Quality, durability and reparability

[gavinlg]

We (actually dad, I was too young) got a Land Rover Series IIa in 1971, and a FJ40 Land Crusier in 1972. The Cruiser was far faster, more powerfull, more reliable, easier to drive-when new. It rusted away in, say, about 1981. The Land Rover is in my garage, and my 7 year old already claimed it when it comes her turn. It will still be there.

Admittedly some of the 70s and early 80s Jap built cars were susceptible to rust - not as bad as some of the Alfa's mind you, but the fact that the defender is still around is due to it's aluminum body. The downside is they're seriously weak in the event of a crash, and you're probably safer sitting inside a giant hollowed out carrot.

 

[micromontenegro]

 

[bmattock]

Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov just celebrated his 89th birthday a few days ago. His most famous invention, of course, was the AK-47 machine gun. Cheap to produce, not known to be well-made, but it was in fact designed to function well despite poor manufacturing capabilities of many of the former Eastern Bloc countries where it was made. They're hunks of junk - but they were designed to be that way. They work and work and work. Quality - no. Durability and repairability? Yes.

 

[micromontenegro]

Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov just celebrated his 89th birthday a few days ago. His most famous invention, of course, was the AK-47 machine gun. Cheap to produce, not known to be well-made, but it was in fact designed to function well despite poor manufacturing capabilities of many of the former Eastern Bloc countries where it was made. They're hunks of junk - but they were designed to be that way. They work and work and work. Quality - no. Durability and repairability? Yes.

LOL... I was thinking about writing something about it, but was too lazy

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think you confuse designing and building a product to last forever vs design and building a product to bare minimum specifications. The R100RS was way, way over designed (do you remember when BMW's warranty was 3 years and unlimited miles?). The new BMWs are designed to hopefully last 3 years plus a day or 36001 miles.

That was pretty much my original point, but perhaps I should reverse the way I stated it, and refine it in the light of the helpful (and unhelpful) comments so far received.

'Premium' machines of any kind usually sell in much smaller mumbers, so it does not make sense to substitute capital for labour in constructing them: you'd never see your money back on the robots, so you pretty much have to assemble them by hand.

People who buy 'premium' machines often expect them to last, so reparability has to be taken for granted, which means over-engineering. And, as I say, the fact that these machines have to be assembled by hand also means that they are easier to repair by hand.

The Kalashnikov also well illustrates why I originally separated quality, durability and reparability, and why I said that a lot depends on how you define the terms. The 'quality' of a Kalashnikov may well be said to be a good deal higher than a much more sophisticated gun that is sensitive to dirt and subject to jamming.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[oftheherd]

Yeah right, don't tell that to the owners of the U.S. Tundra pickup who had to suffer through catastrophic engine failures (snapped camshafts) and lousy automatic transmissions. Consumers Reports has taken Toyota off their automatic recommend list for a reason.

Jim B.

The Tundra may be good or not. I don't know. I know that about 1975/6 Comsumers Reports did a review of the Fujica ST 901. They didn't like anything about it. Didn't win any points with me.

My 901 has been going since early 1975. It has had perhaps 10,000 photos taken with it, probably more. I used to have about 8,000 slides. It took a good portion of those, beside color and b/w rolls of film. Hasn't needed any real commercial repair yet. I did have to fix something under the top plate. I don't recall what it was, but minor.

The one thing I never forgot about that review was how they put down the shutter release. You push it partially to see what the exposure will be. The aperture is shown in a window by outside light. The near (but stepless) shutter speed by leds.

They complained about how they kept activating the shutter looking for the exposure. Almost every other camera manufacturer went to that within a couple of years.

I haven't cared for them since. Silly perhaps, but it was almost like a personal attack. 😀

 

[kevin m]

They're hunks of junk - but they were designed to be that way. They work and work and work. Quality - no. Durability and repairability? Yes.

The Russians think the same regarding their military aircraft, too, I think. They think our military aviation "F.O.D. walks" are patently stupid, as you won't be able to do that in wartime; better to design your jet motors with the ability to digest a bird or two. 😀

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Sometimes the simple technology wins...

When the USA started manned space flight they spent millions developing a ballpoint pen with a miniature pump to deliver the ink in zero gravity.

Many years later they asked the USSR technicians how they had solved the same problem, and received the answer was that they had always used pencils in space.

