toploader1984
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 551
an hour isnt long enough? who has time to wait over 2 hours for ONE load of clothes to get done, certainly not the fast paced american people.
EVERYBODY should read this!
- Thread starter toploader1984
- Start date
Help Support :
hoover1100
Well-known member
yeah well
It's like saying you won't wait 3hours for a roast to cook, so you'll just put it in the oven for half an hour and it will be "cooked enough". Yes it will be sort of cooked, but the only way it will be cooked to perfection is to cook it for the correct amount of time.
To me thats how rediculous it sounds when people say a washer should take no longer than 30mins to wash. Clothes just won't be as clean in any way like they will be from a proper wash cycle. If you think they are then you haven't used a machine with proper wash times.
Matt
It's like saying you won't wait 3hours for a roast to cook, so you'll just put it in the oven for half an hour and it will be "cooked enough". Yes it will be sort of cooked, but the only way it will be cooked to perfection is to cook it for the correct amount of time.
To me thats how rediculous it sounds when people say a washer should take no longer than 30mins to wash. Clothes just won't be as clean in any way like they will be from a proper wash cycle. If you think they are then you haven't used a machine with proper wash times.
Matt
hoover1100
Well-known member
Also who waits for their washer to finish!?
I thought the whole idea of an "automatic" washer is that you put it on, go away and do something else and forget about it till you come back and it's finished.
All our washers have a quick wash cycle that lasts around 30mins for those few small loads that are needed in a hurry. The full cycles are only used on properly soiled full loads.
Matt
I thought the whole idea of an "automatic" washer is that you put it on, go away and do something else and forget about it till you come back and it's finished.
All our washers have a quick wash cycle that lasts around 30mins for those few small loads that are needed in a hurry. The full cycles are only used on properly soiled full loads.
Matt
Ecological Impact
I must agree with everyone of every culture and country, my top loading washer uses more water thana front loader. I must also admit I wash for recreation and not every items needs another dip. I always err on the side of underloading to acheive optimum results, protect the life of the garmet and protect the life of the washer. I try to make up for it by not rinsing dishes before running the dishwasher, taking quick showers and lessening my impact on the grid. If I truly was onboard with saving theplanet I could not defend my top loading washer. I feel the wash water for slipperness and look at the rinse water for evidence of all soap being gone. I could live without touching if you'll just let me watch.
I must agree with everyone of every culture and country, my top loading washer uses more water thana front loader. I must also admit I wash for recreation and not every items needs another dip. I always err on the side of underloading to acheive optimum results, protect the life of the garmet and protect the life of the washer. I try to make up for it by not rinsing dishes before running the dishwasher, taking quick showers and lessening my impact on the grid. If I truly was onboard with saving theplanet I could not defend my top loading washer. I feel the wash water for slipperness and look at the rinse water for evidence of all soap being gone. I could live without touching if you'll just let me watch.
aquacycle
Well-known member
"i noticed that ALL the front loaders in the pictures above have MECHANICAL knobs rather than electronic controlls, that could possibly be the problem with all the machines today." - toploader1984
I agree with you here. I have to say, I've found a lot of todays machines with computer control's to be horrid and unreliable. However, my Miele has electronic control's and is fine, as does my Mum's Bendix. But you can't beat that old clicky dial.
However, unlike you, as much as I prefer a front loader, I have nothing against people who prefer Top loading machines. They clearly have their reasons for preferring them, which is fine. But for gods sake, don't you dare come on her going "Toploaders are better, FACT!!" because the fact that both sell well in various parts of the world proves otherwise. I don't like bagless vacuums, but millions of people own them and if it works for them, thats great. If they like it, and can back it up with valid reasons why, then great. But all you've done is exactley what you said you didn't like us doing - you've come on and gone "FRONT LOADERS ARE SHIT!!! END OF" but not in so many words. And then you said "this is for americans" so surely a more appropriate title for this thread would be "ALL AMERICANS SHOULD READ THIS" and not "EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS". I think we're included in the "everyone" unless you think everyone in the world is, or should be, American?
I agree with you here. I have to say, I've found a lot of todays machines with computer control's to be horrid and unreliable. However, my Miele has electronic control's and is fine, as does my Mum's Bendix. But you can't beat that old clicky dial.
