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

751–760 of 877 posts

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#751

Post by scott_karana »

Spivak wrote: post #705
hvidgaard wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How could a relay and a 555 timer possibly "take a beating"?

I can't think of more time-tested electrical components.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#752

Post by mindslight »

gregpilling wrote: post #664
filterfish wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fucking washing machine, 10kg extra isn't going to make any difference.

10kg of steel would cost about USD$10.00, and then shipping it around the world costs again. At my factory, we use the number "50 cents a pound" as an average cost for shipping pallets around the lower 48 states. So your extra 10 kg would cost me about $20 more. At retail that would be another $100 or so. In other words, making it 10kg heavier would sharply increase the price; it would also be for things that aren't…

Are washing machines not still being made with concrete in the base? I'm sure balancing has gotten more intelligent, but there still needs to be some mass to keep the thing from walking.

Of course if that 10kg of steel was on the drum, the stationary mass would need to be increased as well. But I doubt washing machine drums are really a high failure part, so a hypothetical "10kg of steel" is a useless in the context of a washing machine.

It's hard to make a comprehensive argument about entire machines when the problem is designers having a principle agent problem for every single part.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#753

Post by deegles »

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…

I don't think it's a conscious, malicious strategy. Just a reality of manufacturing.

Let's imagine a market where 1,000 people need a widget, with 10 new people per year. You design and develop a 100% reliable widget and quickly sell 1,000 of them (recouping your development costs). You need to sell 10 per year to stay in business. Other companies see your success and rush to market with a less reliable but cheaper widget. No one buys from you since it takes years for reliability issues to surface in your competitors product. You probably don't have enough cash reserves to wait it out. Ergo, you go out of business.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#754

Post by marcosdumay »

lr4444lr wrote: post #571
2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst this is clearly how no company should aspire to be, it's easy to understand that they want to make a profit, and if you design a "once in a lifetime" product, you'll find yourself out of business within 10 years or so after everyone owns said product. The outcome is planned obsolescence as highlighted in this article. As the article also points out, not only does this damage us economically, it also damages us…

Heaven forbid said company should use that quality to build their brand reputation, charge more to funnel back into R&D to create another product to fulfill a different consumer need, grow, get more profitable, and continue the virtuous cycle. That'd be, like, justifying capitalism or something.

This should be the default state of every appliance, just because it should outcompete every other player. (Who would buy something that breaks?)

It isn't. So, there's something very flawed on my reasoning above. Do people want stuff that breaks, is the problem a market for lemons? Or what else?

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#755

Post by throwaway729 »

hueving wrote: post #281
throwaway729 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a top-loader should certainly lock while it's running. By law, though, as GP mentioned? That surprises me, given my recent purchase... > You should double check that there's not something wrong with it. I'm 10000000% sure that the thing isn't designed to lock. > When that thing spins to drain all of the water out, it moves dangerously fast. Sure. We don't have any kids or pets, and it's in the basement where visito…

I have a top loader that doesn't lock, but it immediately shuts off if it's in the spin cycle and you open it. Perhaps yours is like that?

Yes, mine does that. No braking as discussed below though.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#756

Post by test6554 »

All the patents from 30+ years ago have surely expired. What's to stop someone from creating a kickstarter to recreate all the CAD files/designs for these older machines and open source them. The control system could even be modular so that you could go with an analog system, or swap it out with a raspberry PI controlled system. With those designs out there, surely someone could manufacture and sell these parts and make a good chunk of money.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#757

Post by cc439 »

chinathrow wrote: post #669
gommm wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience in a mechanical engineering class, our professor was discussing MTBF (mean time between failure) and how calculating this more accurately allowed companies to better engineer their product for obsolescence. For a company, a product that is too reliable is unprofitable in the long term and so they adjust by making sure that the product works beyond the terms of the warranty but not much more…

> For a company, a product that is too reliable is unprofitable in the long term and so they adjust by making sure that the product works beyond the terms of the warranty but not much more. My 2002 Volvo V70, which I bought second hand a couple of years ago, is so reliable that I consider buying a Volvo again.

>(W)hich I bought second hand a couple of years ago

Would you consider buying a NEW Volvo? If not, your purchase exerts little to no pressure on the only market which Volvo is concerned with, namely the market for new cars.

Yes, a reputation for reliability increases the demand for used Volvos thereby increasing the resale value which positively factors into the decision to purchase a new Volvo. However, the increase in "value" to the buyer of the new Volvo is so marginal that it is overwhelmed by any number of other factors involved in the final judgement of value in the decision to purchase a new car. A Volvo V70 of similar vintage to yours can be had for anywhere between $1,600 and $2,500 depending on condition according to my local Craigslist. If their reliability is so well regarded that a Volvo V70 is hypothetically worth 50% more than an equivalent Subaru wagon, resale premium afforded to the original buyer is just $1,250. That premium is so small that a manufacturer's sale incentive can wipe it out entirely, nevermind the fact that many of Volvo's competitors are less expensive by a far wider margin.

Basically, my point is that long term reliability doesn't really matter to manufacturer's beyond a certain point. As long as the vehicle meets the expectations of the original buyer and remains useful enough to keep the resale value out of the gutter (which doesn't appear to be the case with Volvos, at least in my area), the manufacturer has no incentive to further improve the reliability of their products.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#758

Post by therealmarv »

com2kid wrote: post #726
therealmarv wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe you will find nowhere toploader. We know they are poor engineering: Bad water and electricity efficiency combined with more stress and wear out for the fabrics during washing. Only plus side I can see is that it is faster... but wasting so much resources does not justifies it IMHO.

> Only plus side I can see is that it is faster... I enjoy being able to wash my blankets. When I had a front loader, it was impossible to get anything large clean, especially with how many fabrics here in America at least are all synthetic so water beads off rather than being adsorbed. The only way to clean cheap linen here is to completely immerse it in water.

All front loaders I know (Europe) have programs for all use cases (it's more complicated for sure). But when I compare a usual top loader in the US with a usual front loader in Europa I can relate to the top loader having much more space (when you get space problems in any loader it will not wash good). Never had a problem to wash the largest blanket in a normal front loader here were I live (Germany) but we also do not like synthetics so much for blankets.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#759

Post by platz »

marcosdumay wrote: post #754
lr4444lr wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heaven forbid said company should use that quality to build their brand reputation, charge more to funnel back into R&D to create another product to fulfill a different consumer need, grow, get more profitable, and continue the virtuous cycle. That'd be, like, justifying capitalism or something.

This should be the default state of every appliance, just because it should outcompete every other player. (Who would buy something that breaks?) It isn't. So, there's something very flawed on my reasoning above. Do people want stuff that breaks, is the problem a market for lemons? Or what else?

Capitalism maximizes benefits to Capital, not consumers or labor.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#760

Post by crazygringo »

But they're cheaper, by something like 75% (and even more when you take energy efficiency into account). [1]

For people who move every few years, whose requirements change (from solo to 4-person family), and so on, the current situation is pretty ideal.

Spend less money, change models more frequently to fit your changing needs, and often it's even cheaper to buy a new one than to get it fixed -- which for consumers is amazing! (Because repair costs certainly aren't getting cheaper.)

Of course, the negative externalities on the environment are pretty clear and potentially horrific. As well as what it means for cultural values where more and more things are disposable.

But that's the answer, that's why they don't last 50 years -- because consumers actually prefer something that lasts only a few years at 25% of the price.

[1] http://www.aei.org/publication/the-good-old-days-are-now-tod...

Post reply on HN