Remote start for standard transmission?

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2006-01-02, tooloud > wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Sure there is. I bet the remote start won't crank if it's not in
> park.

Unless your car normally *would* start in park, there's nothing to verify.
The car won't let it start. That said, the first step to installing a remote
starter in a car with a manual transmission reads "disable clutch
interlock", which now means there's nothing to stop the car from being
started in gear.

> The analagous thing on a stick would require that the
> transmission is in neutral with the parking brake engaged. I
> know there's a switch for the latter, and in my original
> posting I was wondering about the former.

You might a point if you could show me a remote-start system with this
capability.

--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply

Don Bruder wrote:
> 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).

I might do that, if nothing more than to see how good my logic skills have
been keeping up.

<snip>

> 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.

Sure, and I can drive a car without a clutch just fine for the most part,
except for the pesky part about stopping on level ground or uphill. That can
be a PITA and potentially unsafe, unless you know something I don't.

>>>> 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.

The main thing I don't like with ABS is the "overthinking" of the system
when you're on a surface it "thinks" is too slick. Oftentimes friction can
scrub off speed better than modulating and demodulating the brakes, i.e.
skidding to a stop rather than travelling twice the distance while braking
because the system is too scared to skid.

I also disagree with the "Stomp and Steer" campaign some idiots started a
while back. Depending on the driving surface, this isn't good advice for Joe
Sixpack.

<snip>

>> 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...

It seems to work just fine for me. I'm glad I know how it works, but as I
can't brake individual wheels with only one pedal, it's appreciated in the
snow.

<snip>

>> 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.)

That feature alone won't brake the vehicle by itself. If the "intelligent"
cruise control is activated, the vehicle will brake by itself. I tend to not
use that feature because I'm usually driving in too heavy of traffic to make
it worthwhile.

>> 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.

True, but it's no big deal to walk down to the well for a bucket of water
either, yet we all have taps right there in the house.

>>> 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?

Probably true.

--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply

On 2006-01-05, tooloud > wrote:

> Unless your car normally *would* start in park, there's
> nothing to verify. The car won't let it start. That said, the
> first step to installing a remote starter in a car with a
> manual transmission reads "disable clutch interlock", which
> now means there's nothing to stop the car from being started
> in gear.

OK, so I take it the answer to my original question about a
neutral interlock switch is "no"?

>> The analagous thing on a stick would require that the
>> transmission is in neutral with the parking brake engaged. I
>> know there's a switch for the latter, and in my original
>> posting I was wondering about the former.
>
> You might a point if you could show me a remote-start system
> with this capability.

It's not really a capability of the remote-start system. You
just wire a neutral interlock switch in parallel with the
clutch interlock switch. Installing a neutral interlock switch
might require a bit of work...

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! .. over in west
at Philadelphia a puppy is
visi.com vomiting...

Grant Edwards > wrote:

>On 2006-01-05, tooloud > wrote:
>
>> Unless your car normally *would* start in park, there's
>> nothing to verify. The car won't let it start. That said, the
>> first step to installing a remote starter in a car with a
>> manual transmission reads "disable clutch interlock", which
>> now means there's nothing to stop the car from being started
>> in gear.
>
>OK, so I take it the answer to my original question about a
>neutral interlock switch is "no"?
>
>>> The analagous thing on a stick would require that the
>>> transmission is in neutral with the parking brake engaged. I
>>> know there's a switch for the latter, and in my original
>>> posting I was wondering about the former.
>>
>> You might a point if you could show me a remote-start system
>> with this capability.
>
>It's not really a capability of the remote-start system. You
>just wire a neutral interlock switch in parallel with the
>clutch interlock switch. Installing a neutral interlock switch
>might require a bit of work...

Don't know why. Isn't the neutral position the one in the middle?

Incidentally, my link ECU displays an "n" when the car is in
neutral, or in any gear with the clutch depressed. I assume it
uses existing sensors for that.

Leon
--
Leon van Dommelen Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .)
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)

On 2006-01-05, Leon van Dommelen > wrote:

>>>> The analagous thing on a stick would require that the
>>>> transmission is in neutral with the parking brake engaged. I
>>>> know there's a switch for the latter, and in my original
>>>> posting I was wondering about the former.
>>>
>>> You might a point if you could show me a remote-start system
>>> with this capability.
>>
>>It's not really a capability of the remote-start system. You
>>just wire a neutral interlock switch in parallel with the
>>clutch interlock switch. Installing a neutral interlock switch
>>might require a bit of work...
>
> Don't know why. Isn't the neutral position the one in the
> middle?

