Whatever happened to T-Tops??

[fastball]

According to the NHTSA, a convertible classification eliminates the roll over and side head impact protection ratings from the overall general safety performance of a vehicle.

A vehicle with T-tops would still be classified as a coupe and thus would be subjected to all the standard federal safety ratings. A T-top without curtain airbags and a roof rail system above the door will fail miserably any roll over or side impact head protection ratings.

Even if it were a feasible option, GM would be completely insane to build any car in 2011 that fails important safety ratings...... EVEN THOUGH the convertible would perform even worse.

The reclassification of the car allows GM to still advertise the convertible as a 4 or 5 star safety rated vehicle...... because in the world of convertibles it IS a very safe car.

[Cam#7]

This whole discussion brings up an interesting point about insurance. Has anyone compared insurance on Gen5 coupe versus convertible ? You would think the convertible be quite a bit more because of the lack of safety factors for riders in the convertible. But then, when have you every heard of a convertible involved in accident that it flipped. Maybe convertible drivers are more cautious and more defensive in their driving as a whole.

Let's see if anyone knows the cost difference on an equivalent model ?

[CFD]

I remember in years past seeing many of them, on the side of the highways.

[United_727]

My 2000 Z28 had CC1 t's . I loved taking them off in the Summer ......

[RollTideMom]

Originally Posted by Cam#7

This whole discussion brings up an interesting point about insurance. Has anyone compared insurance on Gen5 coupe versus convertible ? You would think the convertible be quite a bit more because of the lack of safety factors for riders in the convertible. But then, when have you every heard of a convertible involved in accident that it flipped. Maybe convertible drivers are more cautious and more defensive in their driving as a whole.

Let's see if anyone knows the cost difference on an equivalent model ?

Good question! Who knows what the difference in insurance?

[blaSSt]

Originally Posted by thespymaster

I mean people are paying $6500 from Drop Top Customs , I sure GM could figure this out for half that amount...............

Drop Top Customs is not required to meet government standards. GM is. No way that's comparable.

Originally Posted by Rip

Yes, it's illogical to say you can have a convertible but not T's based on safety. Again, don't even try to use logic when you're talking about laws.

Originally Posted by kr juice 1

yeah how is not having the tt's any less safe than having a convertible!!!

The government is not logical. Thank goodness they make an exception for convertibles or there wouldn't be any.

[kr juice 1]

now i don't know if it was a coinky dink but i did see a convertible stang owner flip his ride in a bit of stupidity.....does it happen as often who knows....i think if you are a dangerous driver doesn't really matter what you are in you still are going to drive crazy

[upflying]

Thankfully t-tops disappeared with disco music and rusted floor pans.

[HumanWiki]

Originally Posted by fastball

According to the NHTSA, a convertible classification eliminates the roll over and side head impact protection ratings from the overall general safety performance of a vehicle.

A vehicle with T-tops would still be classified as a coupe and thus would be subjected to all the standard federal safety ratings. A T-top without curtain airbags and a roof rail system above the door will fail miserably any roll over or side impact head protection ratings.

Even if it were a feasible option, GM would be completely insane to build any car in 2011 that fails important safety ratings...... EVEN THOUGH the convertible would perform even worse.

The reclassification of the car allows GM to still advertise the convertible as a 4 or 5 star safety rated vehicle...... because in the world of convertibles it IS a very safe car.

What we're all talking about though is the stupidity of throwing out regulations because there is no top. If a car with no top rolls over and your head is above the body line.. You're toast, period.

The sheer stupidity of being able to disregard laws for safety because a car has no roof is the debate here. You can't harp on safety, safety, safety about coupes and such and then turn right around and exclude a convertible. It makes 0 sense. They're both cars. They're both going to be involved in the same scenarios that could lead to a roll over. They're both going to be driven by a general driver. That's the irritation. We can't have T-Tops because the people making the laws are morons.

People love to talk crash test ratings. Great. Awesome. That still doesn't explain why non-protected two wheeled vehicles occupy the same space. They have nothing in the way of actual protection, but they're sold. The rider assumes the risk that if s/he hits something, there's a good chance they're going to be seriously injured or killed. Anyways, that's a totally different argument. I just use it here to prove some of the stupidity surrounding what is a numbers game. A convertible and a coupe are created and both meet certain impact criteria and that's great... However, when the coupe rolls over it's totally different than the vert rolling over. So, why not allow T-Tops but classify them along with Convertibles and be done with it. People buying a T-Top car would assume the same risk as a vert.

[Cbrenthus]

I understand all the government BS, but I'm also wondering why they can make the corvette targa top and no t-tops on the camaro. I have a few possibilities:

first, maybe they just designed the vette knowing that they had to have the targa top, and had to design it around the top.

Maybe the regulations are different for 4 seaters then 2 seaters

Maybe the current regulations only apply to new vehicles, and the vette is grandfathered in.

Or, and I think this is the most likely, GM is able to meet the regulations with the vette, and it costs $20K more. They probably found that to do t-tops on the camaro and meet specs would have been several thousand or so more per car, and people buy camaros because they are cheap. I bought the cheapest 1SS I could, and while I would have paid more for t=tops, I would have only paid a grand or 2, not 5 or 6.

So, long story short, I bet GM did a study and found that while they could do them, few people would have paid what it would cost.

[Andro]

[thespymaster]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

Drop Top Customs is not required to meet government standards. GM is. No way that's comparable.

My point if GM meets standards with VERT bracing, why couldn't the same VERT bracing be applied to a T-TOP version by GM?

[Cam#7]

Originally Posted by thespymaster

My point if GM meets standards with VERT bracing, why couldn't the same VERT bracing be applied to a T-TOP version by GM?

Did the VERT bracing have anything to do with Safety standards and more about reducing cowl shake?

[MyIBMssRS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards make it all but impossible to have T-tops. Roof Crush and Side Impact standards are very difficult to meet today. I can't even imagine the difficulty in having a roof rail airbag with a T-top.

Sorry

I have a hard time buying that Federal Safety Standard crap... If you can certify a convertible why can't you certify a t-top car in similar fasion.
My first car was an '89 Daytona with t-tops (my parents wouldn't let me buy a 3rd gen Camaro or Firebird), and I loved cruising with the tops off on that thing. I see no reason that you can call a convertible with absolutly no top safer than a car with t-tops.

You mean to tell me if a new Camaro rolled over that windshield hoop will protect everyone inside? So if there's someone in the back seat and the Camaro is upside down their head will be protected? Uhh, no. A t-top car would have full protection all the way around.