efficient – Fix It Workshop

Inside The Real Repair Shop 10: Storm in a Teacup

With the cost of energy soaring, people are suggesting ways to save money. This time in the Workshop, Matt compares three ways to boil-up to make a brew, a subject close to his heart!

In readiness for a winter of discontent, I’ve already removed the thermostat’s wiring and have prepared thick jumpers for the whole family, made with the added warmth that only loft insulation can bring. I impressed myself with this stroke of genius and wonder why no-one else has ever tried this before? Can’t imagine why.

There’s a lot of talk about ways to save money on social media at the moment. One only has to do a bit of Googling to learn what we should stop doing or unplug next to save money. There’s an old saying though that usually stands true: Don’t sweat the small stuff.

Anyway, where was I? Back in the summer, I had an-over-the-wall conversation with my neighbour, Liz. It started off in the usual light-hearted manner, talking about this and that, when I heard a whistle coming from Liz’s kitchen, a noise which took me back to sometime in the dim and distant past.

Liz had switched to boiling water using a gas stove kettle and reliably informed me that it was ‘cheaper and greener’ to brew-up this way, rather than use her trusty modern kettle. I very nearly lost my balance, leaning against our diving wall as I laughed and said, “that’s a load of old cobblers” – did I use cobblers, well something like that anyway. With a slight frown of veiled raged from Liz, we both went off to carry on our evenings, but there was a piece of me worried that I’d offended dear Liz somehow. What to do? I’d almost forgotten about the whole thing until it came up again in conversation recently, but this time via another friend of the family. Rather than scoff this time, I decided to investigate in a shed-like manner to work out who was right, me or Liz.

What is the most efficient way to boil water at the moment?

FixItWorkshop, Worthing September’22, A Swan Jug Kettle

I decided to see just how much one cup (see photo) or three cups of water would take to boil using a modern 2500W electric kettle, a gas stove kettle (hob rated at 1500W) and a jug in an E rated 800W microwave. Just for kicks. Hasn’t everyone done this? I used the same cup for the whole experiment. Water was taken from the cold tap at room temperature. I used the stopwatch on my phone and used a base rate of 29.48p/Kwh for electricity and 7.32p/kWh for gas. We’re with Eon and these rates seem to be ubiquitous at the moment. I timed how long either one cup or three cups would take to boil using each boiling vessel. I started the test from the ‘on’ switch on the kettle, the gas ignited on the hob or the ‘on’ button on the microwave. The test ended when the kettle switch turned off, the stove kettle first whistled and boiling bubbles were observed in the microwave. By now, I’m sure you’re on the edge of your seats.

Everyone’s an expert these days and while I’ve done my best to make this a real-world test using a moderately scientific approach, I’m sure someone out there will drive a coach and horses through my method, but don’t bother, the results are astounding.

THE RESULTS ARE IN

Time matters

If you’re always in a rush and need your cuppa in a flash, then the only way to go is to use a modern electric disc-element kettle, like the one in the photo. Using a microwave was second fastest, but not much faster than the very slow (by comparison) gas stove kettle. One, nil, nil to the electric kettle then.

The real boiling issue – what did it cost?

Gas is cheaper than electricity on my energy tariff, which is a similar story for many other domestic customers at the moment. The microwave proved to be the cheapest method to boil one cup of water followed by gas in this test, but the results changed dramatically when three cups were boiled – a complete reversal in fortunes in fact. Three-way tie.

Environmental impact

What about the CO2 emitted? Perhaps the trickiest measure to nail down, but using Defra* approved conversions, based on the kWh for both fuels, it stands to reason that the electric kettle emitted the least CO2 as it was on for the least amount of time. The electric kettle triumphs overall.

*UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

So, in conclusion, a gas stove may be cheaper to make a brew for one (at the moment), but one must be careful to measure the water required carefully and a slight increase in the tariff could see all savings easily eroded. The microwave was the wild card entry (my mate Paul’s suggestion) and it proved that it’s a reliable and cheap way of heating, if compared to the stove – for some forms of cooking.

The bottom line is that a modern electric kettle will do the job faster, usually cheaper and cleaner than its rivals. Time for a brew? Go on, treat yourself.

Old vs new, which is best?

Having repaired more than 100 Kenwood Chefs, I compare newish and older machines. Which is best?

Believe it or not, people do ask me which is best: New or old machines?

There is of course, no right or wrong answer and the answer will vary, depending on the product and application.

But since the question comes up from time-to-time, I thought I’d give my opinion on the matter and have a bit of fun with the subject, a kind of shoot-out if you will.

My illustration focuses on an old favourite of mine; the Kenwood Chef. My chosen opponents are a model from the early 1980s, the ubiquitous A901 Chef, made in England, and the much later 2000s KMC010 Chef, made in China.

The Chef is a good example for the shoot-out as the machine’s purpose hasn’t changed since it’s introduction to kitchens in the 1950s. Many Chef accessories produced over the years are interchangeable, owning to the foresight of good design.

Some people think that new machines are best and more capable while other people think older machines are best as they were built to last. Since I’ve dismantled, used and admired 100s of these machines, here’s my take.

