WD40 'Repair Don't Replace Challenge'

[David G4EBT]

There have been threads on the forum about initiatives to encourage consumers to repair rather than replace equipment, and the frustrations that arise due to difficulties in obtaining spare parts, information and advice. Government initiatives and legislation, both in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, mandating manufacturers to supply spares seem to come to little.
If 'espares' don't stock the item, we often draw a blank.

Even if available, the cost of some parts can render a domestic appliance beyond economic repair - a motor or programmer for a washing machine for example. Some small domestic appliances may be so cheap to replace that it may seem hardly worth the effort, and often, newer replacements are preferred by consumers, which have new features and benefits or better performance, such as smart TVs/Smartphones, laptops.

Any initiatives which encourage and promote repairing rather than replacment can only be a good thing. I learnt recently of an initiative by WD40 called the 'Repair - Don't Replace Challenge', which I thought others might be interested in.

The campaign encourages people to repair, restore, and renovate items instead of replacing them. Entrants are invited to submit photos and videos of their repair projects, with a chance to win a cash prize. The campaign has grown to be a global initiative, generating a total of 400 million impressions and 3 million website visits.

WD40 collaborate with Repair Café International, a pioneering non-profit organisation in this movement, with a presence in more than 37 countries. A Repair Café is a free meeting place where you’ll find tools and materials to help you make any repairs you need. With the help of expert volunteers, you can make repairs to electrical tools, bikes, furniture, appliances, toys, and just about anything else.

'Spareka' is the leading repair platform in France. Its mission is the empowerment of people to do their own repairs and the education of future generations about repair issues. With more than 1,200,000 electrical appliances repaired and 46,800 tonnes of CO2 avoided, 'Spareka' offers everything from diagnostic services and video tutorials to the sale of spare parts. (8 million spare parts sold since 2012).

Most of us are familiar with 'environmental footprints' which measure the effect that a person, product, organisation or country has on the environment. The quantity of natural resources used and the effect on the environment. (EG, mining and refining lithium and cobalt to make batteries, petrochemical microfibres from plastic packaging, synthetic fibres and cosmetics, which pollute the oceans, etc).

While environmental 'footprints' have a negative effect on the planet, environmental 'handprints' have a positive effect, so the aim is to shrink the size of our 'footprint', and increase the size of our 'handprint'. The term 'net positive' is to have a handprint larger than a footprint. I guess we're a long way off that, but it's a worthy goal to aim for.

https://www.wd40company.com/our-comp...-dont-replace/

https://www.circularity-gap.world/2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics

Hope that might be of interest.

[Vintage Engr]

Thanks for passing on that information David, all very interesting.

From about the age of 8, I always wanted to repair things, I'm sure that I must have driven my parents mad!
I must surely be one of the few children, who carried out wiped joints on lead water-pipes at around 10 years old.
It wouldn't be allowed nowadays, but my father borrowed a methylated-spirits blowlamp fom a neighbour, got me some plumber's lead, & left me to get on with the job! It didn't leak. I then went on to use a more delicate, heated-up-in the fire soldering iron to build my first one-valver.

All this ultimately led me initially into Radio & TV servicing, and then soon afterwards, into the world of broadcast television. I always try to repair anything before it is thrown away. Of course this means that I have far too much in the way of 'stuff', - spare parts for anything that might conceivably be repaired.
However, people like many of us on the Forum, will have received a lot of training, & in the case of us 'elderly gentlemen', many years of experience as well.
This means that most of us feel reasonably competent to have a go at repairing a plethora of different electronic, electrical, or electro-mechanical items.
I admire the 'man-in-the-street' (what the IET designate as 'untrained persons') who wishes to have a go at repairing electrical and electronic items, but worry about the inherent dangers present, particularly with mains operated equipment. I can see new legislation coming out to deal with this...

I didn't know about the WD 40 challenge, but it certainly seems to have motivated thousands of people.

I am all for manufacturers making products that are actually repairable, but obtaining spares, if available is often met with red tape & high prices. Hopefully things may eventually settle down, so that these various directives will actually start to work.

When I last worked in industry, the general rule used to be that main internal spare parts would be held for 10 years, and cosmetic parts for 7 years. There was an exception with PCB's, we were expected to repair to component level, & therefore main PCB's were ususally held either until the end of production, or sometimes for 3 years after the last date of production.

However, all this was at a time when model changes did not occur with the rapidity that they do nowadays. I somehow cannot imagine manufacturers holding 'dead stock' spares for such a long period, when new models of equipment are being produced every year....

I await with interest


David

[G6Tanuki]

Repairing rather than replacing has to be considered in the context of the energy-efficiency of the continued use of an old repaired thing rather than that of a new one [and the purchase-price thereof].

I've happily junked still-working ten year old fridges/freezers/washing-machines and the like that had a C-or-lower energy rating, to replace them with a new A+++ rated one. The cost of replacement was easily recovered by the reduction in electricity-usage over three years, and I had the benefit of a newer, quieter, better-looking appliance (with a ten-year parts warranty if you buy a Samsung) as a valuable side-benefit.

[emeritus]

It does seem to have been a competition for 2023, so presumably too late to enter now?

