Remote start for standard transmission?

In article <Dv0uf.695076$xm3.460535@attbi_s21>,
"tooloud" > wrote:

> OK, I take back that "dumbest thing I ever heard" comment from before.
> You've now pointed out that you don't lock the doors to your house on a
> public, archived forum, while posting with a presumably real name and
> telling us where you grew up. Maybe you should just post your mother's
> maiden name and your SS# while you're at it. Better yet, just leave the
> front door unl...oops, I guess you already do.

Tell ya what... If you think you've got what it takes to locate the
house with the unlocked door based on the information given, feel free
to drop me a line with your guess(es). Based on what you've said so far,
they ought to be amusing. Good luck. In the unlikely, though admittedly
not impossible, event that you or someone else succeeds in figuring out
where that door is, and perhaps has thoughts towards using the
information gathered to pay a "less-than-neighborly" visit, please bear
in mind that we're a fairly tight-knit little group here on the hill,
and most of us, including myself, are long-time clients of the security
firm "Rotweiller, Remington, Winchester & Associates".

> > For the record, today, I won't get in the car without my AAA Plus card
> > in my wallet,and it *HAS* saved my bacon a few times, but for "If I
> > can limp it home/wherever I need to be to fix it on my own, it'll
> > save me one of my tows, and won't mean I'm sitting here on the side
> > of the road with my thumb up my ass for the next hour waiting for the
> > tow-truck to arrive"
>
> Better to wait than risk damaging something else on the way home or, worse
> yet, getting into an accident because you're paying more attention to
> limping your junker home.

As a blanket statement, I reject that completely. On a case-by-case
basis, it may have some merit. Some "Make Do" methods are bad news from
one end to the other. Others are sometimes not only "good enough for
emergency use", but actually turn out to be an improvement over "the
right way", and leave you wondering how many lawyers it took on the
design team to get it made it that way to begin with. Just because it's
been bodged into running well enough to limp home doesn't inherently
make it unsafe to drive in all cases. In the specific case of shifting
clutchless to get to the parts place/home, if *YOU* can't handle driving
the vehicle without using the clutch, then yes - By all means, call the
tow truck. In my case, Driving clutchless is, unquestionably, less
convenient than with a clutch, but matching ground speed and engine revs
to gear selection hardly constitutes a distraction that I'd consider a
safety concern. Part of that is "know your ride", and part of it is "Am
I capable?". I know my ride, and I'm capable. So where's the problem?
Granted, that doesn't mean the next Joe Sixpack to come along knows his
ride, or is capable, but that's not *THIS* case.

> >> Better get that ABS system disabled then.
> >
> > Haven't owned a car with ABS, and don't want one.
>
> To each his own. ABS has its pros and its cons.

We can agree on that much. For me and my limited experience with them,
the pros don't manage to outweigh what I see as cons. But that's a
definite "YMMV" situation, since I'm quite sure your point-by-point
evaluation differs from mine, even if we end up in agreement overall.

> >> I mean, you're smarter than a silly CAR, aren't you?
> >> Who are you to have a CAR tell you what to do?
> >
> > Despite your attempt to get in a dig, I don't see it as such. I agree
> > 100% with both of your statements. *I* am the brains of the operation
> > when I'm behind the wheel, and I will not tolerate the vehicle trying
> > to second-guess my decisions, regardless of how "unsafe" it might
> > deem them to be. Period.
> >
> >> You sound like the idiots on the Infiniti forum I frequent that brag
> >> about turning off the stability control every time they get in the
> >> car because they think they can do a better job.
> >
> > Wouldn't know anything about that - I don't, and likely never will,
> > drive an Infiniti.
>
> That's irrelevant. Would you turn something like Stability Control off?

