'99 OBW keyless entry is busting my chops

[jonathan909]

Just an additional note here:  In the 2001 OBW (mine are H6) the keyless entry module has been moved from under the instrument cluster to the far right of the dash, between the glove box and the door.  The location isn't exactly clear from the FSM drawings.  You have to remove the glove box to get at it, which should just be a few screws, but also requires mutilating the glove box stops that the manual casually tells you to remove first.

[jonathan909]

Hmm.  That's interesting.  Just programming up a couple of fobs for the H6 and ran into something I don't think I noticed when I did this a couple of years ago.  It appears that to reset the fob-programming state machine you have to first unlock the doors.  In practice, of course, this is a non-issue - in order to open the door and get in and go through the programming routine, the door must first be unlocked, and if you lock it after you get in you're violating the procedure as described.  But on the bench it got stuck and wouldn't enter programming mode until I started the process with a (door switch) unlock.

[jonathan909]

Okay, here's a question for you all:  "The keyless entry system does not operate when the key is inserted in the ignition switch."  I'm quoting from your owner's manual.

Can anyone argue in favour of this design decision?  We can't come up with a single reason for this being a good idea.  Why on earth would they do it this way?

This is now A Thing because in the dead of winter, at night, one of my girls left work, and en route home (about a mile from her starting point) she stopped to grab a jug of milk.  Since it was very cold and the car had barely started, she didn't want to risk it not starting the second time, and left it running to let it warm up.  She took the remote off of the keyring, pocketed it, and used the door switch to lock it up.  Only when she returned with the milk did she discover that the remote in her pocket wouldn't work, and she was left standing outside a running car in -35.

(There are possible workarounds, of course, but the most obvious one - disconnecting the key-in-lock wire at the ignition switch - has hair on it.  Though it would also eliminate the very annoying door-open-key-in-ignition alarm, it would prevent further programming of the keyless entry system, which requires that signal.  But in most of my cases that wouldn't matter, because they won't program in situ anyway; that's why I do them on the bench.  The next most obvious fix is having both a spare key and your wits about you, which is a difficult operational mode to support.)

Edited May 14, 2021 by jonathan909

[idosubaru]

17 hours ago, jonathan909 said:

Okay, here's a question for you all:  "The keyless entry system does not operate when the key is inserted in the ignition switch."  I'm quoting from your owner's manual.

If the keyless system operated when in the ignition it would be really easy to lock the keys in the car with the car running.  Someone goes out to start the car - runs inside because they forgot something - meanwhile a second FOB (due to toddler, spouse, friend, erratic FOB behavior) locks the car.

It also might increase the chance of locking someone in the car due to user induced error or faulty keyless entry system.   You don't want someone grabbing the keys in the ignition to turn it off or pull them out after a wreck and accidentally fumbling with the keys with no lights and locking themselves inside a vehicle with already damaged systems.  Or locking themselves in...it would be a wild scenario but it would happen and is more likely than any issues to have the system designed the other way. 

I can think of other scenarios but it makes sense to me to align control of a currently running vehicle to one person and if they inserted the keys they still have the door controls right there. 

[jonathan909]

I'm not buying it.  You can make all the same mistakes with the lock control on the door.  Doesn't change the nature of the problem, just the location of the button.

[idosubaru]

2 hours ago, jonathan909 said:

I'm not buying it.  You can make all the same mistakes with the lock control on the door.  Doesn't change the nature of the problem, just the location of the button.

A non occupant can't lock/unlock the door while the driver is moving...not without some fun mental gymnastics.  It also prevents the alarm from going off while driving. It could be designed to disable the alarm only, but alas it wasn't done that way. 

[jonathan909]

Honestly, I just think you're grasping for obscure and unlikely use cases.  I still think the desirability of being able to do what my daughter tried - to (un)lock with the key in the ignition - outweighs these weird examples you're offering.  I just can't see the justification from a normal use, common sense perspective.

