Elsewhere I've been insulted when writing:

Of all the OEM F-body HT, T-Top and convertibles from 1967-2002, the one with the most rigid chassis, is the 98-02 convertible. The one OEM that had the best handling and braking performance was the one with the most stable and strong chassis for the suspension and brakes to leverage against, with factory welded in unique frame reinforcements, double walled L-brackets beside the tunnel mounts connected by extensions, the in the car welded brace behind the console reinforcing the floor and OEM K-frame braces. A tiny bit lower center of gravity too. I clearly wrote that all 1967-1997 F body verts were rattle traps with the structural integrity of overcooked pasta, but not the 98-02. I posted clear photos of both 4th gen HT/T-Top cars, beside 4th gen convertibles. I was told I was full of ****, insanely hyperbolic and "I've been reading F body forums for three decades and I've never read any of this nonsense". Other invective too. Quote:" If you cannot acquaint your opponent with sweet reason, you must acquaint their head with the sidewalk". Worth looking up.
From the first comment, while laughing, I tried to enlighten the ignorant. Only to get more insults.
Could anyone here look at the photos in the convertibles section and comment?

 

It was the right move to make a different thread, no sense in high jacking @NC01TA s thread. I don’t really have a dog in this fight, as convertibles don’t appeal to me.

However, you are getting push back because there is a bold claim being made. It is entirely on you to substantiate with actual data, strain gages, torsional rigidity tests, racing results, and prove out the claim you are making. You’re up against 30+ years of f-body racing, that have some pretty hefty names behind it. You’ve evoked @Sam Strano 's name a few times, but there is also LG Motorsports, Mitchntx and Foxxtron and many others.

I can’t recall any of them ever mentioning the convertible as the preferable platform. I can recall Sam Strano, on a number of occasions, stating that subframe connectors don’t add rigidity where it would be useful. That the f-bodies real, first primary issue is damping. Is the convertible bracing sufficiently different in this regard as to make damping more effective on that platform? Where’s the data?

LS1tech: Subframe Connectors - Overhyped or worth it?

That GM intended for the 4th gen to be a convertible, isn’t quite the same as designing it explicitly to be so. GM is tattling on themselves by adding the extra bracing you point out so extensively. If the 4th gen is designed to be a convertible, why is the bracing absent on the hard top, and so conspicuously present on the convertible? That would suggest they couldn’t simply remove the top on the basic unibody, and have it be comparable in torsional rigidity to the hard top/t-top car.

Even if it were true that the convertible is stiffer, there are other factors that might be considered by racers. The weight penalty, the coefficient of drag increase, the additional bracing getting in the way of adding better exhaust, whatever class rules that might be in play. If the non-convertible car can be made as stiff or close to, without incurring the other penalties, the value proposition of choosing the convertible is not there.

 

[QUOTE=lees02WS6;20516597]It was the right move to make a different thread, no sense in high jacking @NC01TA s thread. I don’t really have a dog in this fight, as convertibles don’t appeal to me.

However, you are getting push back because there is a bold claim being made. It is entirely on you to substantiate with actual data, strain gages, torsional rigidity tests, racing results, and prove out the claim you are making. You’re up against 30+ years of f-body racing, that have some pretty hefty names behind it. You’ve evoked @Sam Strano 's name a few times, but there is also LG Motorsports, Mitchntx and Foxxtron and many others. On the left below is a 4th gen vert, easy to see what is welded in OEM that no HT/T-Top car has: Start at the front of the car. K-frame braces, factory welded in folded over L-braces against the frame rails, the rails.
On the photo on the right: from the front of the car: like no HT/T-Top car, the extension welded in from the frame rail to the tunnel brace. No HT/ T-Top car ever had a 4 point tunnel brace. What you see is OEM on all 4th gen verts only. Matching additions on both sides.
Inside the car is a welded in brace behind the console, reinforcing the floor, only on the verts, no others. Even the rug is molded for the brace.


"there is a bold claim being made. It is entirely on you to substantiate"

Do photos qualify?

"I can’t recall any of them ever mentioning the convertible as the preferable platform."

Hence the ancient maxim about consuming fecal matter: "A million flies can't be wrong". Popular opinion is often wrong. Try politics for evidence.

I started a different thread to find out if anyone here knows things to substantiate my conclusions. If everyone here thinks I'm wrong, fine, but after looking at the photos, isn't it strange that in at least 25 years no one pointed out how different the underside of the 4th vert and HT/T is? Maybe my info on GM's motives are wrong. I don't have internal GM documents, I'm stuck with hearsay, brochure marketing speak and remembering magazine articles from over 30 years. BUT... those two platforms are visually, and I conclude, functionally different with the vert being better. OEM my 01 Camaro vert handled better than my OEM 98 Camaro HT. The 98 required this to handle better than the vert:

Now the vert has all of that and it still handles better than the HT. Look at the photos and tell me why some here have called me a liar. Seriously I've been away from here for 20 years and really want to know is this the answer?

 

No, because they don't substantiate the claim you're making. This is your claim



You need to provide statical analysis, from actual structural tests, that proves out that claim.

 

Great country, everyone gets to believe anything they want. If extrapolating from the photos doesn't convince you, believe what pleases you. I do.

I enlightened no one it seems. I convinced no one.
Now, that pleases me.

 

You have flirted with, if not completely "begged the question". You offer up suggestion in place of evidence as though the two are interchangeable, and the former asserts a conclusion we all should just assume as fact. Then dismiss people for calling you out on it. This is the type of thing a 9/11 loose change nut does, not someone who has something serious to offer.

Is the convertible stiffer? I really don't know, but I doubt it. It would be an interesting bit of trivia, and I enjoy the engineering, but you offer nothing substantive on the actual bit that would put the subject to bed.

 

[QUOTE=lees02WS6;20517014.

Is the convertible stiffer? I really don't know, but I doubt it. It would be an interesting bit of trivia, and I enjoy the engineering, but you offer nothing substantive on the actual bit that would put the subject to bed.[/QUOTE]

I think I did. I did also require some extrapolation from others. If you know of an OEM version of both and can entice a shop with a frame machine to play along, in nm, the answer is yours to attain. I am happy without doing so.