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

[Fraser]

Just read this from the BBC 

'Right to repair' law to come in this summer https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56340077

It is not clear whether this will include electronics like iPads etc. If it does, Louis Rossmann will be pleased with this precedent as he fights for the right to repair, and the supply of parts to do so, in the USA 

To my way of thinking, if you gain the right to repair a washing machine, that contains electronics, why would the same rules not apply to Hi-Fi, TV and Computer equipment. TV’s are mentioned in the article.

A big question will be parts cost though. I have seen a situation where an OEM is willing to supply parts to bona fide competent repair technicians (health and safety concerns) but the prices are scary high.

Fraser

[SilverSolder]

What are all the brexitard^h^h^h^h^h  freedom loving leave voters going to think about staying in sync with the Brussels tyranny??

[CJay]

A big question will be parts cost though. I have seen a situation where an OEM is willing to supply parts to bona fide competent repair technicians (health and safety concerns) but the prices are scary high.

Fraser

I've a feeling I know how this will go.

The manufacturers will insist on training for technicians for 'safety reasons'.

Once a technician is accredited then the manufacturer will allow them to buy parts but there will be a clause in the accreditation that allows said manufacturer to suspend/revoke accreditation on a whim if they suspect you of using non genuine parts or selling on genuine parts to non-authorised repairers.

Said genuine spares will be modules for 'safety reasons', I.E. a complete PCB swap out and they'll be *eye wateringly* expensive.

There'll be a hefty surcharge that can be refunded on return and inspection of the faulty board to discourage parts swappers so there'll be no ordering up a board to 'borrow' chips off it.

I.E. pretty much the same as it always has been for authorised repairers.

[Alti]

Companies want to make money, that is their only goal.
Every time someone repairs an appliance, the company looses money.

About four years ago EU introduced ban on recycling of disassembled appliances/whitegoods.
Previously I could go to the local scrap yard and pull out a pump, heater or a wiring loom from a scrapped appliance to repair mine. Since new regulations were introduced scrap yards can only accept and resell complete appliances. I have not repaired a single appliance since then because, even though these parts are there, I cannot buy them now.

That is EU right to repair 

[Fraser]

SilverSolder,

A good idea is a good idea, no matter the source. You seem to be under the impression that those who voted to leave the EU think every idea the EU cane up with was bad..... not so me thinks. An issue with EU ideas is that they can take a long time to ‘happen’ as all member states need to agree and, in some cases, a member state, or states, objects to even a good idea ! The EU has had some very good ideas and there is no shame in continuing to stay in step with those good ideas coming out of the EU.

It is the bad, or poorly considered ideas coming out of the EU that will fall by the wayside in the UK 

The EU is not a ‘bad’ institution, it is just the classic ‘Committee’ situation that was recently described by its own leadership as a lumbering oil tanker compared to the speed boat that is now the UK  I personally like speed so will go with the ‘Speed boat’ that is nimble and fast to respond rather than wallowing around trying to manoeuvre.

Only a fool would ignore good ideas, no matter where they come from 

Fraser

[Fraser]

I owned an Audi TT in 2002 and wanted the service manual for it. Audi UK virtually laughed in my face when I asked to buy one. I found out that in the USA Audi had to offer the Service Manual in order to comply with US law. They provide those manuals via an approved source/agent and I ordered my TT manual from them. They shipped it to the UK without question and it was around £70. Not exactly cheap but at least it was not crazy expensive.

When I went into the UK dealer parts area to buy an official Audi spare lamp set I took the service manual printout of the cars lamp details with me. The Parts guy gave me an Official Audi spare lamp set and I compared the contents to what my TT used. The parts guy was horrified ! I discovered that almost every lamp my TT used was NOT in the official TT spare lamp kit .... I showed the service manual page to the parts guy and the first thing he said was “where did you get that, you are not allowed to have a service manual “  I explained the US law on such matters to him. The guy calmed down and built me a bespoke spare lamp kit from the service manual listing that contained more lamps, and expensive ones at that, before charging me the standard, reasonable, price of the generic spares kit.

The look on that parts guys face when he saw I had ‘priviledged’ information still makes me smile.... he was truly horrified that a member of the Public could check on his part numbers etc  Happy days.

Fraser

[Fraser]

Regarding the status of a tech who wants to buy parts..... yes I have met that issue many times over the years. I would write to a company asking to buy a part from them and would receive the standard response that due to health and Safety, plus public liability issues, they were not able to help me but please feel free to send the unit to their official service centre for a good fleecing 

That has been the case for at least two decades. Companies got scared about public liability if they provided parts to a person who then caused harm to themselves or others. They were also trying to deal with cowboy repair shops who used unqualified, poorly trained staff to carry out repairs.

I introduce myself to companies these days and state for the record that I am a fully qualified component level repair technician, competent to work on their equipment. It is a surprisingly successful approach. Parts costs can still be high however. No different to buying OEM car parts I suppose.

Fraser

[SilverSolder]

SilverSolder,

A good idea is a good idea, no matter the source. You seem to be under the impression that those who voted to leave the EU think every idea the EU cane up with was bad..... not so me thinks. An issue with EU ideas is that they can take a long time to ‘happen’ as all member states need to agree and, in some cases, a member state, or states, objects to even a good idea ! The EU has had some very good ideas and there is no shame in continuing to stay in step with those good ideas coming out of the EU.

It is the bad, or poorly considered ideas coming out of the EU that will fall by the wayside in the UK 

The EU is not a ‘bad’ institution, it is just the classic ‘Committee’ situation that was recently described by its own leadership as a lumbering oil tanker compared to the speed boat that is now the UK  I personally like speed so will go with the ‘Speed boat’ that is nimble and fast to respond rather than wallowing around trying to manoeuvre.

Only a fool would ignore good ideas, no matter where they come from 

Fraser

"a lumbering oil tanker compared to the speed boat that is now the UK"  -  against that, what would you rather have shares in... an oil tanker, or a speed boat?  Does the speed boat crew know where they are going? - "going away from something you think is not optimal" is not the same as "going towards something that is going to be really great".

But, let's not rehash this stale debate, it is what it is.   I think we need to get to some better agreements between UK/EU to make things run a little more smoothly going forward.  I feel too much good has been thrown out right now.

[CJay]

Companies want to make money, that is their only goal.
Every time someone repairs an appliance, the company looses money.

About four years ago EU introduced ban on recycling of disassembled appliances/whitegoods.
Previously I could go to the local scrap yard and pull out a pump, heater or a wiring loom from a scrapped appliance to repair mine. Since new regulations were introduced scrap yards can only accept and resell complete appliances. I have not repaired a single appliance since then because, even though these parts are there, I cannot buy them now.

That is EU right to repair 

Could you show me the rules that enforced that because it's not affected me?

[SilverSolder]

Companies want to make money, that is their only goal.
Every time someone repairs an appliance, the company looses money.

About four years ago EU introduced ban on recycling of disassembled appliances/whitegoods.
Previously I could go to the local scrap yard and pull out a pump, heater or a wiring loom from a scrapped appliance to repair mine. Since new regulations were introduced scrap yards can only accept and resell complete appliances. I have not repaired a single appliance since then because, even though these parts are there, I cannot buy them now.

That is EU right to repair 

I'd love to know what the official reason(s) for this decision are?

[Retep]

What are all the brexitard^h^h^h^h^h  freedom loving leave voters going to think about staying in sync with the Brussels tyranny??

You should be grateful instead of insulting those who liberated our country. If it weren't for the Brexiteers EU soldiers would still be marching in our streets and our children would be forced to speak EUan or whatever funny language they speak over there.

[SilverSolder]

I owned an Audi TT in 2002 and wanted the service manual for it. Audi UK virtually laughed in my face when I asked to buy one. I found out that in the USA Audi had to offer the Service Manual in order to comply with US law. They provide those manuals via an approved source/agent and I ordered my TT manual from them. They shipped it to the UK without question and it was around £70. Not exactly cheap but at least it was not crazy expensive.

