We have an LG washing machine that I think is 14 years old, and still going strong...

I have had to swap out the drum bearings, but once you learn where design flaws are, you can replace the 'dodgy' bits!

How timely this post is.
My 9.5 year old cheapest fridge, a Fridgidaire, decided to cool permanently. I could have tried and fixed it, but decided to buy a new one as it was getting a bit noisy. It was using about 3 kWh a day in the end and was drawing 2kW at start up sometimes.

Got the cheapest again, a Curry's Essential one, cost a tenner more that 10 years ago (£110). Is whisper quiet at the moment, claims to only use 0.3 kWh/d (got a monitor on it so shall see).

With some things, like fridges and freezers, a simple thermostat is all that is needed. They really don't need microprocessor control.

... your plumber is either fitting 'UK' condensing boilers, or doing it wrong! I fitted WBs back when I got my hands dirty... none have ever come back, from over 18 years ago IIRC?

Certain turkish/other EU brands may be lacking, but there is nothing wrong with condensing boilers as a technology.

You actually shouldn't be surprised to find a pile of dud appliances at the tip that look near-new. Meet the bathtub curve:

http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue21/ht21_1.gif

Generally speaking, a high rate of failures in new components is normal and expected for everything from toasters to jet engines. That's why consumer goods come with warranties. The wastage comes from the fact that a lot of them can't practically or economically be repaired, rather than the fact that some fail early.

As for whether they're "built to fail", well yes in a way they are. Everything in the world is designed with an expected life. For consumer goods that are subject to the whims of things like fashion then a design lifespan of something like 5-10 years is reasonable. You could design for longer lives, and some manufacturers do, but you're pushing your product up into a premium price bracket by doing so. The bulk of devices having a shorter lifespan is just a response to the actual behaviour of consumers, who want a cheap device that doesn't last forever.

Posted By: SteamyTeaBut my cheap Maplins weather station has stopped reporting windspeed (a known problem) after a few weeks (and one good gale).

Mine only lasted a week! The day after the scaffold came down.

Peter in Hungary wrote:

''How Long Should Appliances Last??
A life time''

Well, by definition, they do. Unfortunately *you* mean *your* lifetime. The manufacturer means *a week longer than the guarantee or as much more as you are lucky to get*!

Posted By: SteamyTeaabout why it is not worth repairing cheap consumer goods. Basically came down to the amount of stock that has to be carried and distributed (cost the same as a new item) and the labour content (higher than the objects price).

That would make perfect sense, if all the 'wasted' materials were recovered and recycled. That means 'all', and it means disassembly back to single materials. And it means chemical decomposition back to virgin feedstock. And in addition to the work energy and/or human time it takes to do all that fiddly stuff, it also means considerable raw energy input to break chemical bonds of exothermically combined compounds.

Failing that (and we're nowhere near capable of doing that across the board - until feedstock shortages force us to pay attention), then ST's logic only applies given unlimited continuing supplies of raw materials, manufacture-embodied energy, and environmental capability to absorb waste.

Posted By: torrent99Ahh the old bathtub curve....or a I translate it.... buy reconditioned hard drives! (they're pre-bathtubbed)

Buy refurbished everything is what I tell people. Lots of big computer manufacturers like Dell sell their refurbs at a good reduction, and you get a machine that's actually more reliable than new, with a warranty. No-brainer IMO. Works for appliances too.

I found this an interesting concept - hire a boiler scheme: http://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/01/new-scheme-to-hire-a-boiler-and-avoid-upfront-cost-392496/

Unfortunately it's overpriced as they point out but the concept is, I think, a valid one.

I looked into this when writing my dissertation (a deliberately provocative proposal for disposable buildings) and found it interesting that the 'House of the Future' that Alison and Peter Smithson designed for the Ideal Home Show in 1956 envisaged a regularly changing interior and house fabric wrapped around a permanent set of white goods and services.

At the time all these mod-cons were expensive but well built so I guess that wasn't so crazy to forecast when all the built fabric around was being torn down and rebuilt. Ironically we are now at the exact opposite of this situation due to planning restrictions and the pace of new technology.

