HARDTOP

[Sixty8panther]

Harley:

Thanks for standing up and making your voice heard on a topic that was

considered beatern to death by me here in the past few months.

Check out this thread when you have a sec.:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...c=23945&hl=

One of my favorite pieces of artwork of a hardtop:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...c=24168&hl=

More eye-candy & some funny/amusing reading material:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...c=17128&hl=

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ic=4135&hl=

HUH Look who responded to this trivia question:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ic=4932&hl=

More C&G insight on people's refusal to think outside the box:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ic=3867&hl=

---- enjoy

[GMTruckGuy74]

I love convertibles, but have yet to own one. Sooner or later I'll have one. I love driving convertibles w/ the top up and windows down...like a hardtop. I've also driven them top down w/ windows up (useful on a freeway so I can still hear the stereo).

That would be one of the reasons I'd like to buy a G6 Convertible! Many I see on the roads are driven exactly that way - the top is up but all four windows are down. I think people would like that feature - and just think of how many people have never ridden in a car like that?

[Newbiewar]

Newbiewar:

I really am quite ASTONISHED that you have managed

to avoid learning what a hardtop is while belonging to

this forum for as long as you have... Even I will admit

that I go WAY out of my way to give a "routine" public

service announcement on here about the virtues of

owning/driving a hardtop.

As in (pillarless, fixed) hardtop

Check my personal theads, there's several on the topic.

the latest one is the one regarding my wife's Mercedes:

Here's a link,

I sold the '77 Caddy and bought this MB 500SEC for her 2 weeks ago:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...=24772&st=0

and I will, asa(realistically)p post a "Hardtop 101" thread...

its just that i havent ever figured out what is so special about it... i guess open air feeling is good? not my cup of tea, dont really like convertables... but i do like the uncluttered roof line.

the major thing that confused me was when lutz said the camaro wouldnt be a hardtop, in that thread, you guys complained and complained... but i saw no difference from the concept to the production model... i was perplexed

[Sixty8panther]

What the heck are you smokin' Newb.?

The concept, has nothing for a b-pillar... from the windshield to the C-pillar it's

just two pieces of glass and a thin, rubber piece of weather-strip where they

meet, where in a sedan there would be a post.

The production car retains frameless door glass but has a PERMANENT, thick,

plastic-clad B-pillar and the rear glass does NOT roll down. Instead it's glued

into place around all edges, from the 1/4 panel, to the B & C pillars & roofrail.

How can you NOT see the differance? I'm perplexed!?!?

Balthy: It's quite a happy coincedance to see your new

sig. for the 1st time in THIS thread. That '59 Pontiac

screams "sex, leaded high octane & Rock & Roll"

If you can't have bullets for tail lights like a '59 Caddy,

and you don't want to look like you're a bat-out-of-hell

with anger issues like a '59 Buick you can always look

like you've got two rocket-ships on your rear quarters,

or if you preffer, a couple stinger missles ready to blow

that Mig-21 into a heap of smoldering, twisted metal!

I want me a '59 Poncho someday!

[Sixty8panther]

5th gen. Camaro Concept, with all fourr windows down... no side glass

at all, no B-pillar, just clean lines like a naked volleyball player with

large natrual breast-esses.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

And the much less cool PRODUCTION Camaro... saddly, a thick, ugly

B-pillar ruins the greenhouse completely!

[Newbiewar]

this is what u mean?

hrmm i guess your right, never paid any attention to that, i figured the hard top refered to the actual sheetmetal covering the rear hatch/window.

hrmm that was a good autoshow... good concept

[Intrepidation]

There's no denying that pillarless > b-pillar.

I can see a 4-door hardtop being impracticle for today, but you could do a 2door, especially if you've got a convertible version already.

[A Horse With No Name]

XP has said it all right there....

without dropping thirteen F***-bombs for frustration like I would have.

And yes, I agree... the fact that Harley Davidsons & plasti-clad

crotch rockets are littering the roads more than ever now is

someting of an oxymoron since hardtops are unsafe!?

Stupid is as stupid DOES.

I think we NEED hardtops, to help people, regular Americans fall in

love with the automobile again! Even a four door hardtop should

not be out of the question when the majority of the forum, myself

included, were ALL for that Chrysler 300 ragtop concept going into

production, ultra-limited as it may have been....

There's a conversion company making DTS convertibles as e speak.

And as far as all this "weather sealing inadeqacy" blah-blah, BLAH....

ONCE AGAIN! For the love of god, read thi8s and THINK about the

words instead of just chewing over the given consonants & vowels

and then saying something silly/irrelevant AGAIN:

ALL your arguments are slightyl-valid and APPLY X10 to convertibles.

Every single convertible car, be it an exotic Ferrari costing $250,000

or more, or an as tested MSRP $24,500 Mazda Miata, has those same

issues.... have you never read an article about a convertible roadtest

where they mention the "car wash test" or "thunderstorm test"???

And guess what?

People who buy those convertible cars, those

"leaky, noisy, ragtop deathtraps" LOVE them to death.... becasue they

are enthusiasts, not soccer moms who only care about the number of

cupholders & the color of their vehicle.

