Originally Posted by Ultramaroon (Post 3003739)

[pedantic]Technically, the property at play here is not hardness, it's toughness.[/pedantic]

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3003757)

Exactly.
The actual article I read (in a trade magazine made out of real paper) was about 30 pages long and went into much more detail about the results of the changes. If I recall toughness was mentioned many times.

Originally Posted by gtengr (Post 3003860)

Still, standards don't mean quality, they just establish a baseline.

I also find it hard to believe that your windshield has no pitting. I have several pits in the windshield but so far minimal paint chipping at <7k miles.

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon (Post 3003881)

I think it comes down to the conditions in which we spend most of the time operating our vehicles. I have a crapload of little pits in my windshield but I daily my car in heavy traffic and often end up stuck behind a truck or trailer that looks like it had just been dug out of a swamp.

I rarely hear windshield strikes when I'm moving at higher speeds along the open highway.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3003865)

Windshields are a safety device and not open to materials below the standards.

Originally Posted by gtengr (Post 3003888)

But they are open to materials above those standards. For example, a Bugatti windshield might have higher clarity and resistance to pitting than the windshield on a Subaru.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3003890)

yes that I agree to. It is the often repeated statement that the glass in the Subaru's is somehow substandard, light or "cheap" that I object to. Of course there can be better but that doesn't change the fact there is a minimum requirement. The thought that every car on the road has better glass is mistaken.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3003707)

In 2011 the governments around the world agreed to reduce the amount of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) in paint. Heavy restrictions were placed on what chemicals could be used by the automotive industry.
Unfortunately many of those chemicals were what made the paint strong yet resilient. The application processes in use were not suitable for the new chemistry and we ended up with hard, brittle, coatings that chip easily especially with small impact surface areas.

To visualize what happened just paint a pool ball and a tennis ball and drop each. The paint on the pool ball will chip since it can not flex. The tennis ball paint will remain fine. The same thing applies to the paint itself. If it can flex a bit it will resist chipping if it can not then there is a problem. Putting more or harder paint on will not eliminate the problem but actually makes it worse.

The good news is that the paint application technology has now caught up to the new chemistry and as the plants update their equipment we will see a big improvement in the durability of the finish. The Corvette assembly plant in Bowling Green is shutting down for a bit to change their whole paint system over to the new tech even though what they had was only from 2003. I suspect that the Subaru plant making the Twins may have been a bit behind the curve in the equipment updates.

Originally Posted by gtengr (Post 3003894)

Looks like you, me, and ultra will have to share that most pedantic poster of the thread award. :D

Originally Posted by Poodles (Post 3003956)

Neat, wasn't aware of the issues moving away from VOC paints caused. I know it caused issues with paint adhesion, like on all those white trucks that the paint came off in sheets. I do know that the paint on my car is both too soft and too hard, chipping from rocks and very easily scratching if it's so much as breathed on. BMW and Mercedes I know have some really tough paint scratch resistance wise, don't know about chipping though.