[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Clifton

It seems very apparent that with all those ruffled feathers of yours floating around that confined coop, you've missed some key points already made in this thread. Please see responses in Red

1934: Citroën (and Chrysler) "pioneers" the FIRST mass-produced self-supporting monocoque vehicles. - Not even close.

1955-1975: Citroën produces the DS 19, a self-supporting monocoque available with a plastic roof. - Close, but no cigar. Mostly a metal body.

1982: Citroën launches the BX, a self-supporting monocoque with extensive use of plastic body panels (bonnet, tailgate, bumpers). Citroën sells 2,315,739 units. Nope, not a monocoque frame (like the Fiero and Z1) and only part of the body was plastic.

1984: GM/Pontiac launches the Fiero with the idea to use a monocoque frame with ALL plastic body panels. GM sells 370,168 units - Yep, this is the one! Then count the other space-frame all plastic bodied cars GM sold (Fireo, Transport, Silhouette, Saturn S1 and S2's) and the count far exceeds 2 Million.

Now, let's compare the above history with your original unmodified BOLD claim: - Let's do!



As I said before, GM was the pioneer and flaming the Z1 for "cribbing" ideas can directly be applied to the Fiero as well. (I've not flamed the Z1 or BMW for "Cribbing" - Auto Week did )

So if we are to apply your [misappropriated] logic (which I don't anyway), BMW stole all the Z1 ideas from the manufacturers you claim GM did; not sure why you didn't bring this up first, oh "Truth Propagator of the Internet?"


Checkmate, again.... - NOT


The Eftreeoh challenge: How about actually providing facts to your claim that with the Fiero, GM truly "pioneered" (as in was the first) "self-supporting monocoque" with plastic body panels. - I've done this over, and over, AND over since the beginning...

.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Originally Posted by Clifton
It seems very apparent that with all those ruffled feathers of yours floating around that confined coop, you've missed some key points already made in this thread. Clifton, -please see responses in Red

1934: Citroën (and Chrysler) "pioneers" the FIRST mass-produced self-supporting monocoque vehicles. - Clifton, you are correct, Citroën and Chrylser were the true pioneers of the monocoque, not GM. GM "cribbed" the idea. This alone proves half of my statement was wrong. Gee, I'm feeling warm..

1955-1975: Citroën produces the DS 19, a self-supporting monocoque available with a plastic roof. - Clifton, you are correct, even though the DS 19 was mostly a metal, it did have a plastic panel (the roof), thus making my argument false.

1982: Citroën launches the BX, a self-supporting monocoque with extensive use of plastic body panels (bonnet, tailgate, bumpers). Citroën sells 2,315,739 units. Clifton, you really got me on this one, the BX "is" a monocoque frame and had body panels made of plastic. The BX signal handedly defeats my arugument that GM pioneered monococque with plastic panels. I Efthreeoh stand corrected.

1984: GM/Pontiac launches the Fiero, a turd on wheel that "cribbed" the idea to use a monocoque with plastic body panels from other manufactures. GM sells 370,168 units - whoop-dee-doo Yep, that is my favorite turd Clifton! For no reason at all, I'll include worthless other GM products to up the production count and no one will really know why I did except me.

Now, let's compare the above history with your original unmodified BOLD claim: - Clifton, I'm stuck in the 80's (my fiero is awesome!!!), please help me recap so that maybe I catch on.

Whomp, whomp, whahhhh - WRONG!

Clifton, as I said before, I THOUGHT GM was the pioneer but as you have proven over and over they weren't. And I did flame the Z1 for "cribbing" ideas that can directly be applied to the Fiero as well. (I'm going to deny that I flamed the Z1 or BMW for "Cribbing" - and say that Auto Week did )


Checkmate, again.... - Clifton, you are right, checkmate indeed


The Eftreeoh challenge: How about actually providing facts to your claim that with the Fiero, GM truly "pioneered" (as in was the first) "self-supporting monocoque" with plastic body panels. Clifton - I've yet to do this, but if I change my argument enough and add additional conditional clauses, maybe no one will notice...

