111–120 of 511 posts
New tractors require service contracts / subscription type deals for new tractors. They require authorized service only.
Right to repair had some traction in Minnesota, but MN GOP opposed it... and guess who the farmers vote for?
There is probably a sizable market for building out software and technology for 'upgrading' older farm equipment to modern principals, such as self driving, variable rate fertilization, variable rate planting, etc. When I was more involved in ag research I met several farmers who DIY built themselves variable rate fertilization drills. While its not ubiquitous, the farming community has a very long culture of DIY out…
Everything that you mention except the self-steering is a function of the attached implement, not the tractor. That makes incremental upgrades of that sort much easier.
Lets just take the example of variable rate fertilization, because its the one I'm most familiar with. In the case of winter wheat (hard red and white), there are 3 primary components determining both yield (kg/m^2) and protein (g/kg). They are the available water, the available nitrogen and the 'site index' which is generally related to soil depth, but slope and aspect also play into this.
So, if what you want to do is land on a very specific amount of protein, say 7.5% across all of your fields in a dryland cropping situation. You need to know how much much water is available at all points in your field; how much nitrogen is available at all points in your field; and what scalar to carry around for a given XY position in your field. Maybe think of the scalar as an 'X-factor' to multiply the result of Water*Nitrogen by to adjust for local conditions.
Wheat, grown in high water low nitrogen gets very tall and has low protein and higher yield (to an extent). Wheat grown in high nitrogen stays short, but has higher protein and lower yield (to an extent). So it becomes a trade off between protein % and yield, and the theoretical maximum is described by the site index.
Wrapping it all together. First, find a cooperative old kook of a farmer. Second, convince him to let you drill a hole in his up auger to mount a hyper spectral sensor. Third, duct tape/ bungee mount a LiDAR puck to the front of the combine. 4th, solder some leads into the on harvest yield monitor. 5th, mount a high quality GPS unit to the top of the harvester if you don't have one already (or can't access the NMEA stream). Add car batteries, some old notebook computers to get the data, and a few days to harvest. Boom. Now your combine is a fully integrated data collection platform. You now have a measurement of grain height at all locations in your field. You also have a measurement of protein content at all locations in your field (with a little PCA wizardry and some protein sampling). Combine the two and you now have a 'site-index' that is nitrogen/ available water independent that you can use in your variable rate drill to adjust the fertilization rate to match the site index (since you can control the fertilization rate and not the available water). This will give you fairly precise control and allow you to more or less homogenize the overall protein content of the field. Alternatively, you could also optimize for yield (allowing protein to fluctuate).
The technology itself is not the issue, the problem is that companies are at war with their customers. These companies will go to any length to extract as much revenue as possible. Milking your customers is not good for business, especially if you drive them into insolvency. I hope in the future there are more companies that try to align incentives with their customers, such that their business practices help custome…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If customers don’t want this stuff, why isn’t there a competing company offering non-DRM tractors?
If you don't know the answer to that - you may have wanted to think it through a little more. Manufacturing at scale is hard and expensive. John Deere has been doing it for years, creating the most reliable tractors in the world for decades and has only recently decided to bend customers over to give them the ol' in-out-in-out. A new brand would need to start from almost smaller than scratch, and have tens of million…
A new brand would need to start from smaller than scratch? So what? People start new companies every day.
It would require tens of millions of dollars of investment? So what? We keep being told how capital markets are just sloshing with cash looking for investment opportunities; that one of the reasons for rising inequality is due to the dearth of investment opportunities for the rich to use to seek returns.
They'd have trouble finding customers willing to give them a shot? So what? Every startup has this problem. You solve it by differentiating yourself from your incumbent competitor. When your competitor is so hated that they're getting negative press in national news outlets and state legislatures are being pressured to pass laws, your differentiation proposition is practically written for you.
I'm sure there are tractor upstarts out there trying to get funding. The question is, if they're not getting funding then why not, and why doesn't anybody know about them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly all the greatest societal reforms have been brought about by individual purchasing decisions.
Followed closely by the second most influential action, encouraging other people to vote the same way you do in website comments on articles that don't pertain to elections. Good luck, Mssr. Quixote.
Right to repair laws need to be put in place. American corporations are trying to reach a point where you don't own products. You are merely long-term renting or leasing products from them. And any alterations or repairs will come with a heavy price. It's already hard enough to repair your own vehicle without taking it to a dealership. How long until small car shops can't even fix any cars if they don't have the tool…
There's a lot of strange ideological nose cutting off in rural america.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why was this downvoted? I just made the same comment before noticing this one already done. Competition is what solves these kind of things.
Sure, but how do you propose to introduce competition into this market?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All good ideas, but repairing surface mount / integrated / dust and vibration glued parts is not as easy EVEN IF they were open standards as a 40 year old tractor is to repair. I spent way to long repairing an old gas engine, it was super simple in terms of operating approach. Opening the hood on my new car - the fixes are not as obvious.
I couldn’t even swap out a headlight in my girlfriend’s car, because of the tight space. Instead she has to pay a garage to do it. That’s not it used to be.
Looked it up online, shops put this model on the lift and access it from below. Ended up laying on a piece of cardboard in a light rain because it was only accessible from below the bumper. If my forearms were any shorter (I'm pretty tall) I would not have been able to do even that.
Meanwhile the headlight on my 10 year old VW went out a couple months ago. There's a twist-on cap, and a twist-in socket. The cap is visible standing up.
I had the replacement bulb in in under a minute. Unfortunately the matching bulb on the other side, the socket was a bit wedged and I spent most of the time getting it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If customers don’t want this stuff, why isn’t there a competing company offering non-DRM tractors?
http://www.belarus-tractor.com/en/