Warranty vs Proven Reliability

[bnold]

In my manufacturing experience "designed obsolescence" is definitely a real phenomenon. I don't attribute it to malice on the part of the manufacturers. It is the result of competing design criteria which results in items that don't last as long as comparable products of generations past.

I don’t believe it is so cut and dry, old vs new.

If the manufacturers and design engineers of the past had the fancy modeling, stressing and simulation software that we had today, they to would have been designing to the minimum performance requirement/lowest cost in order to compete just as they are today.

Things were largely built so ‘heavy duty’ due to inadequate means to easily calculate what the ‘right’ thickness of that casting needed to be.

 

[Iowa Hillbilly]

I don’t believe it is so cut and dry, old vs new.

If the manufacturers and design engineers of the past had the fancy modeling, stressing and simulation software that we had today, they to would have been designing to the minimum performance requirement/lowest cost in order to compete just as they are today.

Things were largely built so ‘heavy duty’ due to inadequate means to easily calculate what the ‘right’ thickness of that casting needed to be.

I largely agree with you - it isn't cut and dry.

Before the advent of inexpensive computing power almost everything was designed and constructed based on experience (failures) and design rules derived from that experience.

Some things have advanced by leaps and bounds because of improved design process. Auto engines come to mind for me. A run of the mill ecoboost engine today has a power to displacement ratio that probably would have won the Indy 500 in the 1970's but today you can get that in a commuter car and have it run a couple hundred thousand miles. It's an amazing amount of progress in just a few decades. But every complex item designed today is designed with a functional lifespan in mind, and sometimes the end purchaser's idea of the lifetime isn't nearly the same as the manufacturer's.

Being able to afford more items with a given income is also a good thing, but it sometimes comes at the cost of repair and replacement expenses down the road.

 

[dirttoys]

I did design engineering for awhile (20 years) before going into another branch of engineering. We always designed something the best we could - and then sometimes had to battle over cost.

In my opinion, the whole concept of "designed obsolescence" is a folk tale. Maybe it started as speculation or a PhD project by some university economics or engineering department somewhere.
Planned obsolescence sounds good enough to be true - and maybe some where it is - but reality in manufacturing is that designing something to last a certain amount of repetitions then fail isl just about impossible.

It's hard enough designing it to last. Trying to hit a target of designed obsolescence would be incredibly expensive. Consider the testing time involved in each design iteration.... no way.

Not sure how it would relate to warranties, though.

rScotty

I love u man, but, you have not had the luck I have had with stuff failing a week after warranty expires


Seriously though, I worked with enterprise computer hardware. EVERY component we built or bought to be in our gear had a mean time to failure, and warranty, and maintenance contracts were calculated on that number. Enterprise hard drives for example either broke in the first week, after an extended spin down, or after about 4 years of use.

I kind of doubt they were designed to fail in 4 years, but, testing showed they do, and all finance is based on that, is that planned obsolescence? Either way, the gear will poop out shortly after the warranty expires if used the way it was tested............

Best,

ed

 

[sd455dan]

These last few posts made me think of some used electronics test equipment bought over the years when given a choice
Mil Spec designation if it was listed.
I don't know if the Military got long warranties on the equipment but it certainly was built with better components
From memory,
Operating at greatly increased temps and believe all boards were higher quality glass epoxy boards that were rated for 30 year use. Component tolerances were also tightened up.
given a choice between a warranty or an electronic product built to conform to Mil Spec which would you chose?

Mil-Spec & Military Wiring Standards Explained - JEM Electronics

Learn more about what sets mil-spec assemblies and components apart and why these standards are important in military applications...

blog.jemelectronics.com

Mil Spec Printed Circuit Boards | PNC Inc.

We have been manufacturing hi-reliability mil spec printed circuit boards since 1968. We pride ourself with unprecedented on-time delivery. Call us today!

www.pnconline.com

 

[rScotty]

In my manufacturing experience "designed obsolescence" is definitely a real phenomenon. I don't attribute it to malice on the part of the manufacturers. It is the result of competing design criteria which results in items that don't last as long as comparable products of generations past.

Consumers don't generally prefer to pay more if they believe they can get a comparable product at less expense. Most consumers are not capable of determining the engineering sufficiency or manufacturing quality of the products they buy. So if two items look pretty similar and make similar claims of performance and longevity, the consumer typically opts for the lower cost item.

To reduce product price and stay competitive one of the simplest techniques is to reduce component weights. The global supply chains for manufacturers of complex machinery like cars or tractors are mind boggling. Individual components get shipped from place to place across oceans and continents as raw materials become parts and parts become sub-assemblies and on and on until a final product is readied and shipped to a dealer's lot.

Another good technique to reduce cost is to change the material used to construct a part to a less expensive material. This often results in using a material less suited to the task, but it is an engineers job to try and make a component that is still suited to purpose, but less costly.

Overall, consumer price pressures and government efficiency edicts have guided manufacturers' engineering choices to produce items which are more lightly built and have shorter overall life expectancies. Are we all better off? Sometimes we are, sometimes maybe not.

