Right to Repair - UK and EU making changes to facilitate repairs :)

[AndyC_772]

It's doing well. Our last Miele died at 13 yrs old with a cracked spider.

I spent a day pulling the machine to bits, and as far as I could tell everything else in there was pristine, but the spider only came as a part of a complete drum assembly and that was £600. Their spare parts availability to end-users hasn't improved since then; quite the opposite, in fact.

I did a load of research and discovered that, across the entire industry, repairability of washing machines is *terrible*. The phrase "sealed drum" comes up a lot... a penny pinching design choice that means the machine is basically scrap when the bearing assembly wears out. Miele was about the only manufacturer known to not make this choice.

They also came up top of the ranking in terms of (Length of warranty / Purchase price), which was the metric I ended up using to make a final decision. On the assumption that any machine is likely to fail and become scrap as soon as the warranty expires, I bought the cheapest model that came with a 10 year warranty, which gave the overall lowest cost/lifetime of any machine on the market.

[timeandfrequency]

Hi nctnico,

As you said, this would have changed the selling price only marginally (+ 1$), but, as for the washing machine plastic tanks, the decision to make the appliance more sustainable was not taken. Instead, they opted to run the manufacturing process solely on cost.

And people keep buying the crap. Our Miele washing machine turns 25 this year. Still going strong with some repairs and these machines are designed to be serviceable.

Sure, the price drives the purchase. And most buyers are not inclined to repair a defective good. It is also pretty difficult to obtain detailed information about how easy it is to repair a particular gear.

iFixit, Louis Rossmann, several non-profit organisations that dismantle, evaluate independently and practice 'name and shame', and also other initiatives like the 'Repairability Index' which is already compulsory in France, (try to) promote and broadcast the importance of building and buying sustainable goods that are easier and worth to be repaired.

Until very recently, repairing a defective consumer good was considered as retarded attitude : a defective good was not intended to be repaired.
Buying a new one was the only socially acceptable trend.
Things are changing, but it will take another generation before these orientations become truly widespread.

As illustrated by a few examples in my previous post, when talking about consumer goods, most of the manufacturers are still stuck in the greenwashing era.
Some of them have truly and recently improved the 'built to last' factor, and also tried to reduce the 'planned obsolescence' picture when it was really too apparent (e.g. printers).
But barely none of them have yet switched towards real 'built to be repairable' designs.

Furthermore, we do not have the people for all the vacancies of repair technicians, since (at least in France) the offer of training for these professions almost completely disappeared more than 25 years ago.


Be nice : just buy, but don't repair
A friend of mine which is really gifted in building and repairing many kind of gear, just bought a brand new EV.
So he asked the sales manager how he could purchase the service manual for his car.
Answer : Sir, you don't seriously consider to repair anything on this car by yourself, do you ?

What this bloke does not know, is that my friend already built the car charger by himself and that he's currently thinking about how to hook a powerful generator to the car for long-haul trips...
I'm quite sure that in a couple of years or even months, he'll have a suitable solution.


[update #1 typo : Rossann -> Rossmann]

[nctnico]

Hi nctnico,

As you said, this would have changed the selling price only marginally (+ 1$), but, as for the washing machine plastic tanks, the decision to make the appliance more sustainable was not taken. Instead, they opted to run the manufacturing process solely on cost.

And people keep buying the crap. Our Miele washing machine turns 25 this year. Still going strong with some repairs and these machines are designed to be serviceable.

Sure, the price drives the purchase. And most buyers are not inclined to repair a defective good. It is also pretty difficult to obtain detailed information about how easy it is to repair a particular gear.

In the NL there are some good online fora about diagnosing and repairing all kinds of consumer electronics. In general you can find lots of info online. You could ofcourse want manufacturer documentation. The primary problem still is diagnosing a problem and a forum is better to figure that out. Even manufacturers won't know what defect causes certain symptoms.

It's doing well. Our last Miele died at 13 yrs old with a cracked spider.

I spent a day pulling the machine to bits, and as far as I could tell everything else in there was pristine, but the spider only came as a part of a complete drum assembly and that was £600. Their spare parts availability to end-users hasn't improved since then; quite the opposite, in fact.

That sucks. In the NL there is no shortage of spare parts webshops. And on many you can search based on model number to find the right parts. And then there is the second hand market. Turns out you can replace the spider with a steel one from the older models; and those steel spiders are being sold on the second hand market.

[timeandfrequency]

In the NL there are some good online fora about diagnosing and repairing all kinds of consumer electronics. In general you can find lots of info online. You could of course want manufacturer documentation. The primary problem still is diagnosing a problem and a forum is better to figure that out. Even manufacturers won't know what defect causes certain symptoms.

