Schlage Locks Still Don't Work Right (and other Z-Wave gripes)

I'm completely fine and healthy, this is not your concern, nor responsibility.

I prefer the Josh Billings quote: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"

3 Likes

But HE staff have repeatedly said the Schlage locks are not high on the list and some people leave the wheel un-greased until they finally fall off. You may think this is healthy but it isn't.

While I do find this quote humorous given the context, I am guessing that you are actually 'beating a dead horse' at this point. No amount of squeaking or greasing is going to bring it back to life! :wink:

9 Likes

Nah... I already said this horse was dog food...

5 Likes

You are correct, and I'm aware of this, however if it weren't me doing it, guaranteed it will be some other user doing it again, and again, and again. Next week, and the week after, and the week after, until infinity.

I understand it's a dead horse in all reality perspective, but I also understand the reality that this issue will not stop being reported upon, UNTIL it is resolved, as more and more users join this platform.

Eh, he has every right to keep complaining. His issue is real and unresolved.

People can choose to ignore the thread, or not, in the end. :man_shrugging:

6 Likes

Hello.
Perhaps you may not know how, but it is very easy to do your own polling of any zwave device.
You can turn it on when you want, and turn it off when you want.
You can schedule it only for "off" hours.
You can turn it on for only a subset of your devices.
You can do it depending on any condition (that I can think of) in RM.
You want it - you can have it!

Perhaps I'm too much of an engineer, but with the incredible flexibility of the HE platform, if you want to do polling, HE does polling!

1 Like

:eyes: :popcorn:

8 Likes

I'm well aware.

Type this "polling slows down hub" in the "search" of this forum and report back how many posts you find on reports of hubs grinding to a halt when users attempt to poll their devices themselves.

I used to poll a number of my older (zwave) devices.
I found that as long as I scheduled it cleverly, it did not affect the overall speed of my Hub.
I gave up polling because I found that I just didn't have to.

Why don't you try something, and let us know if you've managed to do it cleverly?

1 Like

When I first moved down here (early 2000s), sometimes I'd go to the Quarter on Saturday evenings just to watch a ■■■■ show .....

6 Likes

I think @IpostThings has every right to beat this horse to dust. I respect his determination. Who knows it may in fact lead to some traction and benefit the community :man_shrugging:.

What I think is unnecessary is the posting across multiple threads, where the same points have to be rehashed over and over again. Someone reading the thread does not know the context of another thread and all the info becomes disjointed and the discourse becomes muddled and tiresome.

@IpostThings why dont you open your own thread where you can continually post your findings and theories. This way others who may be interested in focusing on the purpose of the topic dont feel frustrated that you may be taking it off course. Just a suggestion that may lead to a lot less resistance to some of your posts. You could always post links to these related threads so folks have a way of combining the points in one location.

7 Likes

Seconded. It'll also make it easier for those interested to keep track of issues uncovered ....

1 Like

Every week a new user posts a "new" topic asking why their Zwave lock isn't working, at which the entire conversation gets rehashed again and again, having a dedicated thread will not prevent this.

This thread regarding the lack of Zwave certification, is an excellent starting point at diagnosing a potential problem with the implementation of Zwave, which (may/maynot) be effecting the locks issue (which the OP also mentions as the purpose of resolving)

You will find out that there are users among this platform that will cheerlead for the defense of this platform at even the slightest criticism of it, even when the criticism is 100% valid. Nothing will stop this, it's the nature of humans, unlike them having the capacity to, I've learned to ignore most of them.

The criticism is 100% valid to you. But to convince someone of something they do not believe, it requires substantiated fact based in sound theory. I'm not saying that your findings are inaccurate, but they are presented as fact and obvious when in fact they are based on a misunderstanding of the protocol...at least that's what I have gathered based on my objective reading of these posts. Others who try to argue that your assertions may be misguided are told they are "just fanboys" or blindly loyal should be offended. They aren't necessarily saying you are wrong..just that your method and conclusions are flawed. As we argue, we need to take the counterpoints in stride and we may learn something as we teach. There is no need to be aggressive and accusatory in the discussion. You will find that others will be a lot more receptive to your theories if they were presented with a little humility.

7 Likes

What's odd here is it appears you are reference those that state having a repeater is necessary for a lock to function.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the protocol, it is factually inaccurate, the hub is supposed to be capable of controlling end devices. If locks "required" a repeater to function a repeater would be provided with them. The reason they are not provided with them is because the protocol does NOT require it.

I apologize for the use of the word, but your rantings will get you ignored rather than end up being constructive. @stephack suggestions for a way to be constructive about this was rebuffed with a further rant.
I have never put anyone in my muted list but this just isn't helpful to anyone.

2 Likes

This can't be good for your health to continue this conversation???

Locks actually are a bit special here--being that they are sleepy devices that are still expected to respond to commands quickly, having not just a repeater but a beaming repeater (most recently certified devices should be, but check the conformance doc to be sure) is actually quite helpful for them. This is true regardless of distance from the hub. It will take work off the hub and also strengthen your Z-Wave mesh. Both of these are good ideas, and while not required, they are good ideas that most people would do well to follow. (Further reading: FAQ: why would I need another beaming repeater if my zwave lock is already close to my hub? - FAQ - SmartThings Community)

That being said, I'm not sure where the premise that Z-Wave device manufacturers are required to include anything "required" for the device came from. They all require controllers to work unless you want to use direct association, but pretty much all of them come with neither. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

The hub itself is supposed to be capable of performing that function independently.