However, unlike you, as much as I prefer a front loader, I have nothing against people who prefer Top loading machines. They clearly have their reasons for preferring them, which is fine. But for gods sake, don't you dare come on her going "Toploaders are better, FACT!!" because the fact that both sell well in various parts of the world proves otherwise. I don't like bagless vacuums, but millions of people own them and if it works for them, thats great. If they like it, and can back it up with valid reasons why, then great. But all you've done is exactley what you said you didn't like us doing - you've come on and gone "FRONT LOADERS ARE SHIT!!! END OF" but not in so many words. And then you said "this is for americans" so surely a more appropriate title for this thread would be "ALL AMERICANS SHOULD READ THIS" and not "EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS". I think we're included in the "everyone" unless you think everyone in the world is, or should be, American?
aquacycle
Well-known member
"I'm not accusing anyone of intentionally wearing dirty clothes"
no, but you are saying you think they're dirty. And they're not. I had a baked bean stain on my white t-shirt. Guess what? It wasn't there when it came out of the washing machine. SHOCK HORROR IT'S CLEAN!! And that is in a front loader. I would never turn around and indirectly say "I think your clothes are dirty because you use a top loader". That's just plain rude. So thank you VERY much for that.
no, but you are saying you think they're dirty. And they're not. I had a baked bean stain on my white t-shirt. Guess what? It wasn't there when it came out of the washing machine. SHOCK HORROR IT'S CLEAN!! And that is in a front loader. I would never turn around and indirectly say "I think your clothes are dirty because you use a top loader". That's just plain rude. So thank you VERY much for that.
Chris, please re-read my comments:
"For most American front loaders the opposite is true: I cringe when I see a big load of filthy clothes being tumbled around in just a few gallons of water, and people thinking there's actually some way a load of clothes can be cleaned, let alone sanitized in that much water.
And then people wonder why their FL's develop mold problems. Personally the whole FL technology, at least as it currently exists here in the U.S., disgusts me."
They were (and are) relevant to what's being sold in the U.S.
"For most American front loaders the opposite is true: I cringe when I see a big load of filthy clothes being tumbled around in just a few gallons of water, and people thinking there's actually some way a load of clothes can be cleaned, let alone sanitized in that much water.
And then people wonder why their FL's develop mold problems. Personally the whole FL technology, at least as it currently exists here in the U.S., disgusts me."
They were (and are) relevant to what's being sold in the U.S.
aquacycle
Well-known member
"They were (and are) relevant to what's being sold in the U.S"
Yes, but US front loaders use the same water consumption as most front loaders. A US Miele front loader uses the same amount of water as a UK or European Miele front loader. Your statement clearly implies that you think washing clothes in a front loader machine still leaves them dirty and therefore meaning I am walking around wearing dirty clothes. I've made effort to buy an efficient machine and chose a detergent (through trial and error) that does a good job and what you've said clearly means you think I have chosen an inferior product and that is not the case.
"Personally the whole FL technology, at least as it currently exists here in the U.S., disgusts me."
A front loader is still a front loader anywhere else in the world. So the millions of front loader uses across the globe disgust you, huh? Oh geee...thanks! We're flattered.
Yes, but US front loaders use the same water consumption as most front loaders. A US Miele front loader uses the same amount of water as a UK or European Miele front loader. Your statement clearly implies that you think washing clothes in a front loader machine still leaves them dirty and therefore meaning I am walking around wearing dirty clothes. I've made effort to buy an efficient machine and chose a detergent (through trial and error) that does a good job and what you've said clearly means you think I have chosen an inferior product and that is not the case.
"Personally the whole FL technology, at least as it currently exists here in the U.S., disgusts me."
A front loader is still a front loader anywhere else in the world. So the millions of front loader uses across the globe disgust you, huh? Oh geee...thanks! We're flattered.
hoover1100
Well-known member
Well this is my point
The only difference between US and Euro front loaders is that the US ones have (IMO stupid) short wash cycles and Hot fill, both of these things have a negative impact on performance.
To be honest washers in Europe wash better than ever these days, and do so with less water than ever. There is far too much emphasis on low water consumption being a negative thing in terms of wash results.
Most people I know put their washer on before they go out, go to work, go to bed etc and return to clean clothes a few hours later. Like I said before these washers do have a quick wash cycle for those items needed in a hurry. If for some strange reason you are not prepared to wash like this then I guess you would need a front loader to use more water, but even then you can only reduce cycle times to an extent. 15mins DOES NOT constitute a heavy duty main wash as far as I'm concearned, yet that is how some of the US front loaders work.
To sum that up US machines either need to increase cycle time a lot, or increase them a bit and use a bit more water. The first one would be the more sensible choice in this situation IMO.
