That makes sense - I’ve gotten too used to the proximity badge on my car (Renault Megane Convertible) - you never have to take anything out of your pocket.
You could maybe do something similar with BLE proximity and some secure messaging, but the Megane has IR sensors under the door handle so that you must be close by AND indicate your intent by putting your hand into the handle. It really doesn’t work unless you couple it with some sort of ‘i want to unlock the car’ gesture, like handle sensors (which you could mod in with microswitches inside the door or a sharp IR detector under the handle).
Barring all that fanciness, you could still do this with a generic fob (with secure encoding) - you don’t need any NETMF programmability in the fob.
[and recognizing that with complexity comes new failure modalities, the Renault badge splits apart to reveal a good old fashioned key that works in a hidden keyhole on the driver door]
@ mcalsyn - I wasn’t familiar with that car before now. Very nice and sporty!
The problem I see with using BLE is that he’s using this with an immobilizer not just as door locks. I’m guessing his father is an elderly man who isn’t very tech savvy. What happens when he accidentally turns off BLE on his phone and his car turns into a useless pile of metal and he can’t figure out why. The car doesn’t have electric locks. So, unless he adds sensors in the existing locks even unlocking the car with a key wouldn’t help.
Well, I would agree that everything that involves a smart phone poses barriers for someone who is not too mobile-device tech savvy. There are just too many ways for things to go wrong that require mobile-age diagnostic skills, so I totally accept the practical need for a fob.
I will know I am old when I have to ask a pre-teen to figure something out for me. At that point, I will move to the woods and grow flowers.
[And that car is a sad, sad story. I can’t import it into the US, or at least not without investing more in it than it is worth. The bumpers meet EU pedestrian-protection standards, but not US insurance-company protection standards, and it has a ballistically-deployed rollover protection system that isn’t US approved]
Another condition is this. In the heat of a robbery (say gunpoint), having a button somewhere you can discreetly press as opposed to fiddling with your phone would be preferable. Besides, if they see the phone they’d steel that too.
(bear with me, I have a problem expressing myself)
No, if all goes well the robber will never know that you’ve triggers the auto disabler. They will be a mile down the road before the 120 second timer triggers the immobilization of the car.
One flaw in this plan… If you’re like me, you keep your FOB on your key ring. The robber is going to want your key ring before he takes the car if you’re there with it. This is where the smartphone app comes in.
True, Fobs tend to be on keyrings. This is the only deficiency. At this point it will be up to the geofencing feature to immobilize the car when it goes somewhere very suspicions.
So I still don’t get why you need to create a custom fob with all that intelligence in it. Wouldn’t a stock secure key fob work. There are lots of high-security RF fobs and receivers out there.
@ mcalsyn - Scope creep again. I want the fob to provide haptic feedback to confirm that the message was received and the car was immobilized. It must be silent.
