Alberta startup sells no-tech tractors for half price • Hacker News Board

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

#681

Post by rldjbpin » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:03 PM UTC

jmward01 wrote: post #59

I want this for cars but to keep the modern powertrain. So an EV without the tracking/touch screens, etc etc. Or an internal combustion engine car that is just simple and efficient (and again, no tracking). I'll take the low-tech but nice features like heated seats and power windows still thank you.

context: previously worked for an automobile oem

the current trend in the industry (before ai everything) has been software defined vehicle [1].

while the ux has been horible, the things hidden away from us are also becoming very bloated, and beyond the microcontroller-level complexity.

as a side-effect, even if you build a modern, mass-market car without screens, the ones in the future would still need to be connected to the manufacturer for ota updates for core functionality. expect supply-chain issues like people faced with axios, etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Defined_Vehicle

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

#682

Post by pocksuppet » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:04 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #566

pocksuppet wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then it doesn't hurt company A. It helps company A. They have more money with the regulation than without.

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

#683

Post by thewebguyd » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:05 PM UTC

jmward01 wrote: post #59

I want this for cars but to keep the modern powertrain. So an EV without the tracking/touch screens, etc etc. Or an internal combustion engine car that is just simple and efficient (and again, no tracking). I'll take the low-tech but nice features like heated seats and power windows still thank you.

Same. We are even seeing electronics come to bicycles now too, with electronic shifting (with questionable security, at that). I still ride a bike with mechanical shifting and external cable routing for a reason. It's dead simple, and I can do my own wrenching at home, and most repairs & adjustments are a matter of minutes instead of hours.

I don't want a laptop & to do a brake bleed for every minor tweak or fix, nor do I want to have to charge my bike.

This is also why I still drive a much older car and will hang on to it as long as I possibly can.

I think repairability/right to repair sometimes misses the simplicity aspect. Being able to repair something is great, however its less great if its extraordinarily complicated or you need to hire outside expertise. Keeping the machine as simple as possible so repairs can be done at home, with standard tools, is the real win. Its the difference between replacing a phone battery by sliding off a removable back cover, or needing a special toolkit and a heat gun to remove the screen and melt the adhesive first.

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

#684

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

jmward01 wrote: post #59

I want this for cars but to keep the modern powertrain. So an EV without the tracking/touch screens, etc etc. Or an internal combustion engine car that is just simple and efficient (and again, no tracking). I'll take the low-tech but nice features like heated seats and power windows still thank you.

> Or an internal combustion engine car that is just simple and efficient

This is basically a contradiction. The last 15 years of efficiency improvements were achieved by adding complexity: turbochargers, automatic start/stop, direct injection, ECU controlled fuel ratios, etc.

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

#685

Post by erikerikson » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #672

erikerikson wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/woosh But I could be wrong. I can't know but I'm pretty sure the GP was writing tongue in cheek. As in mocking the business strategies that have been eroding the engines of our economy.

Actually, no. I don't like the modern business strategies but they are what they are. The only reason many consumer televisions are as cheap as they are is because they're being subsidized with advertisements. It's the same thing with the razor and blades model, where the razor is sold at a loss and the profit comes from the replacement blades. Or the game console model, where the console is much cheaper than an equi…

Huh. You're definitely authoritative on your intention. Thanks for setting the record straight and pointing out my error.

I'm confused about how you can look at all the less (or anti) functional, more expensive, disposable/fragile crap companies are producing and defend it. I've seen so much waste and stupidity in companies, so much unnecessary and artificial complexity, and so much generated information asymmetry. It doesn't add up even if the loss leader and other stories told to excuse and distract from it are powerful.

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

#686

Post by 9rx » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:12 PM UTC

vablings wrote: post #668

9rx wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If John Deere is sending a tech, you've encountered something that could never be just a simple menu button. You've found a major flaw that they need to investigate in detail. John Deere would never send a tech for routine troubleshooting/repairs. That falls on the local dealership franchises. Their employees are not John Deere employees.