When I went into the UK dealer parts area to buy an official Audi spare lamp set I took the service manual printout of the cars lamp details with me. The Parts guy gave me an Official Audi spare lamp set and I compared the contents to what my TT used. The parts guy was horrified ! I discovered that almost every lamp my TT used was NOT in the official TT spare lamp kit .... I showed the service manual page to the parts guy and the first thing he said was “where did you get that, you are not allowed to have a service manual “  I explained the US law on such matters to him. The guy calmed down and built me a bespoke spare lamp kit from the service manual listing that contained more lamps, and expensive ones at that, before charging me the standard, reasonable, price of the generic spares kit.

The look on that parts guys face when he saw I had ‘priviledged’ information still makes me smile.... he was truly horrified that a member of the Public could check on his part numbers etc  Happy days.

Fraser

LOL!  -  The trend that corporations don't want a "black economy" of people fixing things has been around a long time.   I recall having a student job at a VW importer/ wholesaler, supplying cars and spares on a nationwide basis.  One day, they were clearing out the stock room of old parts, throwing them in a big skip outside.   I had started helping myself to a few parts for my old jalopy...   when the foreman came out of his office and told me off!  "These parts are to be scrapped, they may not be sold or used in any way - it affects market demand!".

So we are not just battling planned obsolescence, we are battling the fact that there is really no such thing as a "free market" in anything.

[themadhippy]

EU soldiers would still be marching in our streets

wot like the polish who came  to Britain during ww2 to get us out the shit

[CJay]

Aaaand there we go, another thread to mute because of trolling.

[SilverSolder]

What are all the brexitard^h^h^h^h^h  freedom loving leave voters going to think about staying in sync with the Brussels tyranny??

You should be grateful instead of insulting those who liberated our country. If it weren't for the Brexiteers EU soldiers would still be marching in our streets and our children would be forced to speak EUan or whatever funny language they speak over there.

I guess we could do like Farage and get an EU passport from Germany, while dropping the rest of his countrymen into a two-class society: those with an EU passport, and those who have less opportunities.  There is no way around the truth of that.   The rich and the smart find workarounds, the little guys pay.

[themadhippy]

My first experience of manufacturers giving 2 fingers to the consumer was proctor silex back in the early 1980's ,who changed  from making individual elements replaceable in there toasters to having to replace the whole internal assemble.Up until them most domestic appliances could be repaired,hoover vacuum cleaners for example were simple to  striped down(as long as you had a long phillips screwdriver) and individual parts like motor brushes or bearings replaced and work fine for another decade or 2.However once one company was seen to be getting away with it the whole repair industry slowly died.

[SilverSolder]

There is also the fact that it can be easier to manufacture than repair something.  -  that's the call an auto insurance adjuster makes when assessing if a crashed car is worth fixing, or not.

It seems that over the last couple of decades, industry has tried to get to a position where manufacturing is cheap, recycling is easy, and repairs are never worth it.   

Even if they are right, the problem is that this rubs people the wrong way.  - And they are not right...  most EEVblog members are probably pretty adept at keeping things alive way beyond the expected life.

[peter-h]

This thing is likely to get watered down to limited areas and eventually it will become irrelevant.

It's like REACH. It was supposed to force any manufacturer to accept back a product for recyling. But generally the cost of shipping the product back to them exceeds its value, and most consumers have no practical means of packaging anything sizeable, so nobody is going to do it.

Also, spares are available for a lot of stuff. For example I can buy hinges for a Miele oven which is 20 years old. The gotcha is that the hinges are almost £200. Then I have to pay for someone to change them, which is a big job because the oven has to be extracted, taken apart, etc... not an easy job.

[SilverSolder]

This thing is likely to get watered down to limited areas and eventually it will become irrelevant.

It's like REACH. It was supposed to force any manufacturer to accept back a product for recyling. But generally the cost of shipping the product back to them exceeds its value, and most consumers have no practical means of packaging anything sizeable, so nobody is going to do it.

Also, spares are available for a lot of stuff. For example I can buy hinges for a Miele oven which is 20 years old. The gotcha is that the hinges are almost £200. Then I have to pay for someone to change them, which is a big job because the oven has to be extracted, taken apart, etc... not an easy job.

Exactly, this kind of maintenance is almost only worth it if you DIY and see it as a hobby/challenge, or if the appliance is "industrial grade" and worth fixing, with a long life expectancy.

I run a bunch of old cars on a shoestring budget...  it would not be possible if I had to pay a mechanic to do all the stuff I do myself.  Sunny afternoon, a cold beer, and a wrench... 

[ferdieCX]

Four years ago, while living in Berlin, my landlord had to throw away a perfect working freezer just because the thermostat was kaput.
It used a proprietary connector that was not any more in production. Such proprietary things should be forbidden.
A few years ago, each cellular phone used a different connector for the charger. After an ultimatum from the EU to adopt a standard charger, the manufacturers quickly agreed to use the micro USB standard. 

[kripton2035]

don't be scared for apple parts... they have taken measures for it...
since 2017, all devices sold have a security chip inside. the "T2" for the mac.
if you try to make a working device out of 2-3 defective, the reassembled device will not work
the security chip will forbid it. you have to buy virgin spare parts, at a very high price, and a lot of high price tools in order to repair the first one
(and you don't need the used spare parts they can go to the bin they are unusable)
unless one day someone hack the T2 chip completely.
this can kill the used market for these computers
and I presume that all other manufacturers will do the same sooner or later.

[SilverSolder]

Four years ago, while living in Berlin, my landlord had to throw away a perfect working freezer just because the thermostat was kaput.
It used a proprietary connector that was not any more in production. Such proprietary things should be forbidden.
A few years ago, each cellular phone used a different connector for the charger. After an ultimatum from the EU to adopt a standard charger, the manufacturers quickly agreed to use the micro USB standard.

When the issue becomes visible to a majority of consumers (everyone has a phone, and charges it, and eventually get angered by the lack of a standard plug), it is easy for the politicians to hammer some common sense into industry.

The problem is that most of their "tricks" are only visible to engineers,  and even then only those engineers that get involved in the repair process for whatever reason (like your freezer example).

Really it would be useful if there was a serious consumer advocate organisation, staffed with engineers and designers, that could offer some real opposition to the greedy, useless parasites that destroy the earth by manufacturing unrepairable products.

[Alti]

Could you show me the rules that enforced that because it's not affected me?

You mean that in UK you can buy and sell parts of appliances on a scrap yard??
Lucky you, it is forbidden to buy and to sell such components here (Poland). We are obliged to return complete appliance to specialized e-waste collecting points (via the shop when you buy new appliance or dedicated collecting points or scrap yards or independent e-waste collector companies, whatever the path). A fine for disposing e-waste out of this e-waste cycle is around 1200€ here.

These are the consequences of european regulations regarding e-waste. Take a look at Directive 2012/19/EU

My country implemented these changes in 2015. The end result is that scrap yard can only buy complete appliances and must not disassemble/process them by themselves. They literally won't allow you to disassemble the dishwasher that some other guy sold them 10 minutes earlier! Then complete appliance is transported to a dedicated e-waste processing plant that has the right to recycle it (which means: shred to bits and remelt).

In conclusion - no cheap spares on scrap yards since 2015.
Is it different in other EU countries?

[SilverSolder]

Could you show me the rules that enforced that because it's not affected me?

You mean that in UK you can buy and sell parts of appliances on a scrap yard??
Lucky you, it is forbidden to buy and to sell such components here (Poland). We are obliged to return complete appliance to specialized e-waste collecting points (via the shop when you buy new appliance or dedicated collecting points or scrap yards or independent e-waste collector companies, whatever the path). A fine for disposing e-waste out of this e-waste cycle is around 1200€ here.