I fixed all of that for you....

I know you keep trying to pretend you didn't say it, but your claim is not going away. It is wrong, you know and I know it and that is why you keep changing your story one post at a time.

Now, please try to pay attention and prove GM/Fiero pioneered a self-supporting monocoque" with plastic body panels.

The challenge still stands

The Eftreeoh challenge: How about actually providing facts to your claim that with the Fiero, GM truly "pioneered" (as in was the first) "self-supporting monocoque" with plastic body panels.

[MisterSkiMask]

Now let's argue about who pioneered 8 track tapes, beta, laser discs, and other ideas that were abandoned

[Holland Harry]

Dear Clifton, thanks for the postings!

As you pointed out this is a BMW forum and we were talking about 25 years Z1 not 30 years of GM's Fiero. Again no hartfeelings Efthreeoh but maybe it's time to stop polluting and jacking this tread!

As Clifton pointed out it was checkmate.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

Now let's argue about who pioneered 8 track tapes, beta, laser discs, and other ideas that were abandoned

Sure, but the only difference is the manufacturers of those products don't go and issue 25th Anniversary spin pieces touting the development of a "new" construction techniques with use of "new" materials - that changed, or will change - the way similar products will be built in the future. Claims of new technologies sooooo advanced when they were released that even 25 years later no one (including the actual issuer of the spin piece) uses them.

To wit:

BMW didn't revive the roadster market - Mazda did. (BMW introduced the Z3 six years later than the Miata)

BMW didn't first-develop the automotive construction and type-design that utilized a monocoque frame (AKA "space-frame") with (i.e. including, as part of) an entire plastic body, which used plastic, removable, no load-bearing body panels. - GM did (see development and production dates, and pictures posted elsewhere in this thread).

And BMW points to the floor of the Z1 as being innovative as well:

"The second peculiarity of the Z1 bodyshell was the vehicle floor, which was bonded with the frame and partly bolted to it – and made of plastic. In collaboration with specialists from MBB – now merged into EADS – the Z1 engineers had developed a material which combined low weight with high load-bearing capacity, was immune to corrosion, safe in a collision, and produced smooth underbody contours. The solution was a combination of fibre-composite materials sandwiched together. The resulting structure of two layers of glass fibre-reinforced epoxy resin with polyurethane foam in between produced a floor assembly with a weight of just 15 kilograms".

In particular: "...structure of two layers of glass fibre-reinforced epoxy resin with polyurethane foam..." - This, gentlemen, is the basic construction technique and base material of surfboards. Polyurethane foam wrapped in fiberglass.

Granted, using a surfboard as the floor of a car was a unique application of the material, but I think this was probably driven more by cost considerations for the planned low-rate, low volume production of the Z1 rather than pure a pure engineering exercise. Had the Z1 been destined for high-rate production (dare I say it, such as the Fiero) BMW probably would have chosen a conventional metal floor pan, but the tooling costs for floor pans are one of the most expensive parts of car production, so for an 8,000 unit production run it was less-expensive to go with the surfboard-construction for the floor.

Have at it...

[Holland Harry]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Sure, but the only difference is the manufacturers of those products don't go and issue 25th Anniversary spin pieces touting the development of a "new" construction techniques with use of "new" materials - that changed, or will change - the way similar products will be built in the future. Claims of new technologies sooooo advanced when they were released that even 25 years later no one (including the actual issuer of the spin piece) uses them.

To wit:

BMW didn't revive the roadster market - Mazda did. (BMW introduced the Z3 six years later than the Miata)

BMW didn't first-develop the automotive construction and type-design that utilized a monocoque frame (AKA "space-frame") with (i.e. including, as part of) an entire plastic body, which used plastic, removable, no load-bearing body panels. - GM did (see development and production dates, and pictures posted elsewhere in this thread).