You are right. Diagnosing requires skills, experience and tools. The lack of personal experience can be counterbalanced by the shared experiences and failure analysis that can be found on the forums.
If I'm not wrong, I think that Louis Rossmann launched this one : https://repair.wiki/w/Repair_Wiki

And as we all know, electronic boards are not repaired at the component level. Once defective, it is just replaced by a brand new board called 'electronic/control assembly', so far available.
Many years ago, detailed repair instruction existed for TV's and also for some high-end products. At HP, this was called 'CLIP' or 'CLIPS' (Component Level Information Packets)
An example of a CLIPS manual  : https://xdevs.com/doc/HP_Agilent_Keysight/3458A/doc/3458A%20CLIP.pdf  (just read the 1st page)

[timeandfrequency]

Hi dariodario,

[...]
So I started a side project working on an open source washing machine (WM). I already produced a working prototype. I wrote the firmware and made the main board. 
[...]
I'm not more confortable to proceed alone on this idea. Are there in the forum people a bit exerienced in marketing or 3D modelling/software/electronic interested to create a team with me?

If you want to find some partners for your project in France, I'd suggest to get in touch with a few fablabs/makerspaces/hackerspaces near your location and post your project, requirements, expectations, kind of help you need, and goals onto their own forum.
Creating an account is usualy possible without being a member of the structure.
Many of them are inclined to make open source hardware/software.

If nothing moves around you, feel free to contact some of them in other regions. Today, it is definitely possible to setup a project team with people that actually live far from you, or even abroad.

[SiliconWizard]

It's doing well. Our last Miele died at 13 yrs old with a cracked spider.

My current machine is a Whirlpool, usually not nearly as reliable as Miele, but it is 14 years old and still working fine. The only thing is the door switch is beginning to be a bit moody and requires some shaking every once in a while in order for the machine to detect the door is closed when starting a program. Changing it would probably be pretty easy although I'm not particularly looking forward to dismantling the machine just to change a switch. Haven't tried lubricating it yet for fear of getting oil in the laundry, but might try this first. Maybe some dry grease instead?

[themadhippy]

The only thing is the door switch is beginning to be a bit moody and requires some shaking every once in a while in order for the machine to detect the door is closed when starting a program

might be its moved slightly so the latch isn't quite lining up .Might be as simple as undoing the 2 screws slightly that hold the door latch , close and open the door a few times and  re tighten 

[SiliconWizard]

The only thing is the door switch is beginning to be a bit moody and requires some shaking every once in a while in order for the machine to detect the door is closed when starting a program

might be its moved slightly so the latch isn't quite lining up .Might be as simple as undoing the 2 screws slightly that hold the door latch , close and open the door a few times and  re tighten

That sounds possible indeed. Fortunately it does have the 2 screws accessible (i've seen models that did not), so I'll try just that.

[Neutrion]

There are some problems with the "A" however.
A perfectly planned component life time can not account for different methods of usage.
(..)Think about how many different ways things can be used.

Of course - real life use case is way/infinitely more complex than this naive model. It assumes a-priori knowledge of K. The role of this model is not to fit all cases as this would have required much more than 3 parameters and sophistication than those simplified assumptions.

My idea was to grab the essence of two competing solutions, A vs B and understand right-to-repair rules that allow both to coexist. It is the only way our future can develop. As you can see, you cannot pick any K and any Q. Only some subset allows both designs to achieve TC(A)=TC(B). Any right-to-repair that does not allow this equality to hold would mean that the near future consists of only A or only B and that is unlikely.

OK, but I meant that case "A" can not exist in practical life, only in subcomponent level, or in case of very small embedded stuff.

It's doing well. Our last Miele died at 13 yrs old with a cracked spider.

I spent a day pulling the machine to bits, and as far as I could tell everything else in there was pristine, but the spider only came as a part of a complete drum assembly and that was £600. Their spare parts availability to end-users hasn't improved since then; quite the opposite, in fact.

I did a load of research and discovered that, across the entire industry, repairability of washing machines is *terrible*. The phrase "sealed drum" comes up a lot... a penny pinching design choice that means the machine is basically scrap when the bearing assembly wears out. Miele was about the only manufacturer known to not make this choice.

They also came up top of the ranking in terms of (Length of warranty / Purchase price), which was the metric I ended up using to make a final decision. On the assumption that any machine is likely to fail and become scrap as soon as the warranty expires, I bought the cheapest model that came with a 10 year warranty, which gave the overall lowest cost/lifetime of any machine on the market.

Funny I also did a lot a research when we bought our wasching machine 4 years ago, good to see that I am not alone!
(Although there are even washing machine channels on youtube, so it brings me a good argument with friends that I am actually completely sane.)
Did you buy a Beko? Or the ceapest Miele at that time?(There is no full 10 years warranty without the insurance type stuff as far as I know with any manufacturers.) Because for me the integrated motor-inverter was a no go with the Beko because of it's bad thermal design.

Drum Spider: There are some guys in Ukraine who are(hopefully still) producing stainless stel drum spiders for different modells.
Also there is a Ukrainian youtuber, producing really good videos about repairing the sealed drums. There it is obviously worth the time, that is why it is not so easy to make these calculations for the manufacturers.

Sealed drum: Also LG and Samsung drums are not sealed, it seems.

>it's probably unsafe in the general case to make it a rule to just let random joes repair them.

What's the problem with allowing Darwinian selection ?

I wouldn't be against it myself, to some extent.
And I'm all for giving people more individual responsibilities.

But my point here is that it would be almost completely opposite to the principle of european directives in general, and CE marking in particular. So, from a legislation point of view, that would make little sense.

