Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They Used To Last 50 Years

recraigslist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 877 posts

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#701

Post by crummy »

dbg31415 wrote: post #341
mark-r wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the blame for appliance quality rot (though certainly not all of it) can be laid at the feet of the government. With new efficiency and safety regulations it becomes impossible to legally sell a dryer that can get your towels crispy dry in 30 minutes. Sears is a lost cause. The only thing keeping them afloat is the value tied up in their real estate holdings.

> With new efficiency and safety regulations it becomes impossible to legally sell a dryer that can get your towels crispy dry in 30 minutes. I hadn't even thought about this. Funny... my parents have a very low energy bill compared to mine... even using these "old" appliances. I think it has more to do with the fact that they have a smaller house, and still prefer to wash dishes by hand, and don't leave any computer…

I thought washing dishes was often less efficient when done by hand? (Depends on the amount of dishes and a lot of other factors though, I suppose.)

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#702

Post by ams6110 »

rbcgerard wrote: post #590
modeopfer wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also studied engineering and I think your professor missed the point. You don't overengineer stuff anymore nowadays, not because you want to scam your consumer out of money (aka planned obsolence) but because the design tools got better and every gram of metal or plastic and every screw and every operation like welding, glueing and so on costs money. Nowadays simulation tools, new manufacturing processes and experi…

To your point, I saw or heard an interview with a Ford engineer a while back where he basically said look we know how to make parts that last forever, but they are heavy and expensive. He went on to say people want more affordable cars (cheaper parts) and we need to make cars lighter for fuel efficiency standards (lighter parts), so they set an internal goal of 10 years of longevity for a part, and then try and make…

I don't think cars are a good example. Cars last much longer and with far fewer significant problems than they used to. A car made in the 1970s would maybe last 100,000 miles, if it didn't rust out first. And it would likely have one or more significant problems in that time (transmission failure, major engine problems, etc).

A new, mass-market quality (e.g. Honda) car made in the last decade will easily go several 100K miles if given basic care, and will probably not have any major problems or be showing much if any rust in that time.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#704

Post by CWuestefeld »

icantdrive55 wrote: post #442
ptaipale wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is partially true, of course. Energy saving makes devices more complex, thus they have more things that can be broken. However, it is also clear that e.g. control electronics is simply not made to last. E.g. they use the cheapest of electrolytic capacitors, which will leak and break in 5-10 years. Using proper ones might cost 1-2 cents more per device. This also means that old dead TVs and stuff may often be rep…

"That is partially true, of course. Energy saving makes devices more complex, thus they have more things that can be broken. However, it is also clear that e.g. control electronics is simply not made to last. E.g. they use the cheapest of electrolytic capacitors, which will leak and break in 5-10 years. Using proper ones might cost 1-2 cents more per device. This also means that old dead TVs and stuff may often be re…

The problem with modern vechicles is that automatic transmission--still. At around 135,000 those sensors, those plates, that OD unit just start to wear out. ... but when it's the Over Drive unit, or the transmission needs a rebuild ...

I don't think OD units are a thing on modern cars anymore. That higher top gear is just going to be another gear inside the transmission. Indeed, on FWD cars with a transaxle, there's really no alternative because it's all a single unit.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#705

Post by Spivak »

hvidgaard wrote: post #428
bnolsen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A serious problem in the US was that regulation demanded clothes washer lids be locked when in operation. This led to forced electronics on clothes washers starting several years ago just to handle the automatic switch. I know Speed Queen was trying to delay this mess but I don't know if they are still manufacturing purely mechanical washers or not...

I don't know the nature of the regulation, but if all it demands is that the lid is locked while it is in operation, then I don't see the need for complex electronics at all. When the motor is spinning, lock. When the motor stops spinning, keep locked for 10 seconds. This can be done with cheap electronics known to work for 100.000 hours, more than enough hours for 30 years of service.

You're right that the electronics are cheap but they're still the first thing to break since they take quit a beating. They might last 30 years in a vacuum but not in a washer.

If you're willing to live without a lock or spend a few bucks for new parts then you can keep your machine running perpetually but you basically have to buy an old or commercial unit for the availability of parts.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#706

Post by pythonistic »

hvidgaard wrote: post #374
pythonistic wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a Speed Queen front-loader a few months ago. Although I can't say anything about the longevity, I was very impressed with the quality of the machine, going so far as to take pictures of the underside of the drum, drain plug, electronics package, and braces when setting it up. It's heavier -- about 250 pounds -- and quieter than the top-loader I replaced. I worry a little about the electronic control panel, t…

That is all well and good, but if a review write things like this For example, the similarly priced Electrolux EFLS617SIW removed 27 percent more stains than this Speed Queen on its Heavy Duty cycle and 13 percent more stains on its Whites cycle. We got similar results from Kenmore, LG, Maytag, and Whirlpool front-loaders Those stains remain in spite of the fact that this Speed Queen uses over 40 gallons of water for…

I don't have numbers in my user or installation manuals, but the previous model year supposedly used 11.7 US gal per load, or under 4 per fill. Living in the desert, I feel good about my choice of washing machine ($22-29 monthly water bill).