Dunno. Depends on how well I think it works. Since I've never been
behind the wheel of such a beast, I've got no clue whether it works
well, sucks hard enough to pull a bowling ball through 50 feet of garden
hose, or something in between. Until I gain that knowledge, I can't say
anything meaningful. I WILL go as far as to say that I'd be looking at
it real suspicious-like to start with, but beyond that... <shrug>

Of course, I look at *ANY* sort of "fly-by-wire" that offers the machine
the chance to second-guess my command inputs with a large amount of
suspicion.That plane in Europe a couple years back put a scare into me
over the idea - The concept of the pilots in that one trying like hell
to boost power and increase control surface angles to lift out over the
trees after takeoff, with the fly-by-wire system countermanding their
inputs, and ultimately, slamming the plane into the ground, doesn't
exactly inspire much confidence in such systems. Yes, I know, cars
aren't airplanes, and it's not really "fly-by-wire" - The point remains,
however: The machine "gets a say" in controlling its function, possibly
overriding my commands. That's something that makes me *WAY* more than a
little nervous. Particularly considering the so-called "state of the
art".

> There's another feature on one of my cars that shoots a laser from the front
> of the vehicle to determine the closing distance on objects ahead of me--if
> the system detects that I'm going to hit something, it sounds a warning and
> pre-pressurizes the brake lines. Would you disable that system?

Again, that would be an "Idunno - depends". If *ALL* it does is
pre-pressurize the brake lines (*WITHOUT* causing the brakes to activate
unless/until *I* explicitly say "make the brakes activate") I could
probably live with it. If it activates the brakes on its own, or tries
to second-guess my activating the brakes, it's gone just as fast as I
can figure out how to disable it. The audible warning might need some
alteration, depending on what it sounds like. (I'm also a merciless
exterminator of buzzers, beepers, fweepers, ringers, dingers, pingers,
bongers, rattlers, chimes, gongs, and similar noise-making devices on
cars - the fasten seat belt and/or door-ajar buzzers usually get ripped
out at the same time the clutch interlock is defeated - About the only
thing of that nature I leave "active" is a "Headlights are on but the
key isn't" warning.)

> I used to use mine to start my car from my office before I left for the day.
> That way, I could have the car warmed up without having to physically go
> outside to start it and thus saving me 10 minutes a day and avoiding
> tracking more snow into my building. That doesn't sound practical to you?

I guess this is another of those "YMMV" things - I never noticed much
problem with tracking snow into the house unless uncivilized kids were
involved - civilized beings knew to use the doormat and/or boot-scraper
sitting next to the door when I was living in snow-country.

> > Well, the very last part ("only on vehicles...") is at least SOMEWHAT
> > reassuring. As far as the rest of it... <shrug> When I "turn the key
> > and walk away", I generally mash the clutch as part of the operation,
> > and before exiting the vehicle, ALWAYS make sure it's not in gear,
> > the brake is set, and the vehicle isn't going anywhere. Such "hands-on
> > verification" of status simply cannot be done (or at least, to my
> > knowledge, has not been succesffully done so far) by pushing a button
> > on a remote-start keyfob from the comfort of your Barcalounger/inside
> > the store/wherever else that isn't "in the driver's seat".
>
> Not on a car with a stick, no, which is why I also say that they should be
> installed only on cars with automatics. There's nothing to "verify" on a car
> with an automatic.

We seem to be in agreement here - lemme double-check to be su

Remote start on Automatic: Perhaps frivolous, YMMV, but not
automatically "bad".

Remote start on stick: Perhaps frivolous, YMMV, definitely at least "not
good", verging on "bad".

Fair summary of this sub-topic of the conversation?

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Chas Hurst wrote:

> No I'm not. You're a sheltered fool if disabling a clutch safety switch is
> the dumbest thing you've ever heard.

tooloud is no fool, but I don't see what the big deal is with the clutch
switch. It is recommended that you remove this when installing a
high-performance clutch, Flying Miata even sells the unit that allows
the bypass without doing you own wiring.

I drove a miata for over 5 years with the switch engaged. The miata that
I have now driven for over a year with the Act 3 Clutch seems every bit
as safe to me as the setup I had before.
It was never a big deal to push the clutch in, but it is kind of nice
not to have to do it now.

