This weeks new Aston: DBS Volante

[Famine]

I also don't know why you or Famine are bringing up cars that are not convertibles. The S2000, the Radical, the Atom, the X-Bow, & the Miata are not convertibles unless they all have secret retractable roofs. These are roadsters. There is a difference, and again, Famine knows that.

Wait... The S2000 and MX-5 aren't convertibles?

Really?

As for why convertibles aren't the first choice for racing, well, it's obvious.

Well, you might want to pen your thoughts and mail them to Max5, Spec Miata and the Tuscan Challenge, amongst others.

When a car has to feature a mechanism that allows the roof to fold up or back, we all know, weight, safety, handling, & anything else can become greatly effected.

Indeed.

Mazda MX-5 Mk3 (NC) 2.0i Sport: Weight - 1,095kg/2,414lb; 0-60mph - 7.6s; Top speed - 131mph
Mazda MX-5 Mk3 (NC) 2.0i Sport Roadster Coupe: Weight - 1,132kg/2,495lb (+3.3%) ; 0-60mph - 7.9s (+3.9%); Top speed - 134mph (+2.2%)

And that's with a giant sheet of metal and a power folding mechanism instead of a manual cloth roof.

Doesn't seem all that "greatly effected" (sic) to me.


Aaaaanyway, point is that taking the roof off a car doesn't automagically make it soft - or softer than a coupe version of it. And if it does make any difference, sure as hell you or I aren't going to have the ability to notice where the difference actually is.

 

[McLaren]

Wait... The S2000 and MX-5 aren't convertibles?

Really?

I stand corrected on the Miata, but I have yet to see a S2000 retracting a top in any way.

Well, you might want to pen your thoughts and mail them to Max5, Spec Miata and the Tuscan Challenge, amongst others.

Notice how most of your argument revolves around the 1 car that manages to be the exception to racing convertibles, i.e., the Miata.

As I said, convertibles are generally not the first choice. If they were, we'd be seeing a lot more M3 Conv's., 911 Turbo Conv's., F430 Spyders, Corvette Conv's., Viper Conv's., etc. etc. over the Coupes at track days. But, from every event & all the pictures I've seen, we don't. It's always the coupes, and rarely any convertibles.

I'm not saying you can't race them, but there is a reason why you don't see people running out and buying 335i convertibles or 911 convertibles expecting them to make good track cars over the coupes. They're just not engineered or built to do so well compared to the coupes.

The Miata and very, very few others are the only exceptions, and the wiki entry I quoted usually represents as to why the majority of convertibles aren't tracked.

Indeed.

Mazda MX-5 Mk3 (NC) 2.0i Sport: Weight - 1,095kg/2,414lb; 0-60mph - 7.6s; Top speed - 131mph
Mazda MX-5 Mk3 (NC) 2.0i Sport Roadster Coupe: Weight - 1,132kg/2,495lb (+3.3%) ; 0-60mph - 7.9s (+3.9%); Top speed - 134mph (+2.2%)

And that's with a giant sheet of metal and a power folding mechanism instead of a manual cloth roof.

Doesn't seem all that "greatly effected" (sic) to me.

Again, you're talking about the Miata, the one of few cars that can overcome it, probably because it was engineered as a Roadster trim first, and as a Coupe second. I don't know.

Aaaaanyway, point is that taking the roof off a car doesn't automagically make it soft - or softer than a coupe version of it. And if it does make any difference, sure as hell you or I aren't going to have the ability to notice where the difference actually is.

I never said it did. Again, and for the last time, they just aren't generally the first choice.

As for telling the difference, um, yes, you very well be able to see the difference in the lap times. Excluding the Miata, Convertibles are typically not chosen over Coupes for track cars b/c they are not engineered to perform as well. Sometimes they match their Coupe counterparts, but generally, no they don't, and it's a reason why people don't buy M3 or 911 Convertibles over the Coupes.

Corvette C6 Coupe: 1:44.2
Corvette C6 Conv.: 1:46.4
@Autozeitung.

BMW M3 Coupe: 1:40.1
BMW M3 Conv.: 1:41.9
@Autozeitung.

F430 Coupe @ Vairano: 1:17.373
F430 Spyder @ Vairano: 1:18.460

F430 Coupe @ Zolder: 1:45.25
F430 Spyder @ Zolder: 1:46.34
*However, Ferrari claims both versions can lap 1:27.00 exact on Fiorano.

350Z Coupe: 1:24.397
350Z Conv. : 1:25.612
@Vairano.

911 Carrera S: 1:14.3
911 CS Conv.: 1:16.8
@Hock. Short.

These are just examples, and do not include the fact that the coupes are also typically quicker in acceleration. Again, there sometimes are exceptions where the Conv. can match the Coupe, but it's not often, and usually, not even very close.

If someone wants to run a conv. though, good for them. However, they don't need to be confused when they see their lap times aren't near the coupes.

 

[Famine]

I stand corrected on the Miata, but I have yet to see a S2000 retracting a top in any way.

What, do your S2000 drivers keep the roof in place or something?

S2000 = Convertible.

Notice how most of your argument revolves around the 1 car that manages to be the exception to racing convertibles, i.e., the Miata.

I don't have an argument. I'm countering your assertion that convertibles can't be "hardcore sports cars that are built for track days".

