[fastball]

Originally Posted by Eric SS

I assume they do but I'm definitely no IT professional or hacker or anything. That's definitely something more in your wheelhouse than mine. My thought is that if there is something than can be hacked, there's someone out there that will try and exploit it unfortunately. And when there's no money to be made there, the attorneys go to who does have the money. I see it every day unfortunately. Companies trying to do the right thing get dragged through litigation because of the "I gotta get paid" mentality. It happens all the time. : (

Well the onus goes to who hacked it.

If a system fails and it was the mfg fault, sure the lawyers will go after them. Case in point the Cobalt ignition switch.

But if someone hacked it and it caused the accident GM would be off the hook.

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

wow, this kinda took a wrong turn...

Number 3...what would it take (in $$) to develop a prototype and patent such a thing and would any automaker license it?

I'd love to start an LLC, then buy a Camaro for R&D and write it off, so....

I'd have a hard time believing that this wouldn't be a profitable feature for automakers. Customers who like modern technology and convenience, but don't want to sacrifice their beloved manual transmissions. I know that is how I feel.

Only a few short years ago you could only get Navigation in upscale cars, now we are cramming them in the cheapest economy cars. Everyone wants maximum functionality. I think if a system was devised and then proven to be safe, that this could eventually trickle down to even cheap economy cars. People who live in colder climates could get a bare bones manual trans car and still opt for a remote start to warm the car up.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

wow, this kinda took a wrong turn...

Number 3...what would it take (in $$) to develop a prototype and patent such a thing and would any automaker license it?

I'd love to start an LLC, then buy a Camaro for R&D and write it off, so....

How much is a tough question. A lot of work to do from an OEM standpoint. And I haven't fully researched it but the big hurdle seems to be FMVSS 102.

Also, I'm not sure of the impact of starting a car with the clutch engaged. You would be turning the transmission while trying to turn the engine over with the starter. May not be a big deal.

Biggest thing is demand. Other than Camaro and Corvette, most manuals are in the less expensive models.

Originally Posted by fastball

Well the onus goes to who hacked it.

If a system fails and it was the mfg fault, sure the lawyers will go after them. Case in point the Cobalt ignition switch.

But if someone hacked it and it caused the accident GM would be off the hook.

I wish you were correct. They would still sue GM because they made a hackable product. And as our system works, cheaper for big companies to write a check than defend itself.

Just read an article on "self driving cars". The lawyers are apparently drooling because now you and I aren't at fault. The OEMs are..............and they have much deeper pockets.

Originally Posted by mjk3888

I'd have a hard time believing that this wouldn't be a profitable feature for automakers. Customers who like modern technology and convenience, but don't want to sacrifice their beloved manual transmissions. I know that is how I feel.

Only a few short years ago you could only get Navigation in upscale cars, now we are cramming them in the cheapest economy cars. Everyone wants maximum functionality. I think if a system was devised and then proven to be safe, that this could eventually trickle down to even cheap economy cars. People who live in colder climates could get a bare bones manual trans car and still opt for a remote start to warm the car up.

I'm sure you could make it profitable, but that depends on volume. It could be profitable with 1 customer at $1,000,000. And for most GM cars with automatics, it's standard at least on the higher trim levels. So I have no idea how much it costs. My SS has it, Mrs. Number 3's ATS does not. Buried in the Luxury package.

Part of the issue is all the parts are there already on an automatic. 1st the car is shut off in park. It can't be started in gear because of BTSI. Also, if you have a key, I'm pretty sure you can't remove the key in in gear. You have to be in Park. So for the most part, it's sending a signal to the BCM just like the key or push button does to the starter motor.

For a manual, the compliance to MVSS 102 is the clutch interlock switch. That enables the starting system. You can shut off a manual in gear and remove the key. Nothing prevents you from walking away from the car in neutral or in gear, reverse or forward. All the hardware needed for remote start would be extra on a manual. And all that has to be developed and tested and for how many customers? I'm sure GM and the other OEMs know that. Also if you don't make your own transmission, you'd need your transmission supplier to do some work there as well. So it's really a big deal for an OEM.

And I'm not sure having a lockout feature for the manual gear shift lever is all that it takes to comply with MVSS 102. It just says you can't start a car in gear, and that includes when you are in the car, not just un attended hence the clutch interlock switch.

Would it, for example, require that you also have the park brake engaged? You have left the car in neutral to enable a remote start with a device that blocks the shift lever. So now the car can actually move if you don't have the parking brake on. What if the customer doesn't pull the lever hard enough to actually lock the car in place? So now does this require a e-park brake? A park brake uses the brakes rather than a PAWL in an automatic transmission. What happens if you have a brake failure? Or worn brakes? Now you have the potential for a runaway car...............that is running.

