Read an on line article from Consumer Reports titled "ARE WE USING TOO MUCH WATER". Buried in the article was the statement that using too much water is not what is needed to get clean clothes because it let the clothes move through the water without "rubbing" against each other for a "scrubbing" action. Umm, not sure I agree with that. I'm seeing what looks like wear caused by rubbing on my T-shirts since I got the TAG and lemme tell ya, it sure as hell is not a water hog.
Con Rpts said what?
- Thread starter cuffs054
- Start date
Help Support :
I don't agree with their statement whatsoever. If this were really true, then we'd have 4 gallon water use washers on the market years ago.
Again, more nonsensical pseudo science designed to "scare" us all into thinking we're running out of water (we're not).
Methinks Algore must be a $$$ contributor or donor to their cause. All the more reason I quit this rag years ago.
Again, more nonsensical pseudo science designed to "scare" us all into thinking we're running out of water (we're not).
Methinks Algore must be a $$$ contributor or donor to their cause. All the more reason I quit this rag years ago.
I can pump out of a 14 mile lake, so I will never run out of water. Its pumping drains and septic up and out of here is the bigger issue. I never want to pollute this lake.
CU reported some time ago that new HE machines were rougher on fabrics than vintage front loaders because they use so much less water. CU is drinking deeply of the KoolAid, itself made with too little water and it makes me more than suspicious of everything they publish.
speedqueen
Well-known member
I personally believe that CU is wrong and I think that all this water saving is more nonsense than not. Clothes rubbing has almost nothing to do with cleaning, the action of the detergent(enzymes and surfactants), and forcing water through the clothes is what gets clothes clean. FL machines get higher marks because of the fact that today's detergents are more like solvents than the ones of old because of the addition of enzymes. You could get the same effect by setting clothes in a wash tub for 2 hours because the long cycle time is only for the enzymes to work. If SQ were to take their TL machine and have a 30 min wash period consisting of 1 min agitation and a two minute soak alternating as to prevent clothes wear the performance would be far better in my estimate than any front loader and at a total cycle time of around 45 minutes it would beat or be on par with most FL machines quick cycle.
The action of an agitator is far more efficient at forcing water through clothes than tumbling which is why the 1950s FL machines which had comparable cycle times to TL machines, were considered by CU as poor in washing.
The action of an agitator is far more efficient at forcing water through clothes than tumbling which is why the 1950s FL machines which had comparable cycle times to TL machines, were considered by CU as poor in washing.
I said it before
CU is a propaganda machine. The powers that be have deiced that 40 gallons of water per cycle is no longer going to happen, so they have to get everyone on board using what ever means possible.
Do I agree with that statement? No, because the fins at the bottom do the rubbing (and agitator itself). Even then, washers that touted water movement over rubbing against some part of the agitator like Maytag still got clothes very clean.
CU is a propaganda machine. The powers that be have deiced that 40 gallons of water per cycle is no longer going to happen, so they have to get everyone on board using what ever means possible.
Do I agree with that statement? No, because the fins at the bottom do the rubbing (and agitator itself). Even then, washers that touted water movement over rubbing against some part of the agitator like Maytag still got clothes very clean.
Iam also here on NOT believing the BS CU constantly prints in their rag-yes dropped my subscription to them years ago.CU is absolute NONESENSE!!!!And again they seem to want to take away your freedom of choice-many folks don't want water mizer machines rammed down their throats!
rolls_rapide
Well-known member
Wear & Tear
I have to agree that the latest water saving machines do exacerbate wear and tear on the clothes.
Old front loaders cushioned the load as they swirled it through the wash water. Same with rinses.
The new machines appear to be behaving more like the old ribbed washboards! Hence the reason for wear and tear.
A further factor, is the amount of time it takes to do a wash. Old machines could do a decent wash in about an hour/75 mins/90mins, depending on the model. New ones have increasingly insanely long cycles. I'm sorry, but anything over 2 hours will not wash with me - It's utter madness!
