[ElevenLathe]

Not sure why we're arguing, but I think we are on the same side. We would prefer that products have parts which are easily replaced by, in order of preference:

1) easily-sourced commodity products like standard screws, washers, bolts, etc. 2) barring that, parts that could easily be fabricated by realistic home production methods (hand tools, FDM printing, possibly simple machining) 3) barring that, parts that the consumer can have easily fabricated by a third party (maybe it requires a 5-axis CNC but all the CAD/CAM files are available to upload somewhere like Shapeways) 4) barring that, easily-ordered at-cost OEM parts

...and in all cases the user manual should require all relevant drawings with dimensions.

The problem is that if you tell an industrial designer to keep costs down, and that they can use injection-molded plastic parts, they will almost certainly NOT design parts that are conducive to 1-3. They could, but all the incentives run the other way, so they probably won't.

[s1artibartfast]

I was mostly just curious about the person who said they absolutely cant work with plastic, but can work with metal.

I like some things that are repairable, but don't think everything needs to be. My product choices rarely are willing to compromise cost, function, or aesthetics for repairability.

[ElevenLathe]

That's the idea (I assume, not the same guy): you're right that is mostly the form of the part that makes it easy/hard to work, not the material, but nobody designs machinable plastic parts. they design injection-moldable ones. So in practice "plastic part" is synonymous with "impossible to recreate in small quantities". Yes, in theory plastic parts can be of the same shape (and therefore ease of boutique manufacturing) as metal ones, but they aren't, not in the real world.