As I said, convertibles are generally not the first choice. If they were, we'd be seeing a lot more M3 Conv's., 911 Turbo Conv's., F430 Spyders, Corvette Conv's., Viper Conv's., etc. etc. over the Coupes at track days. But, from every event & all the pictures I've seen, we don't. It's always the coupes, and rarely any convertibles.

Last track day I went on I drove a Max5-spec MX-5. The preceding one had 30 cars including an MX-5, two Elises (one S1, one S2) and a Chimaera.

I just don't get the snobbery here. Why can't a convertible be a track day car?

As for telling the difference, um, yes, you very well be able to see the difference in the lap times.

No, I wouldn't. YOU wouldn't either.

The list of professional racing driver laptimes is all very fascinating, but you missed the bit where I said "And if it does make any difference, sure as hell you or I aren't going to have the ability to notice where the difference actually is."

'Cos we aren't racing drivers. We're people on the internet who say what we think about cars from a picture we've seen of one.

Sometimes they match their Coupe counterparts, but generally, no they don't, and it's a reason why people don't buy M3 or 911 Convertibles over the Coupes.

Are you mad? Of every 10 M3s I see, 7 are convertibles. Driven, usually, by 40-something blondes - who I'm pretty sure won't be dragging vital 10ths from it around Brands.

 

[homeforsummer]

I stand corrected on the Miata, but I have yet to see a S2000 retracting a top in any way.

Last time I checked, you could have the roof either up or down on the S2000... that makes it a convertible. It is also a roadster, but a convertible roadster as opposed to a targa roadster or a roadster with no roof altogether, such as a Renault Spider.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

There's a big difference between those cars & exotic convertibles. They are also not convertibles and you know that. 👎

How are they not?

OOOOH. The top goes up and down. How are the S2000 and Miata any less of convertibles than say, a Mustang 'vert, or an XK 'vert, or or or...

Hm?

 

[McLaren]

What, do your S2000 drivers keep the roof in place or something?

S2000 = Convertible.

I stand corrected again. My buddy brought his over today, and chewed me out when I brought it up.

I don't have an argument. I'm countering your assertion that convertibles can't be "hardcore sports cars that are built for track days".

I never said they couldn't. Don't twist my words. I said the generally aren't the first choice for people.

Last track day I went on I drove a Max5-spec MX-5. The preceding one had 30 cars including an MX-5, two Elises (one S1, one S2) and a Chimaera.

Again, you bring up the Miata. The Elises are not convertibles. They are roadsters.

I just don't get the snobbery here. Why can't a convertible be a track day car?

I never said they couldn't.

No, I wouldn't. YOU wouldn't either.

The list of professional racing driver laptimes is all very fascinating, but you missed the bit where I said "And if it does make any difference, sure as hell you or I aren't going to have the ability to notice where the difference actually is."

We do have the ability. We have the ability by looking at the lap times for the cars. You're just trying to make your point more specific.

The fact is, however, convertibles are usually not faster. Make sure you and everyone reads that again, so you don't try to claim that I said they aren't faster in every way.

'Cos we aren't racing drivers. We're people on the internet who say what we think about cars from a picture we've seen of one.

So if I drive a coupe & a convertible, & my lap times for the coupe are faster, that doesn't matter because I'm not a professional?

Are you mad? Of every 10 M3s I see, 7 are convertibles. Driven, usually, by 40-something blondes - who I'm pretty sure won't be dragging vital 10ths from it around Brands.

Way to twist my sentence into a whole other way.

You know damn well I'm talking about people not buying convertibles over coupes to take to track days. Stop playing your games.

 

[Famine]

I never said they couldn't.

I just hate these companies marketing these cars as hardcore sports cars that are built for track days, and then they build a convertible which completely nulls the point.

Don't twist my words. I said the generally aren't the first choice for people.

No twisting was necessary. See above.

Again, you bring up the Miata. The Elises are not convertibles. They are roadsters.

Elises are convertibles. MX-5s are convertibles. S2000s are convertibles. Griffith is a convertible. If the roof comes away from above your head (by design), it's a convertible.

I never said they couldn't.

I just hate these companies marketing these cars as hardcore sports cars that are built for track days, and then they build a convertible which completely nulls the point.

We do have the ability. We have the ability by looking at the lap times for the cars. You're just trying to make your point more specific.

Again, I don't actually have a point - or argument. I'm pointing out that your assertion isn't correct.

So if I drive a coupe & a convertible, & my lap times for the coupe are faster, that doesn't matter because I'm not a professional?

I drove an MX-3 V6 and a 911 on the same track day. I was faster in the MX-3. Is the MX-3 faster? Of course it isn't.

It's not a fair test - I wasn't used to the 911 (and the way everything points slightly to the left) and my passenger was its owner. And I'm no superdriver either - I'm an ordinary person. And ordinary people like you and I cannot push the limits of a car like the DBS (though I'd wager we could easily crash one) or its Volante version to say exactly what those limits are and where they end in relation to one another.

Way to twist my sentence into a whole other way.

You know damn well I'm talking about people not buying convertibles over coupes to take to track days. Stop playing your games.

