Sunrider position pointless?

[Rahneld]

The better question is can you? Geeze dude. What in the AF are you trying to prove?

Thought I made that clear..

It is: people seeking to make warranty or tort liability claims against FCA pursuant to keeping soft windows installed while riding in Sunrider position will be "up a creek without a paddle."

Do I think such situations likely, for the dozenth time I do not.

Sponsored

 

[digitalbliss]

Thought I made that clear..

It is: people seeking to make warranty or tort liability claims against FCA pursuant to keeping soft windows installed while riding in Sunrider position will be "up a creek without a paddle."

Do I think such situations likely, for the dozenth time I do not.

Then why the part about double negatives? To flex a perceived superior intellect?

 

[Rahneld]

Then why the part about double negatives? To flex a perceived superior intellect?

…because when trying to defend a point you have understand it first. And when someone posts two "no's" in a sentence it's darn near impossible to walk away from that kind of a read with any confidence that you clearly understood the author's intentions.

"Removing the soft windows before opening the soft top is not not in the manual."

"Removing the soft windows before opening the soft top is in the manual."

I don't know about you, but for me the second sentence is clearer, despite both sentences meaning the same thing.

@digitalbliss....I'd like to be done with this thread. Can you stop singling me out?...I'm going to have a good reply to any decent question you pose that may arise at your end because you may have missed context here. I'm not looking for a fight with anyone, I'm looking to set straight two posters who presented fiction as fact so others don't get the wrong idea, not to punish them for being wrong.

Superior intellect? As if! If you check the top of this thread you'll see I said something wrong. I apologized, and everyone moved on. I didn't dig my heels in like these guys did when wrong.

Thanks.

 

[digitalbliss]

…because when trying to defend a point you have understand it first. And when someone posts two "no's" in a sentence it's darn near impossible to walk away from that kind of a read with any confidence that you clearly understood the author's intentions.

"Removing the soft windows before opening the soft top is not not in the manual."

"Removing the soft windows before opening the soft top is in the manual."

I don't know about you, but for me the second sentence is clearer, despite both sentences meaning the same thing.

@digitalbliss....I'd like to be done with this thread. Can you stop singling me out?...I'm going to have a good reply to any decent question you pose that may arise at your end because you may have missed context here. I'm not looking for a fight with anyone, I'm looking to set straight two posters who presented fiction as fact so others don't get the wrong idea, not to punish them for being wrong.

Superior intellect? As if! If you check the top of this thread you'll see I said something wrong. I apologized, and everyone moved on. I didn't dig my heels in like these guys did when wrong.

Thanks.

Lol, you are saying that you could not understand his meaning? Come on.... You're full of it.
You singled out @Firemadz . Turnabout's fair play, right?
And lastly, you can be done whenever you like, regardless of what I write. Like my reply of your earlier question "can we stop now?". I asked if you could... Guess I got my answer.

 

[Jebiruph]

So I'm driving around with the top in the Sunrider position and the windows in, not a care in the world until I get on the freeway. It's not a long 65 mph drive on the freeway and I keep a close eye on the windows. There is a slight flutter in the windows, but at no time do I detect pressure on the windows that would cause them to come off. So I think, nobody worries about low speed driving with the Sunrider open and windows in, at what speed does in become a problem"? Where is the warning in the manual about the max speed with the Sunrider open and the windows in? If there is no safe speed to drive with the Sunrider open and the windows in, where is the warning to "Never drive with the Sunrider open and the windows installed!".

As to the instructions in the manuals, the Sunrider instructions are always a subset of the full top down instructions. To lower the full top, you pull the windows, flip the top to the Sundier position, then release the latch to go all the way back. What if the requirement to remove the windows for the Sunrider down position are there only because the Sunrider instructions are always immediately followed by the top down instructions? It could be a matter of literary convenience, not vehicle safety.

And now I understand what @Firemadz has been saying all along.

If you are worried about possible liability, keep a copy of the picture @Firemadz posted earlier of the Wrangler being driven with the Sunrider down and the windows on. That picture does not defer to the owner's manual and obfuscates the canonical relevance of the owners manual (and no, I'm not explaining that).

