Energy star water factor question

[mark_wpduet]

I hope its not inappropriate to post a thread that is not about a specific machine. I have been doing some reading on the energy star site. My question is: I have a Duet 9300 that will be four years old in April........Will it use more water than the Duets that you can purchase today? Honestly, I don't see how they can go any less with the water usage but just curious.

 

[toggleswitch2]

Washing generally needs WATER to be efffective.

Actually IMHO the overall concensus here is that newer energy-star appliances do tend to use less and less water overall with each subesequent model.

Generally as a group I'd say we are not too fond of them.

Dishwahers especally (as a class) are generally insufficient in performance lately, and yet take hours to run one cycle/programme. Ironically one would then have to assume that lower-end non energy-star models work best...because they do!

 

[ronhic]

European machines

From an Australian (and possibly European) point of view...

Most of our front loaders either are made in Europe or Asia by a European factory (Electrolux, Bosch, Whirlpool) or are an Asian brand (LG, Samsung et.al.) so I can only really comment on them...

In general, they are getting more water efficient. Haier had a model available in our market that used 43litrs (10.5USG) for a 7kg load! It didn't rinse too well though....funny that.

Most European designed machines now have very long as opposed to just 'long' cycles. My Electrolux made Westinghouse takes 117 minutes for a full load without a prewash. Thats wash, 3 rinses and spins between each and uses about 71lt (17.5USG) for a 6.5kg load. I tend to not 'overload' my machine and use the quick wash button which (given the load is about 2/3) is 68min wash is 'topped up', 2 rinses and spins between. Water usage is about the same though as the rinse levels are higher.

My previous Australian made (but british based) 4kg Hoover Electra took a maximum of 55min for a wash, 3 rinses and spins between. It was hot and cold intake and had no heater...BUT it washed less than 2/3 of the clothes AND used about 85ltr (21 USG) per load...

So generally speaking, something has to give...

Either the cycle times increase, the load increases compared to 'last years model' yet the tub hasn't changed, rinsing suffers if the intermittant spins aren't hard enough etc...

 

[sudsman]

Toggles is right I am NOT fond of them at all

I dont understand how engery can be saved by using less water to wash with and running the machine 2 hours instead of 30 mins. One eats up the other so it seems to me. I run the 150lb machines here in the longest formua is only 45 mins. For heavy surgery loads. And 10 mins of that time is extract time.

 

[brisnat81]

Its not all machines.

Our 3 yo Miele's programmed in AU mode complete a normal cycle in 40 minutes with 2 rinses or 52 minutes with 3 rinses, the 2 rinse cycle uses around 52L of water to wash a 5.5kg load. It seems to work well, although sometimes I find the wash time a little short. It occaisionally barely finishes the final top up before it goes into drain and spin.

I've gotten around that by programming Euro mode, which runs between about 54 and 75 minutes for a normal cycle with 2 rinses or adds about 12 minutes more if I add a third rinse.

The frontloaders in AU and the EU seem to do a pretty good job with the resources they use, so they're not all bad.

With Dishwashers, I've only had recent experiences with Miele. 15L per cycle 1:54 wash time and it removes pretty much anything you can throw at it. Mums 30yo Dishlex takes about 80 minutes on a Superwash with Pots and Pans selected and uses around 25L of water, so its not a huge time difference. I think using a filter rather than a soft food disposer helps in low water use machines as you never recirculate any food bits, they're all trapped and most are flushed down the drain rather than sprayed around the load for the full cycle. That might be why the euro dishwashers perform better in low water situations.

With the argument about long cycles wasting energy. When you're using a 200watt wash motor, the power you use over 2 hours compared to the power you use to heat multiple fills of water is insignificant. Most of the energy is from heating the water. In a normal cycle on my Dishwasher, the Main wash and Final rinse are heated, to 55degC and 65degC and the Prewash and interim rinses are cold.

 

[jeffg]

There's also the issue of clothing wear and expense. I can't imagine subjecting $150 dress shirts to 2 or 2 1/2 hour washing cycles every time they need laundered.

 

[brisnat81]

My $120 dress shirts get a 56 minute cycle every week and are now 18 months old, no fraying around the collar and still look the same as brand new.

I couldnt imagine how bad the creaseing if someone ran them through that longer cycle, most of minimum iron/perm press cycles dont run anywhere near that long.

 

[ronhic]

Manufacturers caught out here

Some years ago, Choice magazine (the Australian consumer mag) commented when testing washing machines that it was next to if not impossible to get the stated loads into some machines and showed a picture of either a US Whirlpool or Maytag with the lid partially up and laundry hanging out. They had literally stated a capacity that the machine couldn't fit...

Now how does this effect energy and water consumption?

