Whirlpool and Samsung are reducing the maximum spin speed on their washers

[spin-doctor]

Companies that want to use a “slower” motor the use a direct drive pancake motor that turns at the same rpm as the front load drum.

These use brushless DC motors that have no problem spinning at 17k+ rpm. They are permanent magnet synchronous motors with an inverter to up the frequency of synchronous speed.

What are the makes and models of the two examples you show in the pics of machines with 20K rpm motors? We can simply look up their manuals and specs and settle the debate easily with that.

 

[johnb300m]

What are the makes and models of the two examples you show in the pics of machines with 20K rpm motors? We can simply look up their manuals and specs and settle the debate easily with that.

I think you’re as equally capable as I am of doing that.

 

[spin-doctor]

Companies that want to use a “slower” motor the use a direct drive pancake motor that turns at the same rpm as the front load drum.

I’m quite shocked that members here are not familiar with the belt and pulley setup of a front load washer.

I’ll do the homework for y’all again.

If that that big drum pulley needs to spin at 1200 rpm, how fast do you think that teeny tiny motor pulley must turn?
Belt drive front loaders get their torque from high rpm multiplication. Direct drive motors have to use their brute force torque. Belt drive was around much longer before direct drive.
These use brushless DC motors that have no problem spinning at 17k+ rpm. They are permanent magnet synchronous motors with an inverter to up the frequency of synchronous speed.

Edit: and yes, at least 1 special someone on here denies motors can reach these high speeds.

Ok, I went back and read the older posts in this thread (just joining this discussion yesterday). Which I should have done prior to posting earlier. I see you and the other guy did post pics of washer motors with high rpms up to 17.5K. Not 20K, but certainly very fast nonetheless.

Very interesting, thanks for clarifying that. I guess my mind is stuck with the older tech of non-variable, fixed speed AC motors. The modern motors and their controllers make it possible to get the whole job done with no transmission other than a belt drive. Amazing, thanks for the education.

 

[Chetlaham]

US front loaders HAVE heaters lol.

Many don't, and those that do don't run in it in the majority of their offered cycles.

So again, there is no heating.

 

[johnb300m]

Many don't, and those that do don't run in it in the majority of their offered cycles.

So again, there is no heating.

You said you would never own one without a heater. I’m telling you most do. Just because not all cycles don’t use it, is irrelevant. The heater is there. Use the cycles that use the heater then.
Hint: that’s almost every cycle besides the Normal cycle.

 

[maytag85]

It seems some people are obsessed with how fast a machine spins, it may sound like I don’t care how fast a machine spins, but as long as items aren’t dripping wet, fine by me.

I know my Whirlpool spins slower than my Maytag A806, but honestly don’t see a drastic difference.

With the way my Whirlpool dryer is setup with the moisture sensor being grounded through a thermostat, it takes a good 6 to 20 minutes depending on the load size before I hear a audible ‘click’ from the thermostat (L120-10), after that it’ll advance the timer. On average, drying times are 45 to 60 minutes (sometimes longer) on the auto dry cycle.

Again, as long as items aren’t dripping wet and get dried in a reasonable amount of time is fine by me.

Another thing is if you spin things out faster, things wrinkle easier. Items seem to feel softer and fluffy when spun out between 505 to 618 rpm, definitely smell good with dryer sheets. My guess the more moisture is present during the evaporation process, the dryer sheets have a better chance of working as intended as ludicrous as that may sound.

 

[Chetlaham]

You said you would never own one without a heater. I’m telling you most do. Just because not all cycles don’t use it, is irrelevant. The heater is there. Use the cycles that use the heater then.
Hint: that’s almost every cycle besides the Normal cycle.

Decoys don't count as a heater or heating. Heating is very relevant when most cycles do indeed require heating to a specific target temperature somewhere between 60*F and 200*F. Looking at US machines, nothing on the control panel tells me what cycles use the heater and what the target temperature is. So as far as I'm concerned nothing is really being heated.

