Should Technology Be Repairable Instead of Disposable?

They just don't make em like they used to.

The cost of components or spares should be reasonable so that their total cost will never exceed the cost of assembled item minus the labour component.

I don't believe the cost of replacement parts are or would be an issue. It would be the labor to remove the nonperforming part and installing the new part.

... and don't forget the ability to find out which part is defective!

A while back we had a CNC mill down due to a bad circuit board. The repair people wanted $2k for the board, but did not have one available, and offered to replace the entire module containing the board for $5k. The company sent it to my home; it took me less than half an hour to find and replace a bad capacitor worth much less than a dollar. Of course it took me another 3 hours or so to trace the circuit so I could know how to test it and verify that that was the only problem. It was!

Lets see. Your CNC mill was down for a day. Loss to the business....about a thousand dollars in non-productivity. Assuming nothing particularly important was held up as a result of the duff machine. I will not include the labour of the machinist since CNC machines rarely have a tech on it full time, but for at least PART of that day, the tech was sitting idle @60 dollars per hour. Your time as a technician....bill at a modest $110.00 per hour for three hours of circuit tracing and another hour to find, replace and test the module. Cost to repair this machine instead of swapping out a module (cost of not forseeing the need) about $1600.00. Minimum.

The smart money would have replacement circuit boards in house, and possibly right there on the shop floor.

Its a dollars and sense game. A friend of mine was in the habit of taking those CNC PC boards home in his briefcase to test and repair them. He got downsized one day. Still had a half dozen of the Printed Circuit cards in his home workshop, and happily came in on contract at a thousand dollars a pop to deal with the usual "blown capacitors" or whatever....they thought he was worth it since when he came in, the machine was up and running within a half hour.

The repairman can be a king. At least until the machine changes.

This leads to a problem I complained about when I was in the military so many years ago. The three little words Immediate Operational Requirement. There were so many missions blown because of insufficient easily available spares. As a wire puller and instrument tech, I put in thousands of hours repairing stuff that should have been simply replaced at need and repaired at leisure, if at all. I learned a LOT about good management techniques there, and I still feel that if you don't keep in mind the goal, you will go off on a tangent. We used to have a poster up on the shop wall of a nervous looking individual standing up to his waist in water carrying a shovel, the logo on the poster said..."when you are up to your ass in alligators, its hard to remember that the goal was to drain the swamp". The "cost of repairs" is an alligator.

As a part-time repairman, this has long been a pet peeve of mine! Too many products are made with little or no consideration of ease of repair. For example, I understand that it's cheaper to glue or friction-weld the two parts of a plastic case than to use screws, but it makes it impossible to repair correctly. I have in mind a favorite company of mine that obviously has two design teams working at the same time on similar projects. It is obvious that the two teams do not communicate, as one of the resulting products is significantly easier to repair than the other.

I don't want to suggest a tax increase, so how about a decrease in sales tax based on the ease of repair of the item? Yes, I know that means more bureaucracy, but what is the alternative?

Manufacturing needs to crank out products as cheaply as possible. After tax profit margin on most products is less than 10 percent. All corners need to be cut just to stay in business. The 'overseas' competitors use virtualy slave labor against which we America cannot compete. And, when a product breaks, it is better for the manufacturer to sell you another one than to have it repaired. That's just life on the globe today. Fixing broken products is good for the product owner and repairperson but bad for the manufacturer.

Regards/Jim

There are a few folks, including me, who have no desire to possess a product made as cheaply as possible, with the corners cut as much as they can be. The majority of products meeting that description are junk the day that they are made.

The fact is that some people do want products with a lot more quality. By the way, quality does not equate to features, no matter what some idiots claim. Mostly, the product with the better quality will outlast the cheap junk, and the actual cost of ownership for that function will be less.

Those manufacturing things with corner cutting deserve having a very poor outlook.

I like this take on it.

http://www.misterjalopy.com/?page_id=219

But I don't expect to see it soon.

Repairable; during 1993 when I was at Berlin I met an interesting great-man, Prof. Busse, a retired history professor, who by referring a manual repaired (including denting & painting) his car that was very badly damaged in an accident; repaired an electronic type writer, etc.

