This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

'Right to repair' gathers force

I'd be interested to canvas other members views on this. My view is "about time" - not for consumers to mend appliances themselves, but for appliances to be designed and manufactured for long service lives. My perspective comes from experience in three different manufacturing industries where longevity was a given, our products were expected to be serviceable for 20 years, and in practice typically lasted considerably more - 30, 40, 50 years. I get very frustrated if a piece of domestic equipment fails in an unserviceable way after, say, 5 years - recently happened with our gas cooker (which was actually pretty naff from day one). Then of course there's the electronic equipment that fails just after the warranty expires - I'd suggest that's completely unacceptable from a resource point of view. We know a huge amount now about design for reliability and design for serviceability, from an ethical point of view shouldn't we be applying this more?


I'm glad to see this article also considers the question of whether we should be encouraged to replace perfectly serviceable equipment in the name of energy efficiency. As it states, this all depends whether the energy expended in producing the equipment and disposing of the old equipment could actually exceeds the potential saving - which I suspect it often does.  


Cheers, Andy
Parents
  • Another aspect of this is the availability of spare parts. For a currently manufactured item spare parts supply requires an additional branch to the supply chain (which carries a cost) but is possible. When production of this item is to stop the manufacturer has to decide what and how many items to manufacture and stock as spares. This stock holding carries a cost. If an item in this stock runs out what then? Does the manufacturer set up for another production run (if still possible maybe the components or machines are no longer available) which carries yet another cost?

    I, like Andy, am a repairer of broken things but I also understand some of the problems behind 'Right to Repair'. I support it but as ever the Devil is in the Detail.


    Best regards

    Roger
Reply
  • Another aspect of this is the availability of spare parts. For a currently manufactured item spare parts supply requires an additional branch to the supply chain (which carries a cost) but is possible. When production of this item is to stop the manufacturer has to decide what and how many items to manufacture and stock as spares. This stock holding carries a cost. If an item in this stock runs out what then? Does the manufacturer set up for another production run (if still possible maybe the components or machines are no longer available) which carries yet another cost?

    I, like Andy, am a repairer of broken things but I also understand some of the problems behind 'Right to Repair'. I support it but as ever the Devil is in the Detail.


    Best regards

    Roger
Children
No Data