![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:41 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
... have a large B pillar, or a large C pillar?
It seems like a lot of vehicles lately have gone for the latter. I mean, all in the name of safety or something, right? In the event your 4,000 lb vehicle rolls over, something has to hold the roof up. This got me thinking - would having a larger B pillar be that bad, or would it restrict visibility worse than having a big C pillar?
Also, the rising belt-line. I also get it that it's in the name of safety, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I mean, when is the last time you saw a vehicle that had good rear and side visibility?
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:47 |
|
no B-pillar is best.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:49 |
|
I'd rather have larger C-pillars. In fact, my car has rather thin B's and huge C's (frameless windows).
Of course, there's the 3rd-gen Camaro/Firebird, which combines the B and C pillars, B/C pillar :p
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:51 |
|
I want that D!
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:55 |
|
Which ever creates the best visibility and still manages to be "aesthetically pleasing"
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:56 |
|
I'VE GOT AN IDEA!!!
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:57 |
|
Amen! Really though, Why don't we see more blacked out, but larger B pillars? I think there's some unexplored potential there.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:57 |
|
I'm trying to remember what vehicle it was that I saw earlier this week that I thought would make an awesome wagon. The world needs more awesome wagons.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:58 |
|
It does make me wonder though - if a person was to make a thinner but longer B pillar, how much would that obstruct visibility?
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:58 |
|
I want to make a joke about having a large D pillar, but I'll subside and say that no B pillar is best and a larger C pillar is okay.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 18:59 |
|
I wonder how well those hold up in rollover situations. My wife was watching Cocoon the other day, and I noticed that the old car there had no B pillar as well. Maybe not so practical for northern climates.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 19:12 |
|
the German's would probably do all right.
The Ford would be a deathtrap.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 19:13 |
|
Exactly - I am one of those "a look is better than mirrors" types - B blocks less than C if I'm changing lanes, so bigger C is OK as long as it's not like a panel van.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 19:41 |
|
Why not have both? On this one they were so wide they fusioned.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 19:56 |
|
I think a thick C pillar is easier to pull off stylistically. And the rising belt line isn't a total necessity - it's part current fashion, part customer perception, part expediency. More glass means more weight and more cost and more reinforcing to keep rigidity, which adds more weight and cost.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 22:05 |
|
I can picture it - it works well until the 80,000 km mark, then requires a $1400 seal replacement, otherwise it leaks, gets your seats wet, and causes electrical problems.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 22:06 |
|
Interesting. I can't say I have ever seen something quite like that before.
![]() 11/20/2014 at 23:13 |
|
the Ford?
the BMW and Merc wouldn't even need water for their electricals to start bio-degrading.
![]() 11/21/2014 at 00:03 |
|
I was thinking the Germans.
The Ford would develop a leak because of a broken $0.68 plastic clip that disintegrates after a few years. It's cheap, but it takes 4 hours of labour to replace.