The dumbest thing I ever heard said was "Hey guys, watch this!" when I
was in high school. That was just a few minutes before I heard the
ambulance sirens. :-)

Pat

Don Bruder wrote:

> Tell ya what... If you think you've got what it takes to locate the
> house with the unlocked door based on the information given, feel free
> to drop me a line with your guess(es). Based on what you've said so far,
> they ought to be amusing. Good luck. In the unlikely, though admittedly
> not impossible, event that you or someone else succeeds in figuring out
> where that door is, and perhaps has thoughts towards using the
> information gathered to pay a "less-than-neighborly" visit, please bear
> in mind that we're a fairly tight-knit little group here on the hill,
> and most of us, including myself, are long-time clients of the security
> firm "Rotweiller, Remington, Winchester & Associates".

Yes, there actually are a few places left that don't require the
justified paranoia of living in a city that is filled with many
thousands of people that are looking to do you harm.

It looks like you live on land in Arizona that is large enough to
support horses, which I assume is somewhat remote even if it is near the
major cities.
You mention close-knit neighbors, something that many city dwellers are
completely unfamiliar with. We pack ourselves in like sardines by the
millions and constantly move.
The difference between that and open land with established and trusted
neighbors is like night and day.
You could probably leave a laptop outside your house in your unlocked
car for a month and never have it messed with. At my last apartment
complex, it would have lasted about 30 minutes, maybe.

Finally, Arizona is almost identical to Texas as far as residents
owning, (and knowing how to use), one or more firearms. Go ahead and
post your address if you want, anyone traipsing onto your land because
you posted that you leave your doors unlocked is so stupid that I don't
think that you'll have a problem with them. Just aim for center of mass.

Doesn't that Rottie get hot in Arizona? We have quite a few die from
heat stroke here in the summer.

BTW, I recognized the background on your website immediately, I am a
huge Elric geek and I recently met the author, who lives near Austin.
(oops, I just posted where I live!) :-)

Sorry tooloud, we agree 99% of the time, this is the other 1%.

Pat

Don Bruder wrote:

> Of course, I look at *ANY* sort of "fly-by-wire" that offers the machine
> the chance to second-guess my command inputs with a large amount of
> suspicion.That plane in Europe a couple years back put a scare into me
> over the idea - The concept of the pilots in that one trying like hell
> to boost power and increase control surface angles to lift out over the
> trees after takeoff, with the fly-by-wire system countermanding their
> inputs, and ultimately, slamming the plane into the ground, doesn't
> exactly inspire much confidence in such systems. Yes, I know, cars
> aren't airplanes, and it's not really "fly-by-wire" - The point remains,
> however: The machine "gets a say" in controlling its function, possibly
> overriding my commands. That's something that makes me *WAY* more than a
> little nervous. Particularly considering the so-called "state of the
> art".


It will be a while before the systems are perfected enough to completely
surpass human abilities and to be bug-free, but I believe that we will
get there eventually; where a plane flying itself or a car driving
itself is far safer than using a human pilot or driver.

It will probably take a generation or two, we are the people brought up
on crashing computers and most of us have an inherent distrust of them,
even though we trust our lives to them and use them for countless safety
measures already.

I do see a day when people are far more horrified at the idea of turning
over things like transportation to human control than we are at turning
it over to computers.
This will be once the machines can do it with either a zero failure rate
or at least at a much statistically safer level than human pilots or
drivers are capable of.

Until then, I'll enjoy driving my miata. It might not be an option for
my descendants.

Pat

tooloud wrote:

> I've never been in that situation. I either choose more reliable cars than
> you or maintain them better.

His car was a Honda Civic, it wasn't like he was driving a Geo Metro or
a Yugo. Last time I checked, the Civic has a very good reliability
rating, but the fact is, any car can break at any time.

Sorry to call you out, and I am not exactly taking sides, but I remember
a post by you from quite a while back where you advocated buying
"beater" winter cars for very little money.