I have no idea what you're talking about now. You started off saying that convertible versions of hardcore track day cars "null the point". Then you say people don't buy convertible versions of the M3 and 911 because they're not as fast round a track as the coupes. It appears you're now saying that people don't buy convertibles specifically to go to a track day - though, frankly, if you can show me anyone who buys an Aston Martin DBS specifically to go to a track day, I will fall into a coma from shock.


No games are required. This assertion is incorrect:

I just hate these companies marketing these cars as hardcore sports cars that are built for track days, and then they build a convertible which completely nulls the point.

There is no specific reason why a convertible version of a car cannot be a hardcore sports car built for a track day.

 

[McLaren]

No twisting was necessary. See above.

That doesn't mean I think no convertible can become a track car. You are twisting my words so that you can prove your point.

Elises are convertibles. MX-5s are convertibles. S2000s are convertibles. Griffith is a convertible. If the roof comes away from above your head (by design), it's a convertible.

Elises are not convertibles. They are roadsters. End of discussion.

I drove an MX-3 V6 and a 911 on the same track day. I was faster in the MX-3. Is the MX-3 faster? Of course it isn't.

Completely different scenario. You drove 2 completely different cars.

I'm talking about driving a Coupe Trim & a Convertible Trim of the same car. If 9 out of 10 people with decent track experience can push the Coupe faster, then the fact is that the Coupe is faster. You don't need a professional to validate every single thing.

I have no idea what you're talking about now. You started off saying that convertible versions of hardcore track day cars "null the point". Then you say people don't buy convertible versions of the M3 and 911 because they're not as fast round a track as the coupes. It appears you're now saying that people don't buy convertibles specifically to go to a track day - though, frankly, if you can show me anyone who buys an Aston Martin DBS specifically to go to a track day, I will fall into a coma from shock.

That's what I've been trying to say.

If someone wants to track their car, chances are they will buy the coupe over the convertible trim. Why? B/c convertibles are just usually not as fast.

There is no specific reason why a convertible version of a car cannot be a hardcore sports car built for a track day.

I see no reason either. However, I find it silly for someone like Ferrari to market the 430S as their hardcore track car and the build a Spyder that could potentially end up being slower.

It seems to me Imakuni & TheCracker got my message. Convertibles are typically not fast track cars, and building a 430S Spyder seems to be for the posers (as Imakuni said), and ruin the badge (as TheCracker mentioned) that is "intended" to represent the finest in track car performance. The Spyder just seems like it only hamper that hyped performance.

Of course, I'm only assuming b/c the 430S Spyder has not been tested yet, but I won't be surprised if the coupe is much faster.

 

[Eric.]

Everything is getting blown way out of proportion here. I think we can agree that for most circumstances the convertible/roadster/removable-top/open/any-other-term-you'd-like-to-nitpick version of a car usually is softer. Sure, they can re-engineer it some to eliminate flex, but for damn near any-run-of-the-mill-car-turned convertible, its true.

 

[Famine]

That doesn't mean I think no convertible can become a track car.

No, you were quite clear to say that a convertible version of a car "nulls the point" of it being a hardcore sports car, built for a track day.

You are twisting my words so that you can prove your point.

Not only have I quoted you in full, without addition or omission, but I've also stated very clearly that I am not making a point or entering an argument. I am stating that this assertion is incorrect.

I just hate these companies marketing these cars as hardcore sports cars that are built for track days, and then they build a convertible which completely nulls the point.

Elises are not convertibles. They are roadsters. End of discussion.

"End of discussion" doesn't automatically make you correct. Remember you said that the MX-5 and S2000 weren't a convertibles, since retracted.

If the roof comes off a car, it's a convertible. It converts from a closed vehicle to an open one - though typically a cabriolet retains the roof on the body and a roadster has the roof removed from the body. This doesn't stop companies marketing vehicles like the SLK and MX-5 CC as "roadsters", even though they have a folding metal roof which is entirely retained within the vehicle.

But they're all still convertibles.

Completely different scenario. You drove 2 completely different cars.

What, so my lap times for the MX-3 being faster doesn't matter?

I'm talking about driving a Coupe Trim & a Convertible Trim of the same car. If 9 out of 10 people with decent track experience can push the Coupe faster, then the fact is that the Coupe is faster. You don't need a professional to validate every single thing.

Ah... now you're adding something empirical. 9 out of 10 people with decent track experience. Before it was just you - do YOU have the decent track experience of which you speak?

I know I don't. And if I drove two cars back to back on track, my lap times would be completely irrelevant to the abilities of the cars. So according to both you and I:

So if I drive a coupe & a convertible, & my lap times for the coupe are faster, that doesn't matter because I'm not a professional?

Correct!

That's what I've been trying to say.

If someone wants to track their car, chances are they will buy the coupe over the convertible trim. Why? B/c convertibles are just usually not as fast.

If someone wants to only track their car - though, naturally, I don't agree (having seen the sheer number of deroofable, single-purpose cars on several track days). But then why would they be buying a V12 GT car, coupe or convertible?

Unless their local track is La Sarthe.

I see no reason either. However, I find it silly for someone like Ferrari to market the 430S as their hardcore track car and the build a Spyder that could potentially end up being slower.

It seems to me Imakuni & TheCracker got my message. Convertibles are typically not fast track cars, and building a 430S Spyder seems to be for the posers (as Imakuni said), and ruin the badge (as TheCracker mentioned) that is "intended" to represent the finest in track car performance. The Spyder just seems like it only hamper that hyped performance.

