Finally the full wash video of the new 2018 Speed Queen washer

[rapunzel]

BTW, when looking at the consumer review between SQ and F&P, it should be noted that in terms of cleaning, stain removal and rinsing, most front loaders would be rated very close to the F&P.

The cleaning outcomes I get from my SQ are vastly superior to 54%. I'd say that they are closer to 80%. Couple that with 97% rinse performance and my machine performs right up there with the best of them. Cold water washing, in this case tap cold, does not work all that well on regular to heavy soiling in any type of washer, especially not in a regular American top loader with short wash times. Most of us here know this already and puts the kind of comparisons done by CR organizations into a clearer perspective. [this post was last edited: 12/19/2017-22:21]

 

[DADoES]

 
Thanks for bringing JoeyPete's videos to attention, I had not seen them.

There are some interesting "procedural" differences between the new model and my older F&Ps.

As I have brought to attention several times, the current WashSmart model is not HE and is a nice choice for a "traditional" deep-fill agitator machine.  The final spin is 1,100 RPM.

 

[mayfan69]

Fisher & Paykel

As Glenn has stated, here's my 10kg F&P Washsmart in action.

You can still choose a manual water level and deep rinse fill.

Cheers
Leon
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[mielerod69]

Soil removal 80%?

Hi Rapunzel,
It shows the F&P is a superior machine in wash-ability in cold water compared to the SQ. BTW the incoming cold water temperature is controlled at 20°C. Granted if you use warm or hot water, it will increase the soil removal rating, but F&P has a 20% head start before even switching to warm or hot wash.
What evidence do you have to claim 80%. Unless your using one of these swatches in the test load, it would be hard to make such a claim. Just saying....

 

[rapunzel]

Hi there Rod,

The F&P may have an advantage in cold water, but this margin of advantage over SQ narrows exponentially when warm or hot water are selected in addition to a soaking period or in combination with a pre-wash.

You ask what evidence I have? My clothes are the evidence. In fact, because I know how to optimize my washer's performance, I will revise my previous claim up to an 85% dirt removal score - just saying. [this post was last edited: 12/19/2017-23:09]

 

[johnb300m]

Mmmhmmm. That’s nice. I’m sure your laundry is clean.
But nobody truly knows the soil removal effectiveness delta unless they have a spectrophotometer.

 

[rapunzel]

Let me assure you John,

My eyes have the acuity of a spectrophotometer and my nose is an olfactometer when it comes to laundry.

 

[mielerod69]

Dear Rapunzel,

I'm not putting into question your laundry skills. I'm trying to remain factual and using documented evidence in my comparison between the two brands. The Australian Bureau of Statistics state that over 70% of Australians use cold water as their wash temperature choice. I don't personally agree washing in cold for many reasons. I use the 30/40/60ºC rule depending on the fabric type and colour.
Of course modifying time, temperature, detergent and mechanical action can vary the end result.
I have worked in the past as a laundry product manager and have some knowledge in the testing procedures manufacturers have to undergo to achieve their energy and water ratings. I have personally been to these test laboratories and have seen this first hand.
Washing machine manufactures have to achieve a minimum 80% soil removal to pass.
The 10 kg capacity Fisher and Paykel can achieve the minimum 80% with a warm wash and cycle time of 68 minutes. The 7.5 kg capacity SQ can achieve the same soil removal with a warm wash with a cycle time on the Normal Eco warm wash with a cycle time of 108 minutes. These figures are done with the manufactures claimed loads.
It is clear that the F & P wash technology is superior and they have managed to program the algorithms to achieve the desired result.

 

[rapunzel]

G'day Rod,

I have the utmost faith in Fisher & Paykel's algorithms. Fisher and Paykel make an excellent and sophisticated product that can hold its own in a global market. If I did not have my Speed Queen I would consider purchasing an F&P washer. At work and on other occasions I've had the pleasure of using F&P top loaders and find them to be very good. I would even go so far and state that Australian and New Zealand top loading washer designs are of the highest quality and show a great deal of innovation and creative thinking. Equally, I find it incredibly sad that this industry has been driven out of Australia, like so many other valuable industries; and we are worse off for it.