You have to keep in mind, this is not easy stuff to overcome. And if you want to see really hard, look at the complexities of BMWs e-shift automatics. Imagine what happens when you no longer have the ability to insert a key into the shift lever or console to move the car out of PARK when you need a tow.

Trust me on this, it is never as easy as it appears.

Frankly it amazes me how Apple, Samsung and Google get the credit for being High Tech companies yet it's the automakers that have to develop a product that actually uses those products as just small entertainment and navigation inputs. There is more technology integrated into your car than your phone will ever have. But since we've been building cars for 100 years it's not viewed that way. There is a book there.................but no one would read it LOL.

And until those guys actually build their own cars (Apple and Google apparently are) your phone generally isn't going to get you hurt. They have very limited liability right now.

GM is paying BILLIONS of dollars simply because people were killed when their cars turned off essentially turning Cobalts into 1975 Chevrolets. Don't get me wrong, this is very sad and too many people were killed or injured. But the Cobalts basically had no power brakes, no power steering and now airbags. I've driven cars like that in my lifetime and that's how they were designed at that time.

Imagine Apple being sued because their phones defaulted to rotary dial when a certain failure mode occurred.

You wouldn't believe the things the OEMs get sued for. Some certainly their fault, some simply because the car was being operated by a drunk and it didn't protect them or others. Just look at the back of the ATLA Journal (American Trial Lawyers Association). I looked years ago and it was a want add section for "expert witnesses" in various defects and potential defects for law suits. There is an industry for just that.

[Eric SS]

Originally Posted by fastball

But if someone hacked it and it caused the accident GM would be off the hook.

You're still thinking to logically to understand my point.

They can be 100% not liable in your eyes and mine, but that doesn't mean that they won't get sued and get involved in a lengthy and very costly litigation battle that will cost well in excess of any profitability potential from remote start on a manual Camaro. Burn yourself with coffee and sue McDonalds, not be 100% satisfied with your dry cleaning and sue a mom and pop launderer for false advertising for millions of dollars (it happened), have a faulty tire and sue Ford for faulty design because you're shocked a 4x4 has a high center of gravity and rolls easily and you're not smart enough to wear a seatbelt that would have saved your life. And these are just high profile cases. This happens literally hundreds of thousands of times a year. You can do a google search and probably find even crazier examples than those and sometimes litigation will even bankrupt a small mom and pop company sadly.

Again, just because you're not liable doesn't mean it's cheap to prove. And sometimes the cheaper option is just to pay up and the cheapest option is to not put yourself in the position to worry about being sued.

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Also, I'm not sure of the impact of starting a car with the clutch engaged. You would be turning the transmission while trying to turn the engine over with the starter. May not be a big deal.

Biggest thing is demand. Other than Camaro and Corvette, most manuals are in the less expensive models.

I don't think the additional rotating mass of the transmission input shaft would be a huge deal, but you're right it is something to account for.

Regarding demand, I can foresee it growing similar to the heated seats, navigation, and other features available in cheap cars now that weren't just a short time ago. I doubt many saw that coming or being successful either. I think remote start on a cheap manual trans car would have similar success.

Originally Posted by Number 3

Part of the issue is all the parts are there already on an automatic. 1st the car is shut off in park. It can't be started in gear because of BTSI. Also, if you have a key, I'm pretty sure you can't remove the key in in gear. You have to be in Park. So for the most part, it's sending a signal to the BCM just like the key or push button does to the starter motor.

For a manual, the compliance to MVSS 102 is the clutch interlock switch. That enables the starting system. You can shut off a manual in gear and remove the key. Nothing prevents you from walking away from the car in neutral or in gear, reverse or forward. All the hardware needed for remote start would be extra on a manual. And all that has to be developed and tested and for how many customers? I'm sure GM and the other OEMs know that. Also if you don't make your own transmission, you'd need your transmission supplier to do some work there as well. So it's really a big deal for an OEM.

And I'm not sure having a lockout feature for the manual gear shift lever is all that it takes to comply with MVSS 102. It just says you can't start a car in gear, and that includes when you are in the car, not just un attended hence the clutch interlock switch.

