Mister Jalopy, over at Hoopty Rides and Dinosaurs and Robots wrote a great post a while back making the case that manufacturers should create user serviceable products.
He had the same problem with the fuel gauge on his 2000 Chevy pickup as I have on my Volvo: the fuel gauge doesn’t work and sits at empty but the car runs fine. To replace the faulty fuel gauge sender you need to replace the entire fuel pump, at considerable expense, even though the pump works fine.
But you can’t buy a fuel sender separate from the fuel pump. It is an integrated component. Looking at the fuel sender, it is clearly designed to be removed and replaced. And to prove my point, I did remove it. It took longer to get the pliers from the toolbox than it did to disassemble.
Sometimes components fail and you have no idea way, but in this case, the cause of failure was obvious. There were two little metal tangs that glided over the PCB resistor contacts and one of them had broken off. This is clearly a component designed for a short life…
So, what happened? I bet Chevrolet specified that the fuel sender unit would be removable. Perhaps they were planning to offer it as a separate SKU. And why would they want to sell it separately? And make less money?
He then segues into his manifesto, explaining that when you buy something, you should own it outright and be able to fix it at reasonable cost when it inevitably breaks down. Too many products are tossed aside when a minor component breaks, even though it may still work.
I now have 2 digital cameras that were rendered almost useless because their flimsy battery door hinges wore out and the battery wouldn’t stay in its proper place to easily take a picture. The temptation is to toss it, but I know we’ve still got a functioning digital camera with better optics than ones just 5-10 years ago. So it’s taped up and back in business.
NPR ran a piece on Mister Jalopy and the Makers movement of people who have an understanding that just because a part is broken doesn’t mean the whole thing is junk.