The examples you are giving don't sound like "planned obsolescence" to me, they just sound like cheaper construction.
Avoiding shipping costs, using substitute parts, and building lighter weight products out of less expensive material are all standard ways to build a cheaper product. Building to emphasize profits and not caring that the product isn't as good as it once was. Lots of companies eventually do that. I agree we see it all the time and also would bet that the cheaper products won't last as long.

But building cheap is not the same thing at all as delibrately designing something to fail at a certain point - which is what "planned obsolescence" implies. Planning and designing to that degree of precision would be as difficult as building it not to fail at all - which I think may be why noody does it.
At least I've never seen or heard of it being done.

I'm thinking that deliberately designing for planned obsolescence is either very rare or an urban legend.

rScotty

 

[Iowa Hillbilly]

The examples you are giving don't sound like "planned obsolescence" to me, they just sound like cheaper construction.
Avoiding shipping costs, using substitute parts, and building lighter weight products out of less expensive material are all standard ways to build a cheaper product. Building to emphasize profits and not caring that the product isn't as good as it once was. Lots of companies eventually do that. I agree we see it all the time and also would bet that the cheaper products won't last as long.

But building cheap is not the same thing at all as delibrately designing something to fail at a certain point - which is what "planned obsolescence" implies. Planning and designing to that degree of precision would be as difficult as building it not to fail at all - which I think may be why noody does it.
At least I've never seen or heard of it being done.

I'm thinking that deliberately designing for planned obsolescence is either very rare or an urban legend.

rScotty

There's different ways to phrase things. "Planned obsolescence" may not be the politest term. I hear "value engineering" bandied about a lot these days and maybe it's more accurate, but I consider them pretty much as synonyms.

The general concept is to produce a consumer good that performs a certain task and lasts a given length of time.

If an item like an automobile is designed to last a given time in service, what good does it do anyone if the differential is in perfect shape when the rest of the car is ready for the crusher? It's just going to get scrapped with the rest of the vehicle and the consumer had to pay more or profits were lost by designing and building it to be better than it needed to be. And as consumers are often chasing current fashion, even if the car lasted for a longer lifespan it wouldn't be compatible with "Google Future Car 10.0" or whatever the current trend is. Thus it wouldn't be desired.

The Commodore 64 was a pretty cool computer in its day and while I respect them, they wouldn't have very big sales if they were still made today. So the strategy goes "why build things to last so long?"

It's not rare or urban legend, it's just the way business is conducted these days. I don't think it's all good or all bad, it's definitely a mixed bag. Caveat emptor.

 

[Hay Dude]

Warranties seem to be a big reason why people buy new things. But just how useful is a tractor warranty anyway?
Not all warranties are equal, or treated equally at all dealers. So what makes a good warranty and why have one?

From a manufacturing viewpoint, warranties are a big money saver. Putting a warranty on a product saves a lot of money compared to the cost of making one with less failures - or one that just cannot fail.

What about from the tractor buyers viewpoint - is a warranty worth the cost? Or would you rather have something else?

rScotty

I’m a proponent of warranties. A lot of people think that products don’t break when they are new, so warranties are overrated, but I am here to tell you new equipment does break when new and nothing is worse than having just paid for something and having it break. It’s a little more understandable when something breaks after 5 years, but not after 5 months.

A example: One of the reasons I bought my Ram truck was the legendary Cummins diesel reliability, but also that Ram gives a 100,000 mile/5 year warranty on the entire powertrain, not just the diesel engine. So I got proven reliability and a more extensive warranty.

 

[Torvy]

Good point @Hay Dude. Every make, model or SKU will have individual parts/units that have imperfections and fail...often early in life. Warranties give you at least some protection as a consumer or an OEM. Of course, like everything else, warranties are built into the price of things.

I think we'd all rather have something that never fails than a great warranty. The warranty doesn't cover your business losses while the repairs are being done. It doesn't make up for the lost opportunity with kids or grandkids for that one week they were visiting and the tractor was down.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

I just wanted something non ECM run… so it doesn’t ***** when I get off the seat, or have some random sensor issue that shuts the unit down. Mechanical things I can care for, or repair… not a fan of codes on the dash and multiple safety switches

 

[oosik]

I've been out here in the sticks for 40+ years. I've, only once, had to have any work done on my tractors. Major fuel leak caused by a faulty hose clamp. That's my total experience with dealer provided service. If I'd have been able to diagnose this condition - I could have easily replaced the clamp myself.

 

[mo1]

Warranties seem to be a big reason why people buy new things. But just how useful is a tractor warranty anyway?
Not all warranties are equal, or treated equally at all dealers. So what makes a good warranty and why have one?

From a manufacturing viewpoint, warranties are a big money saver. Putting a warranty on a product saves a lot of money compared to the cost of making one with less failures - or one that just cannot fail.

