I've got a broken combine harvester – manufacturer won't give me software key(theregister.com)
theregister.com
I've got a broken combine harvester – manufacturer won't give me software key
https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/27/right_to_repair_activists_welcome_policy_wins/
198 comments
relevant song for context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb63PdPweDc
I wondered if many people would get the reference from the headline. Here's the chorus:
Cuz I got a brand new combine harvester
An' I'll give you the key
Come on now let's get together
In perfect harmony
I got twenty acres
An' you got forty-three
Now I got a brand new combine harvester
An' I'll give you the key
Cuz I got a brand new combine harvester
An' I'll give you the key
Come on now let's get together
In perfect harmony
I got twenty acres
An' you got forty-three
Now I got a brand new combine harvester
An' I'll give you the key
I once had a ragtime jam session in a pub with one of the wurzels. Ooo arr ooo arr!
Farmers are in a position to spin right-to-repair as a matter of national security - a cyber attack could leave the nation without a food supply
Farmers are pretty much slaves to large corporations now, they still have some clout but it is diminishing day by day. Large supermarket chains buy out the independent farmers after first unfairly dumping produce to depress the price to where the farmers go out of business. Then they put their own people in there, typically for a regular wage and without any power to set prices or to ensure that a farm is operated sustainably and responsibly.
A nationwide independent farmers strike on the basis of right-to-repair laws probably wouldn't get off the ground but if it did then effect might be less than what is needed to effect change and could very well play right into the hands of their opposition.
A nationwide independent farmers strike on the basis of right-to-repair laws probably wouldn't get off the ground but if it did then effect might be less than what is needed to effect change and could very well play right into the hands of their opposition.
> Large supermarket chains buy out the independent farmers after first unfairly dumping produce to depress the price to where the farmers go out of business.
I don't think that actually works. Corn farmers could short corn futures or buy put options to lock in their price, and if Walmart tried to drop the nationwide price of corn by 30% to drive some farms out of business, that would cost many many billions competing with finance companies.
Plus the government puts limits on the number of futures positions you can have outstanding, to prevent market manipulation. And it's illegal to collude with others to get around it.
I don't think that actually works. Corn farmers could short corn futures or buy put options to lock in their price, and if Walmart tried to drop the nationwide price of corn by 30% to drive some farms out of business, that would cost many many billions competing with finance companies.
Plus the government puts limits on the number of futures positions you can have outstanding, to prevent market manipulation. And it's illegal to collude with others to get around it.
Yeah, that ship has pretty much sailed.
People no longer spin their own thread, weave their own cloth, and make their own clothes.
Most of the metal objects we own are cranked out by the millions in a factory, not hand-forged by the village blacksmith.
And so on.
To the extent those activities still exist, they are hobbies, or maybe skills exhibited as part of a tourist attraction.
For some reason, though, the "family farmer" still has mystique, while the "family weaver" and the "family blacksmith" don't. There are a number of reasons for that, but on a basic level, the situations are exactly the same, and are occurring for exactly the same reasons -- large-scale mechanized production is simply more efficient on every level.
When clothes were spun, woven, and tailored by hand, most people could only afford one or two garments.
When all metal objects were hand-forged by a smith, they were scarce and super-expensive. Sometimes people would burn down old buildings just to salvage the nails.
Same thing with food. Other than for psychological or medical reasons (anorexia and such), it is very, very rare for people to starve to death in modern Western societies. That wasn't the case in the era of the "simple family farmer".
People no longer spin their own thread, weave their own cloth, and make their own clothes.
Most of the metal objects we own are cranked out by the millions in a factory, not hand-forged by the village blacksmith.
And so on.
To the extent those activities still exist, they are hobbies, or maybe skills exhibited as part of a tourist attraction.
For some reason, though, the "family farmer" still has mystique, while the "family weaver" and the "family blacksmith" don't. There are a number of reasons for that, but on a basic level, the situations are exactly the same, and are occurring for exactly the same reasons -- large-scale mechanized production is simply more efficient on every level.
When clothes were spun, woven, and tailored by hand, most people could only afford one or two garments.
When all metal objects were hand-forged by a smith, they were scarce and super-expensive. Sometimes people would burn down old buildings just to salvage the nails.
Same thing with food. Other than for psychological or medical reasons (anorexia and such), it is very, very rare for people to starve to death in modern Western societies. That wasn't the case in the era of the "simple family farmer".
"the "family farmer" still has mystique" It has a mystique because its a useful political fairytale that still proves effective. It is probably spun and refined in the lobbying arms of the large corporate farms in much the same way the "personal carbon footprint" is in the lobbying / advertising arms of oil companies. Large farming companies have massive political / lobbying influence and use it to their financial benefit, family farms get almost none of that. Similar to how politicians use soldiers as shiny tokens but for the most part do almost nothing for them but the large defense firms sure do get a lot of dollars.
Agriculture specifically has been an important part of American mythology from day 1. For a lot of people, farming is either a personal/family identity, or part of a broader sense of identity in the USA.
It is also somewhat different from other "traditional" professions/trades in that it was not obsoleted by factories and mass production.
"Family weaving" disappeared because it became economically unviable. "Family farming" did not disappear because it is still economically viable, and it holds an extra-special place in the American cultural identity.
It is also somewhat different from other "traditional" professions/trades in that it was not obsoleted by factories and mass production.
"Family weaving" disappeared because it became economically unviable. "Family farming" did not disappear because it is still economically viable, and it holds an extra-special place in the American cultural identity.
Mechanized agriculture is not at all like other forms of mass production. It comes with an environmental debt that must be repaid, or the land becomes barren. To call it more efficient is to ignore this debt, which we can get away with until all the fertile land is gone.
People romanticize small farms because they're stuck in crowded cities working industrial rat race jobs that are meaningless in the large scheme of things. Is it any wonder that the idea of space, beautiful natural surroundings and a hand in creating something really meaningful (and what is more meaningful than food?) would lead there?
People romanticize small farms because they're stuck in crowded cities working industrial rat race jobs that are meaningless in the large scheme of things. Is it any wonder that the idea of space, beautiful natural surroundings and a hand in creating something really meaningful (and what is more meaningful than food?) would lead there?
citizen/soldier/farmer the Romanitas ideal.
Also kind of rolls up into the whole Cincinnatus thing.
But do the farmers want the kinds of changes that would allow them to not be slaves to supermarkets and John Deere? Farmers have a strong leaning in politics towards a side that doesn't like treating people as babies who can't make their own decisions. They could strike on the basis of fighting back against supermarkets throwing their weight around. I agree that striking because of right to repair makes no sense; the fight back against locked down equipment would be to not buy from manufacturers that lock their stuff down.
I don't agree with the idea that we don't need regulation, but it's important to consider that telling people they need the government to protect them will lead to those people pushing back even harder against change.
I don't agree with the idea that we don't need regulation, but it's important to consider that telling people they need the government to protect them will lead to those people pushing back even harder against change.
I mean, this is like a fanfic comment. Can you cite ONE example of this happening? Maybe in a hyper niche crop, but this is easily a very, very, VERY rare occurrence. Don't know of really any farmers (outside of super small scale organic ones) that deal with supermarkets directly
I guess I was a little unclear. My point was that if these things are happening, then there are ways to counter them that don't involve government intervention.
And the parent comment was talking about how a strike due to right-to-repair would backfire which, to me, was implying that strikes couldn't work at all. I don't believe that's true which is why I pointed out that a strike could help for other issues. I don't know what else a farmer might strike over in terms of the issues they currently face, so I just reused what the parent comment was stating as fact. But if there are other similar issues affecting them now, you could swap one of those in.
And the parent comment was talking about how a strike due to right-to-repair would backfire which, to me, was implying that strikes couldn't work at all. I don't believe that's true which is why I pointed out that a strike could help for other issues. I don't know what else a farmer might strike over in terms of the issues they currently face, so I just reused what the parent comment was stating as fact. But if there are other similar issues affecting them now, you could swap one of those in.
People tend to politic in their best interests regardless of expressed ideology. I don't think very many farmers are in favor of ending farm subsidies, Iowa corn growers are very much for ethanol pledges, etc.
I'd take it a step further and argue that ideology follows policy, in that people adjust their ideologies to support the policies that benefit them, or to be compatible with the candidates whose policies would benefit them.
Can't they stop buying equipment that is locked like this?
Can't homeless people get a job so they can afford an apartment? Couldn't you have bought a car with airbags before they were mandatory? Can't you just buy a flip phone with 3G instead of spending all this money for features your grandma doesn't need?
"Vote with your wallet" is only possible in certain markets and for certain goods. It is not the norm.
"Vote with your wallet" is only possible in certain markets and for certain goods. It is not the norm.
I suppose it's a bit similar to buying a smartphone with a swappable battery. You can do it but at some point the industry just doesn't offer it anymore.
Or buying an iPhone even though you really want to be able to instal things not blessed by Apple.
Counter argument. The software locks help prevent the cyber terrorists from attacking the food supply.
Just be-careful of the weapons you choose to wield against well funded campaigns. Do we want another “giving access to car maintenance data will lead to you being attacked in dark car parks”?
My point is, if the anti right to repair side came out with “omfg, rtr will allow hackers to attack food production”; we can come back with pointing out how dumb of an idea it is (just no one point out the car hacking village to anyone :-p), but if you lead with the national security angle, you have given the the anti r2r side free rein to say “no, closed locks are better then open locks when it comes to keeping the bad guy out of your home”.
Just be-careful of the weapons you choose to wield against well funded campaigns. Do we want another “giving access to car maintenance data will lead to you being attacked in dark car parks”?
My point is, if the anti right to repair side came out with “omfg, rtr will allow hackers to attack food production”; we can come back with pointing out how dumb of an idea it is (just no one point out the car hacking village to anyone :-p), but if you lead with the national security angle, you have given the the anti r2r side free rein to say “no, closed locks are better then open locks when it comes to keeping the bad guy out of your home”.
Counter-counter argument: If farm equipment must have software that is critical for it to function (which is debatable), it's hardly rocket surgery to air-gap farm equipment by design. In fact, it takes a shocking amount of arguably pointless effort for it not to be air-gapped.
That would make it immune to any cyber terrorist without physical access to each individual machine. If they did have access to a significant amount of farm equipment, then software protection would be the least of the concerns in terms of food security.
That would make it immune to any cyber terrorist without physical access to each individual machine. If they did have access to a significant amount of farm equipment, then software protection would be the least of the concerns in terms of food security.
The problem with that is they are getting more and more connected for fleet management and automation, so the arguement would be that things like JDLink are no longer permitted.
At that point, it’s more time effective for the attackers to disable the management hub or attack any other piece farther up the supply chain. The oil pipeline ransomware shutdown is a perfect example of attack efficiency. I don’t know of a situation where air-gapping already automated farm equipment is the most important next step.
> The software locks help prevent the cyber terrorists from attacking the food supply.
No, they don't. In fact, this makes them MORE vulnerable IMO. Hack John Deere and push a malicious update that bricks the fleet.
No, they don't. In fact, this makes them MORE vulnerable IMO. Hack John Deere and push a malicious update that bricks the fleet.
Just stating what the arguement will/has been. It was a simpliar aguement to what what was recently stated in auto right to repair https://youtu.be/EozPi1qmH44?t=60 - not terrorists but still pretty dam high on the fear factor.
I fully agree that its just a single supplychain hack away from remote bricking not just John Deere but also pretty much anything connected.
I'm just trying to make the point that the other side are not against using scare tactics already, do we really want to push them to even greater scare tactics?
EDIT: Remember, its not the geeks you have to win over, its the general public and / or lawmakers (who stereotypically have not always what I would call "geeks") that have to be won over.
Thankfully in that Massachusetts case the bill allowing mechanics to access the data passed, I personally don't think an escalation of the tactics from our side would end well for us.
I fully agree that its just a single supplychain hack away from remote bricking not just John Deere but also pretty much anything connected.
I'm just trying to make the point that the other side are not against using scare tactics already, do we really want to push them to even greater scare tactics?
EDIT: Remember, its not the geeks you have to win over, its the general public and / or lawmakers (who stereotypically have not always what I would call "geeks") that have to be won over.
Thankfully in that Massachusetts case the bill allowing mechanics to access the data passed, I personally don't think an escalation of the tactics from our side would end well for us.
You can give the user a firmware write-screw (Chromebooks),
and bootloader locks (and reasonable smartphone).