 

[TrailTorque]

Every single time I see the words “Sunrider position” my mind automatically switches gears LOL

 

[Rahneld]

Lol, you are saying that you could not understand his meaning? Come on.... You're full of it.
You singled out @Firemadz . Turnabout's fair play, right?
And lastly, you can be done whenever you like, regardless of what I write. Like my reply of your earlier question "can we stop now?". I asked if you could... Guess I got my answer.

Funny, that's exactly and humbly what I'm saying. Did I not say @digitalbliss that every question you pose risks being replied to with a responsible response? Sigh. Here goes.

This is what @Firemadz wrote:

"As I posted before, the manual does NOT explicitly say to not drive in sunrider with rear windows installed. "

What???!

To which I said, after reading this a couple of times, thinking it was my stupidity (because after all you think I'm so full of myself)--"I need to remove two 'nots' ."

That leaves us with:

The manual does NOT explicitly say to not drive in sunrider with rear windows
installed.

To which I said to myself, 'no it doesn't.' The manual--which in the absence of any qualifier (e.g. user's manual) to indicate "what" manual is being referred to means to owners manual.

...and the owner's manual expressly says to remove the windows....so...yes, I legitimately questioned what the poster was really trying to say.

and legitimately, not antagonistically like you sought to clarify. And you know what came of that..I think, because I'm still not 100% certain, that @Firemadz was referring to a glove box card that does indeed expressly say that soft windows need not be removed.

..the same guide, like all others, except the owner's manual, that says, in so many words 'refer to the owner's manual for complete/further details.'

And do you why all that stuff, barring the owner's manual provides such verbiage @digitalbliss ?, because case law has shown that not only were plantiffs able to collect sums where contradictory guidance was provided by a manufacturer in operating directions, but that placing this disclaimer in all but the owner's manual resulted in perfect defenses in future claims.

Turnabout @digitalbliss ? That's @Firemadz's to have. You're just picking a fight.

When I start attacting you we can talk about who can't stop. In the meantime, if you continue to hit me with up with stupid trolling like questions, especially born of your failure to read or understand above, reserve me the right to defend myself.

What's next @digitalbliss ? Perhaps you want to take a swipe at what you think is the lack of attactiveness of my spose.

 

[Rahneld]

So I'm driving around with the top in the Sunrider position and the windows in, not a care in the world until I get on the freeway. It's not a long 65 mph drive on the freeway and I keep a close eye on the windows. There is a slight flutter in the windows, but at no time do I detect pressure on the windows that would cause them to come off. So I think, nobody worries about low speed driving with the Sunrider open and windows in, at what speed does in become a problem"? Where is the warning in the manual about the max speed with the Sunrider open and the windows in? If there is no safe speed to drive with the Sunrider open and the windows in, where is the warning to "Never drive with the Sunrider open and the windows installed!".

As to the instructions in the manuals, the Sunrider instructions are always a subset of the full top down instructions. To lower the full top, you pull the windows, flip the top to the Sundier position, then release the latch to go all the way back. What if the requirement to remove the windows for the Sunrider down position are there only because the Sunrider instructions are always immediately followed by the top down instructions? It could be a matter of literary convenience, not vehicle safety.

And now I understand what @Firemadz has been saying all along.

If you are worried about possible liability, keep a copy of the picture @Firemadz posted earlier of the Wrangler being driven with the Sunrider down and the windows on. That picture does not defer to the owner's manual and obfuscates the canonical relevance of the owners manual (and no, I'm not explaining that).

Jerry: you are an elder statesman of this forum. You've forgotten more about the 3.6L JL's electrical system than I know, and I, relatively speaking know a lot more than average.

But that picture would lose transaction in liability because the owner's manual trumps, FCA's attorneys will claim that the vehicle was motionless, therefore soft window positioning was irrelevant, probably throw in that the JL featured there was on a closed course where liability flows up to the property owner, and that the picture was taken in pre-production, etc.

Courts will likely order FCA to remove all pictures in all materials they have of such things going forward, and instruct dealers to do same.

