Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:16:36 -0700
Reply-To:     JD Foster <jidd@JIDDWARE.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         JD Foster <jidd@JIDDWARE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Question about running reflective tint in CA
In-Reply-To:  <BAY22-F40Yyfz3dUMRB00066312@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

For whatever it is worth, I noticed on summer when spending a week in
Phoenix about 10 years ago that *every* car I saw had tinted windows.
Most were the normal "limo black" type tint.

My past experience has also been that non-reflective tint does not
contribute heat to the interior of the vehicle compared to a non-tinted
vehicle.  This was in a Pontiac Grand Am in which I had the back window
dipped and the rear side windows filmed.

JD

Bruce Nadig wrote:

> I'm preparing to have my Vanagon windows tinted soon also. I have some
> questions.
>
> I have heard a few people (such as below) say that the dark,
> non-metallic or
> non-reflective tint only makes the vehicle interior hotter. I have had
> two
> cars with dark, non-reflective tint on them, and I don't feel that
> this is
> the case. I don't have any hard and fast data to back this up.
>
> I do want to put dark tint company on the van. I want to do this
> because I
> just think that the dark look would be better on my Vanagon than the
> silver
> or reflective look.
>
> Can anyone offer any hard and fast data (data is what I am looking
> for, not
> conjecture) showing that dark tint retains heat? I can believe and accept
> that dark may be less effective than reflective. But my question is
> whether
> or not dark tint does not work or is actually counter-productive.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce
> motorbruce
> motorbruce@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>> From: Doug in Calif <vanagon@ASTOUND.NET>
>> Reply-To: Doug in Calif <vanagon@ASTOUND.NET>
>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> Subject: Question about running reflective tint in CA
>> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:29:12 -0700
>>
>> Any other vanagon folks have any experiences with running various
>> types of
>> window tint in CA  or Oregon, Nevada, AZ, WY, WA, ID, UT, or other
>> places I
>> may travel out west.
>>
>> Here's the specifics to my questions:
>>
>> The non reflective "dark limo" tint will actually raise the interior
>> temps
>> of your van.
>> It absorbs heat and radiates this heat into the van.
>>
>> The "reflective" (slightly mirrored) tint will reject this heat
>> energy and
>> will cool down the interior.
>>
>> State laws on tint are all over the place on what is legal.
>>
>> CA has a MNIR law which states (must not increase reflectivity)
>>
>> Yet I could not find the specifc MNIR vehicle code.
>>
>> The closest thing is could find is 26708.a-1
>> Which pertains to blocking of light not reflectivity.
>> This would also not allow you to tint the back window at all.
>>
>> I called my local police and call the local California Highway Patrol
>> and
>> they told me "the way its enforced"
>> is you can put whatever you want on the back and sides just not the
>> windshield and front drivers/ pass windows.
>>
>> I asked specificly about a "reflective or mirrored" tinting and was told
>> "no, you should not have any problem with that, just as long as its
>> only on
>> the back and side windows".
>>
>> The guy at Tap Plastics told me the (reflective, mirrored, metallic)
>> types
>> of tint are only sold for residential use and not "recommended" for auto
>> applications.
>>
>> Reason given is the mirrored tint can reflect sunlight into the eyes of
>> other drivers.
>>
>> The reflective tint is the only tint that has the heat rejection ratings
>> that are worth putting on.
>> The dark limo tint is junk in my opinion.
>>
>> Any thoughts of California enforcement  or what others have had as
>> far as
>> other states on this would be appreciated.
>>
>> Just trying to keep the solar gain down out here in CA, temps near 100
>> today.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Doug
>