LTC Z06

I asked him about converting a Z06 to a vert and about the tunnel plates.

Todd,
Not to be too vague, but printed response can sometime come back to plague engineers in this field.

The Al structure was design to meet or exceed Steel spaceframe torsional rigidity and bending. This was achieved by distributing some of the loads up through the upper portion of the structure (i.e. Al windshield Frame, Magnesium Roof, and Al roof bow). For this reason, if these item were removed, a reduction in rigidity would be expected. While I am not surprised that the aftermarket world has addressed Z06 hardtop, I am not familiar with the aftermarket components. I suppose with substantial structural reinforcements, these companies may be able to gain back some of the rigidity lost, I could not speak the exact amount lost (as we never tested the vehicle without the roof structure). The Z06 has always maintained its racing spirit by providing a closed roof structure.

While a open roof Z06 is a neat idea, I would suggest a 2006 Corvette
Convertible, designed for an open roof environment. The Convertible has a great deal of performance and a heck of a lot of fun to drive.

Same goes for the tunnel structure (don't know what they would do for the spaceframe. But, the spaceframe has a patient on it for a reason. The tunnel portion is a closed box section from the 3 sided Al tunnel top and the Al tunnel close-out (attached with 36 fasteners).
Who knows what a little extra steel will do ... add mass??

ZeeOSix

Synopsis -- if you want a convertible, buy a convertible.

I'm sure someone in the aftermarket/modification world will convert a C6 Zee to a convertible. It was done with the C5, so why not with a C6?

With enough money and time, anything can be done.

pDz

but you know what?

people will still cry about a z06 convertible. even though it is spelled out for them that they lose rigidity and, as a consequence, performance, that does not seem to matter. just more crying.

thanks for the post, May'j.

TripleBlack99

>>>> Convertible, designed for an open roof environment. The Convertible has a great deal of performance and a heck of a lot of fun to drive.

they just dont get it, people want a z06 convertible. if your kid wants a cabbage patch kid and you tell them well, this briar patch kid is very similar, and almost as cool, you should be happy with that.. it will not mattre, your kid in still going to be crying.

put it this way, if i told you i would GIVE you for free one of these two things, but you cannot resell it, you have to keep it:
(1) c6 convertible
(2) z06 convertible chopped and struture added by caravaggio.

Which one would you honestly pick? I would pick #2. There are so many goodies that come with the Z06 package, that it would be too hard to make a c6 into a z06.

pDz

like i wrote before: i'd gladly take the chassis that is designed out of the box to be a convertible.

all of your added goodies can be purchased and added on, but the one thing you cannot add without a lot more weight and even more money is to add back the rigidity lost. and i doubt anyone has the R&D resources in the aftermarket that GM has to make the handicapped aluminum frame match the original z06 frame's strength or the c6 vert's frame strength.

these are the facts. how we accept them is what differentiates us.

427Z0SX

The whiners will always whine, despite words from the engineers. Whiners will not accept the fact that the Z06 is not a convertible due to solid scientific reasons. The horse must be raised from the dead, to be beaten down to death, again.

Foosh

Thanks Maj. I'm going with the engineers 100% of the time, and will seek my open motoring in another car.

Painrace

MAJ Z06, I don't want a vert but I appreciate the info on the structure. I have seen it in pieces but with no explaination.

Z06 Mike

If you want an open-top true convertible...get a Viper SRT10! (That's what I did).

pDz

i completely agree with you.

there are tons of other choices that are DESIGNED from the outset to be convertibles, i have no idea why you'd jeopardize the engineered aspects of a car and lose the entire point of the RPO package: spelled out --> performance.

TripleBlack99

you can regain a lot of the lost rigidity, but it will add weight of course, but remember we have 136lbs difference to work with. the f430 spider was stiffened with 50 lbs of added structure. it is not as stiff as the hardtop, but it only gives up a fraction of a second on a 1:25 minute course.

>>>but the one thing you cannot add without a lot more weight and even more money is to add back the rigidity lost.

that is right, but the z06 frame is already 136lbs lighter than the c6, that is a lot to work with, which is "a lot more weight".


