Don't put film / tint on your front windshield.

[Eureka]

What's with all the tint debates? This is not really a tint but a relatively clear film for reducing heat. It's more like a screen protector than a tint.

I would go back to the installer immediately and have them either reapply it or remove it and refund if you can't remove the grain. I can't imagine driving with constant grain on the windshield.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

It's CLEAR.

There is no possible way I would get a ticket for a clear film.

Update:

The light spray from the grain isn't *that* bad. And admittedly I'm a photographer so I naturally look into the details of everything that I look at and notice even if the slightest thing is wrong.

Still, I wish the tint shop would have given me more guidance in selecting my tint product. I told them my primary concern was heat rejection and then privacy.

They do both Llumar and 3M Crystalline. Comparing their two specs after the tint application, the 3M Crystalline has far greater heat rejection than the Llumar, and looking at a sample plate of the film, it is smoother too and doesn't have any obvious grain. Of course this is in the daytime so I have no idea how it would actually look in real life at night. I'm just peeved because the heat rejection is greater for all tint levels across the board compared to the same Llumar and the installers *still* recommended the Llumar to me. To be fair, I enquired about the Llumar initially, but they did nothing to recommend me something else after I told them about my requirements.

 

[Eureka]

It's CLEAR.

There is no possible way I would get a ticket for a clear film.

Update:

The light spray from the grain isn't *that* bad. And admittedly I'm a photographer so I naturally look into the details of everything that I look at and notice even if the slightest thing is wrong.

Still, I wish the tint shop would have given me more guidance in selecting my tint product. I told them my primary concern was heat rejection and then privacy.

They do both Llumar and 3M Crystalline. Comparing their two specs after the tint application, the 3M Crystalline has far greater heat rejection than the Llumar, and looking at a sample plate of the film, it is smoother too and doesn't have any obvious grain. Of course this is in the daytime so I have no idea how it would actually look in real life at night. I'm just peeved because the heat rejection is greater for all tint levels across the board compared to the same Llumar and the installers *still* recommended the Llumar to me. To be fair, I enquired about the Llumar initially, but they did nothing to recommend me something else after I told them about my requirements.

If the Crystalline has far better heat rejection, why didn't they direct you to that one since that was your primary concern?

You should raise hell.

 

[Mark R]

What's with all the tint debates? This is not really a tint but a relatively clear film for reducing heat. It's more like a screen protector than a tint.

The issue is that it reduces light transmission. Obviously regulations and laws vary, but for example around here the law states that the windshield must transmit at least 75% of the light (70% for the driver and passenger windows).

Stock glass is not completely transparent and loses light due to reflection. Typical stock windshield glass is approximately 80-85% transparent.

The film linked by the OP has a transparency of 78%. When combined with a typical stock glass of 82%, the result is transparency of 64%, which is well below the legal minimum. Round here, that would be enough to get your car impounded as non-roadworthy if on the windshield. It's also sufficiently tinted to be illegal on the side windows, but the cops generally wouldn't impound the car for that, just issue a ticket requiring that you take the car to a police station within 7 days for them to check the tint has been removed.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

The issue is that it reduces light transmission. Obviously regulations and laws vary, but for example around here the law states that the windshield must transmit at least 75% of the light (70% for the driver and passenger windows).

Stock glass is not completely transparent and loses light due to reflection. Typical stock windshield glass is approximately 80-85% transparent.

The film linked by the OP has a transparency of 78%. When combined with a typical stock glass of 82%, the result is transparency of 64%, which is well below the legal minimum. Round here, that would be enough to get your car impounded as non-roadworthy if on the windshield. It's also sufficiently tinted to be illegal on the side windows, but the cops generally wouldn't impound the car for that, just issue a ticket requiring that you take the car to a police station within 7 days for them to check the tint has been removed.

No, they won't. People can't tell. It looks clear. Forget the numbers. You have to actually look at the window. It's clear.

 

[thescreensavers]

Ill have to keep an eye out at night now I guess but I have the Same Front tint LLumar Air 80 paid 100 bucks for it and I do not have any issues with grainy vision or orange peel its very clear.

 

[yhelothar]

Thanks for the heads up. That film sounds awesome, just not for the front windshield.

 

[jagec]

No, they won't. People can't tell. It looks clear. Forget the numbers. You have to actually look at the window. It's clear.

Legally they would use a transmittance reader, not "actually look at the window", but you're right that people can usually get away with breaking the law as long as it's not obvious. Like going 5 over the limit. However, if for whatever reason they DID put a meter on the windshield, you would be getting a fix-it ticket. Much like going 5 over, though, the odds are VERY low than this will actually happen.

That said, if "it's clear", then why did you notice a pattern? If a cop is able to notice THAT and is having a bad day, they might decide to pull the meter out, since clearly there is something on the windshield...

 

[yhelothar]

Legally they would use a transmittance reader, not "actually look at the window", but you're right that people can usually get away with breaking the law as long as it's not obvious. Like going 5 over the limit. However, if for whatever reason they DID put a meter on the windshield, you would be getting a fix-it ticket. Much like going 5 over, though, the odds are VERY low than this will actually happen.

That said, if "it's clear", then why did you notice a pattern? If a cop is able to notice THAT and is having a bad day, they might decide to pull the meter out, since clearly there is something on the windshield...