This is a question of economic philosophy, ecology, sustainability etc. Some economists will argue that repairable products will slow down the economy since less will be produced and this will cause reduction in gross national produce and will cause a slow down of economy and unemployment. Others will argue that only the skills will change. Instead of more manufacturing, more repair man will be needed. The later is always a more satisfying job. One thing is certain that slowing down will help in reducing consumption of natural resources, reduce carbon emission due to reduced manufacturing. I came across a very intersting science fiction written in 1930's. It shows how in a future world, consumption is encouraged and poorest people are those who are given maximum quota to consume of all types of goods and given the biggest house to live and maximum food to eat which they are required to consume. If they fail then the quota is further increased to their misery. IF they consistantly achieve their target, then the quota is reduced. A sort of topsy tervy world. The guys who argue for disposable unrepairable stuff are pointing in that direction.

I could go on at great length on this topic. I accept that modern manufacturing methods have made it cheaper to replace some components than repair them. A common problem is that these components are only available through franchised dealers who asks hundres of pounds (or euros or dollars!) for items that onle cost a few pounds to make and if properly designed and manufactured should last literally a lifetime.

Another problem is getting the information needed to do the repairs. I like to have a workshop manual for the vehicles I own. However, when I tried to puchase one for my present car I discovered they were not available. Apparently the information is only available via computer and even the dealer has to pay for access to this information. How can one be sure repairs are done correctly and in the most efficient manner without the knowledge a service manual can provide?

Regards,

Tony Lee.

Answering the last question posed first, I think spare/replacement parts are typically marked up to an obscene amount, but the repair labor is often reasonable for the local market. It also seems the older something is, the less the parts cost (possibly due to reduced demand?)

As for disposable Vs repairable, we only have ourselves as consumers to blame. WE are not willing to pay the higher costs associated with manufacturing truly durable and repairable technology products so manufacturers use less costly methods for initial assembly or save costs by NOT designing for repair. Being in the manufacturing automation industry I see this all the time. And since we need consumption to drive the world economy, and my job, I think having to dispose of and replace small technology products is a good thing.

What I am concerned with, is the disposal method. So much of what we throw out to the landfill is toxic or otherwise problematic. Ideally, I would like to see a segment of our economy more active and profitable in recycling to reclaim the raw materials, such that it approximates the rate of raw material consumption. Unfortunately, design and manufacture for recycling increases costs in the short run, so that is going to take a long time to develop.

It seems like some stuff becomes obsolete so quickly (due to rapid technology changes) that it might not be worth the effort. My cell phone is 4 years old and still works. Of course it can't surf the net, there are no cool apps for it, it's a pain in the ass to text, etc.. If it broke I'd upgrade. Computers are almost the same - usually by the time they start having problems, the operating systems, office suites, etc have bloated to the point that a new system (faster, more RAM, bigger hard drive) is needed anyway. But for other thinks like appliances this is a big problem. My clothes dryer went out recently - the bearings/bushings on the motor were worn, chattering, and overheating. But you can't buy the new bearings, and can't buy a new motor. What you can buy is the motor assembly for $270.00. From the point of view of the mfgr, it makes perfect sense to design your product to minimize parts and assembly costs, so you can undercut the competition. This always seems to mean that it makes it harder to repair. From the consumer's point of view this is pretty lame, but I'm not aware of any suppliers that build dryers so that you can buy parts from MSC or Grainger and do it yourself.

As in most cases things are not black or white. It's true that the manufacturers' route not to provide component level support but only 'assembly level' could theoretically decrease initial device cost and increase reliability and product's life, The first of course is a manufacturers' target but the second IS CLEARLY NOT. But what about device lifetime and working costs? It's obvious this policy is not in consumer's best interest, And before talking about industry ethics, answer this: Who should give a f*ck about consumer's best interest if the consumer doesn't? And when he buys a product (usally missleading) avertisement is a more important criterion for his choice? S.M.

not forgetting that many items you could repair years ago are now so complexed that you can't repair them as the parts are not in the market place.

Also the beancounters don't want you to have that DVD player, washing machine, laptop for more than 3 years, as their overall sales will drop and market share.

Apple are one that springs to mind. Buy a new computer, buy "Applecare", after three years "Applecare" ends... so they encourage you to buy a new computer... or keep you old one at your own risk.

Seeing as the average American probably doesn't know how to replace a cracked laptop screen by themselves, the computer companies have little incentive to make it easier for those who do. There is much more money to be made by making gadgets disposable. If it breaks, most people just have to buy a new one.