Matt
The only difference between US and Euro front loaders is that the US ones have (IMO stupid) short wash cycles and Hot fill, both of these things have a negative impact on performance.
To be honest washers in Europe wash better than ever these days, and do so with less water than ever. There is far too much emphasis on low water consumption being a negative thing in terms of wash results.
Most people I know put their washer on before they go out, go to work, go to bed etc and return to clean clothes a few hours later. Like I said before these washers do have a quick wash cycle for those items needed in a hurry. If for some strange reason you are not prepared to wash like this then I guess you would need a front loader to use more water, but even then you can only reduce cycle times to an extent. 15mins DOES NOT constitute a heavy duty main wash as far as I'm concearned, yet that is how some of the US front loaders work.
To sum that up US machines either need to increase cycle time a lot, or increase them a bit and use a bit more water. The first one would be the more sensible choice in this situation IMO.
Matt
hoover1100
Well-known member
"I cringe when I see a big load of filthy clothes being tumbled around in just a few gallons of water, and people thinking there's actually some way a load of clothes can be cleaned, let alone sanitized in that much water."
Your comment only says that the machines use far too little water. This is the point I disagree entirely with you on.
However it is indeed very true about the short cycle times and lack of heater on many US front loaders. This is what inhibits their performace.
Matt
Your comment only says that the machines use far too little water. This is the point I disagree entirely with you on.
However it is indeed very true about the short cycle times and lack of heater on many US front loaders. This is what inhibits their performace.
Matt
Well, however their performance is inhibited, the fact is they don't perform very well. And now U.S. detergent manufacturers are starting to dumb down their products (e.g. "Tide Basic"). First they did away with phosphates, and now enzymes. What's left is stained underwear.
Hey, Don't Blame Lack of Phosphates
On detergent makers, that bit comes via various regulations and laws.
Only thing detergent makers could be considered guilty of is no longer wishing to make several variations of product for different markets, such as phosphate verus non-phosphate versions as of old.
As for "Tide Basic", well Tide has always been TOL detergent from P&G. It is the first place every new chemical or advance in that company's laundry product lands. As a result the price of Tide has always been rather high, sadly in these economic times even high end shoppers are looking to save money so something had to give.
L.
On detergent makers, that bit comes via various regulations and laws.
Only thing detergent makers could be considered guilty of is no longer wishing to make several variations of product for different markets, such as phosphate verus non-phosphate versions as of old.
As for "Tide Basic", well Tide has always been TOL detergent from P&G. It is the first place every new chemical or advance in that company's laundry product lands. As a result the price of Tide has always been rather high, sadly in these economic times even high end shoppers are looking to save money so something had to give.
L.
hoover1100
Well-known member
Our detergents haven't had phosphates for years
I recently found some that did, I tried it because of what I'd heard about how "amazing" they are on here. It made no difference to the cleaning power at all. Persil gel tablets with phosphates perform and rinse no better than the unphosphated formula, so I don't see whats so special about them, apart from that they are very bad for aquatic life from what I've heard.
Matt
I recently found some that did, I tried it because of what I'd heard about how "amazing" they are on here. It made no difference to the cleaning power at all. Persil gel tablets with phosphates perform and rinse no better than the unphosphated formula, so I don't see whats so special about them, apart from that they are very bad for aquatic life from what I've heard.
Matt
On Board Hot Water Heaters
This thing that all front loaders must have onboard hot water heaters is not entirely spun of whole cloth.
Back when one used to go on THS, this same arguement raged on so one decided to conduct an experiment using our old Malber front loader.
Using tap hot water (130F), tested going in, and measured the water coming out of drain doing a 11 pound wash load for 12 minutes. Drain water temperature was about 125F, IIRC. Certianly wasn't below 120F, and not 100F either.
On board heaters for front loaders do make a difference if the unit is located far from the source of hot water, and or one wishes wash temps above set hot water temp. Of course in Europe things are different since by and large it has long ago been designed that all appliances requiring hot water heat it themselves, rather than rely on hot water from a central heater (if there was one).
What American front loading washing machines mainly have is a water "booster", and even then they will take ages to bring water up to temperature. I mean there is only a certian amount of heating power available from 115v/120v 15amp power service. Even less when one considers the machine must divert some of the power to the motor and electronics. Less than even that once one factors in NEC codes that require no more than 80% of a circut should be drawn.