No, sadly not. John Deere is very anti right to repair, and they will do anything to make you call up an authorized tech. There are authorized dealers who are not John Deere directly, but they are completely subservient to John Deere (they have to be otherwise they will not get access to the software tooling required to fix equipment), the semantic difference to a farmer is inconsequential, you will be overcharged[1]…

> John Deere is very anti right to repair

John Deere's whole business model has been built around being the most repairable — ensuring that you can get the parts when you need them, not days or weeks later. I own farm equipment from all the major brands and I've been burned by that before. Deere is undeniably the winner in repairability.

They are quite protective of their intellectual property, that is true. Although what tech company isn't? I remember the time I wanted to see the service manual and it took a wink and a nod to get the service tech to decrypt it for me.

But, I mean, he did it, so... The fun thing about employees is that they are real people who don't really care what some nebulous figurehead in a far away place has to say. Especially when those employees don't work for Deere in the first place. I have no idea where you got that bizarre idea. You should step foot on a farm sometime.

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

#687

Post by infecto » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:12 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #660

simplyluke wrote: post #526

Late to the party here, so I don't expect this to get a lot of traction, but I'd like to point out that part of the reason this hasn't existed until recently as an option in the US is because it's functionally illegal for it to exist. > The 12-valve Cummins is arguably the most widely understood diesel engine in North America. Every independent shop, every shade-tree mechanic with a set of wrenches, every farmer who…

> US is because it's functionally illegal for it to exist. This feels like one of those 'burying the lede' situations. Can you explain what's functionally illegal (and I admit that I'm mildly curious about the distinction of functional illegality and non-functional illegality) about this existing? I'm as breathless as you are, after reading that second paragraph, but I nonetheless remain ignorant about the nuances of…

I don’t recall exactly wha the Trump admin has changed but I know there have been changes on emission requirements. The way I understood this is historically all equipment with diesel motors have had pretty strict requirements for emissions and an engine like this would simply not be possible.

My take on this is you are throwing all the good things away about modern engines. You could easily make a right to repair tractor with low tech but still enjoy modern improvements.

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

#688

Post by erikerikson » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:18 PM UTC

Toutouxc wrote: post #600

jimnotgym wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which loophole? Using a remanufacture engine?

Yes, they're engines that you wouldn't be allowed to build and put in a new tractor. Like, the signals seem pretty clear to me. The spirit of the regulations is that these shouldn't be produced and put into operation anymore. The company is doing it anyway.

You're right about the emissions dimension and that there are good reasons for reducing pollution, even if the company isn't putting new engines into use but only elongating the operation of existing ones. On the other hand the right to repair and dependability angle is real. There are problems that need to be solved and they need to be actually solved. If they aren't a bunch of us start to starve and get angry. It doesn't go well.

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

#689

Post by thewebguyd » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:20 PM UTC

swed420 wrote: post #627

alexpotato wrote: post #613

Two things: 1. LOVE this idea as I've always been a big fan of "right to repair" and even at work, FinTech SRE/DevOps, I say things like "we want this to be like a 1975 Ford: you open the hood, look inside, understand it and it's easy to fix. We don't want a 2026 Ferrari." 2. The Econ major/MBA in me wonders how long you can sell cheaper tractors that last forever. I say this b/c it's like trying to sell 100 year lig…

Point #2 ought to be good reason for us to move past our archaic consumption-based economies into something where less consumption isn't considered a "problem."

The assumption that a company must grow forever is a trap, IMO. If you aren't beholden to produce returns for investors, there's nothing wrong with hitting a goal and then calling it a day.

We mistake equilibrium for failure. If you're earning a good living and operating sustainably, there's no reason to continue to extract more and more wealth. We really need to decouple the idea of success away from a requirement of endless YoY growth.

Not every business or product needs to go on for ever. I think there's still plenty of value in a finite project. Ship your product, hit your financial goals, then retire or move on.

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

#690

Post by cogman10 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:23 PM UTC

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…

Hey, we have the exact same model and it's still in use. Those things were built like tanks.

We have an even older one from the 1940s that also still fires up and works just fine.

The main thing the modern tractor buys at this point is simply a cabin with AC (which, TBH, is a VERY nice feature). Otherwise there's not much reason not to use the older farm equipment even today.

We'll still use the old massy for tilling and seeding.