By on June 28, 2016

GC Shifter

Like the rapidly accumulating clouds of an approaching thunderstorm, the number of crashes and injuries related to the misuse of Fiat Chrysler Automobile’s Monostable shifter are beginning to mushroom.

An investigation into the shifter, like the one in the 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee which crushed and killed Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin, found 266 crashes that injured 68 people. Originally, the shifter was fingered in 121 crashes and 41 injuries.

Citing documents posted yesterday on the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website, the AP says investigators also found 686 consumer complaints about the shifters and said that FCA received negative customer feedback shortly after the vehicles went on sale. The agency closed its investigation last Friday after FCA agreed to speed up the global recall of 1.1 million vehicles.

According to reports, FCA has begun providing dealers with a software update for the affected vehicles, two months earlier than previously expected. FCA has also been exhorting customers to set parking brakes before exiting their vehicles and to follow instructions on information cards mailed out by the company.

Jack recently called for standardized operation of certain safety-related controls, and he may have a point. I have been using my recalled 2012 Charger as a daily driver for four years and still occasionally land in Neutral and not Reverse when attempting to execute a three-point turn. However, descriptions by other outlets of having to “push the lever forward three times” in order to engage Park from Drive are patently false; a good and firm push forward on the lever through three tactile detents will put the thing squarely in Park. To confirm, I just went out in my driveway and tried it.

The recall covers the 2014 and 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee along with the 2012–2014 Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300. The Monostable shifter has since been replaced with a more traditional lever in newer versions of these vehicles.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

77 Comments on “Investigation Into FCA’s Monostable Shifter Finds 266 Crashes, 68 Injuries...”


  • avatar
    seth1065

    I am sure I will get flamed but FCA will come out of this will a hell of a lot less of a fine than VW, and to me this is a worse offense, VW cheated but to the best of my knowledge no car crashes occurred and it is very debatable when their emissions did in the scale of things ( very few TDI on road vs other cars, trucks …) and no know deaths from VW.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      VW got punished not for the crime, but for the cover-up. If VW had fessed up when first confronted, the result would have been similar to when the EPA slaps an automaker for fudged MPG figures.

      In this case, FCA did not fail to report the incidents or stonewall the NHTSA. And the entire problem was an engineering screwup, not active maliciousness like VW’s actions.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      That’s not how these things work. If you run someone over with your car, as long as you’re not drunk and you don’t leave the scene, you’ll almost never get in trouble. Why? Because there was no intent.

      FCA never intended to hurt anyone or to cheat anyone so they won’t get into all that much trouble, as there was no intent. VW intended, from the very start, to defraud both their customers and the government. That’s always going to bring a vastly harsher penalty.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      VW’s offense was intentional avoidance of anti-pollution regulations; FCA’s issue is certainly not an intentional attempt to damage vehicles and injure people. Your sense of propriety seems unbalanced. Additionally, your sense of proportion seems skewed as well, because while the TDI may not be as popular in the US (I expect hundreds of thousands of TDIs in the US) they are far more popular in Europe and Asia, where diesel smoke and other particulates have severely damaged historical landmarks and exacerbated respiratory diseases.

      Moreover, FCA has already accepted that the monostable shifter is a problem, when you consider that it was taken off the market long before such reports reached TTAC and other consumer-side automotive forums. Now it’s a matter of making the few that are on the road as safe as possible until simple attrition eventually removes them all.

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      @seth1065,

      *flamethrower at the ready*

      Of course Chrysler will come out of this a helluva lot better; they didn’t do a damn thing wrong. Every single one of these instances is driver error. Is the monostable shifter difficult to use (I personally don’t think so but others may disagree)? Perhaps. Does that absolve individuals of their personal responsibility to ensure their vehicle is in park? HELL F*$*#*G NO! I ALWAYS use the parking brake; a habit like that would have prevented every single one of these issues. To me this is just another sign of people not taking responsibility for their own actions or putting any effort into learning something new or different.