Would it, for example, require that you also have the park brake engaged? You have left the car in neutral to enable a remote start with a device that blocks the shift lever. So now the car can actually move if you don't have the parking brake on. What if the customer doesn't pull the lever hard enough to actually lock the car in place? So now does this require a e-park brake? A park brake uses the brakes rather than a PAWL in an automatic transmission. What happens if you have a brake failure? Or worn brakes? Now you have the potential for a runaway car...............that is running.

You have to keep in mind, this is not easy stuff to overcome. And if you want to see really hard, look at the complexities of BMWs e-shift automatics. Imagine what happens when you no longer have the ability to insert a key into the shift lever or console to move the car out of PARK when you need a tow.

Trust me on this, it is never as easy as it appears.

I get it. It doesn't come without work. Let's keep in mind that Automatic's parking pawls aren't fail safe either. I personally have seen a 97 Mercury Mountaineer that will slowly creep down a 5 degree slope requiring wheel chocks to park. How many people have you seen slam a car in park and bounce the car back and forth off the pawl? What's to keep it from breaking after enough abuse and rolling away? Any part on a car can wear out and fail it doesn't mean its not a good part that serves its purpose.

I do think that an electric parking brake should be required for a remote start manual car. I think you can program several parameters that have to be met to allow the system to remote start (no parking brake errors present, maybe even a low pressure cut off switch on a hydraulic parking brake)

Even if you have a runaway car because of a brake failure, it wouldn't matter if the engine was running or not because it should be locked into neutral.

Similar to the brake pedal application that unlocks the shift lever in an automatic while being removed park, maybe a clutch pedal application can unlock the shifter from the neutral gate. Once the clutch application does the initial unlocking, it would remain unlocked as long as engine rpm's and wheel speed are present. This could even still allow for push starting as the neutral lock would deactivate with key on and clutch application. So it would function as any other typical manual transmission would.

As long as the regulation doesn't specifically require the clutch pedal to be depressed upon start up, I think remote start on a manual is a possibility.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by mjk3888

I don't think the additional rotating mass of the transmission input shaft would be a huge deal, but you're right it is something to account for.

Regarding demand, I can foresee it growing similar to the heated seats, navigation, and other features available in cheap cars now that weren't just a short time ago. I doubt many saw that coming or being successful either. I think remote start on a cheap manual trans car would have similar success.



I get it. It doesn't come without work. Let's keep in mind that Automatic's parking pawls aren't fail safe either. I personally have seen a 97 Mercury Mountaineer that will slowly creep down a 5 degree slope requiring wheel chocks to park. How many people have you seen slam a car in park and bounce the car back and forth off the pawl? What's to keep it from breaking after enough abuse and rolling away? Any part on a car can wear out and fail it doesn't mean its not a good part that serves its purpose.

I do think that an electric parking brake should be required for a remote start manual car. I think you can program several parameters that have to be met to allow the system to remote start (no parking brake errors present, maybe even a low pressure cut off switch on a hydraulic parking brake)

Even if you have a runaway car because of a brake failure, it wouldn't matter if the engine was running or not because it should be locked into neutral.

Similar to the brake pedal application that unlocks the shift lever in an automatic while being removed park, maybe a clutch pedal application can unlock the shifter from the neutral gate. Once the clutch application does the initial unlocking, it would remain unlocked as long as engine rpm's and wheel speed are present. This could even still allow for push starting as the neutral lock would deactivate with key on and clutch application. So it would function as any other typical manual transmission would.

As long as the regulation doesn't specifically require the clutch pedal to be depressed upon start up, I think remote start on a manual is a possibility.

Just because I can find failure modes (DFMEA), imagine the fire hazard of a running car with heat and electrical ignition sources annnnnnnnd one that isn't running with heat sources and electrical ignition sources.

You may be an engineer, I am by trade and training, if something COULD happen, it will likely happen. It's just a matter of how often. And if you have a potential for an occurrence, you have to mitigate it. So now we have to have the self starting manual transmission car that can detect motion and then shut itself off an instantly cool everything to mitigate the potential for a thermal event.

Oh, and you can't bring up one example of an 18 year old car that has a major transmission problem. Of course nothing is fallable, which is why we likely won't see this on manual transmission cars with out a crap load of other stuff to prevent failures from occurring.

Again, YES!!!!! It could be done, but like T-tops, you have legal requirements against you and a crap load of work and parts to overcome the law.

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Just because I can find failure modes (DFMEA), imagine the fire hazard of a running car with heat and electrical ignition sources annnnnnnnd one that isn't running with heat sources and electrical ignition sources.

You may be an engineer, I am by trade and training, if something COULD happen, it will likely happen. It's just a matter of how often. And if you have a potential for an occurrence, you have to mitigate it. So now we have to have the self starting manual transmission car that can detect motion and then shut itself off an instantly cool everything to mitigate the potential for a thermal event.

