Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am getting my car tinted next week and have a couple of questions.

I know that 75% fronts and 35% rears are legal, but I have heard from a couple of reliable sources that Regency will fail a car for having any tint whatsoever. This doesn't really make any sense, but then again I have heard so many stories about Regency that it doesn't really surprise me. What if I took in a copy of the legislation? Or would that just fire them up?

If I am going to be ****ed over for legal tint, I had might as well go 5% all around. Is darker tint more expensive than lighter tint?

Any advice?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/50710-tinting-and-regency/
Share on other sites

i have tint on my car mate. 35% sides and 32% back if i can remember correctly. There is no difference in price for percentage of tint, the difference is in the quality of tint you choose. I have endurance i think it was and it cost me $300 almost a year ago and is still at that price - my gf got same tint done as me at the same place.

yep its true been defected for having tint on the passenger and driver side window + at the same time a sticker on the front windscreen in the tint line, sent to regency for this i kicked up a fuss a the local cop station next thing ya know defect sticker off and no regency tour but the sticker and tint came off, next hour sticker back on(wasn't actually defectable) cop ona power trip next time go around the RBT

:confused:

Have you all been defected and/or ****ed around for having front window tinting? As long as it is 75% or higher, it's legal.

It's all here:

[b]Window Tinting:[/b]



44. (1) Glazing used in a windscreen of a motor vehicle must have a luminous transmittance of at least: 



(a) for a motor vehicle built after 1971—75%; or

(b) for another motor vehicle—70%. 



(2) Windscreen glazing of a motor vehicle must not be coated in a way that reduces its luminous transmittance.



(3) However, subrules (1) and (2) do not apply to the greater of the following areas of a windscreen:



(a) the area above the highest point of the windscreen that is swept by a windscreen wiper;

(b)the upper 10% of the windscreen.



(4) Glazing used in a window or interior partition of a motor vehicle must have a luminous transmittance of at least 70%.



(5) Glazing behind the rear of the driver's seat may be coated to achieve a luminous transmittance of not less than 35%.



(6) Glazing in a side window forward of the rear of the driver's seat may be coated to achieve a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% or, if another law of this jurisdiction allows a lesser luminous transmittance, the greater of:



(a) the lesser luminous transmittance allowed under the other law; and

(b) 35%.



(7) Glazing that has been coated to reduce its luminous transmittance must not have a reflectance of over 10%.



(8) The luminous transmittance requirements in subrules (5) and (6) apply to a vehicle instead of the corresponding requirements in the relevant ADR.



(9) In this rule:



"glazing" means material fitted to the front, sides, rear or interior of a vehicle, through which the driver can see the road, but does not include a coating added after manufacture of the material.



"luminous transmittance", for glazing, means the amount of light that can pass through the glazing as a percentage of the amount of light that would be transmitted if the glazing were absent.

That's stupid.

Maybe I'll get 20% all over and just remove the driver/passenger tints when I get defected. What does it cost to re-tint just these two windows? Am I right in thinking that Regency don't really check the rear windows?

If Regency ping you for tinting, do they send you home or allow you to rip it off on the spot and still pass?

guess the rest of the country must be driving around dangerously.. except for S.A.

as pretty much everywhere i know you can tint any of the windows except the front windscreen ..

why do you have such ****ed laws? why? why?? i thought S.A. was a laid back and easy going place. Why do you have laws that are more strict than anywhere else in the country? :bs!:

My mate has super tint on his 33, i mean on the back streets at night, like poorly lit street's you can hardly see out em....

Also i don't think regency will let you rip it off on the spot.....

I know plenty of people that have failed from window tint, you well get the big ol fail!

Then another trip back so they get more money and the possibility of a diff instructor so you could get raped again.

You must also have the little sticker on the window stating its transparency.

Even if the window tint is legal they will make you rip it off without that sticker. (This is what regency recently told me when I went though a big list of what I can and can't do)

Mine doesn't have the sticker.

The only car I've seen have those little stickers is my old mans old 80series Landcruiser and his new Nissan Patrol.

The Landcruiser was tinted from Toyota when they bought it.

The Patrol was tinted by Nissan.

I have approx 35% all round and its perfect.

At night I can see out of it perfectly. No reflections from interior lights etc.

My previous VS commodore was also tinted, for some reason interior lights would reflect and make it difficult to see out.

That tint was lighter than what I have on the line.

I put tint not to look 'cool' but so I don't feel like the sun is ripping apart my face on the drive home from work in peak hour traffic.

Front passanger and driver is defectable that is a fact. My installer emphasised this when i got my tint done but think about it, whats the point of getting window tint only on the back and rear quarters?. I use to wind down my front windows whenever i see the cops but now i dont care and even though ive seen them drive near me a few times, nothing has happened. Touch wood.

  • 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


  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...