End user retro-engineering

Retro-engineering (end user, not resale) is the redesign of a product by a consumer after it has been marketed. Because of marketing deadline and cost pressure, shortsighted design is pervasive in products today. In previous times when more thought and craft was applied to products, they were intended to last indefinitely (with proper maintenance and repair). Today products have "life expectancies" due to rapid innovation rate, disposability, and greed of the manufacturer. Even many "high quality" expensive products have succumbed to these pressures and cannot be relied on to function as expected or for very long.

End user retro-engineering can be dangerous and result in an even worse product if done haphazardly. Retro-engineering is not the same rigging (temporary fix) or repair (restoring to original or similar condition) but changes or improves the functionality or design of the thing. Attempting to post market retro-engineer requires through study of the products function and purpose as well as its entire structural make-up. Never rely on a suggested retro-solution, unless you have examined the problem yourself, and always safety test the thing, if someone should be injured because of your retro-design you could be liable.

Two key reasons are often the cause of product failure:

1. Dirt. -- The product cannot keep itself clean or prevent parts from becoming jammed, because of extensive product flaws, which are not usually retroable. The obvious solution is to CLEAN the parts, which often fixes the problem. If the dirt has been there too long it will of course damage the parts by wear. A well designed product will either clean itself or be permanently shielded from soil. The difficulty in devising this sort of design from the start is why the vast majority of products are deficient in this aspect.

2. Most Stressed Part -- The working part or parts are not relatively as durable as the rest of the thing. In this case replacing the part with something that is stronger or functions better is the solution. Often, replacing the one or two parts with the most stress will double, triple, or more the lifetime of the product. I would bet that if a study was done of all broken machines headed to the landfill, most of the same items have the exact same problem. It could be retro-designed to eliminate its “planned obsolescence”. Manufacturers with no conscience have little monetary incentive to do it in fact that they build in planned obsolescence purposefully. Individuals who retro-it have the satisfaction of helping the environment, saving money, saving the constant effort of replacing the same item over and over. It really can be worth the time.