DOUBLE STANDARDS HURTING THE INDUSTRY
As a representative from a local equipment supplier, I’d like to highlight that the South African approval standards for equipment levels in the autobody repair industry reflects a double standard situation.
The criteria set by certain vehicle manufacturers place strong emphasis on the use of specific equipment, often sold at excessively high prices, within the repair sector. As a result, there is a clear need for a pricing correction mechanism in the market.
For over two decades, South African body shop professionals have faced strict demands on both their repair methods and paint refinishing systems. In many cases, these extreme requirements show little regard for the sustainability of autobody repair shops and appear to reflect a double standard between vehicle manufacturers.
South Africa is often subjected to constant oversight by manufacturers such as Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, who require compliance with repair technology recommendations that exceed those in other global markets, including China, Russia, Australia, and many other African nations.
Meanwhile, few approved equipment programmes exist or are operational, even as the market evolves with the influx of new Chinese vehicle models on South African roads. How the industry will maintain these standards in the face of this rapid change remains, in my view, a mystery.
Resistance spot welders
Let’s examine the outrageous pricing of some of the recommended VAS6755 resistance spot welders now prescribed by BMW, Volkswagen, and Mercedes-Benz, among others, to be an approved repair shop.
To handle the latest high-strength steels and boron metals, a 14 000-ampere capacity is recommended for OEM-compliant repair spot welds, along with a 355-degree swivel head C-type welding gun.
In practice, given varying electrical supply levels, these welders typically operate at around 9 000 amps. However, my main concern is the cost to approved repair centres. Some of these high-end, approved welders cost nearly R500 000 – a steep price for most body shops.
By comparison, machines like the Telwin from Italy, which meet and even exceed the recommended welding parameters, are available at roughly half that price – around R262 000. This is less than half the cost of the approved machines, and that’s before considering the availability of Chinese-made equivalent welders, which can be purchased to the same specification for approximately R220 000.
Although the specifications exceed expectations and these units are much more cost-effective, approved repair centres do not have any choice in the matter.
So, the question begs to be asked: Are predominantly German-approved repair programmes skimming excessive profits at the expense of everyday professional body shop repair centres? In my view, the answer is yes.
This is before we even consider the ambitions of new panel shop owners striving to become more professional in repairing today’s technologically advanced vehicles.
They are simply priced out by this mandate of excessive equipment costs, driven by a rigid ‘no deviation’ policy. Meanwhile, other key equipment suppliers are stuck in a system of blatant inequality.
As usual, the situation worsens when specialised, hazardous equipment vacuum machines – such as magnesium and exotic metals – comes under scrutiny for affordability. Magnesium’s reactive metal powders pose a serious fire hazard in the workplace due to their instant ignition when exposed to sparks, making their handling a major daily challenge in workshops in automotive repair.
Those with the correct VAS-approved and European NPA 494 standards are priced at approximately R490 000. In contrast, other European vacuum cleaners with similar specifications are available for around R380 000 – once again representing a full rip-off for body shops aspiring to meet required safety equipment standards at an extra cost of R100 000.
These adamant market recommendations seem to be an operation in profit grabs by some vehicle manufacturers who have already been legislated against for anti-competitive behaviour in the EEC. The time is well overdue to take on these unnecessary levels of equipment steering by vehicle manufacturers who extort for extra profitability from the automotive body repair trade.
We buy at a rate of close to 30% of all the spare parts produced internationally, so why must the trade be dictated to in this manner when viable products that meet the outstanding performance criteria are available at well under the costs of approved repair recommended products?
A final question to these manufacturers from the autobody shop trade is this: Why must we be asked to pay a premium for repairing their make or brand of vehicles in South Africa when this costly double standard operates directly against one of their best customers – collision repairers? We need a fair stance on this inequality and questionable business practice.
Name witheld
