Why no pitch and roll above 25 mph?

[MountainGurl]

I love pitch and roll on the instrument cluster, but it's not available above 25 mph. Why?

Does anyone know about a hack for this?

Sponsored

 

[old8tora]

I love pitch and roll on the instrument cluster, but it's not available above 25 mph. Why?

Does anyone know about a hack for this?

Your photo does not show any means by which it could pitch and roll . Looks completely flat .

 

[Goin2drt]

I really have no idea but I will give a guess. At more than 25 you can probably get into trouble very fast so they do not allow for it. When going slower then if you are monitoring the pitch and roll you can probably slow down and stop in time to save yourself.

IMO of course.

 

[Biscuit]

You don't need it. Contrary to the bullshit TV ads and the action theatrics on TV and in cinema, reasonably intelligent folks don't drive off-road in 4WD at 25 mph-plus speeds unless they're trying to be contenders for the Darwin Award.

 

[old8tora]

reasonably intelligent folks don't drive off-road in 4WD at 25 mph-plus speeds

Military at war does it . But they feel the pitch and roll .

 

[Biscuit]

Military at war does it . But they feel the pitch and roll .

LOL. Yeah, in something like a Stryker or a M998 Humvee. But I doubt a pitch/roll/yaw gauge will be of much use to the Jeeper who says, "Hey, hold my beer and watch this!"

 

[old8tora]

LOL. Yeah, in something like a Stryker or a M998 Humvee. But I doubt a pitch/roll/yaw gauge will be of much use to the Jeeper who says, "Hey, hold my beer and watch this!"

Gauge is nonexistent and not needed . Military drives by holding on . By the way , here is a good gauge .

 

[RussJeep1]

I love pitch and roll on the instrument cluster, but it's not available above 25 mph. Why?

Does anyone know about a hack for this?

Laurie @MountainGurl: my guess is that it's the legal department at FCA, if you will, putting their two cents into an engineering choice.

To rephrase this, to have this functionality at higher (read more dangerous) speeds could create the impression to a jury, if it was ever brought to trial, based upon other cases of corporate liability, that FCA failed to disincentivize such higher risk behavior.

Juries love awarding damages against companies: sometimes 100% justifiably, but sometimes because they feel sorry for a victim who played a role in damages by putting themselves in harm's way, feeling the company has deep pockets.

No corporate attorney worth their weight in salt doesn't recall the damages a plaintiff received in a landmark case, from McDonalds, as a result of burning herself [on her privates: i.e. the sympathy factor] on coffee sipped with the top off and in a vehicle in motion: plaintiff choices. This jury sympathy's were exacerbated by McDonalds making the coffee (enabling the pitch and roll at speeds) hotter than it needed to be.

As far as getting these diagnostics to remain on at higher speeds go, chances are this logic is controlled by CAN Bus programming. At solely your own risk I'd research this subject, and those who specialize in it to see if they can disable it for you. Technically, such changes might void warranty, and above all beyond all, please be safe. We want you back here at the forum to share your good experiences. I respect such experiences are joyful to you. Might I interest you in renting a dune buggy with full roll cage, helmet, and less to cause occupant damage if it rolls over to more safely acquire the experience you seek?

 

[mwilk012]

Laurie @MountainGurl: my guess is that it's the legal department at FCA, if you will, putting their two cents into an engineering choice.

To rephrase this, to have this functionality at higher (read more dangerous) speeds could create the impression to a jury, if it was ever brought to trial, based upon other cases of corporate liability, that FCA failed to disincentivize such higher risk behavior.

Juries love awarding damages against companies: sometimes 100% justifiably, but sometimes because they feel sorry for a victim who played a role in damages by putting themselves in harm's way, feeling the company has deep pockets.

No corporate attorney worth their weight in salt doesn't recall the damages a plaintiff received in a landmark case, from McDonalds, as a result of burning herself [on her privates: i.e. the sympathy factor] on coffee sipped with the top off and in a vehicle in motion: plaintiff choices. This jury sympathy's were exacerbated by McDonalds making the coffee (enabling the pitch and roll at speeds) hotter than it needed to be.

As far as getting these diagnostics to remain on at higher speeds go, chances are this logic is controlled by CAN Bus programming. At solely your own risk I'd research this subject, and those who specialize in it to see if they can disable it for you. Technically, such changes might void warranty, and above all beyond all, please be safe. We want you back here at the forum to share your good experiences. I respect such experiences are joyful to you. Might I interest you in renting a dune buggy with full roll cage, helmet, and less to cause occupant damage if it rolls over to more safely acquire the experience you seek?

I don't think you can compare the two at all, for one, the mcdonalds case was completely legitimate, the woman suffered 3rd degree burns over a large portion of her legs, with coffee that was made 20+ degrees hotter than it should have been. Enabling pitch and roll indications can in no way cause injury.

There are two realistic reasons the indication is not available at speed: 1, it is useless; 2, it is inaccurate.

 

[RussJeep1]

I don't think you can compare the two at all, for one, the mcdonalds case was completely legitimate, the woman suffered 3rd degree burns over a large portion of her legs, with coffee that was made 20+ degrees hotter than it should have been. Enabling pitch and roll indications can in no way cause injury.

There are two realistic reasons the indication is not available at speed: 1, it is useless; 2, it is inaccurate.

* coffee hotter than it needed to be, as opposed to too hot, where not at McDonalds fault, the woman burned her privates as a proximate cause of her decision to open the lid and drive: something no reasonable person should do for any coffee served at warmer temperature (as opposed to iced, for example.)

