Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum

F-Type ( X152 ) 2014 - Onwards
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2016 F-Type roof

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #21  
Old 02-07-2015, 09:51 AM
F-typical's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,498
Received 179 Likes on 153 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by mshedden
Don't like the CF option, and in the one car I had with a t-top glass roof I *never* took the shades off - having light coming in from above just BUGS me for some reason. I for one wish they'd left the standard roof as an option, but they didn't...
Same here.
 
Reply Like
  #22  
Old 02-07-2015, 11:46 AM
mshedden's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 701
Received 192 Likes on 128 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by StealthPilot
My biggest concern about the glass roof was rigidity. I drove Lexus and Mercedes cars with glass roofs on test drives in the past and found that the car seemed less rigid and sometimes you would hear a sound from the roof. In the Jag there is none of that. It is just as solid as a metal roof. It's really perfectly integrated.
I wonder if, due to the construction, the roof panel actually plays any part in the rigidity? Could be the box frame around the panel provides the strength and the 'interchangeable' panels just sit in there, more or less.
 
Reply Like
  #23  
Old 02-07-2015, 12:06 PM
Unhingd's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 16,939
Received 4,661 Likes on 3,366 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by mshedden
I wonder if, due to the construction, the roof panel actually plays any part in the rigidity? Could be the box frame around the panel provides the strength and the 'interchangeable' panels just sit in there, more or less.
One of the Jag video presentations describes the structural channels that define the roofline. None of the panels,(glass,CF, sheet metal) provide any structural rigidity. That's left entirely to the structural members.
 
Reply Like
  #24  
Old 02-07-2015, 02:45 PM
mshedden's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 701
Received 192 Likes on 128 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by lhoboy
One of the Jag video presentations describes the structural channels that define the roofline. None of the panels,(glass,CF, sheet metal) provide any structural rigidity. That's left entirely to the structural members.
Makes sense - can't see an all glass panel doing anything other than breaking if subject to even a small amount of stress.
 
Reply Like
  #25  
Old 02-07-2015, 03:26 PM
OzRisk's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,375
Received 251 Likes on 140 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by F-typical
1.5mm aluminium vs. 6mm laminated glass + the sun blind mechanism.

Mounted as high as possible on the car, too...
Well, if it's weight you're really concerned about, buy carbon brakes.

Oh, and eat less Twinkies!
 
Reply Like
  #26  
Old 02-07-2015, 03:51 PM
Unhingd's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 16,939
Received 4,661 Likes on 3,366 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by OzRisk
Well, if it's weight you're really concerned about, buy carbon brakes.

Oh, and eat less Twinkies!
and, toss out the passenger
 
Reply Like
  #27  
Old 02-07-2015, 04:25 PM
F-typical's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,498
Received 179 Likes on 153 Posts
Default
I already have the lightest brake setup, so why would I need them?

Also, it seems you need to do more than 10 emergency stops from 100mph before they perform better.

Plus: The wheels to go with them suck.
 
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
Foosh (02-07-2015)
  #28  
Old 02-07-2015, 06:22 PM
Foosh's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 6,177
Received 1,028 Likes on 854 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by F-typical
I already have the lightest brake setup, so why would I need them?

Also, it seems you need to do more than 10 emergency stops from 100mph before they perform better.

Plus: The wheels to go with them suck.
Ditto! The brakes on the base car are amazingly good, and clamp as well, if not better than my E92 M3, which was claimed by all reviewers to be a very capable track car. There was only one brake option on that M3.
 
Last edited by Foosh; 02-07-2015 at 06:26 PM.
Reply Like
  #29  
Old 02-08-2015, 06:36 AM
OzRisk's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,375
Received 251 Likes on 140 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by F-typical
I already have the lightest brake setup, so why would I need them?

Also, it seems you need to do more than 10 emergency stops from 100mph before they perform better.

Plus: The wheels to go with them suck.
You don't need anything extra at all. No options for you!

That's a neat trick though - what was your secret for getting the lightest brake setup with iron brakes that weigh substantially more than carbon ceramics?
 