Of course, I'm only assuming b/c the 430S Spyder has not been tested yet, but I won't be surprised if the coupe is much faster.

I'd wager that upwards of 95% of all Aston Martins and Ferraris are bought by "the posers" and never get within a mile of a track day, or 50% of their abilities. Aston's own claimed figure that 75% of all Vanquishes have had to return to the body shop at least once would indicate that the people who buy them aren't, shall we say, "performance-talented".

Everything is getting blown way out of proportion here. I think we can agree that for most circumstances the convertible/roadster/removable-top/open/any-other-term-you'd-like-to-nitpick version of a car usually is softer. Sure, they can re-engineer it some to eliminate flex, but for damn near any-run-of-the-mill-car-turned convertible, its true.

I wouldn't be in a hurry to disagree with this. Cars designed and built as convertibles are, generally speaking, less prone to this than cars designed and built as coupes then converted (haha) later on. But, that doesn't automatically make them any less "hardcore" or track-focussed - and in all but the rarest of cases, the driver probably won't even be able to tell the difference between the two.

 

[nissan tuner]

Most of these high end car manufactures make an extremely rigid chassis so the convertible/targatop version wont be that much different than the coupe version except for maybe top speed & areo

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

At the end of the day, only a professional driver will be able to show the difference between the coupe and the convertible counterpart around a track in most cases, so who really cares about the finer details?

Reventón dislikes true performance cars being made into convertibles because he feels it undermines what the car is designed to be/do.

Famine shares my view that in the majority of cases the driver will not be able to push the car hard enough to show a noticeable difference between the coupe and convertible around a track.

Other factors would affect which car was faster (the coupe or the convertible) LONG before the driver thinks to him/herself 'I should of got the coupe instead'

To the average owner, the decider isn't based on laptimes. They decide on the convertible because they want open-top motoring and a great soundtrack, etc, or they decide on the coupe because they want a sleeker looking car as a motorway cruiser, etc.

 

[Azuremen]

Just wow.

Okay, so despite everyone, in every circle I know, calling the Miata a roadster, it isn't? It is a convertible. Okay.

And the chassis on convertibles can be fine. Dodge Viper, my MR-S, the Miata, the S2000. The fact that you didn't know the S2000 has a power retracting soft top, or the Miata has a retracting soft top, kind of, erm, kills your appearance to have car knowledge.

Modern cars at these levels have a rigid chassis. Look at the Zonda F roadster for example.

 

[homeforsummer]

They decide on the convertible because they want open-top motoring and a great soundtrack

Or because they have a small willy

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Or because they have a small willy

Equally, someone could buy a coupé because they have a toupé...

Sorry.. *grabs coat*

 

[homeforsummer]

 

[McLaren]

No, you were quite clear to say that a convertible version of a car "nulls the point" of it being a hardcore sports car, built for a track day.

No, I said the convertible version of a hard core track car nulls the point because convertibles are typically slower. My post was in reference to the DBS & any car like the 430S.

I'm not discussing this any further either. You'll only continue to make yourself appear right as you always do.

"End of discussion" doesn't automatically make you correct. Remember you said that the MX-5 and S2000 weren't a convertibles, since retracted.

I am correct. The Elise is a roadster.

If the roof comes off a car, it's a convertible. It converts from a closed vehicle to an open one - though typically a cabriolet retains the roof on the body and a roadster has the roof removed from the body. This doesn't stop companies marketing vehicles like the SLK and MX-5 CC as "roadsters", even though they have a folding metal roof which is entirely retained within the vehicle.

See, now you're ignoring all the different terms (roadster, targa, etc.) so once more, you can appear right.

But they're all still convertibles.

Not when there becomes difference classifications for them.

What, so my lap times for the MX-3 being faster doesn't matter?

Not if mine don't.

Ah... now you're adding something empirical. 9 out of 10 people with decent track experience. Before it was just you - do YOU have the decent track experience of which you speak?

I never said it was me before. Before, I said a professional can show the difference. However, you basically said that didn't matter. So I brought up the point that if 9 out of 10 people with decent track experience could set faster laps with a Coupe trim than a Convertible trim, then the Coupe must be faster.

And yeah, I'd say I do have decent track experience. I don't go to MSR or Texas Motor Speedway just to sit on the sidelines.

Correct!

Ok, so not only does it not matter if a professional sets a faster time with a coupe b/c we can't tell the difference, but it also doesn't matter if I, an average person, drives the Coupe faster?

That's retarded. You've basically purposed that neither pro or average joe's lap times mean anything. Whose does then?

If someone wants to only track their car - though, naturally, I don't agree (having seen the sheer number of deroofable, single-purpose cars on several track days). But then why would they be buying a V12 GT car, coupe or convertible?

I've seen people track everything. Don't start trying to go into maximum detail about what cars are right to track and which aren't.

Just wow.
And the chassis on convertibles can be fine. Dodge Viper, my MR-S, the Miata, the S2000. The fact that you didn't know the S2000 has a power retracting soft top, or the Miata has a retracting soft top, kind of, erm, kills your appearance to have car knowledge.

