First, this article...
First, some info about changes in washing machines
- Thread starter peterh770
- Start date
Help Support :
arbilab
Well-known member
I have a 20gal/load frontloader from 1998. It works perfectly, considering the restrictions goobermint has placed on detergent. At least it uses water well enough to remove the detergent, with 5 rinses.
You just can't duplicate that with a toploader, with which Americans seem ignorantly obsessed. Take the water out of a TL and you get low performance, fabric damage, and detergent residue.
But again the goobermint is closing in on full-performance toploaders, just like they did with low-flow toilets that take 3 flushes to get rid of a mookeystink.
I'm not a rightwinger. I'm not a 'winger' at all, because they are both unsustainably corrupt. These are all actions of a bureaucracy of stupidity, throwing out regulations with the primary goal always the sustenance of the bureaucracy. If they ever SOLVED a problem, the need for the bureaucracy would evaporate and that's the last thing in the world they will allow to happen.
You just can't duplicate that with a toploader, with which Americans seem ignorantly obsessed. Take the water out of a TL and you get low performance, fabric damage, and detergent residue.
But again the goobermint is closing in on full-performance toploaders, just like they did with low-flow toilets that take 3 flushes to get rid of a mookeystink.
I'm not a rightwinger. I'm not a 'winger' at all, because they are both unsustainably corrupt. These are all actions of a bureaucracy of stupidity, throwing out regulations with the primary goal always the sustenance of the bureaucracy. If they ever SOLVED a problem, the need for the bureaucracy would evaporate and that's the last thing in the world they will allow to happen.
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
low-flow toilets
What's wrong with them?! Mine has 6 litres "big" flush and gets rid of everything the first time!
For liquids you have a manual flush that as soon as you release your hand stops, works every time.
Regarding washing machines I think that this run to water and power conservation is right, but I can see that in the USA it has been applied the wrong way, imposing it to the consumers with visible (bad) results.
If front loaders were introduced the same way as here in the past the switch would have come naturally and not in such an abrupt manner with so much malcontent! Plus detergents companies and equipment makers would have had time to improve on their product before putting on the market all that crap!
What's wrong with them?! Mine has 6 litres "big" flush and gets rid of everything the first time!
For liquids you have a manual flush that as soon as you release your hand stops, works every time.
Regarding washing machines I think that this run to water and power conservation is right, but I can see that in the USA it has been applied the wrong way, imposing it to the consumers with visible (bad) results.
If front loaders were introduced the same way as here in the past the switch would have come naturally and not in such an abrupt manner with so much malcontent! Plus detergents companies and equipment makers would have had time to improve on their product before putting on the market all that crap!
Front loading automatic washers are not new to the U.S.. by any means. Bendix had them in the late 1930's. Through out the 1940's through the mid 1950's front loaders were all the rage in the U.S. Bendix and Westinghouse were two of the major supplies of FL.
People seem to think FL are something new in the U.S., they certainly are not. Many people in European countries were using scrubboards and buckets while people in the U.S. were enjoying automatic washing in their Bendix front loaders.
People seem to think FL are something new in the U.S., they certainly are not. Many people in European countries were using scrubboards and buckets while people in the U.S. were enjoying automatic washing in their Bendix front loaders.
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
@bwoods/Barry
I understand perfectly what you said! We still used scrub-boards while the USA already had automatic front loaders. Indeed my grandma had her first automatic washing machine in the late 60s.
But regardless of this, front loaders have always been a minority (I'd say niche product) of all the sales, so indeed they are "new" for the masses and combined with the lack of self heat, shorter cycles, imposed water savings, detergents that lagged behind and shorter cycles, the results have been less than perfect!
I hope I made my point clear now.
I understand perfectly what you said! We still used scrub-boards while the USA already had automatic front loaders. Indeed my grandma had her first automatic washing machine in the late 60s.
