5 ms·

Seems good but unlikely to accomplish anything. Manufacturers obviously don't want to make third-party repairs easier because they think they'll lose money, so

Seems good but unlikely to accomplish anything. Manufacturers obviously don't want to make third-party repairs easier because they think they'll lose money, so if the EPA says one excuse isn't valid anymore they'll just find another one. This new guidance doesn't ask or even suggest that manufacturers actually do anything, it just says "hey if you want to help your customers repair stuff, we'd be ok with it".

mindslight 9mo ago
Exactly. My understanding is that the manufacturers interpreted the clean air rules as conveniently requiring them to use digital restrictions management (explicit or even just tacit) to prevent tampering (aka repairing) your own equipment. Low-emissions diesel engines then get hated on for the "EPA requirements", with the immediate bad actor corporations sidestepping blame (as usual). Removing the initial motivation / excuse isn't going to get rid of those digital restrictions, openly document the systems, nor provide the tools required to work on them. The way this is framed, it doesn't even sound like the goal is to affect this dynamic at all. Rather it's to create a loophole of "temporarily" bypassing emission systems, such that if you delete and get caught you can just pinky swear that it's temporary for a repair that you're about to complete real soon. So the only real goal seems to be implicitly rolling back emissions enforcement across the board. Actual right to repair action would focus on making it so individuals are able to self-repair the emissions control systems to function as designed. So this really just seems like yet another instance of a lofty idea being abused as cover for the destructionist agenda.
- cryostasis 9mo ago
  It is not just hate because of EPA requirements. These engines are more complicated and prone to failure. Small time operations can not afford the expensive repairs combined with loss of income during repair downtime. As a result, only corporations remain or the few remaining owner operators avoid any engine newer than the year ~2000. These older vehicles also have the added benefit of having minimal electronics, sensors, and ECMs.
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    The "more prone to failure" seems to be driven by some abjectly terrible implementations (eg the notorious Kubota B3350). And it's certainly understandable that someone who knows how to repair things based on mechanical linkages would rebel against digital electronics. But we're on a technology website. We shouldn't really be scared by a extra sensors, a CAN bus, and an embedded controller - assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems. In fact we should welcome them, as extra telemetry can help avoid downtime and effect repairs.
    - cucumber3732842 9mo ago
      > And it's certainly understandable that someone who knows how to repair things based on mechanical linkages would rebel against digital electronics. They're pretty right to be incensed that something that used to take one skill set now takes two. >. We shouldn't really be scared by a extra sensors, a CAN bus, and an embedded controller - assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems At what cost? For what benefit to the user? >. In fact we should welcome them, as extra telemetry can help avoid downtime and effect repairs. Oh, great, so the someone at the OEM can decide my model correlates with a higher $$ use and jack up parts cost. I don't trust you not to do this and I don't even own a tractor. Someone in middle america who's been on the receiving end of the raw deal that the "educated" classes have been peddling for the past 40yr has even less reason to allow your telemetry.
      - mindslight 9mo ago
        If you had bothered to pause grinding your axe, you might have read the part of my comment where I said "assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems"
      - rangestransform 9mo ago
        For absolutely not a single benefit to the owner but massive benefit to society.
    - 9mo ago
shagie 9mo ago
As long as the manufacturer isn't on the hook for a violation of the EPA when the owner modifies their vehicle to be out of spec. For automobiles, this has been the case - that the owner is responsible the vehicle goes out of spec... and the owner can also do a lot of customization of their vehicle. For heavy machinery (which tractors fall into), the manufacture is almost always on the hook for any modification that the owner makes. https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/18110-what-you-need-to-know-about-illegal-tampering-the-right-to-repair-movement https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/18110-what-you-need-... > Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.” > ... > And, if you service equipment that has been chipped, the warranty will most likely be denied and you will not be paid for your work. “That can also put your dealership in a sticky situation if technicians in the shop are not conveying to the rest of the dealership what is going in,” says Wareham. F > Financial consequences can be harsh for not following the law. Under federal law 40 CFR § 89.1006, the penalty for a dealer who removes or renders inoperative emissions controls is subject to a penalty of $32,500 for each violation. Wareham says that one manufacturer of chipping software was initially fined $300,000 by the EPA and then $6 million to ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. “The EPA has stated that their intent is to crack down on defeat devices in 2020,” says Wareham. > A dealer may face liability issues when customers tamper with the equipment they purchased, even if a dealer had nothing to do with the modification. For example, in instances in Ohio and Oregon, customers were injured as a result of modifications and dealers were sued.
- jtbayly 9mo ago
  But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody. Winning is what matters. That anecdote doesn't tell me anything, and the whole article reads as FUD. I wonder if it is paid for by John Deere?
stuaxo 9mo ago
This kind of do nothingism come up any time something will happen, perfect is the enemy of done.
- dylan604 9mo ago
  I've always wondered if this is true if it was done perfectly
- burkaman 9mo ago
  I am not opposed to this (that's why I said "this seems good"), just wanted to point out that I don't believe their claim that "Today’s action will not only expand consumer choice and provide opportunities for farmers but also encourage the use of newer farm equipment". I do think this won't accomplish anything but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have done it.