Oh my, god forbid I don't know everything. [/sarcasm]

BTW, I never said anything was wrong with convertible chassis'. They just don't in general perform as well as their coupe counterparts. Some do, and I've said that, but a lot, if not most, don't.

 

[Famine]

I am correct. The Elise is a roadster.

Just like you were correct that the MX-5 and S2000 aren't convertibles.

Of course they are, as is the Elise. Which is also a roadster.

See, now you're ignoring all the different terms (roadster, targa, etc.) so once more, you can appear right.

Actually, you'll find that, if you read, I discussed the differences between cabriolets and roadsters.

Both of which are convertibles.

Not when there becomes difference classifications for them.

Nnno. They're still convertibles in the same respect that they still cars.

You wouldn't contradict "The Elise is a car." with "No it isn't, it's a Roadster", would you?

Convertible = Any car which converts from enclosed to/from exposed. Roadster, cabriolet, targa, power retractable hard top... they are all types of convertible.

Not if mine don't.

So you're agreeing at last. Excellent.

I never said it was me before. Before, I said a professional can show the difference. However, you basically said that didn't matter. So I brought up the point that if 9 out of 10 people with decent track experience could set faster laps with a Coupe trim than a Convertible trim, then the Coupe must be faster.

Ok, so not only does it not matter if a professional sets a faster time with a coupe b/c we can't tell the difference, but it also doesn't matter if I, an average person, drives the Coupe faster?

That's retarded. You've basically purposed that neither pro or average joe's lap times mean anything. Whose does then?

You're mixing two things here... Let's see if we can't unmix them for you.

You can only really say that car A is faster than car B on a given circuit if someone who can exploit the few percent before the limits of both cars drives both on the circuit and posts consistently faster laptimes with car A than car B. Which car is faster depends upon the car, not the driver.

That's thing 1. I trust you don't disagree?

In reality, most of the rest of us cannot exploit the few percent before the limits of any car - though we can easily exceed them. So the reality of both cars is that it doesn't matter whether the professionals can get car A faster than car B or not, because the person driving the car doesn't have the ability to wring the best from it - or the other one. Which car is faster doesn't depend upon the car, but the driver.

That's thing 2. I trust you don't disagree with that either?


So what you end up with is empirical data which is faster (the professionals) - but the reality that it doesn't actually have any bearing which is faster when the average owner is driving.

This is why a professional opinion on the 911 and MX-3 doesn't matter when I drove them both, and why my experience isn't relevant to which is actually faster. This is also why professional testing data of a convertible and a coupe doesn't matter when owners drive them both, and why their experience isn't relevant to which is actually faster.

There is no contradiction.

And yeah, I'd say I do have decent track experience. I don't go to MSR or Texas Motor Speedway just to sit on the sidelines.

Do you believe you have the ability to exploit the limits of any vehicle and generate empirical data on which is faster in a back-to-back test?

I've seen people track everything. Don't start trying to go into maximum detail about what cars are right to track and which aren't.

I've also seen people track many and varied cars - and occupied the circuit with them. But I'm not the one who was trying to exclude a whole section of vehicles from ever being track-oriented. Remember, my statement is that this statement is incorrect:

I just hate these companies marketing these cars as hardcore sports cars that are built for track days, and then they build a convertible which completely nulls the point.

Can a convertible version of a coupe be a hardcore sports car built for a track day? I say they can.

 

[Dave A]

No, I said the convertible version of a hard core track car nulls the point because convertibles are typically slower. My post was in reference to the DBS & any car like the 430S.

I think you'll find it is hardcore track versions of cars where the differences between performace in a coupe and convertable version are most minimal. It's not difficult if the car is designed in the right way to make it just as structurally rigid in convertible form as it is in coupe form, and the same goes for aerodynamics.

I am correct. The Elise is a roadster.

The Elise is a roadster, which is a type of convertible. I think you're struggling here, a convertible is a car that can be converted from an open top into a closed top, it doesn't matter how you convert it from one to the other, it's convertible. Besides that, what diffference does it make if the roof is a targe or a folding soft top, folding hard top etc. None of them use the roof as a key part of the structural rigidity.

BTW, I never said anything was wrong with convertible chassis'. They just don't in general perform as well as their coupe counterparts. Some do, and I've said that, but a lot, if not most, don't.

Plenty don't, you're right. But that doesn't mean that a convertible version of a hard core track car nulls the point. Just because convertible version of car A is slower than the coupe version doesn't mean that the convertible version of car B is slower than it's coupe version. It depends on the car and it's design.

The truth is a coupe is easier to work on in structural rigidity terms, but that doesn't mean the the same level can't be achieved in convertible form be it a folding hard/soft top, targa etc. If you can create the extra rigidity elsewhere, which I think you'll find is generally the case with convertible hard core track cars, then you have a car that is just as rigid.

 

[Venari]

The reason AML sells a convertible version of the DBS is because customers want the look of the DBS but with no roof. This car will very quickly outsell the DBS coupe, just as the DB9 Volante and Vantage Roadster have done to their coupe counterparts before it.

It's not just AML either. Biggest selling version of the 911 Turbo? Top of the line convertible S with auto gearbox. Biggest selling version of the Ferrari F355? Spider F1.