Prop up the next excuse!
and bootloader locks (and reasonable smartphone).
Prop up the next excuse!
I'm for right to repair, my point was about how it plays out in the "publics" eyes, not techies eyes.
But the issue I personally have with "firmware write enable" switches is that the ave person doesn't want to mess about with then every time there is an update and bootloader locks are still locks you often have to seek the permisson of the vendor to unlock OR they get disabled once you need "unsupported access" and not re-enabled (sometimes, re-enabling them disables what ever you needed it disabled for in the first place so you can't re-enable it).
One of the criticisms of Windows XP was that lots of "ave joes" just ignored Windows Updates, so even though MS released patches for bugs you could still find plently of vulnerable systems, after all your ave joe just wants to "get on with it" when they are using their computer. Putting in hinderances for the "avg joe" will (imo) only lead to fewer devices taking up firmware updates.
However a) we are talking about farm gear, so its not like its your "avg joe" using them, plently of farmers are used to getting it fixed, even if its just a bodge so they can get their job done b) if the bootloaders/firmware switch still allows updates from "a trusted source" while locked then it doesn't hinder auto-updates and allows the techies of the world to play outside the sandbox.
But the issue I personally have with "firmware write enable" switches is that the ave person doesn't want to mess about with then every time there is an update and bootloader locks are still locks you often have to seek the permisson of the vendor to unlock OR they get disabled once you need "unsupported access" and not re-enabled (sometimes, re-enabling them disables what ever you needed it disabled for in the first place so you can't re-enable it).
One of the criticisms of Windows XP was that lots of "ave joes" just ignored Windows Updates, so even though MS released patches for bugs you could still find plently of vulnerable systems, after all your ave joe just wants to "get on with it" when they are using their computer. Putting in hinderances for the "avg joe" will (imo) only lead to fewer devices taking up firmware updates.
However a) we are talking about farm gear, so its not like its your "avg joe" using them, plently of farmers are used to getting it fixed, even if its just a bodge so they can get their job done b) if the bootloaders/firmware switch still allows updates from "a trusted source" while locked then it doesn't hinder auto-updates and allows the techies of the world to play outside the sandbox.
You're describing an education problem, not a software problem.
Trying to retrofit the same code to 100k different models of machine will never work, even when we're at Windows 18.
Educate the people around you about basic computing shit, and donate to institutions that do it at scale.
Trying to retrofit the same code to 100k different models of machine will never work, even when we're at Windows 18.
Educate the people around you about basic computing shit, and donate to institutions that do it at scale.
I predict that they'll eventually get what they're asking for: The ability to service their equipment with whoever they want.
As a consequence, though, the initial price of the equipment is going to go up. And then they'll be complaining that they can't even afford to get started.
I honestly think they should be able to get it repaired wherever they want. But it's not actually going to fix all their problems, it's just going to shift them around.
As a consequence, though, the initial price of the equipment is going to go up. And then they'll be complaining that they can't even afford to get started.
I honestly think they should be able to get it repaired wherever they want. But it's not actually going to fix all their problems, it's just going to shift them around.
>As a consequence, though, the initial price of the equipment is going to go up.
What would be the arguments for this price increase?
Because if they are factoring in servicing into the price of the equipment, then I think that would be even more serious case of planned obsolescence (if we can even use that term here...). Maybe then someone will pick up that inefficiency and develop a new brand of affordable equipment - if the US gov. would allow that of course.
What would be the arguments for this price increase?
Because if they are factoring in servicing into the price of the equipment, then I think that would be even more serious case of planned obsolescence (if we can even use that term here...). Maybe then someone will pick up that inefficiency and develop a new brand of affordable equipment - if the US gov. would allow that of course.
I would not put that into the planned obsolescence category necessarily. Factoring in the lifetime value of a customer doesn't imply that. On heavy machinery there are/can be parts that just really wear down/need maintenance.
One of the questions is how profitable is the manufacturing, sell, and maintenance of farm equipment (for example)? Maybe some of the wallets redistribute between buyers, sellers, and maintenance firms - maybe not if the economics are poor. If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance, then pricing could not just stay where it is (absent new market entries creating downward pressure).
One of the questions is how profitable is the manufacturing, sell, and maintenance of farm equipment (for example)? Maybe some of the wallets redistribute between buyers, sellers, and maintenance firms - maybe not if the economics are poor. If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance, then pricing could not just stay where it is (absent new market entries creating downward pressure).
>If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance, then pricing could not just stay where it is (absent new market entries creating downward pressure).
I just can't wrap my head around that.
I mean, if that was the case then probably asset depreciation/wear should be reframed in accounting/finance, because not only they lose value but they have a added cost (arguably planned, since it's part of the pricing structure and business model of that equipment).
In the end you're just paying to rent parts that will need to be replaced and paid for, because the equipment won't work without it and they can only be serviced by X player... farming equipment became just extremely large printers, where buy them cheaper to then get looted on refills?
I just can't wrap my head around that.
I mean, if that was the case then probably asset depreciation/wear should be reframed in accounting/finance, because not only they lose value but they have a added cost (arguably planned, since it's part of the pricing structure and business model of that equipment).
In the end you're just paying to rent parts that will need to be replaced and paid for, because the equipment won't work without it and they can only be serviced by X player... farming equipment became just extremely large printers, where buy them cheaper to then get looted on refills?
Hypothetical example (might not be how it works with farming equipment): sell the combined harvester at cost, then have profits on a maintenance contract (note: might not even be the parts themselves that create the profit).
With complex modern machinery, maintenance and repair is something that really matters (downtime costs money) and depending on the equipment, it is something where the manufacturer has a real edge, for example, in large industrial machinery. Not talking about some trivial upkeep here.
The asset depreciation/wear side would only be with the buyer, not the seller. So if the buyer where show a balance sheet, then maybe there is something to argue about - not sure what farms do or don't do from an accounting perspective (or need to do). Not everyone needs a balance sheet drawn up.
This is not too dissimilar from selling a gaming console at a loss/at cost and making the money on the games, I reckon.
With complex modern machinery, maintenance and repair is something that really matters (downtime costs money) and depending on the equipment, it is something where the manufacturer has a real edge, for example, in large industrial machinery. Not talking about some trivial upkeep here.
The asset depreciation/wear side would only be with the buyer, not the seller. So if the buyer where show a balance sheet, then maybe there is something to argue about - not sure what farms do or don't do from an accounting perspective (or need to do). Not everyone needs a balance sheet drawn up.
This is not too dissimilar from selling a gaming console at a loss/at cost and making the money on the games, I reckon.
>With complex modern machinery, maintenance and repair is something that really matters (downtime costs money) and depending on the equipment, it is something where the manufacturer has a real edge, for example, in large industrial machinery. Not talking about some trivial upkeep here.
That's why documentation, schematics, software should be accessible by anyone who wants to fix this type of equipment. It's the difference between a mechanic going up to your farm, plug the equipment to the PC, run the diagnostic, replace part, instead of you have to call a truck, pay for the shipping of the equipment to the closest authorized dealer, and then have it looked up -> this second options costs way more time/money.
But if things are getting so complex you need to haul equipment that weight tons back to the factory, then is that complexity sustainable at all?
That's why documentation, schematics, software should be accessible by anyone who wants to fix this type of equipment. It's the difference between a mechanic going up to your farm, plug the equipment to the PC, run the diagnostic, replace part, instead of you have to call a truck, pay for the shipping of the equipment to the closest authorized dealer, and then have it looked up -> this second options costs way more time/money.
But if things are getting so complex you need to haul equipment that weight tons back to the factory, then is that complexity sustainable at all?
I know little about the specifics of farm machinery and it might very well work with schematics etc. so that stuff can be fixed by anyone reasonably skilled (and having access to the right parts and tools).
However, for some machinery (might not be in farming) it will need real training so even with schematics, docs etc. we do not want untrained people to fix it. These people might not work for the manufacturer, but repairing is "gated" in a sense (repairing commercial aircraft, for example). As far as onsite vs. shipping is concerned, I think with really heavy equipment most maintenance will be onsite as shipping makes no sense at some point/transport is next to impossible.
However, for some machinery (might not be in farming) it will need real training so even with schematics, docs etc. we do not want untrained people to fix it. These people might not work for the manufacturer, but repairing is "gated" in a sense (repairing commercial aircraft, for example). As far as onsite vs. shipping is concerned, I think with really heavy equipment most maintenance will be onsite as shipping makes no sense at some point/transport is next to impossible.
>> If the profits were to come mostly from maintenance […]
> I just can't wrap my head around that.
How do you think the automobile industry works? Supposedly most dealerships make their money in the service centre.
> I just can't wrap my head around that.
How do you think the automobile industry works? Supposedly most dealerships make their money in the service centre.
To the extent they make money at all, many open source projects make it by providing service and support.
I'd love to see some evidence that the producers aren't profitable without this lock-in. Of course they might raise prices and blame it on the right to repair, but I simply doubt that the tractor is not already sold at a profit.
I don't think anyone made that claim. I think we can assume that the vendors make profit on the sale of the equipment. Then they make more profits on the maintenance.
> I'd love to see some evidence that the producers aren't profitable without this lock-in.
If the business were profitable without the lock-in, other players would be competing with John Deere on this. Nobody is, that tells me the lock-in is needed to sustain the business.
If the business were profitable without the lock-in, other players would be competing with John Deere on this. Nobody is, that tells me the lock-in is needed to sustain the business.
You got it backwards, lock-in is a good way to protect a dominant market position by maximizing revenue from an existing, large buyer base. Competitors have no chance to enter because they lack that revenue source, let alone competitors that forgo it completely and front load the price.
There are literally hundreds of tractor manufacturers.
Then why are people so concerned about John deere? Just buy from a manufacturer who doesn't do these shenanigans.
Because there's an entire ecosystem of tools/extensions for each manufacturer with 6 and 7 digit price tags that aren't portable between them, not to mention training and contractual obligations, etc. Swapping everything all at once is not generally viable.
So all of the manufacturers are doing this? Why is only John Deere (Apple and Tesla for some reason) brought into this? If it’s a industry wide problem in farming shouldn’t we be discussing the issue in farming and not just three companies, two of which aren’t in the AG business?
In a REAL capitalistic market system, this situation offers a GOLDEN opportunity for a competitor to introduce an easily repairable option, with better service options. But the truth is that there are precious few markets left in the US that you could consider to be "free." Meanwhile, the conservatives decry any sort of change to what we have as SOCIALISM, as though that were the dirtiest word they could utter.
What's stopping someone from becoming a competitor (besides initial $$$ investment which will always be costly)?
The title of the article is a pop culture reference that may fly over most people's heads, so for context here's The Wurzels performing the song "Combine Harvester (Brand New Key)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb63PdPweDc
The song itself is a parody/adaption of the Melanie song "Brand New Key" ("I got a brand new pair of roller skates, you got a brand new key"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivxuz3dB8k
The song itself is a parody/adaption of the Melanie song "Brand New Key" ("I got a brand new pair of roller skates, you got a brand new key"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivxuz3dB8k
Too bad the title broke the meter. How about, "I've Got a Broken Combine Harvester, Please Give Me the Key"?
Amazing this knowledge is still around. I first heard this song in a bar in Portsmouth UK July 1976.
I learned about the song watching the 2005 b-movie Evil Aliens: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383353/
The song is featured prominently in an iconic scene involving said farming equipment (CW: mild spoilers and splatstick gore): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8dMlkGKoZE
(diegetically the song is played back from an audio cassette labelled "motivational farming music" in Welsh)
The song is featured prominently in an iconic scene involving said farming equipment (CW: mild spoilers and splatstick gore): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8dMlkGKoZE
(diegetically the song is played back from an audio cassette labelled "motivational farming music" in Welsh)
VW has a good aftermarket parts market for wear and tear items (clutch/brakes) for the Golf Mk2/Mk3 which is very popular with car modders.
B5 Passat - dealer only for brake pads/discs - when the car needed a clutch replacement the cost was one of the reasons why I traded it for a Corolla.
There should be viable non OEM parts market.
B5 Passat - dealer only for brake pads/discs - when the car needed a clutch replacement the cost was one of the reasons why I traded it for a Corolla.
There should be viable non OEM parts market.
In the US market, I've found pads and rotors on the aftermarket for VW Passat for any model year including 2021. Centric sells pads and rotors front and rear.
