Beware of high tech running amok

In article >,
Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:48:19 -0600,
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs
>>batteries either.
>
>What do you use for your engine immobilizer?

I have two. One is the old fashioned "ignition key". The second is the
clutch-starter interlock, which will stop a stupid (read: average) car
thief.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
John A. Weeks III > wrote:
>In article > ,
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs
>> batteries either.
>
>Bad idea. Not only is it illegal in most places, it also invalidates
>your insurance if it was relevant to a claim.

Wrong on both counts; I've read my policy. The law often forbides leaving
the car running unattended, but I've never heard of a law requiring
the doors to be locked.

>And think of the
>consequences if some neighborhood kids figure this out, take the
>car, and end up in a horrible accident. Do you want to carry that
>around for the rest of your life.

I have keyless ENTRY, not keyless IGNITION.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Feb 26, 11:52*am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 8:53*pm, N8N > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:41 pm, "John A. Weeks III" > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > (Brent P) wrote:
>
> > > > >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
> > > > >> twisting it?
>
> > > > > I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
> > > > > keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. *I bet you
> > > > > cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
>
> > > > I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either.
>
> > > Replace the word "keyless" entry with "sex", and see how foolish
> > > that logic sounds when you say it out loud. *Just because you
> > > haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it
> > > once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future.
>
> > I've got a couple of those items. *Keyless entry really isn't on *my*
> > must have list, but a few things I've been spoiled by and now miss
> > when my car doesn't have them...
>
> <snip>
>
> > 2) Inside trunk release. *That way I'm not fumbling with my keys in an
> > unfamiliar parking lot, and God forbid I drop them and they roll under
> > the car.
>
> <snip>
>
> Try a new feature on my 2005 Ford 500. *A great step backward.
>
> Has the inside trunk release _and no key unlock_ at the trunk.
>
> The inside release won't work and you have to push down on the trunk
> lid (releases lock pressure) before the keyless thing will work. *And
> that is AFTER I took it back to the dealer twice.
>
> I suppose it could be argued that not having a key hole in the trunk
> lid is an antitheft measure but I consider it a very weak point.
>
> Harry K

That's almost as bad as what I've seen on a lot of street rods; the
builder will shave the trunk handle for a "clean" look, use an
electric actuator to pop the trunk, and then relocate the battery from
the engine compartment to above the rear axle for better weight
distribution...

nate

In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:36:03 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:02:28 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why do I want more crap to carry around
>>>
>>> Huh? You already carry a key on a chain with a fob. Where is this
>>> "extra crap" of which you speak?
>>
>>I have no 'fob'.
>
> Most people do. You're just weird. Especially if you consider a key
> fob weighing an ounce or two to be some sort of an unbearable burden.

I thought I was clear I consider it an annoyance.

>>>>another thing that needs a battery...
>>
>>> My first battery lasted almost 3 years and cost $3 to replace. BFD.
>>
>>It's not the cost, it's the annoyance.

> Keys are more annoying than fobs - especially when the weather gets
> cold and icy.

Except for the torqueless wonder car I haven't had that problem in about
14 years.

>>And makes your car easy to steal by some RFID interceptor.

> Kindly link to a report of a Corvette, an IS-350, a Mercedes, or any
> other vehicle that was soltne in this manner. I'll wait.

I understand thieves eventually defeated the ford PATS system too...

>>Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh.

> Luddite.

No. Keep it Simple, Stupid.

> Do you keep a bottle of lock de-icer in your wallet too?

Why would I need that?

>>Only I drive my car.

> And you're never getting married or even having an SO.

Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree and
then I'll be concerned about it.

>>> Another thing you might appreciate on occasion: my car has no lock
>>> cylinders in the doors to get frozen up in the winter.

>>It's called graphite lock lube. I've had to do it ONCE in 11 years.

> Amazing. You tell us that your brakes fail constantly, and yet you've
> never had your locks freeze up on you? When I lived in IL, I had it
> happen at least once a year.

Strawman. I've had brake lines fail in hidden unservicable uninspectable
locations on cars over 15 years old. It's called road salt spray. Door locks
however give signals that they are in need of lube and preventing them
from icing over isn't a big deal. Now my '73 and '75 mavericks when I did
drive them daily over 11 years ago, would have the *latches* freeze up
but not the lock cylinders. Of course your key fob thinggy doesn't take
the latch out of the system.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
>>>>> twisting it?
>>>
>>>> I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
>>>> keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. I bet you
>>>> cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
>>> I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either.
>> Replace the word "keyless" entry with "sex", and see how foolish
>> that logic sounds when you say it out loud. Just because you
>> haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it
>> once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future.
>
> Why do I want more crap to carry around, another thing to break, another
> thing that needs a battery... For what advantage? Not putting a key into
> a lock? Then I'd never really trust the security of it. If it had a door
> lock as a backup it couldn't be more secure, if it didn't when the
> battery fails or the remote breaks one would be SOL.
>
>

I'm a fan of basic cars... manual windows and all.

But keyless entry rocks.

When it's -40 outside, you can unlock the doors and your two year old
can climb in while you strap in your infant. My Subaru doesn't have it,
so I have to unlock the front door, open it, and then unlock the back
door while carrying a kid. pita.

If you have a nice car, you don't ever scratch the paint around the
locks. Seriously. I don't think I've ever put the keys in the door
locks on my Trans Am.

Plus, you never have to worry if you locked the doors or not.

I do chuckle, because "hi-tech" for some people might consist of things
like self starters, radios, automatic transmissions, and disk brakes.
Anyone here want to go back to point ignitions?

Ray

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..

> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree
> and
> then I'll be concerned about it.

