5 ms·

You've pretty much described my operation, but I still don't see your vision. In fact, there's nothing inherently unapproachable about electronics. I often have

You've pretty much described my operation, but I still don't see your vision. In fact, there's nothing inherently unapproachable about electronics. I often have an easier time understanding the electrical faults than I do the mechanical ones. There are still some fairly bare bones new tractors on the market, particularly those that come from the old Eastern Bloc, but I don't know anyone who wants to own one. There is a dealer around, so someone must (perhaps in the compact market?), but they are definitely few and far between. I'm not sure I have ever seen one in person. Besides, if you're comfortable with maintaining a decades old tractor, why wouldn't you buy an existing one? There are plenty of a good old used tractors on the market that are tried and true. They last a long time and will be far cheaper than anyone could ever make a new one for. I'm left wondering if you are out of touch with the realities of farming, or are farming in a completely different way to what I am? If the latter, I'd love to know more about your operation.

colechristensen 10y ago
The vision is simple hackable machines designed to be maintained. You'll spend quite a bit less on engineering costs if you dump most of the electronics and turn a tractor into an attachment bus for all of the electronic features you might want (crowdsourced or commercial). The mechanical design could be more or less static with only minor refinements and you might just end up with a machine that costs a fraction of the latest John Deere. Cheaper machinery (and not having to hunt at farm auctions for good deals) lowers the bar so you can get more and smaller farmers which I believe is a big step to improving our food economy (and not just the money part, the whole (what|where|why) of growing food could be much improved if there was less focus on industrial concerns) I only go home to farm for fun a few times a year – after a while it might not be only for fun.
- vvanders 10y ago
  You know that the cost of a JD/Kubota/New Holland has to do more with the abuse they can take than the electronics right? Kubota basically targets that market(Compact Utility Tractor) and geared ones still cost more than a new car before you factor in maintence.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    I'm talking more of the 250-500 HP range tractor which generally cost more than a house.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      Really? What 500 acre farm needs a 250HP tractor, let alone 500HP? Besides, I'd suggest the farms that do need tractors that big also really do have a good justification for all of the electronics that are found within. And since the manufacturers need to do all the engineering for those large farmers regardless, I, like the parent, am going to also have to question how much the electronic equipment really costs to put in the lower end models? It's certainly not a zero cost, but how much are we really talking?
      - colechristensen 10y ago
        For example: Here's a ripper. We used something like it this year to, amongst other things, assist with some drainage issues. http://www.stjosephequipment.com/console/storage/documents/138125124888685.pdf http://www.stjosephequipment.com/console/storage/documents/1... 28-38 HP per shank, up to 9 shanks. That's ~350 HP in it's max configuration. >It's certainly not a zero cost, but how much are we really talking? Low volume, high complexity electronic hardware design and manufacture? I've been part of engineering departments building such things and it's not cheap. It'll cost... $200,000 per employee-year for engineers? Researching enough to come up with an actual cost would probably take days – but it's definitely a significant if not majority share of the engineering budget.
        randomdata 10y ago
        > 28-38 HP per shank, up to 9 shanks. That's ~350 HP in it's max configuration. Why does 500 acres necessitate the max configuration? I mean, you could also run a DB120 and have all of your acreage planted in 6 hours, but that seems rather unnecessary at that size. There is a certain time/value calculation at play, but at that size you can justify spreading the work over more time. Plus, the brochure you link to even shows a Puma 210 running the unit, which has just 210 engine HP. Clearly the implement can work just fine with a sub-250HP tractor. > Low volume, high complexity electronic hardware design and manufacture? No. Much of hardware is already going to be designed for the big operators either way. So, just the cost of increasing the manufacturing volume for putting the same equipment on equipment destined for the smaller farmers.

colechristensen 10y ago

The vision is simple hackable machines designed to be maintained. You'll spend quite a bit less on engineering costs if you dump most of the electronics and turn a tractor into an attachment bus for all of the electronic features you might want (crowdsourced or commercial). The mechanical design could be more or less static with only minor refinements and you might just end up with a machine that costs a fraction of the latest John Deere. Cheaper machinery (and not having to hunt at farm auctions for good deals) lowers the bar so you can get more and smaller farmers which I believe is a big step to improving our food economy (and not just the money part, the whole (what|where|why) of growing food could be much improved if there was less focus on industrial concerns) I only go home to farm for fun a few times a year – after a while it might not be only for fun.

vvanders 10y ago
You know that the cost of a JD/Kubota/New Holland has to do more with the abuse they can take than the electronics right? Kubota basically targets that market(Compact Utility Tractor) and geared ones still cost more than a new car before you factor in maintence.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  I'm talking more of the 250-500 HP range tractor which generally cost more than a house.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    Really? What 500 acre farm needs a 250HP tractor, let alone 500HP? Besides, I'd suggest the farms that do need tractors that big also really do have a good justification for all of the electronics that are found within. And since the manufacturers need to do all the engineering for those large farmers regardless, I, like the parent, am going to also have to question how much the electronic equipment really costs to put in the lower end models? It's certainly not a zero cost, but how much are we really talking?
    - colechristensen 10y ago
      For example: Here's a ripper. We used something like it this year to, amongst other things, assist with some drainage issues. http://www.stjosephequipment.com/console/storage/documents/138125124888685.pdf http://www.stjosephequipment.com/console/storage/documents/1... 28-38 HP per shank, up to 9 shanks. That's ~350 HP in it's max configuration. >It's certainly not a zero cost, but how much are we really talking? Low volume, high complexity electronic hardware design and manufacture? I've been part of engineering departments building such things and it's not cheap. It'll cost... $200,000 per employee-year for engineers? Researching enough to come up with an actual cost would probably take days – but it's definitely a significant if not majority share of the engineering budget.
      - randomdata 10y ago
        > 28-38 HP per shank, up to 9 shanks. That's ~350 HP in it's max configuration. Why does 500 acres necessitate the max configuration? I mean, you could also run a DB120 and have all of your acreage planted in 6 hours, but that seems rather unnecessary at that size. There is a certain time/value calculation at play, but at that size you can justify spreading the work over more time. Plus, the brochure you link to even shows a Puma 210 running the unit, which has just 210 engine HP. Clearly the implement can work just fine with a sub-250HP tractor. > Low volume, high complexity electronic hardware design and manufacture? No. Much of hardware is already going to be designed for the big operators either way. So, just the cost of increasing the manufacturing volume for putting the same equipment on equipment destined for the smaller farmers.