Ryker Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 another thought is that they didn't want to make it unfair to the people that have the MPV privacy glass to not be able to have protection. You can't make those windows lighter like removing film after all.... That is sort of the working that the Gov put in the Veto he had.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryker Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Now here is MY QUESTION..... The law was SUPPOSED to be 35% film and it appears to state FILM on the front, but the rear windows it says WINDOWS allowing 35% VLT. So, if it was supposed to be 35% film then it seems off to me. I use Global HP and have their 40 film. The VLT on the film is 39% and I am hoping that will be good, but I talked to a Llumar guy today and he said that Missouri has to use the Llumar 40 film to get a 35% NET and that the Llumar 40 hits like 45% actual film.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdtintdude Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 which ones would be better to use to be on the safe side, 40 or just 50? I guess some 35% films actually are cutting it to close right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtinter Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 You'd be safe with 40% film. Actually, you are safe with most 38% films. The variance of +/- 5% brings it down to net 30. It was suppose to be a film law, it somehow got a little jumbled. Anyway, 38% works so no big deal. To address the film/net issue now brings up the possibility of opening a can of worms. To most involved, it isn't worth the risk. The SUV thing was like lil details said, we simply asked that something be available for the front doors of SUVs, and they obliged with the 50%. Since there is no real difference between factory privacy and your typical 20-15% film, I don't see how that could become a major issue. Again, our main goal when we had something, anything, was to get it through and deal with the inevitable small issues later. We get absolutely nowhere without the support of the state polic, so they pretty much dictated the numbers from what they saw at the demo. I've said it before, this was a near impossible task, something that has never before been done in Illinois, or a few other states for that matter, that we were more intent on getting the foundation laid than risking tying things up further with every small detail(which we decided would be addressed later as any issues arose). We did the best we could, it was a difficult task to say the least, and I think we helped the industry as whole have the ability to survive and even thrive here in Illinois. I personally think we did a fine job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zrok Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I think we helped the industry as whole have the ability to survive and even thrive here in Illinois. I personally think we did a fine job. I can say that just today, I did 3 separate trucks w/ 50% on the front 2, a jeep wrangler w/ 50% on the front 2 and a w/s strip (on the jeep) and a Mercury Milan w/ 35% all around.. (in addition to the 2 other vehicles that came in to have remote start transmitters programmed LOL) very productive day .. thanks again OT and all that were involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtinter Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryker Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think we helped the industry as whole have the ability to survive and even thrive here in Illinois. I personally think we did a fine job. I can say that just today, I did 3 separate trucks w/ 50% on the front 2, a jeep wrangler w/ 50% on the front 2 and a w/s strip (on the jeep) and a Mercury Milan w/ 35% all around.. (in addition to the 2 other vehicles that came in to have remote start transmitters programmed LOL) very productive day .. thanks again OT and all that were involved have you checked them with a meter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zrok Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 have you checked them with a meter? not to sound like an idiot, but why would I need to ?? (taken from the code itself) (3) on multipurpose passenger vehicles, as defined by Section 1-148.3b of this Code, a nonreflective tinted film originally applied by the manufacturer, that allows at least 50% light transmittance, with a 5% variance... may be used on the side windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver. this reads FILM THAT ALLOWS at least 50% light transmittance... w/ a 5% variance.. I used madico CH55.. I believe that'll be FILM allowing at least 50% w/ a 5% variance. it doesn't say "film may be applied such that the glass, when measured by a law enforcement official, will allow at least 50% blah blah.. it says FILM.. or am I in need of more reading classes ?? haha (as a side note, when I was tinting in Indiana, we made a regular habit of installing 30% window film. their law specifically said FILM and 30%. The owner of the shop had his attorney look it over and his attorney said we were within our legal rights to install 30% film. the tint law never made mention of what the NET percentage was or should be ) YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryker Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I am just concerned that this is being stated as a NET law. I have been concerned about the way it is written from the first House Bill was mentioned. If it is to be FILM then there needs to be some sort of chart to make it possible to know that a 35% film will come off darker on the "clear" but still 70% glass that we have on autos here.... I think it is crazy that they worded it "tinted film" on the front but the rear just says "allow at least xx% transmittance" and doesn't say anything about FILM.... I just don't want to send a customer out with 35% all around and they get a ticket because the police meter it and it is darker.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zrok Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I am just concerned that this is being stated as a NET law. I have been concerned about the way it is written from the first House Bill was mentioned. If it is to be FILM then there needs to be some sort of chart to make it possible to know that a 35% film will come off darker on the "clear" but still 70% glass that we have on autos here....I think it is crazy that they worded it "tinted film" on the front but the rear just says "allow at least xx% transmittance" and doesn't say anything about FILM.... I just don't want to send a customer out with 35% all around and they get a ticket because the police meter it and it is darker.... well, I think 35% all around should be OK... the owner of my place of employment says we can put 35% all around. I'm assuming he has the $$ to pursue things in court if it came to that.. it's a minor technicality in my opinion.. I agree that the wording is a little off, but I don't think it's enough to get worked up over.. 35% w/ a 5% variance is ok.. most tint meters have a +/- 2% anyways .. so that'll get you down to about 28% NET... (technically..) and I'm certain that most officers will let it go if it's pretty close and they can see through the film. again, I may be a little off here, but that's just my opinion... AND from what I can tell, most officers still do not have VLT meters yet anyways YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.