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

Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

wheelfront.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 814 posts

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#561

Post by jillesvangurp »

hattmall wrote: post #521
jillesvangurp wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cessna 172s are great if you are learning to fly. But most people using these things for actually getting from A to B will be looking for something with a bit more range, speed, etc. That still might be sixty year old plane but one with a bigger engine; or two of them even. And if you want to go really fast you get something with a turbo prop or even jet engines. The newer ones are a bit more efficient with the fuel…

>Buy some old EV batteries wire them up and you can make anything with wheels move. Including really old tractors, pickup trucks, etc. Anything from the largest mining trucks to the smallest lawn mower can already be powered by batteries. And everything in between. With battery cost dropping, there are very few obstacles that prevent adoption left. Mostly import tariffs in the US. It's not even close to that easy tho…

Of course, there is a bit of skill involved and I don't claim to be able to do this. But then, putting together a combustion engine would also require a bit of skill. Lots of parts that need to be fitted together. Hoses, pumps, wires, and a lot of electronics as well with more modern cars.

EVs have less parts. There are some challenges with diagnostics for things like battery management systems. And given the high voltages, it helps if you know what you are doing with electrical systems.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#562

Post by 9rx »

Iolaum wrote: post #551
9rx wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Farmers have always done as much of their own maintenance as possible. Well, sure. Maintenance is an off-season job. Its that or sit on the couch watching TV, so you may as well be in the shop getting equipment ready. Even if it takes you longer than an experienced tech, does it really matter? Not really. The winters are long. Repairs are a different story. When things break, you need it fixed now. Wasting a day tr…

If you maintain your stuff you know enough to fix some things and you know when you can't and need to call a mechanic (or a friend who knows more and can do it).

You can fix things, but can you really justify the time to do when you need an operational machine?

1. No matter how great of a shade tree mechanic you are, you will never be able to fix it faster than someone who does it every day. They have found all the little tricks and quirks about your machine that your casual maintenance will never uncover.

2. While large farms with full-time mechanics on staff have been known to make deals to warehouse parts in their own shop on consignment, much more realistically for any kind of normal farm you are going to have to drive to the dealership to get the parts you need. Whereas the dealership tech can bring the parts to you. Meaning that you have to travel twice as far, taking twice as long, to get the parts back to your equipment than if you call a mechanic.

The things that are likely to fail under use where there has been proper maintenance tend to be the things that are unpredictable and catastrophic, at very least requiring parts, and most likely requiring advanced knowhow. And at that point, the dealership tech is going to be faster at getting you back up and running, even if you could theoretically pull it off yourself. So, realistically, there isn't much of a compelling case for doing your own repairs when time is of the essence.

Farmers are often willing to accept more downtime to do it themselves out of pride, though. I admittedly often fall victim to that myself, so I get it. But it’s clear that the farmers who are serious about farming as a business aren’t dinking around trying to fix things themselves. It is not economically prudent to do so. Granted, not all farmers farm for business sake. For many it’s more of a hobby or lifestyle and wanting to be a part-time mechanic can play into that.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#563

Post by adev_ »

adamcharnock wrote: post #134

Up until a year ago I was regularly using a Massy Fergusson 135 [0] (Perkins Diesel version), made sometime in the 1970s. It was wonderful! So amazing to drive and use. Clunky and heavy, but you really really felt like you were using a machine. In low gears, if you put you foot down on the accelerator the engine would roar, and your speed would barely change! And there was no fancy technology in it at all. If I was i…

> Up until a year ago I was regularly using a Massy Fergusson 135

There is a tradition in several European countries named Affouage: If you live in a rural area, you can get very cheap (or even free) wood at the condition that you go to cut it yourself in the close-by forest.

Many many people who are doing this practice are still using today Massy Fergusson 135, Renault R98/461, Ford 3000-4000 series, SOMECA or similar low tech tractors.

The reason are simple: They are cheap to operate, cheap to repair (damages happen easily forest environment) and their small size is perfect for the task.

The demand for these things will never die. Rugged environment requires cheap and robust hardware.

If this startup can capitalize on that, they do have a market.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#564

Post by carefree-bob »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #47
sarchertech wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s part of the issue. But packing a tractor (or car) with electronics and computers does make it inherently harder to work on—even if it’s not locked down.

You need electronics and computers for cost-effective compliance with emissions requirements. Emissions limits have been one of the most positive government policies in my lifetime, saving millions of QALYs. There's lots of other electronics in most modern vehicles, but the public manufacturer rationales for electronic lockdowns almost always point back to emissions concerns because they're so defensible. How do you…

These are regulations, not laws, and can be changed fairly easily. E.g the EPA recently changed the rules requiring NOx sensors and power downs, which were the most failure prone components of the system, while still mandating the actual equipment that scrubs NOx.