Regardless, it's less than the top-load I replaced. Front-load washers are supposed to be more efficient and use less water.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#707

Post by yuubi »

philipkglass wrote: post #262
ars wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to put glass into the recycling because it is no longer a profit center And because recycling it is one of the most pointless things you can do. It's sand, we have unlimited quantities of it, the planet is made of it.

The reason to recycle materials made of abundant elements (steel, aluminum, glass) is to conserve energy rather than ores. (Even the energy justification would be far less significant if world energy systems were mostly non-fossil.) Though city planners should do the arithmetic to double check that the collection system doesn't waste more resources than it saves.

Refining iron or aluminum from ore takes significant energy because you're basically un-rusting it, and that reaction naturally runs the other way; recycled metal gets to reuse that energy investment.

I thought the glass process was basically melting sand and adding some trace additives, rather than forcing any chemical reactions uphill. Recycled glass also needs melted (if it doesn't, that's called a reusable bottle, not recycling).

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#708

Post by CWuestefeld »

woah wrote: post #681
CWuestefeld wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be the place of Government to ensure that these externalities are re-addressed (e.g. by taxing companies on every item of theirs which goes into landfill), and for us the citizens to lobby them to do so. That won't eliminate the externality. All appliances will now cost $X more. In the meantime, the government will have collected $X*N more revenue, but it won't have gone toward recycling the decommissioned…

So is your argument that there should never be any taxes of any kind (anarcho-primitivism)? If that's not your argument, then what is unique about landfill taxes that make them more likely to be "gifted to special interests"?

So is your argument that there should never be any taxes of any kind (anarcho-primitivism)?

I didn't say anything that even implied that. Clearly there are public goods that are best handled by a government.

My reply was directed specifically at a comment that proposed a tax to address environment problems caused by planned obsolescence. I was showing that the proposal doesn't actually do anything to eliminate the environmental externality.

If you can show me a more complete proposal that (a) really does address the environmental impact as part of the program; and also (b) addresses Public Choice economics (meaning that it accounts for regulatory capture, capriciously re-purposing the funds by politicians, etc.), then we can talk about it.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#709

Post by c22 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #639
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree with this premise as it pertains to automobile engines. Automobile engines have improved tremendously in "lifespan" or Time Before OverHaul. In the '70's and '80's it was a challenge to get an engine to last 100,000 miles. They needed frequent oil changes, spark plugs replaced, had other short-life wearable parts (ignition parts), water pumps to replace, fuel pumps to replace, alternators went bad,…

This is why I'm rather afraid of Tesla and their batteries - you know batteries, whether intentional or not, only last for about 1000 charge cycles, or in the case of Tesla for about 7-10 years, before they have to be replaced - which won't be cheap. This will be an Issue that will be highlighted very soon. We'll see a huge devaluation in secondhand Tesla cars, since replacing the battery will be more expensive than…

Presumably this is why they are getting into the battery market.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#710

Post by nneonneo »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #700
expnsv_hdphns wrote: post #512

When I went to the first semester of engineering school at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, there was a class called Engineering Professional Development 160: Introduction to Engineering. One of the early class sessions was a lecture from a guy at a power tool company, making some kind of jigsaw or handheld cutting tool. He explicitly told us, paraphrasing, "You don't want to make your product too reliable, bec…

Except its rare to see actual documented proof that this is a real practice in reputable industry. Sure it must happen (or seem to happen as a unintended effect), but from a rational perspective if Samsung does this then I'll switch to LG, thus costing Samsung business and reputation. I have no brand loyalty so it doesn't make sense to make unreliable products. I, like any consumer, get pissed off and I switch to oth…

> I just bought all new appliances for my house a few years back. If anything, I was bowled over by all the players in this space and had to do a lot of legwork in regards to reviews. I really don't think lack of competition is an issue.

The post specifically addresses this: most of the brands you see have actually been consolidated into a small number of manufacturers. Brands under the same parent corporation may only appear to compete, while really being a means to achieve market segmentation and illusion of choice.

Post reply on HN