I am not sure about those directives, but the argument with the safety of repairs is one of the most dangerous for the right to repair movement, and it is also flawed.
Right to repair is not there to have every single soul to repair their machines. It is either for those who know what they are doing, or for repair services.
Which will appear again, if the industry would change course.
(There will be a lot of high level engineers aviable there as workforce soon thanks to AI    )

So just because someone can do something does not mean that everybody will do it. So manufacturer responsibility could be excluded in these cases easily.

If we try to finetune the society for needs the biggest idiots, than we will end up either with communism or some idiocracy. Not being allowed to renovate your own house is completely new for me.


I also wanted to raise the issue with the right to cannibalize. So because it seems that in the EU we are not allowed anymore to walk into a  junk yard and take some parts which is an utmost stupid decision.
(Ok in France seems that at least in the Carefour you can pick some smaller electronic "waste" items for free which I liked a lot, but not sure about the bigger cities or the normal wasteyards.)
If the problem is the orks who steal stuff to get the metal parts and sell it, than it would make much more sense to ask for a small fee which is bigger than the value of the metal in the unit.
A huge amount of perfectly fine part is destroyed in this way, and making the life of those who would like to be able to use those parts or sell them very hard.  In Sweden a few years ago some guys were catched by the police because "stealing" junk TVs from a recycle center. Really??   
(If they wouldn't have the problem with all the shooting and bombing and having to import policeman from Norway and stuff I might could even understand...)

[Alti]

You pinpointed the way to get rid of such very high Q situations : building a 'heater+boiler' assembly is a nonsense because the heaters' lifespan is significantly lower than the boiler.

Actually I wanted to show you that a design change (introducing screws) does not guarantee that Q decreases or that TC decreases. Quite opposite outcome is possible, as pointed out.

I think your complain about poor design choice of combining heater and boiler has serious flaw. Your "right to repair" is associated with N, maybe a bit with Ki. It seems the more modules a steam cleaner design has, the more right-to-repair expectations it fulfills for you. So for N=1 this is Pure Evil, for N=4 is good, N=11 marvelous and at N=72 you cannot resist to caress its power cable.

That is irrational. It is irrational to prefer A over B and B over A, based on N or on Ki. This decision should have been based on TC, only.

The parts prone to wearing and/or frequent failure have to be sold separately and should be easy to remove and reinstall.

Right, so you essentially rephrased definitions of the naive A vs B model.

For that particular appliance, the manufacturer chose to tighten the production cost by crimping the heater into the boiler, rather than attaching it with 4 screws and clips.

So, since you admitted the repair has not been completed, this fits into the model as either an A design with pretty short K, or as B design with K1 that was the shortest of all Ki. It was modular, still no dice, successful repair has not taken place. Any conclusions?

May it be that N does not really determine TC?
You can have N=1 design with low TC and you can have N=19 design with high TC.
You are blindly pushing into high N designs!

You are rejecting other solutions because of some superstitions or irrational goals.
Had they made this boiler from thinner and lower grade steel, the heater and boiler could have same Ki values and could have died same day, ultimately making a nice A design. This could have resulted in lower manufacturing and purchase costs, no necessity to burn fuel traveling back and forth with spare parts. Once again - it is not N or Ki but TC that rules.

as for the washing machine plastic tanks, the decision to make the appliance more sustainable was not taken. Instead, they opted to run the manufacturing process solely on cost.

I have an impression that you are somehow biassed towards B.
Both designs are ALWAYS periodic so stop with this "sustainability" - it means nothing.
Somehow B is more sustainable as A for you.
How do you know the drum assembly had different Ki as the motor, the pump, rubber pieces? How do you know there is any useful life left in this washing machine? You'll replace the bearings and next day you'll fight with replacing inlet valve, then next day rubber pipe hits its Ki.

If there is going to be a Right-to-Repair fundamentalists demonstration, I bet we see you waving "Fuck Q" or "Ban A". No offense intended, just think it over.

[timeandfrequency]

Hi Alti,

You are rejecting other solutions because of some superstitions or irrational goals.
Had they made this boiler from thinner and lower grade steel, the heater and boiler could have same Ki values and could have died same day, ultimately making a nice A design. This could have resulted in lower manufacturing and purchase costs, no necessity to burn fuel traveling back and forth with spare parts. Once again - it is not N or Ki but TC that rules.

No : you cannot manufacture a bolier form thinner and lower grade steel to target the same Ki as the heater, because it's a pressure vessel which is a particular device having servere regulatory constrains and a failure means explosion and shrapnels. As for all pressure vessels, their initial lifespan can be extended by periodically doing a pressure assessment test using plain water at SQR(2) time the maximum working pressure.
A failure of the resistor, made of non-flammable parts, just leads to no heat, without any other harmful situation.

You are blindly pushing into high N designs!

On your side, you believe that a non-repairable B product will be carefully dismantled and its parts will be sold as spare parts on an open market or reused for the construction of new product B. This is a really idealistic situation and we're really far.