I would prefer a front loader machine to be able to wash a decently full, NORMALLY soiled load in about an hour - give or take five minutes. Heavy soil option could reasonably extend the cycle by an extra fifteen minutes.
I wonder if the manufacturers could improve wash times, not simply by reducing the time and thus the cleaning, but by incorporating several technologies? Such as a decently powerful recirculation pump - one which was capable of remaining on for the entire length of wash phase (say, 30 mins), and also during the rinsing process (say, 20 mins). Not those lacklustre things they currently use. The load would be better saturated, detergent would get properly mixed, and rinsing would improve. Add a spin phase of about 10 to 12 mins, and Bingo!
I have to agree that the latest water saving machines do exacerbate wear and tear on the clothes.
Old front loaders cushioned the load as they swirled it through the wash water. Same with rinses.
The new machines appear to be behaving more like the old ribbed washboards! Hence the reason for wear and tear.
A further factor, is the amount of time it takes to do a wash. Old machines could do a decent wash in about an hour/75 mins/90mins, depending on the model. New ones have increasingly insanely long cycles. I'm sorry, but anything over 2 hours will not wash with me - It's utter madness!
I would prefer a front loader machine to be able to wash a decently full, NORMALLY soiled load in about an hour - give or take five minutes. Heavy soil option could reasonably extend the cycle by an extra fifteen minutes.
I wonder if the manufacturers could improve wash times, not simply by reducing the time and thus the cleaning, but by incorporating several technologies? Such as a decently powerful recirculation pump - one which was capable of remaining on for the entire length of wash phase (say, 30 mins), and also during the rinsing process (say, 20 mins). Not those lacklustre things they currently use. The load would be better saturated, detergent would get properly mixed, and rinsing would improve. Add a spin phase of about 10 to 12 mins, and Bingo!
I agree with all here, and wonder with new 2018 regulations limiting water even further what are manufacturers going to be coming out with in the new year, and how awful their performance will be. Some of the machines I have used like the front load LG in my parents apartment building you can't even see a splash of water when the wash is tumbling, and if you happen to do a large load, some of the clothes appear to stay dry when looking through the front of the machine. My Mom is constantly complaining that her clothes don't clean no matter what laundry detergent is used, and I have seen this first hand, and they are elderly so I cant imagine if you had kids with dirty socks and stained clothes how they would look. My brother in law has a Whirlpool front load, and he has the same complaint. It must be the lack of water is all I can think. When my Mom had a traditional top loader her clothes were always sparkling clean, and same with me and my family. I still have a traditional top loader and feel it's cleaning is far superior to any HE machine I have used. You need WATER to clean clothes. I spent some time reading transcripts from the manufacturers that argued this point with the government, and also argued that machines would become 'ineffective' if they adhere to the regulations put forth for 2018, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. CONSUMER REPORTS has ALWAYS been BOGUS, in the past when 2 washers made exactly the same by a manufacturer but put 2 different names on them you would see one on the top rating and the exact same model under another name was rated poorly.... same thing with vacuum cleaners, rating a cheap plastic vacuum better than some of the best because it has a 'cheap price' and performance was 'acceptable'..... which is why I do not subscribe but unfortunately many people do refer to them for buying..
Rolls_rapide
I guess you'd like one of the Swiss machines. Looking at the Schulthess manual, a regular Cotton cycle takes between 61 to 85 minutes for a 40° to 90°C wash.
I guess you'd like one of the Swiss machines. Looking at the Schulthess manual, a regular Cotton cycle takes between 61 to 85 minutes for a 40° to 90°C wash.
Wear and tear
Modern WP top loads agitate as they fill. Wear and tear is an absolute given, and for the record I believe that is intentional to get people to switch to front load or impeller.
Modern WP top loads agitate as they fill. Wear and tear is an absolute given, and for the record I believe that is intentional to get people to switch to front load or impeller.
