Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: BertieBigBollox on 5 Jul 2010 08:49 On Jul 2, 4:31 pm, stephen.h...(a)btinternet.com wrote: > In message <11303b4b-9df8-42d1-a936-7a543c59e742(a)32g2000vbi. > googlegroups.com> > "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > >It gets worse - went back to garage to complain and they said, > >yes, it doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been > >resprayed but thats all the insurance company would pay for. > > That is bollocks, they should have sprayed it right first time not > blame the insurance company for not paying, they already have the > paint and lacquer they just need to paint it again properly as it > won't cost anymore in materials just their time, but as they did > it wrong anyway so what if they have to do it again properly. > > The fact you signed the acceptance form (or your wife did) is > another excuse for a cop-out because at the end of the day they > have not done a competent job. > > I can't help with the legal aspect but how can the spray shop not > match the colour? even if it has been resprayed a completely > different colour they have the technology now to match almost any > conceivable colour using computers. > > We are talking about ONE easy standard ARG colour and metallics > are easier to match than straight colours but you have to paint > across the adjacent panel to blend in the colour correctly, this > is a know fact in all car repair shops and they all will need to > do this at some time. Obviously your spray shop has sprayed upto > the next panel and thought the colour would match without checking > first and now can't be arsed, believe me it can be done but > sometimes you have to put in more effort to end up with the > correct colour match. > > If a car spray shop can't match a simple colour then they should > NOT be in business. > > If the back-end was resprayed before and you have not noticed then > it is probably because someone has taken the time to match the > colour correctly, in either case your spray shop obviously have > not bothered to match the colour to the rest of the body. > > You don't need a respray to match a colour especially if it is an > easy to do one shade no variant metallic as we have already > deduced. > > The spray shop is incompetent and merely suggesting that the back > end has been resprayed is just a cop-out. > > Basically all they need to do now is respray the area they cocked > up but now need to blend to the next panel, which is what they > should have done the first time. > > An example would be to match a damaged boot, the insurance company > will not authorise the cost of spraying adjacent panels because > they are not damaged and the paint might match perfectly anyway > and there then would be no need to paint the wing tops to match > the colour, however this responsibility lies with the sprayed who > should factor in having to spray the wings to end up with a colour > matching the rest of the car. > This is normal practice on any attempt to colour match correctly > and we're only talking about a small car with a tiny boot lid and > even smaller quarter wings. > > Stephen. > > --http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk > Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes > "Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce Agreed. Dont think they've taken much effort over this.
From: BertieBigBollox on 5 Jul 2010 09:01 Some interesting discussions here. Bottom line is though, basically, I want my car back in the same condition as it was before the accident (i.e. matching paintwork). The garage only painted up to the seam and did not do any of the side panel (because they told me that the insurance co wouldnt pay for that). To be honest, I dont care whether its the garages fault for not doing it properly or the insurance companies fault for not authorising it. I aint happy with the end result. I have put my complaint in writing to insurance company so that hopefully they will sort it out. I still find it weird that my insurance company is still arguing with me about it. I appreciate they're bound to mitigate costs but at the end of the day this is an open and closed other party liabilty so the other partys insurance is paying anyway. Why arent they making more effort to fight for my rights?
From: stephen.hull on 5 Jul 2010 09:41 In message <l1k336t76fukl3tpk0bp433k4f8r3cnrbs(a)4ax.com> Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:53:01 +0100, stephen.hull(a)btinternet.com wrote: > >>>> I'm sorry you are experiencing problems with tints but the reason >>>> BS and RAL colour formulation were created is so that we all have >>>> the same colour representation, this is why BS and RAL was set up >>>> to achieve because of colour mismatches. > >>>> The colour representation should exactly match from manufacturer >>>> to manufacturer, but it practice is doesn't. > >>>I am well aware of the reasoning for paint shade standardisation and >>>i pointed out that between manufacturers they vary > >>>When your trying to colour match its often the case your actually >>>useing printed cards which are pantones which further confuses the >>>situation > >>Thats why some colour cards are painted in the actual paint and >>not printed, I have dozens and the colour representation is the >>same on them all, at least the RAL and BS ones anyway. > >I have read that cars that are factory sprayed by hand instead of >robot will use only one person to spray all the external parts. >The reason being that two professional spraypainters will produce >visibly different finishes despite using exactly the same paint. That is especially the case with metallics, as we know that different pressure, gun distance, viscosity of the paint and spraying in a different direction can all contribute to a different colour shade. For this reason it is normal practice to have the same person spray the whole car. >It is one reason why the top-end car factories are moving away >from hand spraying (which was seen as producing a better quality >of finish), and instead using the same type of robot >spraypainters as used for normal low-end cars - because modern >robots do a better job than a person can achieve. A robot can certainly be more consistent. I remember watching a program a few years ago where the robot had to be trained by a sprayer to know how to spray, there was a device fastened to the sprayers arm and wrist that followed the exact movements of the sprayer so at the end of the spraying sequence the robot then knew how to spray, in this case the sequence was only spraying the door shuts. It is easy for a robot to spray door shuts etc but a bit more effort would be involved to learn how to do the whole vehicle, but it would certainly not be impossible. >There is therefore little chance of any spraypainter producing >exactly the same paint-job as was put on in a factory over 20 >years previously regardless of how well the paint matches. It is >only one part of the equation. Rolls Royce used to spray cellulose and acrylic up to the 1980's even though these particular colours would have faded somewhat on older vehicles the car repair section at Pyms lane could still manage to match the paint when required, same goes for other car manufacturers or repair centres. >It is also quite likely that the rest of the car has been >subjected to multiple waxing, polishing and cleaning cycles as >well as being abraded by atmospheric grit and dust over all those >years. The paintwork would be completely degreased and compounded back to original finish before any attempt was made to colour match. >I should think therefore that a *perfect* match is not >achievable, and how far from the ideal is acceptable would be the >subjective opinion of the owner. > Even so it has not stopped sprayers from achieving the near perfect paint match/finish even on old paint finishes. This is mainly why the colours are blended-in to help achieve that match. Stephen. -- http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes "Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
From: Indy Jess John on 5 Jul 2010 11:50 Adrian wrote: > I rather suspect the only way you can get anything happening is to > complain to the insurance company - but be prepared to have to fight > against that signed piece of paper. You'll probably need to escalate to > the insurance industry ombudsman. > The other option that might be worth a look is to get three quotes from paint shops you trust, and submit a claim in the small claims court for the lowest of the quotes, against the other driver (personally). Either they will have to pay up, or else in a panic get on to their insurance company and ask them to deal with it. My money is on their insurance settling out of court, and you get a proper respray. Jim
From: Adrian on 5 Jul 2010 11:52
Indy Jess John <jimwarren(a)OMITblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> I rather suspect the only way you can get anything happening is to >> complain to the insurance company - but be prepared to have to fight >> against that signed piece of paper. You'll probably need to escalate to >> the insurance industry ombudsman. > The other option that might be worth a look is to get three quotes from > paint shops you trust, and submit a claim in the small claims court for > the lowest of the quotes, against the other driver (personally). The one thing that IS for certain is that this has nothing to do with the other driver personally. This is entirely between the triumvirate of the OP, his insurer and their body shop. |