But regardless of this, front loaders have always been a minority (I'd say niche product) of all the sales, so indeed they are "new" for the masses and combined with the lack of self heat, shorter cycles, imposed water savings, detergents that lagged behind and shorter cycles, the results have been less than perfect!
I hope I made my point clear now.
I understand. But in the U.S. the first automatic toploader was not sold until 1947, by GE.
The first automatic front loader was in 1937. So the front loader, in the U.S. was the majority seller, in automatic machines for wellover ten years as an automatic toploader had yet to be marketed. Even in the late forties/early fifties, it was still number one and millions were sold.
I am not sure why the front loader eventually got superceded by the top loader. Just speculation, but I guess it was convenience as one did not have to stoop over to load and unload. Until Westinghouse came out with their Laundromat Series, where the water level stayed below the opening, you also could not add clothes once the cycle had started.
Some of the earlier front loaders required bolt-down on the floor to not dance around while spinning. Also, before the advent of FL washing tubs that reverse direction, front loaders often tangled laundry. My 1982 White Westinghouse front loader (which I loved) did have a propensity to tangle shirts and sheets sometimes.
Maybe it was a combination of these things that knocked our front loading machines out of the #1 spot which they held in the late 1930's through the early 1950's.
Many younger people, in the U.S. actually think the front loader is a new invention, hehe.
They have never been out of production, in the U.S. since introduction to the U.S. home market,by Bendix, in 1937. By the late 1970's I don't think anyone mass produced them in the U.S. except for Westinghouse (actually Westinghouse became White-Westinghouse which became Electrolux.)
By the mid to late nineties they found a new following in the U.S.. So the front loader has gone from the majority in automatic machines, in the U.S. over seventy years ago to the minority, and is now on its way back to probably becoming the best seller again.
In the U.S., in the early 1980's, White-Westinghouse (White Consolidated Industries) had a media campaign selling their front loading washers as "New Generation" This was even written in script on the control panels of their machines as was on my 1982 WW FL.
I am sure the marketers at White Consolidated about laughed themself silly as they were using virtually the same assembly line and virtually the same design as the 1950's and 1960's Westinghouse front loaders. I have to give their marketing people credit for sticking a control panel onto a machine that had been in continuous production for over 40 years and calling it "New Generation!"
The first automatic front loader was in 1937. So the front loader, in the U.S. was the majority seller, in automatic machines for wellover ten years as an automatic toploader had yet to be marketed. Even in the late forties/early fifties, it was still number one and millions were sold.
I am not sure why the front loader eventually got superceded by the top loader. Just speculation, but I guess it was convenience as one did not have to stoop over to load and unload. Until Westinghouse came out with their Laundromat Series, where the water level stayed below the opening, you also could not add clothes once the cycle had started.
Some of the earlier front loaders required bolt-down on the floor to not dance around while spinning. Also, before the advent of FL washing tubs that reverse direction, front loaders often tangled laundry. My 1982 White Westinghouse front loader (which I loved) did have a propensity to tangle shirts and sheets sometimes.
Maybe it was a combination of these things that knocked our front loading machines out of the #1 spot which they held in the late 1930's through the early 1950's.
Many younger people, in the U.S. actually think the front loader is a new invention, hehe.
They have never been out of production, in the U.S. since introduction to the U.S. home market,by Bendix, in 1937. By the late 1970's I don't think anyone mass produced them in the U.S. except for Westinghouse (actually Westinghouse became White-Westinghouse which became Electrolux.)
By the mid to late nineties they found a new following in the U.S.. So the front loader has gone from the majority in automatic machines, in the U.S. over seventy years ago to the minority, and is now on its way back to probably becoming the best seller again.
In the U.S., in the early 1980's, White-Westinghouse (White Consolidated Industries) had a media campaign selling their front loading washers as "New Generation" This was even written in script on the control panels of their machines as was on my 1982 WW FL.