Edited May 12, 2021 by jonathan909

[idosubaru]

1 hour ago, jonathan909 said:

Honestly, I just think you're grasping for obscure and unlikely use cases.  I still think the desirability of being able to do what my daughter tried - to (un)lock with the key in the ignition - outweighs these weird examples you're offering.  I just can't see the justification from a normal use, common sense perspective.

Agreed - and desiring the FOB over the door button seems obscure and grasping to me.

I'm likely wrong.  What we know for a fact is - they chose it.  They either guessed or had reason to do so. So far you haven't given any compelling reasons why they should have done it differently.

Could it be law?   What have other manufacturers done in 20 years with FOB's? 

More grasping...

I think it's considered safer (not saying that's true, I've never looked into it - but I think that's generally said in some circles) for the doors to be locked in the event of an accident - maybe accidental operation of the FOB during an accident played into that side of the decision. Yes I'm grasping, they're scale and volume is enough for me to think there's a decent probability of a reason for this to exist. 

[jonathan909]

1 minute ago, idosubaru said:

I'm likely wrong.  What we know for a fact is - they chose it.  They either guessed or had reason to do so. So far you haven't given any compelling reasons why they should have done it differently.

I think I have:  That it should work the same as does a spare key.  A key still works in the door lock when there's a key in the ignition, right?  So making the fob not work when there's a key in the ignition is inconsistent from a human factors standpoint.  As we've seen from the (typical, I think) example I cited, a user would tend to assume it just works.

1 minute ago, idosubaru said:

Could it be law?   What have other manufacturers done in 20 years with FOB's? 

More grasping...

I think it's considered safer (not saying that's true, I've never looked into it - but I think that's generally said in some circles) for the doors to be locked in the event of an accident - maybe accidental operation of the FOB during an accident played into that side of the decision. Yes I'm grasping, they're scale and volume is enough for me to think there's a decent probability of a reason for this to exist. 

I can't imagine why such regulation would exist... but then again, the world is full of stupid regulations, isn't it?  Maybe my favourite example:  An old friend whose specialty was building specifications told me about a guy who worked for CSA (Canadian Standards Association, kinda like our UL) and got fired for writing a report explaining why the current regulations governing stairs made them more dangerous.  I agree that the designers probably had a reason for doing it, but can't for the life of me imagine what it might have been.  Hence the question.

[idosubaru]

1 minute ago, jonathan909 said:

I think I have:  That it should work the same as does a spare key.  A key still works in the door lock when there's a key in the ignition, right?  So making the fob not work when there's a key in the ignition is inconsistent from a human factors standpoint.  As we've seen from the (typical, I think) example I cited, a user would tend to assume it just works.

I see what you're getting at, but starting with the premise of the FOB needing to mimic a key seems off.  I don't see any reason at all that an FOB must try to operate like a key in every regard.

Another "inconsistent from a human factors standpoint".....An H6 2002 outback in a car wreck that sets off the pretensioners won't be able to be unbuckled like a seat belt.  I don't think the goal is for electronic devices to mimic prior hardware 100% of the time seamlessly.  That seems like a stretch. 

[jonathan909]

Just now, idosubaru said:

I see what you're getting at, but starting with the premise of the FOB needing to mimic a key seems off.  I don't see any reason at all that an FOB must try to operate like a key in every regard.

I agree, but it's a reasonable starting assumption - because it's the reasonable starting assumption a user is going to make, and it's up to the designer to make a very compelling case if wishing to depart from it.  (Trust me on this, I've done a lot of work in human factors, UIs, etc.)

Just now, idosubaru said:

Another "inconsistent from a human factors standpoint".....An H6 2002 outback in a car wreck that sets off the pretensioners won't be able to be unbuckled like a seat belt.  I don't think the goal is for electronic devices to mimic prior hardware 100% of the time seamlessly.  That seems like a stretch. 

Sure, but so far neither of us have found what seems like a good reason for that departure, either.