Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

startribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 511 posts

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#481

Post by xnyan »

BoorishBears wrote: post #227
xnyan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already here. The only reason I can do my own work on my N20 engine BMW is because they implemented really bad and vulnerable car DRM that can be trivially defeated, but they have improved on that in latter models.

You can't work on them, or you can't flash them with emissions control defeating tunes?

I have zero desire to do any performance or emissions changes.

For anything (well not anything, but it feels like anything and certainly quite a few parts) with electronics, I can't buy a real OEM BMW made part that is an exact match to the replacement and install per their specs without the dealership authing it. The car will throw an error and tell me to go give BMW more money so I can use it.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#482

Post by xnyan »

BoorishBears wrote: post #337
bsagdiyev wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or install a replacement part without taking it to the BMW dealership and having them code it to the car. Why is it only don't work on cars or pollute like no tomorrow? There is a middle ground and a lot of people are screwed by DRM like this because of it.

>Why is it only don't work on cars or pollute like no tomorrow? Who said it was? The comment mentioned working on the engine specifically, there's not much DRM that can interfere with working on the engine unless you're trying to tune your ECU. It's not like the N20 is going to check your pistons and connecting rods for authenticity before starting after all. There are not even that many parts in BMWs that are VIN-lo…

I'm sorry, but you are not correct. My head unit (which is required to do stuff like check the oil level, no dipstick) is VIN locked. That's stupid. It's nothing more than a money grab because they can.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#483

Post by mrpopo »

halbritt wrote: post #458
mrpopo wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are less carbon emissions doing so. Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. It is more profitable to practice intensive till-heavy farming since it takes advantage of the nutrients already stored in the soil. The disadvantage is its unsustainability. After few decades of soil-tilling, it becomes quite poor in nutrients, and will have reduced…

> Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. Relative to what? What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described? My point about reduced carbon emissions is specific to corporate farms using modern equipment which is more precise, thanks to auto-guidance via GPS, more efficient, as a result of the diesel engines being mo…

> What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described?

Just to clarify, because it is important. My point is that emissions from land transformation due to unsustainable farming practices dwarf any efficiency due to modern diesel engines etc.

cf. the links in my parent post: a well-regenerated soil can contain up to 25 to 60 tons of carbon per acre.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#484

Post by AnthonyMouse »

nine_k wrote: post #345
NicoJuicy wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tractor as a service will only bite them back. Look at how popular 40-year old tractors are :) It's never been a better time to create a good old repairable machine.

I disagree. It's never been harder to compete by producing a long-term, very reliable machine. * You have to make your machine good the first time. The customer buys it completely, no chance to update and fix things. * Your machine is marketed as reliable. This means it has to be reliable, so you put a lot of effort / material / money into your machine, when your competition puts in much less. * If your machine is in…

> I disagree. It's never been harder to compete by producing a long-term, very reliable machine.

All of your points are related to making it reliable, but all it needs is to be repairable. Then look what happens:

> Your machine is marketed as reliable. This means it has to be reliable, so you put a lot of effort / material / money into your machine, when your competition puts in much less.

Or you do the opposite, get it to market quick so you can undercut them on price. Then people buy it for the lower price and don't mind as much when it breaks because the repairs are cheaper. Paying $500 twice is far better than paying $10,000 once.

> If your machine is indeed reliable, your customers won't show up for another in a few decades(!). They also won't need many spare parts.

If it's of average reliability but more repairable then you'll do above average business selling spare parts because your equipment will remain in service longer. Meanwhile your customers will also notice that they're paying much less for repairs than your competitors' customers, and good reviews and word of mouth will drive new sales from other people.

> Since you are a newcomer, there's little implicit trust to you, right when you are selling very expensive hardware much higher than competition.

Which is where the repairability comes in again. If you can only get replacement parts from the manufacturer then the customer has to worry whether the manufacturer will still be in business in ten years, but if you can get parts from any third party parts supplier even after the manufacturer is long gone then the customer doesn't have to worry about that.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#485

Post by halbritt »

6510 wrote: post #467
halbritt wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. Relative to what? What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described? My point about reduced carbon emissions is specific to corporate farms using modern equipment which is more precise, thanks to auto-guidance via GPS, more efficient, as a result of the diesel engines being mo…

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainabil...

This is fascinating, but also somewhat orthogonal to the argument, assuming there was nothing I missed when skimming that paper.

The paper itself describes farming practices that are more sustainable, and possibly more efficient after introducing a new formula to measure efficiency. I'm not sufficiently well-informed to critically assess the formula given, although on the surface it seems fine.

To clarify my original assertion, modern farming equipment with the latest technology as employed by corporate farms increase the efficiency of industrial farming methods vs. farming equipment being used that's 30-40 years old.

There are a few common metrics that I use to base my assertion on, that is gallons of fuel used per cultivated acre, as well as yield per acre. From those, one can derive yield per gallon of fuel and subsequently carbon emissions as a result.

