New (small) Motors Designed to Fail?

[DarkRange55]

Older motors were made to be maintained and repaired. Newer motors are made to last longer before needing maintenance, but then need to then be replaced rather than maintained or fixed.
The cost of a motor (in terms of hours of work at a typical wage) has fallen so much that very few people take the time to maintain small motors anymore, so building maintainable motors would not be worthwhile for consumer products. Small items are purchase-price sensitive. Big-ticket items are more cost-of-ownership sensitive (which takes more thinking). So yes, indirectly, it was done to sell more motors because the motors that people will pay for sell more…

Fractional horsepower motors (AC/exhaust/fan, ect) typically have bronze sleeve bearings. Sleeve bearings are cheaper than ballbearings because it's basically just a bronze tube packed with a cotton (or similar material) wick. The oil (or similar lubricant) is drawn through the bronze, since it's a porous metal, through capillary action from a reservoir in the bearing interface.

When the oil runs out they seize up and die. Very few use ballbearings, usually thats one 1 horsepower motors and larger. They went from greasible bearings to double sealed bearings. Less messy, less maintenance.

There's different types of ballbearings. Sealed are better than plain steel ones since they keep the oil / grease inside. Sleeve bearings are less expensive than ball bearings, and they have a lower noise output. They can be used more effectively when the mechanical load is connected directly to the shaft.

Just some food for thought…

 

[Praestat_Mori]

That's an interesting observation and I would expand it to any other motors and stuff that is produced nowadays. It may only be a coincidence and/or subjective feeling but a lot of things die "automatically" after their warranty is over - or even shortly before.

Not specifically about small motors but imo it's a kind of business model. What's the use for companies when nobody buys new products bc the old ones are still working fine?

I would say generally all markets are kinda "saturated", population growth in the 1st world slows down, not enough new buyers and the new buyers often are not rich enough to buy the newest products.

Not specifically about motors but from the IT world. My nearly 10 years old laptop still serves the purposes I need it for very well - why would I buy a new one for xxx or xxxx$ ?! The funny thing is, a few months after I bought it the laptop mainboard and screen had issues .... it was a warranty case. Since it's been changed my laptop is fine for almost 10 years and probably will be fine for a lot more years - hopefully.

Imo it's a business model bc business growth also depends on population growth and how much money the population can spend or is willing to spend on new stuff. That's also a complex economic and demographic field.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Everything now is "engineered to fail". We've become a throw-away society. Or, more accurately, we've let them (big business) force this way on us. This is one of the reasons why it's so difficult for so many to ever get ahead - people are constantly having to replace items that once were designed to last 30, 40 years, but now are designed to fail after only a few years, and when an item does fail, it's not worth repairing it.

 

[DarkRange55]

Everything now is "engineered to fail". We've become a throw-away society. Or, more accurately, we've let them (big business) force this way on us. This is one of the reasons why it's so difficult for so many to ever get ahead - people are constantly having to replace items that once were designed to last 30, 40 years, but now are designed to fail after only a few years, and when an item does fail, it's not worth repairing it.

I think it's a combination. As I said above as an example…
You also have more sophisticated systems which are inherently more prone to failure. Even mechanical systems become more vulnerable as they become increasingly sophisticated.
Planned obsolescence is definitely a thing though.
One of my mentors is a career serial inventor who holds dozens of patterns and has a PhD in mechanical engineering.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

I think it's a combination. As I said above as an example…
You also have more sophisticated systems which are inherently more prone to failure. Even mechanical systems become more vulnerable as they become increasingly sophisticated.

I'm an engineer. Items are purposely designed to fail within a given amount of time. This is what the companies demand in order to hold/increase shareholder value. We'd run durability tests, and if they showed that a item/part would last too long, we were instructed to "change" the design, ie cheaper materials, weakening of product specs, etc - until the desired (by executives) durability was realized. It was 100% puposefully done. Any item only needs to survive until the warranty period expires. This is now the norm of how things are designed/engineered. They even have coursez about this type of engineering (design to fail) at the universities. Frankly, it makes me sick.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

They do seem to push these micro three- and four cylinder engines where possible these days. Cheaper parts and plastics, reduced longevity, and inferior manufacturing in third world countries is the standard now. Going car shopping is depressing as hell lately. Hop on Carvana and finance a 40 grand car with a 1.4 engine over 72 months? No thanks.

 

[DarkRange55]

I'm an engineer. Items are purposely designed to fail within a given amount of time. This is what the companies demand in order to hold/increase shareholder value. We'd run durability tests, and if they showed that a item/part would last too long, we were instructed to "change" the design, ie cheaper materials, weakening of product specs, etc - until the desired (by executives) durability was realized. It was 100% puposefully done. Any item only needs to survive until the warranty period expires. This is now the norm of how things are designed/engineered. They even have coursez about this type of engineering (design to fail) at the universities. Frankly, it makes me sick.

