Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware
Quote:
To avoid the draconian locks that John Deere puts on the tractors they buy, farmers throughout America's heartland have started hacking their equipment with firmware that's cracked in Eastern Europe and traded on invite-only, paid online forums.
Tractor hacking is growing increasingly popular because John Deere and other manufacturers have made it impossible to perform "unauthorized" repair on farm equipment, which farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty and quite possibly an existential threat to their livelihood if their tractor breaks at an inopportune time..........
I wonder if any of these "can't tinker with" features could also be connected to the "control freaks" in Washington mandating certain aspects of the way tractors are manufactured?
"John Deere is trying to convince the Copyright Office that farmers don’t really own the tractors they buy from them. They argue that the computer code that runs the systems is not for sale, and that purchasers of the hardware are simply receiving “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”
I'd never buy Deere products. Too expensive compared to other brands that do the same thing. I looked at their small tractors, many $$$$ more than I paid for my LS.
General Motors is claiming the same thing. It is not as new of an idea as we might think.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
I'd never buy Deere products. Too expensive compared to other brands that do the same thing. I looked at their small tractors, many $$$$ more than I paid for my LS.
Just curious...I know very little about tractor products....are Deere products made in the US vs the other cheaper brands you speak of?
I'd never buy Deere products. Too expensive compared to other brands that do the same thing. I looked at their small tractors, many $$$$ more than I paid for my LS.
Just curious...I know very little about tractor products....are Deere products made in the US vs the other cheaper brands you speak of?
Assembled in USA of global sourced parts is an accurate statement for Deere products and other similar companies.
I'd never buy Deere products. Too expensive compared to other brands that do the same thing. I looked at their small tractors, many $$$$ more than I paid for my LS.
Just curious...I know very little about tractor products....are Deere products made in the US vs the other cheaper brands you speak of?
Assembled in USA of global sourced parts is an accurate statement for Deere products and other similar companies.
When I was working in manufacturing I used to buy big John Deere axles to go into heavy off road construction equipment. Castings were poured in the Midwest then shipped to Mexico to be machined then the shipped back to the Midwest for assembly then the completed assembly was shipped to us in Texas. Hard to believe that was cheaper than paying union labor and building it all in one place.
I also bought 48hp-120hp John Deere engines.....many of them were made in Mexico.
I think it depends upon one's definition of "made". I'm not aware of any compact tractors <70 hp, made in the US. Actually not sure if all of them are even assembled here.
LS builds New Holland compacts and many Case/IH compacts, as well as the "Montana" brand.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
A solid incentive to invest in pre-1979 vehicles and equipment.
I can't imagine why anyone would want a tractor built after 1995. WHY would you want chips and sensors on a tractor? Who wants a computer to troubleshoot their tractor? No thank you.
A solid incentive to invest in pre-1979 vehicles and equipment. I can't imagine why anyone would want a tractor built after 1995. WHY would you want chips and sensors on a tractor? Who wants a computer to troubleshoot their tractor? No thank you.
basslover just today I told a guy I'd like to find an old beater truck to keep at the ranch that has zero computers, zero chips, zero sensors. If we ever get hit by an EMP attack it might come in handy (and bikes too). Plus I like old pickup trucks anyway.
A solid incentive to invest in pre-1979 vehicles and equipment. I can't imagine why anyone would want a tractor built after 1995. WHY would you want chips and sensors on a tractor? Who wants a computer to troubleshoot their tractor? No thank you.
basslover just today I told a guy I'd like to find an old beater truck to keep at the ranch that has zero computers, zero chips, zero sensors. If we ever get hit by an EMP attack it might come in handy (and bikes too). Plus I like old pickup trucks anyway.
I had a 65 Chevy truck in high school. I sure wish I still had it.
As usual, I think it depends. As I've noted previously, I find my new tractor loaded with amenities that I could live without. But none of those play a role in its ability to run, and run cleanly. "Chips and sensors" do allow manufacturers to build cleaner burning, quieter running, easier starting, vehicles and equipment. When was the last time you changed a set of points on your vehicle? I'll bet many here never have. Used to be, back in the good old days, you needed to tune up stuff...now you dont.