{takes breath, blood pressure starts to lower...}

I know we don't always agree, but this is why I come here and this is why I love about 85% of your posts here. this is written by a man who loves automobiles.

I am ALL FOR hardtops, I just don't want it to be the only criteria we use in evaluating a car. Alfa Romeo has built beautiful cars both with and without B-pillars, IMHO.

And one of the coolest cars running around my old hometown in Indiana was a SS396 69 Chevelle 300, the base model with the post...just like there is a really cool Post W-30 (gold, white top) 70 442 running around Springfield Ohio.

Also, as I've said before, I really like Tri-5 Chevy's as post cars, because that was what was drag raced and road raced and ran in NASCAR back in the day.

All I want is to be able to love-get excited about-both hardtop and non-hardtop cars. Sometimes I feel like "B" pillar is almost the lone issue in deciding an automotive design...

But not just yes but HELL YES, GM build us a hardtop Camaro NOW!

And +1 to people falling in love with cars again.

Chris

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

There's no denying that pillarless > b-pillar.

I can see a 4-door hardtop being impracticle for today, but you could do a 2door, especially if you've got a convertible version already.

Depends on the car...we don't really know where automotive design will take us over the next 15 years, and I could see an upscale 4 door hardtop go into production.

Next CTS or 300, anyone?

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

5th gen. Camaro Concept, with all fourr windows down... no side glass

at all, no B-pillar, just clean lines like a naked volleyball player with

large natrual breast-esses.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

And the much less cool PRODUCTION Camaro... saddly, a thick, ugly

B-pillar ruins the greenhouse completely!

The Camaro is hot, can we get the nude photos of the vollyball player next?

Chris

[HarleyEarl]

There is no debate.

A pillarless hardtop is car sex.

End of discussion.

[mightymouse]

There is no debate.

A pillarless hardtop is car sex.

End of discussion.

Agreed. Love the look. Love the air ripping thru the cabin....

I am really happy GM decided to build the roll cage into My New Camaro's body though. Thanks GM!

Body structure and chassis-

The 2010 Camaro is built on GM's global rear-drive architecture, with a strong body structure that enhances safety, quietness and handling.

Designed to protect occupants before, during and after a crash, the Camaro offers a comprehensive system of safety features - starting with

a robust body structure and integral safety cage around the passenger compartment. High-strength steel and ultra high-strength steel are

used in key areas throughout the structure.

"Thanks GM -for having the foresight to build a rollcage into my new hot rod for me. You rule."

It's a good thing because 1/3 of ALL light vehicle fatalities are resultant from rollovers in which the roof structure failed.

1/3 of ALL fatalities. . . Hmmm That is a lot....

The roof crush tests will likely begin in 2010, and cars that you guys are mumbling about w/o pillars will no longer be sold, because of noncompliancy

of rollover regulations. End of story - I don't make this $h! up. There is a reason for everything and I don't need guys who have never designed a damn thing

telling me about how a weak roof that is pretty is BEST. Looks Great -Poor Logic. Poor sales if the feds don't pass it- like none.

First guy to design a thin gauge sheet metal roof structure w/o B-pillars and use finite element analysis to illustrate it can withstand a 10,000 lb load w/o deformation...

will get a big prize. The laws of physics won't allow what you dreamers are going on and on about. I've seen it. I live it every day.

Based on fact- not feelings or opinions

Big diff between weak and strong I choose strong whenever possible.

So again, blame these guys - and the future rule makers... Not GM.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/CrashW...S216Notice.html

These guys too:

http://www.roofcrushresistance.com/

GM did what they had to with the body structure end of story If you don't like it, sawzall yours out.

I'm keeping mine in.

[Newbiewar]

i'd be one to test the laws of physics, i hate people telling me its impossible... i wish to be an engeneer at many times of my life...

i know that with enough metal in the right places, a hardtop would provide enough strength, but you might have a top heavy car lol...

steel titanium and alluminum would probably all be needed for such a roof, as they all possess individual strength properties.

likely the exotics and or the high class could afford to have such metals as a frame, although from my understanding racetracks require steel frame, so perhaps it would be self defeating...

i wonder if customers would consider a vehicle if it had structural support in the passanger cabin to allow for a pillarless apperance.

[mightymouse]

i'd be one to test the laws of physics, i hate people telling me its impossible... i wish to be an engeneer at many times of my life...

i know that with enough metal in the right places, a hardtop would provide enough strength, but you might have a top heavy car lol...

steel titanium and alluminum would probably all be needed for such a roof, as they all possess individual strength properties.

likely the exotics and or the high class could afford to have such metals as a frame, although from my understanding racetracks require steel frame, so perhaps it would be self defeating...

i wonder if customers would consider a vehicle if it had structural support in the passanger cabin to allow for a pillarless apperance.

Exactly ! Logic at work! Maybe nonobtanium metal would work well in this application, I don't know.

2- 1/2 times the weight of a car is a lot.

Hey -I'm just the messenger.. I respect the emotion of a car....I get it. I DO.

