Hello all.
I have a Hubitat C-5 with one old Schlage lock that is Z-wave(NOT Zwave plus)
I just purchased a second Schlage that is in fact ZWave PLUS. Its a lot further away from the HUB than the first lock. My question...
It fails when I try to do an inclusion. Will a C5 HUB work with ZWAVE? Or am I just out of range?
Trying to determine if I need a range extender or the C-7
I use this HUB literally for 2 locks and nothing else, so I have no desire to get the C-7 unless of course I need it.
Do the inclusion within 2 feet of the hub. That said, make sure you don't have any ghosts (you will see nothing on the device line with in/out clusters
Thanks for the quick reply. Forgive my ignorance but if I unplug the hub and wire it near the lock temporarily. It’s going to grab a new IP address. Will that screw things up?
I will also say if you have a failed inclusion, stop. Go to your z-wave details page and remove the ghost that it created before trying to pair again. You should also post your z-wave details page here for us to look at
No failed inclusion. It just keeps timing down from 90 as my schalge lock gives me an X instead of a checkmark. I actually already have the IP set as static in my router, and have an ethernet port in the same room as the lock. I guess I shall try that first. Good to know then that the C5 should work. .Thanks.
This is critical to do on Schlage. If you don't factory reset the device from the keypad, it likely won't pair with the hub.
The chances of success with just two locks (no matter the model of hub) are nearly zero. Or not that great anyway.
At a minimum, you will need a repeater or two. Zwave works much better and is more reliable when you have enough devices to form a mesh. And 2-3 devices typically isn't enough to make a strong mesh, it seems to take 10-12 devices minimum to have a relatively stable mesh.
I think this is an important point... that Locks are special. They are battery driven, typically 4 AA batteries and thus have limited power available relative to time. A lock needs to power the motor, under load (when the bolt and the hole are misaligned) and yet still work for months. Needing to change batteries every week would be a sales killer, I'm sure.
The result is that locks are very special in the way they attempt to manage battery life. Current technology for locks have them relying on FLiRs and "beaming" repeaters. Simply put, the radio in the lock will not remain on and listening for an amount of time that would allow a busy controller (hub) to communicate. The lock intentionally listens for a very brief window. A beaming repeater is elected by the hub to detect the lock waking and respond that the Hub has a message. The beaming repeater does not retain the message, it simply knows that the hub has a message. The lock therefore, will remain on and listening for a longer time.
You can easily imagine how this works.. we humans want to lock or more time critically, unlock a lock a few times per day. We want the lock to be subsecond responsive. This would require the lock to be waking and looking for a lock/unlock command several times a second. The average Hub response is typically subsecond too but mathematically that means the time they overlap can be a large chunk of the second. So the batteries are getting depleted a million times a day in order to catch a couple of human initiated commands. FLiRs and beaming were invented to allow the lock to reduce the battery consumption by orders of magnitude. Instead, a line powered AC repeater caches (a couple times a day in this example) that the hub has something to say and only twice a day do the batteries get a bigish hit.
Plus locks really need a beaming capable (zwave plus, EDIT: any level zwave) repeater near by for best use. I wouldn't try and rely on a zwave lock otherwise.
Not that I'd use "classic" Z-Wave repeaters nowadays if you can avoid them, but FWIW, beaming has been around since before Z-Wave Plus. I'm also not sure if it was always required for Plus certification, though any repeating device I've seen lately has also been beaming. The complaince doc from there Z-Wave Alliance will tell you for sure. (Most manufacturers don't advertise this feature one way or the other.)
I was all set to move the hub closer when i got out of work, and now im cmpletely confused lol
I bought the lock used so i factory reset it as soon as I hooked it up. So ZWave is that picky that I could have trouble hooking up a second lock? I dont get that with so much other stuff out there, WIFI, Zigbee, Bluetooth,and the list goes on. Personally I automate my entire house using Home Assistant. I cant use a Zwave module (for reasons I wont get into now), so I boiught the hubitat simply for two locks. Ill buy a second hubitat for the second lock if that is gonna work easier. Dont care about setting codes or having it report anything. I simply want to toggle open and close with a button. Thats it.
You just need a zwave repeating/beaming device. Including a plug in outlet/dimmer or light switch located near the lock with your existing Hubitat will be fine. If you want to borrow one to test, let me know and I'd be happy to send you one for testing.
So is that all this is then. Just a range issue? Hence the need for repeaters? Should I still try moving it closer to get it paired? I’m not far away but I am in by basement while hub is upstairs.
Thanks for the help everyone. These answers came
Much quicker than expected
The first schalge connect lock I bought was in 2014. Didnt even know what automation or zwave was back then. Fast forward to a month ago, I bought the C5, ran inclusion, put the schlage in pairing mode(never reset anything) and in about 5 seconds I was up and running controlling the lock from my phone every since. So I bought the same exact lock for downstairs thinking it would be just as easy. Which it still may be assuming I'm just to far from hub and need a repeater.
Its not just range (distance from the lock to the next powered device in the mesh or the hub) its also the technology. A repeating device acts as a assistant for the relatively low powered lock, as @csteele talks about above.
A zwave plug/dimmer (sometimes called appliance module too) or light switch would also act as the forementioned repeater. Doesn't have to be a dedicated repeating-only device. 95% of powered zwave devices also act as repeaters (the exception being zwave bulbs.)
I don't have any experience with the aeotec devices. I'm sure on this forum you can find reviews. I would just plug in a zwave plug nearby as I have plenty of those laying around.
This would require the lock to be waking and looking for a lock/unlock command several times a second. The average Hub response is typically subsecond too but mathematically that means the time they overlap can be a large chunk of the second. So the batteries are getting depleted a million times a day in order to catch a couple of human initiated commands. FLiRs and beaming were invented to allow the lock to reduce the battery consumption by orders of magnitude. Instead, a line powered AC repeater caches (a couple times a day in this example) that the hub has something to say and only twice a day do the batteries get a bigish hit.