@mwilk012 : Jury polling found that awards would have been less if the coffee at the same temperature came from a mom and pop place with their own hardships and bills to pay. Therefore it wasn't, by very definition, a completely legitimate award, as the size of the award should not factor in the defendant's financial solvency. The scales of justice need to not be blind to the injuries you describe nor bury their heads in the sand that this kind of stuff can't happen or is irrelevant when you put open coffee and a moving vehicle near your lap.

You and I pay for that liability insurance in the cost of goods. I have issue paying even a nickel more for product whose price is driven up by the ridiculous actions of those who use it improperly.

That case was extremely relevant to big companies who need to be extra careful in the face of less sympathetic jurors. That the plaintiff deserved damages: ok. But articles have been written about this case and the amount awarded by disinterested analysts, one I clearly remember titled: "When Companies offer too much cowbell" in reference to the famous SNL skit involving the band Blue Oyster Cult.

Enabling pitch and roll at higher speeds doesn't cause injury any more than it needs to for awards to occur. FCA can be held liable simply for being seen as complicit in facilitating this behavior by equipping their vehicles with the means to track it: inaccurately as you point out said diagnostics might be at speed, or not.

Yes, there are situations where a manufacturer can offer a feature that if exploited by the user, case law will not allow the manufacturer to be liable. That a vehicle can go 70 mph doesn't mean the operator who effects these speeds on a hair pin turn and causes damages can assign blame to the manufacturer. But in grey areas, companies need to be careful. FCA does not want a product engineer to ever have to answer the question on the witness stand, "if you felt pitching and rolling at high speeds was dangerous, why did you offer features to track it (accurately or not) beyond safe speeds? Clearly your vehicles do some very complex decision making, like when to enable ESS---how hard would it have been to program shutting the feature off beyond certain speeds?"

If the feature was dead on accurate at speed, FCA liability analysts would have been prudent to still nix it being on beyond slow speed.

 

[old8tora]

Laurie @MountainGurl: my guess is that it's the legal department at FCA, if you will, putting their two cents into an engineering choice.

Lawyers have no business being involved with Jeeps . Moreover , lawyers have already destroyed Cali ., and are very busy destroying the entirety of our nation .

 

[Biscuit]

Well, I suppose we wouldn't want Bubba to freeze his balls by spilling beer that's too cold on his crotch while off-roading in his Jeep, would we?

 

[old8tora]

If the feature was dead on accurate at speed, FCA liability analysts would have been prudent to still nix it being on beyond slow speed.

Limp wrists .

 

[RussJeep1]

Some of the blame does fall on the legal community. Those in litigation make work for themselves by pursuing big pocket defendants, and can cloud jurist's judgement with notions of sympathy, when in fact, if you're going to be foolish enough (taken literally or in metaphor) to open a hot cup of coffee near your crotch and drive, then you (and perhaps only, or in large part you) need to bare responsibility for the possible negative outcomes that might prevail. Part of it is jurists who will award greater sums, for the same damages, to big pocket companies over mom and pop outfits: which is wrong. Decisions are suppose to be based on damages alone.

This litigation is a negative side effect of going after companies, albeit also sometimes with big pockets, who do deliver reasonably unsafe products. The law is a balance people.

Then, as a result of such cases, those attorneys who sit on the opposite side of the side of fence, defending corporate actions, respond to such cases and put their 2 cents into product development. I appreciate the argument that ideally they shouldn't, just as engineers should probably let the attorneys handle legal matters, but it's not so much as the "legal" department nixing a feature or having final say, but rather actuaries monetizing the potential litigation costs of a feature, and executives (often neither in legal or engineering) in possession of such figures making "go/no go" decisions on product features based on their interpretation of the risk, versus the potential for profit; frequently enough the latter getting out of hand.

Should companies make safe products? Absolutely. But some products are inherently dangerous despite their engineering (e.g. a chain saw) and in the wrong hands or simply from bad luck that isn't the manufacturer's fault, can reek havoc. This isn't said in defense of "the company." The irresponsible "chain saw makers" of the world need to be brought to justice.

The feature we didn't get on your rig, because stupid people abuse it and companies can't take the risk, and the frustration we feel over this is understandable. So too is the frustration we feel of paying more to have the feature, because some of the cost went to liability insurance, because stupid people abuse it and our legal system allows them redress.

What's needed IMHO is legal reform that holds people to higher standards of responsibility for "reading the manual," capping amounts companies have to pay out to litigants who play a role in their bad outcomes, so large companies aren't penalized more than smaller ones, and redirecting some of the legal profits to represent legitimate litigants and better product safety.

Some of this blame attorneys deserve. Meanwhile other attorneys like Ralph Nader use their skills to make products safer. And yet many of us would be the first to hire council to litigate companies that caused us damage due to their fault, and sometimes, because case law suggests rewards will flow even if the consumer bears much of the blame.

I don't feel sorry for companies. They have their legal representation. I feel sorry for consumers. We pay for that representation in purchase cost.

 

[RussJeep1]

Well, I suppose we wouldn't want Bubba to freeze his balls by spilling beer that's too cold on his crotch while off-roading in his Jeep, would we?

We wouldn't want Bubba consuming anything that, if spilt, might affect his safety/ability to concentrate on driving, and accordingly his occupants, his property, and the lives and property of others, off or on road. We wouldn't want Bubba taxing the emergency services assets required to effect rescue from such a mishap unless he pays for all of it.

And we wouldn't want Bubba to safeguard his privates by successfully consuming said alcoholic beverage while behind the wheel, even off-road, that (pickup up from "might affect" in the above paragraph.)

@Biscuit I get you might have been tongue in cheek, but in case you weren't.....

Sponsored