Which fast convertible for 15k?
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
Open minded then you put down silly pointless requirements.... 
Seriously though, rather than basing it on age (which lets face it, anything out of warranty is pretty equal risk), some stupid metric for a pointless performance stat, something so stupid "reliable'ish" come on WTF does that mean??
and then the material it's built from 
Surely a better way to be open minded is to say about your driving style (are you a hooligan, or more about precision and clipping apexes?), where you'll be using it and when (track days, shows, motorways, city driving, country lanes, etc.) and what sort of thing appeals (loud shouty styling, sleek, aggressive, something that blends in and is unobtrusive).
Then some actual limitations such as:
-how many people will go in it how often
-if you need to fit anything big in it
-a monthly fuel budget
-a yearly maintenance budget
-and what sort of depreciation costs you'll endure
I bet you have a pie chart working all of this out Seriously though, rather than basing it on age (which lets face it, anything out of warranty is pretty equal risk), some stupid metric for a pointless performance stat, something so stupid "reliable'ish" come on WTF does that mean??
and then the material it's built from Surely a better way to be open minded is to say about your driving style (are you a hooligan, or more about precision and clipping apexes?), where you'll be using it and when (track days, shows, motorways, city driving, country lanes, etc.) and what sort of thing appeals (loud shouty styling, sleek, aggressive, something that blends in and is unobtrusive).
Then some actual limitations such as:
-how many people will go in it how often
-if you need to fit anything big in it
-a monthly fuel budget
-a yearly maintenance budget
-and what sort of depreciation costs you'll endure
I am the only person of importance going in it!
I have a run around as well, so don't need to worry about luggage
Weekend only car so not an issue
Not worried about yearly maintenance as I can work on them myself.
I am allergic to depreciation.
I am work in the emergency services and my specialism is RTAs, hence why I am after a modernish car and nothing fibreglass.
What appeals to me in a car is too varied to pin down, all I know is if I like it, I like it!
I live in London, so I have such a rare opportunity to explore my driving style it is really limited to days in the country.
Chris71 said:
While TVRs might not be bristling with airbags and ladden with NCAP stars we're hardly talking about something of crisp packet construction either. Fair enough if they're not your thing, but if you are tempted and it's just the fibreglass concern holding you back then my suggestion would be: get one and leave it to the insurance companies to worry about what happens in the unlikely event that someone drives into you. The chances are - unless you're really young - you learnt to drive in something with no more structural integrity, and you survived that...
Like I said I have seen post 2000 TVR in a crash and I remember thinking to myself, this had absolutely nothing going for it terms of protection, both sills had completely broken and the car was virtually in two separate halves, both occupants were in a very bad way and this was not a good advert for TVR. I think their injuries were not something insurance companies could look after, after a decade specialising in this work this has to be one of the most memorable RTAs I have been to, only because of the poor car construction.I agree life has risks, but if I wanted to take it to it's logical conclusion then I could get a bike, I have decided my cut off point and I think that is probably the end result of seeing accidents that people think will never happen to them.
I am glad we all live in a free society and you can decide exactly what you want to drive
300bhp/ton said:
Kinda curious, but doing what you do and being mindful about safety to a degree that you'd say no to certain makes and age of vehicles. Why are you even looking at verts? Surely any tintop version of the same car has to have superior crash protection?
Maybe something like a BMW M Coupe (Z3) or Z4MC or even a Lotus Europa S would be better cars to consider?
The modern convertibles are pretty good safety wise, not the best but good, I like no roof and I like a good drive, it all about compromises and balance, and it is an individual choice for everyone.Maybe something like a BMW M Coupe (Z3) or Z4MC or even a Lotus Europa S would be better cars to consider?
900T-R said:
Eh?? A TVR doesn't have 'sills' as such - it's got a massively strong tubular backbone chassis with outriggers - and although there are certainly areas on which I have genuine safety concerns, structural integrity of the chassis is not one of them, especially not compared to steel monocoque construction convertibles that would fold in the middle long before a TVR chassis - assuming it is not rusted to buggery - would give in.
If you feel this strongly about cars folding/splitting in the middle I would advise against a (full) convertible, full stop.
Ok well after the crash the front and the back of the car were moving very easily and independently of one another, and there was nothing left of the doors, this was not a high speed crash, all I can tell you is what I saw, and it is not a reflection on you or your car choice.If you feel this strongly about cars folding/splitting in the middle I would advise against a (full) convertible, full stop.
I know modern convertibles are stronger as I have experience of trying to cut them up, and a lot of our tools fail to do so. Although this isn't a perfect test, it does give food for thought!
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/bmw_z4_2004/186.aspx
900T-R said:
Sorry, but if the front and rear of a TVR with a chassis that is not significantly weakend by rust are moving independently, this was patently not a low speed crash. Simple as that. It takes one hell of an impact to seriously bend the backbone chassis, and probably none that would be surviveable no matter what the car is.
