| General > General Technical Chat |
| Right to Repair - UK and EU making changes to facilitate repairs :) |
| << < (13/20) > >> |
| SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: Alti on April 17, 2021, 03:07:01 pm ---[...] --- Quote from: SilverSolder on April 17, 2021, 11:40:09 am ---What happens to the model if we assume different lifetimes of the N sub-components, and also assume different costs to replace them? --- End quote --- Things get complicated but even with this naive model quite a lot can be deduced. You can see that the cost of replacement matters only when Ki does not equal T. There is going to be exactly zero demand for a spare component that has Ki=T. --- End quote --- It seems to me that expensive components would end up dominating the model if we account for varying costs. Real world example: The transmission breaks in an older car. Component = expensive, labour = expensive. This kind of thing can lead to a decision to scrap the vehicle due to just one broken "module". With business model A in effect (the entire product is potted and scrapped as one after a set time), there is an implicit assumption that all parts are equally valuable, and any one of them failing means the product is not economically repairable. Compare with replacing the brake pads... or even filling the fuel tank! It is an expected expense (already budgeted for), not too expensive, not a show stopper of any kind... There is an element of how much consumers know, as well. For example, many of us know or suspect that a battery wearing out is not a good reason to scrap a device. But not all of us know that.... those that don't, might just accept the proposition as a fact of life! |
| Alti:
--- Quote from: AndyC_772 on April 17, 2021, 11:43:09 am ---At the other extreme (your N=1 case), the entire appliance is scrapped when the part (however small) with the shortest lifespan fails, including 99% of perfectly serviceable components. Even if heroic efforts are made to recycle the machine, does it really make sense to melt down old (but working) parts to make near-identical new parts for a new machine? --- End quote --- My goal was to propose a simple but rigorous method of comparing two competing concepts. I am aware this is a grossly simplified model and does not include many real life constraints. However, some obvious rules obey there in imaginary world, same as in ours. Like for example: -Irrational decisions do not decrease TC. -Imposing additional constraints on a design (like modularity, servicability, durability) does not decrease production cost. -Both designs have to offer similar TC to coexist or one of them gets extinct. etc. --- Quote from: SilverSolder on April 17, 2021, 03:47:24 pm ---It seems to me that expensive components would end up dominating the model if we account for varying costs. --- End quote --- I think that the model shown is complicated enough for me. Of course you can introduce another variable and assume the price of the replacement of the component is not 1/Nth but lets say Q/Nth of purchase price. So a new B appliance costs Purchase(B) but the sum of the components costs Q*Purchase(B) now. You can go even further and compare TC of both concepts easily. Concluding, both ideas can last indefinitely and we shall see which EU policy is chosen because clearly the world of infinite resources BS concept of today has some elementary flaws. |
| Alti:
An important property of above "Naive A vs B" concepts came up to me recently. This is a follow up to an answer about Q value. I'll recall some previous definitions: A – non-repairable product, potted by design. K denotes its lifespan. B – repairable product, modular by design. Ki is lifespan of i-th module out of N. T – timeline over which we investigate total cost of ownership, TC(A) and TC(B) respectively. Q – the cost of all B product's new replacement parts (spares cost multiplier). For Q=1, neither right to repair nor B concept makes much sense over A, when Ki=T, as pointed out in discussion. Here A concept wins hands down. For Q>>1 a right to repair is a void right. It is possible to repair a product but cost of all N modules exceeds the value of a brand new B already assembled. I'd call it a "right to cannibalize" because this is what is going to happen really: if i-th module reaches Ki (first that fails), rest of modules that still have some Ki life left are being sold for parts because the cost of buying replacement of failed i-th module and fixing a product is prohibitively expensive when compared to a purchase of brand new item. In edge case when Q=N (virgin cannibalism), single replacement module costs as much as a new B product! So the more we move from Q=1 to Q=N the more the cannibalism thrives. This naïve model is of course only an approximation of what many of us, including Louis Rossman, do with those expensive/unavailable modules/chips. It is only a matter if Q=4 or Q=17.2 but the point is it is Q>>1 (Q is significantly higher than 1). Right to cannibalize is futile, has no economical sense in this naive model. Of course you can write petitions, convince and lobby for access to tools and documentation but it is still all futile if one decreases Q from 27.6 to 26.1 because it still only a “right to cannibalize less”. However, interesting solutions appear when Q<1. This is actually the classical way of thinking how goods are being manufactured. Some company buys modules from other sub-companies that act on free market and then adds value into a final product by assembling those modules into final product and then selling it at profit. They profit from assembling N modules that cost less than selling price of B. If Q<1 a new solution exists: an independent assembler competes with OEM assembler. That Q<1, the existence of free market of modules, is my notion of true right to repair and the only reason B designs can coexist with A designs. A remark: In such case “Trigger's Broom” must last till T (till all Ki reach end of their life), and sketch stops being funny for Q<1. |