I am sure the marketers at White Consolidated about laughed themself silly as they were using virtually the same assembly line and virtually the same design as the 1950's and 1960's Westinghouse front loaders. I have to give their marketing people credit for sticking a control panel onto a machine that had been in continuous production for over 40 years and calling it "New Generation!"
arbilab
Well-known member
What's wrong with low flow toilets? Nothing, if you get a good one. Mine is 6 l like yours and works fine. Does not have the quick-flush option though.
Many bad ones have been made. Seldom do you get to try them before you buy them.
Many bad ones have been made. Seldom do you get to try them before you buy them.
Thank a lesbian?
From the article:
"So there you have it. Politicians, environmentalists, and meddlesome bureaucrats have teamed up to dream up another attempt to serve the public interest. Left to its own the invisible hand of entrepreneurial competition would have naturally made doing laundry easier, better, cheaper, and more efficient. Instead we have more expensive, more inefficient, and truly ineffective clothes-washing machines."
The author cites statistics from (presumably) Consumer Reports from way back in 2007, despite having published this article just last May. CR has consistently given excellent scores to many HE washing machines and have even called a few HE washers "the best cleaning washers they have ever tested" since 2007. Ignoring facts and lazy research abound in this obvious attempt at making the "goobermint" to blame for everyone slogging around in dirty clothes. Not only does this not jive with testing agency ratings, but were that truly the case, the public outcry and rates of returned washers would be overwhelming. Neither are the case. The author, in an effort to crank out agitating schlock to affect his (or the "Institute's") political agenda also completely ignores the facts that led to more stringent resource consumption requirements for household (and commercial) appliances. Initially, it was the manufacturers that helped to set the reduction goals which were far exceeded long before laws mandating the same went into effect. The numbers were not pulled out of thin air, it was cooperation between government and manufacturers that brought us to where we are now. Subsequently, in a "race to the bottom" we witnessed firsthand the washing machine makers undercutting one another in water usage which has a direct correlation to energy bills and consumer's pockets. Not a difficult sale to make when you tell consumers, largely ignorant of the consumption levels of then current technology, that they could see utility savings in large numbers. "I'll take it!" We're now seeing the same thing with dishwashers, claims of a machine's ability to scrub a huge load of dishes clean in less than four gallons of water with the latest in (hobbled) detergent technology.
While not attempting to defend the decisions and laws enacted thus far concerning energy and water usage ratings of washing machines, the fear mongering of the author is blatantly apparent. Making people distrust, and even hate their government is the obvious goal, completely ignorant of the truth that we, the people, elect and maintain our government as we see fit. If you are unhappy with the energy standards or the manner in which your toilet flushes, there are many avenues for citizens of a democratic republic to address their grievances. Write your members of congress; city, state and federal representatives really do read their mail and with enough of an outcry, will alter their positions in order to keep their jobs given to them as a privilege by the people for whom they work. Not happy with the "goobermint"? Go vote. It's about time more citizens take the responsibility upon themselves for our country, for too long we've had a government elected by a minority of it's citizens. The 2010 election is a perfect example. Numbers of those eligible to vote that turned up at the polls was pathetic. A congress of the U.S. with a 9% approval rating? We have nobody to blame but ourselves. Bought a product you're not happy with? Complain, return the product and demand more and better from manufacturers. They also are in business to keep staying in business and adjust their engineering and development to meet the demands of consumers.
Just what exactly is the point of this article then? A quick tour of the topics and their authors, even the founding principals would raise an eyebrow in skepticism of even the most enamored "libertarian".
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."
"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism."
Nice.
I love my Speed Queen front load washer. I've never fiddled with the water level and get great results every time. Before this, I had a 2004 Duet washer that I also liked. Never once did I feel that my clothes were not clean. I may be a bit more fastidious in my laundry habits than the average consumer (aren't we all? we're here after all) but if I didn't think I was getting clean laundry, I would not have kept the Duet washer, let alone replace it with another front loader.