      • 0 avatar
        brn

        Agree with Frylock. If FCA is guilty of anything, they’re guilty of designing a confusing shifter. That’s it.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          IMO the problem is that the shifter *looks* similar but *works* differently from what people are used to. Knobs, dials, buttons, whatever both *look* and *work* differently, so the driver is more likely to pay attention to how it works until they get used to it. The monostable selector looks too much like a conventional PRNDM selector, so I could see how someone would push it all the way forward once and assume the vehicle is in Park.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          Check your facts brn. Chrysler had nothing to do with the design of this shifter.

  • avatar
    mikedt

    Comments on other sites seem to indicate that timing plays a role. If you come to a rolling stop and attempt to put it in park you’ll get neutral. People who’ve played with it seem to think your car needs to be at a complete stop for a couple seconds before you can reliably hit park. If this is true, and given how I’ve seen some people treat their transmissions, I’m not surprised a lot of people find themselves unexpectedly in neutral.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    This is what happens when you try to reinvent the wheel

  • avatar
    JimZ

    you mean ZF’s Monostable shifter. FCA isn’t the only one to use it.

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    Come on already! I own a 2015 Grand Cherokee with one of these shifters and in all honesty, the learning curve was maybe 2 minutes. It took all of a day or two for me to get to the point that I could select any gear (drive, park, reverse, neutral) on the first try without looking at either the indicator on the shifter lever nor the instrument panel. It quickly became second nature. These people who can’t do it right must be morons.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      The guy was able to manipulate dilithium crystals to exceed Warp 10, and he didn’t know how to park a Jeep? Hard to believe…

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      Come on already!

      Every other automaker can design shifters that work intuitively and do not create hazards even if the user is not paying full attention and reverts back to decades of precedent for the operation of that control.

      The automakers who can’t do it right must be morons.

      • 0 avatar
        White Shadow

        It’s called progress. Without it, we’d be starting our cars with a hand crank. I suppose you don’t like push button ignitions either….

        Like it or not, cars will continue to advance. Just because a handful of morons can’t figure out how to put their car in park doesn’t mean the manufacturer is at fault. I mean, seriously….this isn’t exactly rocket science. Like I said, I own one and it is intuitive and very easy.

        • 0 avatar
          Robert.Walter

          Progress usually doesn’t come with an increase in accidents, injuries, deaths compared to the prior art. If this be the cost for progress, the designers borked it.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I would note that a lot of stop/start cars are realizing similar issues because the owners forget the car is still ‘on’ when they get out.

      • 0 avatar
        Flipper35

        Perhaps automakers should design the shifters themselves.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      “These people who can’t do it right must be morons.”

      Not every product of sibling sex is as fortunate as some may be.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Even a genius like you can get slightly distracted and there’s an accident/incident. Are you gonna suck it up, for the sake of “advancements”, or will you lawyer up? I get the feeling it’s the latter.

      Preventative programming/measures are an essential part of “advancements”.

      The “hand-crank” starter thing, is an ad hominem argument. Do you think “starters” don’t have preventative programming/measures? Can you start a car in Reverse or Drive, or do you need to have it in Park or Neutral? Don’t you have to push in the clutch if it’s a manual?

      So should such a basic function have a “learning curve”, specific for the car/truck, even if the brightest can master it in 2 minutes?

      What about all that jump it, just to move it a few feet in your driveway? You may not even know they’re doing it. An aunt, son, nephew, niece, friend, neighbor, etc? You have any of those? Or they borrow it to hit the store quickly? Are you happy about sitting each one down for 2 minutes for the lecture??

      My neighbor’s daughter borrowed my F-150 as I type this. She’s never drove it before and I just tossed her the keys.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “The “hand-crank” starter thing, is an ad hominem argument.”
        — No, it isn’t. Those hand cranks used to break arms and fingers.

        “Do you think “starters” don’t have preventative programming/measures?”
        — They didn’t used to.

        “Can you start a car in Reverse or forward gear?”
        — Before Ralph Nader you could.