You have a car with three on the tree? I don't know when they stopped
offering that, but it had to be sometime in the 70's. I think our last
vehicle with three on the tree was a 1972 Ford F100. However, if you
can drive a stick shift, three on the tree is pretty easy. I am sure I
could teach anyone who regularly drives a manual how to handle three
on the three in just a few minutes.

Ed

In article <47c553aa$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree
>> and
>> then I'll be concerned about it.
>
> You have a car with three on the tree? I don't know when they stopped
> offering that, but it had to be sometime in the 70's. I think our last
> vehicle with three on the tree was a 1972 Ford F100. However, if you
> can drive a stick shift, three on the tree is pretty easy. I am sure I
> could teach anyone who regularly drives a manual how to handle three
> on the three in just a few minutes.

My older car is three on the tree. it's a '73. And for emissions testing
when they would send over the person who could drive an MT they were just
baffled... explaining where R 1 2 3 wouldn't register.

On Feb 27, 3:58*am, Ray >
wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article >, John A. Weeks III wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >>>>> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
> >>>>> twisting it?
>
> >>>> I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
> >>>> keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. *I bet you
> >>>> cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
> >>> I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either.
> >> Replace the word "keyless" entry with "sex", and see how foolish
> >> that logic sounds when you say it out loud. *Just because you
> >> haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it
> >> once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future.
>
> > Why do I want more crap to carry around, another thing to break, another
> > thing that needs a battery... For what advantage? Not putting a key into
> > a lock? Then I'd never really trust the security of it. If it had a door
> > lock as a backup it couldn't be more secure, if it didn't when the
> > battery fails or the remote breaks one would be SOL.
>
> I'm a fan of basic cars... manual windows and all.
>
> But keyless entry rocks.
>
> When it's -40 outside, you can unlock the doors and your two year old
> can climb in while you strap in your infant. *My Subaru doesn't have it,
> so I have to unlock the front door, open it, and then unlock the back
> door while carrying a kid. *pita.
>
> If you have a nice car, you don't ever scratch the paint around the
> locks. *Seriously. *I don't think I've ever put the keys in the door
> locks on my Trans Am.
>
> Plus, you never have to worry if you locked the doors or not.
>
> I do chuckle, because "hi-tech" for some people might consist of things
> like self starters, radios, automatic transmissions, and disk brakes.
> Anyone here want to go back to point ignitions?

Hey! You talking about me?

nate

(got rid of my last points distributor only a year or so ago; the '55
is running a Chrysler "orange box" ignition now, although I do have a
MSD 6AL that I might try to adapt...)

On Feb 26, 8:52*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:

> Amazing. You tell us that your brakes fail constantly, and yet you've
> never had your locks freeze up on you? When I lived in IL, I had it
> happen at least once a year.

A squirt of spray silicone in the lock cylinder every fall will take
care of that; at the same time wiping some Sil-Glyde around the
weatherstrip will keep that from freezing as well.

nate

In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:48:51 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:36:03 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>I have no 'fob'.
>>>
>>> Most people do. You're just weird. Especially if you consider a key
>>> fob weighing an ounce or two to be some sort of an unbearable burden.
>>
>>I thought I was clear I consider it an annoyance.
>
> Do you really? Or are you just saying that so you can argue with me?
>
>>> Keys are more annoying than fobs - especially when the weather gets
>>> cold and icy.
>>
>>Except for the torqueless wonder car I haven't had that problem in about
>>14 years.
>
> But you have had that problem. QED.

Well, ya see it took me a bit to get into shape and the problem was half
mechanical. It was bad in the summer, worse in the winter. Only
disassembly and greasing took care of it. The linkage is still there with
the remote gizmo and it was the problem, not the lock cylinders
themselves.

>>I understand thieves eventually defeated the ford PATS system too...
>
> Cite?

It's funny how I'm the person who is expected to keep cites for every
damn thing I've read in the last 20 years around here. How many times
have I made something up out of the blue scott? ZERO. Ya think there
would be just a little respect.

>>>>Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh.
>>
>>> Luddite.
>>
>>No. Keep it Simple, Stupid.
>>
>>> Do you keep a bottle of lock de-icer in your wallet too?
>>
>>Why would I need that?
>
> Don't be disingenuous.

I've never needed it. It's not my fault you drove beaters when you lived
around here.

>>>>Only I drive my car.
>>
>>> And you're never getting married or even having an SO.
>>
>>Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree and
>>then I'll be concerned about it.

> Maybe that's your REAL problem: you aren't getting laid enough, and
> you take out your frustrations by getting into silly arguments on
> USENET?

You're the one pushing the silly argument trying to convince me I need
your favorite gizmo. Note I haven't said you should give up your gizmo
only that I don't need or want it. Think about that for a moment. Why is
it so important that you convince me I need keyless entry?

>>Now my '73 and '75 mavericks when I did
>>drive them daily over 11 years ago, would have the *latches* freeze up
>>but not the lock cylinders. Of course your key fob thinggy doesn't take
>>the latch out of the system.

> The door latches in my C6 are controlled by solenoids. Since no part
> of the mechanism is exposed to water they cannot freeze up. You'd have
> to encase the entire car in a block of ice to keep me from getting
> into it.

The latches are just as exposed in your vette as any other car. Although
the old ford bear-hug latches did leave more mechanism out in the open
than more modern designs. But that's neither here nor there because
keyless entry does not eliminate nor does it better protect latches.
Keyless entry merely controls the latches. The electric solenoid is the
same one that is there for power locks. The electronic control replaces
the lock cylinder and only the lock cylinder, the rest of the mechanism
is there just as it would have always been.