I don't miss points, or choke cables. And I still have equipment that uses both. But there's no way I want any more of that stuff coming to roost here. I like just getting in (on) and going to work, without letting stuff warm up on a frosty morning. Chips and sensors allow that. Pre 1979 usually didnt.
Then there's the matter of getting it worked on. If you have old stuff, you may need to be mechanically proficient, as some shops won't touch older equipment, as its not cost effective. That new warranty makes life nice in that regard.
As far as an emp goes, tests have shown a surprising lack of damage to newer vehicles. Truth is, they're shielded pretty well already. If they werent, you wouldn't be able to hear the stereo. And if the pulse is strong enough to still destroy their electronics, what about the fact that the ignition and starting systems on those old vehicles still rely on electromagnetic properties to function?
I reckon the tree still gets moved, whether by use of a hands aw or chainsaw. One just makes life easier.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
Everything you said is absolutely true, sprkplug. Technology has allowed manufacturers to build quality vehicles that run more efficient and for more miles than ever before. It has come with a price though. When something goes wrong and it will, you'd better plug it in to a computer cause you ain't gonna file the points and limp home. I quit tinkering with stuff anymore because my shade tree shenanigans only makes things worse. In general, I think people just miss simpler times. All the bad stuff like you mentioned gets forgotten. It's human nature to remember all the good stuff and forget the bad stuff. There's been plenty of times I cussed my hot rod because it wouldn't run, but when it did there was nothing better than the sound of that 4 barrel sucking air.
Oh yes nothing like sitting on your fender with your feet in the engine compartment and working on your ole 289..... I would still prefer do that now versus current crap. Now you don't learn anything you just hook it up it tells you whats wrong (supposedly) and even tells you how to fix it. WTH kind of a mechanic is that..... Crazy.
Also keep in mind any car 2010 or newer they can take control of from anywhere if they want to... don't think you have control of your vehicle they do... there nothing more then big ole remote control cars anymore..... no thanks....
RC
The only difference between a rut and a Grave is the depth. So get up get out of that rut and get moving!! Time to work!!
Having a hot rod that you choose to drive at your discretion, is a little different than having to drive it everywhere, everyday.
Modern diagnostic aids do greatly help, but it still takes a tech to effect the repairs. If one doubts that, then jump under the hood of a new vehicle and get you some of that. Sort of like feeding the fish in our ponds, still takes skill to catch them even though they swim up when we approach, doesn't it?
I think a lot of resistance is due to the fact that "they" can do something.....never mind the fact there isn't a snowball's chance of it actually happening. Some just need to find reason to worry, and that's fine. But some of us just want to drive to the store, not work on the vehicle first.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
what about the fact that the ignition and starting systems on those old vehicles still rely on electromagnetic properties to function?
plus replenishment gas could be a problem even if your old truck might work better than a 2017 Raptor. and if the bad guys see you tooling around in a truck and they are on foot what ya think they are gonna do? wave and smile as you drive by?...lol
Along that same line...I have a friend right in the middle of Dallas that has his whole house covered with backup generators..he thinks "I'm ready"...I told him...that's all well and fine..but when all hell breaks loose and your house is the only one on the block with lights on and AC working, where ya think the hoodlums and bandits are gonna head to? of course it's good like the Boy Scout Motto..."Be Prepared"....but who knows how a scenario plays out...not something I worry about 24/7. Most of us with property/ponds in the country are probably slightly better off if the crazy stuff ever happens.
From the article it sounds like the computer knows if you replace parts(repair) and won't let the tractor run until a technician programs it to recognize the new part. That sucks!
The hand held diagnostic computers that can reprogram the master computer can be purchased. Also, parts stores have them and they have turned off warning lights for me for no charge after I fixed the problem. Had one come on one time after I inadvertently put E-85 in the tank on a road trip.
