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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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"
For absolutely not a single benefit to the owner but massive benefit to society.
I think regardless of implementation, if the added complexity reduces reliability and introduces forced failure modes it's reasonable for people to avoid these systems altogether. For example, EGRs causing fouling or DEF engine throttling.
This may be true for our group, but I know numerous blue collar workers at the poverty line struggling due to these systems. Corporations / manufacturers have no incentive to make these systems more accessible. Even if they did, more complex -> more expensive to repair.
> Corporations / manufacturers have no incentive to make these systems more accessible
That's the exact point of actual right to repair legislation.
> Even if they did, more complex -> more expensive to repair.
No, this is not true as a general rule. For example if problems can be diagnosed easier (or even ahead of full failure) with digital controls, this brings down the cost of maintenance. Or if the hardware shrinks in complexity while the software grows in complexity more, this can still be a win as individual bits of a digital controller aren't likely to break down.
But on this topic we aren't actually talking about manufacturers being able to resume production of the previous non-digital engines. This would require actually repealing the Clean Air Act, and probably even directly mandating that manufacturers remove such systems from their current designs.
Rather the only thing this declaration seemingly does is remove one excuse manufacturers have for having locked down their systems with digital restrictions, with the goal of allowing customers to "disable" those extra controls "temporarily" - not really an actual win for any of the repairability or cost issues you bring up.
This is the same fundamental dynamic I've observed in all of the destructionist policies - large print that performatively throws a bone to those suffering, but the actual details don't even try to unwind the poor dynamic - never mind attempting constructive solutions (in this case, straightforward right to repair legislation).