What actually happens is :

a) In the worst case, the dead B product ends up in the landfill or in the ocean.

b) The most common case is recycling : plastic, rubber and metals are separated and then sorted. Glass and metal are easy to melt and can be reused. They will keep the same properties forever.
Most plastics and rubber are technologically terribly difficult to recycle : it is almost impossible to reuse these materials to build new parts of the same quality.
Here's the reality : Ultimately, recycled plastics accounted for only 9.8% of total plastics consumption in Europe. Which means that 90% of the plastic waste is NOT recycled.
The sole real outlet for waste plastic are blankets, and rubber can be used for road construction.
Other claims about efficient rubber recycling are most of the time nothing else than greenwashing.

c) What about careful dismantling ? Well, this does marginally exist and is managed by non-profit organizations that hire social workers in order to repair and sell the appliancesas low-cost repaired second-hand goods.
But currently, this situation represents an insignificant 0,05 % of all electric and electronic stuff sold a year. No manufacturer dismantles the defective appliances he sold a few years ago to reuse the parts to put them into new goods.
The free market of spare parts you wish is a sweet dream, but it does not exist.
The careful dismantling of each appliance, the sorting, wearing analysis and storage cost of each part is much higher than building a new part with fresh matter. The Q<1 situation you are advocating exists when always using new parts, but has - economically speaking - no reality with recycled spare parts taken from non-repairable devices.

Figures for France :
- 1.2 billion devices sold in 2020.
- 600,000 pieces of electrical and electronic equipment collected by the eco-organisation were able to be renovated by Envie and Emmaüs.
Hence the 0.05%


So yes, I'm actually cleverly pushing for high N designs, because it permits you to keep and use an existing appliance for a very long time by changing the less parts as possible when defective. And above all, as you keep your existing device, this does not require remanufacturing existing parts that are still fully operational.


As I already said, today, reuse of spare-parts gathered from defective B products does almost not exist. Recycing plastic and rubber to build the same new parts is close to irrelevant, because technically too complex.
So, when the B product is not repaired because of one defective part/assembly, this mainly creates plastic and rubber waste which is usually burnt in an incineration plant.

There will come a time when TC will also not become applicable. The sole guidelines will be :
How can we produce energy and build goods without using any fossil matter (=hydrocarbons) and so avoid putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

Contrary to what you might think, I'm not an extreme proponent of sustainability. But still, I'm not blind. And I hope - like many other people - that the incentive measures decreed for the moment will not turn too quickly into coercive measures.

[Brumby]

Not sure that I see a solution - it's like the issue to doing my own electrics (in the UK).  I rewired my own house completely back in the days when it was allowed, and had it inspected on completion - comment from inspector: "I wish the professionals would work to your standard".  Now it's an interesting question whether I'm allowed to or not.
AFAIK it's totally not allowed in Australia thanks to very effective lobbying from the trade.

Indeed.  Any fixed wiring in a home can only (legally) be worked on by a licenced electrician - and even then, there are differing grades.

However, anybody is free to work on things that plug in to a wall socket.

[Alti]

No : you cannot manufacture a bolier form thinner and lower grade steel to target the same Ki as the heater, because it's a pressure vessel which is a particular device having servere regulatory constrains and a failure means explosion and shrapnels.

Well then a design could be redesigned not by screws but by increasing Ki of a heater to match boiler's Ki. My point is that any "right-to-repair" concept that focuses on N or Ki just kills all other solutions with potentially lower TC.

On your side, you believe that a non-repairable B product will be carefully dismantled and its parts will be sold as spare parts on an open market or reused for the construction of new product B.

That is an outcome for  N>Q>1 and for rational consumers driven by TC, under assumptions of naive A vs B . I point out naive A vs B because it is just an approximation of real world, where Ki are known a-priori, all modules cost the same, Q is finite, replacement of a module does not cost, no War in Ukraine, etc, I am sure you get the point. If you add other factors (like when Q is unknown or you do not have access to service manual and diagnostics and repair costs a fortune) then I have no idea what the outcome is going to be.

This is a really idealistic situation and we're really far.

It is just a model but it grasps the essence of right-to-repair. Yes, reality is more complex. Fortunately, the factors ignored in the model change the boundary between A and B in quite predictable way.

In the worst case, the dead B product ends up in the landfill or in the ocean.

That does not have much to do with right-to-repair. Consumers preferences are solely based on cost and this cost must include all factors. Recycling included.

The most common case is recycling(..)

Again, right-to-repair is not a right-to-recycle or a right-to-biodegradeable-washing-machine. It is an important aspect of sustainable economy but not to right-to-repair. It is so irrelevant that even imposing a right-to-repair law that forces certain Ki does not make sense as this would kill all other lower TC solutions with shorter Ki. So if you want to have less waste, you need to include raw materials and recycling in TC and leave the choice to the consumers. And not ban K<5.

What about careful dismantling ? Well, this does marginally exist(..)

Cannibalization. Somehow people believe cannibalization means something good and productive while it is actually a logical result of Q>>1. I think the market of those appliances that were dismantled are only those where Q is really high and there is some Ki left in those parts. So cars and maybe some less fancy electronics. More fancy electronics is not modular and you cannot estimate Ki left easily so not a very attractive market.

So yes, I'm actually cleverly pushing for high N designs (..)

That is a very important first step. You need to be able to admit you have a problem, to overcome weird right-to-repair preferences.

There will come a time when TC will also not become applicable.