        “Don’t you have to push in the clutch if it’s a manual?”
        — Before Ralph Nader you didn’t. And sometimes that was a good thing because it allowed you to at least move the vehicle on the starter if for some reason it quit in a dangerous location… like a railroad crossing.

        “My neighbor’s daughter borrowed my F-150 as I type this. She’s never drove it before and I just tossed her the keys.”
        — I feel sorry for her if she hits the gas too hard on a wet street. Pickup trucks are notorious for having a ‘light’ tail that would swing around at the slightest provocation.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          The light tail is amortized somewhat by heavier crew cabs moving the center of mass a little farther back.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Then you have FCA that went out of their way to bypass existing safety software. wtf?

          New “advancements” usually have multiple safety *bugs* to work out. In the old days, or pre Nader, safety bugs were worked out in subsequent years or generations. Today, they should be all figured out in testing/R&D/prototypes/mules/etc.

          Pickups are like muscle cars, so yeah, often my pickup is the 1st contact friends and family have with driving a V8 in a big vehicle that’s surprisingly fast. But mostly they don’t turn wide enough and hop curbs with the right rear.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Then you have FCA that went out of their way to bypass existing safety software.”

            What evidence do you have to support that statement? Is it not just as possible that Audi went out of its way to create additional safety with that parking brake interface?

            Oh, and thank you VERY much for proving just how oversized today’s full-sized pickup trucks are.
            “But mostly they don’t turn wide enough and hop curbs with the right rear.”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I’m obviously not an electrical engineer enough to testify in court, but what’s your *unbiased* explanation?

            The ZF obviously has the auto-park interface. Ask yourself how Chrysler leaves that input blank. Is there a “delete kit” for auto-park? Did Chrysler patent it?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “I’m obviously not an electrical engineer enough to testify in court, but what’s your *unbiased* explanation?

            The ZF obviously has the auto-park interface. Ask yourself how Chrysler leaves that input blank. Is there a “delete kit” for auto-park? Did Chrysler patent it?”

            Does it, Denver, or did Audi custom-design one through their BCM computer? Clearly FCA has managed to do so themselves now, but it may be that they felt it was overkill originally and therefore unnecessary until they realized just how inattentive most drivers are.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “The ZF obviously has the auto-park interface. ”

            I don’t think the transmission has any such thing; it’d be a matter of what the TCM tells it to do.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…they felt it was overkill…”

            Or were the results overkill? Or overmanslaugter?? Except that’s exactly what it comes down to. FCA thought they knew *better*, screwing the pooch in the process.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…it’d be a matter of what the TCM tells…”

            OK isn’t the TCM part of the ZF? Can the ZF work independently without the TCM?

    • 0 avatar
      BuzzDog

      “Come on already! I own a 2015 Grand Cherokee with one of these shifters and in all honesty, the learning curve was maybe 2 minutes.”

      Before I comment, could we please act like adults and not call people we don’t know “morons?”

      I’m curious. Is your Grand Cherokee your only vehicle? The reason I ask is because I think about the times that I switch between my truck, with a column-mounted transmission selector, and my car, with a console-mounted selector. Every now and then, when I’m pulling out of my driveway I’ll move my hand into the wrong position to select “reverse” or “drive.” And this is after years of driving both vehicles.

      It’s a situation that creates an inconsistency for some, no different than learning to drive a vehicle with the accelerator and brake reversed. If that were tried, I assure you there would be mistakes during the learning process.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @BuzzDog: I switch between an automatic that includes a ‘manual’ mode (automatic clutch) and two different manual transmission vehicles that carry different shift patterns AND significantly different clutch pedal pressures. I am, by the way, a multi-decade driver whose first car had a bloomin’ two-speed PowerGlide in it. It’s not that hard to learn and get used to a different shifting pattern no matter how long you might have used a specific type.