And BMW points to the floor of the Z1 as being innovative as well:

"The second peculiarity of the Z1 bodyshell was the vehicle floor, which was bonded with the frame and partly bolted to it – and made of plastic. In collaboration with specialists from MBB – now merged into EADS – the Z1 engineers had developed a material which combined low weight with high load-bearing capacity, was immune to corrosion, safe in a collision, and produced smooth underbody contours. The solution was a combination of fibre-composite materials sandwiched together. The resulting structure of two layers of glass fibre-reinforced epoxy resin with polyurethane foam in between produced a floor assembly with a weight of just 15 kilograms".

In particular: "...structure of two layers of glass fibre-reinforced epoxy resin with polyurethane foam..." - This, gentlemen, is the basic construction technique and base material of surfboards. Polyurethane foam wrapped in fiberglass.

Granted, using a surfboard as the floor of a car was a unique application of the material, but I think this was probably driven more by cost considerations for the planned low-rate, low volume production of the Z1 rather than pure a pure engineering exercise. Had the Z1 been destined for high-rate production (dare I say it, such as the Fiero) BMW probably would have chosen a conventional metal floor pan, but the tooling costs for floor pans are one of the most expensive parts of car production, so for an 8,000 unit production run it was less-expensive to go with the surfboard-construction for the floor.

Have at it...

The Z1 wasn't mend as a mass production car! Is was a concept car which went into production as a lot of costumers wanted to buy the car.

Because of the just 8000 units the Z1 is still a desired classic which can't be said for the Fiero.

In the beginning of this thread I still respected you and your point was made!

But now!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just feel sorry for you! Get a life and again stop jacking this thread.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Holland Harry

The Z1 wasn't mend as a mass production car! Is was a concept car which went into production as a lot of costumers wanted to buy the car.

Because of the just 8000 units the Z1 is still a desired classic which can't be said for the Fiero.

In the beginning of this thread I still respected you and your point was made!

But now!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just feel sorry for you! Get a life and again stop jacking this thread.

My apologies, really. I thought you and I had a fair discussion. I'm not sure why you should feel sorry for me.

This is really between Clifton and me, for some reason he has issues with things I post on the Forum. I try to state as much factual information as possible (I was goofing with the picture of the Fiero with the two BMWs), most if it I have from memory and some I confirm via searches on the internet and some books I have. Clifton tends to make up false arguments from my postings only to then discount them (but I never actually made the arguments he tries to link to me). For example I never said the Fiero was the first monocoque chassis car. And in reality we're all using the term "Monocoque" incorrectly, as monocoque really implies a vehicle where the structural load is carried by the "skin" (body panels) of the vehicle. The Z1 and Fiero implore a monocoque frame where the load is carried by the skeletal structure and not the body of the vehicle. The proper term of the design is "Space Frame", which I've used several times in this thread.

Despite what Clifton tried to imply, my point of view regarding all this is based on my first-hand readings of the articles about the development of the Fiero starting in the late ‘70s. Unfortunately most of those articles have never been digitized and put on the internet. The Fireo was quite the talk of the industry back during its development. Clifton is the one who refers to the Fiero as a “turd”. Back in the day, when compared to its contemporaries, it actually was a well-built and decent performing automobile (especially in later GT form). As I said to you, my Brother had a 1984 2M4 he bought when the car first came out; in fact he saw the car before its release when it was being crash-tested at the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) in Ruckersville, Virginia. I spent several thousand miles behind the wheel of that car and also have extensive experience with the E21, E30 and E36, driving them all in the same time period, so I can say with some authority how the BMWs compare to the Fiero. I’ve not driven a Z1, but based on its drive train (E30) and suspension E30/36 front end, I can reasonably imagine how it drives similar to an E30 and E36 (not sure how much the Z Axle makes a difference to the handling).

