Would it be possible to have removable, paint-matched covers to put over the C6 headlamps? I mean, would it be illegal in some states? Could the covers be designed to be put on and removed in seconds?

How about if the C6 clear lens covers could change from clear to colored, like transition sunglasses??

And one other idea: Will the C6 be smart enough to tell the driver when the coupe top is off? I've have friends who have lost a C5 top when they forgot to clamp it down.
:nopity

 

I'm sure the aftermarket will have black-smoke covers by the time the car hits the streets. Paint-matched? I dunno.

Removal in seconds seems to conflict with remaining attached at high speed. Unless there's some kind of tab that can be fit under the hood, and some lip on the outside and front edges that a hook can grab.

As for the transition effect glass, the headlamp surface is significantly larger than most eyeglasses. Isn't it a layer between two lenses? This sounds cost-prohibitive. And optical clarity when "lightened" may not be enough to meet DOT/NHTSA regs -- aren't transition eyeglasses always slightly tinted? Operating temperature may also be a factor -- headlights get hot.

These issues will be much clearer when aftermarket parts mavens get their hands on production cars. I suspect add-on and alternate covers soon, but doubt anything more sophisticated will ever hit a catalog.

As for the top-latch problem, I'm surprised that the aftermarket hasn't made an idiot light to address this issue.

I've found that the latches being in the wrong place is a strong visual indicator that's hard to miss. If you're distracted enough to forget the latches, are you focused enough to be driving?

I think the best solution to the problem is to suffer the indignity of a flying top. Has anyone forgotten twice?

.Jinx

 

Transition lens work with photochromatic dyes. And unexposed to UV, they are as clear as regular glass. C6 lamp covers could be made of transition glass, and I would think that polycarbonate would be able to handle the temperatures; lenses wouldn't get hot enough to burn your finger, how could the heat be a problem?
Re: flying top: This has been dicussed here before. If the C5 can detect when the rear hatch or door is unlatched, why not the top? That's a much more serious bit of information, one would think...

 

They looked at that but no change to the C6. The best thing is to get in the habit of latching the top before closing the hatch. There is a warning for the hatch in case you start to drive off. :jester

 

The rear hatch notice is no doubt a legal requirement, driven either by view-obstruction or escaping-object or exhaust-gas issues.

The top has no such requirement. The vehicle is designed to be operated in motion with the top removed. That's why not.

As for the transition glass, I was wondering if the photochromatic dye had temperature limitations. The polycarbonate clearly can take the heat, since that's what's installed from the factory. As for burning fingers, we don't know how hot the outside surface gets yet, or how hot the inside surface gets. How well does polycarbonate transfer heat?

.Jinx

 

Ummm...aren't the turn signals in there???

 

Why can't anyone just accept that the popups are gone? :rolleyes:

 

I guess for the same reason that people wouldn't accept the fact that cars without fins were for stupid people that couldn't recognize progress in the late fifties. I, for one, am glad my C5 dosen't have the fins off a '59 Caddy or a '57 Chrysler 300C. Just because the exposed headlights on a new Corvette are here today dosen't mean they are going to be here tomorrow. Change is subject to change. I also refuse, along with thousands of others, to accept the fact that the Pontiac Aztek is setting the style for the future.


[Modified by JoesC5, 3:49 PM 1/15/2004]

 

I wouldn't tell anyone to just go through life accepting everything!!! This is the USA baby! :D

 

As for the issue of the top warning. It seems it would have been extremely easy to incorporate a microswitch at the three mounting latches that would show a warning in the DIC along with a warning chime.

A pressure sensor could detect the weight of the top and would then trigger the warnings if the car is put in gear and an attempt is made to drive off with any of the latches not in the locked posistion.

Then again it would benefit only a few and at what cost? I hope it never happens to me. I am pretty **** about checking the latches after putting the top back on but distractions happen.

 

Honestly !

 

So who's going to be the first guy (or gal) to tear up their C6 headlamp/fascia/ and fender with some aftermarket contraption! It will be fun to watch!!!!!!!!

:D :D '''''''' :D :D

 

:iagree: Exactly
They're gone, its time to move on imo i think its a good look for the years to come. Also as stated numerous times they are cheaper and easier. I know some people are dissapointed but its been awhile and there is no need to bash on a beauty of a car and a great enginering sucess. Thts all. :steering:

 

Maybe someday we'll have body colored OLED screens over the headlamps that can go clear w/voltage sensor

 

"They looked at that but no change to the C6. The best thing is to get in the habit of latching the top before closing the hatch. "


Well, then I'm doubly surprised. I can understand some lack of sympathy for the car owner who forgets to latch the top, but what about the possible victims on the highway when a huge chunk of car flips into their path, or worse, onto their windshield. You'd think somehow a good lawyer could show negligence on the part of GM.

This problem is more frequent than GM may realize. Sooner or later someone could get seriously hurt.

Re: Popups: Those of us who aren't thrilled with the C6 exposed headlamps aren't necessarily arguing in favor of Popups. I could image much better looking headlamp designs for one thing. If a new Corvette could have BOTH a clean, lampless look in the daytime, and all the functions of high-tech headlamps when needed otherwise, why not?

To speak even the mildest criticism of the C6 doesn't make one suddenly an "Unpatriotic" corvette owner. This context of argument seems to be the sign of the (Bush) times, eh?

 

But the fender-mounted barf bag option really helps!

 

I'm sure they did an actuarial analysis and determined that the liability cost of flying tops, based on the observed frequency of incidents and reported injuries and damage, was less than the cost of three sensors, wiring, logic, and lamp/DIC message.

The flying top phenomenon is rare, and in all cases is due to operator error.

You don't have to like the way it is, but even understanding a tiny bit about the way of the auto industry and the world in general, you should neither be surprised nor justifiably outraged at the lack of top sensors on Corvette -- unless you're just mad at the sorry state of the world in general. In which case I sympathize, but have to point out that top sensors on Corvette isn't the best place to start to fix it, or even cope with it.

As for the headlights, I agree with you. I'd love to see people's alternate takes on C6 front ends or even just headlight pods. Unfortunately, I suspect most of us lack the artistic acumen to do even our modest ideas justice. I suspect that for such a controversial styling element that the aftermarket will be more fertile than usual. After all, we saw several alternatives for C5. I doubt we'll get actual popups retrofitted to C6, but we'll get lots of covers and probably a different pod kit or two.

And at some point, the haters who leap into any criticism thread and bash away with blunt instruments like "if you don't like it, don't buy it" or "that's the way it is, deal with it" are going to be recognized for the trolls that they are. Cut it out.

.Jinx

 

I think that GM does have an idiot proof safety feature to prevent the "flying roof issue" it just cost a little more, its called the VERT or FRC option. But next will come the safety features to keep us from driving too fast, "You'd think somehow a good lawyer could show negligence on the part of GM. " for allowing a car to be built that would exceed the normal speed limits by over 100 miles per.

IMO we need to take responsability for our own actions if the roof comes off at speed it is the driver that is at fault not GM. When I get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit I dont call my lawyer to sue GM for making the car that will go that fast. The point that i am trying to make is that GM could make a car that would be a lot safer than they do but 99.99% of us could not pay for it and it would not be much fun.
:jester