glojo said:
The (US spec) 2005/2006 models had quite some coding taken out of the instrument cluster...depending on model (211 - 219) and exact build date it differs per car but some of the previously available menus that were taken out are:
- changing from CELSIUS to FAHRENHEIT
- changing from AM/PM to 24H display
- easy entry for the seat (steering column is still there)
- limitted opening of the trunkcloser
- auto folding mirror feature when locking the car
...and some other basic menus that I already forgot about...
The climate control unit was changed a while ago as well - plenty of info on that on this forum...
the distronic setup was changed a while ago (somewhen during 2004)...
the parktronic displays were changed somewhen in 2004 (the newer displays have one additional LED on the inside)...
...and so on...
greetingz,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some of this only applies to US models and he has missed out both the Charcoal filter switching and the REST
Plus of course SBC Stop
so you can see that there have been a number of items removed and again it is in my opinion all about saving a few pence. I understand what your saying about intellectual copyright, but don't understand.
John,
Thanks very much for this. I wrote a reply to this earlier and probably spent too much time doing so, because when I clicked 'submit' I was asked for my username and password again and the reply was promptly 'binned'. So, I made a cup of tea and did something to take my mind off the mild injustice. Has this ever happened to you?
Anyway, the car I have just taken delivery of doesn't have button 9, the A/C on/off control is there in its place, and the REST feature now has the button to itself. To be honest, I think this is - control surface wise - an improvement. I would still like to see the MONO feature that is now incorporated into ML models - which allows you to set the temperature of all four zones at the same time. Once set this way they can, of course, be adjusted separately.
I think that the easy entry feature I have is the US way - ie I don't see the seat moving at all - but the steering column does move.
However, I do have the limiter for the tailgate.
Now to the autoclosing mirrors, and my point about IPR and patents. We can assume that the removal of the feature costs absolutely nothing in hardware. There is, surely without doubt, not one single component that has been saved as a result and all has been done in software. The software has already been written, but this section of code has been switched off, and that can only be for one of two reasons:
Firstly, that the feature is actually wearing out the door mirror motors. I really cannot believe that this is the case.
Secondly, that the feature is subject to a patent, and Mercedes have to pay a royalty each time that it is used. Switching it off, saving nothing in hardware, can actually save them having to pay a small bill each time.
Patents work effectively as bargains between the inventor and the jurisdiction. The inventor discloses HOW to solve a problem (eg in this case - door mirrors getting knocked off by passing idiots), and the authorities allow the inventor to claim a small royalty every time this is implemented. This is allowed for a period of 20 years, after which the invention is free of royalties, and anyone can use it for nothing. It doesn't matter how 'obvious' the invention is in retrospect, if there was nothing like it before and no-one had ever described this solution, then a patent will be granted and a licence payment can be demanded.
I think it's highly likely that the adoption by many companies of active lighting systems is due to the fact that Citroens of the 70/80s (can't remember when) had this feature and - guess what - that's some 20 years ago. Never underestimate a manufacturer's ability to multiply a small sum by their annual volume and see the saving they could make.
I have some experience of all of this, as I had responsibility for the development of the RDS system in international standards and UK implementation, and hold patents in this myself. Some 600 million receivers later and I am quite proud of the work...... although part of the success is surely due to the fact that we decided not to charge any royalties at all. So I have to be delighted by the ubiquity of the technology, not by any financial reward.
Anyway, that's my guess. Maybe others know better on this one. What I was really concerned about was to know whether it was anything to do with wear of the mirrors as, if this is the case, I'll turn the feature off on my wife's A class!!
All the best,
Simon