Well until recently, the code was voluntary for water. Now it is compulsory to display the manufacturer can choose the programme they test. Energy has been compulsory for some time but again, the manufacturer can choose the programme. Manufacturers - and with the exception of Fisher and Paykel - all had machines (predominately top load) on the market where they used the same internals and called one a 6kg machine and the other a 7kg machine. So, you now have a 'bigger' machine which is more expensive but also more energy and water efficient....

Times have changed and there is now a minimum rinse standard too which does make it harder for Manufacturers to do this.

 

[jeffg]

Quality dress shirts should last 18 years, with proper care (i.e. top loading washers, or dry cleaning).

 

[mark_wpduet]

Has anyone here tried adjusting the water level on their Duet? If so, are u happy with the setting? Would it shorten the life of the machine? I read somewhere you could do that....I know these machines are able to accommodate more water because some cycles use more than others.

 

[brisnat81]

Jeff,

In a BD whirlpool with a 2 hour soak and a 4 minute gentle wash, I barely got 12 months out of the same shirts before the collars and cuffs frayed and that was only washing 5 at a time.

I now fit 10-12 in a load and experience no visible wear at 18 months old.

I tend to rotate through sets of 6 or 7 at a time, so they tend to get worn 50 odd times a year each and laundered the same 50 times per year. Over your 18 years, that'd be 900 wash cycles which seems like an awful lot with no damage occuring.

I rotate through this way, so I never get bored with the pattern or style, I get around 2 years wear from them, which by that point it's time for some new patterns and colours to brighten up the wardrobe and I can then donate the old ones to charity.

 

[ronhic]

Shirts

Our Blomberg used to run a minimum 1hr 30 on the 40c quick wash in the UK and I can tell you that my work shirts were never cleaner (ok, on the normal cycle they possibly were). Now that was in 2001 and I still wear clothes that I had then.

In fact, I have a rugby top that is now 12 years old that is worn weekly...it is getting thin, but there is next to no pilling on it and the same goes for the 22yr old chinos that still inhabit my wardrobe (and fit!) as well as towels without pulls etc....

How long something lasts has more to do with how many chemicals you throw at it (and bleach is a killer to fabric), how gentle the machine is, how heavily you load it etc. As a case in point, here are 3 extracts from the latest choice survey in Dec 2008 on Fisher and Paykel machines. Keep in mind that Choice tests at stated capacity too on a cold wash and that isn't how most of us wash...

Fisher & Paykel WH80F60W1...Front.....Gentleness 76%
....."......... GW712.......Top.......Gentleness 43%
.....".......... WL80T65DW1..."........Gentleness 58%

At Capacity, the 2 top loaders do wash better (just)...and the GW712 rinses far better but uses 178L of water! But it is gentleness that was the point here....

 

[jeffg]

I'm glad you included the disclaimers about stated capacity and cold water, because there's no such thing as "gentle" cycle on front loaders.

 

[ronhic]

I beg to differ on that Jeff

Of course there is and they don't come any more gentle that a machine that slows it revolutions so much so that the drum goes at half speed or slower....or in the case of the old UK Hotpoints that had a 'wool cradle' - they literally rocked the clothes!

Could you explain how you come to your conclusion?

 

[jeffg]

It's basic physics. In a front loader, there's no way to avoid friction between articles of clothing in a load, and between the clothes and tub wall. That's even true for your "cradle" action. In a top loader, lightly loaded and with adequate water, each article of clothing has a cushion of water around it, and there's virtually no direct friction.

 

[launderess]

Yeabut!

There's friction and there's friction.

Older front loaders used more water during the wash phase, which helped cushion the rubbing action somewhat, even when tub was fully loaded. For the same reason one does not load the drum more than one half full when doing woolens or delicates, so the extra high water level, coupled with gentle washing action will not cause harm to textiles.

When you start reducing the water usage to the wet nap level, there is bound to be more wear and tear on clothing (especilly with long cycle times), as laundry is being more forcefully rubbed against itself and the wash tub.

This month's issue of Consumer Reports tests front loaders, and clearly notes that water usage has gone down, along with longer cycle levels is causing more wear on clothing.

L.

 

[ronhic]

Jeff the reality is that is not how the majority of us use our machines nor the way they were built to be used. I have been doing laundry as part of chores since I was 9. At 39 I can tell you that I have never had to resort to that to prevent something from occuring. In this case wear/pilling etc

I have used top load and front load machines from various manufacterers and feel that I am qualified enough to say that having an agitator moving to and fro is generally far more damaging than washing like fabrics together. Every consumer magazine has proven with their 'fray' tests that front loading machines are far more gentle on clothes than a top loading machine.

Now if a person was to underload and over resource their machine I am sure that similar gentleness scores could be achieved but not without an increase in water, detergent and energy use over a full wash week of say 4-5 loads. It would take 10-15 loads to do what you are suggesting. Not to mention the time factor and wear on your machines gearbox.

