You don't have to worry about it running because most prototypes don't have a drivetrain in them. They get pushed into the exhibition hall and pushed out and back onto the trailer.
Is Kubota Really Thinking About This
- Thread starter Motion
- Start date
Probably still cost effective. Virginia DOT is using autonomous mowers in the interstate medians. I'm not sure if they are RC or autonomous, but there are no operators on the machines. There are trucks relatively close, so they could be RC.
Thanks. Guess I agreed too quickly to “Negative”. The video made it pretty clear it was AI operated.
North Idaho Wolfman
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3450DT-GST, Woods FEL, B7100 HSD, FEL, 60" SB, 743 Bobcat with V2203, and more
Biker1mike
Well-known member
Equipment
B6200, Kubota 2030 Front Blade, King Cutter 60" finishing deck
Well, DAMN ! That does not happen very often !
Just wait until you have to track down a software bug on one of these !!!!
GreensvilleJay
Well-known member
Equipment
BX23-S,57 A-C D-14,58 A-C D-14, 57 A-C D-14,tiller,cults,Millcreek 25G spreader,
worse yet, the neighbour's kid you pissed off, hacks into the tractor, bypasses all 'safety stuff', and drives it into town ,hitting every car he can. When it finally stops, he 'purges memory' so no one knows HOW or WHY it went nuts....
oh wait, no need to 'purge memory', just overload the lithium battery , it'll take care of itself.....poof !
oh wait, no need to 'purge memory', just overload the lithium battery , it'll take care of itself.....poof !
they often do concepts and then they do actually test them. From there they develop them. What it becomes is anyone's guess, outside of "that circle"
at one of the kubota training centers they had shelves full of prototypes and concepts and such. I recognized one of them and asked one of the "instructors" there, hey I recognize that thing let's take a look". Boy was I shot down, QUICKLY. Sternly said "don't look up there and do NOT under ANY circumstances take any pictures". Well ok then. Last time there, most of that stuff was gone. I asked what happened, and they said they disassembled and scrapped most of it (scrap iron), while some of it was "placed into secure storage". Interesting.
I had some say-so in the R&D department at a place, non kubota. Was kind of fun but you learn a LOT about manufacturing. At the time the top of the line side-by-side UTV had about 50hp. We sourced a chincanese engine that was turbocharged (3 cyl) that made 92hp. The engineers designed a chassis and suspension, we put the engine on it and drove it around their large, expansive test area for about 2 months. Boy did we "test" it too. It had many improvements and such done in the 2 yr 3 months that I was a small part of that team. In the end, the HP was drastically reduced, the suspension beefed up, and the chassis made a little more cheesy. For many other reasons, cost and liability and government regulations. You never think about this stuff until you've got to go through it. It was a fun 2 1/2 years but I'm glad I don't do it anymore. It's frustrating taking an idea and making it reality just to find out that you can't.
at one of the kubota training centers they had shelves full of prototypes and concepts and such. I recognized one of them and asked one of the "instructors" there, hey I recognize that thing let's take a look". Boy was I shot down, QUICKLY. Sternly said "don't look up there and do NOT under ANY circumstances take any pictures". Well ok then. Last time there, most of that stuff was gone. I asked what happened, and they said they disassembled and scrapped most of it (scrap iron), while some of it was "placed into secure storage". Interesting.
I had some say-so in the R&D department at a place, non kubota. Was kind of fun but you learn a LOT about manufacturing. At the time the top of the line side-by-side UTV had about 50hp. We sourced a chincanese engine that was turbocharged (3 cyl) that made 92hp. The engineers designed a chassis and suspension, we put the engine on it and drove it around their large, expansive test area for about 2 months. Boy did we "test" it too. It had many improvements and such done in the 2 yr 3 months that I was a small part of that team. In the end, the HP was drastically reduced, the suspension beefed up, and the chassis made a little more cheesy. For many other reasons, cost and liability and government regulations. You never think about this stuff until you've got to go through it. It was a fun 2 1/2 years but I'm glad I don't do it anymore. It's frustrating taking an idea and making it reality just to find out that you can't.
Kubota Newbie
Active member
Equipment
M4500, New Idea Cut-Ditioner, JD 14T Baler, IH "Plow Chief" plows, Oliver Rake
We've all gotten used to equipment and tractors getting bigger and bigger. However, one of the ag engineering professors at Ohio State started making the argument a few years ago that for efficiency and improved soil health and less compaction that the industry should move toward smaller autonomous units that could simultaneously be operating in multiple locations.