It is always going to be a cost that consumers minimize. It has always been like that and always will be. Of course the TC of sustainable designs has to include recycling but the idea of total cost of ownership stays the same, whether we talk about pants from Mammoth fur or a smartphone - same concepts of Ki, N, Q, same decisions.

Contrary to what you might think, I'm not an extreme proponent of sustainability.

It is unfair when proponents of right-to-repair use sustainability as an argument for "B is better, A is unsustainable!" That is a false argument as you can design recyclable A and not recyclable B. Durable A and crap B. And vice versa.

[Brumby]

As to "Right to Repair" there are a couple of different aspects to this subject.  Before we get into analysis at the nitty-gritty level, let's be clear about exactly what the issues are (as I see it).

The fundamental principle is that we don't want artificial measures put in place that make repair more difficult that have nothing to do with the design.  For example, blocking manufacturers of components from selling those components as spare parts and not providing service information.  If there are some manufacturing processes that make repair more challenging, then that is secondary.  It simply means the repairer must have a higher level of skill.  A simple example is SMD components.  Many members here would have a fair chance of replacing a cracked SMD capacitor, but others may not.  This does not mean we should insist on through-hole components just to make it easier for those who find SMD too hard to work with.  The same can be said for other challenges - such as BGAs.  Just because I would find it difficult, doesn't mean you couldn't find someone who could do it.  This is a factor of skill, experience and the right equipment which some hobbyists and, in particular, 3rd party repairers - such as Rossmann - can offer.

Secondary to this is the principle of Design for Repairability.  This is NOT the fundamental focus of the Right to Repair, but it does come as a close companion.  Certainly, there are questions about gluing bits together and offering assemblies as spare parts instead of individual components - and questioning these practices is a subject for discussion - but there are more fundamental questions.

The top example I think of is the practice of serialisation - where, for example, a screen is manufactured with a serial number that must be matched with the processor or it will not work properly, if at all.  I mean ... Why?  Where is the safety or security risk?  If there is no good answer to this question (the emphasis on good), then why do it?

But let's say there is a good reason - then how could the repair industry handle this?  I have mulled over this question and have come up with a process that seems to me to cover the arguments from the manufacturer....

1. Allow repairers to stock a certain quantity of genuine screens.  If you wish, require the serial numbers held to be kept on file with the manufacturer/agent.
2. Provide access to the resources required to register a new screen to the device.  This might simply be an appropriate piece of software and an interface (Licence it if you must)
3. Require repairers to contact the manufacturer (or appropriate agency) to record the change and/or get an authorisation code to allow the new pairing.  Please let this be done through software and not by calling someone.  (Some may argue this is a bullshit requirement - but it does satisfy an argument from the manufacturer.)
3(a)  If we make step 3. optional, then that would allow after market parts to be used, with the manufacturer able to identify this fact should issues surface later.

Following such a protocol would:
a) Allow repairers to perform repairs in a timely manner - for example "on the spot".
b) Allows the manufacturer/agent to control the quality of the parts fitted or, at least, be able to identify genuine/aftermarket serialised part usage - even remotely.
c) Allows the manufacturer to track inventory of genuine parts
d) Allows the manufacturer to track performance of independent repairers through records of repairs.


The argument of "safety" is rather contrived, IMO, especially when we have the ability to do repairs on motor vehicles - which are capable of much more harm ... but the fact that electricity is not as visible as a tonne or more of angry metal at speed makes it easier to put fear into the legislators.  The "Darwin Award" principle may sound harsh - but there ARE people without formal qualifications that are more than capable of performing repairs in a competent fashion.  (There are also those WITH formal qualifications that don't seem to be able to do that - but that is a different conversation.)  Bottom line, if the "ordinary Joe" can fix it, then great!  If they ruin it, then it's all on them - but at least they had the chance to try.

[CatalinaWOW]

Brumby, the definition of a "good reason" for requiring serial number compatibility requires some investigation.

I worked in an industry that required strong configuration management and production of models that covered years.  During that production period design changes were made for a variety of reasons (discovery of a design defect, non-availability of a part or material, cost reduction ....).  Those changes were tested very thoroughly to make sure that they did not cause problems with the current product configuration, but often no evaluation at all of whether those changes were compatible with earlier production.  Our drawings and change orders precluded use of these parts in repair of earlier production.  This didn't mean that the change was incompatible with those earlier configurations.  But it did mean that we really didn't know, and couldn't guarantee that all performance would be equivalent. 

Does this constitute a "good reason"?

I know of several industries where much of the product line has common components, and substitution of one or more modules adds function or improves performance.  The marketing strategy charges significantly more for the higher performance, and at least occasionally product support of the high end lines is part of the marketing strategy.  The entire financial structure of the operation is based on this concept.  But if the special modules are sold outside of the producers product support organization it would allow upgrade of the "value" lines without paying the price premium. 

Does maintaining the developers market strategy constitute a "good reason".  Conversely, does the desire of some operators to utilize a high end, no worrys product line have no value?

[Alti]

The fundamental principle is that we don't want artificial measures put in place that make repair more difficult that have nothing to do with the design.(..)

If "artificial measure" brings market advantage, it is not artificial.
If a company gets involved in artificial measures, it is not a threat to right-to-repair as companies involved in artificial measures always take dodo's path.
Contradiction.