 

[dee]

Hmmm .
We have a Citroen 2cv , which was literally designed for purpose from the ground up , nothing was carried on from a previous model .
It was hand built , but of dubious '' quality '' .
However it seems that it can be fixed indefinitely.
When I bought my 1932 Leica II , recent cla , I was in awe of an exquisite camera which , with CV 35 / f2.5 Colour Scopar , provides excellent photos - and , seem to be able to be fixed
indefinitely .
So , a contrast of that indefinable fixability .
dee

 

[Gadge]

<Your Land Rover has also out-lasted most other Land Rovers ever built. Conversely, there are still 1972 Toyotas on the street.

I don't think so....

According to this WiKi entry 75% of ALL land rovers made since 1955 are still believed to be on the road despite leading a far harder life than Toyota's used on the street only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

We have a Citroen 2cv , which was literally designed for purpose from the ground up , nothing was carried on from a previous model.

I know a young woman about to take her driving test.

She has inherited a Citroen Dyane (basically a 2CV with a different body), and she loves it.

I had a Dyane years back, and loved it too.

Mafalda's car must be at least 35 to 40 years old. She's looking forward to driving it to university every day.

 

[literiter]

My work background has been technical. That is, I've seen the innards of lots of gadgets old and new, handmade and machine assembled ( you will have to assume I can tell the difference, when I'm not sure myself sometimes ).

Much of the stuff was early limited production industrial machinery (photo-typesetters) which were hand assembled. This stuff was marvelously repairable. Linotype and printing equipment from the days before computers were things of mechanical beauty and superb quality.

I've seen the insides of Leicas Ms, Nikon F2s, Pentax Spotmatics and many elderly German Cameras like Contessas, Rolleiflexes and Ikontas. I had a cursory glance at the horrors contained within the innards of a modern digital camera and some modern electronics.

It is not apparent to me that modern equipment is built to last or be repaired but to be replaced, and I find this a pity.

 

[bmattock]

It is not apparent to me that modern equipment is built to last or be repaired but to be replaced, and I find this a pity.

Newspapers are not printed on fine paper. They quickly turn yellow, and begin to decay rather rapidly - but why should they not - they are ephemeral.

My first hard drive would no doubt be working like a champ if I still had it - a Seagate 5 1/4 inch full-height monster that held a whopping 10 megabytes of storage. It was well-built, and at the time I bought it, priced like it.

But what use was that? The excellent build quality added significantly to the retail cost, and it was eclipsed in short order - a 10 megabyte hard drive is of no use to me now, working or not.

Consumer devices continue to evolve at a rapid pace, driven by technology. First computers, then items which had computers embedded in them, and cameras joined that mix as they became digital instead of film-based.

Automobiles are another industry where many morn the death of the car which can be worked on by the average shade-tree mechanic, and I used to understand that point of view, but not anymore.

Now, I see traffic accidents that are truly horrific - the body of the car smashed and twisted and altogether mangled, and the driver escapes with few or no injuries - thanks to incredible advances in technology. I would no longer want my wife driving a 10 year old car when a newer car can protect her far better than the older one. I don't care if it wears out in 7 to 10 years, I'll be replacing it by then, hopefully with one that is even safer.

Since that march forward in terms of technology has not peaked, it does not make economic sense to build quality into an item that will obsolesce in a few years. Planned obsolescence makes economic sense.

There is nothing wrong with building things to be replaced when indeed, they are intended to be replaced because the underlying technology advances very quickly.

I saw a woman in a camera repair shop late last year, and she was inquiring about having her 1.2 megapixel Sony digicam repaired. The shop owner said yes, he could fix it, and quoted her a base price. She seemed shocked, and replied that she could buy a new 8 megapixel digicam from Sony for that price. Yes, that's right. And that's what she should do. Repaired or not, the 1.2 megapixel Sony is inferior technology now. Who wants it?

High-end mechanical quality is still available for those who want it and can afford it - witness Swiss and German mechanical wristwatches, fountain pens, and cameras, as well as the finest cars.

I do not see the 'pity' since I have no interest in paying more than I need to in order to buy a device which I will not be interested in using in a few short years, due to advances in technology. I have several old digital cameras that I bought in the last decades. I don't use them, and most likely never will again. That they work or do not work is immaterial. Who cares?

Likewise, I have cameras that are nearly 80 years old, and I do use them from time to time. But the results they produce rival my latest 35mm film cameras, so it makes sense that they were very well made - nothing in the core technology of exposing film to light through a lens has really changed.

It's horses for courses. Digital technology has changed the way cameras are used and more importantly for this topic, in what manner they are made. Since we are still on that steep upward climb of technology, it does not make sense to build pyramids when we are still moving about like nomads - tents make more sense now.

