Whatever happened to T-Tops??

[RollTideMom]

I have really started something here but I love all the feedbacks. @ HumanWiki - you totally have the point that I was trying to make - why are convertibles different from t tops?? just crazy!! It is still a car, driving the same roads, with the same idiots, or vice versa, lol

[RollTideMom]

Originally Posted by MyIBMssRS

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.

Now that's what I am talking about. Just makes no sense!!

[Cbrenthus]

Originally Posted by MyIBMssRS

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.

As mentioned before, you are trying to use logical thinking when dealing with government issues. The government is messed up, nothing makes sense. You know why we don't have street legal quads when many other countries do? Its because they have four wheels. There are production trikes, but no production 4 wheelers, because then they would be a car and subject to all the restrictions cars have one them.

The laws keep getting stricter every year, which is why they could make t-tops in the 80s and nineties, but not now.

As for convertibles vs coupes, I think the governments reasoning is that when a person buys a convertible, they know there isn't any top protection, whereas with a coupe they expect it.

Once again, I'm not saying GM couldn't have made t-tops, I'm just saying they are probably cost prohibitive in that they would cost more than people are willing to pay, and the high cost is do to the engineering required to meet federal safety standards, move the airbags around, etc.

[blaSSt]

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?

The Vert would not meet the standard for hardtop cars.

By law hardtop cars are held to a standard that convertibles are not.

I believe the T-Top car will not be considered a convertible, therefore it will be held to hardtop standards. Which the T-Top car with VERT bracing would not meet.

[blaSSt]

Originally Posted by MyIBMssRS

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.

I do not think anyone (even the government) believes the convertible has the same protection as a hardtop in a rollover incident.

It does not have to either.

Government regulations often don't make sense.

An exception has been made to allow convertibles.

If you prefer the government to become even more of a nanny state and take even more control of yours and everyones life, then you probably want equal protection for all vehicles. That likely results in the elimination of convertibles, motorcycles, etc., etc. etc. and many more freedoms.

[bluez]

Originally Posted by Blownhotrodder

You would think that with the corvette having a targa top, the camaro could still have t tops.

That sounds about right. I think the main obstacle is marketing, not safety. If the Corvette can have a targa top, then the Camaro can have t-tops.

[upflying]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

The Vert would not meet the standard for hardtop cars.

By law hardtop cars are held to a standard that convertibles are not.

I believe the T-Top car will not be considered a convertible, therefore it will be held to hardtop standards. Which the T-Top car with VERT bracing would not meet.

[Cam#7]

Hey the good news is that the government did make exceptions for convertibles. There was a time when they almost died. Right when T-Tops became available in the mid 70's I believe the Cadillac Eldorado was marketed as the last convertible.

So there has to be some history behind convertibles getting safety exceptions or we wouldn't have them today.

Missouri requires motorcyle riders to wear helments; an obvious safety consideration. Yet there's plenty of states that don't require it.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by HumanWiki

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.

Because a T-top begins it's life engineered as a solid roof, then at some point in the engineering or production process the integral structural components are removed (the area around the doors), and it cannot be classified another way.

A convertible is classified as such because it is what it is. It starts life as a convertible, and it's not a solid roof with the whole roof missing.

[HumanWiki]

Originally Posted by fastball

Because a T-top begins it's life engineered as a solid roof, then at some point in the engineering or production process the integral structural components are removed (the area around the doors), and it cannot be classified another way.

A convertible is classified as such because it is what it is. It starts life as a convertible, and it's not a solid roof with the whole roof missing.

Classifications are only as such because people choose the criteria. Again, if a group wanted to classify a T-Top in the same category as a convertible due to safety regulations and structural weaknesses, it could be so. The fact that it started life as a coupe is irrelevant if it's going to be listed as an exception.

It's just changing a list item for purposes of exemption. It's not really that complicated.

[Lynnspeed]

WOW I WANT T~TOPS!!!!

Thats looks awesome!

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by HumanWiki

Classifications are only as such because people choose the criteria. Again, if a group wanted to classify a T-Top in the same category as a convertible due to safety regulations and structural weaknesses, it could be so. The fact that it started life as a coupe is irrelevant if it's going to be listed as an exception.

It's just changing a list item for purposes of exemption. It's not really that complicated.

The government decides what category a car represents. This way, the public has standards for what a convertible is. If GM thought a convertible didn't have a roof, but Ford said it had a solid roof, then the Ford would always outperform on certain tests. That wouldn't be fair. By having a non-biased third party (government) make those calls, the tests are fair. The Camaro scored very well on every test the government put to it, mainly because GM put it through much worse in product development.

I do agree that T-tops should have some sort of existence for those who want them. From a performance standpoint, however, they don't have the same ride quality as a coupe because they will not have the reinforcement that a roof provides. Even though GM did a great job on providing support on the new convertible, I think it would be ridiculous of enthusiasts to assume that any high-performance, non-coupe Camaro would perform on the same level with the same ride quality as a Camaro coupe.

Also, T-tops serve little to no function for most drivers and are used about as frequently as sunroofs. I almost never see sunroofs open, and I have yet to see anyone who has T-tops use them on the road. Let's not forget that using T-tops requires manually removing them from the car. If you put them in the trunk, you lose the trunk space. If you drop them, they crack and break. If you scratch them, your T-tops risk leaking. GM doesn't want its buyers to perceive a quality issue when the real issue is that people don't always take care of their cars the way they should.

Basically, GM has a lot of reasons not to offer T-tops. Even if it could be done affordably and within federal guidelines, let's remember that no one else offers T-tops for good reason. If you want them, be prepared to pay the aftermarket enough to forget about forced induction for a while.

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by montreal2010yellow

There's seems to be no official GM plans but there are some prototypes around. Make an Image search on Google.

Here's a example.

I like the idea.

Attachment 214681

See...now THAT I could do!

LOVE IT!!!

And yes, I'd add T-Tops to my CGM if I could. I've had them for 8 years and miss them more than ya'll know. Glass roof...solid roof...no roof....talk about nice being able to have the best of ALL worlds. That was a HUGE plus of T-tops. Yes, I'd love them...yes, I know they are not possible unless a big chunch o' change is spent.

But, I think that pic above looks great. I LIKE it.