Does this constitute a "good reason"?

"Why" -> because it brings advantage.
It would have been more reasonable to ask "why not"!

I would have banned all activities that do not constitute a good reason. 

[Neutrion]

What about careful dismantling ? Well, this does marginally exist(..)

Cannibalization. Somehow people believe cannibalization means something good and productive while it is actually a logical result of Q>>1. I think the market of those appliances that were dismantled are only those where Q is really high and there is some Ki left in those parts. So cars and maybe some less fancy electronics. More fancy electronics is not modular and you cannot estimate Ki left easily so not a very attractive market.

Reusing of used parts is always desirable if they have life left in them , which they have, in most of the cases. Especially here and now. So yes it is productive, and if that would not be hindered artificialy with a bad waste management policy, it would thrive with the current spare part prices. Even without any proper right to repair laws.
It is almost only bad policies, which are hindering this.

So yes, I'm actually cleverly pushing for high N designs (..)

That is a very important first step. You need to be able to admit you have a problem, to overcome weird right-to-repair preferences.

People  who push for "A" having even more serious problems, as it can not exist in real life.
One other factor I forgot to mention:
There are always parts in any design which almost never go bad. So in case of "A" they also will be thrown out. Think about the stainless steel drum of a washing machine, or the glass door of it, or the plastic tube, or the concrete weights. Trying to desing these parts in a way that the won't survive the rest of the machine would be a serious safety hazard.
And these are quiet expensive parts. And under optimal external conditions, even the most energy-intesive part, the steel frame will not get damaged.
So "A" is a complete nonsense in almost any real world application, apart from the very few examples mentioned earlier.

There will come a time when TC will also not become applicable.

It is always going to be a cost that consumers minimize. It has always been like that and always will be. Of course the TC of sustainable designs has to include recycling but the idea of total cost of ownership stays the same, whether we talk about pants from Mammoth fur or a smartphone - same concepts of Ki, N, Q, same decisions.

Miele is a good example , that if people think that they get something extra, which is not reflected in the price, the  are ready to pay for it more. And with Miele the longevity and the mostly local production is the most important value.
And the current cost of many cheap brands completely exclude the true costs of sustainability.

The fundamental principle is that we don't want artificial measures put in place that make repair more difficult that have nothing to do with the design.(..)

If "artificial measure" brings market advantage, it is not artificial.
If a company gets involved in artificial measures, it is not a threat to right-to-repair as companies involved in artificial measures always take dodo's path.
Contradiction.

The whole right to repair is about sustainability whereas short term market advantages caused the current situation. So if you don't account for the enviromental issues, than the measures causing short term advantages ARE the the artificial ones.

[Alti]

Reusing of used parts is always desirable if they have life left in them(..)

And how do you think did these used parts become available, first place?
Clearly a repair of a B type product with first module that reached its K1 was not economically justified (and there still must be some Ki left in remaining modules). This can only happen with Q>1 so it seems I have different "always desires" than you. I'd always prefer to use a B product till T (till all Ki terminated) when I already decided to buy B.
Think about it: imagine a design of a (modular) B type product with the design goal in mind that the consumer is going to desire to "cannibalize by design" after K1 days.

People  who push for "A" having even more serious problems, as it can not exist in real life.

Most of the products are "A type". Intentionally designed to be single use, potted, without any repairability in mind. Once used, these go into the "recycling" (or landfill). I'd say that every B type product, even theoretical and perfect, at some lower module level is essentially a combined bunch of "A type" modules. You pop up the lid, pull module out, put in a replacement module and the old, used module with Ki terminated goes disposed. Air filter. Rubber pipe. Engine oil. Clock battery.

One other factor I forgot to mention:
There are always parts in any design which almost never go bad. So in case of "A" they also will be thrown out. Think about the stainless steel drum of a washing machine, or the glass door of it, or the plastic tube, or the concrete weights.

Everything wears out. Even stainless drums, glass and plastic pipes.
For A type the important fact (the assumption) is the design is not meant to be modular or repairable. So: if there are two companies X and Y that compete with some A type product on same market, washing machine. X makes washing machine with stainless steel drum that reliably withstands 5000 days and Y makes a model with drum that goes 10000 days (clearly more expensive drum), all other sub-assemblies are identical, then the question is: what are K values of those two machines (Kx and Ky for X and Y respectively)?

Clearly Kx must not be longer than 5k days as this is A type.
But since dumb Y made a washing machine with only one sub-assembly made to last 10k days and rest is same as made by X, these Y guys just vanish from the market - they won't sell the more expensive product and customers won't pay for parts "which almost never go bad" simply because it costs money and does not bring profit to a consumer..

Of course this is naive model, a-priori known K, no war in Ukraine, etc.

[CatalinaWOW]

In my mind two primary factors affect the reparability question.

The first is the maturity of the product area.  Reparability almost never makes sense in a rapidly evolving product area.  The Shugart 8" floppy disk drives were eminently reparable.  Bearings were available at the local auto store, chips were bog standard and other parts were large enough and simple enough that replacements could be locally fabricated.  But few were ever repaired because by the time they needed repair much more desirable storage units were available.  Smaller, faster, more storage and lower cost.  Manufacturers are quite aware of this situation and actively try to evolve products and needs to make the older products undesirable.