 

[Gumby]

Planned obsolescence makes economic sense.

In some things, yes it does. In others, though, there is a serious misunderstanding between the manufacturers and consumers as to how long that period-of-use should be. Often the economic benefit of planned obsolescence clearly fails to benefit the consumer. This is especially problematic for consumers who are on the lower-end of the socio-economic scale.

 

[bmattock]

In some things, yes it does. In others, though, there is a serious misunderstanding between the manufacturers and consumers as to how long that period-of-use should be. Often the economic benefit of planned obsolescence clearly fails to benefit the consumer. This is especially problematic for consumers who are on the lower-end of the socio-economic scale.

It's tit-for-tat, unfortunately. Demand drives manufacturing, not the other way around. Dollar stores proliferate because the poor demand items priced as low as possible. Those things are not well-made and do not last, which can in some cases necessitate rebuying them. However, higher-quality items are available - at a higher price. If the poor bought them and not the stuff at the Dollar store, no one would make things at that price point anymore.

Manufacturers make things to benefit their stockholders, not the consumer. The consumer, however, drives production through demand.

So I don't hold manufacturers responsible for making crap. They make what people want and/or will buy.

The only way to interfere with this cycle is through consumer education and changing demands (not likely) or government regulation mandating minimum standards. At this point, that level is generally set at 'safe' and 'unsafe' as opposed to 'quality' and 'junky'.

 

[icebear]

What you get is what you care for. If you are after the latest edition gadget you most likly would not bother about a 3year service contract for maybe +25% of the purchase price. In 12 month the new version will be more desireable, no matter if the current one still works like a charm.

There are obviously only a handful of people that cherish a well made item (mechanical film camera, cooking pots, chef's knife, record player etc.) Most of the industries target group is running in the hamster wheel of consum that drives the economy. Having long lasting things that may be repaired for a few bucks and last 5 more years (or 50 even, my '58 M3 is with Don) is not what the mojority of consumers thinks is desirable. Does it make any sense for the car manufacturers to come up with a new series of models every year ???

In the area of electronics the progress pace is so fast that every two years the power/capacity/speed is doubeling for the same price. No place for repairs - just replacement at best. It's much cheaper to pull a new item from the mass produce chain of supply than figuring out what wrong with the broken item and repair it - just dump it into recycling. That's how it goes today and most people are fine with that - they are most likely not users of totally old fashinoned RF's 😎.

 

[kully]

As other posters in the thread have already said, it's not about machine vs. hand made, but rather design. The company that I work for puts electronics in the ground which will continue functioning long after I'm gone - all machine made.

As for things being made better "in the old days" - no, things made "for the masses" were not made better - look at clothes, utensils &c. for "the working man" from a century ago. I feel this idea comes from looking at what has survived the years, this is typically expensive stuff which most people could not have afforded (e.g. Omega Seamaster - 2(?) months wages for my Grandad, his cheaper watch is still working mind).

 

[bmattock]

That's how it goes today and most people are fine with that - they are most likely not users of totally old fashinoned RF's 😎.

I agree with everything you said, but on this last bit, I'd like to say that I have no problem with disposable digital cameras AND I also like old fashioned RF's and value the high quality that went into them. It is not necessarily a one-way street. I just choose in what areas I prefer to pay more for higher quality, based on my desires and my pocketbook.

 

[kully]

I just choose in what areas I prefer to pay more for higher quality, based on my desires and my pocketbook.

Well said (pocketbook=wallet?)

 

[Calzone]

This thread is, to some degree, just nostalgia run amok.

The reason its so easy for a shade-tree mechanic to keep an old car running is that - compared to a new car - the things run like crap even when properly tuned.

I worked at an aerospace company called Grumman for over 17 years and the culture, level of precision, pride were very "German." Yes there is a lot of nostalgia. It use to make me puke when decades ago eveyone talked about Japanese quality, because use to be American products were universally highly regarded.

I learned to buy the best; because it has enduring value; is cheaper in the extreame long run; and because I have nostalia. Also learned never to regret buying the best because anytime I compromised I later regreted it, but I like to think I am lucky to have such treasures.

As for shade tree mechanics, I have an 84 Jeep Scrambler with a half cab. Kinda tricked out: ZZ3 350 HP Chevy Crate motor, Ford nine inch rear with Lincoln 12 inch disc brakes, NV4500 5-speed tranny...Although in storage now it gets the same gas milage as a a new Jeep. Kinda counterintuitive. I assure you this machine is highly tuned. Hand built American Iron.

Cal