Well, that's definitely true on some scale and certain industries that's definitely not the case for everything because I've certainly been in industries where that's definitely the opposite.

I've been a commercial building engineer and also liaison for manufacturing in Southeast Asia and also civil construction in Asia

I'm an engineer. Items are purposely designed to fail within a given amount of time. This is what the companies demand in order to hold/increase shareholder value. We'd run durability tests, and if they showed that a item/part would last too long, we were instructed to "change" the design, ie cheaper materials, weakening of product specs, etc - until the desired (by executives) durability was realized. It was 100% puposefully done. Any item only needs to survive until the warranty period expires. This is now the norm of how things are designed/engineered. They even have coursez about this type of engineering (design to fail) at the universities. Frankly, it makes me sick.

I will say this definitely becoming increasingly common and it is unfortunate but at the same time, things are innovating and changing so quick…

My point was more about fractional horsepower motors specifically but I am curious to get a discussion going on things like planned obsolescence!

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Well, I've worked in several industries and it's been the norm in all of them in the US. I can't begin to tell you the discontent and morale issues I've encountered amongst designers and engineers every time (we're) told we have to "dumb down" our projects, and sometimes even with safety implications, as well. It's all about the bottom line for these companies. The companies I worked for had huge departments set up just to test their product and then determine what they could cheapen to reduce the life of the product in order to bring the expected longevity in line with warranty periods.

 

[DarkRange55]

They do seem to push these micro three- and four cylinder engines where possible these days. Cheaper parts and plastics, reduced longevity, and inferior manufacturing in third world countries is the standard now. Going car shopping is depressing as hell lately. Hop on Carvana and finance a 40 grand car with a 1.4 engine over 72 months? No thanks.

A car's engine 40 years ago would be lucky to make it 120k miles, mow they can go 250-300k because the standards and build are so much better quality. They have robotics doing all the machining so it's more precise, you can balance crankshafts and all these things. But a car was also like $2k back then. Engine technology is much more sophisticated now.

It's also economies of scale… its cheaper to mass produce a million little motors by machine with cheap labor in China than it is to pay a person in a first world to repair and maintain everything.

ford model t was ~800 in 1908, which would be ~$25K in today's $.
You can get a much better car for $25K today, so more bang for your buck

The very definition of a commodity means that it does not have any knowledge component and technology is now at a stage that it quickly acts to increase supply. This may not have been true in the 1970's when we had increases in gold and oil prices because the technonomic medium of the world was not powerful and adaptable enough to respond to higher prices with increases in supply but now we are in that age. And its no longer an age where anything that has anything that has a scarcity-based model can really rise a lot in price.

Technology and productivity certainly explain most of our current living standing.
Capital and labor in combination = growth of GDP
So combinations with technology allow you to reallocate labor from agriculture. Note high population countries like China and India started with lots of labor and simple technology (textiles) to grow / export and employ more people lifting many out of poverty.
USA had abundance of resources to grow and apply technology (Industrial Revolution) and not as much labor (need immigration)

Our ability to purchase fantastic electronics for very little cost is because our ability to produce electronics advances even faster than the ravages of inflation.

New a car is more computer than car compared to 30 years ago.
New hardware gets cheaper over time because it becomes commoditizes as patents expire and supply chains scale.

Well, I've worked in several industries and it's been the norm in all of them in the US. I can't begin to tell you the discontent and morale issues I've encountered amongst designers and engineers every time (we're) told we have to "dumb down" our projects, and sometimes even with safety implications, as well. It's all about the bottom line for these companies. The companies I worked for had huge departments set up just to test their product and then determine what they could cheapen to reduce the life of the product in order to bring the expected longevity in line with warranty periods.

My focus has largely been finance but from what I've seen from my friends that are industrial designers and engineers and software developers is some mix. My best friend's brother designs HVAC systems for buildings. He's designing one for a medical facility at a prison now. Haven't heard anything negative from him. He designed a hydraulic press in college that a company bought the patent to. But thats just one anecdotal case. What kind of engineering are you in? Do you like it? Why do you go into it?

Idk which field you're in but I'm sure it varies… with engineers… I think a lot of people became engineers because they like to create and add value to the world. I scored #38 in the state for mechanical engineering for the Air Force recruitment aptitude test for the year. But I ended up in finance. Manipulating abstract or subtle market movements seems very unfulfilling, even disruptive. But then again there are those among us that design and build nuclear weapons.

Well, I've worked in several industries and it's been the norm in all of them in the US. I can't begin to tell you the discontent and morale issues I've encountered amongst designers and engineers every time (we're) told we have to "dumb down" our projects, and sometimes even with safety implications, as well. It's all about the bottom line for these companies. The companies I worked for had huge departments set up just to test their product and then determine what they could cheapen to reduce the life of the product in order to bring the expected longevity in line with warranty periods.

Thats so fucked