mindslight 9mo ago

Exactly. My understanding is that the manufacturers interpreted the clean air rules as conveniently requiring them to use digital restrictions management (explicit or even just tacit) to prevent tampering (aka repairing) your own equipment. Low-emissions diesel engines then get hated on for the "EPA requirements", with the immediate bad actor corporations sidestepping blame (as usual). Removing the initial motivation / excuse isn't going to get rid of those digital restrictions, openly document the systems, nor provide the tools required to work on them. The way this is framed, it doesn't even sound like the goal is to affect this dynamic at all. Rather it's to create a loophole of "temporarily" bypassing emission systems, such that if you delete and get caught you can just pinky swear that it's temporary for a repair that you're about to complete real soon. So the only real goal seems to be implicitly rolling back emissions enforcement across the board. Actual right to repair action would focus on making it so individuals are able to self-repair the emissions control systems to function as designed. So this really just seems like yet another instance of a lofty idea being abused as cover for the destructionist agenda.

cryostasis 9mo ago
It is not just hate because of EPA requirements. These engines are more complicated and prone to failure. Small time operations can not afford the expensive repairs combined with loss of income during repair downtime. As a result, only corporations remain or the few remaining owner operators avoid any engine newer than the year ~2000. These older vehicles also have the added benefit of having minimal electronics, sensors, and ECMs.
- mindslight 9mo ago
  The "more prone to failure" seems to be driven by some abjectly terrible implementations (eg the notorious Kubota B3350). And it's certainly understandable that someone who knows how to repair things based on mechanical linkages would rebel against digital electronics. But we're on a technology website. We shouldn't really be scared by a extra sensors, a CAN bus, and an embedded controller - assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems. In fact we should welcome them, as extra telemetry can help avoid downtime and effect repairs.
  - cucumber3732842 9mo ago
    > And it's certainly understandable that someone who knows how to repair things based on mechanical linkages would rebel against digital electronics. They're pretty right to be incensed that something that used to take one skill set now takes two. >. We shouldn't really be scared by a extra sensors, a CAN bus, and an embedded controller - assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems At what cost? For what benefit to the user? >. In fact we should welcome them, as extra telemetry can help avoid downtime and effect repairs. Oh, great, so the someone at the OEM can decide my model correlates with a higher $$ use and jack up parts cost. I don't trust you not to do this and I don't even own a tractor. Someone in middle america who's been on the receiving end of the raw deal that the "educated" classes have been peddling for the past 40yr has even less reason to allow your telemetry.
    - mindslight 9mo ago
      If you had bothered to pause grinding your axe, you might have read the part of my comment where I said "assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems"
    - rangestransform 9mo ago
      For absolutely not a single benefit to the owner but massive benefit to society.
  - 9mo ago

shagie 9mo ago

As long as the manufacturer isn't on the hook for a violation of the EPA when the owner modifies their vehicle to be out of spec. For automobiles, this has been the case - that the owner is responsible the vehicle goes out of spec... and the owner can also do a lot of customization of their vehicle. For heavy machinery (which tractors fall into), the manufacture is almost always on the hook for any modification that the owner makes. https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/18110-what-you-need-to-know-about-illegal-tampering-the-right-to-repair-movement https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/18110-what-you-need-... > Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.” > ... > And, if you service equipment that has been chipped, the warranty will most likely be denied and you will not be paid for your work. “That can also put your dealership in a sticky situation if technicians in the shop are not conveying to the rest of the dealership what is going in,” says Wareham. F > Financial consequences can be harsh for not following the law. Under federal law 40 CFR § 89.1006, the penalty for a dealer who removes or renders inoperative emissions controls is subject to a penalty of $32,500 for each violation. Wareham says that one manufacturer of chipping software was initially fined $300,000 by the EPA and then $6 million to ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. “The EPA has stated that their intent is to crack down on defeat devices in 2020,” says Wareham. > A dealer may face liability issues when customers tamper with the equipment they purchased, even if a dealer had nothing to do with the modification. For example, in instances in Ohio and Oregon, customers were injured as a result of modifications and dealers were sued.

jtbayly 9mo ago
But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody. Winning is what matters. That anecdote doesn't tell me anything, and the whole article reads as FUD. I wonder if it is paid for by John Deere?

stuaxo 9mo ago

This kind of do nothingism come up any time something will happen, perfect is the enemy of done.

dylan604 9mo ago
I've always wondered if this is true if it was done perfectly
burkaman 9mo ago
I am not opposed to this (that's why I said "this seems good"), just wanted to point out that I don't believe their claim that "Today’s action will not only expand consumer choice and provide opportunities for farmers but also encourage the use of newer farm equipment". I do think this won't accomplish anything but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have done it.