Existing pictures from dealers: discussed above: such legal actions would name the dealer and FCA because there's nothing to lose naming parties, especially ones with deep pockets. FCA's attorneys will likely successfully chime the "our dealerships are independently owned and operated" bell.

But you're right, the picture is the best we have if in fact on FCA materials.

 

[digitalbliss]

Funny, that's exactly and humbly what I'm saying. Did I not say @digitalbliss that every question you pose risks being replied to with a responsible response? Sigh. Here goes.

This is what @Firemadz wrote:

"As I posted before, the manual does NOT explicitly say to not drive in sunrider with rear windows installed. "

What???!

To which I said, after reading this a couple of times, thinking it was my stupidity (because after all you think I'm so full of myself)--"I need to remove two 'nots' ."

That leaves us with:

The manual does NOT explicitly say to not drive in sunrider with rear windows
installed.

To which I said to myself, 'no it doesn't.' The manual--which in the absence of any qualifier (e.g. user's manual) to indicate "what" manual is being referred to means to owners manual.

...and the owner's manual expressly says to remove the windows....so...yes, I legitimately questioned what the poster was really trying to say.

and legitimately, not antagonistically like you sought to clarify. And you know what came of that..I think, because I'm still not 100% certain, that @Firemadz was referring to a glove box card that does indeed expressly say that soft windows need not be removed.

..the same guide, like all others, except the owner's manual, that says, in so many words 'refer to the owner's manual for complete/further details.'

And do you why all that stuff, barring the owner's manual provides such verbiage @digitalbliss ?, because case law has shown that not only were plantiffs able to collect sums where contradictory guidance was provided by a manufacturer in operating directions, but that placing this disclaimer in all but the owner's manual resulted in perfect defenses in future claims.

Turnabout @digitalbliss ? That's @Firemadz's to have. You're just picking a fight.

When I start attacting you we can talk about who can't stop. In the meantime, if you continue to hit me with up with stupid trolling like questions, especially born of your failure to read or understand above, reserve me the right to defend myself.

What's next @digitalbliss ? Perhaps you want to take a swipe at what you think is the lack of attactiveness of my spose.

LOL, you just can't help it can you? A last word kind of guy I guess. No need to continue to write novels explaining the he she said. I've been reading this since the beginning, one post at a time all the way to here. Ultimately it's pretty clear that you like to hear yourself speak, sometimes it reminds me of Everett in "O Brother where art thou".
To be honest, up to this point, I haven't had one thought about your wife. But.... if you post up a picture I'll take my best stab at it.

 

[Jebiruph]

Jerry: you are an elder statesman of this forum. You've forgotten more about the 3.6L JL's electrical system than I know, and I, relatively speaking know a lot more than average.

But that picture would lose transaction in liability because the owner's manual trumps, FCA's attorneys will claim that the vehicle was motionless, therefore soft window positioning was irrelevant, probably throw in that the JL featured there was on a closed course where liability flows up to the property owner, and that the picture was taken in pre-production, etc.

Courts will likely order FCA to remove all pictures in all materials they have of such things going forward, and instruct dealers to do same.

Existing pictures from dealers: discussed above: such legal actions would name the dealer and FCA because there's nothing to lose naming parties, especially ones with deep pockets. FCA's attorneys will likely successfully chime the "our dealerships are independently owned and operated" bell.

But you're right, the picture is the best we have if in fact on FCA materials.

If the lawyers claim the vehicle pictured is motionless and not applicable, I would counter with fraud as the picture represents driving the JL with the Sunrider open and the windows in. And the picture is from Jeep.com.

I agree with your posts as they are technically correct, but I don't think the instructions to remove the windows before opening the Sunrider are due to safety and only there to accommodate the next step of lowering the top. It is just the way Jeep chose to write the instructions. Do you think Jeep would have signed off on a top with a Sunrider that did not work as intended?

 

[digitalbliss]

If the lawyers claim the vehicle pictured is motionless and not applicable, I would counter with fraud as the picture represents driving the JL with the Sunrider open and the windows in. And the picture is from Jeep.com.