These are the consequences of european regulations regarding e-waste. Take a look at Directive 2012/19/EU

My country implemented these changes in 2015. The end result is that scrap yard can only buy complete appliances and must not disassemble/process them by themselves. They literally won't allow you to disassemble the dishwasher that some other guy sold them 10 minutes earlier! Then complete appliance is transported to a dedicated e-waste processing plant that has the right to recycle it (which means: shred to bits and remelt).

In conclusion - no cheap spares on scrap yards since 2015.
Is it different in other EU countries?

I think each country is allowed leeway on how to implement directives.

But, even in the US it is difficult to buy scrap appliances for parts.

The "appliance mafia" is of course behind this, they don't want an army of tinkerers keeping the old products alive beyond the date they had planned!

[amyk]

Four years ago, while living in Berlin, my landlord had to throw away a perfect working freezer just because the thermostat was kaput.
It used a proprietary connector that was not any more in production. Such proprietary things should be forbidden.

Right to repair should also naturally include right to modify. If a connector is not available I will just replace the one of the opposite gender too, with a more standard and easily available one.

[Zero999]

What are all the brexitard^h^h^h^h^h  freedom loving leave voters going to think about staying in sync with the Brussels tyranny??

The EUtards have proven how useless they are by completely hashing the vaccine rollout. The UK bypassed their crappy vaccine programme and has done much better. Now other states are following suite, with some Eastern European counties even going to Russia, for the vaccine because the EU are so inept.

I actually voted remain, because I belived it's better for business: less paperwork and being able to employ low skilled workers from Eastern Europe. I admit, there have been a few delays on parts from the EU, but time will tell whether it's as bad as many believe.

I hope the UK will go much further with this law. Not only should appliances be easy to repair, but they should also be designed to last for at least 10 years, with only cheap, consumable parts needing replacement. Scrap dealers should be able to salvage any working parts and sell them.

Companies should also be discouraged from destroying perfectly useable equipment. If they need to get rid of it, but can't sell, for tax reasons, then they should be able to call someone to take it off their hands for free. The only exception to this is if the equipment is covered by something like ITAR.

[Galenbo]

... by completely hashing the vaccine rollout.

Ah you mean the untested solution for a disease that doesn't exist, based on falsified "numbers" coming from an irrelevant test method...
Those conspiracy theorists...pfff

[Zero999]

... by completely hashing the vaccine rollout.

Ah you mean the untested solution for a disease that doesn't exist, based on falsified "numbers" coming from an irrelevant test method...
Those conspiracy theorists...pfff

It doesn't exist, until you know someone who's been seriously affected by it.  Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[Exosia]

[Galenbo]

... Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

...said the conspiracy theorist that even doesn't understand Bayes theorem.

[jpanhalt]

I do not know what Mahindra's policies are, but I suspect they are nowhere nearly as draconian as JD's. Why not let the market decide?  Of course, I have a conflict.  My tractor is an early 2000 Case with very low time.  I like to see it appreciate in value.

[Zero999]

... by completely hashing the vaccine rollout.

Ah you mean the untested solution for a disease that doesn't exist, based on falsified "numbers" coming from an irrelevant test method...
Those conspiracy theorists...pfff

It doesn't exist, until you know someone who's been seriously affected by it.  Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

...said the conspiracy theorist that even doesn't understand Bayes theorem.

It took you nearly a month to come back with that crap.  You're the one making false statements. Troll.

I do not know what Mahindra's policies are, but I suspect they are nowhere nearly as draconian as JD's. Why not let the market decide?  Of course, I have a conflict.  My tractor is an early 2000 Case with very low time.  I like to see it appreciate in value.

Market forces often act against the individual, because many people make poor choices and large companies dominate certain sectors.

Consumers often opt for lower upfront cost, rather than looking at the total cost of ownership. A classic example is the old incandescent light bulb which is very cheap to buy, but ends up costing more in increased electricity costs, compared to alternatives such as LED, with a higher upfront cost. This is why we need some level of regulation.

[SilverSolder]

[...]
Market forces often act against the individual, because many people make poor choices and large companies dominate certain sectors.

Consumers often opt for lower upfront cost, rather than looking at the total cost of ownership. A classic example is the old incandescent light bulb which is very cheap to buy, but ends up costing more in increased electricity costs, compared to alternatives such as LED, with a higher upfront cost. This is why we need some level of regulation.
[...]

Consumers are naive in the extreme.  Take, for example, the market for housing, or cars.  People go all romantic about their dream homes/cars, and the only limit to how much they will pay is what the bank is willing to lend them.  Then, in hock to their eyeballs, with monthly payments for house, car, music, underwear, whatever someone managed to get them to pony up for monthly -   they end up with less discretionary spending power than the 15 year old boy working at the gas station...   so they buy the cheapest possible light bulb, because "we have to save money SOMEWHERE"! 

[Syntax Error]

This still comes down to those two old phrases, "beyond economic repair" and "no user servicable parts inside".

Often good things get dumpsterized simply because it's just not worth doing the repair. The price of the parts often exceeds the price of a new product. Which is a reflection of the economic cost of holding spares in a warehouse for years/decades plus, keeping a service team fully employed over the same period. Thus, my neighbour spent £150 having his lawn mower serviced. A new one is £190. But they did polish the roller.

Another barrier to servicing is the skillset required to affect a repair. Give you guys here on the EEVBlog a dead oscilloscope from a dumpster find and, in a few days, it will be giving years more of faultless service. Give the same to one of the "highly trained" monkeys at Acme Fixit Inc, and it goes back into the dumpster; because the fix was "too complex" or, they didn't know where to find a service manual. Or even how to read it.

[SilverSolder]

A lot of repair work has become priced out of existence and is only "worth it" for really expensive items, except for people with the right skills having a go on a DIY basis...

Another way to look at it is: the price of manufacturing has dropped very far below the the cost of repairing.

[Fraser]

It is interesting to watch Alex from NorthridgeFIX on YouTube. He has a very rigid view in the repairs he takes in. He charges an inspection fee, ‘no-fix’ fee or repair fee and is not scared to declare a ‘no-fix’ when an item will take too long to repair or a rabbit hole presents itself. He explains that he has masses of items awaiting repair and he just cannot run a repair business where repairs take longer than around 20 to 30 minutes. Alex will take on the repair of almost anything electronic but he understands the balance needed between how long a repair will take and how much he can reasonably charge fir such a repair. There is no shortage of demand fir his repair services and many are relatively simple socket replacements, PCB damage or relatively simple faults to track down. These are his bread and butter jobs and he has no need to dive down rabbit holes that will return the same fee as a simpler repair of which he can complete several in the same required time frame. At first this approach seems harsh to those, like me, who will happily spend hours reverse engineering PCB’s, testing voltages, displaying signals etc, but Alex is in business whereas I do such jobs as a hobby. I have. Had some absolute bargain ‘spares or repair’ buys but they were beyond economic repair in the business world. I repaired those items without the pressure of returning a profit on my time. I think to be an electronics repair centre these days you need to be a very shrewd businessman if you are to make acceptable profit to live on. The margins when overheads are considered can be slim. Sadly running such a repair operation can be one somewhat boring to the tech as we tend to like deep diving into a problem now and again and that is just not an economic proposition on anything but specialist or expensive equipment repairs where a decent fee may be charged. The FLIR One G2/G3 thermal camera dongles are an example in my World. They are just not worth the time and effort to repair if hoping to turn a profit by buying faulty and selling repaired.

NorthridgeFIX:

https://youtube.com/c/NorthridgeFix

A recent ‘no-fix’ due to a prior poor repair attempt :

https://youtu.be/ugmIzmvQSPo

Another recent ‘no-fix’ after some repair effort by Alex. As he admits, it can likely be repaired by further, deeper, investigation but he cannot go down that rabbit hole. For me personally, I hate to admit defeat and would find it hard to walk away from such a challenge. That is why I am not in the repair business though 

https://youtu.be/XBAn2Ck8GeE


Fraser

[jmelson]

Thus, my neighbour spent £150 having his lawn mower serviced. A new one is £190. But they did polish the roller.