        The argument here is whether or not the ZF design was faulty or the users themselves at fault for simply not paying attention to what they’re doing. Personally, I wouldn’t put the blame fully on either side in this case. Because of my manual transmissions, I do occasionally shut down the automatic while it’s still in gear. Guess what? The car lets me know very clearly when I’ve done so by starting a very loud and annoying bell tone AND prevents me from removing the key from the ignition. Now, with today’s keyless operation the second item is next to impossible, but there are other means that can be made just as obvious. The shifter itself? I don’t think anything at all is wrong with it. In the ZF’s case, or rather FCA’s case, additional audio and tactile alerts should be enough to resolve the issue and that is exactly what FCA’s already-released ‘fix’ is for the problem.

        • 0 avatar

          BMW has this same shifter in some of their vehicles, no?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Perhaps, WV. I happen to like it because it let me realize a 10% improvement in fuel economy in hilly country by pre-shifting to a lower gear when climbing and upshift respectively on the downhill side so I didn’t have to use the brakes as much. A 40-mile stretch of Pennsylvania state and county roads used barely over one gallon of gasoline where full automatic used 1.3 gallons and Sport mode used 1.2 gallons.

        • 0 avatar
          BuzzDog

          Um, Vulpine, perhaps you’re reading a bit too much into my post.

          I was genuinely curious as to whether the OP had multiple vehicles, as his ability to never make a mistake with the shifter may be due to the fact that it’s his only daily driver. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is on my list of vehicles to consider when I replace my truck.

          That, and I think it’s bad form to call people names.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Well, BuzzDog, unless you’re planning on buying a used JGC, you don’t have to worry about the shifter. As I understand it, they only had that shifter in the ’14 and ’15 models.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Toyota floor mats – remove floor mat – problem solved
    GM ignition switches – don’t hang 4 pounds of crap off switch – problem solved
    Ford Explorer roll overs – inflate to tire manufacturer recommended level – NOT auto manufacturer recommended level

    Takata Air Bag equipped vehicles – too bad – you have a Claymore mine in your steering wheel, maybe (and Toyota, Mitsubishi and VW still building NEW cars with known defective air bags, FCA has stopped the practice after it was reported)

    Exploding Ford cruise control relays – park your car outside – problem not solved but your house won’t burn down

    “Monostable Gear Selector” always double check and confirm your vehicle is in park

    This falls somewhere for me between Takata Airbags and the other more easily fixed issue. You have to remember to double check so to speak – as the other solutions are a fix and done. With the Takata airbag there is no “fix” until you get a new airbag.

    Given this whacks the Jeep brand in the knee caps, and Jeep is the one brand that is paying its way for FCA, and the Cherokee is a big part of that – this is a big blow for FCA.

    We’ll likely start to see the pile on lawsuits come out of the woodwork like we saw with Toyota and GM.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Ford Explorer roll overs – inflate to tire manufacturer recommended level – NOT auto manufacturer recommended level”

      wrong. the recommended tire inflation pressure is determined by the tire *and* the vehicle, mostly the vehicle’s GVWR. The tire manufacturer can only specify the tire’s *maximum safe cold pressure.*

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        As I understood it, and will gladly be corrected. Ford was recommended air pressure on the door plate for the Explorers that were rolling over at 27 PSI. 27 PSI was below the minimum recommended tire pressure they were using the OEM tires, which was for Firestone tires 29 to 30 PSI depending on the exact brand and when built.

        This intentional under pressure was done to soften the ride of what was a passenger car built on a truck frame, and solve the rough ride issue on the cheap. Ford convinced regulators “not it” and Firestone was left holding the bag.

        Again, will gladly be corrected if I have that wrong.

        • 0 avatar
          sbspence

          I read a very insightful and non-biased book on this very subject, unfortunately I cannot recall the name. The only name that keeps coming to mind is “Unsafe at any speed” and IIRC that is the book about the Corvair.

          The book I read made it painfully obvious that the track width on the Explorer along with the center of gravity made the Explorer (especially the 2door) uncontrollable when a rear tire blew at even low speed trials piloted by some of the best stunt drivers in the business.

