Zooz 4-in-1 (ZSE40), C7, S0

S0 has significant overhead compared to no security or S2 (up to 3x the traffic), so the increased delay you've noticed could very well be a result of that. Hopefully Zooz will chime in to answer your question on pairing. I also don't see a separate procedure for secure vs. non-secure pairing in the manual, though I also don't see anything about S0 in the device's Z-Wave certification at all (the Alliance only seems to have the doc for what looks like v1, so I assume this was added in v2).

I can tell you what you probably already know: that on the Hubitat side, with the C-7, there is currently no supported way to not pair with S0 if that's what the device is asking for. (With S2, you'll get "the popup" with options; on a C-5 and earlier there is the option to forego security on all but specific devices.) I'm lucky that all of my S0 devices do have separate pairing methods for that level--including several other Zooz products.

Agreed. Likely exacerbating the issue, the battery devices are also sometimes taking some crazy 5 hop routes, slowing down to 9.6kbps. Not sure if this is a Hubitat issue, so tagging @bcopeland

There is no way to trigger non-secure inclusion on the device part, it would have to be initiated on the hub part unfortunately.

That's unfortunate. These sensors are currently essentially unusable with the Hubitat C7 hub. They worked fine before when they joined as non-secured on previous generation hubs. Do previous firmware versions pair as non-secured by default? If so, is it possible to downgrade?

1 Like

The sensors always paired the same way in terms of security and most hubs will allow you to choose whether you'd like to join them securely on not securely. We are looking to see if there is any way we can add this feature to this model and will also check with HE if there is any way that non-secure inclusion could be added as an option.


I found a way to pair these sensors without security. Add the sensor via a secondary controller stick and PC Controller software. Use the NWI (Network Wide Inclusion) button in PC Controller to add to the network.

Hopefully Hubitat (@bcopeland) will add a native way to control the security level for adding these kinds of devices that do not have a hardware way of controlling security level when pairing.

The sensors seem to now be working as they did on a C4. Using these sensors in S0 made them work horribly and chewed up batteries.


This is currently a limitation of the Z-Wave SDK, it is unfortunately completely out of our control.

Well this just raises my dissatisfaction and disappointment another notch with the C7. I’ve got the Z 4-1 sensors and they are slow and burning batteries now. The whole process makes me feel like I went for breakfast, ordered eggs and got handed two and told to make my own. The whole process of upgrading the hub is like a step back to X-10. Zwave has a good 5 years under its belt and yet here we are can’t join devices, can’t stipulate the security. So here I am with Z 4-1 devices that worked just fine with batteries that lasted almost a year and now burn through ( I’m on my second since getting the C7 ). It’s just ridiculous that we have to futz with a product like this, with solutions like “get a zwave stick” is like buying a vehicle and then “ you’re gonna need to buy X “ to open the hood. The amount of hoops and time wasted to use this platform is becoming unacceptable. When HE first came out, was when I was just about to buy the newest Vera. But I thought, HE looks good and I know there will be some initial issues. But now we are this many versions of hubs later - we should be at the connect and forget stage.


I’m not sure I came through clearly. The lack of prevention of S0 bootstrapping is a limitation of the current specifications imposed by Silicon Labs and Z-Wave Alliance on 700 series hubs, this was not a decision made by Hubitat.


I think that's a bit unfair. Hubitat is the first Z-Wave 700 hub. The Zooz and almost every other sensor on the market are all 500 level devices. The companies that deserve to get grilled are the device makers. They're the ones with completely uneven quality and interoperability. I don't think any of the 700 series devices take advantage of the increased capabilities.

For sensors, the Hue Zigbee devices work well and are approximately the same price. They have better light reporting. But no humidity. NYCE Zigbee are more expensive, have humidity but not lux. Hopefully the Z-Wave device makers will come up with new 700 sensors that are better than the current generation.


Does anyone know which devices on the current Hubitat compatible list that will have this issue?

1 Like

Unfair, please.
You can’t build forward capability into devices. But new master devices need backward compatibility until quantum leaps are made, then we expect “old” devices to no longer work. We don’t expect current devices not to work. If something is the “first” with a chip that’s really not my problem. Every phone and computer I’ve purchased for the last 15 years is the “first with this chip”.
I feel that ( right now ) Here’s a new device and this is its new features and this is what it does, yet it doesn’t, where is the new “service” where is old interoperability. Maybe they should have waited 6 months - year and fixed those issues prior to release. It’s not the $100.00 it cost, that’s nothing. It’s the multiple hours wasted getting to net square zero benefit. Hours spent on HE are hours I could and would spend elsewhere, you can’t get time back.


You should more than likely look at replacing with a different device (especially since your time is valuable) as this device has had a long off and on problem with draining batteries, going back all the way to 2016 on Vera. I personally had many other issues even here on HE with it not reporting on a set time frame humidity, lux, and temp UNLESS no motion is present.

Then blame Silicon Labs. They've taken years to roll out the 700 series infrastructure.

If you want competence and a set of devices that just work together then buy Lutron.

1 Like

I have the V2 of these sensors, they were never on a Vera. And this post you referenced is from 2016 so that would be V1 of these sensors which were much different. They have been on HE since day one. There never was any “battery drain” on these units under HE. It’s an S0 issue.

1 Like

The 2nd generation device battery life was OK on my C4 hub. The issue is that the S0 creates a whole lot more traffic. I imagine some of the traffic is also retransmission. The batteries just can't keep up.

1 Like

I personally have 4 of the V2's and have personally had severe battery drain problems on Vera AND Hubitat (especially if they are in high traffic areas) it is not an S0 issue it's directly built into the firmware of the device. I only have C5 hubs therefore S0 isn't in play.

RIght now to PREVENT battery drain I only use these devices for lux, humidity, and temp and have the motion sensor pointed away so that it cannot be continuously triggered. THAT is the only thing that slowed the battery drain. The "traffic" has always been there with these devices and was somewhat addressed way back over a year ago in HE with a driver modification to help.


I’ll get right on that. My problem is that this is a half cooked device at this point.
It works except for.
And this
And these also don’t work well, but they worked before.
Some people are having that issue also.
Ya that’s a problem too.
It might be “how you have it configured”.
We found a huge problem, it wasn’t “everyone” all along.
We will fix that problem with the next release.
Or the next.
That can’t be fixed, buy some more devices.
That’s not our problem, blame them.

1 Like

That switch just makes Hubitat logs ignore duplicate messages sent. It does not actually make the device not send messages.

This issue in this thread is 100% due to the new Hubitat platform and S0. It doesn't sound like it's your issue. In addition to battery drain the sensors didn't work in a timely manner. Pairing in unsecured mode via secondary controller has fixed at least the performance issues. I wouldn't buy any 500 level sensor now. I laid out alternatives above.

1 Like

That's exactly my point the device firmware still causes the device to repeatedly send the events which is what is aiding in the battery drain. The screenshot is to show that the device has a long history of this issue (all you have to do is search Zooz 4-1), and the driver modification only aided in not spamming the logs of the hub which some claimed were causing hub slow downs.

Very hard to make that claim when many others like myself had identical problems on a C-5 without S0