Right to repair, Why I don't want a new tractor.

[bridge4]

The problem between right to repair and tractors, is federal emissions regulations. If the manufacturers provide a means of altering the fuel/boost controls in such a manner that exceeds emissions constraints, they are subject to HUGE fines. As such, they have no alternative but to restrict access.

EXSCUSE!


Just put in cap locks all over "CHANGING THIS CODING WILL RESULT IN ALTERING FEDERAL MANDATE AND YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO 10K FINE" or something like that. Then they can leave that part alone, or take the risk.

Freedom of Choice. Self Responsibility...

Let's bring those two things back.

 

[bearthebruce]

The problem between right to repair and tractors, is federal emissions regulations. If the manufacturers provide a means of altering the fuel/boost controls in such a manner that exceeds emissions constraints, they are subject to HUGE fines. As such, they have no alternative but to restrict access.

You are correct. A manufacturer must not include any means by which the machine can be modified resulting in increased harmful emissions. Right to Repair is about the means of repairing a failed machine without the need for using the Machine dealer to so. Right to Repair was successful for the automotive market. With enough support showing how the manufacturers are harming the farm communities ability to remain viable, politicians may come on board and support a movement to force a standard onto the tractor manufactures such that an affordable solution for the repair of the machines might be had. Modification of the machines does not fit within Right to Repair.

 

[aczlan]

The problem between right to repair and tractors, is federal emissions regulations. If the manufacturers provide a means of altering the fuel/boost controls in such a manner that exceeds emissions constraints, they are subject to HUGE fines. As such, they have no alternative but to restrict access.

Which is why John Deere requires the dealership computer to change a temperature sensor on the tractor, riiiiight.

Aaron Z

 

[bearthebruce]

Which is why John Deere requires the dealership computer to change a temperature sensor on the tractor, riiiiight.

Aaron Z

Exactly the point of Right to Repair. A sensor dies and needs replacing and calibrating to the system. The owner of the machine must have the right to effect that repair. Albeit that right may come through the use of the factory tools - which Right to Repair should force to be available at a reasonable cost - the owner of the machine must be given the right to make that repair.

 

[radios1]

You are correct. A manufacturer must not include any means by which the machine can be modified resulting in increased harmful emissions. Right to Repair is about the means of repairing a failed machine without the need for using the Machine dealer to so. Right to Repair was successful for the automotive market. With enough support showing how the manufacturers are harming the farm communities ability to remain viable, politicians may come on board and support a movement to force a standard onto the tractor manufactures such that an affordable solution for the repair of the machines might be had. Modification of the machines does not fit within Right to Repair.

you should be able to modify non-emissions controls though!. there's no harm in that!..

 

[bearthebruce]

you should be able to modify non-emissions controls though!. there's no harm in that!..

No argument from me. Our tool for VAG cars, allows the user to modify factory options that are present in the machine. When guys do more than the options the factory provided, they have to go another route. Our tool only uses the factory protocol, staying within the warranted parameters. Going beyond those is not something we choose to do for it opens the tool provider to all the litigious auto owners who would blame the tool for blowing up their engine. As the owner of company likes to say, "We ain't got time for that!" We provide a tool that allows the user to maintain and repair their car. The largest part of our market are the DIY guys who are fixing the rides they love. The customization market has other players who make "tunes" for engines, exhausts and so on. They are under Federal Investigation right now for mods that may have violated emissions standards when they increased HP and so on.

I fully agree that it is the owners right to do with their purchase as they see fit. However, I also agree that if standards have been set, whether we like them or not, for the good of all, we should comply as much as we can.

Yep, I am using weasel words because there are times when we should not comply with standards and laws set. We should work to get those repealed.

 

[mred2]

John Deere uses "Service Advisor" software on computers to hook up to their engines. It is provided to all Deere service centers. It can be purchased by others for a fee. It is not sold. To use it, it must be leased from Deere. You are given an ID to sign in and do your own diag., tests and cals. You are not allowed to reprogram the ECU. For that matter, dealers must get a download from Deere each time they have to flash an ECU. It is done by engine serial number. If you don't pay for it every year, you lose access to it. They don't allow anyone to make changes to fuel, emissions, outside of their group.

 

[bearthebruce]

John Deere uses "Service Advisor" software on computers to hook up to their engines. It is provided to all Deere service centers. It can be purchased by others for a fee. It is not sold. To use it, it must be leased from Deere. You are given an ID to sign in and do your own diag., tests and cals. You are not allowed to reprogram the ECU. For that matter, dealers must get a download from Deere each time they have to flash an ECU. It is done by engine serial number. If you don't pay for it every year, you lose access to it. They don't allow anyone to make changes to fuel, emissions, outside of their group.