I'm not suggesting that represents a lifecycle analysis of the entire crop, but I think it's still sufficient to evaluate the impact of modern equipment vs. aging equipment.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#486

Post by halbritt »

mrpopo wrote: post #483
halbritt wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. Relative to what? What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described? My point about reduced carbon emissions is specific to corporate farms using modern equipment which is more precise, thanks to auto-guidance via GPS, more efficient, as a result of the diesel engines being mo…

> What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described? Just to clarify, because it is important. My point is that emissions from land transformation due to unsustainable farming practices dwarf any efficiency due to modern diesel engines etc. cf. the links in my parent post: a well-regenerated soil can contain up to 25 to 60 tons of carbon per acre.

I'm not disagreeing that different farming practices may be more sustainable. My argument is that existing farming practices are made more efficient and produce fewer emissions when using modern equipment vs. equipment that is 30-40 years old.

There is plenty of research to support your point, also another poster replied to this parent with an interesting paper. My assertion is supported by direct observation, that is, if we constrain ourselves to current industrial farming practices, there's plenty of data showing improved yields and reduced fuel consumption as more modern equipment is adopted.

I guess my point is that I don't see our relative assertions being in conflict.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#487

Post by burfog »

rayhendricks wrote: post #416
unapologetic wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They all want to get to the point of being Tesla. Hiding features only in software, pushing out updates, and trying to bake in a living (recurring revenue) model. It's a problem for a lot of reasons. First off it's the complete death of ownership. I can't fix things. At some point they will probably just lock stuff back down if I want to sell, assuming I can even sell without them getting a cut. Second, repairability…

We just need to put more effort into hacking the onboard computers. I’m sure we all remember the mod chips that gained popularity over the last couple decades. If the market demands it, which with the advent of computers on tractors platform this can and will be modified to allow for the maximum utility for the end user. I see nothing wrong with this.

I wonder about the cost and practicality of producing kits that fully replace the electronics for various popular tractor models. There would be no need to hack anything; you could use any desired computer architecture.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#488

Post by mikorym »

wraithKingPrime wrote: post #480
magduf wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It IS a far better deal. Farmers should try only buying those, instead of throwing their money at a company that abuses them. The problem is that many farmers absolutely insist on buying only from John Deere, and then they complain about Deere's terrible policies and unrepairability. It reminds me of Apple customers who complain about their MacBooks not having normal USB ports or their iPhones being so locked-down. T…

I am not a farmer, I fix sewing machines- but I see people still buy Singers, based on brand perceptions that are 50 years out of date. Modern Singer sewing machines are cheap garbage, but people remember their grandmothers or great grandmothers using these old, reliable machines, and accordingly, they buy Singer. Same thing is happening with John Deere. It may take a very long time for the anti-consumer actions of t…

Would you recommend Bernina sewing machines? I've been doing some leather work and am considering to make machine stiched items too.

PS: WRT John Deere, our family business bought quite a few of them and when they refused to train our own workshop employees we sold all of them! The whole thing kind of amused me. Unless you are from the Free State, Massey Ferguson is pretty much your best option. And if you need something with more ploughing power, Landini is doing pretty well too. Actually, I think Italy is in a unique position at the moment to (if they actually wanted to) to grow quite a bit economically with some of their brands.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#489

Post by mrpopo »

halbritt wrote: post #486
mrpopo wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described? Just to clarify, because it is important. My point is that emissions from land transformation due to unsustainable farming practices dwarf any efficiency due to modern diesel engines etc. cf. the links in my parent post: a well-regenerated soil can contain up to 25 to 60 tons of carbon per acre.

I'm not disagreeing that different farming practices may be more sustainable. My argument is that existing farming practices are made more efficient and produce fewer emissions when using modern equipment vs. equipment that is 30-40 years old. There is plenty of research to support your point, also another poster replied to this parent with an interesting paper. My assertion is supported by direct observation, that i…

Let me use an analogy. If you are going to cut down a forest, I don't care that you're doing with a modern solar-powered and drone-controlled circular saw or a petrol-powered chainsaw. There is a more important problem that is dwarfing any improvement in the efficiency used by your tools, and that's all those trees getting cut down.

> there's plenty of data showing improved yields and reduced fuel consumption as more modern equipment is adopted.

I absolutely agree with this. My only concern is with relating this to CO2 emissions and the fight against climate change. It is a deceptive argument, since it was not a goal to begin with.

I made a back-of-napkin calculation. I'm not an expert, so please bear with my poor estimates.

  Say a tractor burns ~1kg CO2/km (high estimate) while tilling a 4m-long piece of land.

  1 Acre = 4m * 1km

  The tractor will emit 1kg of CO2 for every pass. 

  If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2).
Even if I made mistakes above, there are 3 or 4 orders of magnitude between the two. Any savings that could be made on the tractor's emissions are minuscule.
Post reply on HN