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

701–710 of 814 posts

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

#701

Post by 9rx »

sodapopcan wrote: post #27
9rx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those buying new don't care about repairs. They were never going to do the warrantee work themselves anyway. Those buying on the used market have more reason to care about repairs, but used buyers are beholden to what new buyers purchased in the past.

> Those buying new don't care about repairs. huh, why not?

Because it's not an effective use of their time. New farm equipment buyers are running big businesses. Shifting their focus away from the business to repair equipment would be as silly as the CEO of Google personally replacing a failed hard drive on an employee's workstation. There is an industry out there that is already worried about the repairs for you. You, not being in that industry, don't need to be.

Like before, those next in line buying used equipment on smaller farms are more likely to have free time to spend on doing their own repairs and may even enjoy doing it as a hobby, but like before, the are limited to what's available on the used market. If the BTOs aren't buying Kubotas[1], it won't be a used option. This segment of farmers aren't choosing what enters the market initially.

[1] And generally they don't, but the big-time snow pushers seem to really like them, so in reality you do have options even on the used market. It turns out that tractors aren't just for farmers.

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

#702

Post by jermaustin1 »

theshrike79 wrote: post #570
worik wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think that is a different market than the market for dumb tractors. There might be some overlap, but I doubt the people who want to fix their own tractors are different than the corporations that are tracking 100 tractors across hundreds/thousands of fields.

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

#703

Post by Muromec »

mothballed wrote: post #655
pjc50 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrasing of "gun rights" in the context that's really about gun responsibilities is a big part of the problem. And I say this from an unusual position; I'm a Brit who was taught to shoot at school (cadets). The urban gun control question is not so much about responsibility as about malice. There's not a huge number of people with murderous intent, but there are enough. And the resistance of rural America to the q…

Maybe 'city' folk should offer something in exchange then. I would trade megamillion 'city' sovereignty on 'gun control' in exchange for stopping application of the NFA and GCA in the 'country'. Right now all 'city' offers is a shittier deal and pray they do not alter it worse. Obviously that's not politically viable way to get agreement and part of the reason why gun control advocates think "nothing changes."

Cant you all just pass some laws that apply to your place only? Why does it have to be a trade.

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

#704

Post by SlightlyLeftPad »

defrost wrote: post #501
SlightlyLeftPad wrote: post #500

Can I invest? I have no need for a no-tech tractor but I would love to support a real challenger to John Deere’s near complete monopoly.

In Queensland, Australia SwarmFarm might be worth a look - they're already deep into driverless automated agriculture .. making a non John Deere tech stack. https://www.swarmfarm.com/technology/ - West Australian grain farmer (4,500 hectares, barley, grains) reviews a fully automated driverless swarm bot in boom spray configuration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljEKN7CsjnM

That’s interesting. I’m really more curious about modern precision machines that are repairable on the field by third parties. Do you know if these would fall into that category? The main thing that makes John Deere anti-competitive and adversarial is their policy of not allowing third-party repairs.

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

#705

Post by swed420 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #689
swed420 wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

That's a good start, but even that path has problems if orgs follow it as prescribed and do "too well" at it.

Let's say your appliance is so well built that it lasts for generations: Great for the consumer, great for the environment, but not so great for the business that is no longer sustainable under a traditional economy.

Why should we settle for this gaping built-in flaw of traditional economics when better ones could replace them?

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

#706

Post by dghlsakjg »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #620
dghlsakjg wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still control a completely mechanical engine to work with set speeds. There are mechanical governors that can do this, or you can get an electronic component that moves the throttle for you. Fixed speed engines with variable load are much older than the transistor. It is no harder than doing it with an ECU, except that you need to install a servo or speed governor with hand tools, instead of fiddling with ECU…

It is far easier for 3rd party stuff to target say open bus protocol rather than a servo + speed sensor pair.

From a software perspective it’s the same. The software doesn’t care if it is telling a servo to rotate or an ECU to increase speed. Both systems need an external speed sensor feeding in. The only extra on the mechanical engine is adding a generic servo.

Both systems can use an open bus protocol. The mechanical system resists proprietary rent seeking as an added bonus.

We’re commenting on an article about farmers willing to pay for tractors with rebuilt all mechanical engines when the exact same tractor could be built with a new computer controlled one. That choice was intentional.

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

#707

Post by gen220 »

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.

Strongly recommend a ~2018 ICE Toyota (chosen for the goal of long-term ownership and maintenance, which includes widespread part availability and my own ability to make reasonable repairs to it at some point).

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

#708

Post by mothballed »

Muromec wrote: post #703
mothballed wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe 'city' folk should offer something in exchange then. I would trade megamillion 'city' sovereignty on 'gun control' in exchange for stopping application of the NFA and GCA in the 'country'. Right now all 'city' offers is a shittier deal and pray they do not alter it worse. Obviously that's not politically viable way to get agreement and part of the reason why gun control advocates think "nothing changes."

Cant you all just pass some laws that apply to your place only? Why does it have to be a trade.

That's not what was done. The GCA and NFA was imposed on the entire country and none of the gun control advocates are offering to give that up in exchange for more local control. That was the "compromise." (oh yes, we did get an act allowing exemption from prosecution for merely travelling though a restrictive jurisdiction with an illegal weapon, but surprise surprise, places like New York just ignore that anyway and jail you until you can appeal it to federal court) It was always more and more regulation on people in the 'country' with nothing in exchange to offer them for having to give something up. And then, on top of that, the 'cities' added more on top of that (but refer to next paragraph for more).

When the 'country' finally got sick of it then you wound up with state pre-emption against local control being passed in most states because it turned out that bargain was a fraud.

So what I would propose, is if 'city' really wants to loosen up the gridlock, they should bring something serious to the negotiating table. Like ending the GCA and NFA in 'country' and in exchange state pre-emption gets nixed so 'city' can pass tighter laws there.

So to answer your question:

> Cant you all just pass some laws that apply to your place only? Why does it have to be a trade.

Here is where we are at. State pre-emption stops 'city' from passing stronger local control. And federal law stops 'country' from passing weaker local control. To break that gridlock 'city' and 'country' have to have something on the offering table for each other. That is why it has to be a trade.

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

#709

Post by MandieD »

infecto wrote: post #614
MisterTea wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, the tech exists for a reason and is not inherently bad, the issue is the lock-in, the lack of choice and interoperability. These low-tech tractors could become a hot bed for open source experimentation. Nothing stopping someone from sticking a tablet on the dash. You could run GPS harvesting optimization software or some webthing locally. Could be cloud or clever DiY farmers could run their farm off a loca…

My bet would be there will be a niche for these tractors at hobby farms but the reality is outside of niche goods and hobby farms, farming is about scale and the machines that companies like JD sell help a lot. Sure the tech is locked down but at the scale those players are running at it’s baked into the service contract to minimize downtime.

A niche called Mennonites in general and in particular, Amish in communities that are ok with motors, but not with fancy, fragile electronics.

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

#710

Post by happyopossum »

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…

> Can you explain what's functionally illegal

GP explained it right here:

> the EPA mandated DEF/DPF systems + limp modes on all farm equipment since 2014

Post reply on HN