[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by laborsmith

Legal liability. Engineering to account for all possibilities including hacks may not be as feasible as some think and any event could be costly to whatever deep pockets stood at hand.

As to active rev match, I suspect Chevy did not want multiple steering wheels, needed some task for the paddles, and the rest was engineering with little possibility of ten million dollar per event settlements.

Laborsmith

From and engineering standpoint that is a ridiculous argument! You really believe they would create an active rev match system instead of simply removing the paddles from the steering wheel? You can't possibly believe that makes sense or would in any way be cheaper than ditching the paddles. They spent money to increase the performance and desirability of the manual trans. Not to make use of some paddles.

As far as liability. If someone hacks the system then its on them. You would have better luck to go outside cut your own brake lines then sue GM because you crashed. They would at least have to investigate to prove that you cut them. When software is involved they can monitor any changes you made or if you have tampered with the system.

The legal talk is a cheap answer when people don't have a good arguments as to why GM can't achieve this. You same people would have argued that the ARM would overrev and blow an engine and GM wouldn't do it because Jim Bob might sue. Don't be such defeatists. Positive attitudes accomplish a lot more.

You don't think if we start yapping on these forums about why can't we have remote start manuals that GM won't start listening if they see enough desire.

Anything's possible.

[Eric SS]

Originally Posted by mjk3888

From and engineering standpoint that is a ridiculous argument! You really believe they would create an active rev match system instead of simply removing the paddles from the steering wheel? You can't possibly believe that makes sense or would in any way be cheaper than ditching the paddles. They spent money to increase the performance and desirability of the manual trans. Not to make use of some paddles.

As far as liability. If someone hacks the system then its on them. You would have better luck to go outside cut your own brake lines then sue GM because you crashed. They would at least have to investigate to prove that you cut them. When software is involved they can monitor any changes you made or if you have tampered with the system.

The legal talk is a cheap answer when people don't have a good arguments as to why GM can't achieve this. You same people would have argued that the ARM would overrev and blow an engine and GM wouldn't do it because Jim Bob might sue. Don't be such defeatists. Positive attitudes accomplish a lot more.

You don't think if we start yapping on these forums about why can't we have remote start manuals that GM won't start listening if they see enough desire.

Anything's possible.

The legal argument is a very good one actually. Just because there isn't legal liability in the end doesn't make litigation cheap. It's just as valid as the engineering argument. GM sells tons of manual vehicles outside of the US. Do any of them or manuals from other manufacturers offer remote start? GM will probably not lose one single sale because no remote start exists on the manual so where's the incintive to take the chance?

Source: 13 years handling legal liability litigation bullshit for companies. 1/2 the time no liability exists but that doesn't stop people from trying. Why take responsibility for your own actions when you can sue someone else. I've actually handled cases exactly like this before on remote start systems installed on manual transmissions.

[activepat]

Originally Posted by mjk3888

You don't think if we start yapping on these forums about why can't we have remote start manuals that GM won't start listening if they see enough desire.
Anything's possible.

Dream on.....

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by Eric SS

The legal argument is a very good one actually. Just because there isn't legal liability in the end doesn't make litigation cheap. It's just as valid as the engineering argument. GM sells tons of manual vehicles outside of the US. Do any of them or manuals from other manufacturers offer remote start? GM will probably not lose one single sale because no remote start exists on the manual so where's the incintive to take the chance?

Source: 13 years handling legal liability litigation bullshit for companies. 1/2 the time no liability exists but that doesn't stop people from trying. Why take responsibility for your own actions when you can sue someone else. I've as really handled cases exactly like this before on remote start systems installed on manual transmissions.

I'm not going to argue legal with you then. My question to you would be what makes this a bigger legal liability than any other new technology that's applied to a car. Adaptive Cruise. City Brake Assist. Autonomous driving. These are all systems that have a much higher potential for disaster than a remote start. Also we are again getting away from the point that if done correctly it could be more fail safe than and there would be no benefit to someone trying to hack or override it. So what other reason is there besides lack of effort? They may not lose a sale for not having one but what kind of argument is that? You don't think having a class exclusive remote start for manual transmission cars wouldn't be a selling point?

[Number 3]

Ok seriously if you think it isn't available because GM isn't listening and if you simply ask enough times they'll add this feature..............................

Anyhow. There are fundamental differences that prohibit it from being in a manual from the OEM.

When you remote start an automatic, you have BTSI to keep the car in PARK. So you can start it, but without a key on (push the start button with the key in hand) you CANNOT put the car in gear.

The government has strict guidelines on "un attended operation". See FMVSS 118 on auto closing sunroofs and windows.

So yes, you could easily have a gear indicator for the manual. If in neutral, go ahead and override the clutch interlock? Well FMVSS 102 prevents the vehicle from being started in any gear. So an automatic can do that easily. A manual is much tougher.

Back to un attended, if you start your car with an automatic, there is no way for someone to accidentally, purposely or inadvertently put the car in gear due to BTSI. With a manual, it's possible to put the car in gear.

So is it possible? Sure, but you'd then need a sensor to determine the car was in neutral, then you'd need to override the clutch interlock and then you'd need to lock the manual transmission in neutral, all while making sure the car had a parking brake on.