 

[me]

I don't think anyone's claiming that electric motors can't reach 20K rpm or well beyond that. Or that it's not possible to reduce their speed down to something usable for washing machine purposes. Only that electric motors are available that operate within a very wide range of speeds depending on the application. Why would an application that requires a rotational speed of 1/12th or 1/14th of the motor's output speed be used when much better lower rpm/higher torque candidates are available? And maybe there's a good answer for that, I'm not a washer tech guy. Also, the spin cycle isn't the only consideration. The washing cycle is obviously at a much lower speed, requiring another big reduction for a motor that spins that fast. Also, I'm skeptical that a belt drive system large enough to power a washer tub is capable of holding up to a 20K rpm input speed. That's literally smoking fast, especially on a tiny 1" diameter pulley as you describe.

But if this is a common design feature, it would be very interesting to see documented examples of it in pics and videos. If it is common, then by definition there should be an abundance of easily accessible information available on the net to see.

I'm certainly no expert, but I believe having a higher RPM / lower torque electric PMS motor makes it more energy efficient, and also mean you can have a smaller, lighter motor with thinner windings. So uses less copper masking it cheaper too. Downsides potentially more noise and the motor bearings need to be better or they'll wear out quicker.

 

[spin-doctor]

I'm certainly no expert, but I believe having a higher RPM / lower torque electric PMS motor makes it more energy efficient, and also mean you can have a smaller, lighter motor with thinner windings. So uses less copper masking it cheaper too. Downsides potentially more noise and the motor bearings need to be better or they'll wear out quicker.

It probably is more efficient. And after seeing videos of the guts visible from the backside of these modern washers I was amazed to see a simple motor and belt setup. I mean that is amazing it can operate within the full range of speeds needed with that setup due to the modern electronic digital control systems they have. The old gearboxes and transmissions gone.

After having given up on modern washers after multiple motherboard failures, ripped clothes and other problems, I reverted to the classic washer tech I grew up with. Glad I did. But it is intriguing to see how mechanically simple these machines actually are. If only they could build them more robustly and also greatly improve the reliability and long-term durability of the electronics. Even if it required a belt replacement every 5 years, I'd be ok with that considering how easy it appears to replace belts on these new units. Or even if it needed a new motor every 7 years and the motor was no more than $250 and was almost as easy as belt replacement? I'd be ok with that too. And I'd be ok with the controlling electronics lasting a solid 10 years before they went bad, as long as the replacement was no more than $250. But from what my experiences were up to 5 years ago, none of that was true. Maybe there are some modern units that approach that level of reliability? Don't know.

As far the claimed efficiency and all that, from my experience it's a false economy and a net loss for the environment too. The washer and dryer set I now own is 35 years old. It will likely last me 20 years with minimal maintenance. When you factor in how many more washers and dryers I would have to buy over that same roughly 50 year timeframe? No contest for user savings or environmental impact. Even if its motor is 10% or 25% more efficient. Even if it uses 25% less water, but I now need to wash either fewer clothes each load or more loads to achieve the same end? The global cost to access the raw materials to build 5-7 more machines, shipping to the factory, smelting/manufacturing tooling/costs, shipping to the store or end user and then disposal impact etc? If a full energy accounting was made of that, I believe the old machine is far more cost efficient, energy efficient and better for the environment. I'm sticking with the old tech.

That said, it is cool to see what's technologically possible if they would prioritize truly durable and low replacement rate machines instead of designed obsolescence with a green leaf icon sticker on it to fool naive people into thinking their consumer purchase helps "heal" the planet.

 

[me]

Spin speeds on (front load) washing machines sold in the UK have got a little slower in recent years, at one time some manufacturers were doing 1,800rpm and 2.000rpm spin machines, although the gains over 1,600rpm were pretty marginal. 1,600rpm seems to be the max now.