I recently went out to visit my son.  I thought he had learned something from me, but I guess not.  He was getting ready to dump his lawn mower and get a new one.  I took a look at it, the air filter had NEVER EVER been changed, and he was at least the 2nd owner.  It was packed with grass dust until it filled the plastic cover over the filter.  A good half inch of dust over the top of the filter!  Seems to work fine, now.

Jon

[SilverSolder]

Thus, my neighbour spent £150 having his lawn mower serviced. A new one is £190. But they did polish the roller.

I recently went out to visit my son.  I thought he had learned something from me, but I guess not.  He was getting ready to dump his lawn mower and get a new one.  I took a look at it, the air filter had NEVER EVER been changed, and he was at least the 2nd owner.  It was packed with grass dust until it filled the plastic cover over the filter.  A good half inch of dust over the top of the filter!  Seems to work fine, now.

Jon

Not everyone has mechanical aptitude...  they get to pay for that, so hopefully they make up for it in other areas! 

[Zero999]

Thus, my neighbour spent £150 having his lawn mower serviced. A new one is £190. But they did polish the roller.

He's still saving £40, so it's not a waste of money. Especially, if it's an old, very reliable model, with widely available spare. he might be better off keeping it and having it serviced every year, rather than buying a new one, which might not even last a year.

[Alti]

He was getting ready to dump his lawn mower

This shows the "new is better" attitude. At least part of the problem. Why to design and sell a servicable appliance when statistically insignificant goup of users considers servicability useful? A typical user earns more than the value of the extended life of a serviced appliance. Servicing appliance or investing more in servicable appliance, or even putting effort into analysis of which appliance is cheaper in long term serviced run, is a wasteful decision then. That is a function of the value of ones time. There are those that won't bother servicing their Bentley and those who service their comb.

[Fraser]

The ‘newer is better’ idea is an interesting concept when it comes to the world of electronics. There is little doubt that computing technology and associated processors advance at a pace over time, but moving away from that particular realm things can be different.

I remember watching a program that showed ‘behind the scenes’ of a vacuum cleaner manufacturer. There was a staff incentive program where if a member of staff made a suggestion for a production line change that saved money, they got a bonus. A lady on the production line commented that the casing had more screws than were truly needed to hold it together. Each screw cost money and took time to install. The number of installed case screws was reduced and she got her bonus. This is a very simple example of what happens in Industry. The same principle is applied to much larger, more expensive items when profit margins are involved. My father worked in the Aero Engine industry and his team were regularly tasked with reviewing the BoM and reduce production costs. There was an awful lot of pressure from above to increase the profit margins but thankfully in that particular product realm, there was an over riding safety requirement that was the ace in the pack for the team that could be played if required. Aero engines must be safe !

When a product is designed, it is often over engineered and then the design team can roll back a little on the BoM cost to please management. Production cost reduction is just part of the design process. The cost reduction process can continue after initial production and also during a design review, update or refresh. The first generation product can turn out to be the better made with subsequent versions cost reduced and of lesser build quality, yet theoretically still meeting the original design criteria. The problem with the first generation design is that it may actually contain defects or vulnerabilities that are corrected in later revisions. It is a difficult choice that ‘early adopters’ of a new technology or products consider when buying such technology. Just take a look at the first generation Philips consumer grade Audio CD players .... they were built like battleships but their error correction was very much first generation and greatly improved in later product releases. That said, later models used plastic where once there had been metal and were of pretty cheap build quality with the OEM not expecting them to have a particularly long operational life. People started to change their Hi-Fi system more often due to lower cost so the operational life of the CD player became less of an issue.

I specialise in thermal camera repair and see exactly how cost reduction techniques have been applied to the technology over the years. Early models were commonly built with a metal chassis, had great temperature stability and served their owners well for many years with little to no calibration issues or failures. Modern versions of those cameras are cheaper to buy, contain highly integrated electronics packages, advanced firmware and higher performance imaging sensor arrays. To offset the clear benefits of these newer models, they are often of less rugged construction and may use cost reduced components and optics that can degrade life expectancy and performance. So which is better ? It can be a hard decision that is driven by the users needs. The original camera cost about the same as a small house and so was limited to those with significant funds. The later models are far more affordable but arguably of lesser build quality. If a camera from either era fails, they can be challenging to repair due to the lack of service data and configuration software The modern, cheaper camera may be more prone to failure and require expensive OEM repair, but its more modern imaging performance may be better and unit cost significantly lower. Is it better to repair an older camera technology, that is showing its age, or just going out and buying a cheaper, more modern, version that may fail in time but comes with a fresh warranty and OEM support ? That is for the end user to decide.
Sometimes the decision is not an easy one to make due to investment in a particular camera in terms of its expensive accessories. At other times it is a ‘no-brainier’. In situations like Fire Brigade thermal camera usage, the decision is often made based on camera reliability in service, age, support and replacement cost. At some point it is better to replace the cameras than to keep spending money repairing them, if support still exists.

I believe the ‘right to repair’ is what is says. I would like access to the service data and any utilities required from the OEM to repair their equipment. Those ‘tools’ and service information may come at a cost but at least they will be available. This is little different to the situation facing independent garages who use many different Scan and diagnostic tools to diagnose and repair faults on different brands of vehicle. There was a time when 3rd party scan and configuration tools were rare as OEM’s wanted their proprietary service data protected from such independent operators. Times have changed in that Industry and I would like to see the same happen across the electronics industry, but I suspect, as others have already stated, there will be the challenge of whether it is truly financially viable and sensible to repair ageing equipment rather than to buy new.

Hence why I repair thermal cameras as a hobby and not as a business 

[SilverSolder]

[...] The later models are far more affordable but arguably of lesser build quality. [...]

This statement is broadly applicable to pretty much all products nowadays - the result of a relentless trend that has been going on since...  forever?

It seems the holy grail is to make products 100% reliable for a specific planned life span that depends on the product, after which they are expected to be 100% useless and recycled.

This obviously opens a gap for people that find ways to extend the life of these products beyond their planned obsolescence time, but such people are probably seen as a net negative to society from the perspective of manufacturers, shareholders, and politicians! 

A lot of effort goes into preventing people extending the life of products... these seem to be the rules:
  * Do not make circuit diagrams, theory of operation, or anything like that available outside the inner circle.
  * Avoid making spare parts easily/cheaply available unless these parts themselves are profitable wear items.
  * Use aggressive intellectual property law enforcement to prevent others from making the parts that you refuse to make available yourself
  * Make products difficult to repair and/or modify.  If you can pot the entire product in concrete, perfect!

On the business side:
  * Discourage customers from repairing anything, instead point to new products costing not much more than a repair
  * Get the "easy monthly payments" flowing, if you can get people to subscribe to their own internal organs you are on the right track!

[CatalinaWOW]

A lot of this thread ascribes behaviors to evil that are just doing what each of us advocates doing for ourselves or what we have driven them to do. 

Examples:

1.  Manufacturers eliminating piece part availability and only providing modules.  In our personal worlds we find that older parts are no longer available and so design in newer parts.  At the module level the design remains interchangeable.

2.  Manufacturers reduce design margins or durability to reduce cost.  In our personal world we select the best price goods that meet our needs.  Yes, we are willing to spend more for quality, but usually not everywhere and for everything.  We realize that our need for some products isn't forever and we compromise.

3.  Manufacturers optimize designs to meet market needs.  This one hits me hard.  I am very tall, well over two meters.  Years ago a variety of car models were accessible to me.  But size in a car means lower fuel economy, higher emissions and more material costs.  The market demands excellent performance in these three areas and has become very good at making automobile cabins just barely big enough for their +3 sigma customers.  To their credit they have dramatically improved the accessibility to the -3 sigma customers.  But cars that serve people outside of those +/- 3 sigma limits have become as rare as hens teeth.  The designs have been well optimized.

While I am all for the right to repair, we have to recognize that it comes at a price in things we actually value.