Yes, but I thought previous reples to my question clearly
implied that there was no neutral interlock switch.

> Incidentally, my link ECU displays an "n" when the car is in
> neutral, or in any gear with the clutch depressed. I assume
> it uses existing sensors for that.

I guess it must. That's what I wanted to know in my OP. If
so, it would be pretty simple to wire up a relay across the
clutch interlock switch and drive it with the neutral sensor.

Then the starter would be allowed to engage if the clutch pedal
was depressed _or_ the transmission was in neutral, so a remote
starting system would work just fine. [Disregarding the wisdom
of leaving the car parked with the transmission in neutral.]

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm not available
at for comment...
visi.com

"tooloud" > wrote in message
news:Or%uf.465382$084.214447@attbi_s22...
> Unless your car normally *would* start in park, there's nothing to verify.
> The car won't let it start. That said, the first step to installing a
remote
> starter in a car with a manual transmission reads "disable clutch
> interlock", which now means there's nothing to stop the car from being
> started in gear.
> tooloud

There is no need to disable the clutch interlock switch. Are you quoting
some particular instructions or talking out your butt?

On 2006-01-05, Chas Hurst > wrote:

>> Unless your car normally *would* start in park, there's
>> nothing to verify. The car won't let it start. That said, the
>> first step to installing a remote starter in a car with a
>> manual transmission reads "disable clutch interlock", which
>> now means there's nothing to stop the car from being started
>> in gear. tooloud
>
> There is no need to disable the clutch interlock switch.

Then how are you going to get the starter to crank? Install a
remotely controlled actuator that depresses the clutch pedal?

> Are you quoting some particular instructions or talking out
> your butt?

It seems (to me) pretty obvious that if you want to start a
miata without depressing the clutch pedal you have to disable
the clutch interlock.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I think I'll do BOTH
at if I can get RESIDUALS!!
visi.com

"Grant Edwards" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-01-05, Chas Hurst > wrote:
>
> >> Unless your car normally *would* start in park, there's
> >> nothing to verify. The car won't let it start. That said, the
> >> first step to installing a remote starter in a car with a
> >> manual transmission reads "disable clutch interlock", which
> >> now means there's nothing to stop the car from being started
> >> in gear. tooloud
> >
> > There is no need to disable the clutch interlock switch.
>
> Then how are you going to get the starter to crank? Install a
> remotely controlled actuator that depresses the clutch pedal?
>
> > Are you quoting some particular instructions or talking out
> > your butt?
>
> It seems (to me) pretty obvious that if you want to start a
> miata without depressing the clutch pedal you have to disable
> the clutch interlock.
>
> --
> Grant Edwards

You don't undertstand the starting circuit, otherwise it *would* be obvious
that the interlock switch need not be disabled.
I'm waiting for Tooloud to answer since he has "quoted" install
instructions.

On 2006-01-05, Chas Hurst > wrote:

> You don't undertstand the starting circuit, otherwise it
> *would* be obvious that the interlock switch need not be
> disabled.

Care to explain?

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Jesuit priests are
at DATING CAREER DIPLOMATS!!
visi.com

In article >,
Grant Edwards > wrote:

> On 2006-01-05, Chas Hurst > wrote:
>
> > You don't undertstand the starting circuit, otherwise it
> > *would* be obvious that the interlock switch need not be
> > disabled.
>
> Care to explain?

Permit me?

It's entirely possible, and quite simple, to completely ignore *ALL* of
the interlocks, switches, sensors, and any other "etc. etc. etc." that
might be standing between the battery and juice hitting the starter
solenoid terminal. "Old School" mechanics' remote starts - The kind with
a pushbutton, an 8-10 or so foot length of cable, and two alligator
clamps that you hook up with one to the main starter terminal and the
other to the starter solenoid terminal - did exactly that. Wire the
output of your remote-start unit to a relay (if it isn't already set up
that way) then wire the relay so that it acts as a replacement for the
mechanic's buddy. When the relay closes in response to you mashing the
button on your keyfob, the starter cranks, regardless of sensors,
switches, interlocks, gear and/or clutch position, and whatever else,
because you've bypassed all of it completely.

The wisdom of such an action on a car with a stick rather than an
automatic remains debatable, at best. The first time somebody forgot and
the car got left in gear and the button got hit, either intentionally or
otherwise... Well... Does the most likely scenario *REALLY* need to be
spelled out, or is it as obvious to you as it is to me?

--
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