ghetto_eddie
|
| posted on 30/4/08 at 12:18 PM |
|
|
SVA compatibility of a windscreen?
Hi all,
I am going to be using a Jaguar XJS windscreen, albeit modified in size in my scratchbuild.
I plan to modify it in the same way as THIS thread.
However i dont want to run into any issues with the SVA test, so i took a snap of the markings on my screen.
Does anyone know if the markings shown in the picture will be ok for the SVA?
Regards
Edd
 
Rescued attachment Glass stamp.JPG
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 30/4/08 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
looks fine, the MOT guy also looks for the mark. Assuming that it's not in removed when you cut the glass then no issues.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
ghetto_eddie
|
| posted on 30/4/08 at 12:52 PM |
|
|
From my initial measurements it looks like it will come close to the markings, but not totally cut them off.
If this is the case the inspector would (assumably) have to lift up the edge of the windscreen rubber to see the full stamp. Would this be ok do you
feel?
Sorry for the anal as hell questions... but i am going to do my damnest in my build not to give the SVA guy a reason to fail me on the bodywork!
Edd
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 30/4/08 at 01:11 PM |
|
|
so long as he can see the full marking, even if he has to lift the rubber sounds fine
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 30/4/08 at 01:44 PM |
|
|
Can't see the actual BS number in your photo, but it looks fine to me otherwise. Note it only says it must bear the marking, not that it has to
be visible. If you have evidence of the mark even if it's behind the rubber you should be able to argue the point even if its a bit awkward.
quote:
NOTE 2: safety glass must conform to one of
the following European standards and bear the
relevant marking applied by the manufacturer
• British Standard: BS857 or BS857/2
BS5282
BSAU178
• ECE Regulation 43
• EEC Directive 92/22
or must conform to any national or
international standard equivalent to those
listed above or to one of the standards listed in the Annex on Non-European standards and
bear the relevant marking applied by the manufacturer.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 1/5/08 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
Y'know, I was pondering the other day... It really wouldn't be at all difficult to reproduce that mark and apply to any windscreen you
felt like...
|
|
|
AR-CoolC
|
| posted on 2/5/08 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
The parts that show that glass to be of the correct standard are.
The "kite" mark
The FW (front Windscreen)
The HP (High penetration) which shows it has the higher graded interlayer that HAS to be used on front facing glass in vehicles
The DOT codes shows it was manufactured at an approved factory.
Imagine what it would be like if there were no hypothetical situations.
|
|
|
Schrodinger
|
| posted on 2/5/08 at 09:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delinquent
Y'know, I was pondering the other day... It really wouldn't be at all difficult to reproduce that mark and apply to any windscreen you
felt like...
I think you will find that the marking has to be within the "sandwich" and not etched on the face of the glass.
[Edited on 2/5/08 by Schrodinger]
Keith
Aviemore
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 3/5/08 at 02:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delinquent
Y'know, I was pondering the other day... It really wouldn't be at all difficult to reproduce that mark and apply to any windscreen you
felt like...
The rule says it needs to be applied by the manufacturer (it used to be possible to get the supplier to put one on, but no more).
Personally I think forging the mark (which seems to be what you are suggesting but in harsher words), would cause really painful problems at SVA if
they picked it up.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