Farm equipment is not so easy as cars and pickups. I think the main reason is just numbers. I don't know the numbers, but maybe a tenth of one percent of tractors compared to the number of cars. Just not the incentive for after market products to be produced.
Another problem is there are multiple computers. One for the engine, one for the main tractor, one or two for hydraulics (depending on the number of outlets) and probably some more I don't know of.
The engine ECU's are popular enough several after market people are doing mods there to re-set the engine power. The legit ones are staying within EPa regs for a given family of engines (not setting power levels or settings above what the engine was designed and certified to produce within emission standards), unlike some products put out for pickup trucks.
I recall when Deere's legal eagles came out with that statement that farmers don't own their tractors because they are run with software that is only licensed. Did not set well with me. If they push it too far, I think they will just shoot themselves in the foot. They are not the only manufacturer that makes farm equipment. If they for some reason make their equipment less desirable to own, the market place will step in and fill needs.
That said, I just put in the field a new planter that has all the rows each individually driven by an electric motor that has an individual computer on each row right on the unit. 36 of them. Plus another computer on the back that controls the CAN-buss that talks to the tractor computer and I think another computer that talks to both the row computers and the CAN computer. Yikes! Alternator on the tractor PTO that drives it all. Then another computer in the tractor cab that controls it all. So far it seems to work. I guess I don't own the planter either because of the computer software owned and only licensed by Deere.
We Can't Let John Deere Destroy The Very Idea Of Ownership
Quote:
IT’S OFFICIAL: JOHN Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership. Sure, we pay for their vehicles. But we don’t own them. Not according to their corporate lawyers, anyway.........
As long as there are market choices, the buyers will decide which way things go. I use a flip phone. I am current with 1970s Star Trek! Beam me up Scotty!
This already happens. Like on PC/Laptop you are typing on, or the cell phone you use everyday. WE buy hardware, and lease software.
Exactly. I will look for some elevator prints which very plainly state that the info contained on these prints is proprietary, and is the property of the manufacturer. And these are machines that are 30+ years old. No software, just the schematics and diagrams. You own the elevator, not the stuff that tells you how it works, even though they left it with you. Nothing new at all.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
Different walks of life will always have different views on any given subject. I'm old school and have always liked to tinker with stuff. When I was 3, my uncle bought me a fiddle and Mom said I tried to rearrange the strings. She used to hide the toolbox to keep me from taking stuff apart. The problem I always had was putting stuff back together
I'm still telling myself that I will build one more vehicle, but I'm becoming more comfortable with the notion that it might not happen, with each passing year.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
When I was a kid, our neighbor was retired and spent all free time rebuilding old cars. He had a beautiful Model A that was his pride and joy. He had a 56, and 57 Chevy. He had a few more cars in his shed. I used to be his shadow. Kinda like Dennis the menace and Mr. Wilson. I'm sure I tried his patience on more than one occasion, but he never let on if I did.
One of the first things he taught me was how to rebuild a carburetor. During my 8th grade summer, he gave me a job painting his picket fence and paid me .50 an hour and took me for lunch every day. He taught me good work ethic because if I quit painting for any reason, he looked at his watch and wouldn't pay me for the time I had stopped. Going to lunch was always a treat. He was a talker and story teller and I always enjoyed listening about his younger days. I think he liked having me around. He had 2 kids, but he was divorced and they didn't come around much.
After I grew up, he became my landlord and I still spent a few occasions working around his yard, borrowing his A-Frame to work on my hot-rods, etc. I remember one occasion when he told me he needed to blow the soot out of his 57. I volunteered of course and asked him for his keys. He grinned real big and said "not by driving it like a bat out of hell, stupid." He went to the garage and got a bottle and put some water in it, told me to take off the breather and start her up. He then poured a little water down the carburetor as he held the throttle open to keep it running. He claimed this would steam clean the engine.
I sure thought for a second I was gonna have fun in that 57.
Found it. Pre-computer, pre-software, you spent a quarter million on your elevator, the law mandates that schematics be present in the machine room, but guess what...you don't own them. The guys that pioneered how to make the thing work, retain ownership. Even back in the early eighties.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.