2,000rpm Gorenje:



Spin speed Residual humidity - this is for EU electrolux models around 2008.
400 rpm 85 %
500 rpm 78 %
800 rpm 66 %
1000 rpm 60 %
1200 rpm 53 %
1400 rpm 52 %
1600 rpm 44 %
1800 rpm 42 %

On the washing machines I've used, all front load of course, all but one (which had a design/manufacturing defect) the seal failed and leaked before the bearing went. One we had in the 80s had a vent hole between the bearings and rusty water leaked out of there for many months before the bearings went, on my current one the bearings had no trace of play in them before the cycle when the inner one started loudly squealing (presumably jammed by the rust) .

I have hard water so the seal gets encrusted in hard limescale which would stop it flexing and presumably cause it to wear and leak more quickly.

Someone mentioned truck bearings, those I believe are normally roller bearings, so can take much higher loading but lower maximum RPM than ball bearings used in washing machines.

(The rated rpm of the brushed motor on my 1400rpm front load machine is 15,000rpm.)

 

[me]

Our detergents are formulated to prevent limescale - water heaters in machines only tend to scale up if insufficient detergent is used, and even if they do scale up it’s nothing an empty wash with some citric acid doesn’t sort.

I'm not convinced that's the case, but perhaps you mean liquid detergents.

We've very hard water, and I didn't descale our current machine for the first 3 years, and had two elements blow and the coin trap filter got stuck in place by limescale. For the last 13 years, I've descaled it annually and have not needed to change an element again. I suspect regular descaling would likely make the shaft seal last longer too, as it gets encrusted with limescale so loses its flexibility.

I've never needed to descale previous machines, although in hindsight that was probably a mistake. I have dismantled the drums on a couple of previous machines, and they had a very thick layer of limescale, at least a quarter inch or more over the tub.

 

[phillymatt53]

It probably is more efficient. And after seeing videos of the guts visible from the backside of these modern washers I was amazed to see a simple motor and belt setup. I mean that is amazing it can operate within the full range of speeds needed with that setup due to the modern electronic digital control systems they have. The old gearboxes and transmissions gone.

After having given up on modern washers after multiple motherboard failures, ripped clothes and other problems, I reverted to the classic washer tech I grew up with. Glad I did. But it is intriguing to see how mechanically simple these machines actually are. If only they could build them more robustly and also greatly improve the reliability and long-term durability of the electronics. Even if it required a belt replacement every 5 years, I'd be ok with that considering how easy it appears to replace belts on these new units. Or even if it needed a new motor every 7 years and the motor was no more than $250 and was almost as easy as belt replacement? I'd be ok with that too. And I'd be ok with the controlling electronics lasting a solid 10 years before they went bad, as long as the replacement was no more than $250. But from what my experiences were up to 5 years ago, none of that was true. Maybe there are some modern units that approach that level of reliability? Don't know.

As far the claimed efficiency and all that, from my experience it's a false economy and a net loss for the environment too. The washer and dryer set I now own is 35 years old. It will likely last me 20 years with minimal maintenance. When you factor in how many more washers and dryers I would have to buy over that same roughly 50 year timeframe? No contest for user savings or environmental impact. Even if its motor is 10% or 25% more efficient. Even if it uses 25% less water, but I now need to wash either fewer clothes each load or more loads to achieve the same end? The global cost to access the raw materials to build 5-7 more machines, shipping to the factory, smelting/manufacturing tooling/costs, shipping to the store or end user and then disposal impact etc? If a full energy accounting was made of that, I believe the old machine is far more cost efficient, energy efficient and better for the environment. I'm sticking with the old tech.

That said, it is cool to see what's technologically possible if they would prioritize truly durable and low replacement rate machines instead of designed obsolescence with a green leaf icon sticker on it to fool naive people into thinking their consumer purchase helps "heal" the planet.
View attachment 321706

Thank you!
I read your somwhat lengthly posting, and conclude that it's certainly true what's been going on in the manufacture of just about everything these days.
I've highlighted several key points of it, because it triggers my own feelings about stuff.
And yes, "fooling the public" has gotten rediculous and annoying, to put it mildly.
It's how Marketing and Advertising has developed into, to benefit corporations and the "elites" that invest in them - to the consumer's dismay.