The A and C pillars are on steep angle because of styling the cool body....

Those angled pillars act as a HINGE point to bend. The roof need some stiffness as in a~straight pillar~

to stiffen and support the middle of the roof. Imagine 10,000 lbs realistically on a B-pillarless roof.

Imagine how you would support the roof and glass..from deformation?

I just thought I should explain the Reason from my perspective. Everyone else gets the same chance

To say whats up....Thats the reason!

SEMA will showcase the Camaro and I bet there will be a handfull of modified - roof cars!

Maybe you can buy a Foose modified one in Vegas.

Now THIS is a B pillar, class......suited for performance applications.

Edited August 7, 2008 by mightymouse

[Newbiewar]

Exactly ! Logic at work. Maybe nonobtanium metal would work well in this application, I don't know.

i think ur mocking me...

[Robert Hall]

Agreed. Love the look. Love the air ripping thru the cabin....

I am really happy GM decided to build the roll cage into My New Camaro's body though. Thanks GM!

Body structure and chassis-

The 2010 Camaro is built on GM's global rear-drive architecture, with a strong body structure that enhances safety, quietness and handling.

Designed to protect occupants before, during and after a crash, the Camaro offers a comprehensive system of safety features - starting with

a robust body structure and integral safety cage around the passenger compartment. High-strength steel and ultra high-strength steel are

used in key areas throughout the structure.

"Thanks GM -for having the foresight to build a rollcage into my new hot rod for me. You rule."

It's a good thing because 1/3 of ALL light vehicle fatalities are resultant from rollovers in which the roof structure failed.

1/3 of ALL fatalities. . . Hmmm That is a lot....

The roof crush tests will likely begin in 2010, and cars that you guys are mumbling about w/o pillars will no longer be sold, because of noncompliancy

of rollover regulations. End of story - I don't make this $h! up. There is a reason for everything and I don't need guys who have never designed a damn thing

telling me about how a weak roof that is pretty is BEST. Looks Great -Poor Logic. Poor sales if the feds don't pass it- like none.

First guy to design a thin gauge sheet metal roof structure w/o B-pillars and use finite element analysis to illustrate it can withstand a 10,000 lb load w/o deformation...

will get a big prize. The laws of physics won't allow what you dreamers are going on and on about. I've seen it. I live it every day.

Based on fact- not feelings or opinions

The roof crush on rollover issue is more of an issue with trucks and SUVs, though, most of which have a high center of gravity, are obese, and lack upper body strength--they roll easily

and the weight of the obese lower structure collapses the weak roof structure.

It's less of an issue with hardtops, because of the low CoG, they are less likely to roll. A bigger issue for hardtops (and convertibles) is side impact resistance--without a B-pillar, the doors

and quarter panel are more likely to collapse inward on impact.

[mightymouse]

The roof crush on rollover issue is more of an issue with trucks and SUVs, though, most of which have a high center of gravity, are obese, and lack upper body strength--they roll easily

and the weight of the obese lower structure collapses the weak roof structure.

It's less of an issue with hardtops, because of the low CoG, they are less likely to roll. A bigger issue for hardtops (and convertibles) is side impact resistance--without a B-pillar, the doors

and quarter panel are more likely to collapse inward on impact.

DING Another Winner my friends!!!Computer models led the path to strength.

Both good reasons -you are genious! I'm not a genious.....or are I.....

You know exacly how much a Camaro weighs and....you know it

[balthazar]

The question remains, MM, will convertibles 'go away' after 2010 ??

How can they possibly be exempted if saftey is the primary motivator in new roll-over standards ?

2.5x vehicle weight is an awful stiff requirement, too- I can see 1.5 maybe. Good point about pillar angle- it's been patently obvious to me for years that the severly-raked A-pillar is the weak point in modern rooflines. I wonder if greenhouse lines similar to 1930s cars are going to have to return?

[Intrepidation]

It's less of an issue with hardtops, because of the low CoG, they are less likely to roll. A bigger issue for hardtops (and convertibles) is side impact resistance--without a B-pillar, the doors

and quarter panel are more likely to collapse inward on impact.

That's funny, because I recently posted the crash footage for the tests to the C70 convertible hardtop.

Must be the devil's magic that the sides didn't crumple like tinfoil. This was all done with the top down no less.

If the C70 can magically not kill it's occupants, then logic would assume that replacing the heavier folding roof with a fixed one would save weight and even add some strength.

Again, I can see why a 4-door hardtop would be impractical to build...there's a lot more space between the A and C pillars...you would need a lot of reenforcement to make it work, but not so much with a coupe, where teh pillars are much closer together. Look how close the B-pillar is to the C pillar anyway. More importantly, if you've got a convertible version, it's already been beefed up to be stronger...replace the folding top with a fixed roof and there you go...hardtop.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Sixty8panther]

I'VE GOT SOME SKETCHES I'm going to post soon...

stay tunned.

[Robert Hall]

That's funny, because I recently posted the crash footage for the tests to the C70 convertible hardtop.

Must be the devil's magic that the sides didn't crumple like tinfoil. This was all done with the top down no less.