          I truly wish I could come up with the name of that book ,but, alas it’s just been too many miles under tired since then. Hopefully someone else can come up with it as it is a book that any car enthusiast should read.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Unsafe At Any Speed” wasn’t about the Corvair.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “… Ford was recommended air pressure on the door plate for the Explorers that were rolling over at 27 PSI. 27 PSI was below the minimum recommended tire pressure they were using the OEM tires, …”

            As I recall, that low tire pressure was intended to improve the ride on an otherwise harsh truck ride as the Expedition (not Explorer) was riding the full-sized pickup truck frame and suspension. The problem is multifold because so-called ‘light truck’ tires can be rated as high as 65psi. I admit I don’t know the specific tire the OEM installed but in my own case I experienced a blowout (left rear) in a fully-loaded 15-passenger van while traveling at 75mph. I got through the issue with no injury or damage, coming safely to a stop on the shoulder. On investigating the incident, the van was equipped with high-pressure tires aired to an automotive 32psi. Overheating the tire caused the blowout. If Ford made this same mistake then they were patently at fault for the issue. If the owners were under inflating high-pressure tires then the owners were at fault.

            However, Firestone itself apparently accepted part of the blame, so there could have been multiple causes coming together to create this issue. If Ford itself recommended such low pressure then there’s the most likely cause of the blowouts, especially with such a top-heavy vehicle. As the reports indicated most blowouts occurred during cornering, striking a curb or other obstacle would simply finish the task of ensuring a rollover.

            The Explorer, by the way, rode the same chassis as the Ranger at that time. So if similar guidelines were made for the Explorer and if the Explorer experienced similar events, then the fault can’t necessarily be put on track width alone. Anyone happen to notice that most rollover accidents are the result of a too-tall body on the vehicle that rolled? Pickup trucks in particular are notorious for rollovers; more so than almost any other class of vehicle outside of commercial trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      “inflate to tire manufacturer recommended level – NOT auto manufacturer recommended level”

      Is that a general recommendation?

      I just went to the manufactuer website for my tires (Continental) to find out what pressure I should set my tires to. Thankfully, they list it here:
      http://www.continentaltire.ca/www/tires_ca_en/themes/contiacademy/tire_service_maintenance/air_pressure_en.html

      They effectively tell me to set it to the manufacturer recommended level.

    • 0 avatar
      Deontologist

      The Ford Explorers could also have benefited from a stronger roof. Ford engineers realized this themselves but the execs kept forcing the engineers to weaken the roof to save money on each vehicle built.

      Tire pressure is also a factor, yes.

    • 0 avatar
      NickS

      The shifter issue is all FCA. The number of accidents is outrageous. And if FCA somehow attracts more “idiot” drivers than any other brand, they need to make their crap more idiot proof. Whatever ZF implemented, the OEM does the integration and can override as they see fit.

      Tire inflation pressure is what the manufacturer says, not the tire maker. The tire maker doesn’t know the specific application parameters. If the OEM screws this up, it’s on them.

      I wish the B&B here would stop reflexively calling the avg driver idiots, especially in cases like this.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        They did it with Toyota drivers who couldn’t figure out that holding down a button for 3 seconds would shut the engine down, when almost every other manufacturer has it setup for multiple presses in a quick sequence, which is the more typical response from a panicked human being. Toyota even changed how the push button ignition worked to mirror other makers.

        Meh – idiot drivers. Don’t you know, everyone is an idiot driver, except the other idiot driver behind the wheel calling everyone else idiots.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “Originally, the shifter was fingered in 121 crashes and 41 injuries.”

    Improper fingering was the problem.

    There is censorship or sexual innuendo in there somewhere.

  • avatar
    brn

    Grr, this wasn’t supposed to show up here. Probably user error.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Everyone of those people should have their driving privileges revoked.

    Careless people like that have no place on the road.

  • avatar
    NickS

    I really do not understand why so many here are so rude and hostile to the many drivers who have problems with these shifters.

