Hacker News Reader

Comment by mothballed | Hacker News Reader

Tractors are legal above 25hp but it requires DPF, and at I want to say about 75, possibly more than that. Farmers generally hate DPF systems and will disable them the microsecond they get the right to repair.

>Then why even manufacture them and cripple them?

They cripple them because they know people want bigger tractor without emission control so they sell it as a less powerful tractor and then just expect people to break the law and turn the screw, and everybody is happy.

========= re: below due to throttling ========

>Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe.

There is because on the John Deere tractors you can't set the "screw" unless you have right to repair the engine system. John Deere has no screw because they're in the US and they're too afraid of US regulators.

View on HN

As a tractor owner. Two things, the DPF & SCR (>=75hp) on a tractor is not a great idea --

1) Tractors are typically owned by low margin businesses (i.e. farmers) that need to be repaired in the field AND need to be repaired quickly, else you loose a crop. Adding complexity to tractors literally can cost the farm.

2) The actual emissions reduced is questionable. Tractors run significantly less than a truck, like 50-100x less often. Further there are at least 2x more trucks sold per year

3) To run the SCR system, the engine had to run hot for like 20 minutes burning extra fuel and required DEF (yet more input costs)

3) The emissions they are trying to reduce with the these are likely not excessively harmful from a tractor; largely because most tractors who need an SCR system is >75hp, which also means they're typically used on a large farm (100+ acres). Which dissipates the risks substantially.

For reference my 2022 Kubota tractor repeatedly had issues with the DPF / SCR system, mostly the software to enforce environmental rules. This lost us ~$20k one year due to the tractor being knocked out for a week (I was mid-cut for 140 acre hay, rained & rotted in the field post-cut).

For reference, I was very much ready to bypass the SCR system, but decided against it to keep the warranty. It had nothing to do about "right to repair", I figured out exactly how to bypass it.

I've watched youtube videos where the farmer is complaining that his million dollar combine has to do a regen cycle. Each hour that machine is running is costing the farm hundreds of dollars in depreciation.

> For reference my 2022 Kubota tractor repeatedly had issues with the DPF / SCR system, mostly the software to enforce environmental rules. This lost us ~$20k one year due to the tractor being knocked out for a week (I was mid-cut for 140 acre hay, rained & rotted in the field post-cut).

That's infuriating. This kind of thing is why I specifically sought out a late '90s-early '00s Kubota, which has been great. Granted, I'm not doing anything commercial with it, and it hasn't been completely without issues. I had to make some compromises up front, I was initially looking for an L3710 DT but settled on an L3010 HST because the price was right and it was local. Added rear remote hydraulics last year, welded up some rust in the floor pan and repainted the bodywork. This year I will have to tear it all down again and split it to fix a hydraulic leak coming from the clutch housing (suspect front driveshaft seal). Still need to fabricate some brackets to hang the backhoe subframe. Need to put new ends on the tie rods because they're rattling like crazy. So it's not maintenance free, but the tradeoff I made is that there isn't anything on this machine that I cannot repair. Everything can be rebuilt, parts are available. In retrospect, would an older, simpler machine be a good tradeoff in your situation? So far I probably have 50hr/yr invested in tractor maintenance, but that includes some big ticket items so maybe over time that'll average out to ~10hr/yr. I could see how this might factor in the tradeoff.

Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe.

Well, then there also must not be much relevance between lax guns laws and school shooters?

I get what you are (trying) to say, but lets be real here. Right to repair people (myself included) just need to own that it will have some downsides.

If you want people not to have out of spec tractors that is a regulation and oversight issue, not an issue of locking down tech.

Right to repair argues the tech should not be locked down, it doesn't argue you should be free to break the law.

You are also free to remove the handrails on a set of stairs using a simple wrench, but if a building inspector shows up or someone falls because of it there will likely be consequences. The argument here is that the simple wrench isn't the problem nor is your potential ability to remove handrails. In fact removing them may be necessary in some situations. The argument here is, you should be able to decide when it is necessary, while also facing consequences if tou do so in a way that is potentially harmful to others and the environment.

If you worry about the environmental impact of people turning a screw in a tractor you need heftier fines and more random unannounced controls. This is btw. how gun law works in countries where they make sense. Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc.

>Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc.

So we will have right to repair but it's only legal if you document all repairs, keep records of parts ordered, only use verified vendors for those parts....etc etc. Right to repair laws shouldn't be onerous, and people should be able to (illegally) remove emissions controls, and we should recognize that as a bad thing that comes with the territory.

Don't freak out, things have downsides, it's actually admirable to be able to handle nuance, own it.

This is essentially the situation in the general aviation market for certificated aircraft, and it sucks. Costs are triple or more compared to the experimental market. Finding a decent mechanic is a serious chore. Repairs take forever.

Is there any reason not to buy experimental for non-commercial daylight VFR flights for personal use?

If that’s your mission and especially if you’re mechanically inclined, experimental is highly compelling.

I'd did not claim that things do not have downsides. I said tech embargos are the wrong way to deal with that specific downside and even proposed another way to deal with it (targeted, stochastic checks). If the people making those checks are good, the paperwork you described won't be necessary. E.g. in the EU the police may put your car onto a test stand and measure the exhaust during operation. Who cares what you did to the thing if the result is that it is within the emission thresholds.

In the case of guns this documentation makes sense, because of what guns are used for typically.

>If you want people not to have out of spec tractors that is a regulation and oversight issue, not an issue of locking down tech.

It can be either, but be careful of the knock on effects. If you want to manage it via administrative controls now you may need a bureaucratic mechanism to regularly inspect vehicles. Generally, engineering controls are preferred over administrative controls.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is this prevented today or not by the denial of the right to repair?

It sounds like you are saying everyone is doing it today, so denying the right to repair doesn't affect the situation.

If you're a US company the vagueness of emissions law likely prevents a US company from hazarding doing it and instead locking down the repair of their power trains to ensure emission compliance. Korean companies get away with it because they don't give much a shit if they're banned from import, it can always be washed through another foreign company. John Deere can't try that sort of thing since being a household-name US company is their bread and butter for commanding a premium in the first place.

======= re: below due to throttling ========

>You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines.

Everyone is doing it on the import tractors with the screws. They are not doing it with John Deere tractors, which are locked down for emission compliance. John Deere is handicapped by the fact they're located in the US and regulators have more leverage on them to prevent the sort of right-to-repair which would enable emission bypassing.

>Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair?

What is happening today is people with John Deere are not able to unlock their tractor for repair and turn the "screw" like they can with import tractors. The very first thing they will do once they can "repair" is delete emissions controls. That's a big part of what the farmers were pissed about and why they wanted right to repair, they couldn't "repair" their tractor to not use DPF, etc on their domestic tractors.

Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair?

You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong?

>Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair?

What is happening today is that it's of greater difficulty to bypass emissions on repair-locked tractors like John Deere and very easy to do on tractors like mine (mostly imports).

>You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong?

"Everyone" is bypassing it on the repairable tractors. Once John Deere are repairable, they will do it on those too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com