To make a sweeping generalisation, people with this amount of money aren't buying the ultimate sports cars because they are the ultimate sports cars, they buy them because it's a very easy way of saying "I have considerably more money than you."

If you want to get technical, yes, the convertible versions are 'more flexible' than the coupes. You'll have to try quite hard (i.e. irresponsibly so) to find this out on the public highway. So, of the two cars to drive on the public highway, the convertible is probably the right choice, simply for the soundtrack when the lid is down. However, the car is so capable if you spent once a month on the track, you probably wouldn't mind the slightly different setup, since driving the car hard for fun is probably your aim. If you wanted to compete - then you might pick a coupe. But if that were me, I'd have the V12 Vantage. Or, if I were in tinkering mode, I'd order a Vantage GT4 and then set about it with a set of custom blower pistons and a supercharger. But that's just me.

I'm told that you won't be able to buy a V12 Vantage Roadster... something to do with the rear suspension layout and the rear wheel envelope clashing with the fuel filler neck that is used on the ragtop. However, if customer demand in these odd times is there, never say never.

You pays your money, and you takes your choice. If you haven't got £170k then, well, you can dream what you like.

P.S. Two seats versus four seats - it's something to do with company car regulations and taxable assets. AML now offers 2+2 on DBS Coupe. (Oh, and soon the carbon seat option will arrive for the two seater version and the V12 Vantage.)

 

[McLaren]

Nnno. They're still convertibles in the same respect that they still cars.

You wouldn't contradict "The Elise is a car." with "No it isn't, it's a Roadster", would you?

Not the same. A better analogy would be, "The Elise is a car." with "No, it's a Sports Coupe".

Convertible = Any car which converts from enclosed to/from exposed. Roadster, cabriolet, targa, power retractable hard top... they are all types of convertible.

Wrong.

A Convertible is any car whose roof can retract and fold away. The roofs are connected to the body and can not be detached. A Targa is most certainly not a Convertible, and neither are Roadsters. The Elise roof is detachable, thus, it is not a Convertible, but a Roadster.

Trying to use Convertible as a broad term for all cars with an open top is not going to prove you're right.

You're mixing two things here... Let's see if we can't unmix them for you.

You can only really say that car A is faster than car B on a given circuit if someone who can exploit the few percent before the limits of both cars drives both on the circuit and posts consistently faster laptimes with car A than car B. Which car is faster depends upon the car, not the driver.

That's thing 1. I trust you don't disagree?

In reality, most of the rest of us cannot exploit the few percent before the limits of any car - though we can easily exceed them. So the reality of both cars is that it doesn't matter whether the professionals can get car A faster than car B or not, because the person driving the car doesn't have the ability to wring the best from it - or the other one. Which car is faster doesn't depend upon the car, but the driver.

That's thing 2. I trust you don't disagree with that either?


So what you end up with is empirical data which is faster (the professionals) - but the reality that it doesn't actually have any bearing which is faster when the average owner is driving.

All I read is you once again trying to wiggle yourself into an area where you believe you are right.

You're pretty much saying lap times do not matter because the owner will never be able to tell the difference on his own. I don't believe this.

Do you believe you have the ability to exploit the limits of any vehicle and generate empirical data on which is faster in a back-to-back test?

Has nothing to do with having decent track experience. I don't know if Azure or Slicks can exploit any vehicle, but that doesn't mean I don't think either has any decent track experience. I know for a fact, they do.

I've also seen people track many and varied cars - and occupied the circuit with them. But I'm not the one who was trying to exclude a whole section of vehicles from ever being track-oriented. Remember, my statement is that this statement is incorrect:

Can a convertible version of a coupe be a hardcore sports car built for a track day? I say they can.

Not when the said car is hyped to be the company's top performer of this era and designed to out pace others. If they could, Porsche would have designed a GT3/RS/GT2 Cabriolet, but they don't because they know a Cabriolet version would most likely not offer the same performance as what they intended the coupes to do. Ferrari didn't do it with the 360 Challenge Stradale for the same reason. It seems me the only reason they do it now is for money and to appeal to the posers which is a shame. 👎

Oh and btw, the lap times for the 430 S & 430 S Spyder have been released. The Spyder is 3 seconds slower on Fiorano. This is exactly my point. Why build a car designed to perform next to more powerful cars, and then build a convertible when you know it could potentially hamper the performance. If you haven't grasped the point yet, think of it like this.
The 430 Scuderia can run alongside the GT2. A professional then runs the 430 Scuderia Spyder to the GT2. It's down by 2 seconds. Now, why is it that the 430S can run next to the GT2, but the Spyder can't? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that turning the car into a convertible and adding a bunch of new crap has caused the effect?

I have nothing against tracking convertibles or companies building convertibles of your usual sports car. But trying to build a spyder version of a car marketed as a race car for the road i.e. track car, is just silly if you can't get the spyder to perform anywhere near as close.

 

[Famine]

A Convertible is any car whose roof can retract and fold away. The roofs are connected to the body and can not be detached.

That's a cabriolet.

A Targa is most certainly not a Convertible, and neither are Roadsters. The Elise roof is detachable, thus, it is not a Convertible, but a Roadster.

Trying to use Convertible as a broad term for all cars with an open top is not going to prove you're right.

Again, I'm not attempting to prove anything aside from the incorrectness of a given statement.