[Bassman59]

While I am all for the right to repair, we have to recognize that it comes at a price in things we actually value.

The question is simple.

Are customers willing to pay extra for a product that is "easier" to repair?

We know the answer.

[AndyC_772]

The problem there is lack of clear, accurate information at the point of sale. By looking at an appliance from the outside, can you tell if it's repairable?

I had to replace my washing machine a couple of years ago - catastrophic failure of the spider after 13 years, £600 for a new drum assembly. I wasn't impressed with that, but I was even less impressed with what I learned about the costs and repairability of machines from every other manufacturer. The standard is now to produce a machine with a sealed drum, small main bearings and no way to replace them when they fail.

[Bassman59]

The problem there is lack of clear, accurate information at the point of sale. By looking at an appliance from the outside, can you tell if it's repairable?

The standard customer -- not the engineer who knows about such matters -- cannot tell if anything is repairable at all.

That customer also cannot tell whether there's some extra circuitry in some electronic gadget that makes it more resistant to failure. That extra stuff adds cost but the customer has no way to evaluate whether the cost is necessary. And when compared to a similar item that doesn't have that extra stuff, and so costs less, what choice is made?

Maybe the only way to tell is by looking at the warranty. if the manufacturer stands by it for three years, likely the design includes the extra stuff. Something with a 90-day warranty? It will cost less but you take your chances.

And, in the end, barring a compelling reason to purchase the more-expensive item, the customer generally chooses the less-expensive option.

I guess once upon a time, brand names meant something. In a lot of cases now, the old "trusty" brand names are just trademarks owned by some anonymous OEM, and labels are slapped on junk with the hope that the buyer who remembered that brand being quality will continue to trust it.

And because brand names no longer have that meaning and trust, the overseas producers no longer bother to put an American-sounding brand name on a product sold here. Americans are no longer scared of a Chinese or Chinese-sounding brand name. We can't remember them -- the brand names vanish as soon as they're established -- but that doesn't matter. Only the price matters.

[AndyC_772]

That's what I ended up doing. Make a shortlist, then rank by (price / length of warranty) to get a figure for worst case cost of ownership per year. I ended up buying the cheapest machine I could find that came with a 10 year warranty.

I'd love to see domestic appliances advertised with repair information alongside the (already mandatory) energy efficiency rating chart. Things like:

- guaranteed parts availability for 3 yrs / 5 yrs / 10 yrs
- full schematics included in box / available to end user on request / available to independent service
- 100% of parts available to end user / independent service
- does / does not contain components that must be set up / programmed / commissioned using proprietary software

[M0HZH]

This won't change things.

Having a lab that costs £100/engineer*hour to debug & repair a £30 board in a £300 appliance that is really worth £150 on the used market is not really attractive to anyone. Not even manufacturers, that have all the required know-how and equipment don't bother with repairs anymore, they just replace and bin broken appliances returned within warranty. The only real exception is computers/mobile phones etc, where data held on the device might be of considerable value; Louis Rossman's niche is probably the most significant.

There is also the greater scope, of what we do as a civilization. Manufacturing is mostly automated and allows us humans to use our minds for greater things. Why waste a bright engineer mind on repairing some dusty, smelly TV when machines take a few minutes to make another one, much cheaper?

The real effort should be put in recycling electronics, not repairing them.

[MadScientist]

+1

[SilverSolder]

[...]
The real effort should be put in recycling electronics, not repairing them.

This is the direction things are going...  hand in hand with easy monthly payments, where you never really own anything, but are just paying for a service to be available to you.  If you think about a modern electronic product with a potted battery that cannot be replaced when it wears out after 2-3 years, it looks a lot like you are just buying a service for 2-3 years rather than buying something that you can keep for a long time.

[Alti]

Lets imagine two designs of some appliance (washing machine).

Design A folows imaginary perfect planned end of life, "potted cellphone" design that has a "ticking clock" and dies exactly after K days and cannot be repaired.

Design B follows "infinite reusability", an imaginary concept where you could replace any component/module you wanted, at time-defined intervals Ki (i=1:N),  for the 1/Nth price of a new B appliance (where N is count of components in an appliance). The assumption here is that no serious skills are needed to service it, an indicator shows "K7 time is up, replace component 7" and it is just a matter of popping the lid and putting in a replacement and closing the lid back.

I'd say that in B if N=1 and K1=K then this is equal to A design with "K time is up, replace appliance" message every K days. These designs conceptually differ only in N value.

With modular design B this is a matter of replacing component by component but since none of the components is ethernal, after some time t=T you end up with a completely new appliance.

[SilverSolder]

Lets imagine two designs of some appliance (washing machine).

Design A folows imaginary perfect planned end of life, "potted cellphone" design that has a "ticking clock" and dies exactly after K days and cannot be repaired.

Design B follows "infinite reusability", an imaginary concept where you could replace any component/module you wanted, at time-defined intervals Ki (i=1:N),  for the 1/Nth price of a new B appliance (where N is count of components in an appliance). The assumption here is that no serious skills are needed to service it, an indicator shows "K7 time is up, replace component 7" and it is just a matter of popping the lid and putting in a replacement and closing the lid back.

I'd say that in B if N=1 and K1=K then this is equal to A design with "K time is up, replace appliance" message every K days. These designs conceptually differ only in N value.

With modular design B this is a matter of replacing component by component but since none of the components is ethernal, after some time t=T you end up with a completely new appliance.

I love this analysis!

It is right away clear that design A can make sense over design B if all the modules have approximately the same expected life.

What happens to the model if we assume different lifetimes of the N sub-components, and also assume different costs to replace them?

[AndyC_772]

In the t = T case, every component in said appliance has provided useful service for as long as it's physically able to do so; an ideal situation that uses the minimum possible resources to provide the greatest useful benefit. If T has all the N's as factors, so they all wear out at that exact time, then it's indeed time for a new appliance.

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?

The energy rating labels on domestic appliances have been a great success - so much so that every model on the market is now "A+++++++" and the whole scheme is having to be recalibrated to reflect the advances that have been made in efficiency. The simple act of making consumers aware of something they wouldn't have otherwise considered - or even been able to meaningfully compare - has resulted in improvements across the industry from which we all benefit.

Repairability information at the point of sale would be equally worthwhile and a very positive step, IMHO.

[Fraser]

Some Fun involving piecemeal replacement of component parts.......namely Triggers broom 

https://rhodestothepast.com/2018/07/05/daft-as-a-brush-the-ancient-philosophy-of-triggers-broom/

To me a product remains ‘original’, from a functional point of view, if it has the exact same design and characteristics as when it left the factory. Deviation from that original design and functionality, for better or worse, makes it a modified product  For a archaeologist or conservator it is a very different story though.

I have a favourite laptop (Dell Inspiron 3500) that was used until its case plastics began to fatigue crack due to flexing in the chassis. I repaired the case cracks with plastic welding  and all was well. Some years later I saw a company selling original case plastics for my model of Dell laptop. I bought a complete set of case plastics, installed the laptops chassis into them and the laptop looked brand new  Was it the original laptop ? To my mind yes. It’s internal ‘organs’ were original and I had just provided a new set of ‘clothes’. That said, some years previous I had fitted a faster Processor module so it’s ‘brains’ were changed long before the casing. In terms of the right to repair, I was so pleased to be able to buy a new complete casing kit for my laptop at reasonable cost. It was clear that the casing parts were a clear-out by Dell to a parts reseller as the laptop was long obsolete. Did it make sense for Dell to stock complete laptop casings ? They obviously thought so whilst the laptop was current but it became dead money once the laptop went obsolete. Not many people would pay what Dell would charge for a complete casing. I suspect those parts were purely stocked for warranty claim purposes. Back in the latex 1990’s laptops were so expensive to make and buy that the maths may have justified the storage of ‘consumable’ or failure prone parts. I am not sure the story is the same today though. When my iPad battery died, I paid £80 to the nice chap in the Apple store and he gave me a brand new, not ‘refurbished’ iPad. He commented that even though my original iPad was in mint condition, it did not make financial sense to dismantle and refurbish it for reuse. That sort of suggests that an iPad actually costs Apple less than £80 to manufacture....  just my guess though. In the face of low production costs it is only really viable to refurbish or repair equipment that is special in some way, either in intrinsic production cost, data recovery or system compatibility. There are many elderly industrial Electronic systems in use throughout the World.... why ? Well they cost too much to replace, upgrade or to redesign the system they operate within to use modern replacement technology. Win XP is still alive and well in embedded computers within Industrial systems  That is where the right to repair can be essential to support the users of such equipment. I was trained to repair almost anything electronic with, or without a schematic diagram. These days a schematic diagram can be essential for efficiency and success. Then there is is the bespoke software and firmware to be considered ! Repairing modern electronics can be a total nightmare if the fault is not something relatively simple to track down.