Years ago I was gung ho on electronics repair at the component level, because that's the way things were built, then came the VCR. When It's cheaper to buy a new one than it is to remove 4 case screws, and all that component level knowledge is out the window, it makes you feel old. I miss through hole "technology".

The last 15 VCRs that I repaired only needed cleaning of many of the moving parts. I taught a transmission repair man friend how to do the repairs. BUT the problem is that too few do know how to repair things.

Worse yet, the target for consumer electronics is for it to be obsolete in six months, so why make it last any longer. The solution is a deposit charge with the purchase, to make the products expensive enough to hang onto for a longer time. Yes, it would cut profits, but it would probably increase product quality.

Aside from that, the products that I build and sell, I market as "being worth repairing", and I do provide repair services, since they do eventually wear out, or fail because of abuse. MY customers are happy to be able to have them repaired, it is much cheaper than buying new ones.

Governments/Leaders which come to power by getting votes of the public should respect the human rights of the people. They have the right to purchase items worthy of the money spent and should last for a reasonable life span(not 06 months,at least 05 years or more). Low income people cannot afford to throw items after 06 months or so and buy a new by spending hard earned money. manufacturers should produce items of different quality(life span,efficiency,accuracy etc) to suit the purse of persons of different categories of income.

Pnaban is certainly correct in that the lack of repairability is hardest on the poor. But then, in the US, at least, many of those who are poor are either not inclined to attempt a repair, or they are not in possession of even a clue as to how to do a repair. So an item being repairable may not benefit them.

Certainly the goal of minimizing production and material costs, even at the expense of quality, is a large factor in assuring that products are not repairable any more. When that is coupled with what seems like a deliberate lack of availability of repair parts, it is a challenge to fix a large number of items.

Unfortunately it will not be possible to make much of our current "technology" repairable. Just consider any of the computerized modules on a modern car. House numbered parts and custom chips and surface mount parts, all encapsulated and no service information available. That is why you must purchase a new $600 module when your turn signal flasher stops working. How is that for progress?

Lets see....ball point pens, felt marking pens, paper itself!, paint brushes, tampons, toilet paper, newspapers, plastic knives and forks at fast food restaurants, soda and beer bottles, plastic garbage bags, take out food containers, and automobile tires are just some items which are by and large "disposable". All could be replaced with permanent items, but efforts to do so are resisted, and perhaps rightly so. I remember getting soda bottles with cigarette butts in them back in the old days...and I wonder about the utensils at my local restaurant when the fork arrives with egg on it. I never liked re-treaded tires, and would not trust my family to them after some unfortuante incidents back when I pushed a truck around.

But we are talking about appliances hmmmm? Well, it is a bit of a pain to haul the refrigerator down to the repair shop, and for that matter, more than a bit of a pain to unhook my computer to bring it in for service. So I go with the replace it option almost all the time. Shame on me, I suppose. But ever seen what an old keyboard goes for at the Sally Ann?

Instead of spending money,time,energy,mineral resources,man power etc in manufacturing new models every year repairing or updating existing models is very attractive.

Well, from decades of disposing instead of repairing we have created mountains of trash while eroding our technical base. Technicians and engineers used to come from hobbyists who built stuff with their own hands. Now we simulate and program. Repair shops can't earn a living. Product quality suffers because it is assumed that consumers will replace rather than repair.

One can often repair a product cheaper than replacing it, IF it was built to allow repair and IF replacement parts are available or can be fabricated. One can earn immense satisfaction from successfully troubleshooting and repairing a device. And one can learn something, even if they're unsuccessful, other than how to open his wallet. But I'm not sure that general society values those ideals.

I admit some distain for companies whose products show poor quality, short life expectancy and irreparable construction. I have (and will again) spend $600 to repair an $800 device if that device is still useful to me - I'd save $200 and delay throwing that device into a landfill. Maybe I'm a dinosaur but it allows me to live pretty well despite the economy.

Then you obviously do NOT shop at Wal Mart. Or Harbour Freight. Enough people do so, and THAT puts repair shops out of business.

Fine words, but why does WalMart thrive and smaller businesses do not?

Thats a serious question by the way. Its all well and good to complain about our disposable society, but just curious, do you use a ball point pen or do you pluck a goose? The paper plant in the shadow of the parliament buildings here in Ottawa produces toilet paper. When it was noted that this plant produced a fair amount of pollution, it was said "Well, what you you have people wipe their bottoms with? Sponges?" In the light of no better answer, we continue to make paper there.