I can’t write a rational response like this with Clinton since he has a propensity to pass personal insults in his posts. He’d do much better if he refrained from the insults. I suspect Clifton is barely older than the Fiero itself and doesn't have the background about it as I do. And besides my post was never about the Fiero being better than the Z1; it's been about how BMW spins the idea that the car was so highly advanced for its time. The same basic structure the two cars share (space frame and all-plastic body) was done by GM first, six years ahead of BMW, there is no refuting that fact.

And as far as technologies go with the Z1, the most important legacy I found was the development of the alternating current (AC) HID (high intensity discharge) headlamps. BMW derrived 50 patents from the Z1 development. From what I read BMW developed HIDs for the Z1 and are noted as first used in a production car on the 1991 BMW 7 Series. I'm not sure if the HIDs for the Z1 were AC or DC (I suspect AC) and are same basic units used on the 7. Lincoln is noted for the first-use of DC HIDs in 1996.

Truly I like the Z1, it is a neat car. I'm not that fond of the styling though. And it is rare car, keeping prices high, but I've also seen well-kept Fieros go for more than their original sale price (not counting for inflation). There is one in Washington State, USA, that is brand new with a few 100 miles on it selling for $40,000 USD (It probably had a $12,000 sticker price). It’s not really fair to compare the two car’s current market value as the Z1 was basically a one-off design where as the Fiero was a mass-produced, inexpensive, high MPG commuter car.

Cheers. Maybe I’ll get to Europe one day and we can have a beer together.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by Holland Harry

The Z1 wasn't mend as a mass production car! Is was a concept car which went into production as a lot of costumers wanted to buy the car.

Because of the just 8000 units the Z1 is still a desired classic which can't be said for the Fiero.

In the beginning of this thread I still respected you and your point was made!

But now!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just feel sorry for you! Get a life and again stop jacking this thread.

*High five*, Harry.

There are reasons why certain members of this forum are banned. Our offending polluter has been banned multiple times; go figure (see member profiles for ENINTY & Casper).

If you notice though, when challenged, the argument changes (multiple times now), back pedaling ensues and the original claim remains unsubstantiated. GM was not the first to "pioneer" the self-supported" monocoque with plastic body panels.

*sigh*

While it is fun to watch the squirming, hopefully we will see more "on-topic" BMW/Z1 related posts in lieu of all this GM/Fiero nonsense.

Cheers to you Holland Harry!!

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh;

Clifton tends to make up false arguments from my postings only to then discount them (but I never actually made the arguments he tries to link to me). For example I never said the Fiero was the first monocoque chassis car

Pssst, think you must have forgotten what you said about the Fiero:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh;

The construction design of a "self-supporting monocoque" with plastic body panels had already been pioneered by General Motors

A little wisdom for Efthreeoh:
"When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"*
-Will Rogers

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Pssst, think you must have forgotten what you said about the Fiero:


A little wisdom for Efthreeoh:
"When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"*
-Will Rogers

Yes I did, and it is an exact true statement. I Also wrote this five posts later (before you decided to interject youself into the discussion...)

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It (the Fiero automated spaceframe manufacturing process) was quite an endeavor for its time and was studied heavily by both business and production disciplines during its development.

So stop trying to twist the truth.
This is what BMW wrote in the press piece:

"October 1988: the Z1 – a radically different approach to development and construction.

The Z1 truly was different from the ground up. A self-supporting monocoque construction made up of individual sheet-steel parts constituted the car’s backbone." guess we both know this is wrong... wasn't so "radical" was it?

And then BMW wrote this:

"Despite these advantages, the BMW engineers acknowledged that 'it would appear impossible in the foreseeable future to use a larger amount of plastic for making the exterior of mass-produced vehicles'."