Oh, and you can't bring up one example of an 18 year old car that has a major transmission problem. Of course nothing is fallable, which is why we likely won't see this on manual transmission cars with out a crap load of other stuff to prevent failures from occurring.

Again, YES!!!!! It could be done, but like T-tops, you have legal requirements against you and a crap load of work and parts to overcome the law.

Is this not always the case with any new systems being developed for automotive use?

If I build a staircase with a guardrail and it meets OSHA standards then do I need to build a catch net, because its still possible for someone to climb over the rail, then a secondary one in case the first net fails? No I don't. I only need to meet OSHA regulations. Any additional saftey measures past that point are subject to the owners of the property or in our case the Auto Manufacturer.

Yes, I am an Engineer. I am familiar with DFMEA. However, in this circumstance its just a matter of who decides how many preventative measures are enough. What satisfies regulations and what satisfies the the manufacturer's legal concerns are two separate things. Neither you or I decide that. All I'm saying is that I don't think its unfeasible for this to be created (obviously you disagree)

The only questions here that matter are what would it take to satisfy FMVSS 102 for a manual transmission remote start? After my reading of it the only requirement I'm seeing for Manual Transmission cars is that a shift pattern is displayed in drivers sight.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...e49.6.571_1102

This can't be the only requirement. Can you point me in the direction of the correct standards?

Standard No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

S1. Purpose and scope.
This standard specifies the requirements for the transmission shift position sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, to prevent starter engagement by the driver when the transmission is in any drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour).

S3.2 Manual transmissions.
Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard “H” pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position.

[ChocoTaco369]

Mechanical > Electronic

Your motor's ECU has electronic overrev protection, but if you downshift into the wrong gear and cause a mechanical overrev, nothing can save you. The motor's toast.

Mechanical > Electronic

All it takes is one malfunction to a car left in gear on a hill overnight to cause massive damage. Liability out the wazoo. I'd love remote start as well, but it's a small price to pay to not drive a slushbox.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by mjk3888

Is this not always the case with any new systems being developed for automotive use?

If I build a staircase with a guardrail and it meets OSHA standards then do I need to build a catch net, because its still possible for someone to climb over the rail, then a secondary one in case the first net fails? No I don't. I only need to meet OSHA regulations. Any additional saftey measures past that point are subject to the owners of the property or in our case the Auto Manufacturer.

Yes, I am an Engineer. I am familiar with DFMEA. However, in this circumstance its just a matter of who decides how many preventative measures are enough. What satisfies regulations and what satisfies the the manufacturer's legal concerns are two separate things. Neither you or I decide that. All I'm saying is that I don't think its unfeasible for this to be created (obviously you disagree)

The only questions here that matter are what would it take to satisfy FMVSS 102 for a manual transmission remote start? After my reading of it the only requirement I'm seeing for Manual Transmission cars is that a shift pattern is displayed in drivers sight.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...e49.6.571_1102

This can't be the only requirement. Can you point me in the direction of the correct standards?

Standard No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

S1. Purpose and scope.
This standard specifies the requirements for the transmission shift position sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, to prevent starter engagement by the driver when the transmission is in any drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour).

S3.2 Manual transmissions.
Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard “H” pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position.

You could also check FMVSS 114, but that has less to do with manual transmissions.

But the key point is, you cannot start a vehicle when in gear. Period. I hope you see that as pretty clear.

The only way to do that with a manual transmission is to have it be in neutral. But being in neutral does not keep the car from rolling away, which is also part of the MVSS standards. So you need an interlock mechanism that would prevent the car from being in gear and you need to ensure the car cannot roll away. In the case of a manual transmission, that would at a minimum be the park brake. I believe this is how it is done with e-shift automatics from BMW and MB. Not sure what GM is doing with their upcoming XT5 and CT6 that I believe have e-shift automatics. Many other OEMs have this as well and I'm pretty sure they all eliminate the parking pawl or lock out feature.

So without extensive study, the hurdle is a lockout mechanism that keeps the shift lever in the neutral gate and locks out all forward and reverse gears. I'll assume that what GM uses on the CT6 will suffice for rollaway prevention and the ability to unlock that whenever you need a tow.

But again, everyone seems to think I'm arguing it can't be done. What I would hope for is that simply because you think it can be done (and for the record, it can) doesn't mean it's as easy as you think. Engineering an automobile is really hard. That's why I get into these threads, to hopefully explain why "GM sure F**ed that up by not giving me this feature" or "why can't GM just give me this feature, I want it so everyone else must too".