<!--?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?--><!--?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?-->
<span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 16pt; color: midnightblue;"> </span>
From the article:
"So there you have it. Politicians, environmentalists, and meddlesome bureaucrats have teamed up to dream up another attempt to serve the public interest. Left to its own the invisible hand of entrepreneurial competition would have naturally made doing laundry easier, better, cheaper, and more efficient. Instead we have more expensive, more inefficient, and truly ineffective clothes-washing machines."
The author cites statistics from (presumably) Consumer Reports from way back in 2007, despite having published this article just last May. CR has consistently given excellent scores to many HE washing machines and have even called a few HE washers "the best cleaning washers they have ever tested" since 2007. Ignoring facts and lazy research abound in this obvious attempt at making the "goobermint" to blame for everyone slogging around in dirty clothes. Not only does this not jive with testing agency ratings, but were that truly the case, the public outcry and rates of returned washers would be overwhelming. Neither are the case. The author, in an effort to crank out agitating schlock to affect his (or the "Institute's") political agenda also completely ignores the facts that led to more stringent resource consumption requirements for household (and commercial) appliances. Initially, it was the manufacturers that helped to set the reduction goals which were far exceeded long before laws mandating the same went into effect. The numbers were not pulled out of thin air, it was cooperation between government and manufacturers that brought us to where we are now. Subsequently, in a "race to the bottom" we witnessed firsthand the washing machine makers undercutting one another in water usage which has a direct correlation to energy bills and consumer's pockets. Not a difficult sale to make when you tell consumers, largely ignorant of the consumption levels of then current technology, that they could see utility savings in large numbers. "I'll take it!" We're now seeing the same thing with dishwashers, claims of a machine's ability to scrub a huge load of dishes clean in less than four gallons of water with the latest in (hobbled) detergent technology.
While not attempting to defend the decisions and laws enacted thus far concerning energy and water usage ratings of washing machines, the fear mongering of the author is blatantly apparent. Making people distrust, and even hate their government is the obvious goal, completely ignorant of the truth that we, the people, elect and maintain our government as we see fit. If you are unhappy with the energy standards or the manner in which your toilet flushes, there are many avenues for citizens of a democratic republic to address their grievances. Write your members of congress; city, state and federal representatives really do read their mail and with enough of an outcry, will alter their positions in order to keep their jobs given to them as a privilege by the people for whom they work. Not happy with the "goobermint"? Go vote. It's about time more citizens take the responsibility upon themselves for our country, for too long we've had a government elected by a minority of it's citizens. The 2010 election is a perfect example. Numbers of those eligible to vote that turned up at the polls was pathetic. A congress of the U.S. with a 9% approval rating? We have nobody to blame but ourselves. Bought a product you're not happy with? Complain, return the product and demand more and better from manufacturers. They also are in business to keep staying in business and adjust their engineering and development to meet the demands of consumers.
Just what exactly is the point of this article then? A quick tour of the topics and their authors, even the founding principals would raise an eyebrow in skepticism of even the most enamored "libertarian".
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."
"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism."
Nice.
I love my Speed Queen front load washer. I've never fiddled with the water level and get great results every time. Before this, I had a 2004 Duet washer that I also liked. Never once did I feel that my clothes were not clean. I may be a bit more fastidious in my laundry habits than the average consumer (aren't we all? we're here after all) but if I didn't think I was getting clean laundry, I would not have kept the Duet washer, let alone replace it with another front loader.
<!--?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?--><!--?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?-->
<span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 16pt; color: midnightblue;"> </span>
Oh, not another distorted article from the von Mises groupie crowd.
First we had the one claiming that the TSP you can get in hardware stores is what you want to add to modern laundry detergents (instead of the real thing, which is STPP). The author didn't do his homework on that one, and I very much doubt he ever actually added TSP to his laundry as he claimed.