| Neutrion:
There are some problems with the "A" however. A perfectly planned component life time can not account for different methods of usage. So you would have to overengineer things a lot otherwise you will have to throw away stuff in every "not perfectly average" user case. So there you can have the much cheaper components in case of the repairable ones. Think about how many different ways things can be used. Also minor component replacement in case of some minor bug(factory recall) would be impossible. So anything goes wrong, everything has to be thrown out. A single capacitor ageing faster than planned makes everything useless. So "A" would need everything to go perfect at every level at every OEM. Did you factored in that cost? Kind of the reason why a nuclear power plant is expensive. Also shipping cost of big appliances are not factored in with the true climate cost at the moment. Fuel is too cheap. So A could only work in a perfect world. To not to factor in different wages in different parts of the world. So there would be no one equation fits all situation because you would have to design completely different products lines even for Europe. Using worldwide desings would be impossible at every level. I think a first easy step would be to have to add to the label the designed product life, to start the competition in that field. The rubbish products started to appear because the consumer was not informed about the expected product life, so manufacturers started to get money out of that "dark" area. But the german initiative to show the design lifetime in years is wrong I think, as it is also supposing a particular user case. So better the data would be in working hours. One particular case could be solved easily: Prohibition of welding together plastic tanks of washing machines. That is a realy nasty practice, and there is hardly as much resource saved with it as it destroys. |
| timeandfrequency:
Hi everybody, IMO, the right to repair story is still at the very beginning. Louis Rossmann and others make an immense job to promote and explain how important it is. However, it will still take many years to apply to most consumer products. And of course, quite every manufacturer is really reluctant in changing his mindset. On this forum we often talk about professional equipement. But the more it concerns consumer products, the less a repair action is feasible and/or economically interesting. Repairing something like a kitchen appliance is really PITA. Since end of last year, the french gov contributes to the repair costs : 10 EUR for a coffee machine, 25 EUR for a washing machine and 45 EUR for a laptop computer. Let's say it's a reasonable incentive and the beginning of a shift. --- Quote from: Neutrion on February 20, 2023, 06:04:00 pm ---[...] One particular case could be solved easily: Prohibition of welding together plastic tanks of washing machines. That is a realy nasty practice, and there is hardly as much resource saved with it as it destroys. --- End quote --- A similar example. A friend of mine had a steam cleaner. No more steam came out of the unit. I opened the appliance to see what went wrong : heater resistor dead. But the resistor is crimped into the aluminium boiler during the manufacturing process and cannot be replaced. You need to buy/replace the whole boiler+heater assembly which costs 190 bucks. The same (new) appliance costs...180 bucks. Guess what my friend decided to do ? 3D printed spare parts ? I needed to replace the front panel button of a small kitchen owen because its axis was broken. The renowed kitchen appliance manufacturer claims for years to tacle with obsolesencence of plastic parts by rebuilding the old parts by using their own 3D printers. Great. But this part was unavailable at any parts shop I could reach, and no 3D STL file could be found on the manufacturers' Internet site. So I cobbled a new axis for the existing button by using a plastic rod and some glue... [update #1 : one more repair story] Built to break Another friend bought in 2016 an airless paint sprayer manufactured by a renowed brand (price : about 350 EUR). With his device, he painted all of the inner walls of the house he has bought. After each use, he cleaned the unit thoroughly with adequate solvent. 2 or 3 years later, he wanted to reuse his appliance and noticed a big leak in the main unit. He disassembled the device and cleaned all of the leaked paint. The hose of the peristaltic pump had a significant hole. He asked me to find a spare hose. So I found a foreign forum where users of the same airless paint sprayer were discussing about their setbacks. Most users complained about a fried peristaltic pump motor. One member claimed that he exchanged the appliance twice under warranty just to paint one single room. The cherish on the cake was the fact that the manufacturer had no spare parts for this appliance. You could not even send the appliance back to him for repair. Under warranty, you got a new appliance. Out the the warranty period, you're screwed up. Back to my friend. To replace the defective hose (length about 12 cm), I just bought an off-the-shelf PVC hose (1 meter = 2,50 EUR) which was exactely the same as the original part. To avoid frying the pump motor in case the pump was stuck, we added an adequate thermal circuit breaker in series with the pump motor. Total repair cost for the leak and the improvement : 15 EUR. And now he still has 7 hoses as spare... |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |