“If durability in whatever metric you mention were laboratory tested the time to test could be many years, well beyond the market presence of the particular product.”
“Suggestions on ‘how to do’ are welcome.”
The key to durability testing is to identify the key reasons why products fail? i.e. What are the common parameters? In the case of the NYT article they identified that the heating elements used are cheap (lack nickel which they replace with aluminium)… even in expensive products i.e. FeCrAl fails too quickly. If you can find products that still use Nichrome (NiCrFe) that would probably solve the problem? You could also take long lasting toasters and work out what technologies are more durable? e.g. Some toasters use quartz ceramic bars which last longer? Newer technologies like microfilaments contain multiple redundant filaments? i.e. If one burns out you’ve got 9999 more? Would graphene toasters last longer?
It should be possible to run a durability test on a technology rather than a particular toaster? The results should hold across a range of toasters? Any comparison should include a range of technologies not just the standard heating element?
Products could mitigate the failure issue by making the elements easy to replace (aka modular)? Choice never seems to highlight modularity or repair costs in reviews? It’s usually a simple matter to ring the repair centre and quiz them about how much it costs to repair a toaster? It’s usually quite easy to identify a device that is modular? Unless we highlight these issues and suggest solutions the manufacturers won’t bother responding with better products? If a toaster sells for ~$400 why shouldn’t it last longer? Surely they have a bit of a margin to invest in higher quality parts? Perhaps some of our cheaper toasters are fairly durable?
However the best solution to the great toaster dilemma would be to identify which heating elements are the most durable? …and which toasters use them?
Thanks @PhilT , and yes that’s a good suggestion - going forward we’re going to be paying more attention to environmental issues as they relate to the appliances we test, which includes reparability.
We’re still working out exactly how we’ll best be able to assess this aspect, and we’re currently in the process of talking to repair technicians for their opinions on the matter, though disassembly and inspection will no doubt be part of the process.
With regard to toasters in particular, because they’re relatively cheap (in appliance terms), many consumers and manufacturers view them as disposable - if it breaks after two years, throw it away and get a new one, updated to suit the latest in kitchen trends.
Under Australian Consumer Law, an appliance must be fit for purpose, and the manufacturer must either carry a range of spare parts for repairs for a reasonable length of time, or offer a full refund or replacement. In the case of toasters it’s often not worth it to carry spares for every part of every toaster for several years, so they’ll often opt for a straight replacement for warranty claims instead. Sadly this often means another appliance in landfill. Hopefully though, if we can get the balance right on reporting on longevity and reparability we’ll be able to start to move the needle on this approach.
Thanks again for the suggestion, I’ll take it to the team to discuss.
If an appliance costs $100 and only lasts a year or two then how is it fit for purpose?
What about a $400 toaster? As the NYT article points out the elements on the expensive toasters don’t last any longer than those on the cheaper ones? How can such an expensive device be “fit for purpose”?
A lot of people are complaining that both their expensive and cheap toasters don’t even make it out of the warranty periods without a repair. Is a device that can’t even make it out of warranty without a repair fit for purpose?
Quartz ceramic heating elements last a lot longer than normal heating elements:
Why don’t you include some toasters with quartz ceramic elements in your tests?
Sunbeam used to make a cheap toaster with quartz ceramic elements. Those toasters lasted almost forever. Mine stopped working when the case fell apart. It became unsafe to use… but the elements were still working. Which manufacturers still make toasters with quartz ceramic elements?
P.S. Surely someone in Australia sells cheap toasters with quartz ceramic elements?
@MC1 , In our opinion it’s not. Most warranties will cover a toaster for one or two years, but in the case of the $400 toaster you mention, warranty not withstanding you have cause for redress under the ACL.
As far as technologies go, I’m not really across toasters, that’s part of the small appliances portfolio and I’m more washing machines and dishwashers, but I’ll forward your comments on to the relevant people here.
“The price of a good can generally, be linked to the quality of the materials and
the manufacturing techniques used to produce the good, and therefore, the
durability of the good. This means that often goods purchased at a high price
can be expected to last longer than goods purchased at a lower price.”
According to the NYT article more expensive toaster elements are not designed to last longer… so it’s in breach of this general rule?
The ACCC guide even mentions toasters specifically?
“durable – for example, the toaster must function
for a reasonable time after purchase without
breaking down.”
“One aspect of this guarantee is that goods will be as durable as a reasonable consumer would regard as acceptable.”
It seems unlikely that a toaster that you have to replace every few years (or less) would not be regarded by a reasonable consumer as acceptable?
Can we identify any other product that lasts such a short time? Or has such a high failure rate?
