I agree 100%. By Vin specific, I meant the actual group of Roadsters shipped/delivered to the 9 State destinations. Chrysler (to NHTSA), called it a customer satisfaction issue, & offered their warranty (including reimbursement option) to the "region". They obviously left out several States in the region indicating that while compelled to take some kind of action, cost containment/damage control ($) was clearly their "top" priority. I sought help from Fed. Trade Commission years ago but they refused to even ask Chrysler for an explanation.


An unreasonable risk to vehicle safety is a totally separate issue & NHTSA agreed with Chrysler on this question because they reported finding no verifiable reports of accident, death or injury including the glass leaving the vehicle as a projectile.
They completely ignored my complaint about the loss of the roof structure's integrity with consequential interior flooding requiring a need for an investigation. While many did have complete detachment, even a minor opening can potentially cause serious damage and malfunctioning and I felt this deserved consideration. Nope, no investigation concerning interior flooding or anything else: Petition Denied. Thanks for nothing NHTSA.
If you read NHTSA's findings, from their meeting with Chrysler (2010/2011), they both at that time, agreed that this was simply a "regional/9 State" frustrating inconvenience for owners and that no safety related defect existed!?! How did they reach that conclusion and with what evidence?