If the C70 can magically not kill it's occupants, then logic would assume that replacing the heavier folding roof with a fixed one would save weight and even add some strength.

Well, it is a Volvo..they have always taken safety seriously, so I'm not surprised. Same with Mercedes.

Edited August 7, 2008 by moltar

[Sixty8panther]

Some of the stupidity in this thread leaves me dumbfounded.....

Let me get this straight, a car that is essentially a MUCH SAFER

& more practical variant of a convertible is to be deemed

UNSAFE and impossible to manufacture, and yet the much less

SAFE and impractical ragtop gets to stay in production....?

Disgusting.

And beforee you ask, NO I do NOT want to erradicate ragtops,

I'll prob, never buy one and they're not my cup of tea post

WWII but I DO SUPPORT al of your RIGHT to own one....

How many of YOU can claim the same anti-hypocracy?

---

MM: Enjoy that V8 under your Malibus hood, because soon

that WILL be considered UNSAFE, excessive and ILLEGAL.

Hope that makes you happy about your complacency.

---

P.S. if the governement does not stay the hell out of

Automotive regulation we really WILL all be driving

"Government issued Camrys" in one sense or the

other... and that my friends is a really $h!ty world to

live in. More & more it seems, if you guys are even

partially right (V8 or RWD or Hardtop doomsayers)

than there are going to be many an antique plate in

my future, what's sad is that with today's technology

we SHOULD have the best of both worlds.

[Intrepidation]

Well, it is a Volvo..they have always taken safety seriously, so I'm not surprised. Same with Mercedes.

Ok, I'll bite....

2008 Chrysler Sebring convetible side impact crash test.

Overall rating: Good

And it diesn't cost an arm anda leg.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Dodgefan

[A Horse With No Name]

Ok, I'll bite....

2008 Chrysler Sebring convetible side impact crash test.

Overall rating: Good

And it diesn't cost an arm anda leg.

Impressive, but not as impressive as the Volvo.

Trying to teach my son Joel about driving...we were sitting at a light last night and it turned green and I shook my head "no."

About a second after I shook my head "no" a semi blasted through the intersection at about 60 m.p.h...he must not have seen his red light at all.

Made an impression on my son!

Side impact wrecks are scary no matter what the car.

And actually Scion and toyota build the cars that have the highest roof crush resistance.

I think both the RX-8 and Scion TC were two of the best cars tested.

But I'd still rather drive an early 60's hard top in some ways.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

Some of the stupidity in this thread leaves me dumbfounded.....

Let me get this straight, a car that is essentially a MUCH SAFER

& more practical variant of a convertible is to be deemed

UNSAFE and impossible to manufacture, and yet the much less

SAFE and impractical ragtop gets to stay in production....?

Disgusting.

And beforee you ask, NO I do NOT want to erradicate ragtops,

I'll prob, never buy one and they're not my cup of tea post

WWII but I DO SUPPORT al of your RIGHT to own one....

How many of YOU can claim the same anti-hypocracy?

---

MM: Enjoy that V8 under your Malibus hood, because soon

that WILL be considered UNSAFE, excessive and ILLEGAL.

Hope that makes you happy about your complacency.

---

P.S. if the governement does not stay the hell out of

Automotive regulation we really WILL all be driving

"Government issued Camrys" in one sense or the

other... and that my friends is a really $h!ty world to

live in. More & more it seems, if you guys are even

partially right (V8 or RWD or Hardtop doomsayers)

than there are going to be many an antique plate in

my future, what's sad is that with today's technology

we SHOULD have the best of both worlds.

Dude, like I said I totally support your right to own a hardtop fresh from Dee-Troit.

Chris

[Robert Hall]

The question remains, MM, will convertibles 'go away' after 2010 ??

How can they possibly be exempted if saftey is the primary motivator in new roll-over standards ?

2.5x vehicle weight is an awful stiff requirement, too- I can see 1.5 maybe. Good point about pillar angle- it's been patently obvious to me for years that the severly-raked A-pillar is the weak point in modern rooflines. I wonder if greenhouse lines similar to 1930s cars are going to have to return?

We will see..I think these standards are aimed at trucks and SUVs which is where the problem really is..they roll over easily and collapse easily.

[Intrepidation]

Impressive, but not as impressive as the Volvo.

Trying to teach my son Joel about driving...we were sitting at a light last night and it turned green and I shook my head "no."

About a second after I shook my head "no" a semi blasted through the intersection at about 60 m.p.h...he must not have seen his red light at all.

Made an impression on my son!

Side impact wrecks are scary no matter what the car.

And actually Scion and toyota build the cars that have the highest roof crush resistance.

I think both the RX-8 and Scion TC were two of the best cars tested.

But I'd still rather drive an early 60's hard top in some ways.

Chris

It may not be as good but is certainly impressive and survivable. Remember that just a few years ago many cars with pillars couldn't take side impacts nearly that well.

Also, if a semi T-bones your car, truck, or SUV going 60...you're f@#ked no matter what you drive.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Sixty8panther]

66Stang:

Excelent point.