Hummm... The Pontiac Transport and Oldsmobile Silhouette were both all-plastic outer skin vehicles of the same construction design as the Fiero and Z1. Both the Transport and Silhouette being minivans, they were much larger than the Z1; and the Transport was first sold in 1989. I guess BMW was wrong about that one too. GM figured out how to do it...

Talk about digging holes...

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yes I did, and it is an exact true statement. I Also wrote this five posts later (before you decided to interject youself into the discussion...)



So stop trying to twist the truth.
This is what BMW wrote in the press piece:

"October 1988: the Z1 – a radically different approach to devYelopment and construction.

The Z1 truly was different from the ground up. A self-supporting monocoque construction made up of individual sheet-steel parts constituted the car’s backbone." guess we both know this is wrong... wasn't so "radical" was it?

And then BMW wrote this:

"Despite these advantages, the BMW engineers acknowledged that 'it would appear impossible in the foreseeable future to use a larger amount of plastic for making the exterior of mass-produced vehicles'."

Hummm... The Pontiac Transport and Oldsmobile Silhouette were both all-plastic outer skin vehicles of the same construction design as the Fiero and Z1. Both the Transport and Silhouette being minivans, they were much larger than the Z1; and the Transport was first sold in 1989. I guess BMW was wrong about that one too. GM figured out how to do it...

Talk about digging holes...

Efthreeoh,
Please stop polluting this thread. As others have also commented, no one but you cares about the Fiero. Believe what you will about what GM did not pioneer, but respect the forum and the topic (you've done neither).

In the mean time the challenge still stands. Feel free to PM me or post the factual data that GM was first and I will happliy conceed. I'd even be will to put some money behind it at this point. Disagree and be wrong all you like, but the rest of your nonsense has no business in this forum or thread.

Reminder -
The Eftreeoh challenge: Instead of perpetuating and adding conditions to your original argument, how about actually providing facts to your claim that with the Fiero, GM truly "pioneered" (as in was the first) "self-supporting monocoque" with plastic body panels.

[Holland Harry]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

My apologies, really. I thought you and I had a fair discussion. I'm not sure why you should feel sorry for me.

This is really between Clifton and me, for some reason he has issues with things I post on the Forum. I try to state as much factual information as possible (I was goofing with the picture of the Fiero with the two BMWs), most if it I have from memory and some I confirm via searches on the internet and some books I have. Clifton tends to make up false arguments from my postings only to then discount them (but I never actually made the arguments he tries to link to me). For example I never said the Fiero was the first monocoque chassis car. And in reality we're all using the term "Monocoque" incorrectly, as monocoque really implies a vehicle where the structural load is carried by the "skin" (body panels) of the vehicle. The Z1 and Fiero implore a monocoque frame where the load is carried by the skeletal structure and not the body of the vehicle. The proper term of the design is "Space Frame", which I've used several times in this thread.

Despite what Clifton tried to imply, my point of view regarding all this is based on my first-hand readings of the articles about the development of the Fiero starting in the late ‘70s. Unfortunately most of those articles have never been digitized and put on the internet. The Fireo was quite the talk of the industry back during its development. Clifton is the one who refers to the Fiero as a “turd”. Back in the day, when compared to its contemporaries, it actually was a well-built and decent performing automobile (especially in later GT form). As I said to you, my Brother had a 1984 2M4 he bought when the car first came out; in fact he saw the car before its release when it was being crash-tested at the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) in Ruckersville, Virginia. I spent several thousand miles behind the wheel of that car and also have extensive experience with the E21, E30 and E36, driving them all in the same time period, so I can say with some authority how the BMWs compare to the Fiero. I’ve not driven a Z1, but based on its drive train (E30) and suspension E30/36 front end, I can reasonably imagine how it drives similar to an E30 and E36 (not sure how much the Z Axle makes a difference to the handling).

