Re: Cheeky Tata - Should We bail Them Out?
- From: MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:26:16 +0000
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:54:52 +0000, Joe <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MM wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:26:32 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
<dewhurst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
William Black wrote:
"Maria" <fedupwoman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageIf that is so it would be sensible for the government to require the
news:mr6dneA7nvQIyNfUnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
William Black wrote:Because the British army, their major customer, has only just taken
"Maria" <fedupwoman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageIf they are that good, why are they struggling?
news:0oadnSthTaUXodfUnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
Tata has asked for bailout money from the government, for Corus steelBoth companies make a decent product, one of them, the Land Rover part
and Jaguar. Should we, shouldn't we?
of 'Jaguar Land Rover' is a major military supplier.
delivery of its last major contract with them and there is no prospect,
because of long vehicle life cycles, of another one for about five to ten
years.
army to buy vehicles annually in small numbers rather than in large
numbers every ten years.
Why don't they repair the vehicles they already have? Hardly anything
nowadays is repaired. It is simply chucked away with 95% of its
functionality reusable. Many goods are put together with special
screws that are hard for the layman to undo, so that buying a
replacement is the only option. Planned obsolescence I think it's
called.
What IS it with us humans that require us to buy a new toaster every
few years? Surely the purpose of a toaster is to toast bread, so when
we bought that toaster five years ago, why would we even think of a
new one today if the old one still works? But we are persuaded -
brainwashed - by clever adverts into "needing" a new one, even if we
don't. Same with washing machines and dishwashers. The bloke from
Calgon warns about limescale attacking the element, but why do we
never hear about the stainless steel drum going wrong? Certain parts
of most goods will NEVER wear out! The drum, f'rinstance, or the "box"
part of a fridge. These will last for a hundred years, no problem. So
if the designers can give some components extended longevity, why not
all the other parts, like the element that is subject to limescale
damage? Why couldn't any housewife buy JUST a new element at Tesco for
a fiver, like a video cassette, or replacement dust bags for the
Hoover, and fit it herself by releasing a couple of easy to operate
spring clips? Nope! Can't be designed like that! No planned
obsolescence, you see! Consumers have to be led to the slaughter of
their wallets and purses on a regular basis to uphold the expensive
lifestyles of rich capitalists who are laughing all the way to their
equally greedy bankers.
To some extent, but you must surely be aware of the economics of repair
and replacement.
1. The overheads of importing a single spare part are pretty much the
same as for the whole product. Obviously transport costs are lower, but
not much else. With electronic goods, the smallest replaceable item
usually costs 80% or more of the value of the original product, so
allowing for labour costs, there is little to gain. Don't even think
about suggesting the component-level repair of modern domestic
electronic equipment. The cost of the necessary test and repair
equipment and the cost of people who know enough to do it usefully
quickly are prohibitive, and manufacturers will not be prepared to
reveal enough technical information about the product to make many
repairs even possible. A few types of electronic goods are expensive
enough to make repair practical, but none of them are used domestically.
2. Spare part requirements are not predictable over the life of the
product, and the parts are ordered and their production arranged back to
raw materials at least a year before manufacture. Parts are delivered
for manufacture only, and spares are *not* stocked by manufacturers. By
the time spares requirements can be reasonably well estimated,
production will have moved onto the next model, and some parts will
already be unobtainable as they were designed and manufactured
specifically for that model. The part manufacturer will of course be
willing to make another production run to meet spares requirements, but
probably not in quantities of less than 10,000.
Any spares stocks anywhere in the world are ordered well in advance of
need, are paid for and held by distributors and dealers, and unused
spares must be eventually thrown away. In the meantime, VAT (in the EU)
must be paid periodically on any notional appreciation in the value of
the parts, even if they are not sold. Even an unmoving stock of spares
therefore requires some maintenance. Original spares are expensive to
hold, hence the market in low-quality substitutes. Naturally, the
dealers and distributors who do not choose to hold spares can undercut
those who do.
3. Repairable products cost more to make and tend to require
maintenance. Remember the Minor and the early Minis? They had things
called grease nipples fitted to many joints. If new grease was injected
every three or six months, the joint would last practically forever.
Remember three and six month maintenance schedules? Unfortunately, the
cost of specialist labour led to a preference for vehicles with
ever-longer service intervals. Who today would buy a car that needed
six-month services, let alone three-month ones? Even before that,
manufacturers had worked out that joints without grease nipples were
cheaper to make than those with, not even counting the cost of the
nipple, which contained moving parts. Sealed-for-life joints were
cheaper to make and needed no expensive maintenance. The drawback was
that they could not be repaired and didn't last more than a few years.
By a happy coincidence, a new joint was then required. Not that
manufacturers are interested in the life of their vehicles beyond about
three years, by which time the second-hand market has little influence
on buyers of new cars, who are looking to re-sell in one or two years.
4. Many goods are now made of plastic, making them physically
unrepairable. Have you ever succeeded in stopping a leak in a plastic
kettle?
5, 6 etc. More reasons, most of which I'm sure you can deduce with a bit
of thought. You won't have missed the fact that some reasons are due to
goods being manufactured according to the cost-minimising just-in-time
philosophy, outside the UK. While deliberate obsolescence exists to a
degree, it's rather risky, as the death of an obviously poorly-designed
product will *not* lead to a repeat sale by the same manufacturer. The
push away from repairable goods is driven almost entirely by the need
for reduction of the original sale price, not the expectation of higher
repeat sales.
It is still possible to buy some repairable goods, but at a very high
price, so restricting them to fairly comfortably-off people. It will
again be possible on a large scale only when raw material prices are at
least fifty times what they are now (in real terms), and the oil has run
out, hence no cheap plastics.
That all sounds like a counsel of despair - the planned obsolescence
boyos will be proud of you!
MM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cheeky Tata - Should We bail Them Out?
- From: Joe
- Re: Cheeky Tata - Should We bail Them Out?
- From: Ivan
- Re: Cheeky Tata - Should We bail Them Out?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: The British are timid and industrious animals
- Next by Date: Re: The clown's revival has stalled
- Previous by thread: Re: Cheeky Tata - Should We bail Them Out?
- Next by thread: Re: Cheeky Tata - Should We bail Them Out?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