There's one thing a '58 Plymouth Belvedere hardtop,

'61 Cadillac hardtop, '68 Firebird hardtop, '71 Riviera

hardtop, '87 MB 300CE hardtop, '95 Miata or an '08

Ford Taurus sedan have in common:

There would ahve been a 99.9% chance of fatality

to all the passangers in your car if that semi. had

struck you at 60MPH.

All done.

Do not pass go, do NOT collect $200, R.I.P.

That's life.

Do I go the extra mile checking my blindspot,

yielding & crossing intersections when driving

my classic cars? HELL YEAH, and THAT is the

ONLY way to decrease your chances of

having a voilent, unexpected car accident,

deadly or otherwise.

And actually Scion and toyota build the cars that have the highest roof crush resistance.

What are you basing that on? One isolated test from the NIHS?

[A Horse With No Name]

It may not be as good but is certainly impressive and survivable. Remember that just a few years ago many cars with pillars couldn't take side impacts nearly that well.

Also, if a semi T-bones your car, truck, or SUV going 60...you're f@#ked no matter what you drive.

Exactly!

What we really need is to have a good driver training program for drivers, esp new drivers.

Our local SCCA region teamed up with the Tire Rack to offer a teen safe driving school. They did smart things like bring in a Semi and park cars around it, like the semi was in traffic. They then made all of the teens sit in the drivers seat of the semi so they could make them realize how big the semi's blind spots were.

They brought in a large purple Barney dinosaur, and then detonated the airbags from an old Jeep Cherokee while Barney was unbelted and sitting next to the steering wheel. Barney took a flying trip over one of the light poles in the parking lot...that made an impression too.

Then the parking lot was wetted down and the teens were put in there own cars in an autocross type situation (with orange traffic cones) and a race driving instructor in the passenger seat. It was great fun to watch all of the teen drivers try to keep control of their cars in a diffucult but controlled situation.

It was also really fun to wartch my friend Sue, who is an SCCA rally navoigator and an SCCA G Production racer (she races a Datsun 510). She got teamed up with a boy who had armour-alled the seats in his hand me down late model Mercury Marquis...It was sooo much fun watching Sue and the driver try to "hold on" as the buig merc went through the paces and had all of that body roll. But for its size the big merc did pretty well on the Autocross course.

Mid Ohio has a similar program, under the partial sponsership of Honda.

But I digress...half the problem would be solved by better driver education. Another bog portion would be solved by more serious penalties for drivers that should not be on the road.

Chris

[Sixty8panther]

Now that is an idea I can get behind.

I agree 100% about the unsafe driver being the weakest, & most

dangerous link in even the most unsafe "deathtrap" like a Pinto.

Now gimmie my hardtop GM!!!

[balthazar]

We will see..I think these standards are aimed at trucks and SUVs which is where the problem really is..they roll over easily and collapse easily.

I would not classify trucks / SUVs as "easy" to roll in the least. Easier that cars, but they are also wider & longer- that adds stability. They are also driven less recklessly that cars, on average.

I would be surprised if cars are also not the focus of the 2010 standard as well as trucks.

[Newbiewar]

okay, ive got a question...

is the reason hardtop's arent appreciated in saftey standards because the b pillar provides middle support, or because a & c pillars are not strong enough to support the entire blast...

okay let me rephrase, if your hardtop was to rollover, are we concerned the roof itself is going to collapse, or the (4, instead of 6) pillars wont hold under the weight...

so... if the camaro were to be a hardtop, at a little under 4k lbs, it needs to supprt 2.5 times or 10,000 lbs...

so if they used kevlar underneath the sheet metal, we'd be fine... sounds expensive

[Newbiewar]

I would not classify trucks / SUVs as "easy" to roll in the least. Easier that cars, but they are also wider & longer- that adds stability. They are also driven less recklessly that cars, on average.

I would be surprised if cars are also not the focus of the 2010 standard as well as trucks.

i know when they talked about 2.5 times weight, GM scoffed and said their standards were higher then that already... but with stabilitrac, how often does a GM vehicles actually roll over, only times i've ever seen em flip is when there is nothing to be done, they are just on a huge slope... drive off a cliff or something...

[Robert Hall]

i know when they talked about 2.5 times weight, GM scoffed and said their standards were higher then that already... but with stabilitrac, how often does a GM vehicles actually roll over, only times i've ever seen em flip is when there is nothing to be done, they are just on a huge slope... drive off a cliff or something...

I've seen plenty of rolled and squashed Suburbans, trucks, etc. Not so much with cars. Usually it's driver error--too fast, change lanes too quickly, etc.

[Newbiewar]

I've seen plenty of rolled and squashed Suburbans, trucks, etc. Not so much with cars. Usually it's driver error--too fast, change lanes too quickly, etc.

must not have had stabilitrac... seriously i've seen that system tested, and the only time i've ever seen it fail, is when the vehicle becomes airborne... via running over something(Big), or going off the road/bridge

but if stablitrac cant save you, most likely 2.5 times vehicle weight isnt going to save you either...