It's HARD sometimes.

[BlkReaper]

Originally Posted by fastball

I can hack every single car and truck built today with a 12 volt electrical system to do anything from remote start to kill engine power when you hit 60 mph to trigger the emergency active braking when you put the radio on with common electrical components available at any electronics supply store. All I need is a voltmeter to find the wires I need and to crawl under the dash of any vehicle and I'll have it do anything you want. And I'm not some brilliant engineer for NASA..... I'm an electronic technician.

No class action will ever make a car unhackable.

You make it sound way easier than it is. Maybe pre 2000 vehicles are that easy but New cars a way different sense everything is ran through seperate computers and they communicate through canbus. On my 2003 Bmw 3 series I had to use a microcontroller (raspberry pi) with a canbus shield to read the can signals. And these can signals don't have descriptions on them so I had to do something in the car and watch the code change to determine what specific function that block was showing. I am a Automation/Controls Engineer and a electronics hobbyist.

[Mr Twisty]

I can understand why you wouldn't mention this. For arguments sake let's put it out there.

https://ddcsn-ddc.freightliner.com/c...sn/hs/5251.htm

So yes it's possible, they've been doing it for years as a matter of fact, but it's in a different industry. Even though the tech is out there, it may not be such a good idea in a car.

Its a Lawsuit minefield in my opinion.

[CapeCruisin]

Originally Posted by Wolvie70

Camaro since 2013 have hill start assists and it sucks.

not if you're smart enough to know how to use it

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

Mechanical > Electronic

Your motor's ECU has electronic overrev protection, but if you downshift into the wrong gear and cause a mechanical overrev, nothing can save you. The motor's toast.

Mechanical > Electronic

All it takes is one malfunction to a car left in gear on a hill overnight to cause massive damage. Liability out the wazoo. I'd love remote start as well, but it's a small price to pay to not drive a slushbox.

An upgraded CAGS system with neutral lock out could be setup to block out individual gears. It could be set to lock out 1st gear at speeds over 42mph, 2nd at speeds over 65mph, 3rd at 93 and 4th over 113. Yes it could also potentially fail and lock you out of gears that are desired, but I see that being about as likely as the current system permanently locking you out of 2nd gear at all times. I've never heard of it happening. (UPDATE Just realized these numbers are from an automatic car, but the same basic theory would still apply just different speeds.

An CAGS system like that would both allow for a neutral lock out for a remote start and prevent engine over rev from happening EVER

Originally Posted by Number 3

You could also check FMVSS 114, but that has less to do with manual transmissions.

But the key point is, you cannot start a vehicle when in gear. Period. I hope you see that as pretty clear.

The only way to do that with a manual transmission is to have it be in neutral. But being in neutral does not keep the car from rolling away, which is also part of the MVSS standards. So you need an interlock mechanism that would prevent the car from being in gear and you need to ensure the car cannot roll away. In the case of a manual transmission, that would at a minimum be the park brake. I believe this is how it is done with e-shift automatics from BMW and MB. Not sure what GM is doing with their upcoming XT5 and CT6 that I believe have e-shift automatics. Many other OEMs have this as well and I'm pretty sure they all eliminate the parking pawl or lock out feature.

So without extensive study, the hurdle is a lockout mechanism that keeps the shift lever in the neutral gate and locks out all forward and reverse gears. I'll assume that what GM uses on the CT6 will suffice for rollaway prevention and the ability to unlock that whenever you need a tow.

But again, everyone seems to think I'm arguing it can't be done. What I would hope for is that simply because you think it can be done (and for the record, it can) doesn't mean it's as easy as you think. Engineering an automobile is really hard. That's why I get into these threads, to hopefully explain why "GM sure F**ed that up by not giving me this feature" or "why can't GM just give me this feature, I want it so everyone else must too".

It's HARD sometimes.

I agree. Watered down to its most diluted form. You have to do 2 things.

1.) have an electronic parking brake that you trust

and

2.) develop an updated CAGS system that features a neutral lock out. (potentially set up to lock out over rev gear changes also)

Who knows maybe that would make it a worth while investment for GM if they think that will save them enough in prevented engine damage.

I don't think GM owes us anything or is a bad manufacturer for not supplying these upgrades, I simply think it is an interesting topic to brainstorm and discuss the logistics of how it could be done.

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by CapeCruisin

not if you're smart enough to know how to use it

You could also say, if you're smart enough, you don't need it.