However, I prefer standard American top loaders. That is why I have stuck with Speed Queen for over thirty years and I've not been disappointed, yet.

 

[johnb300m]

LMAO.
You can be great at laundry Rapunzel, but scientific calibrated equipment your eyes and nose are not.
They are qualitative instruments at best.

 

[jerrod6]

soil removal requirements?

I don't think there are any soil removal requirements included in the energy efficiency tests performed in the USA are there?

If not the clothes could pass the efficiency test and still not be cleaned properly.

 

[speedqueen]

Things to consider...

"No one judges w/o spectrometer..." I still remember that the old CR reports from the 1940s used magnification on the fabric swatches and visual comparison. A spectrometer would only be required if the differences between swatches were a few percentage points in variance. If you are comparing two tested items side by side, a qualitative visual observation could be used to tell which is cleaner.

Cleaning tests are really only relative anyway. IE, "this is cleaner than that". The constant for the tests that the machines and fabric swatches are judged against is the unstained fabric swatch. Without a spectrometer, one could still line up the swatches in order from dirtiest to cleanest. A spectrometer only adds arbitrary numbers and percentage points to the swatches, it doesn't change the order.

We also must remember that when these machines are tested, it is using the DOE normal cycle, results on other cycles actually used by the consumer are likely to be different because the machine is then working to design specifications and is not handicapped by the requirements.

Another factor to consider and I think that most can agree here that the detergent used matters more than the machine. If you load up a TOL modern heated front load with Purex detergent and pit it against an old prewar bolt-down Bendix that is handicapped for the test by skipping the soak and cutting the wash time down to a few minutes, if the Bendix has Tide instead of Purex, I can all but guarantee that the old Bendix would out-perform the modern, heated FL machine.

 

[mrb627]

F&P compared to SQ

The test between the two models above is flawed.

Comparing the wash plate model of the F&P with a traditional SQ is not a fair fight. When the F&P is set for HE mode, there will be a lot more concentration of detergent on an 8 pound load than when you place the same 8 pound load into a SQ and select the maximum water level.

Malcolm

 

[iowabear]

Flawed Testing...

I haven't followed the Consumer Reports testing for a few years now. 

 

Back when I did, it seemed the machines with the longer "normal" cycles got the best scores for cleaning and worst scores for gentleness.  And the opposite was also true, the machines with the shorter "normal" cycles got worst scores for cleaning and the best scores for gentleness.

 

It wasn't the kind of testing that seemed useful, or even interesting, to me.

 

[mielerod69]

My Bad

Hi Malcolm,

Thanks for the pick up. The difference between the two models is one letter WL vs. WA.
I have included the agitator model in the comparison. F & P's dirt removal is still better.
As you mentioned, maybe the new 2018 SQ will do better with less water in the wash as shown in the blanket test video. Not only is there a higher detergent concentration with a HE machine, but also the fabrics rub against one another to shift the dirt out.

 

[johnrk]

Is This

permitted by copyright? CU certainly prohibits re-distribution.

 

[lorainfurniture]

As far as I know you can re publish copyright material as long as you aren’t making money off of it. ie educational purposes

 

[johnrk]

Ask Robert

He'll confirm what I questioned.

 

[speedqueen]

CU is certainly a No No, but this isn't CU, this is an Australian consumer magazine of the same type.

Content isn't just redistributable if you don't make money on it because while the person posting doesn't make money, the content creator which relies on paid subscriptions, either paper or online, to make money, loses money because the information is accessible without them ever receiving a payment.

Weather this is legal pertains to Australian copyright law. I do, however, know for certain that posting CR results, at least overtly, is illegal. Same reason that there used to be the old 1950s CU reports listed on the main page of AW until Robert realized they they were still actually under copyright law and took them down a few years ago.

 

[mark_wpduet]

Back to the 2018 SQ

Am I understanding correctly that this model hasn't been released yet, and they are still testing it? Or is this the final product?