[Robert Hall]

must not have had stabilitrac... seriously i've seen that system tested, and the only time i've ever seen it fail, is when the vehicle becomes airborne... via running over something(Big), or going off the road/bridge

but if stablitrac cant save you, most likely 2.5 times vehicle weight isnt going to save you either...

Stabiltrac is a recent thing, though. SUVs going off the road and rolling over is a common event in Colorado in October, when the morons from out of state experience their first snow/ice condition and drive too fast...

[mightymouse]

Some of the stupidity in this thread leaves me dumbfounded.....

Let me get this straight, a car that is essentially a MUCH SAFER

& more practical variant of a convertible is to be deemed

UNSAFE and impossible to manufacture, and yet the much less

SAFE and impractical ragtop gets to stay in production....?

Disgusting.

And beforee you ask, NO I do NOT want to erradicate ragtops,

I'll prob, never buy one and they're not my cup of tea post

WWII but I DO SUPPORT al of your RIGHT to own one....

How many of YOU can claim the same anti-hypocracy?

---

MM: Enjoy that V8 under your Malibus hood, because soon

that WILL be considered UNSAFE, excessive and ILLEGAL.

Hope that makes you happy about your complacency.

---

P.S. if the governement does not stay the hell out of

Automotive regulation we really WILL all be driving

"Government issued Camrys" in one sense or the

other... and that my friends is a really $h!ty world to

live in. More & more it seems, if you guys are even

partially right (V8 or RWD or Hardtop doomsayers)

than there are going to be many an antique plate in

my future, what's sad is that with today's technology

we SHOULD have the best of both worlds.

You guys.... I don't advocate the rules...Just letting you know-

Yes I burn rubber and like fun cool cars- but this is real stuff from big brother.

I drive cars and push the limits sometimes, so I like the idea of a built-in rollbar

in my Camaro- it doesn't bother me...

Convertibles are exempt from roof crush tests because they don't have roofs

Side impact tests are also changing- Volvos that are safe now will need reinforcing!

Side Impact tests will simulate sliding into a pole sideways w/ force= (about 42mph)- Voilent!

A very small amount of cockpit intrusion is allowed....super B pillars and fat A pillars

are coming and they don't look good. sorry.

Vert' Cliff notes:

NHTSA Continues Convertibles' Exemption from Roof-Crush Rules

Situation

1. NHTSA to upgrade standard for roof-crush resistance for 1st time since 1971

2. Won't hold convertibles, including retractable hardtops, to fixed-roof vehicle standards

3. Won't impose convertible-specific rollover rules such as requiring roll bars

4. German, Swedish automakers proactive in past 15 years in protecting occupants in rollover

5. Strengthened A-pillars, windshield frame to withstand rollover; engineered roll bar systems

6. Convertibles look less safe in rollover but less likely to be involved in rollovers

Significant Points

1. Federal law says NHTSA can't regulate vehicle type of existence; means can't apply standard that no convertible can meet

2. Manufacturers offering roll bars say offer some protection

3. Rollover safety equipment not tied to premium-priced vehicles

4. Safety advocates undecided on response to roof-crush proposal; say roll bars probably not sufficient in rollover

5. Convertible rollovers accounted for less than 1% of US rollover deaths in 2004

Background

1. Key provisions of proposed new fixed-roof vehicle standards are:

2. Increase force applied in testing to 2.5 times vehicle's unloaded weight

3. Requirement for maintenance of enough headroom for mid-sized adult male

4. Extend roof-crush resistance rule to vans, trucks, buses w/ gross weight of 6K-10K pounds

Thought for the day:

If we didn't have to design and install all the crap the Feds demand, or protect unbelted occupants....

Vehicles would probably cost approx. $ 5000 less then they do now... at least 5g!

What is the real cost of safety? where does it end?

It doesn't. All cars will require side curtain Airbags by 2013 Oh noooooooo!

PS I don't wanna talk about safety any more. - but I had to defend GM ( too much koolaid)

Get ready for Woodward updates bitches!!!!

[Robert Hall]

Y

It doesn't. All cars will require side curtain Airbags by 2013 Oh noooooooo!

Not a big deal..most new cars have them now.

[Intrepidation]

You guys.... I don't advocate the rules...Just letting you know-

Yes I burn rubber and like fun cool cars- but this is real stuff from big brother.

I drive cars and push the limits sometimes, so I like the idea of a built-in rollbar

in my Camaro- it doesn't bother me...

Convertibles are exempt from roof crush tests because they don't have roofs

Side impact tests are also changing- Volvos that are safe now will need reinforcing!

Side Impact tests will simulate sliding into a pole sideways w/ force= (about 42mph)- Voilent!

A very small amount of cockpit intrusion is allowed....super B pillars and fat A pillars

are coming and they don't look good. sorry.