Fraser

[Fraser]

Triggers Broom ........

https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY

 

[Fraser]

I thought some examples of ‘right to repair’ in action may be worth detailing here. Some relatively recent ones from my workshop......


1. I bought a ARGUS 2 thermal camera that is long obsolete and I needed some information to assist in my repair of it. I contacted E2V ARGUS customer support and instead of the usual ‘sorry cannot help’ they replied that they had forwarded my request to the Chief engineer who might be able to help me. That was the start of a friendship with that very friendly and helpful Chief engineer ! It was a ‘can do’ attitude by the E2V customer support team and Chief engineer that both surprised and pleased me 

2. I bought some neat little pieces of test equipment from Digimess Instruments. They were originally Grundig units but Digimess bought the rights. Digimess advertise supply of user manuals and service manuals for their equipment  The service manuals are not exactly inexpensive at £49 but at least they are available. I wanted just the schematic diagrams and PC control software for my units. I wrote to Digimess and received a response from the owner of the company ! He said he would be happy to supply the schematic diagrams and software for £5 each. I jumped at the opportunity and bought the schematics and software for all of my Digimess equipment. This is a great example of what we techs hope ‘right to repair’ would achieve in a perfect world. The owner of Digimess has no great interest in repairing obsolete equipment and clearly would prefer the owner to be able to repair it rather than it end up in land fill. That is a laudable attitude and the equipment in my case is current !

3. I bought a Peak LCR meter that was known to be faulty. I contacted Peak Electronics to ask whether a schematic was available as it would save time reverse engineering the PCB. The owner of Peak Electronics replied by saying the schematic was not public domain but he would help me diagnose the fault ! He sent me the ‘repair sheet’ that his team use to diagnose and repair the common faults. That guide lead me straight to the failed component  The owner of Peak Electronics need not have helped me and he does offer a factory repair service at reasonable cost. He understands that techs like to repair their own kit where possible though and so supports them in their efforts. I would happily buy that companies products as a result.

4. I bought a used CAT FireWire/IEEE1394a protocol analyzer for a specific task. The unit arrived and was like new. I downloaded the circa 2004 PC software from the current owner of the equipments rights... Teledyne Lecroy. The fact that they make that old CAT software available to us is a credit to them on its own. The software is free but you need the correct firmware loaded into the analyzer. That firmware is provided in the downloaded software file set. The only problem is that in order to load the firmware the unit has to be licensed for updates and that was part of a support contract. My unit had the wrong version of firmware installed and refused to load the new firmware as my update licence had expired Long story cut short, Teledyne Lecroy Customer Support put me in touch with one of the units original design team who still worked for them. In no time at all he provided a diagnosis of the issue and a solution in the form of a new update licence download ! I was then able to load the firmware and the software was happy to run the unit. The chap at Teledyne Lecroy actually phoned me and walked me through the diagnostic and update process. Amazing support that converted a useless ‘brick’ into a very capable FireWire data analyzer  I thanked him and asked why he had helped me so much when the equipment was long obsolete....... he said that it was all about good customer support and he hoped that if I ever needed another data analyzer, I would consider the offerings from Teledyne Lecroy. So he was effectively investing in the companies future potential sales by helping a user of a long obsolete product. He also imparted some very useful knowledge about the units correct use to me and how best to deploy it in my scenario. Remember, this unit went obsolete in the mid 2000’s and he was working from memory. He also dug out the old licence generator to create the new update licence. Many companies would not have gone to these lengths to help me. The unit completed the required analysis for me and I solved the problem that I was having. I will now rehome it as a fully licenced and working unit so that it can assist someone else in their work Just because something is old and obsolete, does not mean that it does not still have use and is able to contribute to someone’s work/life. Better used than in landfill or shredded for its metal value.

Just a few examples of where a companies positive ‘can do’ attitude can make all the difference and provide them with a very good reputation amongst techs and end users.

Fraser

[SilverSolder]

Some Fun involving piecemeal replacement of component parts.......namely Triggers broom 

https://rhodestothepast.com/2018/07/05/daft-as-a-brush-the-ancient-philosophy-of-triggers-broom/

To me a product remains ‘original’, from a functional point of view, if it has the exact same design and characteristics as when it left the factory. Deviation from that original design and functionality, for better or worse, makes it a modified product  For a archaeologist or conservator it is a very different story though.

I have a favourite laptop (Dell Inspiron 3500) that was used until its case plastics began to fatigue crack due to flexing in the chassis. I repaired the case cracks with plastic welding  and all was well. Some years later I saw a company selling original case plastics for my model of Dell laptop. I bought a complete set of case plastics, installed the laptops chassis into them and the laptop looked brand new  Was it the original laptop ? To my mind yes. It’s internal ‘organs’ were original and I had just provided a new set of ‘clothes’. That said, some years previous I had fitted a faster Processor module so it’s ‘brains’ were changed long before the casing. In terms of the right to repair, I was so pleased to be able to buy a new complete casing kit for my laptop at reasonable cost. It was clear that the casing parts were a clear-out by Dell to a parts reseller as the laptop was long obsolete. Did it make sense for Dell to stock complete laptop casings ? They obviously thought so whilst the laptop was current but it became dead money once the laptop went obsolete. Not many people would pay what Dell would charge for a complete casing. I suspect those parts were purely stocked for warranty claim purposes. Back in the latex 1990’s laptops were so expensive to make and buy that the maths may have justified the storage of ‘consumable’ or failure prone parts. I am not sure the story is the same today though. When my iPad battery died, I paid £80 to the nice chap in the Apple store and he gave me a brand new, not ‘refurbished’ iPad. He commented that even though my original iPad was in mint condition, it did not make financial sense to dismantle and refurbish it for reuse. That sort of suggests that an iPad actually costs Apple less than £80 to manufacture....  just my guess though. In the face of low production costs it is only really viable to refurbish or repair equipment that is special in some way, either in intrinsic production cost, data recovery or system compatibility. There are many elderly industrial Electronic systems in use throughout the World.... why ? Well they cost too much to replace, upgrade or to redesign the system they operate within to use modern replacement technology. Win XP is still alive and well in embedded computers within Industrial systems  That is where the right to repair can be essential to support the users of such equipment. I was trained to repair almost anything electronic with, or without a schematic diagram. These days a schematic diagram can be essential for efficiency and success. Then there is is the bespoke software and firmware to be considered ! Repairing modern electronics can be a total nightmare if the fault is not something relatively simple to track down.

Fraser

I guess the issue is if a product is made of a mix of components, some with a short life and some with longer lives.  We sometimes call the short life parts "wear parts" and the product is typically designed to make them easily replaceable.

The iPad example (I have seen the same thing, my wife got a new one instead of a replaced battery) is good:  clearly, Apple considers that there are no parts in an iPad that are worth enough money to bother trying to salvage by replacing the battery - the whole item is disposable.    It probably costs Apple more than 80 quid to make an iPad, but they are relying on most customers choosing to upgrade to a newer device, rather than spending 80 quid on their old one - so overall, they are ahead by not needing trained people, parts, etc., to do actual battery replacements!