Miele and other European washers had the right idea using 220v power, but Americans by and large did not wish to install such lines where they did not exsist in numbers to make sales viable.
Perhaps if front loaders went back to the design where tumbling was slower during the heating phase, thus allowing more power to be drawn via the heaters, but as motors use about only 100 watts or less, even then there wouldn't be a huge difference.
L.
This thing that all front loaders must have onboard hot water heaters is not entirely spun of whole cloth.
Back when one used to go on THS, this same arguement raged on so one decided to conduct an experiment using our old Malber front loader.
Using tap hot water (130F), tested going in, and measured the water coming out of drain doing a 11 pound wash load for 12 minutes. Drain water temperature was about 125F, IIRC. Certianly wasn't below 120F, and not 100F either.
On board heaters for front loaders do make a difference if the unit is located far from the source of hot water, and or one wishes wash temps above set hot water temp. Of course in Europe things are different since by and large it has long ago been designed that all appliances requiring hot water heat it themselves, rather than rely on hot water from a central heater (if there was one).
What American front loading washing machines mainly have is a water "booster", and even then they will take ages to bring water up to temperature. I mean there is only a certian amount of heating power available from 115v/120v 15amp power service. Even less when one considers the machine must divert some of the power to the motor and electronics. Less than even that once one factors in NEC codes that require no more than 80% of a circut should be drawn.
Miele and other European washers had the right idea using 220v power, but Americans by and large did not wish to install such lines where they did not exsist in numbers to make sales viable.
Perhaps if front loaders went back to the design where tumbling was slower during the heating phase, thus allowing more power to be drawn via the heaters, but as motors use about only 100 watts or less, even then there wouldn't be a huge difference.
L.
golittlesport
Well-known member
blah blah blah
...to each their own. There are benefits and disadvantages to both types of machines.
In the 50's our mothers and grandmothers were debating automatics vs. wringers. Automatics took too long, didn't clean as well, used too much water, were not dependable and broke down too often. Wringers were not safe, were too time consuming and too much work. So some folks stayed with wringers and others bought automatics.
IMHO vintage top loaders are cool and fun to watch but the current offering of top loaders does nothing for me. I personally have had excellent results from Electrolux-built (in the USA) front loaders. One still in the extended family is ten years old, going strong, no repairs and no moldly smells...and it is the bomb in the cleaning dept. I am also lucky enough to own a 55 Frigidaire Unimatic top loader. So I live in the best of both laundry worlds as far as I'm concerned.
Some folks can't stand seeing a machine go through a rinse cycle and not see waves of water, and the next can't stand listening to a washer filling, and filling, and filling, and filling. So everyone enjoy the type of washer that works best for their needs and just keep your little secret that your kind is really the best. No need to try to convert the world to your religion.
I saw Wanda Sykes once and she said "I don't see what all this debate is over gay marriage. If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex." Same goes for this TL/FL debate.
...to each their own. There are benefits and disadvantages to both types of machines.
In the 50's our mothers and grandmothers were debating automatics vs. wringers. Automatics took too long, didn't clean as well, used too much water, were not dependable and broke down too often. Wringers were not safe, were too time consuming and too much work. So some folks stayed with wringers and others bought automatics.
IMHO vintage top loaders are cool and fun to watch but the current offering of top loaders does nothing for me. I personally have had excellent results from Electrolux-built (in the USA) front loaders. One still in the extended family is ten years old, going strong, no repairs and no moldly smells...and it is the bomb in the cleaning dept. I am also lucky enough to own a 55 Frigidaire Unimatic top loader. So I live in the best of both laundry worlds as far as I'm concerned.
Some folks can't stand seeing a machine go through a rinse cycle and not see waves of water, and the next can't stand listening to a washer filling, and filling, and filling, and filling. So everyone enjoy the type of washer that works best for their needs and just keep your little secret that your kind is really the best. No need to try to convert the world to your religion.
I saw Wanda Sykes once and she said "I don't see what all this debate is over gay marriage. If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex." Same goes for this TL/FL debate.
Several reasons why a front loader won't work for me:
1. I soak and submerge whites in oxygen based bleach for 12 hours (hot, 140F water, of course). Can't do that in a front loader.
2. I soak and submerge greasy/oily clothes in Tide with Clorox 2 color safe bleach overnight for at least 12 hours. Can't do that in a front loader.
3. I have 2 dogs and 2 cats and need a machine that will effectively filter out and remove hair. Front loaders do a poor job in that area.