Last edited by OzRisk; 02-08-2015 at 06:47 AM.
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
Stohlen (02-08-2015)
  #30  
Old 02-08-2015, 06:54 AM
F-typical's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,498
Received 179 Likes on 153 Posts
Default
They're smaller.
 
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
mshedden (02-08-2015)
  #31  
Old 02-08-2015, 10:02 AM
Stohlen's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 2,032
Received 642 Likes on 411 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by OzRisk
That's a neat trick though - what was your secret for getting the lightest brake setup with iron brakes that weigh substantially more than carbon ceramics?
I was wondering if anyone else would catch this. Must be magic since most iron rotors weigh the same as all four carbon ceramic equivalents.
 
Reply Like
  #32  
Old 02-08-2015, 11:04 AM
F-typical's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,498
Received 179 Likes on 153 Posts
Default
This is true. The calipers and associated mounting brackets are mahoosive however.
 
Reply Like
  #33  
Old 02-08-2015, 11:49 AM
Stohlen's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 2,032
Received 642 Likes on 411 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by F-typical
This is true. The calipers and associated mounting brackets are mahoosive however.
Lower rotating mass is much more important than overall weight. I would also challenge that the carbon ceramic kit weighs less regardless.
 
Reply Like
  #34  
Old 02-08-2015, 12:19 PM
Unhingd's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 16,939
Received 4,661 Likes on 3,366 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by Stohlen
Lower rotating mass is much more important than overall weight. I would also challenge that the carbon ceramic kit weighs less regardless.
Jag claims 21 kg.
 
Last edited by Unhingd; 02-08-2015 at 12:24 PM.
Reply Like
  #35  
Old 12-13-2018, 10:22 AM
vika01's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Sweden
Posts: 244
Received 71 Likes on 44 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by OzRisk
Pffftt!

Penalty? What penalty???
penalty is that the design is worse with a glass roof.
 
Reply Like
  #36  
Old 12-13-2018, 10:42 AM
4x4uk's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 186
Received 41 Likes on 26 Posts
Default
I have a 2016my with a solid roof, think it depends on the market area
 
Reply Like
  #37  
Old 12-17-2018, 01:17 PM
WJV's Avatar
WJV
WJV is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Augusta, Georgia
Posts: 197
Received 41 Likes on 27 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by StealthPilot
And rigidity is a non issue. Coupe with glass roof is just as rigid as metal roof. It's an amazingly rigid car.
Heavier though, with the glass vs. standard aluminum or CF. It will also eventually pop/creak when maneuvering steep inclines/driveways, they all do and it can be unnerving to hear. Pano roof is one of the few options mine did not come with and I can't say I miss it.
 
Reply Like
  #38  
Old 12-17-2018, 02:10 PM
scm's Avatar
scm
scm is offline
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 4,329
Received 1,460 Likes on 1,105 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by WJV
Pano roof is one of the few options mine did not come with and I can't say I miss it.
I didn't think I'd miss cooled seats or a heated windscreen until I had them.
 
Reply Like
  #39  
Old 12-18-2018, 05:03 PM
WJV's Avatar
WJV
WJV is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Augusta, Georgia
Posts: 197
Received 41 Likes on 27 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by scm
I didn't think I'd miss cooled seats or a heated windscreen until I had them.
True. But now you’re talking comfort/convenience v. aesthetics.
 
Reply Like
  #40  
Old 12-18-2018, 07:35 PM
sov211's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 3,638
Received 2,246 Likes on 1,361 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by WJV
Heavier though, with the glass vs. standard aluminum or CF. It will also eventually pop/creak when maneuvering steep inclines/driveways, they all do and it can be unnerving to hear. Pano roof is one of the few options mine did not come with and I can't say I miss it.
This is not true in my experience. My car has the glass roof (on the BRG body) and there is no noise from the roof area under any circumstance -including entering or leaving steep inclines; in fact there are no extraneous body noises at all. I attribute this to the very stiff body structure. The glass roof is definitely not an issue in this sense and on a dark body it blends very well. But I must say that I never open the moveable panel to allow more light into the cabin...in fact I prefer it dark.
 
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
scm (12-19-2018)



Advanced Search
Quick Reply: 2016 F-Type roof


Reply Closed Thread Share

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.