No, it is worth reading the rest of the section (b) about factors affecting how long a good can reasonably be expected to last after purchase. The quoted text you have highlighted in you post is more about an expectation of the consumer. The rest of the section outlines why the expectation may not be a reality and why cost of an item may be unhinged from quality.
A good example are supercars, which have super-prices. Many supercars are known for their poor reliability, as they push the technological barriers and are niche products. This doesn’t stop consumers desire to buy (or dream) to buy one.
The ACL premise is more expensive products should have a longer life than a cheaper equivalent. This means the consumer guarantee extends further for a more expensive item.
To establish durability you can go looking for independent reviews by users. Product review is often a good site to check out?
The one thing you notice on all the review sites is that the durability of toasters is very poor. It seems to be the #1 complaint.
There doesn’t seem to be even one brand that users have identified as reliable? The Choice user reviews show exactly the same trend?
Normally only independent user reviews address the issue of reliability? What Choice needs to do is harness the power of large numbers to rate products? i.e. Get users to give the product a reliability rating? …and use that rating to give the product a final score? The accuracy of the durability score needs to be rated? If you can get 10 or more independent scores for a product or product range the data starts to become reliable? That will however vary according to the product under investigation? It also varies according to how long the purchaser has been using the product? A lot of reviews are just the initial impressions of the user i.e. In the first few weeks of use. The longer the reviewer has been using the product the more accurate the review?
Have you pondered how that could be integrated into a test with ‘lab technique’ or just anecdotal opinions and so stated, and get it done timely enough to be included in a review publication - all before the product left the market? How many such ‘user inputs’ are enough? Would all products need a minimum number of ‘user inputs’ and if some did not should that reduce their ‘scores’?
No need to answer, just opining such inputs do not fit well into laboratory evaluations nor publication schedules even though as adjunct comments they can be valuable - assuming those commenting are objective and that can be demonstrated or a proviso on the quality of user comments plainly noted…
We have a Sunbeam Toastermatic AT-40 c.1970, that works like new. I would say it is a toaster that has lasted ! We don’t use it on a daily basis, as I feel that it has earned its retirement - it’s now a display showpiece really.
The early Toastermatics were always expensive, but they were very well designed and engineered.
I have a Kambrook toaster bought from KMart in 2014 for $22.00.
Does defrost, reheat, and toasts evenly, up to 6 settings, has extra lift-up lever, has never missed a beat so far
We’ve had a couple of Sunbeam toasters similar to this over the years and they’ve lasted OK. However I got one repaired a long time ago and it was EXPENSIVE (almost the same price as a new toaster) plus the new element only lasted about a year. N.B. Sunbeam seemed surprised that we’d bother repairing it. We gave up on repairs after that.
The NYT article shows it’s the cheaper elements (FeCrAl) that are causing all the breakdowns. Just need to find a company using elements (NiCrFe) that last longer? Or convince Sunbeam (and other companies) to use higher quality elements? The solution is out there somewhere?
Does anyone have a toaster recommendation for something that can be purchased today?
“Have you pondered how that could be integrated into a test with ‘lab technique’ or just anecdotal opinions and so stated, and get it done timely enough to be included in a review publication - all before the product left the market?”
Identify what is causing the failures and test that particular weakness? i.e. It should be possible to check if the heating elements are the dearer NiCrFe (lasts-a-lot) or the cheaper AlCrFe (fails-a-lot)? You could recommend certain technologies as more durable e.g. The infrared quartz elements? New technologies like microfilaments or graphene (if available) could be singled out for special attention?
“How many such ‘user inputs’ are enough?”
Probably depends on the product? If you get a string of 1 star ratings all complaining about durability it suggests the product might have a problem? 10 or more ratings is usually enough to show a trend… although sometimes even one rating is enough to show up a problem? The manufacturer will often fess up to a problem if you ask them?
“Would all products need a minimum number of ‘user inputs’ and if some did not should that reduce their ‘scores’?”
User inputs obviously come after the product review? Choice can revisit a review and modify it if user ratings show a problem? If you want to weigh the product more accurately get the user to identify when the product was purchased? A product that is still working 10 years later (without repairs) is obviously reliable? Likewise get some idea of how often the product is used? Some products get used a lot by certain users… and others barely at all? If you can get purchase details (verified customers) it also makes it more likely you’re getting real reviews? Fake reviews can be a problem? Manufacturers and sellers sometimes stack review sites with good reviews to offset the bad ones?
Perhaps you ought to team up with sites like Product Review? They’re already doing most of this… so why rediscover the wheel? Or copy industry best practice? i.e. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
It’s surprising that Choice uses paper to gather info on product reliability? Why not go electronic? It’s horribly time consuming to report on products using your paper forms. You’d probably get more reviewers and could review more products if you made the process easier?