I also have an old Dell laptop that is now on its third set of "new clothes"...   but at this point, the screen is just so far behind modern ones in terms of image quality that I have decided to move on from it, rather than replacing the panel.  There comes a point where a product actually does become obsolete!

[Fraser]

Just thinking about the ‘right to repair’ from the manufacturers perspective for a moment, I can see why the big companies may not like the idea and I do sympathise with them......

1. Electronic designs can take much development time and money so are often considered ‘Company Confidential’ to protect the IPR and maintain market lead. Releasing such design information risks revealing ‘trade secrets’, even in an obsolete product. This is because obsolete products may contain design ideas that remain in current use in newer products. IPR is a challenge to protect at the best of times so releasing in depth technical details and schematics would likely trouble a lot of companies legal, marketing and design teams.

2. In order to provide technical documentation for equipment over a number of years there would be a need to correctly archive such data and that has a potential staff cost to the company. It is true that electronic storage of documentation is now simple and inexpensive but such an archive may still need an archivist to manage it.

3. Corporate liability ? If a company supplies a tech with a ‘version 6’ schematic and the tech is working on a ‘version 2’ equipment it may be of little consequence, but what if something bad happens ? Is the company that supplied the schematic in any way responsible ? Corporate lawyers get worried about such things.

4. A company is in the business of making money for its owners/investors and making profit to pay for development work. Think of the car tyre industry for a moment. If a manufacturer invented the super long life tyre that never suffered a picture and lasted at least 200K miles, that company would effectively corner the market in tyre sales and new cars might come fitted with them. BUT what happens to tyre sales ? They decline steeply due to the long life of the new tyre technology. The industry effectively collapses. There has to be ‘turn-over’ or ‘churn’ to bring in the cash to pay all the bills, investors and development. Looking at the electronics industry there may be similarity but there is also the public’s attitude towards electronics. In Japan there was an attitude that a 2 year old TV was ‘Old’ and it was maybe worth replacing it with a newer, better, model. Was that a good attitude ? No comment, make up your own mind ! There have also been policies where a vehicle over 2 years old was considered a pollution risk but disposing of such a young vehicle presents its own pollution issues ! Such policies certainly helped to boost companies sales though. If we look at less extreme examples though. A manufacturer wants the customer to upgrade or replace their equipment regularly to maintain the flow of money coming into the company. They want customers to be loyal to a brand though so the equipment must not been seen as unreliable, yet some how the customer needs to be persuaded that an upgrade is needed. That is where the marketing team earns their money. They try to convince the public that their current brand of product may be good and reliable but the newer product is better in so many ways. We have just changed our homes main LCD TV from a first Generation 720p Sony Bravia 32” LCD to a 1080p Sony Bravia “42” modern model. Why the upgrade when the ancient first Generation Sony Bravia was still working well ? My wife wanted a slightly bigger picture size and I did not disagree with her as screen sizes have increased in size whilst TV costs have plummeted. Our first Generation Sony Bravia 32” TV cost us £2500 way back when LCD and Plasma were fighting it out for market share. That Sony Bravia TV is superb build quality and still produces a great 720p picture. It has a CCFL backlight that must be wearing out by now but it just keeps on running ! The new 1080p Sony Bravia 42” LCD tv is very nice and has a superb 1080p picture, but cost less than £400 ! It comes equipped with a very capable HD LED backlit LCD panel and has SMART TV functionality built in. A definite upgrade but the old 32” still works fine so is now the main bedroom TV and the original budget range Sony 26” LCD bedroom TV has moved to the spare bedroom. This is not what manufacturers want to hear though..... they would have wanted me to upgrade many years ago and many consumers would have done so. It is not unusual for consumers to buy a new TV when new features like ‘SMART TV’, ‘OLED panel’ , ‘3D vision’ or ‘Curved Screen’ are first introduced. I am just not inclined to become a victim of ‘fashion’ though  Would it actually be worth repairing our old 32” Sony Bravia TV if it failed ? Doubtful, but, being me, I would try 

So where does that leave us with the right to repair ? You need to look closely at what items would likely be worth the effort and cost to repair. It is normally expensive products that justify a repair techs time but data recovery is also a worthwhile venture these days. If a product suffers a minor fault such as a power or I/O connector becomes damaged, do you really need a technical manual or schematic to repair it ? I think not. If a fault is buried in a laptop that is worth less than £150 on the used market is it truly worth spending almost its market value repairing it ! Schematics or no schematics, the repair may consume more labour hours than it is worth. Now a motor vehicle is a different matter...... it is a very expensive purchase that retains significant value over a number of years and can be very expensive to replace if scrapped. People also get attached to vehicles ! Modern vehicles contain many little ‘black boxes’ that are actually microcontrollers working on a network. Efficient fault finding on such a design demands scan tools, schematics and knowledge to interpret fault codes and their significance. Once a module or part of the network is proven to be faulty the tech often needs further bespoke tools or software to replace the faulty part. Just taking parts from a donor vehicle is not always enough. It is the garage industry that has already gained the right to repair and was able to fully justify it such that OEM’s in the USA have to supply vehicle repair manuals upon request. Will that happen in the consumer electronics industry ? Hmm, I am not sure. In the past I have purchased service manuals from Sony and they can be very expensive. For a one-off repair it may be that the service manual cost makes the item uneconomic to repair.

I will watch developments on this front with interest.

Fraser

[Alti]

(..) If T has all the N's as factors, so they all wear out at that exact time, then it's indeed time for a new appliance.

For any set of Ki, being natural numbers, there is always a day t=T where all components wear out and all require replacement same day. Even if Ki are prime, this is just T=K1*K2*..*KN.

The lesson here is that both concepts are always periodic.

If Mr. Right-to-repairer follows concept B then after t=T he ends up at the beginning of the period, just where he started with new appliance. The total cost TC is:
TC(B) = Purchase(B)* 1/N * SUM(T/Ki)

If Mr. Recycle-not-repairer follows concept A then after t=T (assume T/K is natural) he ends up at the beginning of the period where he started, but T/K'th time. The total cost is:
TC(A) = Purchase(A)*T/K

So now we have two concepts that can be easily compared since at t=0 and t=T there is nothing left from the past, play starts from the very begining.

It is right away clear that design A can make sense over design B if all the modules have approximately the same expected life.

Yes, for K1=K2=..=KN=T
TC(B) = Purchase(B)(1/N*N) = Purchase(B)
and this is true for any N.

I would rephrase your conclusion: Design B does not bring any advantage over A if Ki=T for all modules. You are scapping a totally worn out B appliance that is technically designed to be repaired but to make it work again you have to replace all N modules for a price of Purchase(B).

What happens to the model if we assume different lifetimes of the N sub-components, and also assume different costs to replace them?

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.

[madires]

I'm the family's repair shop too. Sometimes it's , sometimes . So I see all the wonderful hi-tech from well known brands and cheap no-name vendors, the latest and greatest, old gems, and junk. From my experience there are a lot of smaller vendors providing service manuals for free and spare parts for a long time. Larger vendors are mostly in the "authorized service center" realm. However, you can find tons of documentation online and many resellers of spare parts. Professional 3D printing made it possible to get replacements for old broken plastic parts, e.g. you can order specific gears for old tape decks. But what I hate the most are vendors hiding bad design flaws and trying to sell the fix as repair. Do you know the fancy side-by-side fridges from Samsung? If you have one and the evaporator unit clogs up with ice after a few years, check if there's a small piece of aluminum sheet clipped onto the defrost heater protruding down to the drain hole. If not, add one (easy to DIY). It's a quite common problem with older models and can cause additional damages like a cracked water chiller tank. An no, Samsung won't fix it for free after the warranty period has passed. This was my today's "name and shame".

[SilverSolder]

[...]

What happens to the model if we assume different lifetimes of the N sub-components, and also assume different costs to replace them?

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.

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]

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?

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.

It seems to me that expensive components would end up dominating the model if we account for varying costs.