That concept machine falls into that possibility.
For one thing, the amount of damage liability that a farm operation would be exposed to in the event of the aforementioned autonomous brain fart is far lower with a unit like that and say a 4 row planter than the Case IH unit shown and a 16 row unit that's able to bulldoze over any thing in its path.
The polished wheel bling is probably just that, a way to catch attention.
That concept machine falls into that possibility.
For one thing, the amount of damage liability that a farm operation would be exposed to in the event of the aforementioned autonomous brain fart is far lower with a unit like that and say a 4 row planter than the Case IH unit shown and a 16 row unit that's able to bulldoze over any thing in its path.
The polished wheel bling is probably just that, a way to catch attention.
GreensvilleJay
Well-known member
Equipment
BX23-S,57 A-C D-14,58 A-C D-14, 57 A-C D-14,tiller,cults,Millcreek 25G spreader,
Sure 'smaller is better', especially when you sell 3x more $$$$$$ tractors ! Farmers have HAD to go bigger in the past to make some kind of profit due to increased input costs and poor grain sales.
There's no way that smaller tractor WILL do the work of a big one. prepping and planting 100 acres takes a certain amount of time.
There's no way that smaller tractor WILL do the work of a big one. prepping and planting 100 acres takes a certain amount of time.
GreensvilleJay
Well-known member
Equipment
BX23-S,57 A-C D-14,58 A-C D-14, 57 A-C D-14,tiller,cults,Millcreek 25G spreader,
You're right Hagrid,,
that's the ONE and ONLY exception of a smaller tractor DOING the work of a bigger one !!
thanks for pointing it out !!
that's the ONE and ONLY exception of a smaller tractor DOING the work of a bigger one !!
thanks for pointing it out !!
Kubota Newbie
Active member
Equipment
M4500, New Idea Cut-Ditioner, JD 14T Baler, IH "Plow Chief" plows, Oliver Rake
You are missing the point.
The argument is that they would have multiple smaller units working concurrently, probably in multiple locations.
The argument has some merit. Such as:
Improved soil conditions and reduced yield loss due to compaction.
Shortened planting season.
Reduced overall labor commitment.
The ability for larger farming operations spread out over large geographic areas to be doing work when weather and soil conditions are favorable in one place while not in another. Currently they might be reluctant to move multiple pieces of large equipment an hour away opting to wait for those conditions to improve at the current work area while perfectly good soil conditions might exist in another part of the area they farm in.
On top of that the ability to continue operations on another part of the operation even though a critical piece of equipment is down in one place. For example right now if your one big planter and tractor decide they don't want to talk to each other you're screwed. You sit and wait until a technician shows up to sort it out and get it going again (that happens far more often than you would think)
The GPS guidance combined with autonomous operation tech is going to change the way we look at things.
The argument is that they would have multiple smaller units working concurrently, probably in multiple locations.
The argument has some merit. Such as:
Improved soil conditions and reduced yield loss due to compaction.
Shortened planting season.
Reduced overall labor commitment.
The ability for larger farming operations spread out over large geographic areas to be doing work when weather and soil conditions are favorable in one place while not in another. Currently they might be reluctant to move multiple pieces of large equipment an hour away opting to wait for those conditions to improve at the current work area while perfectly good soil conditions might exist in another part of the area they farm in.
On top of that the ability to continue operations on another part of the operation even though a critical piece of equipment is down in one place. For example right now if your one big planter and tractor decide they don't want to talk to each other you're screwed. You sit and wait until a technician shows up to sort it out and get it going again (that happens far more often than you would think)
The GPS guidance combined with autonomous operation tech is going to change the way we look at things.
GreensvilleJay
Well-known member
Equipment
BX23-S,57 A-C D-14,58 A-C D-14, 57 A-C D-14,tiller,cults,Millcreek 25G spreader,
No, I didn't miss the point,just not falling for it. I've heard it said in other areas before.
IF having several smaller tractors was a GREAT thing, then every farm would sell their one big machine and buy 3 or more smaller ones. AND sell off their huge implements for smaller ones.
'soil issues', sure smaller can help reduce the decades of compaction but so can drawing a subsoiler through, composting and a few other 'old skool' methods.