VW (and others such as some Jeep) uses an electronic parking brake which requires a scan tool to command the ECU to enter maintenance mode in order to retract the electronic motor on the rear axle to allow the piston to retract.
You can do this at home if you have a scan too. If you do not have a scan tool it is still possible to do it manually by disconnecting and removing the EPB servo and manually retracting, but it tricky and not recommended.
They use triple square fasteners on the bracket, and are typically a pain in the ass for this make.
Is there something else I'm missing?
VW (and others such as some Jeep) uses an electronic parking brake which requires a scan tool to command the ECU to enter maintenance mode in order to retract the electronic motor on the rear axle to allow the piston to retract.
You can do this at home if you have a scan too. If you do not have a scan tool it is still possible to do it manually by disconnecting and removing the EPB servo and manually retracting, but it tricky and not recommended.
They use triple square fasteners on the bracket, and are typically a pain in the ass for this make.
Is there something else I'm missing?
This is why I'm a great fan of less electronics. An electronic parking brake is a non-feature. It takes away your option of leaving the parking brake off (they tend to seize when activated for a long period). It can break. It make service harder and more expensive than it should be.
The classic 'Mini' had it just about right: what isn't on there can't break or fall off.
The classic 'Mini' had it just about right: what isn't on there can't break or fall off.
An ebike fits this idea fairly well. I commuted for several years on one when I lived in the city. After about a year I could fix anything on it. Was quite liberating.
Since I bought an e-bike my car has run its battery flat more than once, which is a good sign of how often it gets used. I had to get one of those drip chargers just to keep the battery topped up. E-bikes are a game changer. Originally I got one because I wrecked my right leg and have trouble getting the bike up to speed (once cruising it is fine though, because that requires much less force). But after a very short time I realized that besides the low starting torque the range is what really made me happy, the fact that even against the wind I can do 50 km in a bit under two hours without arriving dripping with sweat.
I've done a few thousand on the e-bike now and it is only getting used more and more. Car trips are now anything in really bad weather, long distance or with more cargo than the bike can take.
I've done a few thousand on the e-bike now and it is only getting used more and more. Car trips are now anything in really bad weather, long distance or with more cargo than the bike can take.
Right on! Free parking is another plus and I bet you still have a silly e-grin on your face after every ride. You can even run them all winter and in snow with studded tires and a bit of thought for the controller and moisture.
I agree its annoying, personally I hate them.
They usually serve to allow for automatic roll-away protection. On new Jeep Latitudes they come on automatically when the vehicle senses you have the vehicle running and are stopped, with the door open, or neutral. Owners like the hand holding ... it's a Jeep thing.
It does increase the price a little bit and if you do not have an OBDII scan tool and need to buy one. If you operate the EPB maintenance mode very incorrectly it is possible to damage the EPB mechanism. They're pretty easy to operate and replace if you know what you're doing.
They usually serve to allow for automatic roll-away protection. On new Jeep Latitudes they come on automatically when the vehicle senses you have the vehicle running and are stopped, with the door open, or neutral. Owners like the hand holding ... it's a Jeep thing.
It does increase the price a little bit and if you do not have an OBDII scan tool and need to buy one. If you operate the EPB maintenance mode very incorrectly it is possible to damage the EPB mechanism. They're pretty easy to operate and replace if you know what you're doing.
There is nothing special about the brakes on a b5 Passat and there are tons of aftermarket and OEM spec replacements available on the market.
The labor for a replacement clutch replacement is typically pretty high. I think the book time for the clutch job on a b5 is really long, something like 10 hours.
The labor for a replacement clutch replacement is typically pretty high. I think the book time for the clutch job on a b5 is really long, something like 10 hours.
Let me clarify - it was when I bought the car new and owned it for only 4 years.
Pretty sure the situation might have changed now once the model was replaced by the B6/B7 and as the Mk4 Golf aged out of warranty.
The Corolla had after market parts was readily available a few months after I bought it new.
Pretty sure the situation might have changed now once the model was replaced by the B6/B7 and as the Mk4 Golf aged out of warranty.
The Corolla had after market parts was readily available a few months after I bought it new.
Took me two minutes to find aftermarket brake parts for B5 from bremboparts.com.
There absolutely are cars for which it is difficult to get some aftermarket parts but this isn't a good example.
There absolutely are cars for which it is difficult to get some aftermarket parts but this isn't a good example.
Rubber seals for doors and windows seem to be a constant pain, and if they are available they tend to be really expensive. Regardless of make and brand.
Old Land Rovers, late 70s onwards, are a dream to get parts for. At least from the UK, and given you can live with aftermarket parts.
Old Land Rovers, late 70s onwards, are a dream to get parts for. At least from the UK, and given you can live with aftermarket parts.
Yeah weatherstripping is horrible, but there is an aftermarket for that, too.
Dorman (USA) makes a lot of these kits, you can often get all sorts of surprising parts from them, but they sell out their runs, too.
Thing about that kind of part is there aren't a lot of sales. There usually isn't millions of people out there ready to buy the weatherstripping, so the aftermarket often won't do a production run for it as it can be rather unprofitable.
Now and then a supplier will start making something crazy though, a few years ago I was looking for body sheet metal repair parts for a w123 300d--and found them! Uro production body sheet metal was available domestically for this 35year old jalopy.
Can't find the parts anymore I believe (I haven't tried) but there were so many of those w123 and w124 globally that people wanted to glue em' back together. Basically 100% of them have serious rust problems, seems to be mainly because of the way the sunroof is designed. I digress.
Dorman (USA) makes a lot of these kits, you can often get all sorts of surprising parts from them, but they sell out their runs, too.
Thing about that kind of part is there aren't a lot of sales. There usually isn't millions of people out there ready to buy the weatherstripping, so the aftermarket often won't do a production run for it as it can be rather unprofitable.
Now and then a supplier will start making something crazy though, a few years ago I was looking for body sheet metal repair parts for a w123 300d--and found them! Uro production body sheet metal was available domestically for this 35year old jalopy.
Can't find the parts anymore I believe (I haven't tried) but there were so many of those w123 and w124 globally that people wanted to glue em' back together. Basically 100% of them have serious rust problems, seems to be mainly because of the way the sunroof is designed. I digress.
Same for body panels for old Land Rovers and Range Rovers. The portions that tend to rot are readily available. I bolted in two new front inner wings in mine.
Heck, even weatherstripping and carpets are getting available again! Quite expensive so. Still cheaper in some cases then simple repairs in more modern cars. If you can do the work yourself that is.
Heck, even weatherstripping and carpets are getting available again! Quite expensive so. Still cheaper in some cases then simple repairs in more modern cars. If you can do the work yourself that is.
There’s no aftermarket/non-OE brake options for the Passat? I find that hard to believe, I thought VW raided Audi for chassis bits for the Passat.
>B5 Passat - dealer only for brake pads/discs
While I do love Toyota this is simply not true. Pads for the B5 Passat start at $25 at Autozone.
While I do love Toyota this is simply not true. Pads for the B5 Passat start at $25 at Autozone.
I appreciate that the title is a pun on the wurzels song, but article is about a tractor not a combine harvester.
Could an alternative to "right to repair" be "pay for the value of the service"?
So if the tractor works, it generates money for the manufacturer.
If the tractor fails, the manufacturer would be charged - say - $1000 per day.
This way the user would not care if the tractor works or not. If it works, they make $1000 from hay. If it does not, they get $1000 from the manufacturer.
Even if the manufacturer is not interested in this business model, it could be provided by a third party. Either as an insurance against non-working equipment or as a full service by a company that buys the tractor and provides it under the "pay for the value of the service" model.
So if the tractor works, it generates money for the manufacturer.
If the tractor fails, the manufacturer would be charged - say - $1000 per day.
This way the user would not care if the tractor works or not. If it works, they make $1000 from hay. If it does not, they get $1000 from the manufacturer.
Even if the manufacturer is not interested in this business model, it could be provided by a third party. Either as an insurance against non-working equipment or as a full service by a company that buys the tractor and provides it under the "pay for the value of the service" model.
Not a farmer, but missing a single day's planting can cost a lot more than $1000. It could me $1M+ if I had to guess.
Then the farmer would chose a $1M/day insurance instead of a $1000/day insurance.
Or we just make it to where we actually own things we buy.
Heard the same thing about doctors in China. You only pay when you're healthy.
I think it’s relevant to plug OSE
https://www.opensourceecology.org/
There are free designs for a large number of useful machines, but the trade off is that you have none of a manufacturers’ warranties for safety or useful life. Personally, I think it’s a lot more palatable to subsidize open designs that can be easily modified by a user instead of legally compelling a manufacturer to give the world their intellectual property. I think a few $M in grant programs to uni engineering programs with a few paid senior industry consultants could really make a difference (I think the motive force behind OSE is basically one guy).
There are free designs for a large number of useful machines, but the trade off is that you have none of a manufacturers’ warranties for safety or useful life. Personally, I think it’s a lot more palatable to subsidize open designs that can be easily modified by a user instead of legally compelling a manufacturer to give the world their intellectual property. I think a few $M in grant programs to uni engineering programs with a few paid senior industry consultants could really make a difference (I think the motive force behind OSE is basically one guy).
> I think the motive force behind OSE is basically one guy).
That's what it looks like; at the very least, they are extremely short staffed vs the problems they want to tackle. They have been at it for years and have barely made progress in terms of the actual wiki.
Their main problem right now is you need a pretty full-blown machine shop and access to lots of materials to make the machines. That's fine for industrialized countries, but if you want to help mechanize the developing world, you are probably better off making a tractor which can be kitbashed from a Toyota Hilux.
What they ought to be focusing on is the "API" - a standard spec for attaching X to Y. A POSIX for PTOs, if you will, but for more parts than just the PTO. A standard rubric for machines and accessories across the farm, like Morse taper but wider in scope.
Regardless, I'd love to see that program get an infusion of cash and talent, and get a full tractor design out the door.
That's what it looks like; at the very least, they are extremely short staffed vs the problems they want to tackle. They have been at it for years and have barely made progress in terms of the actual wiki.
Their main problem right now is you need a pretty full-blown machine shop and access to lots of materials to make the machines. That's fine for industrialized countries, but if you want to help mechanize the developing world, you are probably better off making a tractor which can be kitbashed from a Toyota Hilux.
What they ought to be focusing on is the "API" - a standard spec for attaching X to Y. A POSIX for PTOs, if you will, but for more parts than just the PTO. A standard rubric for machines and accessories across the farm, like Morse taper but wider in scope.
Regardless, I'd love to see that program get an infusion of cash and talent, and get a full tractor design out the door.
These sort of projects are great but as someone in this discussion pointed out, we are talking about food supply. No manufacturer should be allowed to fuck with that in this way.
The manufacturer is making food production at scale possible. John Deere does not “fuck with” you when you buy its products. Expropriating their trade secrets because someone decided this was a special case seems capricious. Why not nullify Pfizer’s patents? Do we not have a “right to repair” our bodies with their drugs? Why not seize Google’s monorepo and publish it in the Library of Congress? Do we not have a “right to repair” our information systems? I guess picking the winners and losers of this policy is to be left up to the lobbyists?
> Why not nullify Pfizer’s patents?
Don't threaten me with a good time. There's insane level of harm both medically and financially that comes from locking life saving drugs behind patents.
Don't threaten me with a good time. There's insane level of harm both medically and financially that comes from locking life saving drugs behind patents.
What do you think a patent is? I'll give you a hint: it's not enhanced protection for long-term trade secrets.
Exclusionary rights to make, use or redistribute a thing. I’m under the impression that patent rights allow one to sue to prevent others from making, using or redistributing a thing without a contract or license from the patent holder. I would call that protection. Maybe it’s different where you live.
He was talking about protecting a trade secret, patents are about giving up your trade secret to have a monopoly for a given time. This enabled society in the past to build complex systems by standing on each others shoulders. The problem with patents nowadays is the way they are validated, they used to be validated on the idea and now they are validated on implementation, which enables corporations to change a single ingredient of that idea to take out another patent. Also corruption of all parts of government and civil society does not help e.a. lobby-ism, revolving door employment between corporations and government/civil society.
The disclosure of the secret and the limited time are key features of a patent. Comparing making something I bought able to be repaired without encrypted keys has really nothing to do with patents or trade secrets. John Deere cannot patent mathematics. How to encrypt firmware is not a trade secret.