I agree with your posts as they are technically correct, but I don't think the instructions to remove the windows before opening the Sunrider are due to safety and only there to accommodate the next step of lowering the top. It is just the way Jeep chose to write the instructions. Do you think Jeep would have signed off on a top with a Sunrider that did not work as intended?

I know you know... But don't forget the supplement card the folks have been getting (posted in this thread) that clearly states to skip the window removal steps when going sunrider only mode.

 

[Jebiruph]

I know you know... But don't forget the supplement card the folks have been getting (posted in this thread) that clearly states to skip the window removal steps when going sunrider only mode.

That's a good point. I agree with @Rahnald that the Owners Manual trumps all, but is it possible to reconcile the different procedures? I suspect the Owner's Manual is subject to extensive reviews and approvals (including legal) and that this issue hasn't risen to the level of justifying a change. The supplementary materials are probably subject to less scrutiny as long as they defer to the Owners Manual and can there fore be more timely. I noticed the supplement does not include the instructions for using the straps to secure the top in the Sunrider position, illustrating the need to still defer to the Owners Manual.

 

[ThirtyOne]

That's a good point. I agree with @Rahnald that the Owners Manual trumps all, but is it possible to reconcile the different procedures? I suspect the Owner's Manual is subject to extensive reviews and approvals (including legal) and that this issue hasn't risen to the level of justifying a change. The supplementary materials are probably subject to less scrutiny as long as they defer to the Owners Manual and can there fore be more timely. I noticed the supplement does not include the instructions for using the straps to secure the top in the Sunrider position, illustrating the need to still defer to the Owners Manual.

Yeah i don’t use the straps either.

 

[Firemadz]

…because when trying to defend a point you have understand it first. And when someone posts two "no's" in a sentence it's darn near impossible to walk away from that kind of a read with any confidence that you clearly understood the author's intentions.

"Removing the soft windows before opening the soft top is not not in the manual."

"Removing the soft windows before opening the soft top is in the manual."

I don't know about you, but for me the second sentence is clearer, despite both sentences meaning the same thing.

@digitalbliss....I'd like to be done with this thread. Can you stop singling me out?...I'm going to have a good reply to any decent question you pose that may arise at your end because you may have missed context here. I'm not looking for a fight with anyone, I'm looking to set straight two posters who presented fiction as fact so others don't get the wrong idea, not to punish them for being wrong.

Superior intellect? As if! If you check the top of this thread you'll see I said something wrong. I apologized, and everyone moved on. I didn't dig my heels in like these guys did when wrong.

Thanks.

So, I must apologize to you for one thing, Ron. I thought your reference to use of a double negative referred to my use of nor, which is an either-or, neither-nor situation, and perfectly correct. That said, you are still wrong in asserting I used a double negative. I double negative involves the use apocalypse a noun and negation of the verb, which I didn’t do. The noun in my statement was “manual”. The use of “to not drive” is a split infinitive in the negative. In that sentence, does not and not to drive do NOT cancel each other out. Think I’m wrong, then why don’t your drive your Jeep, windows in, of course, over to Hahvad (see what I did there?? ) and ask someone in the English department.

 

[Rahneld]

If the lawyers claim the vehicle pictured is motionless and not applicable, I would counter with fraud as the picture represents driving the JL with the Sunrider open and the windows in. And the picture is from Jeep.com.

I agree with your posts as they are technically correct, but I don't think the instructions to remove the windows before opening the Sunrider are due to safety and only there to accommodate the next step of lowering the top. It is just the way Jeep chose to write the instructions. Do you think Jeep would have signed off on a top with a Sunrider that did not work as intended?

I respect your opinion that you believe the instructions to remove the windows before opening the Sunrider are due to safety and only there to accommodate the next step of lowering the top.

One thing I think we can both agree on: if the fit hit the shan and someone took legal action against FCA for damages related to driving with their soft windows in and the top in Sunrider position, you can bet FCA council will refer to the sections of the manual you believe may have been that way because they could have used "a good edit," and quote them chapter and verse like gospel.

Sponsored