Round 1 – Performance

Older Chefs are less powerful than newer machines. For example, the A901 has a 450W motor, whereas the later KMC010 has a much more powerful 1400W motor. This means than the newer machine will be more capable to mix more stodgy mixtures for longer. Counter intuitively, the more powerful machine may be more efficient for some loads, compared to the lower power one, although I’ve never measured this.

A901 – 0 KMC010 – 1

Round 2 – Noise (from the machine)

Kenwood has tended to favour evolution rather than revolution with their product progression. Many models available over the years appeared not to change much on the surface, but under the skin, small tweaks and improvements were taking place. So, in general, the newer the machine, the quieter they tend to be. There are some model variant exceptions to this, but the KMC010 is much quieter than my own good condition A901.

A901 – 0 KMC010 – 2

Oh dear, new things might be better after all..?

Round 3 – Durability

Now this is where things get interesting. Many of the machines I receive in my workshop for repair are getting on a bit. Some of them are over 40 years old. The machines have served their families well with faithful service.

Faulty older machines can often be turned around within a few hours in the workshop, to be back with the customer, to make more cakes. The A901 Chef is a tough old beast. The materials and finish rarely give any problems and major components rarely fail it seems.

KMC010 Chefs (and all newer models) that I see in the workshop are obviously much younger than the A901s. While very capable and powerful, sadly, they seem to have failed, often only with occasional light use.

Seemingly, it’s true what they say, the older machines were built to last and I base that purely on customer enquiries and items I see to repair every week. The newer machines often have features and buttons that don’t serve any real advantage, but have associated circuits which can and do go wrong, rendering the whole machine useless, if they fail.

A901 – 1 KMC010 – 2

Round 4 – Repairability

Now obviously, I am ‘repairability-biased’, this is a blog about repair after all. However, the facts speak for themselves. Older Chefs can be repaired with basic tools, reasonably priced components and a little know-how.

Newer Chefs, like the KMC010 are more complicated and have less user-serviceable parts. This makes otherwise serviceable machines far more likely to end up in the scrapyard with seemingly minor faults, that were too hard to diagnose and repair. The A901 wins hands down in the repairability stakes.

A901 – 2 KMC010 – 2

The feeling is tense and there’s an air of excitement as I get to call the decider on this slightly odd dual.

Round 5 – Value for money (the decider)

A new KMC010 Titanium costs over £600 today and it should be said that all Chefs are great machines and a worthy addition to any kitchen. However, a decent second-hand Chef from the 1960s to the early 1990s is a worthy contender for a tenth of the cost.

Have a look on eBay and you’ll see A701s, A701a, A901, A901E, KM200 model Chefs, starting at £40, often with many accessories. They’re just as useful and capable to serve most home needs. Indeed, I have a customer who uses her standard A901 in an industrial kitchen, every day, with no problems.

A901 – 3 KMC010 -2

The non-scientific conclusion…

Buy an older machine and take satisfaction that it will last generations, can be easily repaired and work with most accessories available now. Buying an older machine is probably less environmentally damaging than the manufacture of a new machine.
Buy a new machine and take satisfaction with additional performance and a manufacturers’ guarantee for the first year…

You know which machine I would buy…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Time to put the kettle on.

Wheezy Dyson DC19

Another Dyson not biting the dust, just yet.

A mate asked if it was worth saving his abused Dyson cylinder vacuum cleaner which has been residing in the garage for a couple of years, in the dark, unused. It had last seen service when clearing-up building dust and allsorts of non-domestic detritus and that abuse had now given the vacuum cleaner breathing difficulties. A vacuum with breathing issues means no suction.

FixItWorkshop, Worthing, January 2020, Dyson DC19.

Interestingly, the reason the Dyson was being called out of retirement was due to a lack of performance from the family’s more recently purchased battery machine. Hopefully I’ll get to see that in the workshop soon as well. I’m getting ahead of myself already.

Make and model: Dyson DC19 (grey and purple)

Fault reported: 70% reduction in suck

Cost of replacement: About £200

Cost of parts: £9.54

Hours spent on repair: 1

Tools needed: Cleaning tools

Sundry items: Silicone spray

Repair difficulty: 1/10

Cups of tea: 1

Biscuits: 2 (M&S Belgium Selection)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Like many abandoned vacuum cleaners I see in the workshop or at the tip, there really wasn’t much wrong or really broken, yet its owner was considering its future. What to do. I’ll write about readiness to repair and repair inertia another time!

The repair in stages:

Remove, clean (and replace) filters and refit once dry (48 hours)
Remove collection cylinder and clean thoroughly and refit once dry (48 hours)
Clean all seals with soap and water, dress with silicone to revive
Check by-pass valve and clean as needed
Check power cable (clean to improve flex rewind system)
Check and clean roller brush head
Test!

The filters on this machine were so dirty that I decided to invest in a new set which, at under £10, seemed good value and will certainly extend the life of the DC19.

After giving the main unit a good polish the Dyson DC19 was ready to go home to clean-up. Another Dyson not biting the dust, just yet.