Any idea of the fees?

You are describing the factory tool - the same functions given as are given to the auto community. Mods to systems are never supported by the factory tools. Mods are rarely supported by factory design. Emissions mods will never be supported as the OE would be seriously fined by the governments for such.

As I wrote earlier, even the tuning guys who are in the business of boosting engine performance are coming under scrutiny by governments for their mods violating pollution standards. Not sure what will happen to the "tuners" as their business model is being attacked.

Owners finding a way to do emission equipment deletes likely can only be caught if there is emission inspections of the machines required. Else, who could know?

Those wanting to repair - again the real idea behind this thread - should be able to repair their own machine. The best move here is to get the manufacturers to standardize on an interconnection method for diagnostics and to provide access to their factory tool online at an affordable and reasonable cost such that the equipment owner can repair his machine.

How can the community get the attention of the OE to provide such affordable access? That is the question.

We know the OE will cite problems for the OE in providing access:
- they do not wish to support untrained users in the use of their tools
- they will find support of the users while fixing their machines expensive owing to lack of training
- they may have a sizeable investment to make to enable the web hosted diagnostic software
- they will fear that they are giving up information to their competitors who could buy their tool and analyze their technology
- they will fear that the service bays at their dealerships will loose business
- they will fear that providing a standard interface connection will compromise what they can do with their diagnostic methods and communications.

These and other barriers will need to be addressed.. The OE must see a benefit for them as well as a benefit to their customer. How can that be shown?

Those that see "Right to Repair" as a right to modify, that will not be supported by any OE or government official. There too many legal problems with that. The right to repair the machine purchased, that will have traction if those seeking that help cite what was done in the auto industry. The precedent exists. My suggestion is build upon that precedent.

 

[mo1]

So, the video is a someone "representing" the "right to repair" group reading a letter from someone we never see and don't know who they really are. I would assume it is not a Deere employee as I assume they are in litigation about this(?). I really wonder about the credibility this video gives to the whole picture.:confused3:

I watched the video. The "right to repair" guy in the video clearly has very little understanding of tractors as evidenced by quite a few cringe-worthy comments. I strongly suspect the guy who wrote the letter works at a Deere dealership and is not a Deere employee. The "right to repair" guy runs an Apple repair shop and Apple very notoriously and intentionally makes it difficult to repair its products, going as far as using special tri-lobed screws to thwart anybody even trying to open up the chassis on one of their laptops. Apple really only wants its own corporate-owned stores working on their equipment OR selling a brand-new unit. This is different than with selling tractors, dealerships are all separate companies from the manufacturer and the resale of used equipment is extremely common and very much sanctioned by the manufacturers (otherwise why would Deere & Co run a website such as Machine Finder?)

The suspected dealer's letter appears pretty much spot-on with regards to what he did discuss, as in you can't muck with anything emissions-related and that must be locked down tighter than a drum. The EPA is very, very heavy-handed. They severely smacked down Volkswagen (not Volvo) for working around the emissions requirements and they have also far less publicly put quite a few "for off road/competition use only" truck DPF delete kit makers out of business. Selling DPF delete kits for truck pulling is perfectly legal *as long as the kit is only able to be used for truck pulling.* The EPA smacked the kit makers down as people were able to use these kits to delete DPFs for on-road engines. Making a product that allows somebody else to voluntarily choose to violate emissions laws or not is considered to be illegal in the EPA's eyes. Deere and every other diesel engine maker making engines that require EGR/DPF/SCR/etc thus have to try to make it as impossible as they can for anybody to delete these parts, else they'll get whacked by the EPA as well. The larger the company, the larger the penalty and the more the EPA wants to levy that penalty. Deere & Co is huge...do the math.

The "right to repair" crowd probably has the most legitimate issues with tractor makers with the parts the suspected dealer mentioned briefly but didn't discuss further- access to the onboard non-emissions electronics (the CAN bus, GPS, steering controls.) One could make a weak argument Deere doesn't want the liability if people are able to put in a cheap spotty GreenStar-like device that causes the tractor to drive into a pond, etc. But I suspect this one is that Deere doesn't want people to go buy an aftermarket accessory that's much less expensive than an OEM one.

 

[tomplum]

This was kind of neat. A step forward anyways. Nov 4 (Reuters) - Voters in Massachusetts on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure forcing automakers to provide expanded access to mechanical and electronic repair data and allow independent shops to repair increasingly sophisticated technology.
Independent mechanics just scored a big win over car dealerships in Massachusetts