Balthazar said it all.

And BTW: most of you so called conehead "enthusiasts" do not know and can not appreciate

something as gorgeous and timeless as a Dual Cowl Phaeton or a Ruble Seat Roadster, so

while you think my opinion is ,lame it's quite the opposite from where I'm sitting. :wink:

I can appreciate and know very well what you like and speak of of hard tops. I liked it too but full understand somethings are nust not able to be done at this time or place. In the future with new computer designs and new materials might returned to use the cars we love.

But now we have to be realistic and understand we have a company with more goverment reqs and compitition than ever. We also have a company fighting to come back from the brink. The hard top is just real high on the list of to do things that cost money right now. When GM builds a car they have to make some hard decisions and tis was one I am sure they did not take lightly. They have to do what is best for the majority to make a car secsessful. This time the pillar won and the hard top lost. This may change next time?

I think most here don't think your wacked over this one point but most of us just hope you understand it is not a thing easily done right now.

That is unless you have some way you can meet all the criteria needed to build this that all the good folks at GM has not figured out. You do know the show car is what they would like to have done so your not alone.

Edited October 2, 200718 yr by hyperv6

I was just kidding when I said that.

I know, but it got me thinking about how it might be done.

AAS :>>"We are all ASSUMING that the convertible will have "no B-pillar and back windows that roll down," but have we even seen the concept convertible with the top up? What if the production version ends up like the last generation convertible (just the window in the door)? That kind of kills the argument of "if they are designing the convertible without a B-pillar then why not just make the hard top off that platform.""<<

No it would not. A convertible shell/unibody needs to be designed with safey in mind in the event of side impacts. Regardless of whether the convertible top features a coupe style (no rear side glass) or not, there is no roof and no attached B-pillar in the convert for strength. Therefore, the sides & floor system need additional reinforcement for reasonable passenger safety. No one has yet offered up as to why the same shell/unibody with a welded-on roof would not also be used under a hardtop Camaro. It is not safety (convertible is unquestionably less safe than a hardtop), it is not weight (negligable), it is not cost (the same shell under the convert & hardtop would save massive amounts of development/engineering money).... To be honest, I believe that the economies of scale may show a net cost advantage if production gets high enough because a fixed quarter window would be cheaper than a hardtop (no sealing/wind noise issues, no window regulators, power motors, wiring, tracks, etc)... if you ignore the R&D/testing of the 2 separate approaches.

The arrangement of the convertible top/quarter window (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with this issue from a structural standpoint.

hyperv6 :>>"In the future with new computer designs and new materials it meya be returned to the cars we love."<<

Like steel, rubber, glass & plastic?

AAS :>>"We are all ASSUMING that the convertible will have "no B-pillar and back windows that roll down," but have we even seen the concept convertible with the top up? What if the production version ends up like the last generation convertible (just the window in the door)? That kind of kills the argument of "if they are designing the convertible without a B-pillar then why not just make the hard top off that platform.""<<

No it would not. A convertible shell/unibody needs to be designed with safey in mind in the event of side impacts. Regardless of whether the convertible top features a coupe style (no rear side glass) or not, there is no roof and no attached B-pillar in the convert for strength. Therefore, the sides & floor system need additional reinforcement for reasonable passenger safety. No one has yet offered up as to why the same shell/unibody with a welded-on roof would not also be used under a hardtop Camaro. It is not safety (convertible is unquestionably less safe than a hardtop), it is not weight (negligable), it is not cost (the same shell under the convert & hardtop would save massive amounts of development/engineering money).... To be honest, I believe that the economies of scale may show a net cost advantage if production gets high enough because a fixed quarter window would be cheaper than a hardtop (no sealing/wind noise issues, no window regulators, power motors, wiring, tracks, etc)... if you ignore the R&D/testing of the 2 separate approaches.

...

Totally agree... I was just trying to bring up the point that we don't even know if the 'vert will have back windows (that roll down), so its sort of a waste to even make the argument that the "pilarless hardtop" can be done because the convertible will be "pilarless."

When have you ever seen a convertible where the rear windows don't roll down ??

EDIT:: My bad- I think I see what you're saying; that the convertible might NOT have ANY quarter windows. With the width of the Camaro C-pillar already- that would make for a HUGE 'C-pillar' with the top up- I would put up cash money that wouldn't happen for that reason alone, not to mention once again: to develop the 2 different shells (this one would admittedly be a minor change) would be a waste of money. The markedly different look of the convert (roof up) and the steel roof car is another consideration: it would change the look of a car that is primarily about 'The Look'. The convert WILL have quarter windows without a doubt.

Edited October 3, 200718 yr by balthazar

Assuming the convertible has lowerable rear quarter windows, then if the aftermarket offers a bolt on fiberglass hardtop (like is available for Mustangs), then the no-B pillar obsessives will have an option to get their hardtop and can shut up about it..

The Mustang top is an imported power-retractable sliver of a roof with only a passing resemblence to the factory styling.

Frankly, I think it looks bad; real cheap. Maybe somebody will 'gotta have' it, but I doubt there'll be many takers.

This unlikely possibility {aftermarket roof for the 'maro} overlooks the formidable price increase involved, too (convert $ tag + aftermarket top/shipping/installation). How many grand away from the announced base price steel roof WITH no B-pillar (if only) are we at now: 15K??

Edited October 4, 200718 yr by balthazar

You could always just cut the B-pillar out.

Did you intend to leave a 5" gap between the windows, or fill that with silicone?

I know you're joking, but the joke has been repeated enough that I'm afraid some people actually think that it's a possibility.

The Mustang top is an imported power-retractable sliver of a roof with only a passing resemblence to the factory styling.

I wasn't talking about that Mustang power hardtop.. I'm talking about the aftermarket lift-off hardtops...that's all.

Tried to tell ya 5 months ago:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...showtopic=17056

This could be a mod for those who really want it. Maybe this means t-tops are still possible.

Welcome to C&G SS22, and thanks for those chops.

They confirm for me that I never want to see T-tops on this car. :AH-HA_wink:

I dunno, I kinda like it with the tops off.

Balthazar said it all.

And BTW: most of you so called conehead "enthusiasts" do not know and can not appreciate

something as gorgeous and timeless as a Dual Cowl Phaeton or a Ruble Seat Roadster, so

while you think my opinion is ,lame it's quite the opposite from where I'm sitting. :wink:

You fight opinion with opinion to condemn others. Irony?