>>>these are the facts. how we accept them is what differentiates us.

yes, and some people distort the facts just prior to accepting them because they have a poor lens. go back and re-read what he wrote: "I suppose with substantial structural reinforcements, these companies may be able to gain back some of the rigidity lost, I could not speak the exact amount lost (as we never tested the vehicle without the roof structure). The Z06 has always maintained its racing spirit by providing a closed roof structure." He is clearly uncertain about how much rigidity can be restored. Also note word "spirit", it is more of a reasoning of ideals than saying it definitely not work satisfactorily to many customers.

Monnie

Thank you!

EuG

LOL at some of the comments

There was not a single "FACT" in the engineer's comments.
Just a bunch of "we don't know, we haven't tried"

I don't see how anybody can draw any conclusion based that

TripleBlack99

yes, so clearly porsche and ferrari are misguided in offering a turbo convertible and f430 convertible. i guess they can wipe their tears with all that cash their customers are giving them for building what their customers want.

Corvettes White

It has been posted that the torsional rigidity lost by chopping the top would be 5%. Out here in California we have these stop lights at the onramps to the freeways. Kinda like a Christmas tree at a drag strip. Since F=MA and 90% of traffic is moving at a stand still. I get 3 seconds of fun before I slam on the brakes. Take the Z and chop it. Enjoy the California sun. All cars are a sum of design compromises anyway.

A practical application of engineering theory.

George

Verrückt

Who made that calculation? I don't buy 5% at all, it would be much more.

blandcastle

I wouldn't waste my time and money on a viper . If you truly want a vert, get a c6 vert and mod it to increase hp, if you want the increase . You will be ALOT happier with the end result . You will ACTUALLY be able to drive the car comfortably AND everyday. My buddy had an srt, , said it was a pain in the *** to drive, got too hot, and uncomfortable .. big time, but he sold it to get a f430. MUCH better choice, although it cost 225k and its NOT a chevrolet or American made . I'll still take my Z over his 430 anyday... unless I could sell the 430 and buy 2 or 3 Z's.

blandcastle

The point he is trying to make is that this car was NOT DESIGNED for an open roof configuration. What is so hard to understand about that ? Porsche and ferrari make some of their cars specifically for vert applications. The new Z was NOT! Ferrari and porsche do not make their frames out of aluminum either, unless I am mistaken, big diff They could design a Z with a vert top, but the frame would NOT be aluminum. Then all the whiners would say, hey this car isn't as fast as the coupe or doesn't handle as well! No sh** sherlock, thats the reason for the aluminum frame and the coupe being the only option.

pDz

no one said they were misguided or that building out the c6 convertible was misguided. the crucial difference is that all of those chassis frames were considered from the start to be convertibles with minimal structural reinforcement.

because the c6 vert has the steel frame and the c6 chassis built on the steel frame was a priori designed to be a convertible, it gains minimal weight to keep 'almost' the same rigidity as the c6 coupe. again, the key difference that no one can dispute is that GM engineers were hemmed in by their assembly process when designing the aluminum frame elements. they could not change specs compared to the steel parts and they made up the difference by keeping the fixed roof.

i'm sure that the data are out there in terms of the percent rigidity lost, but it's not quantified in this engineer's post.

consider these two cars: c6 convertible (steel frame) that comes from the factory with 400hp, but you know that it's at least good for 500hp because GM ups the HP in its cars over their lifetime. then add lingenfelter power to that c6 convertible. it's a car that can easily surpass the z06 and it was also designed to be a vert.

now, lop the top off of a z06. what you have now is a frame that loses a crucial element that is key to its rigidity.

after money is spent in both cases, which car do you think handles the power better? and when you tabulate the money for both, which money do you think is better spent? tell you what, folks, i trust lingenfelter to develop reliable power because they've been doing it for a long time. what i do not trust is a third tier non-OEM vendor that does not have close to the R&D or Lingenfelter or Mallett or even ASC to lop the top off of my car.

for me? it's a no brainer. if i'm insistent on a convertible configuration, i'd go with the mallett solstice or the c6 vert with lingenfelter power, and in both cases, i'd have the superior chassis that could handle that power.

thus far, no one is really disputing these facts mostly because you cannot argue with how GM kludged together the aluminum frame to fit precisely inside the physical spatial constraints of the steel frame so that both cars could be assembled on the same assembly lines.

etekberg

Isn't that the sad truth!