[Uncle Bulgaria]

Thank you for that, David. I've recently joined the local repair café and it has been very satisfying. When beavering along by oneself it is a pleasant surprise to find that what one considers a straightforward repair is thought magic by someone without that experience, and something destined for the bin soldiers on.

Energy in use is a knotty problem. While the user may see the benefit of a newer model in some direct way through lower bills, as a societal problem the junking of working objects means their embodied energy must be taken into account. All well and good if steel is recycled into new; but chips, rare earth metals, PCBs etc. are all processed at great energetic cost.

It is impossible to make back embodied energy through lower energy in use, so (in isolation) keeping a mechanical or electro-mechanical object going is far better than getting a more efficient one.

The trouble we have is that the objects we can buy new are excessively complicated and rely on gimimcks to sell a newer model. A hand-cranked coffee grinder will go on for centuries, but a new Bluetooth Internet of Things model will need replacing in a couple of years, on top of its giant footprint.

No government has addressed this ballooning footprint of modern assumptions which I think is our greatest danger in terms of excessive resource usage.

[Joe_Lorenz]

Great to hear of a challenge like that one!

Repairing broken things has always been a tempting challenge for me. As a 10 year old boy I did not want a new HiFi anything but spotted a badly damaged Grundig 495 W in the skip, hauled it some miles home on my bike, converted the broken cabinet to firewood and set the goal to get it going! I built a "modern looking", brick-shaped cabinet, painted it black, provided a ventilation hole for the EL 12/375 valve and finally solved the problem of a heater winding shorted to the xformer core. Proudly I tried to convince my dad how much money I had saved him!

In later years I have found out it is a good idea for every appliance to have a second one for parting out as a spares donator. So we have a 1965's Maytag A 105 and a 1986 Constructa CV 720 washing machines still in operation.

Something about energy consumption: The Maytag has no internal water heater, it needs separate feeding hoses for cold and warm water. This is fine, as the warm water in our house may be provided by thermal solar collectors (sunshine provided). And the electricity for the motor can be generated by some six 400 W solar modules. So why should I want a modern washing machine? Sunshine is what I want and I will keep it going as long as my hands and my eyesight will allow!

Joe

[fetteler]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bulgaria

Thank you for that, David. I've recently joined the local repair café and it has been very satisfying. When beavering along by oneself it is a pleasant surprise to find that what one considers a straightforward repair is thought magic by someone without that experience, and something destined for the bin soldiers on.

Energy in use is a knotty problem. While the user may see the benefit of a newer model in some direct way through lower bills, as a societal problem the junking of working objects means their embodied energy must be taken into account. All well and good if steel is recycled into new; but chips, rare earth metals, PCBs etc. are all processed at great energetic cost.

It is impossible to make back embodied energy through lower energy in use, so (in isolation) keeping a mechanical or electro-mechanical object going is far better than getting a more efficient one.

The trouble we have is that the objects we can buy new are excessively complicated and rely on gimimcks to sell a newer model. A hand-cranked coffee grinder will go on for centuries, but a new Bluetooth Internet of Things model will need replacing in a couple of years, on top of its giant footprint.

No government has addressed this ballooning footprint of modern assumptions which I think is our greatest danger in terms of excessive resource usage.

Thanks for putting this so eloquently and accurately. You have said everything I wanted to say - you saved me the trouble!

I might just add one thing, having read the WD40 page: Devices that burn hydrocarbon fuels (and for which there are now alternatives) and have ended their useful mechanical life should probably just be recycled.

Steve.

[Maarten]

Originally Posted by G6Tanuki

I've happily junked still-working ten year old fridges/freezers/washing-machines and the like that had a C-or-lower energy rating, to replace them with a new A+++ rated one. The cost of replacement was easily recovered by the reduction

Strangely, I've never found this to be the case with normal fridges. Maybe the very large double door ones and chest freezers.

[The Philpott]

I take the point on embodied energy, and find that i agree. Hesitation and thought is vital before a working unit is rendered back into it's constituents

There's a downside with newer generations of 'fridges/freezers with impressive efficiency ratings....the insulation tends to be so thick that you can't fit any food into them. This encourages me to keep my C rated Hotpoint, which is now on it's third thermostat, but original door seal-from year 1996.

The tiny BMS pcb in my Erbauer rechargeable work lamp failed on saturday, shutting the whole thing down. Despite the efforts of the manufacturer to discourage repair, with the help of Youtube and Amazon i had a replacement installed within 24hrs, at a cost of £6.50. This is encouraging, but one does consider how many of the lamps have been thrown away by users who will just class the thing as 'dead' or 'dead battery'.

Dave

[Studio263]

Originally Posted by fetteler

I might just add one thing, having read the WD40 page: Devices that burn hydrocarbon fuels (and for which there are now alternatives) and have ended their useful mechanical life should probably just be recycled.

So you'd throw away a nice Suffolk Punch mower in favour of a plastic battery operated one from China? How long is that going to last? It makes no sense to me.

[Cobaltblue]

As it seems we can't stay away from engines hydrocarbon fuels etc the thread will be closed.

Cheers

Mike T