Yes, the word "roadster", which was defined in 1916 (107 years ago) by the NYT, link here if you subscribe, as "an open car seating two or three. It may have additional seats on running boards or in rear deck." Your point is valid, but it's also been 100+ years, so I'm okay with this word evolving to include "may have additional seats on running boards or in rear deck." and accepting vehicles with more than 2 seats. That's me, I'm flexible that way.By definition, a roadster is an open top with two seats. Vehicles with four doors are not roadsters. In case there's any doubt, I'm still gobsmacked that AC targeted non-roadsters for their "Roadster Doors". Unbelievable.
When the community ignores this offering, I suppose AC will conclude there's no market for Roadster Doors and they will never offer them for 2-door Broncos.
You're "gobsmacked" by a business making a business decision? I'm unsure the rate breakout of 2-door vs 4-door Bronco's, but I think we can all agree that most 6th gen Bronco's are 4-door vehicles. Perhaps it's 50.1% vs. 49.9%? Perhaps it's 80% 20%? I'm confused as to why you're confused. Anderson Composites is trying to make as much money as possible, in the shortest timeframe possible. They have a new product for a new vehicle platform. How do they make the most in the shortest? Go where the numbers are. Create a product for the majority of owners, and sell it to them. Even better, the 4-door owners can buy 4 of our product, rather than only 2, for 2-door owners.
How does this not make sense?
Does it not make sense to you only because you're a 2-door vehicle owner, and you're upset that a company didn't simul-release a product for both 2 and 4 door vehicle owners? If so, I can understand that. If this line of logic doesn't make sense to you, perhaps you can reach out to the company which made this poor decision, and ask for clarification.
I'm not trying to argue, or be a dick here, just unsure of the hyperbole usage for these "roadster doors".
Sponsored