Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

if your car is pre 1996 then tint laws are different

i pulled this a few times on my last car (94 r33) it had 10% tint on it, every time i got pulled over and questioned about it id just say it came like that, has been through compiance etc with it on... and they didnt say anything

but as mango said its also got alot to do with how u drive and ur attitude toward cops. when it comes down to it the police can yellow sticker you for just about anything

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4037-window-tint/page/2/#findComment-69947
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gerds

limo tint is nice but u wouldnt want to void ur insurance.

Gerds it is very unlikely that a claim would be knocked back for

limo tints as the car has to be claimed to be "unroadworthy" and there would have to be proof that the accident was caused because of the tints - it is not impossible but very unlikely...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4037-window-tint/page/2/#findComment-70386
Share on other sites

Guest INASNT
Originally posted by Spada33

Gerds it is very unlikely that a claim would be knocked back for

limo tints as the car has to be claimed to be "unroadworthy" and there would have to be proof that the accident was caused because of the tints - it is not impossible but very unlikely...

crap! insurance companies will find anything to try and void a claim!

few years ago a friend in a vk calais put fe2 suspension in his car without telling racv, he pulled out of a street and cleaned up another car, his fault, and when the asser checked the car out, he jacked up the car and saw the suspension and said that it wasent on the policy and void his claim! Suspension had nothing to do with the accident, yet he got done!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4037-window-tint/page/2/#findComment-71029
Share on other sites

Adam those two lines are created because it's maybe too stick to the window.

it holds the winscreen while it is half way up so it does not rattle, I think you can undo all the panel then loosen up the screw or remove it all but I would not recomend it.

as long as sand or rock doesnt sit in it, it sould be ok! it better be safe then sorry.

cheers

Joe

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4037-window-tint/page/2/#findComment-71051
Share on other sites

i have seen lots of import cars with these lines. My 32 & my previous 180sx had them too. I was at a tinting place a while back and he was looking at my windows and said to the other fella there that my car had these same lines on it that other people who had been in there.

I find it is worse if you wind your windows down while they are wet. I now allways dry my windows well before i put them down.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4037-window-tint/page/2/#findComment-71258
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...