So to all you that claim "anything is possible" you are probably correct. But there are regulations that make it much, much more difficult than an automatic.

[Eric SS]

Originally Posted by mjk3888

I'm not going to argue legal with you then. My question to you would be what makes this a bigger legal liability than any other new technology that's applied to a car. Adaptive Cruise. City Brake Assist. Autonomous driving. These are all systems that have a much higher potential for disaster than a remote start. Also we are again getting away from the point that if done correctly it could be more fail safe than and there would be no benefit to someone trying to hack or override it. So what other reason is there besides lack of effort? They may not lose a sale for not having one but what kind of argument is that? You don't think having a class exclusive remote start for manual transmission cars wouldn't be a selling point?

To be honest, I'm not sure why they feel this is a bigger liability than the other items you mentioned. My guess is because the other items are marketed as safety items which can be looked upon more favorably by a jury than the convenience of remote start. "We implemented this feature to make the roads a safer place for everyone" vs "we made this feature for you to be more comfortable when you get in your car". These are two completely different arguments when it comes to litigation and to a jury one is worth a hell of a lot more than the other.

But I guess that's my legal mind vs. your engineering mind. We can both be right

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by activepat

Dream on.....

If a demand grew they would answer or another company would. I'm not talking about 10 goons on a fan forum, but if they see a growing aftermarket for remote start and general interest growing, they would start paying attention. We aren't reinventing the wheel here folks it's a very easy calibration to materials that are already on the car. Go research some of the new tech in the flagship BMW's Audi's and Merc's. I guarantee you they have stuff you didn't even think was possible to have on cars. Something that astronomical might deserve some deliberation and concern during the design phase, but remote start isn't rocket science guys. Even if it seems like it to some of you.

[Spanky1]

what does BTSI stand for?

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by Eric SS

To be honest, I'm not sure why they feel this is a bigger liability than the other items you mentioned. My guess is because the other items are marketed as safety items which can be looked upon more favorably by a jury than the convenience of remote start. "We implemented this feature to make the roads a safer place for everyone" vs "we made this feature for you to be more comfortable when you get in your car". These are two completely different arguments when it comes to litigation and to a jury one is worth a hell of a lot more than the other.

But I guess that's my legal mind vs. your engineering mind. We can both be right

Very possible. I hope it's just that they think there is not enough demand. They could potentially change their mind if that's the only hold up. I think even if it was me I would not implement it in a first year run. Wait for at least year 2 to find and remedy other possible issues. I really do think it would be cheap for them to implement and personally I would pay a fair amount for a remote start.

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok seriously if you think it isn't available because GM isn't listening and if you simply ask enough times they'll add this feature..............................

Anyhow. There are fundamental differences that prohibit it from being in a manual from the OEM.

When you remote start an automatic, you have BTSI to keep the car in PARK. So you can start it, but without a key on (push the start button with the key in hand) you CANNOT put the car in gear.

The government has strict guidelines on "un attended operation". See FMVSS 118 on auto closing sunroofs and windows.

So yes, you could easily have a gear indicator for the manual. If in neutral, go ahead and override the clutch interlock? Well FMVSS 102 prevents the vehicle from being started in any gear. So an automatic can do that easily. A manual is much tougher.

Back to un attended, if you start your car with an automatic, there is no way for someone to accidentally, purposely or inadvertently put the car in gear due to BTSI. With a manual, it's possible to put the car in gear.

So is it possible? Sure, but you'd then need a sensor to determine the car was in neutral, then you'd need to override the clutch interlock and then you'd need to lock the manual transmission in neutral, all while making sure the car had a parking brake on.

So to all you that claim "anything is possible" you are probably correct. But there are regulations that make it much, much more difficult than an automatic.

Assuming you are correct, this could be remedied with the development of a solenoid style neutral lock. They have skip shift solenoids so this wouldn't be a totally foreign topic. They could also use this as a gear lockout feature to prevent missed shifts that would result in engine over reving. Simple wheel speed input could determine that the car is traveling to fast to switch into certain gears.

Also the car already possess neutral detection. The gear position indicator even displays N on the drivers information center display.

[ckaram]

Brake Transmission Shift Interlock

[Memphis43]

So let me tell you a story.... I was working at a feed shop and a gentleman walked into the store after getting out of this gorgeous corvette. As he was walking around the store I heard a loud bang and walked out side. Turns out the corvette went through one of our pillars after hopping a curb because it started while in 1st gear.

And.... Turns out the guy had a remote start added to the vette.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikeyg36]

I can't see this being that hard to implement. If it is started via remote and the car begins to move have the computer apply the brakes and turn off the engine.

[BlkReaper]

Engineer here....from my experience, which is little, when something is as dangerous as this you don't want to rely on software as your safety. Software malfunctions as well as bad sensors. It may say its in N one day but really be in 1st. With stuff like this you want a physical safety and we all know an e brake is not going to hold a car from a starter.....I would love a remote start in my manual. I think its an awesome idea BUT I wouldn't want to be the engineer with my name on it.