There's no particular reason why a mechanical device needs computers for emissions, as the emissions removing components can still be attached and managed via simpler means. All emissions removing components are effectively physical devices, whether you are talking about carbon filters or PCV valves or particulate filters or the urea fluids that are added to the fuel. None of them requires complex software in order to function. There is no reason why you need to buy an official John Deere branded emissions component that is software locked to tractor and costs 10x the price of third party components that do the same thing.

Also, there is a large room to maneuver between "I want a sensor with some circuitry in it" and "the entire tractor is a proprietary computer with locked down parts". The right to repair movement is not about removing tech, but removing unnecessary proprietary tech that is designed to prevent owners of devices from repairing those devices themselves or with third party components.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#565

Post by carefree-bob »

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.

The vast majority of offroad equipment is not farm equipment but operates in urban environments. As NOx is an air pollution concern, there should be different regimes for rural areas versus urban areas. Construction equipment operating in urban areas is different from a tractor on a farm.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#566

Post by brigandish »

pocksuppet wrote: post #106
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These big companies absolutely allow regulations that "hurt" them. Deere doesn't want to deal with farmers who are pissed off that emissions stuff results in a service call at a bad time and can't be overridden, or obnoxious safety stuff that make products less useful outside of their "textbook" application, or something that forces them to expensively certify their product is XYZ or something. Buuuuut, the cost of i…

Those are load-bearing quotation marks: you're saying the regulation doesn't hurt them, only "hurts" them. If the regulation hurt them, they wouldn't allow it.

You're proposing a binary version of "hurt", they are proposing a spectrum. If a regulation hurts company A but it will survive whereas company B, A's main and essentially only competitor stopping A from a monopoly, will go out of business from that regulation, you know that company A won't fight it.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#567

Post by Tor3 »

beAbU wrote: post #209
Loughla wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did yours have a foot feed for the accelerator? I've never seen one without a hand feed for the rpm's on the steering column.

The fancy ones had an accelerator pedal, but most just had the lever on the steering column.

The one I drove (and a much older MF as well) had both. A lever on the steering column, as well as a foot pedal. I've never seen anyone without one elsewhere either, maybe they were only sold that way in my country.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#569

Post by aucisson_masque »

mikestorrent wrote: post #458
aucisson_masque wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still rocking one over here. The thing had not been maintained for 20 years while still being used, ran several times with almost no oil in the engine, drank gasoil full of water. And it still works. Things were made different back then. I looked up the manual, you got everything you need to repair it. Maintenance is extremely easy. Even have electric schema. Now my BMW, I looked into the manual how to change a light…

> It said to go to the dealer lol. It's amazing we let it slip this far. Even cars from a decade or so ago feel much more repairable. I bought an EV and I haven't even seen the motor yet, because I'm going to have to dismantle a bunch of plastic-clipped stuff to remove the frunk, and I've broken enough brittle tabs for one lifetime. God forbid they'd just use actual metal fasteners for this stuff.

Yeah that also.

It's even worst tho, one day I layed a little bit against the front of the car and it made a reverse bump in the bodywork right on my ass.

Got a 2000 Suzuki that is full metal.

I think the trend of plastic went around 2000 to 2010 because of regulation on crash, plastic absorbs better the kinetic energy so we don't get our head smashed.

But yeah, no excuse to not make it easy to dismantle. It's the equivalent of Volkswagen using all kind of different screws to hold the plastic protection under the car, so that the average Joe who has standards screw drivers can't bleed his oil himself or change the gasoline filter.

This is maddening but you don't know it when you buy the car. It's only later.

Re: Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price

#570

Post by theshrike79 »

worik wrote: post #447
tempest_ wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends. The bigger agcorps have tones of integration. The machine, from tractor to combine and everything in between often feeds data together to produce a holistic understanding. Things like - How much fuel was used - Where your tractors and sprayers drove - Soil samples and content - How and where every bit of chemical and fertilizer was applied - What weather hit your field - How much and and the moistu…

> The bigger agcorps have tones of integration. Yes, but how useful is the integration? The sprayers/spreaders can be connected cheap computer to achieve most of what you describe. I used to do literally that but in aircraft. Must be easier and cheaper in tractors

It's not complex if you have like three machines.

But if you're observing a fleet of 100+ machines you kinda need some integration and a central location. Which in turn connects to multiple other services like weather, crop markets, fuel prices etc.

Post reply on HN