I’m frankly amazed that shops still sometimes contend with insurers who seem to think that a two-wheel alignment is sufficient for a collision-damaged vehicle, or that the flat rate charged by a local tire shop is appropriate compensation for the far more complex process of aligning a vehicle post-repair.
I posed this issue to some of my friends in the industry who are knowledgeable about the technical and business sides of the equation, and thought that sharing their responses could help shops dealing with this on a day-to-day basis.
“General maintenance wheel alignments are nothing more than check the air pressure, set the toe and then let it go,” said Larry Montanez, a long-time technical trainer in the industry whose credentials could fill the rest of this column. “But collision-damaged vehicles require an all-wheel alignment. The rear wheels or thrust angle are first set, then the front wheels are aligned off the rear wheels.”
Montanez points out that alignment process can also require aligning back-up cameras or headlamps to the steering angle sensor, resetting or adjusting the automatic load-leveling air-ride suspension or the lane-departure or other anti-collision systems.
“Tire store alignments versus one that properly aligns a vehicle on which suspension parts have been replaced or changes have been made to the structural dimensions of the vehicle are just not the same animal,” agreed Phil Mosley, general manager of DC Autocraft in Burbank, Calif., a shop with 11 automaker certifications. “Tire store alignments are not used to diagnose collision damage or confirm proper repairs. A post-collision alignment requires that the tech has an adequate understanding of suspension geometry and geometry analytics. In other words, he has to know his stuff and be able to think in an analytical way. He has to be more than a tire jockey.”
“Most wheel alignment angles can be adjusted the equivalent of 1 to 3 millimeters or may have no adjustment or all, which means the vehicle structure must be correct,” Montanez added. “During a collision event, the vehicle suffers a lot of flexing and movement, including to suspension components on the opposite end of the collision from the impact. These suspension components generally do not flex back to their original shape. This is why I have said that every collision-damaged vehicle that has been on a structural realignment apparatus should have an all-wheel alignment check. The drivability and stability of the vehicle depends on the wheel alignment. It is paramount that it is performed correctly.”
Barrett Smith of Auto Damage Experts in Dover, Fla., argues that the complexity and critical nature of post-collision alignments is one of the reasons he believes collision shops should be equipped to do them in-house.
“This gives the repairer total control over the equipment calibration and accuracy, for example,” he said.
Everyone I heard from on this issue agreed that charges for post-collision alignments should be based on “book time” (or appropriate mark-up of a sublet charge), not based on what a tire shop charges for a simple alignment after throwing on some tires.
“Repairers should assess higher labor rates for the investment of equipment and technical ability required, just as a hospital assesses a higher fee for use of MRI-scan equipment over conventional X-ray equipment,” Smith said. “Just as a hospital assesses a professional fee for the radiologist to read the results and provide a written narrative to the treating physician, a shop should assess a fee for their trained alignment tech to offer a professional diagnosis of the vehicle to the blueprinter or technician assigned to the vehicle.”
“The database is the basis on which the estimate is calculated. The insurance company owes database time for alignments, which is designated as ‘mechanical.’ Period, not negotiable,” Paul Spencer of Babbsco Auto Collision in Lake Worth, Fla., told me. “The insurance company cannot make up its own dollar figure just to suit it’s own agenda. Except for my DRPs, I get paid database time at the mechanical rate for alignments.”
“I argue: Are we using the estimating system data or are we not,” Mosley agreed. “It’s incongruous for the insurer to stick to ‘the book’ when it suits them and forget about ‘the book’ when it suits them. Do or do not, to quote Yoda.”
Now how can you argue with Yoda?
Subscribe to ABRN and receive articles like this every month….absolutely free. Click here.