Posted By: SeretThere's no way that would be economical ... The labour costs alone absolutely dwarfed the scrap value of the materials ... we don't build things out of valuable stuff, so it has no value

There you've stated the present, blindly catastrophic problem. Present economics and value conventions conveniently allow investors/banks, producer/corporations and consumers to ignore a raft of true costs, thus offloading them onto our children and grandchildren, and/or onto third world.

At least GBF members ought to be able to look a bit further ahead when doing 'a quick study on some a simple appliance'. We don't need to have it proved that what you've said is sadly true. Is there any awareness this situation cannot last 'forever' - is it OK that 'it'll see us out - just about - if all goes well'?

What is the value of 'has no value' stuff, when virgin feedstock becomes scarce, expensive, and prioitised to military/security use? Don't forget that even if oil reserves may (or may not) be limitless, the EROEI of extraction and distribution will continue to plummet.

Peak Oil (maybe not yet, maybe not ever) is recast into Peak EROEI (irrevocably far down the curve already).
Limits to Growth is recast as Limits to Finite-Resource Consumption - a very different, and tolerable, thing.
Even ST's Economics theory of perpetual substitution only postpones the inevitable.

Either we organise foresightfully to cease consumption of virgin Finite Resources (thereby also ceaseing production of pollutants that it entails), or the planet will cease it for us.

How do we cease that virgin consumption? Precisely by

Posted By: fostertomif all the 'wasted' materials were recovered and recycled. That means 'all', and it means disassembly back to single materials. And it means chemical decomposition back to virgin feedstock. And in addition to the work energy and/or human time it takes to do all that fiddly stuff, it also means considerable raw energy input to break chemical bonds of exothermically combined compounds.

Failing that (and we're nowhere near capable of doing that across the board - until feedstock shortages force us to pay attention), then ST's logic only applies given unlimited continuing supplies of raw materials, manufacture-embodied energy, and environmental capability to absorb waste.

Posted By: SteamyTeaBit of a misquote and out of context

Sorry bout that, but y'know what I mean.

Posted By: SteamyTeaThe developed world is placing a price on the environmental costs

Yeah but scratching the surface - and it's only the minor costs that Economics customarily chooses to incorporate so far, which is not for instance defined as the long term cost of human survival on Earth.

That apparently is 'not Economics', so we need something with a different name.

Posted By: fostertomThere you've stated the present, blindly catastrophic problem. Present economics and value conventions...

These are the same economic conditions which have existed since the dawn of time, because they're based on some pretty simple constants of human behaviour. Predicting any change in them is speculation at best. In the meantime, we have to deal with the dominant forces in the world as it is, or we won't change anything. You'll get a lot further swimming with the current than against it.

You're right that scarcity of feedstocks would change the equation, but it wouldn't change the economic rules that define value.

Posted By: CWattersI'm liking our Bosch washing machine. Now 9 years old and used heavily - at least twice daily. Has had new motor brushes and a new pump which I've replaced myself. Was surprised how easy it was to replace these parts compared to machines I had in the 1980's.

I recently replaced the burnt out motor in my Dyson vacuum (DC motors, grumble, grumble) and had a similar experience. If something is designed to be maintainable then it tends to also be a lot easier to get the parts in my experience. All it takes is the original designer considering disassembly and repair in the original design.

Posted By: rhamduBosch are now making washing machines with brushless motors and a 10-year motor guarantee.

Same thing with LG - they've been using direct drive drums with essentially a linear motor wrapped around it for many years now (I think that's how it works - definitely no brushes).

Paul in Montreal.

Posted By: rhamduBosch are now making washing machines with brushless motors and a 10-year motor guarantee.

The availability of small cheap AC motors and brushless DC ones should really improve the longevity of appliances.

Posted By: fostertom
Do we welcome or fear the outcome?

Change is inevitable, but until it happens we live in the world as it is now.

Posted By: rhamduBosch are now making washing machines with brushless motors and a 10-year motor guarantee.

Posted By: Paul in MontrealSame thing with LG

Probably the same motors / components.......and probably made in China

Pet hate now is appliances that are unrepairable by design by using screw heads that require unobtainable drivers. I friend had a steam iron with a frayed dangerous cord, I can buy a generic replacement heat proof cord complete with plug but I can not get a driver head to disassemble the iron. Result junk the iron.