JD is using the DMCA to try blocking this. Their legal argument is that the firmware in the tractor or harvester is copyrighted and that locking down the firmware is a copyright control. Therefore, the DMCA can be used as a cudgel to sue people who bypass the controls to let people maintain the physical equipment they have purchased.
IANAL, but the courts have long maintained that making copies of minimal portions of a work or distributing slightly modified copies of parts of a work for the purposes of compatibility fall under fair use.
https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/supreme-court-...
Lexmark v. Static Control Components would appear to be relevant. So would Atari Games Corp v. Nintendo of America, Inc. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. seems relevant.
If there is no way to make something compatible but the way the vendor has used, US copyright doctrine suggests that way is not protected by copyright or that it is a fair use infringement upon copyright to do things the same way. If, however, there is some creative creative decision made in implementation of an expression of an idea, then the expression and implementation retain full copyright protection. Some other expression of the same thing for the purpose of compatibility, though, would be fair. This is why Franklin could not copy Apple's firmware but could reverse engineer it. It's why Eagle couldn't copy the IBM BIOS but Compaq could reverse engineer it.
The only way to use a third-party part or even to reset the tracking of a first-party sensor for some of these John Deere products is to circumvent the protections on the firmware.
I would expect John Deere to try to use Vernor v. Autodesk in which it's determined that some fine print about software being licensed vs. sold means you can't resell the software after taking possession of it. However, firmware for a tractor is not remotely the same as a CAD or video editing application. It's not a useful thing in its own right and is not the product. It is simply a necessary part of the physical device which was sold.
Hopefully the Librarian of Congress or the Congress itself addresses this intentional crippling of physical goods. It's a troublesome loophole in the DMCA and it's being abused. If the courts take it up, I'm hoping an appeals court or the Supreme Court realizes the difference between a commercial application for installation on a general-purpose computer and the firmware in a tractor, Bluetooth speaker, car, smartphone, or whatever and choose common sense.
JD is using the DMCA to try blocking this. Their legal argument is that the firmware in the tractor or harvester is copyrighted and that locking down the firmware is a copyright control. Therefore, the DMCA can be used as a cudgel to sue people who bypass the controls to let people maintain the physical equipment they have purchased.
IANAL, but the courts have long maintained that making copies of minimal portions of a work or distributing slightly modified copies of parts of a work for the purposes of compatibility fall under fair use.
https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/supreme-court-...
Lexmark v. Static Control Components would appear to be relevant. So would Atari Games Corp v. Nintendo of America, Inc. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. seems relevant.
If there is no way to make something compatible but the way the vendor has used, US copyright doctrine suggests that way is not protected by copyright or that it is a fair use infringement upon copyright to do things the same way. If, however, there is some creative creative decision made in implementation of an expression of an idea, then the expression and implementation retain full copyright protection. Some other expression of the same thing for the purpose of compatibility, though, would be fair. This is why Franklin could not copy Apple's firmware but could reverse engineer it. It's why Eagle couldn't copy the IBM BIOS but Compaq could reverse engineer it.
The only way to use a third-party part or even to reset the tracking of a first-party sensor for some of these John Deere products is to circumvent the protections on the firmware.
I would expect John Deere to try to use Vernor v. Autodesk in which it's determined that some fine print about software being licensed vs. sold means you can't resell the software after taking possession of it. However, firmware for a tractor is not remotely the same as a CAD or video editing application. It's not a useful thing in its own right and is not the product. It is simply a necessary part of the physical device which was sold.
Hopefully the Librarian of Congress or the Congress itself addresses this intentional crippling of physical goods. It's a troublesome loophole in the DMCA and it's being abused. If the courts take it up, I'm hoping an appeals court or the Supreme Court realizes the difference between a commercial application for installation on a general-purpose computer and the firmware in a tractor, Bluetooth speaker, car, smartphone, or whatever and choose common sense.
> Do we not have a “right to repair” our bodies with their drugs?
Actually...yes.
If someone catches wind/reverse engineers/synthesizes Pfizer drugs and saves themselves or others on a small enough scale tax authorities don't even chase them, I think humanity benefits.
Actually...yes.
If someone catches wind/reverse engineers/synthesizes Pfizer drugs and saves themselves or others on a small enough scale tax authorities don't even chase them, I think humanity benefits.
To fix this you first need to fix corporate lobbying. As long as the beneficiaries of the laws get to write the laws this bullshit will continue. And the pox on any software engineer's house that implements this shit, you're co-responsible for it.
Spot on. And what makes things look even more hopeless is that the people willing to hit at the roots of the problem and fix the corporate lobbying are not in congress and probably can't even get on a ballot because their voices get throttled early. You need a lot of money to fight other money. How is that going to happen ?
Its very easy to fix corporate lobbying.
Just limit contributions to x dollars (indexed to % of poverty level or whatever) to persons that can vote.
This takes away the personhood of corporations and takes care of moneyed interests.
However this would require a constitutional amendment in order to not come in conflict with free speech.
Alternatively, you could make elections outcomes somewhat random, and effectively rendering the prize (officeholding) a lot more uncertain and therefore, not worth the risk.
Imagine winning a campaign for state senate and getting swapped with the 2nd place ranked for comptroller.
Who's going to put money in that campaign
Just limit contributions to x dollars (indexed to % of poverty level or whatever) to persons that can vote.
This takes away the personhood of corporations and takes care of moneyed interests.
However this would require a constitutional amendment in order to not come in conflict with free speech.
Alternatively, you could make elections outcomes somewhat random, and effectively rendering the prize (officeholding) a lot more uncertain and therefore, not worth the risk.
Imagine winning a campaign for state senate and getting swapped with the 2nd place ranked for comptroller.
Who's going to put money in that campaign
How do farmers feel about these harvester companies?
Smaller / family-owned farmers detest them [0]. Large / agribusiness farmers tend to think of this sort of equipment as tractor-as-a-service and generally have uptime agreements with service organizations so their problems get fixed first.
[0]https://www.extremetech.com/computing/246314-farmers-piratin...
[0]https://www.extremetech.com/computing/246314-farmers-piratin...
I have no idea what company is in the article since it doesn’t say.
But if it’s (likely) John Deere, we avoid them like the plague. Granted, my family’s farm is “hobby farm” scale. I see plenty of Deere’s on actual farms. But for me, it’s not worth it.
I’ve been half a mile into brush at quarter to midnight fixing a Kubota with very basic hand tools. I have a repair manual that shows how to service every part. It’s how it SHOULD be done. Most people who rely on a tractor don’t have time to mess around with John Deer concierge any time they hit a bump the wrong way.
But if it’s (likely) John Deere, we avoid them like the plague. Granted, my family’s farm is “hobby farm” scale. I see plenty of Deere’s on actual farms. But for me, it’s not worth it.
I’ve been half a mile into brush at quarter to midnight fixing a Kubota with very basic hand tools. I have a repair manual that shows how to service every part. It’s how it SHOULD be done. Most people who rely on a tractor don’t have time to mess around with John Deer concierge any time they hit a bump the wrong way.
The same way you feel about Google: they dislike them but have no alternative.
There’s 350 ish million people in the US, and together they throw away only 400k phones per year? There must be something wrong with that statistic.
Maybe there are lot more people like me who cling to their 4.6 inches smartphone from 2015 and refuse to buy anything new since they got it second-hand for 250 bucks (500 +/- 100€ at launch) and every review I read always have some huge problems (battery life or photo or reception or poor screen or anything). /s
Most phones end up at the back of a drawer.
Yeah, I've still got phones from 12 years ago. I upgrade, hang on to it thinking I'll give it away to someone (if it still works), or just toss it in a drawer and forget about it until I move. Then I run into it a year later, think for five seconds about bringing it to the electronics recycling place, and promptly forget about it for another year, because driving to the recycling place is a pain in the ass.
My dad used to repair our cars on his own when I was little. He can't do that anymore, because even our simplest car have 2 computers on board now.
It's a fucked up future we are looking at.
It's a fucked up future we are looking at.
Your dad’s car was using 3 gallons per 100 miles. The computers do add some value.
There's no reason computers should mean you can't repair your car, I repair my computers. That's just a shitty bait and switch marketing trick like the idea that ARM computers cant run FOSS just because of the architecture.
No, using computers means exactly that: hardware is now commonly designed to run in conjunction with very specific software control. Without understanding the overall design very, very well, modifications can essily result in delayed comsequences that are hard to understand. The end result is a device that can have a reduced lifetime and/or become dangerous to its environment because the changes introduce a new failure mode.
The source code to the software doesn't help much. It doesn't document design decisions that can relate to electrical or mechanical properties of the device.
I am not agaist a right to repair in general, but what I want to see is pretty strict regulation that repairs to potentially hazardous devices may only be performed by trained professionals. E.g. the brakes in your car would be off limits anyone except a licensed mechanic. But manufacturers would have to supply documentation, tools and spare parts to any qualified mechanic, not just their own dealerships.
The source code to the software doesn't help much. It doesn't document design decisions that can relate to electrical or mechanical properties of the device.
I am not agaist a right to repair in general, but what I want to see is pretty strict regulation that repairs to potentially hazardous devices may only be performed by trained professionals. E.g. the brakes in your car would be off limits anyone except a licensed mechanic. But manufacturers would have to supply documentation, tools and spare parts to any qualified mechanic, not just their own dealerships.
If you're making that comment then I don't believe you understand how simple the brake systems in our cars are, or other systems are. Swapping rotors and pads on all four wheels can be done in an hour on most cars, trucks, SUVs, etc. And on most vehicles there's more bolts involved in removing the wheels than the pads and rotors. Hell, even rebuilding an entire caliper is a simple job.
If you don't want people tampering with the ECU or ABS controller (if the vehicle has ABS) then I get that. But a blanket statement like "average joe can't touch the brakes" is horribly ignorant.
If you don't want people tampering with the ECU or ABS controller (if the vehicle has ABS) then I get that. But a blanket statement like "average joe can't touch the brakes" is horribly ignorant.
The brake system is one of these things that are literally lifesavers when they work and killers when they don't. I think that it's a good idea to have every part of that system - especially the easily accessible mechanical parts - off limits to untrained tinkerers. You can't undo injury or death that can result easily from a faulty brake.
Very funny.
On my car: remove 5x 19mm lugnuts, remove wheel, reinstall 2x lug nuts, remove 2x 21mm caliper assembly bolts, remove the caliper assembly, use a 4" C-clamp over the existing used inner brake pad to retract the caliper piston, replace pads, reinstall caliper assembly, reinstall 21mm bolts to secure caliper assembly to steering knuckle, remove 2x lug nuts, reinstall wheel, install 5x lug nuts torqued to 85ft/lb.
Need to swap rotor? It's only secured by 2 of those lugnuts, so just do it then.
What's dangerous? It will not allow you to do it wrong because parts will not fit. You need exactly two sockets: 21mm and 19mm.
On my car: remove 5x 19mm lugnuts, remove wheel, reinstall 2x lug nuts, remove 2x 21mm caliper assembly bolts, remove the caliper assembly, use a 4" C-clamp over the existing used inner brake pad to retract the caliper piston, replace pads, reinstall caliper assembly, reinstall 21mm bolts to secure caliper assembly to steering knuckle, remove 2x lug nuts, reinstall wheel, install 5x lug nuts torqued to 85ft/lb.
Need to swap rotor? It's only secured by 2 of those lugnuts, so just do it then.
What's dangerous? It will not allow you to do it wrong because parts will not fit. You need exactly two sockets: 21mm and 19mm.
Oh fuck off. Any critical system has these problems regardless of how its built.
[deleted]
I think I get your point that the computers help to increase efficiency, but your illustrative numbers don’t seem right. A lot of brand new cars use more than 3 gallons per 100 miles.
Farming machinery and all heavy equipment/large capital investment items are moving to a use based model. Manufacturer raises debt (his cost of capital is low), builds and leases machines to the customer. Customer pays per ton of grain harvested, per hole drilled, per cubic metre of rock crushed etc. As a farmer why would you want to pay for a machine that is idle most of the year outside of harvest time?
> As a farmer why would you want to pay for a machine that is idle most of the year outside of harvest time?
I wouldn't. That's why farming equipment used to be modularized - the drive unit would be in constant use around the farm, the add-ons were job-specific. With more expensive and infrequently-used equipment, someone would buy one and then lend it out to everyone in the village in turn, or offer using it as a service.