I can’t write a rational response like this with Clinton since he has a propensity to pass personal insults in his posts. He’d do much better if he refrained from the insults. I suspect Clifton is barely older than the Fiero itself and doesn't have the background about it as I do. And besides my post was never about the Fiero being better than the Z1; it's been about how BMW spins the idea that the car was so highly advanced for its time. The same basic structure the two cars share (space frame and all-plastic body) was done by GM first, six years ahead of BMW, there is no refuting that fact.

And as far as technologies go with the Z1, the most important legacy I found was the development of the alternating current (AC) HID (high intensity discharge) headlamps. BMW derrived 50 patents from the Z1 development. From what I read BMW developed HIDs for the Z1 and are noted as first used in a production car on the 1991 BMW 7 Series. I'm not sure if the HIDs for the Z1 were AC or DC (I suspect AC) and are same basic units used on the 7. Lincoln is noted for the first-use of DC HIDs in 1996.

Truly I like the Z1, it is a neat car. I'm not that fond of the styling though. And it is rare car, keeping prices high, but I've also seen well-kept Fieros go for more than their original sale price (not counting for inflation). There is one in Washington State, USA, that is brand new with a few 100 miles on it selling for $40,000 USD (It probably had a $12,000 sticker price). It’s not really fair to compare the two car’s current market value as the Z1 was basically a one-off design where as the Fiero was a mass-produced, inexpensive, high MPG commuter car.

Cheers. Maybe I’ll get to Europe one day and we can have a beer together.

Dear Efthreeoh,

It's not that I won't let you make your statements. But the fact is that this is a BMW forum and this topic is 25 years Z1. So on this forum we should be talking about Beemers and not GM Fiero's.
Your point was made a long time ago in this thread so there no point going on with your Fiero statement. You sort of killed the subject of the thread and the fun of the subject with the Fiero thing! And this was quit pointless!

So out of respect to the people who want to enjoy the forum and talk about Beemers you should stop this Fiero discussion. If you still like to fight it out I think Clifton offered you the possibility to do this through PM's.

Again no hartfeelings and you are always welcome for a beer when you are in Holland as is Clifton ofcourse!

Cheers and keep the fibe possitiv in life,

HH

[Efthreeoh]

I guess this is just the same argument one could have on an Audi Forum, who Pioneered the small sports sedan: BMW or Audi? (I know how we'd all answer)

Guys, it's been about BMW all along and not about the Fiero. It's been about the uber-statements made in the press piece (please go re-read post #24). Use my arguments, or Clifton's, the result is the same...

[Socket]

Who won?

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yes I did, and it is an exact true statement. I Also wrote this five posts later (before you decided to interject youself into the discussion...)



So stop trying to twist the truth.
This is what BMW wrote in the press piece:

"October 1988: the Z1 – a radically different approach to development and construction.

The Z1 truly was different from the ground up. A self-supporting monocoque construction made up of individual sheet-steel parts constituted the car’s backbone." guess we both know this is wrong... wasn't so "radical" was it?

And then BMW wrote this:

"Despite these advantages, the BMW engineers acknowledged that 'it would appear impossible in the foreseeable future to use a larger amount of plastic for making the exterior of mass-produced vehicles'."

Hummm... The Pontiac Transport and Oldsmobile Silhouette were both all-plastic outer skin vehicles of the same construction design as the Fiero and Z1. Both the Transport and Silhouette being minivans, they were much larger than the Z1; and the Transport was first sold in 1989. I guess BMW was wrong about that one too. GM figured out how to do it...

Talk about digging holes...

Where are Pontiac and Oldsmobile now?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Where are Pontiac and Oldsmobile now?

Where is the 2016 plastic-bodied monocoque-framed Z1 and all the BMWs that were to be of like design technique and manufacture to come after the original? And don’t bore us with the i3 and carbon fiber… blah, blah, blah.

Oh, and where is Zundapp?

And what exact BMW model competes with the plastic-bodied C7 corvette? LOL

[davis449]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Where are Pontiac and Oldsmobile now?

Also, where is Saturn now?