"...using too much water is not what is needed to get clean clothes because it let the clothes move through the water without "rubbing" against each other for a "scrubbing" action."
I believe there is a somewhat valid point here. When I fill my old Maytag A606 nice and full I believe the clothes get washed cleaner.
I believe there is a somewhat valid point here. When I fill my old Maytag A606 nice and full I believe the clothes get washed cleaner.
rolls_rapide
Well-known member
@logixx
Schulthess... Yes! That's more like it! Sensible times, for sensibly sized loads.
It'll be the usual EU claptrap, mandating that domestic machines HAVE to be dumbed down, but professional/commercial machines are allowed to operate normally.
Pretty much what the EU has already done to detergents, paints, vacuum cleaners, etc.
Schulthess... Yes! That's more like it! Sensible times, for sensibly sized loads.
It'll be the usual EU claptrap, mandating that domestic machines HAVE to be dumbed down, but professional/commercial machines are allowed to operate normally.
Pretty much what the EU has already done to detergents, paints, vacuum cleaners, etc.
Oh, I was talking about their domestic washers. Their capacity is also over-rated at 8 kilos, yet they still get the job done fairly quickly.
mark_wpduet
Well-known member
A LOONG time ago
around 2005 when I got my Duet FL washer - there was a discussion on this. We were are talking about different things we noticed with our "then new" FL washers compared to the TL washers we were used to - one of the things being dryer lint.. We pretty much all agreed that there was less lint on the dryer screen. I'd say maybe 30 to 40 % less than when I was using my Whirlpool TL washer from around 2002. I'm just scratching my head at this - because if these new low water machines are causing clothes to wear out more quickly, I'd assume there would be a crap load more lint on the dryer screen - NO?
around 2005 when I got my Duet FL washer - there was a discussion on this. We were are talking about different things we noticed with our "then new" FL washers compared to the TL washers we were used to - one of the things being dryer lint.. We pretty much all agreed that there was less lint on the dryer screen. I'd say maybe 30 to 40 % less than when I was using my Whirlpool TL washer from around 2002. I'm just scratching my head at this - because if these new low water machines are causing clothes to wear out more quickly, I'd assume there would be a crap load more lint on the dryer screen - NO?
Im cornfused, how long are the new front loaders taking to do a normal load.. That Duet I just got takes 40 minutes, 50 some minutes if you go for the more more dirty setting. No longer really than it took my filter flo
rolls_rapide
Well-known member
@logixx
Wow! Two heating elements! For the "Short Swiss Programmes"! And dirt sensor, although the instructions for that machine, say not to use liquids in the drum, I presume because undissolved detergent blocks the turbidity sensor. At least with my Panasonic there is a flow through the sump by the recirculation pump, thus helping to mix the detergent and keeping the sensor clean.
@petek: Typically for EU machines, over two hours for a full load. The quick-wash programmes are usually meant for half-loads/lightly soiled. And if the stupid machine cannot balance, add an extra 20 minutes.
The way things are going, everyone will soon be going back to the old twintub machines.
Wow! Two heating elements! For the "Short Swiss Programmes"! And dirt sensor, although the instructions for that machine, say not to use liquids in the drum, I presume because undissolved detergent blocks the turbidity sensor. At least with my Panasonic there is a flow through the sump by the recirculation pump, thus helping to mix the detergent and keeping the sensor clean.
@petek: Typically for EU machines, over two hours for a full load. The quick-wash programmes are usually meant for half-loads/lightly soiled. And if the stupid machine cannot balance, add an extra 20 minutes.
The way things are going, everyone will soon be going back to the old twintub machines.
Yes, brands like Schulthess or V Zug don't f**k around with cycle times. Their washers and, in the case of V Zug, dishwashers get the job done quickly. Along with 400V heating, you can even connect them to hot water to get the laundry done even faster. Needless to say, they are expensive!