If manufacturers want to step into that last line of business, well, that's a separate topic from right-of-repair, and mostly boiling down to how much are we willing to allow a corporation to tax users after the fact. Me owning and lending out a repairable, DRM-free harvester combine, vs. me lending out a DRMed combine, vs. manufacturer lending their combines directly to users differ primarily in the amount of operational money that goes to the manufacturer instead of staying within the local economy.
(That, and the amount of money farmers have to pay in total. I can harvest your field for the price of a crate of beer and you welding a fence for my chickens. John Deere will only accept hard currency.)
Regardless, keeping machines unrepairable is only adding inefficiency to the process - for which, as far as I'm aware, the manufacturer does not pay. If they want to provide "tractors as a service", perhaps they should be forced to go all in, and provide SLAs. When they're facing a choice between spending $100k to parachute a technician into the middle of nowhere, or spending $100k to reimburse for a lost harvest, perhaps they'll be more receptive to the idea of letting people repair their own things.
(That, or Zipline will start getting inquiries about flying tractor parts back and forth via drones.)
I wouldn't. That's why farming equipment used to be modularized - the drive unit would be in constant use around the farm, the add-ons were job-specific. With more expensive and infrequently-used equipment, someone would buy one and then lend it out to everyone in the village in turn, or offer using it as a service.
If manufacturers want to step into that last line of business, well, that's a separate topic from right-of-repair, and mostly boiling down to how much are we willing to allow a corporation to tax users after the fact. Me owning and lending out a repairable, DRM-free harvester combine, vs. me lending out a DRMed combine, vs. manufacturer lending their combines directly to users differ primarily in the amount of operational money that goes to the manufacturer instead of staying within the local economy.
(That, and the amount of money farmers have to pay in total. I can harvest your field for the price of a crate of beer and you welding a fence for my chickens. John Deere will only accept hard currency.)
Regardless, keeping machines unrepairable is only adding inefficiency to the process - for which, as far as I'm aware, the manufacturer does not pay. If they want to provide "tractors as a service", perhaps they should be forced to go all in, and provide SLAs. When they're facing a choice between spending $100k to parachute a technician into the middle of nowhere, or spending $100k to reimburse for a lost harvest, perhaps they'll be more receptive to the idea of letting people repair their own things.
(That, or Zipline will start getting inquiries about flying tractor parts back and forth via drones.)
I agree with what you say. The equipment manufacturers want a part of this sharing economy, which they are not currently involved in. There are farming machine companies currently working on “plant your field as a service” and mining machine companies working on “drilling a hole as a service”, with DRM controlled, on-net, live telemetry reporting and billing.
For harvesters, the machine will probably be idle most of the year no matter what, since it doesn't make sense to transport it to the Southern hemisphere.
So ultimately the farmer will be paying for it.
So ultimately the farmer will be paying for it.
Many combines are sold to custom harvesters. They buy them when harvest starts in the south (North America, other continents have different patterns), work them for 16 hour days, and sell them in the north when the season is over. They may be only one year old, but they have been worked hard - equivalent to 75000 miles of city driving on a car! Someone will still buy them (dealers in the north know this is happening and have plans to deal with the influx) as they have a few more years of life for someone who does their own harvest, but they are well used by this time.
Because the harvest happens at the same time for all farmers? The harvesting machine will be idle for most of the time anyway, so there can only be one renter at the time (unless you will ship it to Southern hemisphere for half of the year).
> As a farmer why would you want to pay for a machine that is idle most of the year outside of harvest time?
Because you want to invest in your business? So that, once it's paid off, you can stop giving part of your profits to someone else? You know, the old 7-year-payoff rule of thumb? That old chestnut?
This is the problem with most industries in our over-capitalized system now. In every sector, large companies are trying to monopolize at least a horizontal -- if not an entire segment -- so that they can extract rent from the market forever. The very notion that people are allowed to own things, and not pay service fees till the end of their life, is utterly vanishing, from huge farm machinery to freaking light bulbs. Letting companies permanently insert themselves into our daily use of their products is a total change of mindset, and one which people over 40 will probably never be comfortable with.
There's something fundamentally opposed to the idea of a free society when you have a dozen companies requiring constant access to your homes and appliances and cars and personal electronics at all times, in order to keep them running in any useful way. Beyond simple monopolization, every company is doing it. This is quickly leading to an almost collusive situation where there are entire product categories are becoming exclusively IoT devices, with soon-to-follow subscription fees, and there will be no other practical alternatives.
Because you want to invest in your business? So that, once it's paid off, you can stop giving part of your profits to someone else? You know, the old 7-year-payoff rule of thumb? That old chestnut?
This is the problem with most industries in our over-capitalized system now. In every sector, large companies are trying to monopolize at least a horizontal -- if not an entire segment -- so that they can extract rent from the market forever. The very notion that people are allowed to own things, and not pay service fees till the end of their life, is utterly vanishing, from huge farm machinery to freaking light bulbs. Letting companies permanently insert themselves into our daily use of their products is a total change of mindset, and one which people over 40 will probably never be comfortable with.
There's something fundamentally opposed to the idea of a free society when you have a dozen companies requiring constant access to your homes and appliances and cars and personal electronics at all times, in order to keep them running in any useful way. Beyond simple monopolization, every company is doing it. This is quickly leading to an almost collusive situation where there are entire product categories are becoming exclusively IoT devices, with soon-to-follow subscription fees, and there will be no other practical alternatives.
> Because you want to invest in your business? So that, once it's paid off, you can stop giving part of your profits to someone else?
That is a factor, but there are counters. You miss out on whatever advances next year's model has. The machine won't last forever, so even after it is paid off you only get a few years before you have to buy a new one (or put major rework into the old one - often this isn't worth the labor costs since you don't get the scale of an assembly line)
In the end each farmer has to make their own decision. Some will buy the equipment, some will lease it, and some will hire someone else to do that work. There are trade offs. Many accountants have run numbers and discovered that the obvious choice is the worst possible one, but this is a case by case analysis.
That is a factor, but there are counters. You miss out on whatever advances next year's model has. The machine won't last forever, so even after it is paid off you only get a few years before you have to buy a new one (or put major rework into the old one - often this isn't worth the labor costs since you don't get the scale of an assembly line)
In the end each farmer has to make their own decision. Some will buy the equipment, some will lease it, and some will hire someone else to do that work. There are trade offs. Many accountants have run numbers and discovered that the obvious choice is the worst possible one, but this is a case by case analysis.
> after it is paid off you only get a few years before you have to buy a new one
I get that you want to say "it depends," but the original context is a TRACTOR. Something that, historically, can easily last 20 years, if not 50.
I get that you want to say "it depends," but the original context is a TRACTOR. Something that, historically, can easily last 20 years, if not 50.
Because harvest time is the same for everyone, and you want to secure that equipment for that week or two depending on crop, or else you lose the quality if not the crop. When I was pitching around a marketplace for farm equipment sharing, this was one of the main objections - when you need it, you need it.
This is also what makes withholding a repair key so pernicious, as they have you over a barrel, since your productive window with the equipment is also limited.
This is also what makes withholding a repair key so pernicious, as they have you over a barrel, since your productive window with the equipment is also limited.
I guess if the tractor is going to last for a long time, renting it wouldn't make sense for the long term for the farmer ? At some point the total rent paid would exceed the cost of the tractor. But yeah it makes sense for short term
In my area, a lot of the seeding and harvesting seems to be done by fleets of machines that follow the harvest and work 24/7. I'm assuming they get a fixed rate per acre and aren't owned by any one farmer.
In a sense that is true (certainly from an RoE perspective). However, once usage is high all the time (not the case here) then leasing/renting might not be efficient.
Not all machinery is equally shareable, though. I think for a combined harvester there are two challenges:
(a) Can you move them around the world easily enough so that the costs actually can be shared by multiple users? Or will the payback period just become super long and everyone is happy with that?
(b) From a policy maker perspective, do you want to rely on a supply chain for the full equipment on critical food infrastructure? What if all the harvesters are stuck in some channel?
Not all machinery is equally shareable, though. I think for a combined harvester there are two challenges:
(a) Can you move them around the world easily enough so that the costs actually can be shared by multiple users? Or will the payback period just become super long and everyone is happy with that?
(b) From a policy maker perspective, do you want to rely on a supply chain for the full equipment on critical food infrastructure? What if all the harvesters are stuck in some channel?
The whole "right to repair" issue is somewhat complex but farm equipment is a pretty good example of the why this is necessary.
For anyone that doesn't know, farm equipment generally lasts a long time. There are farms out there still operating 70+ year old John Deere tractors. With proper servicing such equipment lasts a really long time.
Nowadays such equipment attracts a premium simply because it is so simple and can be serviced by the owner for many simple things. You don't need to pay for and (sometimes worse) _wait for_ a "qualified" tech with the right computer to fix a faulty sensor.
Companies deliberately make equipment that cannot be serviced to increase total revenue and it's a disgusting and egregious form of rent-seeking.
As an aside, your car's warranty is essentially a scheme to make more money similar to this. Using parts of services that aren't "genuine" can void your warranty.
For anyone that doesn't know, farm equipment generally lasts a long time. There are farms out there still operating 70+ year old John Deere tractors. With proper servicing such equipment lasts a really long time.
Nowadays such equipment attracts a premium simply because it is so simple and can be serviced by the owner for many simple things. You don't need to pay for and (sometimes worse) _wait for_ a "qualified" tech with the right computer to fix a faulty sensor.
Companies deliberately make equipment that cannot be serviced to increase total revenue and it's a disgusting and egregious form of rent-seeking.
As an aside, your car's warranty is essentially a scheme to make more money similar to this. Using parts of services that aren't "genuine" can void your warranty.
>For anyone that doesn't know, farm equipment generally lasts a long time. There are farms out there still operating 70+ year old John Deere tractors. With proper servicing such equipment lasts a really long time.
There is basically nobody out there operating even a 80s combine because when you are dealing with razor thin commodities margins a couple percent efficiency in machinery applied across your whole fleet can/will make or break you.
Some boutique fruit farmer on a tiny amount of land an hour from Boston might be using an old tractor but nobody outside that sort of use case is running antiquated equipment. Not to say everyone is running locked down JD crap but old equipment isn't nearly as responsible for the contents of the supermarket as HN likes to think it is.
>As an aside, your car's warranty is essentially a scheme to make more money similar to this. Using parts of services that aren't "genuine" can void your warranty.
This was made illegal decades ago.
There is basically nobody out there operating even a 80s combine because when you are dealing with razor thin commodities margins a couple percent efficiency in machinery applied across your whole fleet can/will make or break you.
Some boutique fruit farmer on a tiny amount of land an hour from Boston might be using an old tractor but nobody outside that sort of use case is running antiquated equipment. Not to say everyone is running locked down JD crap but old equipment isn't nearly as responsible for the contents of the supermarket as HN likes to think it is.
>As an aside, your car's warranty is essentially a scheme to make more money similar to this. Using parts of services that aren't "genuine" can void your warranty.
This was made illegal decades ago.
Most farmers I see have an old tractor around for odd jobs. The money and most of the work is done by the new tractors, but those new tractors tend to be very big, and sometimes you only need a small tractor for a little job. These little jobs are NEVER time critical though, so if the tractor breaks they fix over the next few weeks and then do the job.
During the busy seasons farmers are working 16 hours days and they can't afford for the machines to break. However there are off months where nothing needs to be done now. The busy season for a corn farmer is planting in April, and Harvest in October, and random weeks between them for weed control (These months vary by regions and should be taken as an example not truth), with the time in between mostly filled with activities that need to be done but there is no hurry to do them today.
During the busy seasons farmers are working 16 hours days and they can't afford for the machines to break. However there are off months where nothing needs to be done now. The busy season for a corn farmer is planting in April, and Harvest in October, and random weeks between them for weed control (These months vary by regions and should be taken as an example not truth), with the time in between mostly filled with activities that need to be done but there is no hurry to do them today.
My Dad had a small German made John Deere tractor from the early seventies that was used for odd jobs. But it put on more hours per year than the big tractors because it was used year round.
Some of the work it did wasn't time critical, but some was. In winter, animals need to be fed daily.
That old tractor was more reliable than the newer ones.
When he sold the tractor along with the farm, he got more than it sold for brand new in the early seventies.
Some of the work it did wasn't time critical, but some was. In winter, animals need to be fed daily.
That old tractor was more reliable than the newer ones.
When he sold the tractor along with the farm, he got more than it sold for brand new in the early seventies.
>When he sold the tractor along with the farm, he got more than it sold for brand new in the early seventies.