Vert' Cliff notes:

NHTSA Continues Convertibles' Exemption from Roof-Crush Rules

Situation

1. NHTSA to upgrade standard for roof-crush resistance for 1st time since 1971

2. Won't hold convertibles, including retractable hardtops, to fixed-roof vehicle standards

3. Won't impose convertible-specific rollover rules such as requiring roll bars

4. German, Swedish automakers proactive in past 15 years in protecting occupants in rollover

5. Strengthened A-pillars, windshield frame to withstand rollover; engineered roll bar systems

6. Convertibles look less safe in rollover but less likely to be involved in rollovers

Significant Points

1. Federal law says NHTSA can't regulate vehicle type of existence; means can't apply standard that no convertible can meet

2. Manufacturers offering roll bars say offer some protection

3. Rollover safety equipment not tied to premium-priced vehicles

4. Safety advocates undecided on response to roof-crush proposal; say roll bars probably not sufficient in rollover

5. Convertible rollovers accounted for less than 1% of US rollover deaths in 2004

Background

1. Key provisions of proposed new fixed-roof vehicle standards are:

2. Increase force applied in testing to 2.5 times vehicle's unloaded weight

3. Requirement for maintenance of enough headroom for mid-sized adult male

4. Extend roof-crush resistance rule to vans, trucks, buses w/ gross weight of 6K-10K pounds

Thought for the day:

If we didn't have to design and install all the crap the Feds demand, or protect unbelted occupants....

Vehicles would probably cost approx. $ 5000 less then they do now... at least 5g!

What is the real cost of safety? where does it end?

It doesn't. All cars will require side curtain Airbags by 2013 Oh noooooooo!

PS I don't wanna talk about safety any more. - but I had to defend GM ( too much koolaid)

Get ready for Woodward updates bitches!!!!

So apparently the Feds don't realize that making super thick pillars to support the weight if a crash happens resulting in a rollover, then there's the issue of outward visibility being impeded, which makes it more difficult to see the things around you and avoid hitting them in the first place.

[Robert Hall]

So apparently the Feds don't realize that making super thick pillars to support the weight if a crash happens resulting in a rollover, then there's the issue of outward visibility being impeded, which makes it more difficult to see the things around you and avoid hitting them in the first place.

Yeah, a lot of vehicles have very thick pillars now..outward visibility has become much worse in many vehicles today..

[Newbiewar]

Yeah, a lot of vehicles have very thick pillars now..outward visibility has become much worse in many vehicles today..

hhr... yuck...

i love my truck for thin pillars tho... i doubt it would do well in a rollover, but it takes a lot to roll a dually, expecially one thats never loaded...

[HarleyEarl]

I think what's so ironic, those big, thick posts that are supposed to save us, are so intrusive on vision out that it's actually going to cause accidents in the first place. Those front pillars are getting so wide, it hides cars and pedestrians.

>Bring back postless hardtops

>Narrow those pillars

>Stop the blacked out fakery around the glass area, from the outside it looks all lean and clean, you get inside and it's like being in a frickin cave.

I just can't imagine anyone actually defending a post and pillar. Are there internet trolls on here, Nader deciples?

Edited August 8, 2008 by HarleyEarl

[balthazar]

>>"1. Federal law says NHTSA can't regulate vehicle type of existence; means can't apply standard that no convertible can meet."<<

Granted, but the NHTSA is the fed- wouldn't take much internal pressure to rewrite that law in the least. Molded headlights were once prohibited, and there was no fatality issue involving headlights.

Again I must state : if the primary reason for increased rollover protection is safety / saving lives.... exempting convertibles is an obvious, undeniable disregard for convertible owner's safety / lives- regardless of their percentages. The Gov here seemingly is willing to allow those individuals to accept the risk of convertible ownership.

IMO- they just cannot be bothered to look into the issue to see if any other vehicles may also fall under that category. Typical, less-than-complete job done.

>>"if your hardtop was to rollover, are we concerned the roof itself is going to collapse, or the (4, instead of 6) pillars wont hold under the weight..."<<

The answer is pretty much the same. The concern is that the pillars won't hold the weight, moreso than the roof panel itself. Problem is- the A-pillar is still the weak point in any design- most every vehicle is front heavy and going forward in an incident... in a rollover all the forward motion & the car's weight is often on the top of the windshield, and at the angle of the pillar, it just folds. I'm not sure a mandatory B-pillar will make all that much difference if everything forward still collapses.

Look at the pic of the A-pillar in the car in my sig- dead vertical. In an article on customizing a '59, the builder could not cut thru one with a saw-zall, hacksaw or grinder, and was forced to use a cutting torch (the pillar in '59-60s is triple-layer boxed steel). I'd love to see a modern return to the wrap windshield- the pillar would be much stronger (all else equal) and visibility is VASTLY improved.

[Intrepidation]

I think what's so ironic, those big, thick posts that are supposed to save us, are so intrusive on vision out that it's actually going to cause accidents in the first place. Those front pillars are getting so wide, it hides cars and pedestrians.

>Bring back postless hardtops

>Narrow those pillars

>Stop the blacked out fakery around the glass area, from the outside it looks all lean and clean, you get inside and it's like being in a frickin cave.

I just can't imagine anyone actually defending a post and pillar. Are there internet trolls on here, Nader deciples?

B-pillars have their place, they are inherently stronger and do save weight. However there should be a hardtop option for more cars besides a couple of Mercedes and the Continental GT.

