I used to think that way too. However when one has time to spend but not the money, they spend the asset they can most afford to spend.
In my case it was time. Is there anything wrong with that? Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:10:37 -0400 > >My point is you spent 10 hours fixing a broken washer. I value my time >at about $70.00 an hour spending 10 hours diagnosing something on that >basis I would be $375 in the hole. Actually I replace about half of >them as a prophylactic measure. Only two absolutely needed to be >replaced, the rest were well on their way to failing and at less that >$1.00 each it was well worth replacing them all at the same time. The >switch was dodgey and on it's way to failure as well. I could probably >have monkeyed around with to make it work better, but only a couple of >bucks extra it seemed a no brainer to replace it at the same time. > >Tom C wrote: > > I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved $325 I > > didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not that it >was > > hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than an hour. >I'm > > a clod when it comes to things mechanical. > > > > It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without troubleshooting > > them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the >drain > > pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, etc. >Much > > of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not actually > > repairing it. > > > > You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 > >> > >> How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every > >> important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the electrical > >> system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out how to > >> take the back off. > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >> > >>> I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that > >>> > >> most > >> > >>> of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly > >>> > >> cheap. > >> > >>> A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that >costs > >>> > >> $20 > >> > >>> and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the > >>> > >> board > >> > >>> for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time >is > >>> money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy >just > >>> > >> to > >> > >>> get the serviceman in and out. > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 > >>>> > >>>> Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old > >>>> technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less than new > >>>> electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. > >>>> > >>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take me 2 >or > >>>>> > >> 3 > >> > >>>>> trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right > >>>>> > >> because > >> > >>>> I > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. > >>>>> > >>>>> Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in >Europe > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> and > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> only becoming popular in the USA over the last decade for home use) >is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> that > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> they use about 1/3 the water as older top load washers and are much > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> easier > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> on clothes. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Tom C. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:49:04 -0400 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And it drys cloths no better than the 30 year old dryer I bought >for > >>>>>> $25.00 12 years ago, and fixed for less than $10. Replacing all of > >>>>>> > >> the > >> > >>>>>> temperature sensors and door switch in less than two hours. (I >ended > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> up > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> giving it away 6 months ago as I had no place to store it). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What all these problems really indicate is how cheap, low-spec >most > >>>>>>>> of the electronic components being used are, even in high-end > >>>>>>>> cameras. Curiously, my 1966 RCA transistor radio that cost me $20 > >>>>>>>> (expensive back then!) is still going strong. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Godfrey > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Likely planned obsolescence? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On a side note, I just fixed our 2000 Maytag Neptune washer which > >>>>>>> > >> had > >> > >>>>>>> stopped spinning clothes in the spin cycle. If it had failed >about > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> two > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> yeas > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ago I could have gotten it fixed for free under the terms of a >class > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> action > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> lawsuit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It was going to cost upwards of $400 for a service call, an entire > >>>>>>> > >> new > >> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> main > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> control board, and an item called a wax motor which is essential >to > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> locking > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> the door. I replaced the wax motor (ultimate source of the >problem) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> along > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> with a blown resistor and two transistors on the main board. In >the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> process > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I ruined a metal 'leaf' spring that holds the wax motor in place >and > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> super > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> glued a switch closed, until the new parts arrived. Cost of my > >>>>>>> > >> repair > >> > >>>>>>> including parts which I runied in the process was under $75 >dollars, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> though > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have about 10 hours invested in it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tom C. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is >a > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> dog. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a > >>>> > >> dog. > >> > >>>> -- > >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a >dog. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > >-- >All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
