Engineered Obsolescence

Rocker

More and more I find that "things" don't last as long as they should. Things were built better in times not long passed. Examples are interior door handles and kitchen taps. Our original doors were changed after about 20 years usage. In that time only a couple of door handles needed replacing. The replacement doors are in place around 10 years yet most of the door handles needed to be replaced. The lever falls off when you open the door.... The same with kitchen taps, the inserts fail after little more than a year service. And they don't fit exactly either and always need some filing or sandpaper use to get them to work properly. But my main point is that they appear to be designed to work for a certain length of time (which is getting shorter every year). Anyone care to comment......

Sambostar

Tell me about it.  I own a Ford Transit.

ICBM

It's been going on for a long time. Henry Ford sent engineers round all the scrapyards in the US to look at old Fords and note which components *hadn't* broken, as well as those that had. Then the numbers were added up and the quality of the non-broken ones was reduced, as well as the broken ones being improved - because the unbroken ones were therefore costing more than necessary to make.

From a cost-engineering point of view, the perfect manufactured product costs as little as possible to make and lasts exactly one day beyond its warranty period and then fails…

It's not necessarily always a bad thing, since a lot of what we take for granted being available at the prices they are has depended on this being done over a long time period, but I know exactly what you mean about it often being frustrating.

VimFuego

it's a tricky one, in a world of finite resources we can't just keep making new stuff ad infinitum, however if there wasn't the need to replace things there'd be a much lower rate of progress (though I don't think the progress argument works with door handles, think we're pretty much at the limit of what can be done there, there's only so hard you can push the envelope).

Phil_aka_Pip

The flaw in Ford's quality reduction programme is that the cost of it isn't necessarily recouped by changing production methods. If you can use cheaper materials, fine, but that may demand your processes change, which may end up costing you more.

Then there's the public perception. Most of us drive Fords not because we think they're good (although they're not as crap as Poxhall), but because we can't afford anything else. Maybe there's an accountant somewhere who has proved that Ford profits would be no different or little better if Joe Public went around thinking "Fords - good motors, I drive one because I want one not because it's all I can afford".

chillidoggy

Well, seeing as we're on the subject, what about guitar strings? Mine last about three or four months, and I use the coated ones. Should I expect them to be guaranteed for a year? If so, I shall send them back for a replacement!

Fretwired

Mercedes cars of the 80s and 90s were great cars .. the Mercedes board were worried they were lasting too long so they reduced quality and Mercedes cars became unreliable in the 2000s ... this is sad. Great car for £695.

TTony

Car manufacture today is all about weight reduction - to improve mpg, reduce emissions, etc.  Hence the use of aluminium in place of steel, the loss of the standard spare wheel, etc.

Add that with the increased use of electronics in cars, and I really doubt that you'll see many 20yo cars still on the road in 20 years time.

For other "durables", I can't help thinking that it's primarily cost-driven, including the shift of most manufacturing to a land far, far away where standards are different ...

xmrchi

The first ever planned obsolescence was the light bulb, it was if I recall correctly reduced from 1500 to 2000 operating hours to 1000, there is a lot of information on the net about this conspiracy, and a very interesting read.

ICBM

mrchi said:

The first ever planned obsolescence was the light bulb, it was if I recall correctly reduced from 1500 to 2000 operating hours to 1000, there is a lot of information on the net about this conspiracy, and a very interesting read.

There is supposedly a light bulb which has been on more or less continuously since about 1900 in a New York fire station.

Probably a good thing they're going to all be replaced sooner or later with better technology (LED) now though, since they're astoundingly inefficient - about 2% of the electrical energy input is output as light.

mike_l

TTony said:

Car manufacture today is all about weight reduction - to improve mpg, reduce emissions, etc.  Hence the use of aluminium in place of steel, the loss of the standard spare wheel, etc.

Add that with the increased use of electronics in cars, and I really doubt that you'll see many 20yo cars still on the road in 20 years time.

For other "durables", I can't help thinking that it's primarily cost-driven, including the shift of most manufacturing to a land far, far away where standards are different ...

With cars there's a *lot* of EU bullshit laws regarding what cars *must* have fitted.

Example, tyre pressure monitoring. Completely unnecessary, you can see a flat/low pressure tyre, yet the EU has passed a law which states that all new cars (since January last year) must have sensors to detect tyre pressure.

Phil_aka_Pip

No wonder Morris Minors are so expensive

ICBM

mike_l said:

With cars there's a *lot* of EU bullshit laws regarding what cars *must* have fitted.

Example, tyre pressure monitoring. Completely unnecessary, you can see a flat/low pressure tyre, yet the EU has passed a law which states that all new cars (since January last year) must have sensors to detect tyre pressure.

On the other hand the enormous number of cars you see driving around with visibly flat tyres that their owners don't seem to have noticed or cared about tends to prove that it is in fact necessary.

They really do have to be quite - ie dangerously - flat for it to be obvious at a glance, one of my tyres has a slow leak which I pump up every week, and although the pressure drop is up to 20% in that time it's very hard to tell just by looking at it. Most people don't even look, let alone check them.

