American inventor Mary Anderson is credited with designing the first operational windscreen wiper in 1903. In Anderson’s patent, she described her invention as a ‘window cleaning device’ for electric cars and other vehicles. The windscreen wiper has since remained one of the very few parts of a motor car which has lasted for well over one-hundred years virtually unchanged.
Why hasn’t anyone come up with a more hi-tech solution for clearing rain and water from windscreens than a rubber squeegee?
Until there is a radical breakthrough, we have to rely on this simple design. A flexible ‘blade’ is the best way to remove a coating of liquid from glass; when fluid (air, water, whatever) moves against a surface, the fluid in contact with the surface doesn’t move, it ‘sticks’ to the surface. As you move away from the surface the speed of the fluid increases until it is at the same speed as the flow.
The concept of hydrophobic coatings is a great idea for glass, but airflow is still needed to make them most effective. The ‘beading up’ of water is the nano-coating working to repel the liquid but until there is force (airflow) the bead will not move as effectively as it is being repelled in all directions to prevent it from rolling away.
Third generation LR Discovery (L462; 2017–present)
Images of a common issue with the current crop of Discos showing where the windscreens are leaking from, and why.
This crackle-glaze patch indicates an issue with the substrate; this shiny appearance is all of the adhesion promoter (primer) which would have been applied to the glass surface before the polyurethane adhesive ( “PUR” ) was introduced to bond the windscreen to the car.
This image shows the ‘cut’ PUR against the crackle-glazed PUR confirming that the issue is not so much in the product, but the application of it.
The PUR in the images has clearly bonded to the car. The problem isn’t there; it’s on the glass surface. The above image shows more of the crackle-glaze (to the left) and the silver band has been exposed by where it peeled off from. The ‘failure’ is either in the application of primer (was still wet when the PUR was introduced) or that the glass surface is – or was – contaminated. Given that the overwhelming majority of leaking Disco windscreens are in the same place (along the top of the windscreen) and that the bond around the rest of the screen is good, the non-adhesion problem is localised and therefore indicative of contamination. This by no means is definitive and is not based on thorough tests in laboratory conditions. However, the telltale signs are present: peeling of primer and/or PUR; the upper trim which comes stuck to the windscreen also peels off easily; when the affected area is tested for contamination there is evidence of something greasy.
The shiny appearance on the image to the right shows the kind of shape you would get if you wiped through a wet product. Furthermore, if you ignore the primer or PUR not sticking to the glass, the trim (which is attached with very strong double-sided tape) also failed to stick to the glass:
The proliferation of this problem in the same model, in the same place and all showing the same characteristics points to one problem.
Moving forward, the correct course of action is to replace the windscreen. This is largely to negate the issue reoccurring as we do not know what the substrate was contaminated with; at what stage it happened; what products were used in the preparation and subsequent bonding of the windscreen, and how good (or not) the rest of the windscreen bond line is. A new windscreen, from Land Rover, properly prepared eradicates any further problems. That said, the existing [contaminated] windscreen can be removed and can be reinstalled. Extra care, appropriate materials and products are needed, but it can be done successfully. Products such as neutralising agents to rid the substrate of all contaminants and a strong adhesive to reinstate the upper trim (it cannot be bought separately).
With the upper trim reattached, the ‘refurbished’ windscreen can be refitted.
“If your car is three years old or more, we may decide to repair it with recycled parts, or with parts which have not been made by the car’s manufacturer, but are of a similar standard.”
Interesting use of the word, ‘may’ which suggests it could be subject to discretion, visit My Car Insurance Quote to see their policies. The reality is, they will not allow an OE windscreen replacement. Technically, the claim settlement does not include any ‘in conjunction with’ parts, such as clips, mouldings or trims. The installer has to absorb that cost.
Go to the Damage to Your Car section of the same set of documents and the wording is quite different:
“We will only repair your car with parts made by the vehicles manufacturer. If any parts are no longer available, we will only pay the cost shown in the manufacturer’s latest price guide together with reasonable fitting costs. “
It’s not just in the wording. Here is a new tailgate fitted to a 2008 Peugeot 207 in for a crash repair at an Admiral-approved bodyshop:
Why should windscreens – and glass – be any different? Surely the same principle should apply in both claims? Why the disparity? If an 11 year-old car can have genuine body panels fitted as part of a claim, why then does the indemnity not extend to a four year-old car for a windscreen?
If you haven’t passed a shop with a chalkboard displaying the message you might have seen it splashed across a viral message being passed around on social media:
When you buy from a small business, you are not helping a CEO buy a third holiday home.
You are helping a little girl get dance lessons, a little boy get his team jersey, Mums & Dads put food on the table.
Thanks for shopping local.