A lot of brand names that were once honest, reliable, and adored by faithful consumers, are now just "vintage name only" crap makers now.
An older married couple that I knew, and are now "gone" swore by the Zenith brand name.
They always purchased Zenith, and told me that their 1964 Zenith console tv lasted for decades of enjoyment.
Eventually, it was not easily repairable, so they purchased a new Zenith tv in the early 2000s.
The set died after only 3 years due to having a bad picture tube that damaged the whole chassis.
Apparently, the picture tube was "outsourced" from a factory in Mexico, and Zenith had to replace thousands of chassis and picture tubes, which put them in debt/bankruptcy.
I know this for a fact, since my repair shop had to order many of these "recall" kits, which kept us busy tearing those sets down and rebuilding them.
LG, previously known as Goldstar, bought out Zenith, and then continued to manufacturer tv sets, among other products using the Zenith name.
Which in my opinion, were not as robust as the old Zeniths.
I've seen this trend of using old, original brand names as a way to seduce the consumer by using "Brand Recognition" as a marketing tool.
But you can't "fool me" - it just ain't the same stuff.

Those old-time respected slogans...
Zenith!.... the Quality goes in, before the name goes ON!
RCA.....The most Trusted name in sound!
Westinghouse.... You can Sure, if it's Westinghouse!
......The list is endless, and now nothing but (outsourced) bullcrap comes from them.

 

[johnb300m]

Thank you!
I read your somwhat lengthly posting, and conclude that it's certainly true what's been going on in the manufacture of just about everything these days.
I've highlighted several key points of it, because it triggers my own feelings about stuff.
And yes, "fooling the public" has gotten rediculous and annoying, to put it mildly.
It's how Marketing and Advertising has developed into, to benefit corporations and the "elites" that invest in them - to the consumer's dismay.

A lot of brand names that were once honest, reliable, and adored by faithful consumers, are now just "vintage name only" crap makers now.
An older married couple that I knew, and are now "gone" swore by the Zenith brand name.
They always purchased Zenith, and told me that their 1964 Zenith console tv lasted for decades of enjoyment.
Eventually, it was not easily repairable, so they purchased a new Zenith tv in the early 2000s.
The set died after only 3 years due to having a bad picture tube that damaged the whole chassis.
Apparently, the picture tube was "outsourced" from a factory in Mexico, and Zenith had to replace thousands of chassis and picture tubes, which put them in debt/bankruptcy.
I know this for a fact, since my repair shop had to order many of these "recall" kits, which kept us busy tearing those sets down and rebuilding them.
LG, previously known as Goldstar, bought out Zenith, and then continued to manufacturer tv sets, among other products using the Zenith name.
Which in my opinion, were not as robust as the old Zeniths.
I've seen this trend of using old, original brand names as a way to seduce the consumer by using "Brand Recognition" as a marketing tool.
But you can't "fool me" - it just ain't the same stuff.

Those old-time respected slogans...
Zenith!.... the Quality goes in, before the name goes ON!
RCA.....The most Trusted name in sound!
Westinghouse.... You can Sure, if it's Westinghouse!
......The list is endless, and now nothing but (outsourced) bullcrap comes from them.

Why are you mad at capitalism, bro?

 

[rinso]

Vehicle wheel bearings are put under extremely rough use.
Besides the payload, speeds, the steering forces, and the road surfaces, including potholes, it's hardly comparable to spin cycles in a washer.

Yes, but bearings in jet engines can withstand over 10,000 RPM without failing. Maybe washer manufacturers could borrow just a tiny piece of that technology. Tiny, so it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive. I personally think anything above 800 results in diminishing effectiveness. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.