4. I need a machine that doesn't wake up the household, or for that matter, the entire neighborhood when it goes into spin if I decide to a load of laundry at 2AM (which I do often). All front loaders I have played with have VERY noisy spin cycles.
5. I need a machine that will thoroughly do a good job in 40 min or less, especially for those monthly routines where I strip couch covers, bed sheets, dog beds, and several loads of regular laundry. That total comes to at least 9-11 loads for one days worth of laundry. I don't have 18-22+ hours of spare time get this accomplished!!
6. I need a reliable machine! The old Maytag has been routinely abused for 24 years with only a belt replacement at 21 years of age. I don't think ANY front loader (or top loader, for that matter) made in the last 10-15 years can even begin to come close to those reliability figures!
1. I soak and submerge whites in oxygen based bleach for 12 hours (hot, 140F water, of course). Can't do that in a front loader.
2. I soak and submerge greasy/oily clothes in Tide with Clorox 2 color safe bleach overnight for at least 12 hours. Can't do that in a front loader.
3. I have 2 dogs and 2 cats and need a machine that will effectively filter out and remove hair. Front loaders do a poor job in that area.
4. I need a machine that doesn't wake up the household, or for that matter, the entire neighborhood when it goes into spin if I decide to a load of laundry at 2AM (which I do often). All front loaders I have played with have VERY noisy spin cycles.
5. I need a machine that will thoroughly do a good job in 40 min or less, especially for those monthly routines where I strip couch covers, bed sheets, dog beds, and several loads of regular laundry. That total comes to at least 9-11 loads for one days worth of laundry. I don't have 18-22+ hours of spare time get this accomplished!!
6. I need a reliable machine! The old Maytag has been routinely abused for 24 years with only a belt replacement at 21 years of age. I don't think ANY front loader (or top loader, for that matter) made in the last 10-15 years can even begin to come close to those reliability figures!
ronhic
Well-known member
It seems that everybody does agree (from previous posts and topics) that we would all prefer to have our machines the way they were 15-20yrs or so ago. By that I mean with higher water levels in the wash and (especially) the rinse phases.
It appears that toploaders on the US market, with the exception of Speed Queen and maybe a few others, have done what they can to comply with the US Fed and reduced water consumption etc whilst trying to innovate. Some have had success, others less so.
Some Fisher and Paykel machines use a raised 'plate' or 'low rise agitator' (you choose) and low water levels. Consumer tests here have shown them to clean and rinse well and not use HUGE amounts of water. However, they are shown in tests as not being particularly gentle on fabric AND leave detergent deposits/lint.
Electrolux via SImpson and the Electrolux brands have taken a different approach. They have retained the same basic design of central agitator and changed the number and design of holes in the drum which, when used in conjunction with a pump means they can retain 'full tub' water levels yet reduce consumption by restricting how much water flows from the inner to the outer tub and quickly pumping this back to the inner tub, you keep a high water level, yet are not 'wasting' the water between the 2 tubs. You can manually over ride the auto select and choose your own water level too...
....Unfortunately, they don't do well in CAPACITY tests, but loaded the way most of us wash, they probably would.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
Front loaders have gone a different route. Launderess has many times told us of the need for certain things to occur for washing to be clean:
Change the variables too far one way or the other and the results will suffer.
With top load machines, short cycle times, lots of water and lots of chemicals (detergent AND bleach) leads to clean clothes. Older Australian machines are NO different here, though our detergents may have been as we tended not to use bleach heavily....my mother never.
Front load machines used to be the same to some degree. Still had longer cycle times for a couple of reasons.
- traditionally 3-5 rinses
- often heating water from cold
BUT, they used up to DOUBLE the water then compared to now. What has changed? Well they rarely rinse more than 3 times on a standard cycle (though with ASKO/Miele/VZug and certain Electrolux/Zanussi machines you can alter this) and they have reduced the standard amount of water in each component of the cycle....and wash cycles have increased accordingly.
Launderess is correct in refering to a lack of 220-250v power being one of the major issues. Short cycle times are fine with a reasonable amount of water that comes in warm/hot...I know, my oft refered to Hoover was hot/cold connect with NO HEATER yet cleans beautifully at capacity...but then it used about 80litres of water for 4kg compared to the 75litres for 6.5kg my current machine uses...and had short times 21min MAX wash component total cycle at max wash time was 55min including 3 rinses and intermittant spins (it still used less than 2/3 of the water of the equiv. top loader available when new).
So something has to give in the US front load market.....