Supporting and empowering small businesses is very much up my strasse. It’s why I am in business, fitting and repairing windscreens. The idea of buying local in the shadow of the dominance of larger corporations is central to what I believe in as a professional, and what I do every day. Therefore I should agree with the sentiment; and I do, but not in the way that it is pitched on these posts. Every time I see someone share something like the quote above and picture below (asking us to LIKE and SHARE) my heart pumps purple piss.
What about the the thousands of employees of those large corporations? Each individual – employed by that CEO’s business – relies on the wage that the corporation provides; they too may have daughters in dance lessons, or a son pining for a football shirt. That employee too is working to put food on the table. Let’s swerve the big business and put those people on the dole! Yay.
What happens if we all cave in to the sentiments on the ‘shared’ post and only buy from small shops? Small shops which will as a result get bigger and will then need to employ more staff, move to bigger premises, etc. When do we stop buying from THEM? The question is relevant because will will have to, as the CEO of this once small shop will be doing much better now that everyone is avoiding the big companies. Tesco started out as a small, local business.
The message also implies that by supporting a big business you are supporting greed, or that success should be limited, or even punishable.
It also suggests a sense of entitlement, ‘buy from us because we’re small’ and not because we’re any good. Buy from us because you should support us. One could argue, that buying your weekly shop from one of the leading supermarkets you are helping significantly more people than buying from your local corner shop.
Whilst the ‘buy local’ message isn’t hateful, it conveys the wrong sentiments. It portrays the politics of envy. The CEO has done well therefore must be bad and therefore needs to be punished. We used to look up to the people who did well for themselves, but now we should not like them? The focal point for the CEO’s success of that ‘third holiday home’ is also unrealistic. Nobody has to be a CEO to have or even want a holiday home. A few of my friends have a holiday home either in the UK (by the coast) or abroad. This might be timeshare; a comfy little apartment in a development or even a secluded house with its own pool. Isn’t this what many of us strive for? Why should the success of a CEO become the subject of such scrutiny?
Again, this message or supporting local businesses ‘because it helps the economy’ isn’t hateful but it distracts from reality. Money into the economy is money into the economy, but the message in pink chalk above doesn’t reflect that. It could however, promote benefits or reasons to buy from a small local business. The most important benefit is for its longevity and survival. Support your local pubs, restaurants, cafes and shops and they stay around, which means they pay business rates as well as making it a better place to live, which in turn makes your house worth a bit more.
When you buy from a small business, an actual person does a little happy dance because they’re on their way to becoming a success; success that will hopefully enable them to live a more comfortable life…
Your reason to buy local or from a large corporation should be based on much more than just who benefits from your business. There’s a very strong argument to be had on why in some cases it is better to buy from a larger business.
When you buy from the one-man-band, you’re buying into that person who, hopefully, is pitching a business which shows exactly why they’re in business. Talk to a wide range of small business owners and you’ll undoubtedly hear varying reasons why they started on their own, “I was sick and tired of feathering someone else’s nest” or “my boss wasn’t paying me enough”. Very few, in fact it’s rare to hear of someone’s passion to deliver what they couldn’t whilst working within the confines of employment. “I wanted to offer a service which went beyond creating the conditions of a sale” etc.
Please don’t buy based on such lazy marketing or these meaningless and thoughtless messages which do not actually give a clear – and good – reason why you should buy from that business.
Comments and questions are always welcome. Please use the comments box below or email me directly.
Whether it’s a remedial (rust) repair, full body repaint or crash repair there is one small detail that many bodyshops – even windscreen installers – are overlooking.
If there are remnants of the old Polyurethane adhesive they must either be masked before painting or removed completely. Painting over cured urethane is not recommended as paint – or primer – does not adhere to it. From the moment fresh PUR is applied to it, it becomes a floating bit of paint ‘skin’ and will not form a strong bond once it cures. Urethane however, will stick to cured paint (provided it has been allowed a minimum of 24 hours after bake).
Before bonding to a freshly painted surface the ‘painted over urethane’ needs to be cut back to provide a suitable substrate. Any bare metal exposed must also be touched in with an adhesion promoter. For new, painted surfaces (ie where there is no old PUR) a line of primer is recommended by most manufacturers however it is more a belt-and-braces approach in a fast-fit environment for primer-less systems.
It is also important to allow enough time for the paint itself to cure. If the painting has been done in an oven, at least 24 hours is required after bake (to cool down). The longer it is left, the better.
Not all insurance companies are bad, but the ones I have dealt with recently represent the industry.
I’ve insured my van with the same insurer (broker and underwriter) for the last four years. No claims, no convictions and not even an enquiry which could be classed as an unclaimed loss, yet the premium went from £580 (approx) in year one, to £660 in YR2; £820 in YR3 and year four made me a £999.00 fool for being a loyal customer. This year they wanted more or less the same so I had a moan about the whole thing whilst reminding them that the SAME vehicle is now worth considerably less now than when they first insured it, or getting insurance even for other type of vehicles such as boats, which many people have now a days, and some even get the right supplies for their boat at sites like www.merrittsupply.com.
