a panhard bar isnt gonna help the rigidity of the frame at all

The only real way to tie things up are subframe connectors and if you like to go overboard a roll cage of some sorts. You WILL lose some rigidity, but SFCs should be enough as long as you dont race it or drive it very hard that often.

 

for some reason i just don't see the purpose of doing this coversion because you get a removeable roof with t-tops. Plus people buy z28s formulas t/a's to go fast/race so why would you want change your car so that you can't do that safely anymore.

 

if you plan on racing, you would want a cage anyway. The tagas looks 10000x better then the ttops do, and when was the last time you saw one? exactly

 

well i do race but i don't need a roll cage anytime soon because i am not planning on heading south of 11.5 anytime soon (or whatever the regulation time for one is now). I think that the targa top looks hot but i mean i would never do it because of the flexing. Only way i would do it was if a company offered to do it and garenteeded that the car would not flex or there would be compensation if the problem occured. Thats just my 2 cents though.

 

your car flexes now whether you would like to admit it or not. Ever hear that dash rattle? How about wind noise? It always has and it always will. A good set of SFCs properly welded with a targa top probably is more rigid then your ttop car without them

 

i can understand that all cars have some kind of flex but it just seems sketchy to me that when you cut into something that is a support piece for the car that simply adding SFC's is going to correct the problem. I just look at it this way, the vette for many years has had them so gm knows how to incorperate them into a car. I don't see them waisting their time making a 2 piece system when it could have just been one piece.

like i said before i think that it is a great to be able to make a targa top but it just seems like if that support beam wasn't an imporant piece and the car could be used w/o it then it wouldn't be there. but once again just my 2 cents on the whole situation

 

Not to "holy reserect a thread batman" but i have to put my 2 sense in. If the center beam was such an important structeral piece then chevy never would have had a convertable model. Now i know your gonna say "yea but they reinforce the convertable". well just looking at the convertable wear do u suppose they reinforce it at. The have a built in sort of subframe connector. Not the best thats why BMR makes convertable subframe connectors. With the addition of subframe connectors to the standerd body you could chop the entire top off and not have problems.