What about from the tractor buyers viewpoint - is a warranty worth the cost? Or would you rather have something else?

rScotty

The warranty on equipment that is expected to last a very long period of time like a tractor is basically there to handle manufacturing, assembly, and setup defects and such. For example, if a sealed bearing came from a supplier without grease and seizes up after 30 minutes of operation and wipes out the assembly connected to it. That's why equipment warranties often aren't all that long, you are going to get through the "infant mortality" phase pretty quickly in using the equipment. Sometimes you will see longer warranties as a marketing tool to try to imply that the equipment is reliable (usually used on lesser-known brands).

Personally I don't look at a warranty with deciding to buy new vs. used as the fact that the used piece of equipment got past the infant mortality phase satisfied the whole point of a warranty. I generally buy used as it's less expensive, unless I can't find a suitable used piece of equipment at an appropriate price, which happens occasionally.

I did design engineering for awhile (20 years) before going into another branch of engineering. We always designed something the best we could - and then sometimes had to battle over cost.

In my opinion, the whole concept of "designed obsolescence" is a folk tale. Maybe it started as speculation or a PhD project by some university economics or engineering department somewhere.
Planned obsolescence sounds good enough to be true - and maybe some where it is - but reality in manufacturing is that designing something to last a certain amount of repetitions then fail isl just about impossible.

It's hard enough designing it to last. Trying to hit a target of designed obsolescence would be incredibly expensive. Consider the testing time involved in each design iteration.... no way.

Not sure how it would relate to warranties, though.

rScotty

There are some markets where there is designed obsolescence, such as with electronics where a design is tied to a specific technical standard that periodically changes, and the standard changes mandate a new design. There are also products with a specific known lifespan such as electronics with non-replaceable batteries where the known limited lifespan of the battery determines the lifespan of the device. Other than a handful of specific cases such as the ones I mentioned above, what you get is price point engineering where the goal is to meet a specific price point and the lifespan is whatever you get out of that price point.

View attachment 804138

I see you work for Oracle...

 

[RandyT]

In my manufacturing experience "designed obsolescence" is definitely a real phenomenon. I don't attribute it to malice on the part of the manufacturers. It is the result of competing design criteria which results in items that don't last as long as comparable products of generations past.

Consumers don't generally prefer to pay more if they believe they can get a comparable product at less expense. Most consumers are not capable of determining the engineering sufficiency or manufacturing quality of the products they buy. So if two items look pretty similar and make similar claims of performance and longevity, the consumer typically opts for the lower cost item.

To reduce product price and stay competitive one of the simplest techniques is to reduce component weights. The global supply chains for manufacturers of complex machinery like cars or tractors are mind boggling. Individual components get shipped from place to place across oceans and continents as raw materials become parts and parts become sub-assemblies and on and on until a final product is readied and shipped to a dealer's lot.

Another good technique to reduce cost is to change the material used to construct a part to a less expensive material. This often results in using a material less suited to the task, but it is an engineers job to try and make a component that is still suited to purpose, but less costly.

Overall, consumer price pressures and government efficiency edicts have guided manufacturers' engineering choices to produce items which are more lightly built and have shorter overall life expectancies. Are we all better off? Sometimes we are, sometimes maybe not.

What you describe is indeed true. And the consumer market is what drives the build it cheaper and I don't care if it doesn't last as long as the last product. In my Mower repair industry this has been going on for years. Part of the equation is the manufacturers trying to build a quality product for a cheaper cost of production. The customers wanting a new product at last years prices, etc. And also need to take into account that the average push mower is ran 12 hours/yr and is replaced every 3.5 years. the average riding mower is ran 38hr/yr and is replaced every 4.5 years. So those numbers tend to drive the quality market and the OEM's mower companies are indeed building their products around that life expectancy. Snapper several years ago did a redesign of the rear engine snapper mowers to have a 5 year life expectancy. and the dealers were informed of this information.

In the mower repair business the OEM's tend to stop production of parts 10 years after that part was last used in production. So for trimmers and chainsaws the first part to normally go is the air filters followed by ignition parts. For riders it is the blade spindles.

 

[arrow]

Warranties seem to be a big reason why people buy new things. But just how useful is a tractor warranty anyway?
Not all warranties are equal, or treated equally at all dealers. So what makes a good warranty and why have one?

From a manufacturing viewpoint, warranties are a big money saver. Putting a warranty on a product saves a lot of money compared to the cost of making one with less failures - or one that just cannot fail.

What about from the tractor buyers viewpoint - is a warranty worth the cost? Or would you rather have something else?

rScotty

I disagree entirely w your premise as to warranties being money savers for the manufacturer as they relate to the tractor sector.
Warrantee work costs big money and the less a manufacturer has to be involved w them, the better off they are.
One upmanship as they relate to warrantees provides the manufacturer a sales opp.
If you are building your stuff so good you feel confident to extend your warranty say from 5 to 7 yrs, that is a selling incentive and not that you are cutting so many corners it’s cheaper to build lesser stuff and simply cover the failure.
Running the risk of losing customers is the most expensive cost a manufacturer can endure.