At first I got the expected, ‘insurance premium tax’ patter. I resisted and was subsequently offered the ‘fraudulent claims’ explanation; the chap – Iain – concurred that us honest types are getting shafted for the pleasure. Furthermore, insurance companies shafting each other when they can made for quite a depressing conversation which ended with me giving my now former insurer the elbow as I head for all that I could find on the internet. I found a few attractive quotes; the best one was less than half of what I was paying (or was invited to pay if I remained a loyal customer).
I opted to go with the cheapest option simply because I was familiar with the underwriter having had direct experience with them dealing with windscreen claims for customers, and also the issuing broker is well known in motoring circles. However, as I navigated my way through the questions I gathered a few of my own along the way:
1. The proposal included a replacement vehicle in the event of being without mine while it was being repaired. But when I got to the checkout stage to pay, a list of bolt-ons appeared on the same page, such as: cover for tools; breakdown recovery; key care; mis-fuel cover and… replacement vehicle cover. I clicked on the ‘more’ link and this additional product offered exactly what the policy included as standard. How many people would have clicked on this and “for just an additional £17.00” added the extra cover which is included in the proposal?
2. Throughout the whole proposal stage, I couldn’t find anything which told me more about the policy itself. In fact, I had to go through quite a bit of jargon to (eventually) find who the underwriter was in this instance. There was, however, no mention of who the approved repairer(s) was/were; no mention of what would happen in the event of a windscreen claim other than the words: you are covered (the point being, if there are restrictions on what parts will be used; who you can – or cannot – use to have them fitted or if there was a capping on the settlement if I basically didn’t adhere to the agreement (which I was struggling to understand).
3. After (reluctantly) accepting the terms I was sent a confirmation of policy inception. However no documents could be sent until a couple of points had been verified. The first was my occupation. I selected ‘windscreen fitter’ from the available categories and stated that I am employed by a company which I am also Director of. 24 hours into this new cover, a conversation with the insurance representative took place so that she could clear up some confusion over this. The other was that she had the vehicle down as a 4Motion. There may be a (very slim) chance that I entered this information incorrectly but I am 99.9% certain I didn’t (it was indexed from the VRN as a Highline T5 so flux knows where they got the 4 Motion bit from). The result of this meant that because of “these ammendments to the policy” there is a supplement to pay. A demand for and additional £46.00 is to be paid in the next SEVEN DAYS if cover is to continue.
question of an old SP30 came up (out of nowhere as I didn’t mention it
at any stage; a spent conviction dated 2012) and I said it shouldn’t be
considered. She said they will take my word for it. The issue here is,
if there is a doubt now, it might be a factor in the event of a claim,
so if we are about to enter into an agreement why not put it beyond
doubt? Hire companies do it before you rent a car from them (chuck ’em
you NI number and they’ll run a check) so why be so flippant about it?
Yes, the onus is on me to disclose but I didn’t mention it anywhere at
any stage (on the basis that I am not required to after seven years
although I’m sure it is ‘spent’ after four/five).
Half of me says I got a good quote to begin with so just let them have the 46-quid. The other half is saying no, b*ll*cks.
How the flux can tweaking my occupation AND/OR confirming the van as a slightly lesser spec than they thought initially result in a higher premium?
What’s tipped me over the edge with all this is that I received not one but TWO calls about the SAME proposal 12 hours into the cover stating that I had qualified for an INTRODUCTORY DISCOUNT if I gave them the business.
Will someone get hold of the insurance industry and give it a good shake, please?
I replaced a windscreen for an Audi dealer, however, there was nothing wrong with the glass. I asked what the change was for, and it was pointed out that there was an issue with the automatic rain and light sensor. So why was the windscreen cited as the issue?
In his report, the investigating Audi technician concluded that the sensor was not functioning due to the car having a non-genuine windscreen replacement; the (aftermarket screen in it was made by AGC Automotive). As the car was to be sold whilst still under manufacturer warranty the investigation ended there, and could not be resumed until a genuine, Audi branded glass was in place. I duly obliged. However, shortly into the strip-down I discovered what the cause of the issue really was: a damaged rain sensor. The previous installer had damaged the circuit board inside (there were screwdriver marks in the casing).
The car in question was registered in 2016, so much of its warranty would have still been in place; just as long as any parts replaced were authentic, Audi branded.
Windscreen Rain Sensor
Another similar situation unfolded when a Volkswagen main agent was investigating a sensitivity issue on a rain sensor on a fairly new Golf; the owner said the automatic wipers didn’t seem to react as well as he though they should. The VW technician noted the windscreen, an aftermarket version by Saint Gobain (Sekurit) and quickly surmised that it was the cause of the problem. I went along to give a second opinion.