The second is almost unrelated to technology.  In a fully stable economy it is possible to trade off a higher initial cost for lower total cost of ownership.  The opportunity cost of the extra expenditure is knowable.   But any instability at any level makes this trade off riskier and less likely to be chosen.  At the individual level if you foresee occupying the same job, in the same location for decades you make different decisions than where you have changed jobs every four years and changed countries twice.  Similar things happen at each larger unit of the economy.   

[Neutrion]

Reusing of used parts is always desirable if they have life left in them(..)

And how do you think did these used parts become available, first place?
Clearly a repair of a B type product with first module that reached its K1 was not economically justified (and there still must be some Ki left in remaining modules). This can only happen with Q>1 so it seems I have different "always desires" than you. I'd always prefer to use a B product till T (till all Ki terminated) when I already decided to buy B.
Think about it: imagine a design of a (modular) B type product with the design goal in mind that the consumer is going to desire to "cannibalize by design" after K1 days.

You basically argue , that because of of the current  situation regarding the  difficulty of repairs,
the concept of easy repairs are flowed because CURRENTLY it is not worth it.
(Reason for aviable spare parts with much time left in them.)
 
But the very reason for this (Q>1)can be overpriced new spare parts, and the difficulty of repairs, and so on, while T is also not defined, and it is generally unknown. Also Q>1 could be true for one country but much less for an other.
(Working hours for repairs must be icluded of course.)

Reaching T,(expected lifetime) and buying a new product without the exact information of the designed product life, including submodule life means that you might (and quiet possibly) throw away something with a potential X times T for a submodule price. And this is the current situation.

Also the right to get the used spare parts would affect the situation here and now, and would quiet frankly change  the numbers even in your equation. (MUCH cheaper spare parts.)
We would only need these parts not to be destroyed, and allowed to be used by someone.

People  who push for "A" having even more serious problems, as it can not exist in real life.

Most of the products are "A type". Intentionally designed to be single use, potted, without any repairability in mind. Once used, these go into the "recycling" (or landfill). I'd say that every B type product, even theoretical and perfect, at some lower module level is essentially a combined bunch of "A type" modules. You pop up the lid, pull module out, put in a replacement module and the old, used module with Ki terminated goes disposed. Air filter. Rubber pipe. Engine oil. Clock battery.

But now we are going from an entirely "A" type product to a "B" type and looking at the submodule level which is a different stuff. But still the assumption that you can not design a proper "A" type
product is even valid there, as on the subcomponent level, you would have the same difficulties.
(Different product usage, and enviromental factors.)
Manufacturers clearly aim for a minimum usage hours at the submodule level, but reaching the design lifetime and getting worn out mostly means even on the subcomponent level, that you end up with a lot of life left in most of the components.
Engine oil or air filter is a completely different consumable.

One other factor I forgot to mention:
There are always parts in any design which almost never go bad. So in case of "A" they also will be thrown out. Think about the stainless steel drum of a washing machine, or the glass door of it, or the plastic tube, or the concrete weights.

Everything wears out. Even stainless drums, glass and plastic pipes.
For A type the important fact (the assumption) is the design is not meant to be modular or repairable. So: if there are two companies X and Y that compete with some A type product on same market, washing machine. X makes washing machine with stainless steel drum that reliably withstands 5000 days and Y makes a model with drum that goes 10000 days (clearly more expensive drum), all other sub-assemblies are identical, then the question is: what are K values of those two machines (Kx and Ky for X and Y respectively)?


Clearly Kx must not be longer than 5k days as this is A type.
But since dumb Y made a washing machine with only one sub-assembly made to last 10k days and rest is same as made by X, these Y guys just vanish from the market - they won't sell the more expensive product and customers won't pay for parts "which almost never go bad" simply because it costs money and does not bring profit to a consumer..

Of course this is naive model, a-priori known K, no war in Ukraine, etc.

No, the stainless steel drum never wears out in any washer(in comparison to the product life), because this is a safety related part. Nor is the glass, or the concrete, or the plastic tube in itself. But with "A" you would be forced to throw out these valuable parts as well. (And of course this is valid for any other product as most structural parts never wear out, think about the casing of any equipment.)

Your 5000 day assumption is only valid if that is the design lifeteime of your product.
But you can not design a stainless steel drum with such a low life expectancy of a washer, because that would be a serious safety hazard. That is the whole point. Or you would have to design a 5000 day drum to withstand 5000 day minimum load max imbalance condition which under more optimal circumstances
would have still a lot of life left in them at the end of the product life-  to have us back to square one.


The longest service life using the same materials and design lifetime is only aviable with a flexible modular design where you can mend all the unknown variations in production and usage style with repairability.
That also means more incetives to use all the parts which have life inevitable left in them.

[Brumby]

Brumby, the definition of a "good reason" for requiring serial number compatibility requires some investigation.

