snyler wrote:
>
> Cut a hole in the box-top without disturbing the side rails of the top
> and you have a roadster-box, Pretty rigid, but still open ;-)
> >
>
No, you don't - you have a coupe w/a sunroof, and if you cut a big enough hole,
it's going
to be a Flexi-Flyer.
>
> A roadster is a 2 seat, open-topped car designed as an open-topped car.
> Not a coupe with the top cut of and *retrofitted* with extra stiffening.
> The Miata is a roadster, a convertible Z is a convertible. The Miata
> is a unibody car designed to be open, so no *extra* stiffening is used
> (i.e. put in after initial manufacture). The difference, admittedly, is
> mainly semantic, but there you go.
> And to the second question, yes. I'd prefer a small, 2 seat, 4 cyl
> purpose built roadster, taking design cues from our beloved little cars (
> Without botching it, preferably) It should have the spirit of the
> roadster, Not a prop from "Logan's Run"
>
> -marc.
>
It all depends upon the design approach taken, and whether or not the decision
to build a
convertible version of a car is made early on, or if the marketing pukes decide
later,
after the chassis design is fixed, that they could grab some additional market
share w/a
topless version of the car. The new Corvette is a good example of doing it
right - the
hardtop and convertible chassis were developed at the same time, so the
"roadster" version
has stiffening built-in to the chassis which the hardtop doesn't require - and
it's
heavier because of it.
Working with your personal definitions of "roadster" and "convertible", there's
no reason
to assume that the topless version of the new Z won't be a "roadster" - with a
chassis
designed from the ground up to retain a reasonable level of torsional rigidity
in the
absence of the reinforcing effect of a rigid roof. Of course, it'll still be
ugly ;^)
>
> ==========================================================================
> Marc Tyler
> Designer,
> Animal Firm
> 830-324-6578
> www.animalfirm.com
|