Z-wave Plus V2 vs V1

[Kentinada]

I tried to find a site that would tell me the differences between Z-wave Plus V2 and the older V1 but couldn't find one.  If I'm new into the Z-wave world, I know I should get a V2 device if possible but if I don't find one or a V1 is significantly cheaper, I'm wondering what I'm losing by going with V1.  Any help?

[Teken]

4 minutes ago, Kentinada said:

I tried to find a site that would tell me the differences between Z-wave Plus V2 and the older V1 but couldn't find one.  If I'm new into the Z-wave world, I know I should get a V2 device if possible but if I don't find one or a V1 is significantly cheaper, I'm wondering what I'm losing by going with V1.  Any help?

If finances are limited you can buy all of the cheap V1 hardware you like - Will you be happy?!? If you're looking for higher reliability, security, distance, low energy Z-Wave Plus is really the only path to follow.

Generation 6 hardware is picking up speed in the market . . .

Generation 7 hardware will probably take another 1-2 years for all of the commonly purchased hardware to be transitioned to this new standard - If ever.

[jec6613]

12 minutes ago, Teken said:

Generation 6 hardware is picking up speed in the market . . .

Generation 7 hardware will probably take another 1-2 years for all of the commonly purchased hardware to be transitioned to this new standard - If ever.

To be clear, "Generation 6" is really just the Z-Wave 500 series chip using all the optional features via firmware.  "Generation 5" is basic 500 series chips supporting basic Z-Wave Plus.

ZWP v2 requires the newer 700 series chipset, which makes all of the optional features into required features.  There are also other benefits to Z-Wave 700 series chips though - longer range, lower power consumption, etc.  I'd choose Z-Wave 700 preferentially if available.

[Teken]

To be clear, "Generation 6" is really just the Z-Wave 500 series chip using all the optional features via firmware.  "Generation 5" is basic 500 series chips supporting basic Z-Wave Plus.
ZWP v2 requires the newer 700 series chipset, which makes all of the optional features into required features.  There are also other benefits to Z-Wave 700 series chips though - longer range, lower power consumption, etc.  I'd choose Z-Wave 700 preferentially if available.

If history is any indicator it doesn’t matter what they (Z-Wave Alliance) call it or release.

Hardware venders will continue to follow or ignore the standards. It will continue to be the wild Wild West for Z-Wave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lilyoyo1]

22 minutes ago, Kentinada said:

I tried to find a site that would tell me the differences between Z-wave Plus V2 and the older V1 but couldn't find one.  If I'm new into the Z-wave world, I know I should get a V2 device if possible but if I don't find one or a V1 is significantly cheaper, I'm wondering what I'm losing by going with V1.  Any help?

The same as my previous post about latest version of stuff

Since you didnt link the article that you read, I can only assume what they are referring to. Its 1 of 2 things. Either they are comparing zwave vs zwave+. If so, I wouldnt even bother with standard zwave 

Other than that, it was be a mfg. term separating their devices in which case you would probably want to confirm directly with them as it could mean different things. I know some mfg. such as GE had zwave plus devices certified PRIOR to April 2017 before S2 security was certified. Anything certified after then was required to have S2 security. Ge  separates those by saying V1 and V2 (s2 secure)

 

[Kentinada]

7 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

Since you didnt link the article that you read, I can only assume what they are referring to. Its 1 of 2 things. Either they are comparing zwave vs zwave+. If so, I wouldnt even bother with standard zwave 

Other than that, it was be a mfg. term separating their devices in which case you would probably want to confirm directly with them as it could mean different things. I know some mfg. such as GE had zwave plus devices certified PRIOR to April 2017 before S2 security was certified. Anything certified after then was required to have S2 security. Ge  separates those by saying V1 and V2 (s2 secure)

 

Sorry I should have been more clear.  I'm referring to what I see in the Z-Wave Alliance product lists.  See attached. 

[lilyoyo1]

22 minutes ago, Kentinada said:

Sorry I should have been more clear.  I'm referring to what I see in the Z-Wave Alliance product lists.  See attached. 

Then its the 700 series. However, there are many products released for it at this time. Theyve only gone through certification. At this point, you can either wait and see or go ahead and get the first version.

Personally I wouldnt wait if you are only planning on getting 2 or 3 devices. It'll be years before 700 series reaches market saturation and by then they'll be at 900. Plus this isnt a major investment for you. Should that change in the future, you could always swap out a couple of devices since you arent into them financially that much

 

[asbril]

As Lilyoyo1 says,  when starting from zero, it is best to go for Zwave Plus 500 and not wait for 700. Most likely by the time 700 is widely used in new devices they will be talking about Zwave 900, so there will always be a pending upgrade.

Personally the best of Zwave Plus has been the status update more than the range. I have more than 70 Zwave devices and range is not an issue in my home.

The Zwave weakness that is important for me is the reaction speed of motion sensors. I believe this is better with Insteon, but I have no longer any Insteon devices.

Hopefully this can improve with 700 or 900 ?

[lilyoyo1]

5 minutes ago, asbril said:

As Lilyoyo1 says,  when starting from zero, it is best to go for Zwave Plus 500 and not wait for 700. Most likely by the time 700 is widely used in new devices they will be talking about Zwave 900, so there will always be a pending upgrade.

Personally the best of Zwave Plus has been the status update more than the range. I have more than 70 Zwave devices and range is not an issue in my home.

The Zwave weakness that is important for me is the reaction speed of motion sensors. I believe this is better with Insteon, but I have no longer any Insteon devices.

Hopefully this can improve with 700 or 900 ?

Speed will probably become a bigger issue. With everything being encrypted, this will slow things down somewhat. Encryption is good for secure devices like alarms, door locks, and garages but can make things worse for lighting. We will find out at some point.

[simplextech]

55 minutes ago, asbril said:

The Zwave weakness that is important for me is the reaction speed of motion sensors.

This is not a "Z-Wave" issue but it does effect the majority of Z-Wave Motion sensors on the market. 

The problem is the sensor and it's design.  Some design the sensors for optimal battery use/consumption which makes the wake-up -> report time much slower than is preferred.  The other side are sensors designed around prevention of false-positives which are marketed as "security" or "Pet friendly" to reduce the activation times.  There are sensors out there that are very fast and work great.  However it's been a trial and error of going through lots of sensors.

Some of the best for speed are the zooz ZSE02 which can be found in other "brands" and the ZSE09 which is a copy of the dome and neo sensors which are very fast.  The ZSE09 had issues with false positives as well as the dome that I'm aware of.  No experience with the neo.  The Fibaro has a lot of tunings that can be done but it's not well supported with the ISY so it's not of much use.

[asbril]

51 minutes ago, simplextech said:

Some of the best for speed are the zooz ZSE02

I can only find the ZSE 18 and the ZSE40. The others are no longer available.

[simplextech]

15 minutes ago, asbril said:

I can only find the ZSE 18 and the ZSE40. The others are no longer available.

The ZSE40 is a typical multi-sensor and it definitely was not "fast".  I do have the ZSE18 but I haven't tested it in a long time but I don't remember one way or another how it performed speed wise.