As said, I've got a good few safety concerns with TVRs, but chassis backbone strength is patently not one of them (and GRP is a highly impact absorbing material - until it breaks at least...).
Apart from the roll cage, virtually identical chassis have been used in Tuscan Challenge cars - I suggest you look at some crash footage from that series.
Conversely, look at some crash pics of 'modern' steel monocoque convertibles in a serious crash - at the very least they look like bananas afterwards, breaking in two pieces is not uncommon either.
You are aware of the fact that the Tuscan was one of less than a handful of vehicles to be driven away from the UK Vehicle Approval frontal crash test, with the very same car being used subsequently for the side impact test - right?
A lot of 'nibbling' tools fail to cut through the pillars of old Saabs too, but by 2012 standards they're probably not the safest vehicles, either...
Nibbling tools aren't used to cut people out of cars!As said, I've got a good few safety concerns with TVRs, but chassis backbone strength is patently not one of them (and GRP is a highly impact absorbing material - until it breaks at least...).
Apart from the roll cage, virtually identical chassis have been used in Tuscan Challenge cars - I suggest you look at some crash footage from that series.
Conversely, look at some crash pics of 'modern' steel monocoque convertibles in a serious crash - at the very least they look like bananas afterwards, breaking in two pieces is not uncommon either.
You are aware of the fact that the Tuscan was one of less than a handful of vehicles to be driven away from the UK Vehicle Approval frontal crash test, with the very same car being used subsequently for the side impact test - right?
A lot of 'nibbling' tools fail to cut through the pillars of old Saabs too, but by 2012 standards they're probably not the safest vehicles, either...
How does looking at random pictures of convertibles in crashes ascertain the strength of that car?
Why would looking at crash footages of cars with a roll cage, ascertain the strength of cars without a roll cage?
How many years ago was the UK test done?
How do you know what type of crash I am talking about and how the structure of the car would be compromised?
Why are you only talking about chassis strength, there are many components to vehicle safety?
It's boring isn't it, but you aren't selling the car or your train of thought to me, if you want I will erase all memories of that crash from my mind and not mention it again if that will please you.
Anyway back on track any more suggestions
900T-R said:
Mark300zx said:
Nibbling tools aren't used to cut people out of cars!
Yeah sorry, wrong term.The heart of the matter is though, that you can't tell from the effort it takes you to cut through a single sill how strong it is in comparison to a 'double decker' construction with horizontal members set apart about 1 foot. To achieve the same strength/stiffness in a single member, it would have to be of some unfeasonably strong material.
You can gauge the strength of the A pillar which can be a fairly crucial part in a convertible, I never mentioned chassis!
Mark300zx said:
How does looking at random pictures of convertibles in crashes ascertain the strength of that car?
No more or less than the conclusions that you took from the aftermath of one accident - unless you know for a fact the speed at which that accident took place, the direction the vehicle(s) took, what exactly it hit and where etc. You simply do not know. And you really don't know how another vehicle would have held up under the same circumstances.Yes I do know the speed it was travelling and have seen many similar crashes in similar vehicles, not exactly as they never can be, but enough for me to know what I would feel safer in!!!
It stands to reason though, that a steel monocoque-type that relies on a single sill that is at best 4" high on either side and a transmission tunnel in the floor pan, will face a tougher challenge in terms of front and rear ends keeping connected than one that is based on a spaceframe backbone construction.
You seem to be obsessed with the whole chassis thing, it is a part of passenger safety, at the end of the day it is about the occupants walking away not the chassis, I never mentioned Chassis!
Mark300zx said:
How many years ago was the UK test done?
Tuscan was launched 1999/2000, so probably '99 - which sounds relevant to me to the sort of car you're looking for (fast convertible for £15K) max - most of which will be conceived and crash tested around that time. I did mention Modernish and ok 99 would probably be stretching it, but Ncap has moved on a fair bit!
Mark300zx said:
Why are you only talking about chassis strength, there are many components to vehicle safety?
Because you mentioned it specifically as a reson to discard a certain vehicle. Again, there are a few things to worry about in a TVR safety-wise; just not that.So you have safety concerns about TVRs as well, we agree, once again I never mentioned the Chassis
Mark300zx said:
It's boring isn't it, but you aren't selling the car or your train of thought to me, if you want I will erase all memories of that crash from my mind and not mention it again if that will please you.
I don't think I am being irrational here, my experience be it somewhat anecdotal is based on nearly 20 years of cutting people out of cars along with another professional career with vehicle engineering. The one thing I have noticed is that modern cars make a MASSIVE difference to a persons ability to survive a crash and not survive but usually walk out unscathed.
TBH if the above really bothers you, I'd stick with a tintop or targa roof car. Or you could get a convertible, and be sensible with it.
If I was the only person on the road it wouldn't be an issue!
Edited by Mark300zx on Tuesday 17th April 17:22
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff