Honda Car Forum

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:02:07 GMT, "K5" <K56522@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"JM" <jmattis@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:de3b9c1b.0401261934.5446997@posting.google.c om...
>> So, which part of your comment, quoted below, did I misunderstand?
>>
>> "These are just cars after all and unless the
>> damage was severe - like a huge chunk of steel falling and caving in the
>> roof - I'd move on and not get too worked up about it..."
>You'll have to tell me what you don't understand. If you can easily pull
>the iron out with clay in ten minutes, why go ballistic with a lawsuit. I
>like a clean, straight car too but it's_a_car not a museum piece.

From my POV there are few points worth noting here: 10mins is kinda meagre
as a time to "pull the iron out" - clay barring an entire car takes
somewhat longer *and* has to be added to the time to wash the car first...
as well as any other possible clean-up before going at it with the clay.

There are plenty of references to the rail-dust effect on cars which are
only subject to it for a day or two during transport - a one-shot
relatively random distribution which is weather dependent anyway. The OP
is getting this showering of iron dust *every* day - the entire surface of
the car is getting covered with the stuff.

While the initial effect of the iron/steel particles rusting can be
mitigated by clay barring, the damage *is* permanant - there are holes left
in the paint. That the construction company proceeds on the basis that
this, hazard to other peoples' property, is considered a normal part of
doing business is outrageous. If a lawsuit is required to get them off
their duffs to find a technology to eliminate the hazard... sobeit.

Your remark that "these are just cars" is a highly personal view of things
- maybe you're rich enough that thousands of $$ of loss is nothing to
you... or maybe you just can't recognize when you're running around in
circles. It's the kind of thing I expect to hear from some door-dinging
oaf. The home I own is also "just a house" in those terms... something
which someone else tried to bring up.... and yet I figure I've spent as
much on cars as I have on houses so far.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:i7me101ln420b8f0lec9mb3fc1a0bnrsi8@4ax.com...
> From my POV there are few points worth noting here: 10mins is kinda meagre
> as a time to "pull the iron out" - clay barring an entire car takes
O.k. 15 minutes. Less time than you'd spend on the phone with a lawyer.

> somewhat longer *and* has to be added to the time to wash the car first...
> as well as any other possible clean-up before going at it with the clay.
O.k. Add the time to wash the car (which you do anyway) or add the cost of
the carwash to the suit.

> While the initial effect of the iron/steel particles rusting can be
> mitigated by clay barring, the damage *is* permanant - there are holes
left
> in the paint.
C'mon - iron dust doesn't penetrate the paint to the metal surface.

>That the construction company proceeds on the basis that
> this, hazard to other peoples' property, is considered a normal part of
> doing business is outrageous. If a lawsuit is required to get them off
> their duffs to find a technology to eliminate the hazard... sobeit.
Back to the original point: *talk* to the site manager first. What if he
was willing to get the car detailed including a mild cut if necessary?
Maybe even a re-spray if necessary. Personally, I wouldn't want a respray
if not absolutely necessary. I've got 15 years on one car and it still
looks great - polished regularly and there is still plenty of paint on
there. Even has a small dent in the hood but I managed to keep my blood
pressure in check.

> Your remark that "these are just cars" is a highly personal view of things
> - maybe you're rich enough that thousands of $$ of loss is nothing to
> you... or maybe you just can't recognize when you're running around in
> circles. It's the kind of thing I expect to hear from some door-dinging
> oaf.
You're imagination is running wild. I'm not rich, take excellent care of my
cars and respect others property. But that was a good technique to try and
invalidate my original point by appealing to peoples hatred of rich scum -
like lawyers that sue at any opportunity.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:57:12 GMT, "K5" <K56522@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
>news:i7me101ln420b8f0lec9mb3fc1a0bnrsi8@4ax.com.. .
>> From my POV there are few points worth noting here: 10mins is kinda meagre
>> as a time to "pull the iron out" - clay barring an entire car takes
>O.k. 15 minutes. Less time than you'd spend on the phone with a lawyer.

I think a bit more than 15mins... if the job is to be done right.

>> While the initial effect of the iron/steel particles rusting can be
>> mitigated by clay barring, the damage *is* permanant - there are holes
>left
>> in the paint.
>C'mon - iron dust doesn't penetrate the paint to the metal surface.

When it starts rusting, yes that's exactly what it does. Check
http://www.erazer.com/contamin.htm "Stage 3" or any of the other sites
which turn up at Google with "rail dust damage" as a search. Besides it
doesn't have to go through to the metal to mar the finish - with a modern
finish the clear coat is critical in protecting what's underneath it.

>>That the construction company proceeds on the basis that
>> this, hazard to other peoples' property, is considered a normal part of
>> doing business is outrageous. If a lawsuit is required to get them off
>> their duffs to find a technology to eliminate the hazard... sobeit.
>Back to the original point: *talk* to the site manager first. What if he
>was willing to get the car detailed including a mild cut if necessary?
>Maybe even a re-spray if necessary. Personally, I wouldn't want a respray
>if not absolutely necessary. I've got 15 years on one car and it still
>looks great - polished regularly and there is still plenty of paint on
>there. Even has a small dent in the hood but I managed to keep my blood
>pressure in check.

