The same logic applies to our glass referrals.

Hal you say " we the insurers guarantee the repairs", is that true? Hmm I thought all liability is on the shop,,,, what am I missing here?

I thought about this a little further, Hal you stated "when we make referals", so insurers make the IMPLICATION of guaranteed workmanship, so the consumer feels comfortable, then it's the shop that actually guarantees the work,,, hmm isn't this a bit deceptive? I wonder how many consumers understand the the whole picure here??? hmmm I wonder.

Funny HAL says he "guarantees" the work, his administrator tells HAL they "guarantee" the work, yet my contract with SGC and other networks require that WE "guarantee" our work.

Sounds like HAL(ins. co.'s in general) wants to amuse the consumer with promises or "guarantees", of course SGC wants to amuse HAL with "guarantees", and yet the buck gets passed to all of us once again.

Hal, I believe your statement to be "not ENTIRELY accurate....."

State Auto simple ensures that the SHOP guarantees the work when done in your program.

State Auto isn't guaranteeing anything, in that if a problem occours with the repairs by a program member, you simply either make the shop that did the work re-do it, fix the problem, or you have someone else do it and deduct the costs from the program member's next check.

CORRECT?

If not, please post the WRITTEN guarantee of quality repairs that you provide your insureds making State Auto a liable party for the repairs to the car. No scripts please, most states require written language of a guarantee, with minimums included by state law surrounding the guarantee, so the consumer knows EXACTLY what and WHO they are dealing with.

Is it fair to say that ANY aftermarket glass part COULD be considered a CRAPA part? Like an aftermarket body panel, after all, the glass is a clear body panel that reinforces the unibody structure of the vehicle, making it safe.
Any panel - bonded or, for that matter, welded reinforces and redirects the energy from a crash through the unibody. Fenders, door skins and bumpers absorb the energy along with the crumple zones. All of this has to conform to the individual manufactures' specifications.

And this is a timely article:
http://www.abrn.com/abrn/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=393448

I agree with FredO completely.

The insurers have spun tons of propoganda about 'generic parts' being no different than generic drugs, and sidestepped the issue of NO TESTING.

You MIGHT convince me that a fender isn't a safety item related to the crash management systems.

You will NEVER convince me that a windshield isn't a safety item, critical to the crash management systems.

To Hal, if I'm wrong on this, why are YOU trying to "invent" a method to "certify" that these parts are equal?

Insurers found years ago that body shops were using the AM parts and billing for OEM. They did not prosecute any of these shops for fraud to the best of anyones knowledge. Instead, it seems they decided to see how they could "get in on this deal", and CAPA was the brainchild hatched thereafter, in my and many others, opinion. In glass, insurers have totally avoided discussion of parts by coining the phrase "NAGS PARTS" even though everyone knows that NAGS is an AFTERMARKET parts database, AND that NAGS DOES NOT MAKE PARTS. Yet, no matter what the shop purchases, for what cost, AM or OEM, insurers and networks coin the term "NAGS PARTS".

If I am not totally mistaken, and I would have to look this up, Hal, wasn't CAPA involved in a lawsuit accused of being in a conspiracy with insurers to defraud consumers by "certifying" these parts as "equal" with no real proof to back it up?

And BTW...I don't think even CAPA uses the term "EQUAL" without the catch added: "in terms of fit, finish and performance". Even so, all three are highly questionable with no quantifiable level of measure. If you never get the OEM specs, what WILL you use?

So to is CAPA's 'reporting' system for 'bad' parts. If CAPA is the entity making the money for 'certifying' the parts, then why do shops have to do all the leg work to get rid of the bad ones???

And then there's the stories of shops that have sent in countless reports on parts, never to see them decertified....the stories of pop-up CAPA hoods never being decertified...the list goes on.

And these stories come from some of the most reputable collision shops in the country. Funny how none of them seem to be DRP members, or care to be.

'Nuff said.

Mark1-
Call it what you wish, but we do make sure our Insured is satisfied.

You make some interesting points regarding CAPA. My thoughts were not to copy the CAPA program, but to improve upon the certification concept.

Hal, it's not about calling anything 'what I wish'. It's about calling things what the ARE. This is not a 'point of view' issue. I try to be careful when addressing you to avoid "opinion" and stick to established facts whenever possible.

If your singular goal was to make sure your insured was satisfied, every shop in the country would be on your program, no question about it. What shop wouldn't be willing to tie it's satisfied customer base to your referrals?

But we both know that's not the whole picture.

As to the 'certification', I don't think this industry will stand idly by while a hollow 'standard' is created.

At least I sure hope we're not that gullible at this point.

Your proposed certification standard "like CAPA" would be nothing more than an 'opinion' without the OEM specs to compare TO as the verifiable level of measure.

Here's one way to look at the issue of AM parts, remove the demand for them by removing the lowball pricing that is increasing the production of them. One of the first rules of economics is that "demand creates supply", where has the demand come from? What has been the catylist? Could it be the low-low prices being paid to the repair shops using these crappy parts?
Maybe there is some alternate universe where glass shop and auto body shop owners and employees are getting million dollar bonuses for record profit years this Christmas, and not the insurance executives. In that universe there are no crappy AM parts being used, I promise.