"jjhats" (ssaxman)
06/19/2015 at 19:42 • Filed to: None
6
15|
"jjhats" (ssaxman)
06/19/2015 at 19:42 • Filed to: None | 6
| 15 |
seem able to make these:
but then not able to make these:
the way i see it there are roughly 2 dozen car models for sale with both a fixed roof coupe and a convertible body style. in almost every case the fixed roof models have fixed rear windows and a physical b pillar. they already have the engineering of the sliding rear windows and b pillars within the convertible models. The majority of structural improvements and weight in the convertible models are due to the fact that there is no roof. surely just having a roof even sans b pillar would leave these structural improvements uneccesary. additionally in every convertible model the beltline stays the same when compared to the coupe models and all the convertibles obviously passed the crash test. finally in almost all cases the convertible model is never more than 2-3k more expensive over the coupe so im wondering why the pillarless coupe is an extinct creature besides the mercedes and rolls royce models that have it. Get to work auto industry!
ly2v8-Brian
> jjhats
06/19/2015 at 20:05 |
|
Mercedes E and S coupes do.
|
jjhats
> ly2v8-Brian
06/19/2015 at 20:06 |
|
I already acknowledged those
|
ly2v8-Brian
> jjhats
06/19/2015 at 20:09 |
|
Not the current ones. They are pillar-less coupes
FromCanadaWithLove
> jjhats
06/19/2015 at 20:16 |
|
Volvo tried it with the Concept Estate.
And BMW is glassing out the B pillar to try and hide it, but I imagine safety regulations are in the way.
|
jjhats
> ly2v8-Brian
06/19/2015 at 20:22 |
|
“ so im wondering why the pillarless coupe is an extinct creature besides the mercedes and rolls royce models that have it.”
|
jjhats
> FromCanadaWithLove
06/19/2015 at 20:23 |
|
The safety argument is complete bull. If they can get the 2,4, and 6 convertibles to pass how is putting those windows in the coupes going to fail the test.
EDIT: also just looked up the volvo concept and can't find any photos with windows down. I don't know where they would go considerably the rear window stretches to the back of the car and would stop midway after hitting the rear wheels
DrScientist
> jjhats
06/19/2015 at 20:27 |
|
ill take the 8 please. doesnt even have to be that alpina.
|
FromCanadaWithLove
> jjhats
06/19/2015 at 20:29 |
|
It’s probably cheaper to have the B pillar, but I agree.
TheOnelectronic
> jjhats
06/19/2015 at 21:49 |
|
Convertibles usually have a roll bar or something similar in the event of a rollover. This would add a lot of unnecessary weight to a hardtop, which most automakers are trying to avoid in this age of high mileage standards.
Garrett Davis
> jjhats
06/24/2015 at 00:11 |
|
To continue our conversation in the original thread...
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it cannot hold convertibles, including retractable hardtops, to the same roof-crush requirements as vehicles with fixed roofs. The agency also has decided against convertible-specific rollover rules, such as requiring roll bars. - See more at: http://autoweek.com/article/car-ne…
...Is why.
If you want a pillar-less body these days, you’ve got to pay top dollar. This kind of thing is very expensive to produce while still meeting safety standards.
|
jjhats
> Garrett Davis
06/24/2015 at 08:21 |
|
you have no clue what youre talking about, I guarantee you convertibles don't have a "free pass" why do you think they all have rollover bars and popup headrests to protect passengers? why do you think they have thick pillars and high beltlines? why does the wrangler get tested and more bloated/safer every generation? im not able to link right now because kinja but google ford mustang aces nhtsa crash tests. the last gen convertible got 5 stars in every category
|
Garrett Davis
> jjhats
06/24/2015 at 12:20 |
|
How is that what you took from this?
It’s not like they get a free pass, they just don’t have to meet the same standards for roll over protection as coupes and sedans. They still have their own guidelines of course, especially for side impact, where I’m pretty sure the standards are the same.
This is just talking about the latest roof crush ratings, which in fixed roof vehicles, they need to withstand 2.5 times the vehicle’s weight as opposed to the previous rating of 1.5 times. My entire point is that it is much more expensive to build a structure with only 4 spread apart connections and no support in the center and still meet those ratings. The alternative is to have B and even C pillars depending on the vehicle in the center to help that along. These are much simpler structures and don’t require as high quality of materials.
Again, absolutely no where did I say that convertibles get a free pass, just in rollover and roof crush tests. Also, there are lots of reasons why cars in general have gotten larger and more bloated, and yes safety is a big reason. For as much as people claim they want the hardcore experience with the Wrangler, options like power windows/locks heated seats and the more luxurious interior are more popular than ever. People want the rugged looks, but not the inconvenience.
|
jjhats
> Garrett Davis
06/24/2015 at 12:48 |
|
and again you act like the cost is the reason why it isn’t done and imply Mercedes cost 85k because they have no b pillars. this isn’t true. the only example you have is a Renault Aventine which is a big mpv with no convertible version to share parts. no shit its not gonna work its a big long car. I stand by the fact that it would not be prohibitively expensive to do it from the get go and its just easier for carmakers to have b pillars. just as removing the roof in convertibles weakens the side impact, removing the b pillar weakens the top impact. carmakers somehow manage to get the convertibles to pass the side crash so they should be able to pass the top impact easily too
|
Garrett Davis
> jjhats
06/24/2015 at 13:06 |
|
Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m just saying that the only vehicles we’ve seen this on in recent years have been either overly expensive for their category, or already expensive luxury cars. There is a lot that has to be done in convertibles to maintain chassis rigidity as well, another thing that brings the cost up. For instance:
The Mustang V6 starts at $23k and the V6 convertible starts at $29k.
The V6 Camaro starts at $24k, and the convertible starts at $32.
The 228i coupe starts at $32k and the convertible starts at $39k
The Audi A3 starts at $29k and the convertible starts at $36k
Now I realize that part of this cost is the top itself, but if you take something like the Mustang, which already has very tight margins in lower trims, and add $3-4k to the base price, you’re going to have a lot of problems. All the vehicles I listed are costed down to the razor edge at their starting price. It is extremely competitive at these segments and any way manufacturers can beat out their competitors in price is huge. The benefits of racing the cost at these price points probably don’t outweigh the cons. People are already very wary of how expensive cars are getting these days, and the manufacturers know it.
dogisbadob
> jjhats
07/10/2015 at 20:27 |
|
or even this