'labor', OK. no driver/operator BUT someone HAS to program SEVERAL machines to do the chores. Who ? I seriously doubt many have the 'computer skills' to enter and confirm the data. I bet field programming of a machine will be far more than $20/hr.
'downtime': will be a HUGE,costly pain in the bottom (line). Again, gotta call the 'geek' into the field, $$$$. daily maintenance goes way up ! 3-4 machines instead of just one. Don't get me going about batteries or 'sensors' !!
'planting time' shortened ? how ? Only way would be to have lots of 'robots' that can plant faster than one big tractor. Say big tractor can plant 20 ac /hr. robot does 7. You need THREE robots. When one 'goes down', you're down to 14 ac/hr.
GPS. Unless you've got access to MILspec sats, YOU have to program in 'obstacles' like trees and rocks. It's unknown if the robot has 'eyes' to locate a rock that'll take out discs or jam a planter.
Way too much faith is put into the 'computer' being BETTER than the farmer who KNOWS his fields. heck Kubota can't get two computers to be 'nice' to each other using CANbus so there's no way they'll get 5-6-10 or more working perfectly in an' autotractor'.
IF having several smaller tractors was a GREAT thing, then every farm would sell their one big machine and buy 3 or more smaller ones. AND sell off their huge implements for smaller ones.
'soil issues', sure smaller can help reduce the decades of compaction but so can drawing a subsoiler through, composting and a few other 'old skool' methods.
'labor', OK. no driver/operator BUT someone HAS to program SEVERAL machines to do the chores. Who ? I seriously doubt many have the 'computer skills' to enter and confirm the data. I bet field programming of a machine will be far more than $20/hr.
'downtime': will be a HUGE,costly pain in the bottom (line). Again, gotta call the 'geek' into the field, $$$$. daily maintenance goes way up ! 3-4 machines instead of just one. Don't get me going about batteries or 'sensors' !!
'planting time' shortened ? how ? Only way would be to have lots of 'robots' that can plant faster than one big tractor. Say big tractor can plant 20 ac /hr. robot does 7. You need THREE robots. When one 'goes down', you're down to 14 ac/hr.
GPS. Unless you've got access to MILspec sats, YOU have to program in 'obstacles' like trees and rocks. It's unknown if the robot has 'eyes' to locate a rock that'll take out discs or jam a planter.
Way too much faith is put into the 'computer' being BETTER than the farmer who KNOWS his fields. heck Kubota can't get two computers to be 'nice' to each other using CANbus so there's no way they'll get 5-6-10 or more working perfectly in an' autotractor'.
Kubota Newbie
Active member
Equipment
M4500, New Idea Cut-Ditioner, JD 14T Baler, IH "Plow Chief" plows, Oliver Rake
Just saying that's what they are working on.
When I was a kid 50 years ago on the dairy farm NOBODY dreamed of robotic milking stations where a cow would walk up and get herself milked with nobody around, and then walk up to a feeding station where she'd get just the right amount of feed based on HER productivity.... But here we are, and it's not necessarily just the great big farms. Is it wide spread, not all of it, but enough that every major farm show you go to will have robotic milkers somewhere on the grounds.
My grandfather and my wife's father farmed with horses at first, then grandad bought a Fordson which quickly gave way to a Farmall M. Now my neighbors plant with GPS auto steer and guidance and just turn it around on the ends. That's in the span of 80 years +/-.
Maybe it seems far fetched, but I kinda doubt it.
The question isn't will the computer be better than the farmer because the computer will always need the farmer.
The question simply is what kind of tool is the farmer going to turn the computer into?
When I was a kid 50 years ago on the dairy farm NOBODY dreamed of robotic milking stations where a cow would walk up and get herself milked with nobody around, and then walk up to a feeding station where she'd get just the right amount of feed based on HER productivity.... But here we are, and it's not necessarily just the great big farms. Is it wide spread, not all of it, but enough that every major farm show you go to will have robotic milkers somewhere on the grounds.
My grandfather and my wife's father farmed with horses at first, then grandad bought a Fordson which quickly gave way to a Farmall M. Now my neighbors plant with GPS auto steer and guidance and just turn it around on the ends. That's in the span of 80 years +/-.
Maybe it seems far fetched, but I kinda doubt it.
The question isn't will the computer be better than the farmer because the computer will always need the farmer.
The question simply is what kind of tool is the farmer going to turn the computer into?