Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

Post by WarmWash » Wed, Apr 22, 2026, 7:08 PM UTC

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #183

malfist wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no fancy technology in it at all It's amazing we can use huge machinery with internal combustion engines and declare it "no fancy technology"

Any technology from before the time of your grandparents, and often parents, is usually perceived to be "not fancy". Because then those elders can't tell you in your childhood what life was like before that technology. So in your lived experience that technology was always there. Reading history later on, doesn't change your emotional experiences.

Post by WarmWash » Wed, Apr 22, 2026, 7:11 PM UTC

MrMetric wrote: post #171

malfist wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no fancy technology in it at all It's amazing we can use huge machinery with internal combustion engines and declare it "no fancy technology"

An internal combustion engine may be complex, but it's not fancy. I can see and touch and understand every part of it. I can maintain and modify and repair it. This is not true for fancy electronics and certainly not locked-down proprietary firmware.

Post by kube-system » Wed, Apr 22, 2026, 7:11 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #174

kube-system wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap ones too -- aliexpress has them. But there's more to agtech than driving a tractor around, a lot of what these big integrated systems do (at the high end) is very data driven -- determining where and how to plant, irrigate, fertilize, etc. There's a lot of integration work beyond just making the tractor drive.

Right, but that has nothing to do with a vendor making a dumb tractor. Why do we need to dismissively move the conversation from TFA. The data driven approach is made up of several parts, and we're looking at a specific part

Post by cout » Wed, Apr 22, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

iamcalledrob wrote: post #122

cout wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare the number of tractors to the number of gas-powered lawnmowers. Which do you think gets better emissions?

I'd imagine it depends what kind of emissions you're measuring? Are we talking air quality or climate change? Two stroke engines are pretty terrible in terms of unburned hydrocarbons and are disgusting for local air quality, which is why I'm glad they're being phased out in many areas. I'd expect these tractors with I6 diesel engines to run pretty efficiently. I'd bet that the CO2 emissions from tractors are tiny in…

Post by joecool1029 » Wed, Apr 22, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

AlotOfReading wrote: post #110

iamcalledrob wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is naive, but I would imagine that farm equipment is a rounding error in terms of global emissions. Compare the number of tractors to the number of trucks... I would have expected policy to be pragmatic here, with (relatively) relaxed emissions requirements, since an affordable and reliable food supply is in the national interest? Sounds like that's not the case

Emissions regimes are complicated, but US tractors fall into the much less restrictive off-road category. As a result, they're a disproportionately significant contributor to things like NOx. A long time ago the off-road category was >20%, and I'm sure that percentage has only grown as regulations have forced emissions reductions in onroad vehicles.