Now given that the average front load machine here uses about 70lts and the average top load about 175ltr of water (if used as you mention) that would mean that if I was to do my washing as suggested that I would use a minimum of 1750ltr or 440 USG compared to about 280ltr or 70 USG. Not to mention that we pay for our water and there is the associated hot water (gas/electric) that a top loader doesn't heat....

That is an extravagance that the vast majority of people in this country with its' continuing water restrictions in many towns can never justify. You'd almost set yourself up for a lynching if you told someone that was how you washed. We have a town not 60miles away that was on stage 5 water restrictions. That means a TOTAL water usage of 150ltrs (38USG)per day per person. Washing, bathing, toilet...the lot

ok...i'm of my soap box now!

 

[ronhic]

here is the info from Choice

Front Load
Pros

They’re gentler on clothes.
Most use less water.
Most use less energy when washing in warm to hot water.
Use less detergent.
More programs, and higher temperature wash options.
Cheaper to run.
Higher spin speeds, which means they generally get more water out – convenient however you dry clothes, and money-saving if you use a dryer.
Best for small spaces – you can fit most models under a bench or put a dryer on top

Cons
Longer wash cycles – up to two hours in some cases (but many have ‘fast-wash’ options for lightly soiled clothes).
Generally more expensive to buy.
Higher spin speeds and less water (and higher wash temperature options) can mean more creases – so more ironing. Some models have ‘anti-crease’ cycles to avoid this.
With many models you can’t add to the wash load after the cycle has started.
Heavy to move.
Not many large-capacity machines available.
Some models need special brackets if placed on a wooden floor.
Tend to have louder spin cycles, and some people are sensitive to the pitch.
Some may rinse poorly due to thier very low water usage

Top loaders

Slightly fewer breakdowns and repairs compared to front loaders.
Bigger range of larger-capacity machines.
Faster wash cycles.
Generally cheaper to buy.
Lighter and so easier to move.
Easy to add clothes once a cycle has started.
Tend to have better rinse performance

Cons
Generally harsher on clothes.
Uses up to three times as much water as front loaders.
Uses more energy when washing in warm to hot water.
Uses more detergent.
Cost more to run.

The experience between countrys is interesting and could be down to the way that American Front loaders wash. From what I understand the cycle times are very quick compared to European models which could mean faster/rougher drum revolutions.

 

[rapunzel]

Consider this!

Gentleness - I think the gentleness test is not really indicative of anything much and ultimately more valuable for marketing than real life experience. The cloth they use to test for this is just loose threads woven into fabric without stitching. Of course the more vigorous agitator action and water currents of a top loader will show up wear more quickly. Does that mean I spend my life in threadbare duds - No. If you took the same piece of cloth and simply hung it out in a stiff breeze for a few hours there'd be noticable fraying around the edges too. If they rewashed the same piece of material two or three times in a front loader they would end up with the same level of wear as well. What if, instead of putting the test material through a regular cycle in a top loader, they only used the gently cycle, would they get the same sort of comparisons? Would you guys wash your silks, woolies and other dainties with your ruggers, duffle bags and studded leathers on the heavy duty cycle? BAGS NOT!

Youse all know that regular clothes are not usually meant to fray at the edges, unless they are junk, and threads don't pull apart from the middle, unless there's already damage. Mixing loose hooks, open zippers and other items that can catch and pull threads can cause damage in any kind of washer. Need I go on?

I've been washing clothes since I was nine years old too and I'm now 45 - so that gives me six more years of experience than someone else here. I've used horizontal axis top and front loaders, wringer washers, impeller washers, standard top loaders, scrubbing boards, laundry paddles, rocks, bricks, my bare hands and anything inbetween. My verdict - 99% of wear and damage to clothes occurs on the body, when bugs get at them, or when I've hit them too hard with a brick (or other really bad laundry practices). So I don't worry too much about the 1% that is the CR test on 'gentleness.'

Lots of newer front loaders wash clothes for longer in less water and they don't rinse too well - as already state in this thread and confirmed by latest CR tests. This means that there is more friction in higher chemical concentration over longer time frame, with higher chemical residue in fabric after cycle completion. The result of this may not become immediately apparent, but it ultimately means more electricity use, higher chemical and salt concentrations in grey water, as well as fabrics, which will lead to itchy skin, crappy clothes and not so happy environment. Now compare this to saving of and extracting a little more water to save on utilities - am I being too sceptical?

Reduced detergent use - hm, not so sure about that one either. My guess is that would depend on the formulation used. With products like SA8 (usable in all types of washers) I couldn't agree more. Though the regular supermarket stuff all seems to be packaged in the same quantities and costs about the same, regardless of whether its for top or front loaders. The scoops in front loader detergent boxes are as big as those in the top loader boxes. Surely households using same capacity top and front loaders with similar laundry patterns/habits would more likely spend and use about the same quantitities of detergent. Detergent companies depend on product turnover.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Cheers

rapunzel