    Absent an independent investigation noone here knows with certainty who is more to blame for this. But this is absolutely NOT equivalent to the ignition switches, SUA, or Teslas getting a sudden urge for a mani-pedi. Dealer service people had problems with the monostable too.

  • avatar
    MWolf

    Alright, so people who have these have probably become aware that the shifter may require some attention to be sure it’s in park.

    Knowing this, as it has become nearly unavoidable if you read news (or get a letter from FCA), you would reasonably assume you should double check. If someone else is going to drive it, tell them about it. Make sure they know.

    None of this changes the design, but it is preventitive against future incidents.

  • avatar
    herbie555

    I’ve driven a manual for most of my life, so I’m not familiar with the habits of ‘normal’ owners of automatics, so forgive this seemingly naive question:

    DO PEOPLE NOT ALWAYS SET THEIR PARKING BRAKE?

    Why the hell not?

    • 0 avatar
      ExPatBrit

      I have mostly driven manuals for most of 45 years behind the wheel, I always use my “hand brake”.

      I almost never set the parking brake in our two auto daily driver cars. I just use PARK in transmission.

      I have probably driven several thousand rental cars and the parking brake is never set when I pick up the car.

      When you arrive at a rental car location in the middle of the night you don’t have time to find and RTFM for an unfamiliar vehicle.

      Operation needs to be intuitive if not it’s bad design.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “I’ve driven a manual for most of my life, so I’m not familiar with the habits of ‘normal’ owners of automatics, so forgive this seemingly naive question:

      DO PEOPLE NOT ALWAYS SET THEIR PARKING BRAKE?”

      No.

      “Why the hell not?”

      They feel like Park essentially serves the same purpose and that the hand brake is an “Emergency Brake”. In fact, many cars had them labeled exactly that over the years and didn’t encourage the habit of setting said brake every time you park. Having it as a foot-pedal brake from the mid-60s through the 90s in many US models somewhat emphasized that as they were typically difficult to release by forcing you to lean way forward and under the dash to pull a small T-handle. Even more recently, some vehicles use the exact same kind of handle to release the hood or pop the fuel tank cover or deck lid. So a lack of absolute need, confusion with other similar handles in the same area and simple inconvenience (and laziness) led to the parking brake simply not getting used. The lever placed between the seats or now push-button near the shifter makes it much more convenient and therefore easier to use. However, many drivers now need to be taught to use it every time and some states have made its use a requirement for earning your driver’s license.

  • avatar

    “266 Crashes, 68 Injuries”

    I know the whole Bell Shape Curve of human intelligence and common sense, but this truly makes me lose hope in humanity.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
      ― George Carlin

      Unfortunately, there are too many drivers who are not “reasonable persons”. A pretty good percentage of the 266 crashes and 68 injuries are likely caused by those too lazy to figure out how the shift lever works or set the parking brake.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    I have zero experience with this FCA shift lever. However, when I look at the operation, this seems nearly identical to the 2012 5 series I have often driven.

    There is the lock button on the side, push up for reverse, pull down for drive. Park is a button on the top of the shifter. The gear selection seems nearly identical to me, with the primary difference in the park select. The BMW returns to center with every selection as well.

    Is there something different about the BMW? Or are they having issues as well? Or the fact there is a dedicated PARK button makes all the difference over this FCA setup?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • DenverMike: Actually, unlike normal SuperCabs, the Raptor SCab has the 5.5 ft bed, same as the SuperCrew. But the...
  • RHD: Try a Toyota 4Runner. You can’t fix it with a screwdriver and a sledge hammer in the middle of a swamp,...
  • ajla: When did they say that? Shelby, Roush and Saleen all offer hopped-up F-150s right now. The Shelby and Saleen...
  • spamvw: They thought Demon was bad? Time for a little history lesson from Wikipedia. The 1970 Dart’s dual tail...
  • raph: Ford has said the current F-truck is too porky to do a proper Lightning. When they looked at adding power it...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber