General > General Technical Chat
Right to Repair - UK and EU making changes to facilitate repairs :)
<< < (19/20) > >>
Alti:

--- Quote from: Brumby on March 06, 2023, 12:33:12 am ---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.(..)
--- End quote ---
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.


--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 06, 2023, 05:18:38 pm ---Does this constitute a "good reason"?
--- End quote ---
"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.  :-DD



Neutrion:

--- Quote from: Alti on March 05, 2023, 10:59:12 pm ---

--- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---What about careful dismantling ? Well, this does marginally exist(..)

--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---

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.

--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---So yes, I'm actually cleverly pushing for high N designs (..)

--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---There will come a time when TC will also not become applicable.

--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Alti on March 12, 2023, 11:19:13 am ---
--- Quote from: Brumby on March 06, 2023, 12:33:12 am ---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.(..)
--- End quote ---
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.


--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Neutrion on March 12, 2023, 01:54:34 pm ---Reusing of used parts is always desirable if they have life left in them(..)
--- End quote ---
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.



--- Quote from: Neutrion on March 12, 2023, 01:54:34 pm ---People  who push for "A" having even more serious problems, as it can not exist in real life.
--- End quote ---
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.


--- Quote from: Neutrion on March 12, 2023, 01:54:34 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---
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:

--- Quote from: Alti on March 12, 2023, 08:21:19 pm ---
--- Quote from: Neutrion on March 12, 2023, 01:54:34 pm ---Reusing of used parts is always desirable if they have life left in them(..)
--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---
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.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Neutrion on March 12, 2023, 01:54:34 pm ---People  who push for "A" having even more serious problems, as it can not exist in real life.
--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---
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.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Neutrion on March 12, 2023, 01:54:34 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod