Panoramic roofs

[jimbop1]

mygoldfishbowl said:

Safer than a convertible I should think but why worry about things that have such a tiny chance of happening, probably got more chance of winning the lottery than being hit by a brick from a bridge.

Agree! That's my input

[hedges88]

When I did work involving Skoda I remember they had a lot of their Roomster models with the panoramic roof that cracked or shattered especially if the car was parked unevenly, such as two wheels up on a high kerb or a steeply sloped driveway. IIRC They were replaced under warranty

A lot of modern vehicles have immense strength in the floor plan meaning that panoramic glass isn't a huge problem anymore

[entropy]

Devil2575 said:

How many times has your car been hit by a brick lobbed from a bridge?

Is this scenario really a criteria that you would judge a cars safety based on? The ability of the roof to survive an impact from a brick thrown from a bridge.

While it does happen it is very rare.

Yes, I know it is a rare occurance but is it any harm wondering how 'good' glass roofs are these days?

[blank]

HowMuchLonger said:

DocArbathnot said:

You cannot order an Audi Q7 with certain options combined (Pan roof is one of them) because it would make it too heavy to qualify as a passenger car.

I doubt this is actually true. Seeing as the unladen weight of the Q7 is about 300kg less than that of the old RR.

Usually to do with test weight categories (http://www.theicct.org/blogs/inertia-classes-vehicle-emissions-tests-and-dead-hand-past) or brake specs.

It'd have to be a seriously heavy car to get over 3.5t GVW when adding all the options and people.

[vikingaero]

Vladimir said:

Some option combinations appear to be made up.
I couldn't spec front parking sensors on my VW California because...it has the 4WD option...!

I looked at speccing a VW Transporter/Caravelle and some of the option combinations were restrictive. When I asked the dealer he said that it was effectively a limit on the number of things that could be plugged into the vehicle canbus. Having one option could limit another option being "wired" in.

I suppose it's like our creaky computer system at work - we are limited in the number of terminals we can have plugged into a 1970's type server/router.

[simonh9]

vikingaero said:

Ari said:

Really? Are you sure?

Why would a manufacturer want to mak one version of a car slightly safer than another because it has a glass roof? Why not give all versions of the car the safer system?

I think over the last two years I've bought about 20 cars for the business. On reading the specs of 2 of them in the brochure it specifically stated that the panoramic roof had to be optioned with ESP+. One I remember definitely is the Nissan Cashcow. I've read a brochure of an Audi Q model that has ESP which takes into account or has roof rack detection and adjusts the settings accordingly.

Qashqai has the same ESP regardless of roof type. They can also withstand a fair old load: http://cars.uk.msn.com/features/the-weird-world-of-car-design?page=13