You either spent the cost of the car maintaining it, (read: nursing it
along), got lucky, or both. My guess is the main factor was luck, as old
beater cars that sell for low dollars tend to have reliability problems,
you know, things like snapped clutch cables.

Pat

In article >,
pws > wrote:

> Don Bruder wrote:
>
> > Tell ya what... If you think you've got what it takes to locate the
> > house with the unlocked door based on the information given, feel free
> > to drop me a line with your guess(es). Based on what you've said so far,
> > they ought to be amusing. Good luck. In the unlikely, though admittedly
> > not impossible, event that you or someone else succeeds in figuring out
> > where that door is, and perhaps has thoughts towards using the
> > information gathered to pay a "less-than-neighborly" visit, please bear
> > in mind that we're a fairly tight-knit little group here on the hill,
> > and most of us, including myself, are long-time clients of the security
> > firm "Rotweiller, Remington, Winchester & Associates".
>
> Yes, there actually are a few places left that don't require the
> justified paranoia of living in a city that is filled with many
> thousands of people that are looking to do you harm.
>
> It looks like you live on land in Arizona

Oh! So close, but so far! So sorry, Grasshoppa. Good idea, but the
Arizona info is coming up on (or did it recently slide past? <counts>
Nope, coming up on.) being 7 years out of date.

> Finally, Arizona is almost identical to Texas as far as residents
> owning, (and knowing how to use), one or more firearms. Go ahead and
> post your address if you want, anyone traipsing onto your land because
> you posted that you leave your doors unlocked is so stupid that I don't
> think that you'll have a problem with them. Just aim for center of mass.

That's the general idea. "9-1-1" isn't really a viable option this far
out(1) so a lot of folk in these parts tend to dial ".357", "12 ga.", or
".30-06" in case of "goblin incursions".

> The difference between that and open land with established and trusted
> neighbors is like night and day.
> You could probably leave a laptop outside your house in your unlocked
> car for a month and never have it messed with.

Ayup. That would be about the size of it around here.

> Doesn't that Rottie get hot in Arizona? We have quite a few die from
> heat stroke here in the summer.

Actually, he did quite well most of the time. Of course, during the
TRULY hot months, he was often seen lounging in the horse tanks - An
activity which seemed to annoy the bejeebers outta the horses!

> BTW, I recognized the background on your website immediately, I am a
> huge Elric geek and I recently met the author, who lives near Austin.

Interesting. Last time I paid any attention to his whereabouts, he
appeared confused about whether he wanted to be living in Ireland or New
York. Wouldn't have expected him to land in Texas, of all places! I
imagine him as more of a "Florida" kind of guy.


(1) I'm *NOT* faulting the FD, but response time was 45+ minutes the day
the house burned down! Reality is that even lead-footing it like there
was gonna be no tomorrow, the time from "jumped in and turned the key"
to "banging on the firehouse door" would be AT LEAST 25 minutes in any
of the vehicles on the property. The sheer distance that has to be
covered, combined with the drunken snake road that has to be travelled
just won't allow much better than that. Which is why I'm impressed that
the fire trucks were able to get here as quick as they did. Unless we
struck lucky and happened to have a CHP or sheriff cruiser close at hand
for a traffic stop or something, the cops would be coming from further,
so even longer delay. Same thing for ambulance. <shrug> Just the
trade-offs of not living someplace where you don't need to hear it (but
you probably will anyway) to know your next-door neighbor just farted.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Don Bruder wrote:

> Oh! So close, but so far! So sorry, Grasshoppa. Good idea, but the
> Arizona info is coming up on (or did it recently slide past? <counts>
> Nope, coming up on.) being 7 years out of date.

Well, update your site already! :-)

> That's the general idea. "9-1-1" isn't really a viable option this far
> out(1) so a lot of folk in these parts tend to dial ".357", "12 ga.", or
> ".30-06" in case of "goblin incursions".