Yusef, I did not say that ALL products should be repaired. I said that I repair, when possible, when the product would still be useful to me. And yes, I do avoid shopping at Wal-Mart and Harbor Freight but obviously some products that are cheap and meant to be disposable (such as your ball point pen example) I do throw out when used up. The more complex a product is, the more I expect it to be repairable. For example, I continue to drive and repair automobiles. I don't junk safe operable models just because they go out of style or their paint fades. But our junkyards are full of cars that were driven there. Another example: I still use vinyl records and audio cassettes and the equipment that plays them. I didn't throw all of that stuff out when CDs and MP3s became the rage, and I repair this equipment when needed.

Focus on little stuff like ball point pens and toilet paper if that's what interests you. I'm focused upon bigger stuff that utilizes more IP and manufacturing resources.

I would challenge the statment that ball point pens and toilet paper is "small stuff". Newsprint alone, for instance, is a 2.5 Billion dollar industry. Ball point pens accounted for a full billion. It is a bit startling to think that you could solve the national debt if you could only convice everybody to go to ink wells, slates, dishrags and fountain pens again! I forsee difficulties though.

The fact is that even when you "repair" something", you are using disposable parts. Clearly, an automobile is an assembly of parts, most of which you would have to admit you would not bother to repair even if you could. Tires, oil filters, windshield glass, seats, brake pads, bearings...you name it. You would pull the defective part out and dispose of it rather than repair it. I have an employee who is still limping a 30 year old Chevette into work every morning. For her it is a matter of pride, though since she has spent more than 12 thousand dollars on this piece of junk in the last four years, even she questions her sanity. (I mean, if it was a nice old classic car, but its a Chevette for goodness sake!)

There is already a huge industry involved in salvaging what they can from the junkyards. My fleet uses re-built alternators, retreaded tires, and junk yard fenders as required. So as nice as it is to be able to say "yeah, I fixed that", (They ARE fine words!) the fact is that there is something called "beyond economical repair". And where we draw that line is open to endless arguement! Profit or loss in a business can depend upon making the "right" decision. When I worked fixing airplanes, we used to note that the only thing on my airplanes original to the factory was the name plate behind the pilot's head! The economical repair "line" changes dramatically depending on the value of the item being repaired. It makes sense to repair or replace the air conditioning in a house in downtown New York, none whatsoever to repair or replace the air con in an abandoned house in the ninth ward of New Orleans.

Okay, let's go back to the original post. It asked if people think that it makes sense to spend $600 to fix an $800 item. Don't know about you, but I don't buy $800 ball point pens or toilet paper. So the "small stuff" I'm referring to costs much less than $800. How could you fix toilet paper anyway? And I never claimed to be able to fix the national debt by convincing everybody to revert to 1700s technology. How did you make that leap?

Agreed, fixing something requires using resources and creates waste. You've got to compare that to the waste of replacing the whole item. To me it's a bigger waste to junk a whole otherwise acceptable car than to replace a small part of it. Most of the car parts you list are wear items anyway -- I know I can't afford to buy a new car just because my tires wore out, for example. Must be nice to be the boss.

Why criticize somebody else's personal choice of car? If she likes her Chevette who cares if you don't? If it suits her than let her be. I'm not a Chevette fan either but I'd never criticize somebody for owning one. It's up to the owner to decide if it makes sense to repair an item or not. If you're concerned about how she spends money then don't make her your CFO, but otherwise it's her business how she spends her money. If my home (probably my biggest investment) was in New Orleans' 9^th Ward where do you get off telling me that it makes no sense for me to replace my air conditioner? You don't live there, and you don't own my property. I'm hoping that you're not really representing yourself clearly else you must be a truly insufferable boss.

Yes, I am insufferable. So what?

Yes I disagree with you. So what? Get over it. (Oh come on...thats just payback for the "insufferable" comment you made about me. We even now? Lets shake hands and agree to disagree then.)

Though I don't think I so much disagree with you as I draw the line in a different place than you do. (shrugs) Disagreements are what makes horse races.

Yes you would be frustrated working for me. Thats okay, I doubt you would be happy working here. We don't have the leisure to indulge pet projects.

Yes I will run, and do run a successful business because I know when to fix and when to replace. Every time I make the wrong choice, my accountant lets me know stat.

What part of my statement do you take such great exception to? The phrase "beyond economical repair?" Or the links?. Did you even "look" at the links?