Now we have him claiming that Consumer Reports rates HE washers as mediocre at best. Well, I've been a CR subscriber for decades and have noticed that HE washers have often been rated very good to excellent in washing efficiency - even some HE top loaders like the Maytag Bravos or its corporate badge-mate, the Whirlpool Cabrio. One must also take some of CR's results with a grain of salt. Their test articles appear to be one foot square swatches of fabric. Sort of like wash cloths. Well, how many of us wear wash cloths to work? What might work well on a square foot of fabric won't necessarily work the same on a set of king size sheets, a comforter, or even a pair of slacks or a a shirt. But I digress.
I heard enough of the von Mises claptrap over on a debate forum a few years back to know that these people generally have a screw loose (or a bunch of loose change in the dryer drum). They appear to live in some idealized world where only their pet economic and social theories are valid. I'm a bit annoyed that they are now intruding into laundry matters in order to beat their tin drums. End of rant ;-)
First we had the one claiming that the TSP you can get in hardware stores is what you want to add to modern laundry detergents (instead of the real thing, which is STPP). The author didn't do his homework on that one, and I very much doubt he ever actually added TSP to his laundry as he claimed.
Now we have him claiming that Consumer Reports rates HE washers as mediocre at best. Well, I've been a CR subscriber for decades and have noticed that HE washers have often been rated very good to excellent in washing efficiency - even some HE top loaders like the Maytag Bravos or its corporate badge-mate, the Whirlpool Cabrio. One must also take some of CR's results with a grain of salt. Their test articles appear to be one foot square swatches of fabric. Sort of like wash cloths. Well, how many of us wear wash cloths to work? What might work well on a square foot of fabric won't necessarily work the same on a set of king size sheets, a comforter, or even a pair of slacks or a a shirt. But I digress.
I heard enough of the von Mises claptrap over on a debate forum a few years back to know that these people generally have a screw loose (or a bunch of loose change in the dryer drum). They appear to live in some idealized world where only their pet economic and social theories are valid. I'm a bit annoyed that they are now intruding into laundry matters in order to beat their tin drums. End of rant ;-)
Now I think this is an
interesting article. But I do agree there is no sense in restricting water usage in the rinse cycle. Water is a renewable resource when we stay under 7 billion people!
www.dailymail.co.uk
interesting article. But I do agree there is no sense in restricting water usage in the rinse cycle. Water is a renewable resource when we stay under 7 billion people!
How washing machines can put your family's health at risk: Low temperatures and mixed loads are spreading dangerous bugs
Experts are concerned our bid to save the planet — and money — will affect our health.
Amen, Jon. Restricting rinse water is without merit unless you are in a water shortage situation. Since I bear no responsibility for any population increase, I cannot worry about population levels versus available water two generations hence. If there is a problem, looming or immediate, then I would restrict those who are anti-birth control to 3 cups of fresh water a day. They can drink all of the sea water they want, however. I add nothing to the water coming out of my house that will poison the ground water. Due to the water cycle, water is inherently self-cleaning. Since the law of conservation of matter states that matter can neither be destroyed nor created, the Earth has the same amount of water it always has. Those who ruin the ground water with toxins should be made to clean it up at their own expense, but don't give us this bull crap that we cannot satisfactorily rinse laundry or dishes because we will run out of water. Most of this water usage BS is a scam by governments to avoid building water treatment plants by putting the burden of water usage on consumers. They did not want to invest in the process to remove phosphate from sewage so consumers had to deal with the removal of phosphates from detergents when most of the phosphate that is polluting waterways is from agricultural runoff, but the agriculture lobby is rich & powerful while consumers are largely uninformed and bovine in their passivity.
I have no objection to water efficiency...
...but only if the machines work.
I am PRO front loader. I've used numerous Euro front loaders both here, and in Europe. Yet everything made for the US market is a POS.
Take the Whirlpool Duet I have (please). I sold my old (Euro sized) Asko to buy it. WHy did I do this ? 'Cause king sized comforters would not fit in the 50 litre drum. Well, this is fine BUT:
1. It's use of internal heat is spotty at best, claiming that it will reach the various temperatures (which the manufacturers are cagey about telling you) for "at least 5 minutes during the wash." Hello? If I want to wash something at 105 degrees F, I want it to do a profile wash at that time.