Hootsmon

Rocker said:

More and more I find that "things" don't last as long as they should. Things were built better in times not long passed. Examples are interior door handles and kitchen taps. Our original doors were changed after about 20 years usage. In that time only a couple of door handles needed replacing. The replacement doors are in place around 10 years yet most of the door handles needed to be replaced. The lever falls off when you open the door.... The same with kitchen taps, the inserts fail after little more than a year service. And they don't fit exactly either and always need some filing or sandpaper use to get them to work properly. But my main point is that they appear to be designed to work for a certain length of time (which is getting shorter every year). Anyone care to comment......

yeah I would like tae comment but my keyboard just bro.........7399^%$

Fretwired

TTony said:

Car manufacture today is all about weight reduction - to improve mpg, reduce emissions, etc.  Hence the use of aluminium in place of steel, the loss of the standard spare wheel, etc.

Add that with the increased use of electronics in cars, and I really doubt that you'll see many 20yo cars still on the road in 20 years time.

For other "durables", I can't help thinking that it's primarily cost-driven, including the shift of most manufacturing to a land far, far away where standards are different ...

Totally agree. The big problem is when you have a minor accident - if the airbags go off then the car will probably be scrapped as it will cost too much to replace the sensors and airbag gubbins ..

jellyroll

Are you guys seriously arguing that cars today are inferior in reliability & longevity to the piles of sh*t we had in the seventies and eighties? It might be true for Mercs, but it's not true of any middle of the road (excuse the pun) brand.

mike_l

jellyroll said:

Are you guys seriously arguing that cars today are inferior in reliability & longevity to the piles of sh*t we had in the seventies and eighties? It might be true for Mercs, but it's not true of any middle of the road (excuse the pun) brand.

More that they're stupidly expensive to repair, and are being written off for thing which could/would have been replaced 20+ years ago.

 

I regularly (3-4 times per week) see cars written off from needing more parts value than the car is worth fixed. usually the cars are less than 10 years old.

@ICBM the point I was trying to make is, cars don't need that system to be safe. The driver needs to be responsible and check the tyres.

Oh, and I have a tyre which loses pressure, but isn't a puncture. It only happens when the air temp drops to freezing....

ICBM

mike_l said:

@ICBM the point I was trying to make is, cars don't need that system to be safe. The driver needs to be responsible and check the tyres.

I totally agree, but the plain fact is that the vast majority of drivers don't, the police can't stop and check every car, so the only really effective method of fixing the problem is to fit the cars with systems that do it.

Part of the problem is that modern cars have become so reliable that most drivers only ever put fuel in them and leave any maintenance to the garage when something finally goes wrong or at the MOT - which is often seen as a 'imposition' rather than an essential safety check. There is simply no need for daily or weekly checking of anything yourself any more.

menamestom

mike_l said:

TTony said:

Car manufacture today is all about weight reduction - to improve mpg, reduce emissions, etc.  Hence the use of aluminium in place of steel, the loss of the standard spare wheel, etc.

Add that with the increased use of electronics in cars, and I really doubt that you'll see many 20yo cars still on the road in 20 years time.

For other "durables", I can't help thinking that it's primarily cost-driven, including the shift of most manufacturing to a land far, far away where standards are different ...

With cars there's a *lot* of EU bullshit laws regarding what cars *must* have fitted.

Example, tyre pressure monitoring. Completely unnecessary, you can see a flat/low pressure tyre, yet the EU has passed a law which states that all new cars (since January last year) must have sensors to detect tyre pressure.

What if you get a puncture on the motorway in the middle of a journey? Would be nice to see a tyre has lost 5psi, rather than feel there is an issue when it is half deflated and you are going 70mph. I think it sounds like a useful system.

TTony

jellyroll said:

Are you guys seriously arguing that cars today are inferior in reliability & longevity to the piles of sh*t we had in the seventies and eighties? It might be true for Mercs, but it's not true of any middle of the road (excuse the pun) brand.

Not the 70s & 80s, but I think we'll come to see cars made c1995-2010 as being the "best" built in terms of their durability.

In that era, the problems of rust, unreliability and poor manufacturing QA had largely been eradicated.  But it was before cars had become more electronics than mechanics, and before emission/mpg targets had focused manufacturers on shedding weight and thus sacrificing durability.

Any oily-fingered mechanic will tell you the same.

Have I become Phil_aka_Pip?

TTony

menamestom said:

mike_l said:

TTony said:

Car manufacture today is all about weight reduction - to improve mpg, reduce emissions, etc.  Hence the use of aluminium in place of steel, the loss of the standard spare wheel, etc.

Add that with the increased use of electronics in cars, and I really doubt that you'll see many 20yo cars still on the road in 20 years time.

For other "durables", I can't help thinking that it's primarily cost-driven, including the shift of most manufacturing to a land far, far away where standards are different ...

With cars there's a *lot* of EU bullshit laws regarding what cars *must* have fitted.

Example, tyre pressure monitoring. Completely unnecessary, you can see a flat/low pressure tyre, yet the EU has passed a law which states that all new cars (since January last year) must have sensors to detect tyre pressure.

What if you get a puncture on the motorway in the middle of a journey? Would be nice to see a tyre has lost 5psi, rather than feel there is an issue when it is half deflated and you are going 70mph. I think it sounds like a useful system.

You *ought* to be able to feel that sort of pressure reduction from the way the car is handling.

I fear that we're losing many of the senses needed to control the car effectively.  We're insulated by the sound deadening, we're numbed by electronic speed-related power steering, and rely on dashboard warning indicators to tell us if anything's going wrong.

With my early cars, I'd check tyres, oils, water (etc), regularly - weekly.  OK, so cars are more reliable now, don't burn through oil like they used to ... but you've still just got 4 small pieces of rubber keeping you safely on the road, and if you don't look after them properly, it doesn't matter how many warning indicators you've got on the dashboard.