After inflation?
After inflation?
No. He bought it for $17k and sold it for $19k IIRC.
I grew up on a farm in north central Montana. EVERY farmer, even the bigger wealthier ones, all ran at least some equipment that was 30+ years old. We were a mid-sized operation and ran equipment that was at best between 10 and 40 years old as our primary equipment.
A classmate of mine, who now farms their family farm, still runs a large 4WD tractor that must be 50+ years old at this point. They have newer equipment, but the old stuff still gets used.
A classmate of mine, who now farms their family farm, still runs a large 4WD tractor that must be 50+ years old at this point. They have newer equipment, but the old stuff still gets used.
It really depends where you live I would say. US big farms sure this is probably a right statement, but around here (Quebec, Canada). We still see a lot of old farming equipment being used daily on small farm where we just can't afford a 500k harvester or 250k tractor.
Personnaly we have an old combine from at least the 70 when we need a small field to be harvested. The rest we contract to other people. We have a few tractors from the 60 for small work, but use mostly tractors from the 90/2000 for field work.
Personnaly we have an old combine from at least the 70 when we need a small field to be harvested. The rest we contract to other people. We have a few tractors from the 60 for small work, but use mostly tractors from the 90/2000 for field work.
Québécois?
>>As an aside, your car's warranty is essentially a scheme to make more money similar to this. Using parts of services that aren't "genuine" can void your warranty.
> This was made illegal decades ago.
AIUI, only for consumer equipment. The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act “generally” (non-strictly) excludes commercial and industrial equipment. It strictly, explicitly, and strongly excludes agricultural equipment from its pro-consumer requirements.
§ 700.1 (b)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title16-vol1/xm...
> This was made illegal decades ago.
AIUI, only for consumer equipment. The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act “generally” (non-strictly) excludes commercial and industrial equipment. It strictly, explicitly, and strongly excludes agricultural equipment from its pro-consumer requirements.
§ 700.1 (b)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title16-vol1/xm...
My dad and grandfather both use farmall tractors from the 30s on their farms. It’s not uncommon
Farming what products and where?
And are these tractors used as their daily equipment or do they use something more modern by default and only bring the old stuff out on the rare occasions when the number of tractors doing tractor things is a big enough production bottleneck to warrant it?
I work on plenty of old junk for people. I know how this kind of stuff gets used and how important it is and isn't to business operations. There are a very tiny number of people who run large fleets of old junk with enough redundancy they are not lacking for uptime. These people are a rounding error compared to the number of people who have one or more new-ish machines and keep a couple pieces of old junk (usually very large or very niche machines) around for a particular use that the newer machines could cover but not as well as something dedicated. And this is how it works in pretty much any industry that uses heavy equipment, not just farming.
And are these tractors used as their daily equipment or do they use something more modern by default and only bring the old stuff out on the rare occasions when the number of tractors doing tractor things is a big enough production bottleneck to warrant it?
I work on plenty of old junk for people. I know how this kind of stuff gets used and how important it is and isn't to business operations. There are a very tiny number of people who run large fleets of old junk with enough redundancy they are not lacking for uptime. These people are a rounding error compared to the number of people who have one or more new-ish machines and keep a couple pieces of old junk (usually very large or very niche machines) around for a particular use that the newer machines could cover but not as well as something dedicated. And this is how it works in pretty much any industry that uses heavy equipment, not just farming.
Soybeans and hay for cattle in Missouri. Together they run about 250 acres, probably a quarter of that is wooded but still a decent landmass to cover. And those farmalls are their daily drivers. I believe my dad’s got a newer one he uses for it’s pto for digging post holes and such. Those old tractors are workhorses, if you know how to take care of them and work on them yourself they’ll last forever.
250 acres is a small farm these days. Those old tractors can keep running on small farms for many more years if you care for them. Though upgrading to a newer used tractor may be worth it for the the greater fuel efficiency (you didn't say, but I'm guessing those are gasoline tractors, diesel was just starting to come out in that era)
Even Jeremy Clarkson has 1000 acres, and that's in the UK
Jeremy Clarkson is a multi-millionaire global celebrity, him investing maybe 5% of his money to own a bigger estate than most actual farmers is not a surprise.
You're not wrong, but I'm having difficulty understanding the point you're after. Farms large and small use equipment new and old and have periods during the year when shit can't break.
Of course the largest exposure to the right to repair issue is with the large farms. They run the greatest percentage of newest (so greater likelihood of incident) and largest (greater impact of downtime) equipment. However, I'd say the greatest existential risks could easily be with the smaller farms that are running new kit. You're less likely to have backup equipment and are going to struggle getting priority from service teams when you're the smallest of ten customers that are broken down.
Of course the largest exposure to the right to repair issue is with the large farms. They run the greatest percentage of newest (so greater likelihood of incident) and largest (greater impact of downtime) equipment. However, I'd say the greatest existential risks could easily be with the smaller farms that are running new kit. You're less likely to have backup equipment and are going to struggle getting priority from service teams when you're the smallest of ten customers that are broken down.
My point is that "new enough to have DRM depending on who you bought it from" machines represent the majority of heavy equipment out there in the US. There are plenty of old machine around but they're special purpose and spend a lot of time sitting around. The guy running a farm with a couple antique tractors or running a gravel pit with a collection of obsolete loaders is out there but he's a rounding error.
Ah! Makes sense considering the post you replied to. I just wasn't tracking...caffeine is still diffusing through the system lol.
When old equipment pops up on small farms, it's usually someone operating on a small scale (~300ac or so), making a profit off land they own by keeping their costs down. Definitely not a great way to earn an income, and it probably doesn't cover their bills, but people do it.
Otherwise, the old equipment is typically used for odd jobs around the farm, like the use case of hauling produce you mentioned.
I'd agree that you see it less often with combines; they're a much more complicated machine.
Otherwise, the old equipment is typically used for odd jobs around the farm, like the use case of hauling produce you mentioned.
I'd agree that you see it less often with combines; they're a much more complicated machine.
> When old equipment pops up on small farms, it's usually someone operating on a small scale (~300ac or so), making a profit off land they own by keeping their costs down. Definitely not a great way to earn an income, and it probably doesn't cover their bills, but people do it.
I would say a lot of farmers who own their land are able to keep costs down & make a decent profit with older equipment. It's cheaper & can be easier/cheaper for them to fix instead of taking it somewhere.
I also recall stories about the amount of fertilizer one puts down being similar. Some people crowd their crops & spend a lot on additional fertilizer to try to boost their yields. Some try to keep costs down & accept a smaller yield. A large amount of variables seem to determine who comes out ahead.
I would say a lot of farmers who own their land are able to keep costs down & make a decent profit with older equipment. It's cheaper & can be easier/cheaper for them to fix instead of taking it somewhere.
I also recall stories about the amount of fertilizer one puts down being similar. Some people crowd their crops & spend a lot on additional fertilizer to try to boost their yields. Some try to keep costs down & accept a smaller yield. A large amount of variables seem to determine who comes out ahead.
Lots of claims here, can you provide evidence?
Diesel engines have been around for 130 years. Any improvements that could be made were made decades ago.
I don't think you need a tractor for fruit farming.
I don't think you need a tractor for fruit farming.
This is actually entirely untrue. Combustion engines have had something of a renaissance the last 15 years as new manufacturing and simulation technologies have enabled much more precise machining and smarter designs. This has allowed old designs to get much more efficient, and new designs once infeasible to become commonplace.
The power output of an engine that achieves 30mpg today is easily double that of just 15 years ago.
Turbos are a good example. Before, they were very expensive to add to a car, and altered the driving experience such that they weren't very practical for the average driver. Now, essentially every new combustion engine has them because you can lower displacement and actively manage power output to a greater degree, pushing up efficiency.
Some cool things are on the horizon as well, like camless engines and opposed piston diesel engines.
The power output of an engine that achieves 30mpg today is easily double that of just 15 years ago.
Turbos are a good example. Before, they were very expensive to add to a car, and altered the driving experience such that they weren't very practical for the average driver. Now, essentially every new combustion engine has them because you can lower displacement and actively manage power output to a greater degree, pushing up efficiency.
Some cool things are on the horizon as well, like camless engines and opposed piston diesel engines.
The only major "improvement" has been the ability to cheat the tests and pass the regulations, because those who made them didn't realize you cannot dramatically improve such an old technology.
>The power output of an engine that achieves 30mpg today is easily double that of just 15 years ago.
That's a complete lie.
>The power output of an engine that achieves 30mpg today is easily double that of just 15 years ago.
That's a complete lie.
>That's a complete lie.
And you're completely wrong. And this can be trivially easily confirmed by looking up the power outputs of vehicles that get any given fuel economy today vs the power outputs of vehicles of like fuel economy from decades past.
With respect to small diesels specifically, ever since diesels went from naturally aspirated indirect injection to direct injection and turbos power output has skyrocketed while fuel economy has mostly flat-lined.
Fuel economy is mostly dependent on the displacement of the engine and the load to do work (like cruise the highway or plow a field at part throttle) so it doesn't vary much unless the efficiency of converting fuel to force improves (hard) or the demands of the task decrease (hard for cars, even harder for industrial applications).
And you're completely wrong. And this can be trivially easily confirmed by looking up the power outputs of vehicles that get any given fuel economy today vs the power outputs of vehicles of like fuel economy from decades past.
With respect to small diesels specifically, ever since diesels went from naturally aspirated indirect injection to direct injection and turbos power output has skyrocketed while fuel economy has mostly flat-lined.
Fuel economy is mostly dependent on the displacement of the engine and the load to do work (like cruise the highway or plow a field at part throttle) so it doesn't vary much unless the efficiency of converting fuel to force improves (hard) or the demands of the task decrease (hard for cars, even harder for industrial applications).
I actually looked it up.
A late 19th century engine had a 26% efficiency.
1960's engines had ~34% efficiency and in the 2010's it was ~43%.
So the same fuel consumption would give you 26HP in 1900, 34HP in 1960, and 43HP today.
Source?
Edit: Also, you're confusing theoretical and practical efficiency. For instance, a V8 engine can be 30% efficient in absolute terms, but if you can use an I4 for the same application because you now have a Turbo, your real world efficiency is way higher. This is exactly what we see happening in performance cars an large trucks: big displacement being replaced with turbos and hybrid systems.
Edit: Also, you're confusing theoretical and practical efficiency. For instance, a V8 engine can be 30% efficient in absolute terms, but if you can use an I4 for the same application because you now have a Turbo, your real world efficiency is way higher. This is exactly what we see happening in performance cars an large trucks: big displacement being replaced with turbos and hybrid systems.
Wärtsilä 31, which claims to be the most efficient engine ever built, claims 167.7g/kWh.
Diesel's engine used 317g/kWh.
So the amount of fuel used has not even halved in more than a century.
Diesel's engine used 317g/kWh.
So the amount of fuel used has not even halved in more than a century.
Fuel efficiency and horsepower are very different measures.
> Now, essentially every new combustion engine has them because you can lower displacement and actively manage power output to a greater degree, pushing up efficiency.
In Europe, yes, due to extremely stringent fuel consumption regulations — essentially, the engine needs to have very small displacement, so you need to add turbo to get at least some power out of it. A typical new car in Europe has turbocharged 1.2L engine or something in this neighborhood. In the US, however, naturally aspirated 2.0L engines are still king.
In Europe, yes, due to extremely stringent fuel consumption regulations — essentially, the engine needs to have very small displacement, so you need to add turbo to get at least some power out of it. A typical new car in Europe has turbocharged 1.2L engine or something in this neighborhood. In the US, however, naturally aspirated 2.0L engines are still king.
"Turbos are a good example. Before, they were very expensive to add to a car, and altered the driving experience such that they weren't very practical for the average driver. Now, essentially every new combustion engine has them because you can lower displacement and actively manage power output to a greater degree, pushing up efficiency."
This is true. In fact, some manufacturers (Volvo ?) have new models that are both super and turbo charged.
But this isn't cost-free - these are tremendously complicated engines running at very close tolerances. These will have higher failure rates and will be more expensive to maintain and fix.
Remember, kids: There's no replacement for displacement.
This is true. In fact, some manufacturers (Volvo ?) have new models that are both super and turbo charged.
But this isn't cost-free - these are tremendously complicated engines running at very close tolerances. These will have higher failure rates and will be more expensive to maintain and fix.
Remember, kids: There's no replacement for displacement.