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.

[...]
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.

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...

[SilverSolder]

2 million Cosori air fryers are currently being recalled over reports of burns, property damage.

You guessed it...  they are not being repaired, but replaced.   It is cheaper to make new ones, apparently!

[Alti]

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.

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 ?

That is an example of B-type appliance that has a very high Q so most likely he disassembled it for parts (sold remaining parts as replacement parts). Feel free to protest or make campaigns for access to repair documentation. It does not matter how easily a $190 component is being replaced in $180 appliance. Once you force screws by law, one thing that changes is that the appliance is going to cost $181 because of greater manufacturing complexity. Then you'll get three separate replacement components instead of this one, $190 each. Of course you can hack with some generic parts from lawn mower and air fryer but this is not an idea for the sustainable future, or the goal of right to repair movement, you know.

[SiliconWizard]

2 million Cosori air fryers are currently being recalled over reports of burns, property damage.

You guessed it...  they are not being repaired, but replaced.   It is cheaper to make new ones, apparently!

It's always cheaper for items below a certain price range. Obvious. Repairing is expensive.

Now end-users may still want to be able to repair their devices themselves, taking their own time and tools for that, so that cost is a different consideration.

Problems of course, as we already debated, start when it comes to safety. Depending on the type of devices, especially if they are mains-powered, it's probably unsafe in the general case to make it a rule to just let random joes repair them. And, if they need to go to a professional repair shop, that'll be costly. You have to pay people who work, stuff like that. I don't really see what alternative there is.

It's probably fine for devices with no or little safety concerns, but for the rest, it's a conundrum, and makes near to zero sense (however unfortunate we may find that) for cheap devices - I'd approximately put the line at around $1k or so.

[perdrix]

>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 ?    Yeah I know - incompetent repair kills/injures/causes financial loss to an entity that's not the repairer, but a third party.

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.

D.

[SiliconWizard]

>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.

[CatalinaWOW]

Safety is the issue that is thrown up with repair, and in today's world what can you name that is safe enough to allow anyone to repair it?  A table that falls over, or a chair that collapses can hurt someone.  If someone is changing the filler in a ball point pen and puts the decorative band between sections upside down it could lead to a cut and then infection.

I'm all for the Darwinian answer, but that doesn't seem to be the way our world is going.   

[eti]

Some Fun involving piecemeal replacement of component parts.......namely Triggers broom 

https://rhodestothepast.com/2018/07/05/daft-as-a-brush-the-ancient-philosophy-of-triggers-broom/

To me a product remains ‘original’, from a functional point of view, if it has the exact same design and characteristics as when it left the factory. Deviation from that original design and functionality, for better or worse, makes it a modified product  For a archaeologist or conservator it is a very different story though.

I have a favourite laptop (Dell Inspiron 3500) that was used until its case plastics began to fatigue crack due to flexing in the chassis. I repaired the case cracks with plastic welding  and all was well. Some years later I saw a company selling original case plastics for my model of Dell laptop. I bought a complete set of case plastics, installed the laptops chassis into them and the laptop looked brand new  Was it the original laptop ? To my mind yes. It’s internal ‘organs’ were original and I had just provided a new set of ‘clothes’. That said, some years previous I had fitted a faster Processor module so it’s ‘brains’ were changed long before the casing. In terms of the right to repair, I was so pleased to be able to buy a new complete casing kit for my laptop at reasonable cost. It was clear that the casing parts were a clear-out by Dell to a parts reseller as the laptop was long obsolete. Did it make sense for Dell to stock complete laptop casings ? They obviously thought so whilst the laptop was current but it became dead money once the laptop went obsolete. Not many people would pay what Dell would charge for a complete casing. I suspect those parts were purely stocked for warranty claim purposes. Back in the latex 1990’s laptops were so expensive to make and buy that the maths may have justified the storage of ‘consumable’ or failure prone parts. I am not sure the story is the same today though. When my iPad battery died, I paid £80 to the nice chap in the Apple store and he gave me a brand new, not ‘refurbished’ iPad. He commented that even though my original iPad was in mint condition, it did not make financial sense to dismantle and refurbish it for reuse. That sort of suggests that an iPad actually costs Apple less than £80 to manufacture....  just my guess though. In the face of low production costs it is only really viable to refurbish or repair equipment that is special in some way, either in intrinsic production cost, data recovery or system compatibility. There are many elderly industrial Electronic systems in use throughout the World.... why ? Well they cost too much to replace, upgrade or to redesign the system they operate within to use modern replacement technology. Win XP is still alive and well in embedded computers within Industrial systems  That is where the right to repair can be essential to support the users of such equipment. I was trained to repair almost anything electronic with, or without a schematic diagram. These days a schematic diagram can be essential for efficiency and success. Then there is is the bespoke software and firmware to be considered ! Repairing modern electronics can be a total nightmare if the fault is not something relatively simple to track down.

Fraser

About six years ago I bought an HP ProBook 6460b from eBay (Cash Converters store, so pretty clueless), listed as “Display not working, only mouse cursor visible” - which amused me no end. How can it not be working if there’s a cursor?! Lol. Paid £46 including postage - paid £6 for HDD caddy, put a spare i7 CPU in it and some more RAM. I added an SSD about 3 years ago, and then an optical bay SSD caddy just about a year ago. Recently added a second (512GB) SSD (a gift), and a few weeks ago upgraded the RAM to the max of 16GB.

Apart from the BIOS spazzing out and forgetting it’s serial number and some other oddities of corruption, which I swiftly repaired with a special HP repair utility, it’s been wonderful and is used 24/7 (it’s on as a DLNA server when I’m not in front of it, working)

It’s flies along nicely on Windows 11 too!

[timeandfrequency]

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 ?

That is an example of B-type appliance that has a very high Q so most likely he disassembled it for parts (sold remaining parts as replacement parts). Feel free to protest or make campaigns for access to repair documentation. It does not matter how easily a $190 component is being replaced in $180 appliance. Once you force screws by law, one thing that changes is that the appliance is going to cost $181 because of greater manufacturing complexity. Then you'll get three separate replacement components instead of this one, $190 each. Of course you can hack with some generic parts from lawn mower and air fryer but this is not an idea for the sustainable future, or the goal of right to repair movement, you know.

Hi Alti,

Some additional information about the steam cleaner.
We did not bring the appliance to a repair shop.
"I" was actually the technician who tried to fix it, which means in this case there was no repair charge other than the replacement part.
190 bucks was the best offer we could find across Europe for the 'boiler+heater assembly' spare part.
My friend did not even try to take the appliance to a repair shop.
So we don't know if the latter could have bought the spare part much cheaper than we could, and, by charging a reasonable repair cost, fixing the defective unit would have been significantly cheaper than the price of a new appliance.
Honestly, I hardly believe that asking a professional to repair the unit would have been cheaper than acting by ourselves.


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

[dariodario]

Why we don't start to change the things? Bad companies are and bad companies will remain imho, with on without right to repair law.
I'm very angry and tired about 30 years of e-waste and purposely not repairaible device.

As a computer science engineer with an electronic specialization, I thought that someone had to start changing the things. 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 would run a business around it and I'm searching for the right business model. Is not easy for an open source project, except few cases (https://www.fairphone.com). I'm obsessed about repairability and "repairability by design". I dream to sell my WM with the schematic and the service manual attacched, as in the '80. Few smd components, most "through hole", all documented.   

Currently the board has 2 microcontroller unit. One for the core WM features, one for the external interface and commands (wifi, mqtt, ble, panel, etc). The two MCUs communicate each other by I2C with on top an applicative protocol (to be open) that I'm writing now. The firmware of this MCU should be open. The first micro (main features) could have an open or closed firmware, to be defined (EU directives and IEC compliance here). The mechanical and electronic hardware should be open.
 
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?

The prototype is in my room and never has left it until now. I only registered a trademark for it. I would like to talk, I and the team, with some business angel...

Regards.
 

[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.

[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".