2. It's needed FIVE repairs in under 5 years. I've had a whole new motor put in, a gasket, and other things. Fortunately I bought the extended warranty.
3. It doesn't rinse. Again, my euro front loader DID.
4. It's relatively noisy by comparison.
And the price difference between the Euro machines and this is not great.
Why aren't the Euro machines more popular in America? Folks complain that 80-120 minutes for a wash is too long. Well, since I don't decide to wash my clothes 45 minutes before going out, it isn't a big deal for me.
The American mania for washing things in cold water is also to blame....US folks don't know what CLEAN, SOAP FREE clothes are.
I'm thinking when this Duet goes (probably any day now) I'll get another Asko...they now have a 3 year warranty, and some of them have 60 litre drums...which MIGHT fit the king sized comforter.
And don't even get me started on ovens that don't keep even temperature
...but only if the machines work.
I am PRO front loader. I've used numerous Euro front loaders both here, and in Europe. Yet everything made for the US market is a POS.
Take the Whirlpool Duet I have (please). I sold my old (Euro sized) Asko to buy it. WHy did I do this ? 'Cause king sized comforters would not fit in the 50 litre drum. Well, this is fine BUT:
1. It's use of internal heat is spotty at best, claiming that it will reach the various temperatures (which the manufacturers are cagey about telling you) for "at least 5 minutes during the wash." Hello? If I want to wash something at 105 degrees F, I want it to do a profile wash at that time.
2. It's needed FIVE repairs in under 5 years. I've had a whole new motor put in, a gasket, and other things. Fortunately I bought the extended warranty.
3. It doesn't rinse. Again, my euro front loader DID.
4. It's relatively noisy by comparison.
And the price difference between the Euro machines and this is not great.
Why aren't the Euro machines more popular in America? Folks complain that 80-120 minutes for a wash is too long. Well, since I don't decide to wash my clothes 45 minutes before going out, it isn't a big deal for me.
The American mania for washing things in cold water is also to blame....US folks don't know what CLEAN, SOAP FREE clothes are.
I'm thinking when this Duet goes (probably any day now) I'll get another Asko...they now have a 3 year warranty, and some of them have 60 litre drums...which MIGHT fit the king sized comforter.
And don't even get me started on ovens that don't keep even temperature
Hunter, You could use duvet covers which would cut down on the amount of laundering of the comforter itself. Since the duvet covers are essentially the size of the corresponing sheets, they would fit in a regular washer.
wringingwet
Well-known member
This is why I love my asko washer that has a high temp of 205. Yes it may take longer more time for me to watch the tumble ... I also have an Asko dishwasher and it is amazing what the machine will clean with 4.5 gallons of water ... also hi temp for germs ...
I do believe that having high temp machine is what kept my husband and I healthy for 15 years with HIV ... I would not have anything else. Yes I know Asko is crap for service but where I live anything is almost crap for service.
Philippe
I do believe that having high temp machine is what kept my husband and I healthy for 15 years with HIV ... I would not have anything else. Yes I know Asko is crap for service but where I live anything is almost crap for service.
Philippe
Hunter
"Yet everything made for the US market is a POS. "
I don't think you have tried Speed Queen, which by the way is Made in the U.S.A.
Until you do you can't say that.
jon
"Yet everything made for the US market is a POS. "
I don't think you have tried Speed Queen, which by the way is Made in the U.S.A.
Until you do you can't say that.
jon
Tom
I love that !!
""but the agriculture lobby is rich & powerful while consumers are largely uninformed and bovine in their passivity. ""
Bovine in their passivity!!
I love that !!
""but the agriculture lobby is rich & powerful while consumers are largely uninformed and bovine in their passivity. ""
Bovine in their passivity!!