The first place to look for obvious things that could be wrong with a poorly functioning rain sensor is the rain sensor module. I removed the rear view mirror assembly and immediately saw that the rain sensor was not seated properly in the mounting bracket. A push and a click later, the wiper sensitivity was restored to optimum level. However, VW did tell the Golf owner that if there was an issue with the rain sensor (or windscreen) whilst the car was under manufacturer warranty, it would not be covered owing to the non-genuine windscreen in the car.
Whilst these examples may seem excessive, windscreens can be much more complex than the two highlighted here. With radio antennae; heater elements; GPS hardware and software with the latest Garmin update; Lane Departure Warning sensors; Autonomous Braking hardware; Head Up Display and more, the windscreen is no longer just a piece of glass shielding the car’s occupants from wind and flies. The best available parts, especially if the car is still under warranty (or the more technology connected to the glass) will always be what the vehicle manufacturer endorses.
Is it necessary to remove the ‘A’ pillar trims when replacing a windscreen. For most older, rubber fit windscreens: probably not. However, if you were replacing a bonded windscreen by the book, most definitely: yes.
Windscreen replacement is evolving at a rapid rate. This evolution however, is focusing on a fast fit culture to save time and money. So why is it important to remove the ‘A’ pillar covers, or trims?
Removing the windscreen: the trims are very close to the bond line. When cutting through the cured polyurethane – and whichever cutting method is used – there is risk of damage to the trim, or the trim covering. Some trims may even be touching the polyurethane [PUR] and have adhered to the moulding, or fabric covering.
Too close for comfort
When fitting – or replacing – the windscreen, it is good practice to check for good contact by shining a torch up and down the ‘A’ pillars from inside the car. This is almost impossible to do with the covers in place. Also, if there is any ooze, you can tidy this up to prevent contact with the pillar trims.
‘A’ pillar trim removed showing proximity to edge
A lot of firms and fitters are using trim protectors to prevent damage to these items, and the advent of fibre cutting wires has further reduced this risk. It does not however mean that the next time the windscreen is replaced any damage will be avoided as there is no emphasis on checking for proper contact; how can you, when it is behind a cover?
When a windscreen repair or replacement company says they can direct bill insurance companies, or that they’re ‘insurance approved’, there’s something else you should know.
Insurance companies do not like dealing with multiple suppliers. It’s far easier to deal with one two or three nationwide repairers which in turn makes dealing with any claims a much more manageable task for them. Typically, those repairers will be Autoglass, Auto Windscreens and National Windscreens. None of these companies use subcontractors or a supplier network. They operate in their own individual ways using their own employed staff. The exception to this used to be AA Autowindshields (now acquired by and operated by the same parent company as Auto Windscreens) who, in an attempt to cover areas in which they did not have a presence, would appoint a local company as a sub contractor to act on their behalf. Contracts are designed on service delivery, coverage and price.
Autoglass parent company Belron also operates (among its other businesses) Glasscare which acts as a price mechanism designed to profit from those who use it, and also to act as a (price) comparator in the interests of their sister windscreen fitting concern. The Supplier Invoice Control Program ( “SICP” ) allows smaller companies (those who do not have direct billing arrangements with the insurers for whom Glasscare are acting as agents) to invoice insurance companies for windscreen (and glass) repair and replacement jobs. The SICP system is a price regulator, and will also take steps to ensure that the claim is genuine. Each user of the system is required to input details specific to each claim – or job – before a prescribed rate is given. The rates are often questionable, but remain subjective to purchase price (of parts) and each individual business in terms of their size and operation. As its name suggests, the control program is tailored around the arrangement Autoglass has with each respective insurer. It does not entitle anyone using the system (other than the nominated supplier, Autoglass) direct access to any of those insurers. By this, the claim of having to ‘direct bill’ insurance companies is not true. Another false claim is for anyone – other than the prevailing preferred repairer – to claim they are insurance approved. Whilst Glasscare will occasionally and periodically audit its users, no checks are carried out on the work itself.
National Windscreens also operates a similar system. Whilst the brand is essentially nationwide, the company is made up of smaller independent companies who operate under the National Windscreens banner. Another similar network of suppliers quite new to the industry is Nationwide Windscreen Services. This is a group independent companies covering designated and predetermined areas of the country. Whilst National Windscreens or Nationwide may be better qualified to an insurance approved claim, it still does little more than delegate tasks to sub contractors who remain as third parties throughout.
There are no exceptions to the direct billing and insurance approved claims. There are however, some companies who do have a direct billing, or nominated supplier arrangement with some insurance companies, such as Silver Shield Windscreens and Catlin Insurance and Nationwide Motorglass and Hastings Insurance.