I don't really consider it a viable option in the city either, at least
not to count on. Too many people have died or been raped with a phone
receiver in their hands when they could have won the fight with a
well-placed 158 or 230 grain hollowpoint.
If I heard or saw anything suspicious, I would call 911, but the phone
would be the second thing in my hand, the .45 auto would be first.

> Interesting. Last time I paid any attention to his whereabouts, he
> appeared confused about whether he wanted to be living in Ireland or New
> York. Wouldn't have expected him to land in Texas, of all places! I
> imagine him as more of a "Florida" kind of guy.

I can understand Ireland, writers pay no income tax there unless the
country has changed the law. A lot of writers choose to live there,
imagine that. ;-)

He, (Michael Moorcock: long time sci-fi author), also worked briefly as
a creative writer for the same company I did in Austin, though it was
about a year after I left.
He has been here for at least 10 years, I have 3 signed books from him
so far.

Pat

In article >,
pws > wrote:

> Don Bruder wrote:
>
> > Oh! So close, but so far! So sorry, Grasshoppa. Good idea, but the
> > Arizona info is coming up on (or did it recently slide past? <counts>
> > Nope, coming up on.) being 7 years out of date.
>
> Well, update your site already! :-)

One of these days when I manage to wrangle "ambition, interest, and
something worth bothering to put up" into the same place at the same
time, I just might

>
> > That's the general idea. "9-1-1" isn't really a viable option this far
> > out(1) so a lot of folk in these parts tend to dial ".357", "12 ga.", or
> > ".30-06" in case of "goblin incursions".
>
> I don't really consider it a viable option in the city either, at least
> not to count on. Too many people have died or been raped with a phone
> receiver in their hands when they could have won the fight with a
> well-placed 158 or 230 grain hollowpoint.
> If I heard or saw anything suspicious, I would call 911, but the phone
> would be the second thing in my hand, the .45 auto would be first.

I like "Ol' Bessie" - I'm pretty sure she's a retired police squad-car
dash gun. 12 gauge pump, un-plugged tube holds either 6 or 7 (copes with
2-3/4" or 3" rounds), plus another in the chamber. She sports an 18.75"
cylinder choke barrel, and makes a nice little "doorway broom". Round in
the chamber is #8 birdshot for a "polite request". Second round and
those that follow are 00 buck - for those critters (two or four-legged)
who don't quite grasp the concept.

> I can understand Ireland, writers pay no income tax there unless the

Hmmm... Maybe I need to take up a new profession?

> country has changed the law. A lot of writers choose to live there,
> imagine that. ;-)

What a surprise, huh?

> He, (Michael Moorcock: long time sci-fi author), also worked briefly as
> a creative writer for the same company I did in Austin, though it was
> about a year after I left.
> He has been here for at least 10 years, I have 3 signed books from him
> so far.

Never been much on the "autographed <insert whatever it is>" concept -
Guess I just don't have that sort of mind-set. I'm *MUCH* more
interested in the stuff they write *OTHER* than their names, if ya
follow

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Don Bruder wrote:

> Never been much on the "autographed <insert whatever it is>" concept -
> Guess I just don't have that sort of mind-set. I'm *MUCH* more
> interested in the stuff they write *OTHER* than their names, if ya
> follow

Well, I did have him put, "To the lucky high bidder from Michael
Moorcock". ;-)

I don't actually collect anything at all for myself, and I agree, I have
no interest in autographs other than the value that they can add.
Generally, if I don't use it, I want it gone and out of my way.

On the other hand, I did find a vintage copy of "Pistol Pete", the
famous Oklahoma lawman that was not only signed but was dedicated to a
woman who was apparently a sweetheart.
The book was worth quite a bit by itself, but the writing more than
quadrupled the value, so signed books can be a good investment,
especially if the author is dead or has quit writing.
"Pistol Pete" was well worth the $1.00 I spent on it. :-)

Pat

I remember backing a VW Beatle (old one) up on ramps in reverse using the
starter motor. No way I could have gotten it up there to fix it otherwise.

miker