If you wish to adopt personal definitions for words, by all means do (I do with supercars). But it doesn't give you a foundation for anything. Especially when you've already stated that several vehicles are absolutely not convertibles, only to retract those statements later as it became apparent you were incorrect.

Incidentally, by your latest definition, the MX-5 isn't a convertible - the roof doesn't fold away except on the Mk3 Roadster Coupe, which would meet your definition of a convertible, but calls itself a roadster. That alone should tell you that your version isn't accurate.

Convertible = All vehicles where, in some respect, the roof can be removed. Roadster, Cabriolet, Phaeton, Targa (oh yes - despite your objections), Spider/Spyder, Barchetta are all subsets thereof.

All I read is you once again trying to wiggle yourself into an area where you believe you are right.

You're pretty much saying lap times do not matter because the owner will never be able to tell the difference on his own. I don't believe this.

I'm "pretty much saying" exactly what I said. You don't need to interpret - for that way lies confusion.

If you disagree with either of the two things I posted as "Thing 1" and "Thing 2", please say so. I'm not wholly sure where you would disagree with them, but that's your prerogative. The fact you've long since stopped answering direct questions indicates to me that you're aware your ground isn't solid enough to withstand scrutiny.

Has nothing to do with having decent track experience. I don't know if Azure or Slicks can exploit any vehicle, but that doesn't mean I don't think either has any decent track experience. I know for a fact, they do.

You brought up the concept of "decent track experience"!

Not when the said car is hyped to be the company's top performer of this era and designed to out pace others. If they could, Porsche would have designed a GT3/RS/GT2 Cabriolet, but they don't because they know a Cabriolet version would most likely not offer the same performance as their coupe. Ferrari didn't do it with the 360 Challenge Stradale for the same reason. It seems me the only reason they do it now is for money and to appeal to the posers which is a shame. 👎

If it appeals to posers, and it does, would that generate an owner population which is less or more likely to appreciate the subtle differences between the coupe and convertible? If it's less likely, do you think this statement is still accurate:

You're pretty much saying lap times do not matter because the owner will never be able to tell the difference on his own. I don't believe this.

 

[McLaren]

That's a cabriolet.

Nope. That is a Convertible. A Cabriolet is just another word for Convertible just like Spider.

Again, I'm not attempting to prove anything aside from the incorrectness of a given statement.

If you wish to adopt personal definitions for words, by all means do (I do with supercars). But it doesn't give you a foundation for anything. Especially when you've already stated that several vehicles are absolutely not convertibles, only to retract those statements later as it became apparent you were incorrect.

It is not a personal definition. It is the definition of a convertible. You can not debate it.

Dictionary.com

1. capable of being converted.
2. having a folding top, as an automobile or pleasure boat.
3. exchangeable for something of equal value: debts payable only in convertible currencies.
–noun
4. an automobile or a boat with a folding top.
5. a sofa, couch, or chair whose seating section can be folded out into a bed.
6. Finance. a convertible bond or security.

Incidentally, by your latest definition, the MX-5 isn't a convertible - the roof doesn't fold away except on the Mk3 Roadster Coupe, which would meet your definition of a convertible, but calls itself a roadster. That alone should tell you that your version isn't accurate.

What a manufacturer calls its models does not mean that is what it is.

Ferrari markets its 430 as an optional Spider variant. In truth, it is not a Spider, but a Convertible.

Convertible = All vehicles where, in some respect, the roof can be removed. Roadster, Cabriolet, Phaeton, Targa (oh yes - despite your objections), Spider/Spyder, Barchetta are all subsets thereof.

Nope. You claim I have a personal definition. However, I am correct and it is you who has the personal definition. You're wrong. Stop trying to apply your own definition and get over it.

As for the rest of your post, I'm ignoring that. You're doing what you always do in a debate. Take quotes and re-apply them to fit your needs.

 

[Famine]

Nope. That is a Convertible. A Cabriolet is just another word for Convertible just like Spider.

It is not a personal definition. It is the definition of a convertible. You can not debate it.

What a manufacturer calls its models does not mean that is what it is.

Ferrari markets its 430 as an optional Spider variant. In truth, it is not a Spider, but a Convertible.

Nope. You claim I have a personal definition. However, I am correct and it is you who has the personal definition. You're wrong. Stop trying to apply your own definition and get over it.

Excellent. I particularly like the way you say it IS the way you say it is, because. Pity, really, since reality doesn't agree with you.

As for the rest of your post, I'm ignoring that. You're doing what you always do in a debate. Take quotes and re-apply them to fit your needs.

Show me one instance of "re-applying", or "twisting" anything you've said. I've quoted you in complete sentences without omission, addition or alteration. If you mean something different, say something different. You, on the other hand, are not reading what I've written and are relying on your own internal interpretations...


As I said, you've long since stopped responding to direct questioning. It's a pity that your position is so weak and unfounded that you've dropped into the textual equivalent of "La la la, I'm not listening to you!". If only you took the time to read and respond to the questions you might learn and grow. But you go. Ignore. If it makes you feel better.

 

[Venari]

Trying to use Convertible as a broad term for all cars with an open top is not going to prove you're right.

Unless 'convertible' was a broad term for all cars with an open top. Which, broadly, it is. More specifically, all cars with a removable top, regardless of where it goes.