That's great if you have a diesel engine. Prior to the 80s and depending on application tons of stuff came equipped with gas engines. Those machines are fuel hogs compared to diesel stuff. If you have a diesel from prior to the era when everything grew turbochargers there's another fuel economy cliff but it's not as drastic.
Engines aren't really a problem as long as you don't let Washington bureaucrats tell you what to put on them (emissions components are a long term consumable on modern diesel engines).
There's all sorts of incremental improvements to things that just make the machines easier to operate and faster at what they do. More and more equipment (or functions on said equipment) has been going hydraulic over time and machines have been adding more and more auxiliary circuits to support that. If you're moving a lot of stuff not on pallets a pair of forks that has hydraulic width adjustment is a huge upgrade over manual. Joystick style controls are a lot smoother and faster to operate than lever style controls. New mostly glass cabs have amazing visibility compared to the mostly sheet metal cabs of old. Having a cab at all greatly improves your ability to work in the elements. A 10yr difference in equipment isn't much but for a given HP you'll start seeing a big difference in productivity at 20-30yr as all the little stuff adds up.
Engines aren't really a problem as long as you don't let Washington bureaucrats tell you what to put on them (emissions components are a long term consumable on modern diesel engines).
There's all sorts of incremental improvements to things that just make the machines easier to operate and faster at what they do. More and more equipment (or functions on said equipment) has been going hydraulic over time and machines have been adding more and more auxiliary circuits to support that. If you're moving a lot of stuff not on pallets a pair of forks that has hydraulic width adjustment is a huge upgrade over manual. Joystick style controls are a lot smoother and faster to operate than lever style controls. New mostly glass cabs have amazing visibility compared to the mostly sheet metal cabs of old. Having a cab at all greatly improves your ability to work in the elements. A 10yr difference in equipment isn't much but for a given HP you'll start seeing a big difference in productivity at 20-30yr as all the little stuff adds up.
There have been large improvements to emissions in the past 10 years. And efficiency has been improved a bit too (though often emissions and efficiency conflict so this tends to be a wash)
vast majority of the global south is using animal labor and older machinery still for small scale farming that feeds huge numbers of people.
That’s not true on the car warranty side at all. Some luxury manufacturers and most recently Tesla make this claim, but any part that meets the spec is fine and doesn’t violate any warranty.
> Using parts of services that aren't "genuine" can void your warranty.
Not in the United States it can't. Nor can making repairs or modifications, unless the manufacturer can provide proof that your actions were what caused the issue you're asking to be corrected under warranty.
Not in the United States it can't. Nor can making repairs or modifications, unless the manufacturer can provide proof that your actions were what caused the issue you're asking to be corrected under warranty.
Kubota is getting popular here in Oregon. The dealerships will sell you parts for repair.
same for mcdonald ice-cream machine
https://youtu.be/SrDEtSlqJC4
https://youtu.be/SrDEtSlqJC4
Not sure how you are concluding machines to day are more simple than they were 40 years ago. If anything, they are 100x more complex with electronics, way more hydraulics, plastics, iron, engine mods to achieve power and efficiency.
The 'old' tractors are basically a motor strapped to a chasis (e.g. JD 4020). Although my gut reaction is to side with the farmers, its not so black and white. Nobody is making them buy these 'locked down' tractors, they are choosing to. Money could speak louder than words
The 'old' tractors are basically a motor strapped to a chasis (e.g. JD 4020). Although my gut reaction is to side with the farmers, its not so black and white. Nobody is making them buy these 'locked down' tractors, they are choosing to. Money could speak louder than words
> With proper servicing such equipment lasts a really long time.
> Nowadays such equipment attracts a premium simply because it is so simple and can be serviced by the owner for many simple things.
The comment is about how old, well-maintained equipment is simple and attracts a premium.
The manufacturers are coupling "locked down" tractors with... you know, tractors. If there are competitively produced tractors without the restrictions on owner maintenance, they will sell better, but if that market doesn't exist, the farmers cannot simply vote with their wallets. The complexity of the modern tractors does make it a difficult market for new entrants, so the existing ones own the market, and choose some of the restrictions.
It's not a simple problem - modern systems are complex, and so it's not trivial to ensure it's repairable without sophisticated tools and knowledge, but it's still a problem worth examining.
> Nowadays such equipment attracts a premium simply because it is so simple and can be serviced by the owner for many simple things.
The comment is about how old, well-maintained equipment is simple and attracts a premium.
The manufacturers are coupling "locked down" tractors with... you know, tractors. If there are competitively produced tractors without the restrictions on owner maintenance, they will sell better, but if that market doesn't exist, the farmers cannot simply vote with their wallets. The complexity of the modern tractors does make it a difficult market for new entrants, so the existing ones own the market, and choose some of the restrictions.
It's not a simple problem - modern systems are complex, and so it's not trivial to ensure it's repairable without sophisticated tools and knowledge, but it's still a problem worth examining.
This keeps coming up and makes me wonder: this sounds exactly like a golden opportunity for another manufacturer to offer a different business model. What prevents a new company from selling combine harvesters at a premium price that use widely available parts and sensors? Or what prevents a cottage industry of replacement motors, ECUs, etc. from taking over where John Deere et al are acting in this way? It seems to me that the only reason I would want to buy one of the big name machines is so that if it breaks down I can quickly get it repaired and not lose much due to the stoppage but that’s clearly not the case here so why bother with them and why don’t better options exist?
Barriers to entry are pretty high. Developing, manufacturing and selling complex machinery is a very capital intensive high-risk business.
You can't simply copy the existing stuff, because patents. (And software copyright, yeey!)
Even if such a new company enters the market there's no guarantee that parts will be available later. So those new premium priced combines will have their own added risk premium.
And. There's again no guarantee that this new company won't ever "turn to the dark side". So probably farmers' resources are better spent on directly lobbying for "right to repair" policy.
You can't simply copy the existing stuff, because patents. (And software copyright, yeey!)
Even if such a new company enters the market there's no guarantee that parts will be available later. So those new premium priced combines will have their own added risk premium.
And. There's again no guarantee that this new company won't ever "turn to the dark side". So probably farmers' resources are better spent on directly lobbying for "right to repair" policy.
Honda and Kawasaki both have plenty of capital and experience building new machinery. A new startup focusing on one specific type of machinery built as much as possible out of commonly available parts from e.g. Honda could also do quite well, I think. Longevity is of course a problem but you can solve that with serious funding and strategic partnerships.
I only have a similar observation that generalizes this. How come these old established giga corporations don't diversify/branch into these seemingly profitable niches?
Counterfactually we can say that those who did overextend too much died out. Those who are not focused can rarely do well enough to truly cash in on a market. (Is Samsung a good example of this or a good counter-example? Or simply a strange outlier?)
Counterfactually we can say that those who did overextend too much died out. Those who are not focused can rarely do well enough to truly cash in on a market. (Is Samsung a good example of this or a good counter-example? Or simply a strange outlier?)
Are more laws better than free market?
How did one company get so big and change all the rules in farming?
It’s hard to believe John Deere is the only company to buy from, so that leads me to lean towards maybe it’s the best company to buy from? If that’s the case shouldn’t they accept the product as it instead of trying to get legislators to change the rules?
It’s hard to believe John Deere is the only company to buy from, so that leads me to lean towards maybe it’s the best company to buy from? If that’s the case shouldn’t they accept the product as it instead of trying to get legislators to change the rules?
What do you mean by free? Completely free as in Mad Max? Because unless you mean that free, then obviously there are some rules.
Now, I don't think measuring the effectiveness of those rules, to maintain the efficiency of the market, should have much to do with cardinality, but you're right that just adding more rules to handle edge cases simply leads to a more complex and likely more fragile ecosystem.
> How did one company get so big and change all the rules in farming?
How did all the usual automakers got away with the same copyright/DMCA hard-to-repair shit? Market forces. Race to the bottom.
> It’s hard to believe John Deere is the only company to buy from
Likely there are others, who likely pull the same shit.
> If that’s the case shouldn’t they accept the product as it instead of trying to get legislators to change the rules?
Of course this is a possibility. Or they can start their own company. Or they can ask other established machine manufacturers to venture into farming machinery hoping that that will help. And so on.
But basically what's happening is this group of farmers discovered politics, and they are now trying to persuade society/legislators/regulators/power-brokers to fine tune that "freedom" to include repairability.
Basically it's an economic argument against rent (in the economic sense). Because these buyers argue that they are basically in a quasi-monopolistic market, and thus the profits extracted from them (via these stunts) are a lot higher than they should be.
Of course we can say that who cares, just raise the price of produce, grains, etc... raise the already enormous amount of agriculture subsidies, let John Deere pocket this extra. After all, it's on the stock market, apparently there's no big private stockholders, majority ownership is by a bunch of funds. (There's a ~10% private equity too, it seems.)
Now, I don't think measuring the effectiveness of those rules, to maintain the efficiency of the market, should have much to do with cardinality, but you're right that just adding more rules to handle edge cases simply leads to a more complex and likely more fragile ecosystem.
> How did one company get so big and change all the rules in farming?
How did all the usual automakers got away with the same copyright/DMCA hard-to-repair shit? Market forces. Race to the bottom.
> It’s hard to believe John Deere is the only company to buy from
Likely there are others, who likely pull the same shit.
> If that’s the case shouldn’t they accept the product as it instead of trying to get legislators to change the rules?
Of course this is a possibility. Or they can start their own company. Or they can ask other established machine manufacturers to venture into farming machinery hoping that that will help. And so on.
But basically what's happening is this group of farmers discovered politics, and they are now trying to persuade society/legislators/regulators/power-brokers to fine tune that "freedom" to include repairability.
Basically it's an economic argument against rent (in the economic sense). Because these buyers argue that they are basically in a quasi-monopolistic market, and thus the profits extracted from them (via these stunts) are a lot higher than they should be.
Of course we can say that who cares, just raise the price of produce, grains, etc... raise the already enormous amount of agriculture subsidies, let John Deere pocket this extra. After all, it's on the stock market, apparently there's no big private stockholders, majority ownership is by a bunch of funds. (There's a ~10% private equity too, it seems.)
Deere makes a ton of money selling parts like those sensors, so that won't work. ECUs need a dealer mostly because they are machines are easy to part out, so by coding the ECU to the tractor it insures there is no black market for used parts and thus no tractor theft to get those parts. (The other reason is some ECUs are reused by many different things so you need the correct code loaded onto it)
Near as I can figure out, right to repair is really code for I want to bypass the emissions controls on my equipment.
Deere employee, but not speaking for my employer. My opinions are my own.
Near as I can figure out, right to repair is really code for I want to bypass the emissions controls on my equipment.
Deere employee, but not speaking for my employer. My opinions are my own.
But capitalism. If Deere makes more money selling parts that means parts wear out too quick or are overpriced. As Bezos said, your margin is my opportunity.
What exactly do I get, as a consumer, from not being able to swap an ECU for a different one myself? What is the benefit for which I would be paying the premium?
I have never seen right to repair be framed as trying to bypass emissions. Especially considering the content of TFA and the fact that it also applies to consumer electronics and such. What makes you say that it is?
What exactly do I get, as a consumer, from not being able to swap an ECU for a different one myself? What is the benefit for which I would be paying the premium?
I have never seen right to repair be framed as trying to bypass emissions. Especially considering the content of TFA and the fact that it also applies to consumer electronics and such. What makes you say that it is?
> I have never seen right to repair be framed as trying to bypass emissions.
Of course not. Nobody with any intelligence will admit that is their real intent. That would be political suicide.
Of course not. Nobody with any intelligence will admit that is their real intent. That would be political suicide.
Well nobody admits that the government is controlled by space lizards either. Does that mean that’s the case? Or could it be just that it’s not true?
> And it doesn't address issues such as product designs that complicate repairs,
> We see that in design choices like Apple's soldering of RAM to motherboards,
I support lots of ideas behind Right to Repair, but I also think that Apple and other manufacturers sometimes make a serviceability/performance design tradeoff when opting out of socketed memory or CPU. I realize that it can create more waste but I think it shouldn't be constrained.
Software lockouts like the ones described in the article are bad. I like the idea of John Deere and Apple being forced to provide service manuals or critical service/repair software. But I also don't want this to become San Bernardino shooter 2.0. The service tools shouldn't be able to subvert things like Trustzone/Secure Enclave.