[Sixty8panther]

The current CL600 was said by Mercedes to have equal or greater

roof structure and side impact protection than a 2dr sedan, they

even stated it in black & white in an ad back in apring 2007.

Look at the pic of the A-pillar in the car in my sig- dead vertical. In an article on customizing a '59, the builder could not cut thru one with a saw-zall, hacksaw or grinder, and was forced to use a cutting torch (the pillar in '59-60s is triple-layer boxed steel). I'd love to see a modern return to the wrap windshield- the pillar would be much stronger (all else equal) and visibility is VASTLY improved.

I was going to say (write) exactly that the other day... Excellent point!

A, B & C-pillars are already thicker than is practical for visibility, so as

far as I'm concerned these new regulations are throwing out the baby

with the bathwater by ignoring PREVENTATIVE SAFETY!

Thanks Feds!

[Sixty8panther]

....there should be a hardtop option for more cars besides a couple of Mercedes and the Continental GT.

And there you have it! 100% agreed.

Here's a BRILLIANT idea:

don't call it a HARDTOP, call it a "fixed roof convertible"

or "non-retractable-hardtop" if not to the public at

least in official litterature, that would make the regualtion

obsolete/irrelevant sice it would not be a sedan in the

eyes of our intrusive, dumb as rocks federal government.

[A Horse With No Name]

I've seen plenty of rolled and squashed Suburbans, trucks, etc. Not so much with cars. Usually it's driver error--too fast, change lanes too quickly, etc.

Ditto here, but around me most of the pick em ups are driven by contractors and farmers, and most of them don't do stupid stuff. But go into any junkyard and you will (thankfully!) find a ton of Kia, Toyota, Jeep Compass, etc. which have been rolled over.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

The current CL600 was said by Mercedes to have equal or greater

roof structure and side impact protection than a 2dr sedan, they

even stated it in black & white in an ad back in apring 2007.

I was going to say (write) exactly that the other day... Excellent point!

A, B & C-pillars are already thicker than is practical for visibility, so as

far as I'm concerned these new regulations are throwing out the baby

with the bathwater by ignoring PREVENTATIVE SAFETY!

Thanks Feds!

Actually you bring up a good point...the big C and B pillars of todays cars are wide enough to support the Brooklyn Bridge. It is MUCH easier to see out of an older 50's or 60's era car.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

You guys.... I don't advocate the rules...Just letting you know-

Yes I burn rubber and like fun cool cars- but this is real stuff from big brother.

I drive cars and push the limits sometimes, so I like the idea of a built-in rollbar

in my Camaro- it doesn't bother me...

Convertibles are exempt from roof crush tests because they don't have roofs

Side impact tests are also changing- Volvos that are safe now will need reinforcing!

Side Impact tests will simulate sliding into a pole sideways w/ force= (about 42mph)- Voilent!

A very small amount of cockpit intrusion is allowed....super B pillars and fat A pillars

are coming and they don't look good. sorry.

Vert' Cliff notes:

NHTSA Continues Convertibles' Exemption from Roof-Crush Rules

Situation

1. NHTSA to upgrade standard for roof-crush resistance for 1st time since 1971

2. Won't hold convertibles, including retractable hardtops, to fixed-roof vehicle standards

3. Won't impose convertible-specific rollover rules such as requiring roll bars

4. German, Swedish automakers proactive in past 15 years in protecting occupants in rollover

5. Strengthened A-pillars, windshield frame to withstand rollover; engineered roll bar systems

6. Convertibles look less safe in rollover but less likely to be involved in rollovers

Significant Points

1. Federal law says NHTSA can't regulate vehicle type of existence; means can't apply standard that no convertible can meet

2. Manufacturers offering roll bars say offer some protection

3. Rollover safety equipment not tied to premium-priced vehicles

4. Safety advocates undecided on response to roof-crush proposal; say roll bars probably not sufficient in rollover

5. Convertible rollovers accounted for less than 1% of US rollover deaths in 2004

Background

1. Key provisions of proposed new fixed-roof vehicle standards are:

2. Increase force applied in testing to 2.5 times vehicle's unloaded weight

3. Requirement for maintenance of enough headroom for mid-sized adult male

4. Extend roof-crush resistance rule to vans, trucks, buses w/ gross weight of 6K-10K pounds

Thought for the day:

If we didn't have to design and install all the crap the Feds demand, or protect unbelted occupants....

Vehicles would probably cost approx. $ 5000 less then they do now... at least 5g!

What is the real cost of safety? where does it end?

It doesn't. All cars will require side curtain Airbags by 2013 Oh noooooooo!

PS I don't wanna talk about safety any more. - but I had to defend GM ( too much koolaid)

Get ready for Woodward updates bitches!!!!

This means alas even cars like the VW GTI (which wiegh as much as a first gen Camaro) will weigh about what a fully loaded Thunderbird did before Ford did away with it...

OUCH!

Chris

[balthazar]

Why do you guys quote ENTIRE lengthy posts so it appears 3 or 4 times on one page ??????????