Comments on: Entropy versus warranty: how companies figure out how breakable their products are

By: GrumpySteen

GrumpySteen — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:12:00 +0000

The bumper is probably the one of the worst parts you could choose as an example. It’s designed to take an impact and protect the rest of the car, so it tends to be more durable than the rest of the car. Changing the bumper so that it won’t last as long would be a bad idea.

By: BonzoDog1

BonzoDog1 — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:31:00 +0000

Tired of coffee makers that die? Get a teakettle and a filter holder and carafe. I’m willing to expend a little more of my time to avoid replacing a morning necessity every year or so.
I’m typing on a 10-year-old Powerbook, which serves my needs, after a hard-drive replacement with no loss because I had backup.
On the other hand, I’m better off not having a ’55 Chevy as a daily driver, for cost and safety reasons.
As money, energy and petrochemicals become more dear, the “mil-spec” properties of products that are not affected by technological advances will gain value.

By: Jerril

Jerril — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:46:00 +0000

Making them use less metal, thus less resources, reducing the price of the car as well as reducing the weight, which in turn improves handling and fuel efficiency. I really don’t care if my bumper lasts 50 years beyond my car, it’s not doing me any good at that point.

There’s no point hanging a tank shell off my sedan suspension – I’m not trying to invade France here, just commute.

By: airshowfan

airshowfan — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:37:00 +0000

I look forward to passing this article around the office tomorrow. My group does durability research for Boeing... (No, I can't give you any more details about that 737 than have already been made public). Yes, we're fatigue-testing the 787. Many people in our field, by the way, are big fans of the poem "The Deacon's Masterpiece", about a one-horse shay "that was built in such a logical way, it ran a hundred years to a day, and then of a sudden... went to pieces all at once — all at once, and nothing first — just as bubbles do when they burst" because each part was exactly as durable as the other, no more, no less.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:33:00 +0000

Jeez. If it failed so widely and so quickly, they must not have done much product testing.

By: sudoLoki

sudoLoki — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:16:00 +0000

No one expects carpet tiles to fail, hence all failures are unexpected.

By: John Smith

John Smith — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:05:00 +0000

I’ve heard product designers brag about only designing for warranty life and being proud of it.

By: Angel Chen

Angel Chen — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:28:00 +0000

Backing problems. http://www.saferproducts.gov/ViewIncident/1199078

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:23:00 +0000

Unravel and trip a personal injury lawyer?

By: Kai Sikorski

Kai Sikorski — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:19:00 +0000

“In 2009, Mohawk Industries—one of the largest makers of carpeting in the country—was forced to discontinue an entire line of carpet tiles when the tiles failed unexpectedly”

How do carpet tiles fail unexpectedly? I’m so perplexed.

By: Mr_Smooth

Mr_Smooth — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 01:52:00 +0000

I read once (maybe apocryphal, I dunno) about Henry Ford inspecting auto junkyards. The parts in the junkyards outlasted the cars.

So he learned which parts were overbuilt and changed them to be less durable.