Convertible Supercars: Why Do We Pretend To Hate Them?

Whenever a convertible supercar emerges, it's slower, heavier and - on paper - measurably less good than its coupe sibling... but do we really think they're worse?
Convertible Supercars: Why Do We Pretend To Hate Them?

Convertible supercars: possibly the source of our greatest hypocrisy. On paper we prefer to shun them, to turn our noses up while mumbling words like ‘posers,’ ‘weight penalty’ and ‘handling.’ If the coupe is a stylish luxury hotel in Paris, the convertible is a neon-lit beachfront bar in Magaluf.

Earlier this week we brought you news that Porsche is cooking up something that, while it’s called the Speedster, seems a lot like a convertible GT3. Think 493bhp flat-six, rear-wheel drive, even a manual gearbox – plus unlimited headroom. But, as we always end up saying whenever this sort of thing happens, it inevitably won’t drive quite as well as the hard-top.

Convertible Supercars: Why Do We Pretend To Hate Them?

The extra weight involved in bracing the chassis after removing the roof is the arch-enemy of performance and handling. Scuttle shake is nowhere near what it used to be in the days of Saab 900 convertibles and Citroen C3 Pluriels (shudder) but it’s usually noticeable in anything that wasn’t designed to live without a roof in the first place, like a McLaren.

That extra flab can show itself on track, bringing the limits down a fraction, or making the steering feel a tad more dim-witted. Even on the road the convertible version often just feels a little… flat compared to the hard-top.

The exact Porsche 911 I failed to enjoy
The exact Porsche 911 I failed to enjoy

Porsche’s 911 is a perfect example. I once drove a current-era S Cabriolet from the south coast of Wales to the north coast in a day. It left me completely cold. I didn’t engage with it at all, but the weather was crap (obviously) and the roof spent 90 per cent of the time keeping rain off my head. There was loads of grip, but it just didn’t feel very engaging.

A month or two later I drove a Poundland-basic Carrera coupe and absolutely fell in love with it. It felt lithe, alert and so much more enjoyable. It’s that spark of life that nothing but low weight can really bring.

Convertible Supercars: Why Do We Pretend To Hate Them?

On the other hand, I’ve also driven both the hard top and Roadster versions of the Lamborghini Aventador. The Roadster, for all our mutterings about posing pouches and new money, is absolutely 100 per cent the one I’d have. The same goes for the McLaren 650S, of which I drove both styles, and the Ferrari 458. I’ll have the Spiders, thanks. Audi R8? Yep, driven both, and mine’s a Spyder.

What we’re sometimes guilty of when writing about these things is forgetting the real value of the extra theatre afforded by an open roof. Sure, you have to pay £10,000-£15,000 more for the roof delete option, but it’s that louder, more visceral experience that grabs you by the nerve endings and shakes you like an industrial paint mixer. It’s the reason we always come away from open-top supercar drives knowing that we’d have that one.

Convertible Supercars: Why Do We Pretend To Hate Them?

At the end of the day, neon-lit beachfront bars in Magaluf aren’t really our thing at all, but as much as we hate to admit it, that doesn’t mean they aren’t often very good fun.

Comments

Erich Mohrmann

We hate convertibles? First time hearing that

04/15/2018 - 10:05 |
6 | 0
TheMindGarage

The thing is that nowadays, cars are so stiff that the reduced torsional rigidity only shows up on track, and the weight penalty often less than a person’s weight (especially so for McLarens and other carbon-tub cars). For most supercars, I would definitely take the convertible over the coupe.

04/15/2018 - 10:40 |
10 | 0
Aaron 15

Well, I’d say the original supercars were open-top 🤷‍♂️

04/15/2018 - 11:42 |
58 | 2
Anonymous

Some cars just suit a topless version overall. Most Lamborghinis, for example, I would have as a roadster just to enhance the whole theatrical aspect of it. Unfortunately that’s not a problem I’ll have to deal with anytime soon :(

04/15/2018 - 11:47 |
10 | 2
SkigE39

Absolutely agree. I honestly would enjoy my car less if it was a coupe. It makes up for the low power. I have the top down every time the weather is permitting. I like to hear the engine and road noise while I drive.

04/15/2018 - 15:21 |
2 | 2
Saber Ali

My spider 🙌

04/15/2018 - 15:29 |
18 | 0

nOt A suPeRcaR 😂
Jk m8! Fantastic car!

04/16/2018 - 05:26 |
2 | 0
Anonymous

I personally only like targa tops because soft breaks ans leak easily and they dont look good with the top on but on the right car a convertible looks great

04/15/2018 - 18:02 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

I personally prefer coupes because of the looks and im not a fan of having the top down

04/15/2018 - 18:03 |
2 | 0
Rise Comics

Targa Tops

04/15/2018 - 23:57 |
0 | 0
Olivier (CT's grammar commie)

Well, I generally prefer coupes, but more over a practical point of view: a cabriolet/roadster with a soft top is more sensible to outer elements and more fragile, it costs a lot if it tears down, it won’t dure that long if not always meticulously maintained, it won’t stand snow and ice, it can’t be used all year long, etc., etc..

Plus, I’m not that much of a fan of the idea of being exposed to wind and things like that (okay, that’s hypocrite, because I want a bike): if I’d get a roadster, I’d probably buy a hardtop to go on it most of the time.

If I’d really have to get a convertible, it would need to be either a foldable hardtop (like the SLK, but it takes hella lot of space and reliability of the electric engines would get me concerned a little), either a targa (like the 911 or the MX-5 RF, or any recent Vette Coupe), either a T-Top (like the old Firebirds or C3 Vettes, but might have leak problems), or just, well, a super big foldable sunroof (like the 500C).

You just always have more problems with a convertible.

04/16/2018 - 01:31 |
2 | 0

Topics

Sponsored Posts