Interestingly enough, we buy 800 dollars worth of ball point pens, though admittedly it takes about 4 years to use them all. Much the same as the life span of a computer or fleet truck come to think of it. Its all the same money, and this actual expense was on my mind because that very issue came up in the board room. The idea was to try and cut that expense by going even more paperless. We may succeed this time. (crossed fingers)

The small stuff is where the money is. We discovered that we had been paying more for stationary than we paid for computers. Watch the pennies and nickels, the dollars take care of themselves.

(And yeah....even she admits it makes no sense to keep on repairing that car, but sentimentality needs no excuse. We indulge her because its cute. But would this sentimentality for an unreliable vehicle a valid excuse for being late for work in your business?)

So you do what you want with YOUR money, and YOUR business. You want to put air con into a condemned house, you go right ahead. You want to repair an eight year old computer or a 12 year old car, yeah, I guess its okay with me. However, that is not my focus... what is happening is this subtle attitude which starts in stages....stage one always starts with a complaint like "well you should recycle your (pick one...say waste paper) to within a few years stage two kicks in, and it becomes "Well you MUST recycle your waste paper under penalty of a fine, to finally, in stage three, you MUST NOT steal from the recyle bins. The links are to show that I am not making this up! Not MY bad attitude dude! I just recognize a slippery slope when I see it.

The original complaint of the OP that things are not repairable is simply a stage one comment. What would you have us do about it? Initiate a fine for every item which is non-repairable? That would be stage two. Actually, the government of Ontario tried to do just that. So you see, I am not just blowing smoke here...this is actually going down. The link proves that there is a slippery slope rather neatly.

Anyway, I have made my point such as it is.

Hmmm. just what WAS my point? Hmmm. I think it was "safety trumps bean counting", and a rhetorical point... "the goal is to drain the swamp, not beat up the alligators." , and maybe a final point, a friendly warning that the phrase "there ought to be a law" is too common a reaction to every day complaints.

Does disposing mean garbage or recycling or both?. Throwing away recyclable items as garbage should be made a punishable offence.

Recycling iron will become viable only when the recycling mine pays better than the iron mine. (Or, instead of iron, insert whatever item you choose.) Car parts are normally cheaper from the wrecker than from the dealer. The labour to install a used, possibly questionable car part is the same though.

Note that there have always been recyclers. Rag and bone men have always been with us. Recycling is a multi billion dollar business, mostly fueled by "feel good" government subsidies. Unfortunately, I tend to regard an increase in such Chachererros as being an indicator of a faltering economy. In other words, the more people doing it, the worse off the economy is. I do NOT regard this as being a good thing in the short term, perhaps in the long term, some may be be able to stave off starvation for another week or so. Pre-sorting will simply deprive even those poorest of the poor a livlihood.

A short lived TV show here in Canada had a group of people trying desperately to build totally recycled buildings. The problems they faced were NOT what you might think they faced! They tried and failed to get containers to work as structural elements, and went looking for structural steel. Hmmm. Seems all the structural steel in the world is already being recycled, and you cannot get it for free! What they got was unsuitably rusty! So they went for re-used wood. Seems old wood is more expensive than new wood! Oh wow! Needless to say, these latter day hippies have learned a VERY valuable lesson about economics! And engineering with materials which don't have an engineer's stamp on them! Watching the container buckle when being lifted by a crane because it was cut full of window holes was fascinating! Illuminating. Edifying. And satisfying since it was what I have been saying for years.

Just sayin'

That especially applies to good engineering, "if it was easy everyone could be doing it". But someplace between everyone and nobody, we got some folks demanding credentials or you can't be allowed to do it. Next comes " you must do it the same as everybody else". And unfortunately those with the least talent and reasoning abilities wind up being the ones in government that make the decisions about building and recycling.

I agree that when the government gets into recycling that those who were making some kind of living at it are worse off, since the government "hogs all of the good stuff" (because the can), in order to be able to show that they are not wasting lots of money. As for recycling iron and other metals, what I see is that around here, there are lots of people who pick metal out of the trash every week. They would not be doing it if it did not pay, so it seems that at least a few private individuals can make money recycling. Our local government has already laid claim to all of the scrap newspaper, and they have the police behind them, harassing all whom they catch picking up newspaper.