I worked in an industry that required strong configuration management and production of models that covered years.  During that production period design changes were made for a variety of reasons (discovery of a design defect, non-availability of a part or material, cost reduction ....).  Those changes were tested very thoroughly to make sure that they did not cause problems with the current product configuration, but often no evaluation at all of whether those changes were compatible with earlier production.  Our drawings and change orders precluded use of these parts in repair of earlier production.  This didn't mean that the change was incompatible with those earlier configurations.  But it did mean that we really didn't know, and couldn't guarantee that all performance would be equivalent. 

Does this constitute a "good reason"?

To me, that's not a reason - it's a caveat.

Let such potential issues run free in the wild and there will soon be a wealth of feedback from numerous interested parties that will have tried all manner of approaches in making things work.  You just have to withdraw the roadblocks that stop those parties from having a go.  The personal computer market is an example.  Lots of people provide input on what does and does not work, over and above what the manufacturers provide.  The same thing will happen in the repair community - certainly not to the same extent as we see in the personal computer industry, but it will happen -IF- given the chance.

For those who want to shout "Danger Will Robinson" for the potential for harm, I will refer them to the risk taken with motor vehicle repairs.  Given the opportunity, the good and the bad will be identified.

[CatalinaWOW]

Brumby, the definition of a "good reason" for requiring serial number compatibility requires some investigation.

I worked in an industry that required strong configuration management and production of models that covered years.  During that production period design changes were made for a variety of reasons (discovery of a design defect, non-availability of a part or material, cost reduction ....).  Those changes were tested very thoroughly to make sure that they did not cause problems with the current product configuration, but often no evaluation at all of whether those changes were compatible with earlier production.  Our drawings and change orders precluded use of these parts in repair of earlier production.  This didn't mean that the change was incompatible with those earlier configurations.  But it did mean that we really didn't know, and couldn't guarantee that all performance would be equivalent. 

Does this constitute a "good reason"?

To me, that's not a reason - it's a caveat.

Let such potential issues run free in the wild and there will soon be a wealth of feedback from numerous interested parties that will have tried all manner of approaches in making things work.  You just have to withdraw the roadblocks that stop those parties from having a go.  The personal computer market is an example.  Lots of people provide input on what does and does not work, over and above what the manufacturers provide.  The same thing will happen in the repair community - certainly not to the same extent as we see in the personal computer industry, but it will happen -IF- given the chance.

For those who want to shout "Danger Will Robinson" for the potential for harm, I will refer them to the risk taken with motor vehicle repairs.  Given the opportunity, the good and the bad will be identified.

I generally agree.  Part of the answer lies in the level of risk of harm.  And your example of automotive repair is the perfect example of what is probably the highest risk that allows free substitution in the current world.  The aerospace world is far tighter.  And it is a conundrum.  The risks are greatly higher - failed parts cause severe injury and death in percentages measured in whole decimal points, while in the automotive world it is by my estimate a couple of orders of magnitude lower.  But exposure in the aerospace world is much lower (literally thousands of times fewer planes than automobiles).   

I guess the real answer is that humans don't perceive risk very accurately, and the market sorts out what people feel good about, regardless of any underlying facts.  And the Chicken Littles of the world do have an impact on the market.

[SilverSolder]

Brumby, the definition of a "good reason" for requiring serial number compatibility requires some investigation.

I worked in an industry that required strong configuration management and production of models that covered years.  During that production period design changes were made for a variety of reasons (discovery of a design defect, non-availability of a part or material, cost reduction ....).  Those changes were tested very thoroughly to make sure that they did not cause problems with the current product configuration, but often no evaluation at all of whether those changes were compatible with earlier production.  Our drawings and change orders precluded use of these parts in repair of earlier production.  This didn't mean that the change was incompatible with those earlier configurations.  But it did mean that we really didn't know, and couldn't guarantee that all performance would be equivalent. 

Does this constitute a "good reason"?

To me, that's not a reason - it's a caveat.

Let such potential issues run free in the wild and there will soon be a wealth of feedback from numerous interested parties that will have tried all manner of approaches in making things work.  You just have to withdraw the roadblocks that stop those parties from having a go.  The personal computer market is an example.  Lots of people provide input on what does and does not work, over and above what the manufacturers provide.  The same thing will happen in the repair community - certainly not to the same extent as we see in the personal computer industry, but it will happen -IF- given the chance.

For those who want to shout "Danger Will Robinson" for the potential for harm, I will refer them to the risk taken with motor vehicle repairs.  Given the opportunity, the good and the bad will be identified.

I generally agree.  Part of the answer lies in the level of risk of harm.  And your example of automotive repair is the perfect example of what is probably the highest risk that allows free substitution in the current world.  The aerospace world is far tighter.  And it is a conundrum.  The risks are greatly higher - failed parts cause severe injury and death in percentages measured in whole decimal points, while in the automotive world it is by my estimate a couple of orders of magnitude lower.  But exposure in the aerospace world is much lower (literally thousands of times fewer planes than automobiles).   

I guess the real answer is that humans don't perceive risk very accurately, and the market sorts out what people feel good about, regardless of any underlying facts.  And the Chicken Littles of the world do have an impact on the market.

If auto parts distributors get a large amount of complaints/returns for a particular product, it will be removed from the gene pool as well...  plus, the brand will be hurt by it.  So there are some feedback mechanisms in place, even in the automotive "free for all".