Can't say I'd be too happy with a "mild cut" of any of my cars, even if it
had a chance of curing the problem, which I highly doubt. As for a respray
why do you even suggest it when you apparently know it never comes out
right?... especially they're going to do the cheapest job possible: a Maaco
special, like as not.

Talking to the site manager is of course a necessary first step but I can't
imagine it'll lead to anything useful... like getting the idiots to quit
destroying other peoples' property. My own experience with some idiots who
were mixing concrete in a parking lot where I parked every day is what I'd
expect - they treat you like some looney because you don't have the same
disdain for your property that they do. If those guys were capable of
logical thought they wouldn't be doing what they're doing in the first
place.

>> Your remark that "these are just cars" is a highly personal view of things
>> - maybe you're rich enough that thousands of $$ of loss is nothing to
>> you... or maybe you just can't recognize when you're running around in
>> circles. It's the kind of thing I expect to hear from some door-dinging
>> oaf.
>You're imagination is running wild. I'm not rich, take excellent care of my
>cars and respect others property. But that was a good technique to try and
>invalidate my original point by appealing to peoples hatred of rich scum -
>like lawyers that sue at any opportunity.

If I appealed to your baser instinct it was not intended. Remember you're
the one who said "those are just cars".

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
newsoag10tuj2uo2a9c9vgh05uhd2a5785i2i@4ax.com...
> Remember you're the one who said "those are just cars".
I did. And they are. I also said I like to take care of mine. I just
don't obsess and hyperventilate about them.

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
newsoag10tuj2uo2a9c9vgh05uhd2a5785i2i@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:57:12 GMT, "K5" <K56522@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Talking to the site manager is of course a necessary first step but I
can't
> imagine it'll lead to anything useful... like getting the idiots to quit
> destroying other peoples' property. My own experience with some idiots
who
> were mixing concrete in a parking lot where I parked every day is what I'd
> expect - they treat you like some looney because you don't have the same
> disdain for your property that they do. If those guys were capable of
> logical thought they wouldn't be doing what they're doing in the first
> place.

True enough, assuming the steel guys even _know_ there is a problem.

Would a tarp over the OP's car solve this?

Talking to the contractor first IS the way to go. Take 3 repair estimates
over at the time you talk. Let the contractor turn you down before you consider
suing for damages. If the "fallout" of this project is really that big, and
the contractor tells you to pound sand. Consider going to C.A.R.B.; if there is
a violation, they will shut the project down, costing the contractor a whole lot
more than fixing your spoiled paint...

(Say, do you work by Edlebrock, in Torrance,CA, big steel construction going
on across the street from there...)

Make sure you take plenty of photos, of your car and others that are
damaged. Photograph the construction site. Be sure you review your pictures
carefully; they must tell a complete story (just in case you do have to sue -in
small claims court.)

Give the contractor a chance to make good first.

Cheers, Tp

pray4surf wrote:

> Quick overview: I work in an SoCal industrial park, next door a business is
> expanding and the construction is steel frame. Work is being done as high as
> 3 stories up.
>
> Here's my dilemma: since the steel work has begun, I've noticed pinpoint
> spots of rust, literally hundreds on the horizontal surfaces of the two
> vehicles I drive to work (One a Honda). Additionally, every white car (both
> mine are white) or light colored car that parks in the same vicinity
> exhibits the same malady. This is the only commonality amongst the vehicles
> infected.
>
> I suspect that this rust is do to the steel work being done. The workers are
> cutting and grinding three stories up, and it is my belief that the
> prevailing winds carry the steel 'dust' over our parking lot, where it gets
> deposited on the vehicles and when it gets exposed to moisture, it begins to
> rust.
>
> I initially noticed this last weekend when I washed the cars. In order to
> remove the rust I literally had to clay-bar and polish the paint. I only did
> a small portion until I had a chance to evaluate the problem.
>
> If this was overspray from a painter, I think that the contractor would be
> liable for the damages to others private property. Is this any different?
> Other than the fact that this can be much more insidious and damaging...
>
> If I choose to confront the contractor, any suggestions on how best to
> approach this? Points against me is the lack of actual proof. I really have
> no way of knowing that this is the sole cause. It's not like my paint
> analogy because I don't have specks of paint the same color. Points for me
> is the widespread 'coincidence' of multiple vehicles with the same damage.
> These vehicles have nothing in common except parking in the same lot as I
> do. Other vehicles parked not downwind are not affected.
>
> I guess this just pisses me off, Keeping my vehicles clean and looking good
> is time consuming enough without having the additional burden of repairing
> damage caused by others...
>
> No, I'm not looking for a financial windfall, I'd simply like the contractor
> pay for the damage he has caused. It could get quite expensive for him if
> 'everyone' were to file similar claims...
>
> Your advice?
>
> Rick
> --
> Computer recommends - Hard drinking calypso poet

--


Tp

-------- __o
----- -\<. ------ __o
--- ( ) / ( ) ---- -\<.
----------------- ( ) / ( )
---------------------------------------------

Freedom is not free; Free men are not equal; Equal men are not free.