That's the whole point of the thread. He didn't expect there to be a pattern so he's giving people the headsup.
But apparently everyone on AT Garage already knew about it.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

That said, if "it's clear", then why did you notice a pattern? If a cop is able to notice THAT and is having a bad day, they might decide to pull the meter out, since clearly there is something on the windshield...

You know that tint or film looks drastically different depending on if you're outside looking at the car compared to inside looking out, right?

The light spill pattern from the texture of the plastic can only be seen at night if you are in the driver's seat and only if you are looking at point sources of light such as street lights or headlights from incoming traffic.

Car taillights and lit store signs aren't much of a problem.

So no, there is clearly not something on the windshield unless the cop decides to take a drive in my car at night and sees the slightly different light spill pattern from point sources.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

If the Crystalline has far better heat rejection, why didn't they direct you to that one since that was your primary concern?

You should raise hell.

I talked to the tint shop again.

The thing with 3M Crystalline is that the cost to do the whole car, including windshield, would have been $900 instead of $600 with the Llumar. Plus the 3M is apparently more of a residential window film. The film is thicker (which helps explain the better heat rejection), the glue is thicker, and it is actually *less* clear than the Llumar stuff, so I wouldn't have been happy with it, at least on the front windshield.

They told me that the Llumar is already the clearest, smoothest film on the market.

 

[disappoint]

They do both Llumar and 3M Crystalline. Comparing their two specs after the tint application, the 3M Crystalline has far greater heat rejection than the Llumar, and looking at a sample plate of the film, it is smoother too and doesn't have any obvious grain. Of course this is in the daytime so I have no idea how it would actually look in real life at night. I'm just peeved because the heat rejection is greater for all tint levels across the board compared to the same Llumar and the installers *still* recommended the Llumar to me. To be fair, I enquired about the Llumar initially, but they did nothing to recommend me something else after I told them about my requirements.

I talked to the tint shop again.

The thing with 3M Crystalline is that the cost to do the whole car, including windshield, would have been $900 instead of $600 with the Llumar. Plus the 3M is apparently more of a residential window film. The film is thicker (which helps explain the better heat rejection), the glue is thicker, and it is actually *less* clear than the Llumar stuff, so I wouldn't have been happy with it, at least on the front windshield.

They told me that the Llumar is already the clearest, smoothest film on the market.

So what they told you, that it is the smoothest and clearest is not what you saw when you looked through the sample plates in the daytime. Hmmm:hmm:

 

[Zorba]

If you only notice it on the driver's side, I would definitely ask them to redo it. There might be some issue with the glue or cleanliness of the glass right there.

 

[superccs]

3M Crystalline is nice, wife has it on her focus and it mainly blocks outside the visible band (UV and IR) and so only drops transmission about 5% if that.

The grain you see may diminish a little more as the application of the fil requires a little liquid-which will slowly evaporate.

Hopefully like you said it doesn't drive you nuts and that they didn't do a sloppy job.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Wow, brought this thread back to life.

It's been a long time since I've had this done and now I don't even notice it. 50k+ miles now.

 

[Fenixgoon]

i have a UV clearcoat on my car..no issues visibility-wise since day 1.

 

[razel]

I'm surprised and shocked that these products even exist for the front windshield. You shouldn't be putting anything that can cause any permanent-ish visual impairment. A car is a 1.5 ton weapon capable of travelling at tornado wind speed. I normally don't like most laws, but a lot of California highway laws are lessons learned from unfortunately alot of death and pain.

As for UV, glass blocks UV by its nature. Yes there are different effectiveness ratings. The truth in a car however is as soon as you crack that window open UV light will still get inside your car, so don't go too crazy spending money on UV blocking magic junk.

 

[core2slow]

I have 60% huper optik ceramic tint on my front windshield for over a year now and have no grain or light spray or whatever that you're experiencing.

 

[tHa ShIzNiT]

I have Llumar Air 80 on my windshield and it does not affect my visibility at all whatsoever, but saves me from having to put up a sun shade every day in the summer.

 

[iluvdeal]

I actually got Air 80 on my front windshield recently from that same place, Computerized Tinting in SJ, and I don't have that problem at all. I was expecting some distortion at night based on this post but it looks exactly the same as it did before without film.

 

[Zorba]

I know this is an old thread, but do any of your with the film on the front windshield have problems with polarized sunglasses?

 

[Mutilator]

I know this is an old thread, but do any of your with the film on the front windshield have problems with polarized sunglasses?

Nope.

 

[who?]

UV light triggers my glasses to get dark. They stay clear in my 2006 Focus with the Ford solar glass all around but when I clip on my polarized sun glasses they (the polarized dark lenses) work just fine.

 

[skyking]

Depending on the car, a narrow band across the top of the windshield out of your direct view will help cool the cabin. Not a legal problem IIRC.

 

[bradly1101]

I know this thread is not about tint, but I see so many cars with heavy tint on all front windows. In a tunnel once I almost got creamed by one who didn't see me and tried to change into my lane with me there.

The law (along with the loud vehicle law) doesn't seem to be enforced around here.

Where's the logic in any of this? I'm going to impede my view and possibly have an accident for my comfort? People are so self-centered.