Interestingly, the strict definition of a 'roadster/spider/spyder' does not necessarily include a roof, thus you can have a roadster without one (for example, the Aston Martin AR1) which is thus not a convertible. Semantically, this is also correct - what would it convert from/into?

A cabriolet is a type of convertible with a fabric folding roof. The phrase arose out of the French style of horse-drawn two-seat buggy with a folding fabric roof.

Wiki is more accurate than Dictionary.com in this instance. It tallies with all the myriad of automotive texts of ages ranging from the 1920s to the current day that adorn my bookshelves.

 

[McLaren]

Excellent. I particularly like the way you say it IS the way you say it is, because. Pity, really, since reality doesn't agree with you.

Prove me wrong, then. I provided the definition, where is yours to say otherwise?

Show me one instance of "re-applying", or "twisting" anything you've said. I've quoted you in complete sentences without omission, addition or alteration. If you mean something different, say something different. You, on the other hand, are not reading what I've written and are relying on your own internal interpretations...

How about where I talked about people not buying convertibles over coupes as track cars and you taking that and interpreting as people not buying convertibles in general?
Or that you believe I don't think any convertible can be a track car. I've never said that. I've said building a track car & marketing it strictly as such, and then building a convertible of it is pointless.

As I said, you've long since stopped responding to direct questioning. It's a pity that your position is so weak and unfounded that you've dropped into the textual equivalent of "La la la, I'm not listening to you!". If only you took the time to read and respond to the questions you might learn and grow. But you go. Ignore. If it makes you feel better.

I stopped responding because you're doing what you do to everyone else eventually in a debate. Take their words, and interpret them for your own use. I've seen you do this.

Perhaps if you didn't decide to go this low as to make yourself appear right (as you always like to do), you might get a better response.

Wiki is more accurate than Dictionary.com in this instance. It tallies with all the myriad of automotive texts of ages ranging from the 1920s to the current day that adorn my bookshelves.

Funny you say that because Wikipedia only reinforces the fact that Targas & Roadsters are not Convertibles & that Convertibles are cars with a retracting roof that can not be removed.

 

[Famine]

Oddly, the car industry professional (and his library) above you seems to agree with me - except on the point of Roadsters without any kind of roof (about which I had forgotten).

Guess he's just trying to prove himself right though. Or reapplying a quote to fit his needs. Or something.


Though it must be pointed out that you are, for some reason, using this as a diversion from the original issue...

 

[Venari]

Roadster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadster

Convertible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convertible

Cabriolet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabriolet_(carriage) (for interest.)

These terms are pretty much inline with the definitions I have learned in the 30+ years I have known and loved specialist vehicles.

Furthermore, also of interest, technically, Aston's use of the term 'Volante' is inaccurate. A number of my textbooks refer to a 'Volante' carriage as only having two seats. Thus, 'Volante' would be a better term for the Vantage Roadster, and the DB9/DBS, arguably would be more accurately referred to as a 'Cabriolet' or 'Convertible'.

All are far better than one of the proposed names for the Vantage Roadster - the 'Reverso'.

 

[McLaren]

Roadster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadster

Convertible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convertible

Cabriolet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabriolet_(carriage) (for interest.)

These terms are pretty much inline with the definitions I have learned in the 30+ years I have known and loved specialist vehicles.

Those are the exact definitions I have been going by.

A convertible is a type of automobile in which the roof can retract and fold away, converting it from an enclosed to an open-air vehicle. Many different automobile body styles are manufactured and marketed in convertible form.

Roof designs vary widely, but a few characteristics are common to all convertibles. Roofs are affixed to the body of the vehicle and are usually not detachable. Instead the roof is hinged and folds away, either into a recess behind the rear seats or into the boot or trunk of the vehicle. The roof may operate either manually or automatically via hydraulic or electrical actuators, and the roof itself may be constructed of soft or rigid material. Soft-tops are made of vinyl, canvas or other textile material, while hard-tops are made of steel, aluminum, plastic or other rigid materials.

Don't tell me Famine this, though. Remember, the Elise is a Convertible, so it must do this by secrecy.

Using the same source:

The Lotus Elise is a roadster conceived in early 1994 and released in September 1996 by the English manufacturer Lotus Cars. The car has a hand-finished fibreglass body shell atop its aluminium extrusion and bonded frame that provides a rigid platform for the suspension, while keeping weight and production costs to a minimum. The roadster is capable of speeds up to 240 km/h (150 mph).[2] The Elise was named after "Elisa", the granddaughter of Romano Artioli who was chairman of Lotus at the time of the car's launch.[3]

As for Aston's use of the term 'Volante', I agree. As I pointed out, Ferrari calls the 430 a Spider, but technically, it isn't.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Reventón, I respect your opinion on this subject, but PLEASE listen to Famine for your sake alone.

He is trying to improve your auto knowledge, but you're not playing ball.

Famine is right with everything he has said (minus the roofless roadster bit) so far and has taken the time to break down his points so that they are very easy to understand and remember.

I don't know if other members are thinking the same, but to me you're starting to look a bit daft (I did have a small giggle at the part about a roadster/targa not being a convertible).

Listen to Famine, he's trying to stop you looking silly if a similar subject comes up in the future!