What I have found is that much of the discarded electronics is either still working, or easily repairable. By easily, I mean without replacing parts or spending a great deal of time diagnosing the problems. But my feeling is that the electronics that are recycled are pulverized for the various metals, mostly copper and gold.

REcycling the various metals is always worthwhile because it takes less energy than mining them, if you include the cost of transporting the ore.

When you collect old electronics, the stuff in the dumpsters is many times more rich in gold than the original ore. And tin. And lead. And steel. A company here in Ottawa has big recycling drives to collect old electronics since the local landfill does not accept them. They used to have one dumpster set aside for "stuff which actually still works", and their tech would go through that pile, and redirect it to the repair shop or back into the dumpster. They don't do that much any more since of course, nobody really wants a six year old computer. The stuff is packed into containers, which normally get sent back to China for further break down and sorting. As does cardboard boxes. Well, the containers will be going back there anyways....grin!

But thats the feel good part of the recyling industry. There is a mean, nasty side to the repair industry which is why I sometimes seem to be down on the whole idea of "repair rather than replace". I am not, really, but it pays to keep your eyes open. My friend bought a car which had been extensively repaired and in her jurisdiction (Quebec) there was no requirement to disclose the fact that it had been in a serious accident. A couple of years later, the bottom fell out of it, it broke in half on the highway. The investigation determined that it was the repair which had failed. At the same time, they discovered many components did not match (wrong gas tank, that sort of thing) which caused them to call this car a "frankenstein". None of the work had been done at an accredited shop, nor was it disclosed upon purchase. Nobody was hurt by the way, though my friend lost her job for being "late".

Parts brokers back in the '90s were taking parts off of crashed airplanes and sticking FAA tags on them....it took several criminal convictions to reduce (but I note, not eliminate) the problem. Such parts are considered counterfeit since the specifications always call for new parts and are part of a great "spare parts scandal" which is still not resolved.

Even here in Ottawa, you can get used brake rotors and brake pads, "under the table". Considering the cost of them (tens of dollars for the used ones instead of hundreds of dollars for the new ones) there are plenty of unscrupulous mechanics who will happily install the used parts. In the case of brakes, this is actually illegal because it is not like a crumpled fender replacement...this is items on the "safety check". Do you think the government with their demands that only new components should be used for running gear is right or do you think the shade tree mechanic who is only trying to save a few bucks on his car repair is right?

(this should be a whole forum topic!)

And yes, we had a fellow here in Ottawa charged last year for taking newspapers out of the recyling stream. The tip of the insanity iceberg, and proof that the "green" industry is just another bandwagon for ill informed, but well meaning folks to jump up on. The food waste recycling project that just got initiated here in Ottawa is a fine example of political pigs lining up to the trough, but discussing that would be drifting off topic.

The main reason to avoid disposal is dangerous substances like mercury,lead etc should not destroy the environment.Secondly our mineral resources might become extinct if we exploit them and use for manufacturing new components. Repairing or upgrading is better.

I agree. Reduce first, then reuse. Then, and only then recycle.

Disposing and wasting are new diseases in rich countries which will ruin mankind/ economy/ resources/nature. Disposing excess food while millions starve is really a crime. They should cook or buy the exact quantity required. Instead of throwing/disposing unwanted/damaged items they can export to countries where they could be sorted and reused/recycled.

Food is quite challenging in that much of it must have constant refrigeration to keep it from spoiling. The logistic challenge of donating unused packages of food to charity organizations is sort of AWFUL in the US, since the lawyers have got their hands in it. The way that works is to discard it in a manner that the hungry can find it. This works, but there is no way to show that it works because the whole purpose of doing it that way is to break the string of records about who had it.

As for brake parts, the frustration of having a service mechanic tell me that he will not take a clean up cut, which is a small surface cut just to provide a new surface, but that if he takes the only kind of cut that he will do, the disk will be thinner than allowed. So the result is that I borrow a lathe and turn my own disk, taking off just a very little, and leaving it thick enough for another two years of use. I understand that in the UK you must have any brake work done by a licensed mechanic, who would often times want to charge a whole lot, more than a car may be worth. That is a bit extreme, and I hope that we don't get a law like that here in the USA. Of course there are some who are to lazy or stupid to fix a car safely, but as an all-around engineer I am able to know what I am doing. Why hurt everybody when only a few are not able to do the fix right? Besides, those laws tend to inhibit evolution, natures method of deselecting those who make mistakes.

I would find a different mechanic!