People have to build a bridge and basically 'get over' the time issue as it is quite evident that the cycle times need to be increased, probably by as much as 50% to be truely effective with low water levels. Or at least give people the option of a long cyle by introducing a system similar to Electrolux/Zanussi's 'Time manager' where you tell the machine how dirty it is and it increases or decreases the time.
Ideally
- Option of longer cycles for large/capacity loads on a 'user chooser basis. i.e. - you decide.
- Option of additional rinses
- Heater
- Educate people how to use them
- reduce the capacity....they'll last longer (particularly bearings)
the last one is a little controversial I know in a 'Big is better' society
...BUT...
most people never capacity load a top load machine and generally speaking a front load machine one size smaller in capacity will swallow and wash well (with space to spare) what we would normally put in a top load machine one size larger where the user thinks it is 'full'....
...Statistics in both the UK and Australia confirm that we tend to wash, on average, 4-4.5kg (9-10lb) at a time...
It appears that toploaders on the US market, with the exception of Speed Queen and maybe a few others, have done what they can to comply with the US Fed and reduced water consumption etc whilst trying to innovate. Some have had success, others less so.
Some Fisher and Paykel machines use a raised 'plate' or 'low rise agitator' (you choose) and low water levels. Consumer tests here have shown them to clean and rinse well and not use HUGE amounts of water. However, they are shown in tests as not being particularly gentle on fabric AND leave detergent deposits/lint.
Electrolux via SImpson and the Electrolux brands have taken a different approach. They have retained the same basic design of central agitator and changed the number and design of holes in the drum which, when used in conjunction with a pump means they can retain 'full tub' water levels yet reduce consumption by restricting how much water flows from the inner to the outer tub and quickly pumping this back to the inner tub, you keep a high water level, yet are not 'wasting' the water between the 2 tubs. You can manually over ride the auto select and choose your own water level too...
....Unfortunately, they don't do well in CAPACITY tests, but loaded the way most of us wash, they probably would.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
Front loaders have gone a different route. Launderess has many times told us of the need for certain things to occur for washing to be clean:
Change the variables too far one way or the other and the results will suffer.
With top load machines, short cycle times, lots of water and lots of chemicals (detergent AND bleach) leads to clean clothes. Older Australian machines are NO different here, though our detergents may have been as we tended not to use bleach heavily....my mother never.
Front load machines used to be the same to some degree. Still had longer cycle times for a couple of reasons.
- traditionally 3-5 rinses
- often heating water from cold
BUT, they used up to DOUBLE the water then compared to now. What has changed? Well they rarely rinse more than 3 times on a standard cycle (though with ASKO/Miele/VZug and certain Electrolux/Zanussi machines you can alter this) and they have reduced the standard amount of water in each component of the cycle....and wash cycles have increased accordingly.
Launderess is correct in refering to a lack of 220-250v power being one of the major issues. Short cycle times are fine with a reasonable amount of water that comes in warm/hot...I know, my oft refered to Hoover was hot/cold connect with NO HEATER yet cleans beautifully at capacity...but then it used about 80litres of water for 4kg compared to the 75litres for 6.5kg my current machine uses...and had short times 21min MAX wash component total cycle at max wash time was 55min including 3 rinses and intermittant spins (it still used less than 2/3 of the water of the equiv. top loader available when new).
So something has to give in the US front load market.....
People have to build a bridge and basically 'get over' the time issue as it is quite evident that the cycle times need to be increased, probably by as much as 50% to be truely effective with low water levels. Or at least give people the option of a long cyle by introducing a system similar to Electrolux/Zanussi's 'Time manager' where you tell the machine how dirty it is and it increases or decreases the time.
Ideally
- Option of longer cycles for large/capacity loads on a 'user chooser basis. i.e. - you decide.
- Option of additional rinses
- Heater
- Educate people how to use them
- reduce the capacity....they'll last longer (particularly bearings)
the last one is a little controversial I know in a 'Big is better' society
...BUT...
most people never capacity load a top load machine and generally speaking a front load machine one size smaller in capacity will swallow and wash well (with space to spare) what we would normally put in a top load machine one size larger where the user thinks it is 'full'....
...Statistics in both the UK and Australia confirm that we tend to wash, on average, 4-4.5kg (9-10lb) at a time...
Loading…
www.electrolux.com.au
toploader1984
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 551
people act like its so bad to use a little extra water to wash clothes, nobody says anything about the new cfl light bulbs with mercury getting into our landfills and polluting the ground and water.