> We see that in design choices like Apple's soldering of RAM to motherboards,
I support lots of ideas behind Right to Repair, but I also think that Apple and other manufacturers sometimes make a serviceability/performance design tradeoff when opting out of socketed memory or CPU. I realize that it can create more waste but I think it shouldn't be constrained.
Software lockouts like the ones described in the article are bad. I like the idea of John Deere and Apple being forced to provide service manuals or critical service/repair software. But I also don't want this to become San Bernardino shooter 2.0. The service tools shouldn't be able to subvert things like Trustzone/Secure Enclave.
As long as you people keep shoveling money to companies like John Deere and Apple this will keep happening. You have a choice.
One point about smartphones that doesn’t necessarily apply to combine harvesters is that gluing everything together enables more compact, durable designs. There are plenty of arguments against this but there is a big one for it: consumers like compact, durable products.
I actually read the FTC report and it doesn’t actually offer a good argument on this point, concluding only that “further research is required” to see if consumers would be willing to make trade offs for better repairability.[1]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fi...
I actually read the FTC report and it doesn’t actually offer a good argument on this point, concluding only that “further research is required” to see if consumers would be willing to make trade offs for better repairability.[1]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fi...
> gluing everything together enables more compact, durable designs
Maybe a tiiiiiiiny bit more compact, but definitely not more durable. Frame.work can apparently produce easily serviceable, rather thin designs of laptops that are even modular (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rkTgPt3M4k). This is way thinner than my 2008 era HP and thinner than my 2021 era Lenovo.
As far as phones go, the PCBs are a tiny part of the phone (The cpu, ram, storage combined are less than 1/2 of the phone surface area and probably less than 1/4 of the volume) so gluing them together doesn't even get you much. You might get a _small_ bit by soldering in the battery in the sense that you then don't need a "box" for the removable battery, but that is a small amount of space compared to the battery itself.
Maybe a tiiiiiiiny bit more compact, but definitely not more durable. Frame.work can apparently produce easily serviceable, rather thin designs of laptops that are even modular (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rkTgPt3M4k). This is way thinner than my 2008 era HP and thinner than my 2021 era Lenovo.
As far as phones go, the PCBs are a tiny part of the phone (The cpu, ram, storage combined are less than 1/2 of the phone surface area and probably less than 1/4 of the volume) so gluing them together doesn't even get you much. You might get a _small_ bit by soldering in the battery in the sense that you then don't need a "box" for the removable battery, but that is a small amount of space compared to the battery itself.
Is the only purpose of the glue to make it harder to disassemble? If nothing else changed but glue wasn’t added would the product still function and look the same?
It makes waterproofing a bit easier I think
I don't think customers like small compact designs.
They generally keep their phones in large cases to get the size back up
They generally keep their phones in large cases to get the size back up
So I didn't drive my tractor through your haystack last night?
"It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have."
As someone who follows Tesla closely, it is destroying my trust in the media. This line would lead you believe that Tesla does this on a regular basis. I know that's not the case. If you click the link it's referring to an isolated incident that involves a single largely anonymous person (alec). So it makes me question the whole article.
This story is also anecdotal... does anyone know if this really even a problem? If it were, it sounds like an opportunity for a competitor to make a simple to repair harvester.
As someone who follows Tesla closely, it is destroying my trust in the media. This line would lead you believe that Tesla does this on a regular basis. I know that's not the case. If you click the link it's referring to an isolated incident that involves a single largely anonymous person (alec). So it makes me question the whole article.
This story is also anecdotal... does anyone know if this really even a problem? If it were, it sounds like an opportunity for a competitor to make a simple to repair harvester.
> If you click the link it's referring to an isolated incident that
It doesn’t matter to me that Tesla has only done it once (that we know of), the thing that is disturbing is the capability of Tesla to do this.
The fact that vehicle functionality can be locked behind a Boolean column in the Tesla database is itself the thing that is problematic and disturbing.
And the article in this instance seems accurate, in that they were referring to the capability for Tesla to do this (by pointing at an extant example), rather than claiming that Tesla had a widespread issue of abusing this functionality.
It doesn’t matter to me that Tesla has only done it once (that we know of), the thing that is disturbing is the capability of Tesla to do this.
The fact that vehicle functionality can be locked behind a Boolean column in the Tesla database is itself the thing that is problematic and disturbing.
And the article in this instance seems accurate, in that they were referring to the capability for Tesla to do this (by pointing at an extant example), rather than claiming that Tesla had a widespread issue of abusing this functionality.
I bought a Tesla recently and the biggest selling point to me is that (in theory, it’s yet to be proven for me) you can enable features after purchase. It bothers me that for example BMW literally won’t let you upgrade the head unit to get car play neither by software nor by physically sealing it (new head units need to be activated by BMW HQ and they won’t do it if your HU doesn’t match your VIN). You can look at it from the negative point of view but there is an upside to it that I think is worth mentioning.
CarPlay is “literally” available to purchase as a BMW ConnectedDrive Service.
https://www.bmw.co.uk/en/shop/en/shop/ls/dp/Base_CarPlay_gb
It also seems that (after an extremely cursory Google) you can indeed retrofit a BMW Head Unit to enable CarPlay in older unsupported models.
https://www.bimmer-tech.net/blog/item/49-how-to-retrofit-car...
Are you sure it was a BMW you were driving?
https://www.bmw.co.uk/en/shop/en/shop/ls/dp/Base_CarPlay_gb
It also seems that (after an extremely cursory Google) you can indeed retrofit a BMW Head Unit to enable CarPlay in older unsupported models.
https://www.bimmer-tech.net/blog/item/49-how-to-retrofit-car...
Are you sure it was a BMW you were driving?
Yes :) I still drive it, it's a 2017 i3. In fact, I did retrofit the 3rd party module (I got the roadtop one)
I don't think the fact that BMW _now_ offers it for _some_ cars (and most importantly, not for my car) disproves my point that automotive companies should be more willing to retrofit parts for you OR offer them via paid software upgrades instead of encouraging you to purchase a whole new vehicle
I don't think the fact that BMW _now_ offers it for _some_ cars (and most importantly, not for my car) disproves my point that automotive companies should be more willing to retrofit parts for you OR offer them via paid software upgrades instead of encouraging you to purchase a whole new vehicle
I agree that it's not all downsides, and that there are benefits.
To me, it seems the downsides generally outweigh the benefits, but I totally agree that its something people need to individually weigh up the pros and cons.
To me, it seems the downsides generally outweigh the benefits, but I totally agree that its something people need to individually weigh up the pros and cons.
I get your point... you're concerned "the capability" but my point is... why mislead? what else are they misleading about.
> It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have
the misleading part is the phrase "doesn't think certain users should have" it sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact they are referring to a single accident.
> It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have
the misleading part is the phrase "doesn't think certain users should have" it sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact they are referring to a single accident.
> sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact…
I’m not sure I understand the “but in fact”, qualifier because the example that you point to exactly demonstrates that Tesla has the capability to make these changes at their discretion.
It sounds like it’s that way because it is!
Tesla has the capability to turn off features at their discretion, by altering a row in the database.
So…yes, if Tesla doesn’t think a user should have a capability that’s managed remotely, they update a database row (that they have exclusive control over), and that vehicle no longer has that capability.
The statement still reads as totally accurate to me.
The typical use is not malicious (oh, this free trial is now over, so disable that capability), but that’s still a demonstration of Tesla remotely disabling a feature that they don’t think a certain user should have.
My objection is to the capability, rather than a pattern of malicious use. I think the article was correct to point out the capability, and did so by relying on a well known example.
To me, I didn’t read it as an implication that this inaccurate remote disabling was a widespread problem for Tesla but I understand if you read it differently.
I’m not sure I understand the “but in fact”, qualifier because the example that you point to exactly demonstrates that Tesla has the capability to make these changes at their discretion.
It sounds like it’s that way because it is!
Tesla has the capability to turn off features at their discretion, by altering a row in the database.
So…yes, if Tesla doesn’t think a user should have a capability that’s managed remotely, they update a database row (that they have exclusive control over), and that vehicle no longer has that capability.
The statement still reads as totally accurate to me.
The typical use is not malicious (oh, this free trial is now over, so disable that capability), but that’s still a demonstration of Tesla remotely disabling a feature that they don’t think a certain user should have.
My objection is to the capability, rather than a pattern of malicious use. I think the article was correct to point out the capability, and did so by relying on a well known example.
To me, I didn’t read it as an implication that this inaccurate remote disabling was a widespread problem for Tesla but I understand if you read it differently.
[deleted]
it's not inaccurate, it's misleading.
It could have read...
"It's what enabled Tesla to once accidentally turn off a feature for a user."
This would still make your point... that they have the capability, but wouldn't be misleading.
It could have read...
"It's what enabled Tesla to once accidentally turn off a feature for a user."
This would still make your point... that they have the capability, but wouldn't be misleading.
I have messaged the woman in the article and asked about the incident. because my main point is... these articles are misleading and I don't trust them. curious to see what she says... if anything.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/
There are other incidents. Someone pulled info about the Model 3 out of their Model S firmware.
Tesla responded by downgrading his firmware remotely, locking his vehicle from future upgrades, and disabling the car's ethernet port.
Tesla responded by downgrading his firmware remotely, locking his vehicle from future upgrades, and disabling the car's ethernet port.
People have bought cars with software already bought and paid for and Tesla has taken it away. So yes, Tesla does do this. Tesla blacklists people from super charging as well.
I thought the blacklist for supercharging is on salvaged titles? You can still charge at home but not on the supercharging network.
> This line would lead you believe that Tesla does this on a regular basis.
No it wouldn't. You're over-reading it. And yes this capability is a real problem.
No it wouldn't. You're over-reading it. And yes this capability is a real problem.
I think this is the key part of the article: "Every time a state introduces a bill, Apple hires the most expensive lobbyists in the state to try to stop it, and they were successful...".
Corporate lobbying groups funded by large corporations exert massive control and influence over the US government at the state and federal level. They often write large sections of the bills that are ultimately passed and they fund the campaigns of the politicians they are attempting to influence and often provide them with jobs once their political careers are over. Regulatory capture is very much alive and well. As long as lobbyists have so much influence politicians will continue to use groups like family farmers and individual soldiers as political / advertising illusions while pumping money into the groups belonging to the men behind the curtain, massive corporate farms and defense contractors. This plays out over most large industries, tech included.
Corporate lobbying groups funded by large corporations exert massive control and influence over the US government at the state and federal level. They often write large sections of the bills that are ultimately passed and they fund the campaigns of the politicians they are attempting to influence and often provide them with jobs once their political careers are over. Regulatory capture is very much alive and well. As long as lobbyists have so much influence politicians will continue to use groups like family farmers and individual soldiers as political / advertising illusions while pumping money into the groups belonging to the men behind the curtain, massive corporate farms and defense contractors. This plays out over most large industries, tech included.
As I've thought about this, the conservative in me has reared its head and asked, "Why is this a federal issue?"
And the more I think about it, the less of an answer I have. This primarily affects farming states, which are in a really good position to pass laws that force manufacturers to either comply or leave the state. California has had good success doing this with other things (e.g. emissions standards), and farming is a niche enough category that JD can't afford to just ignore an entire state of farmland.
I don't live in such a state. I know some of the story, but it's not my problem and it's a bit presumptuous for me to step in and assume that I understand it well enough to solve it. Federal legislation usually does a bad job of solving the original problem anyways, after all of the sides are done negotiating over it. Far better for the farmers of Nebraska to directly appeal to their state legislators and get a bill that truly addresses the issue.
And the more I think about it, the less of an answer I have. This primarily affects farming states, which are in a really good position to pass laws that force manufacturers to either comply or leave the state. California has had good success doing this with other things (e.g. emissions standards), and farming is a niche enough category that JD can't afford to just ignore an entire state of farmland.
I don't live in such a state. I know some of the story, but it's not my problem and it's a bit presumptuous for me to step in and assume that I understand it well enough to solve it. Federal legislation usually does a bad job of solving the original problem anyways, after all of the sides are done negotiating over it. Far better for the farmers of Nebraska to directly appeal to their state legislators and get a bill that truly addresses the issue.
flipside to this idea is that corporate interests have an easier time capturing state and local governments then the federal government. JD culturally OWNS those states you are talking about.
People are slapping down $200 a month for tesla features, how long until tractors have a $2000/month fee.
I've got a brand-new combine harvester, and I'll give you the key! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZY6jC5Dh6c