Leave Our Washers Alone!!
- Thread starter westyslantfront
- Start date
Help Support :
Not bad for one's colon either.
Overdosing the detergent then masking it all with a waxy thick and goooey heavily-scented fabric softener is a great way to get a stinky wash.
Reloading one's laundry with wax from a dryer sheet is another way to ensure a stinky, dirty wash.
Overdosing the detergent then masking it all with a waxy thick and goooey heavily-scented fabric softener is a great way to get a stinky wash.
Reloading one's laundry with wax from a dryer sheet is another way to ensure a stinky, dirty wash.
hotpoint9534
Well-known member
Did anyone find out whether an Indesit Moon can do a 90c wash or not?
Perhaps Indesit expect people to pour a kettle full of boiling water into the machine to give it a good clean, either that or they don't expect the machine to live long enough to actually require cleaning.
I once came across a Zanussi front loader where the owner had been using Fairy non-bio liquid for 10 years and never washed above 40c. That machine smelled appalling! The entire seal was coated in a thick, grimy layer of Fairy.
Perhaps Indesit expect people to pour a kettle full of boiling water into the machine to give it a good clean, either that or they don't expect the machine to live long enough to actually require cleaning.
I once came across a Zanussi front loader where the owner had been using Fairy non-bio liquid for 10 years and never washed above 40c. That machine smelled appalling! The entire seal was coated in a thick, grimy layer of Fairy.
decodriveboy
Member
Keep in mind guys that front loaders here in the States differ greatly from European ones, and not in a good way in my opinion! All this eco, water-saving bullshit needs to stop already when it comes to laundry.
westyslantfront
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,718
Hi Patrick. Although we do need to keep some degree of conservation in mind, I think that sometimes, people have gone overboard. As the saying goes...."too much of a good thing..."
Ross
Ross
newwave1
Well-known member
Hey tom,
the moon does NOT have a 90degree cycle. They probably don't expect people to notice or the machine to last.
Though in its defence i hear they're proving reliable to people who aren't bothered about not being able to do a fast spin on anything but white cotton!
Darren
the moon does NOT have a 90degree cycle. They probably don't expect people to notice or the machine to last.
Though in its defence i hear they're proving reliable to people who aren't bothered about not being able to do a fast spin on anything but white cotton!
Darren
decodriveboy
Member
WAY too much! 
what kills me more...
are the folks that won't recycle ANY newspaper, glass, cans - NOTHING. I think yes, folks should conserve water - and agree with not keeping the water running when brushing teeth, shaving, washing and rinsing dishes (that's also a lot of WASTED water). When possible I try to recycle the plastic forks and spoons from takeout, the plastic containers that some restaurants use can also be recycled. We may go back to a classic TL when the Frigmore's bearing finally dies (it is not on life support - yet). In this FL I recently experimented by doing a load on 'delicate' vs. 'normal' cycle. The clothes did not feel all that much different in dampness but certainly had less wrinkles. Drying time did not seem to go up that much - maybe another 10 minutes? Conservation takes on many forms
are the folks that won't recycle ANY newspaper, glass, cans - NOTHING. I think yes, folks should conserve water - and agree with not keeping the water running when brushing teeth, shaving, washing and rinsing dishes (that's also a lot of WASTED water). When possible I try to recycle the plastic forks and spoons from takeout, the plastic containers that some restaurants use can also be recycled. We may go back to a classic TL when the Frigmore's bearing finally dies (it is not on life support - yet). In this FL I recently experimented by doing a load on 'delicate' vs. 'normal' cycle. The clothes did not feel all that much different in dampness but certainly had less wrinkles. Drying time did not seem to go up that much - maybe another 10 minutes? Conservation takes on many forms
~Conservation takes on many forms.
Having one fewer child is perhaps the best way to conserve resources.......technically.
Water usage reduction is ok, but OIL-use reduction.........
Retrain and divert military personnel that are currently overseas to the task of installing photo-voltiac (power generating) solar collectors on every roof in this country and I'll show YOU a smart use of resources to the aim of conservation, foreign oil independence and greater self-sufficiency.
Having one fewer child is perhaps the best way to conserve resources.......technically.
Water usage reduction is ok, but OIL-use reduction.........
Retrain and divert military personnel that are currently overseas to the task of installing photo-voltiac (power generating) solar collectors on every roof in this country and I'll show YOU a smart use of resources to the aim of conservation, foreign oil independence and greater self-sufficiency.
newwave1
Well-known member
Oops i forgot to add my piece on water conservation and washers!
There was a time over here when manufacturers decided to start making machines save unnecessary wastage on machines, they for a few years stuck to the 65-70litre bracket, i don't know what that is in gallons for the US guys.
Now that seemed to be a good amount, the machines didn't over use water, they rinsed to a good standard too.
then in 2000, they dropped to stupid levels, and it is no coincidence that from the year 2000, skin problems in the uk rose with the decline in washing machine water usage! & that is why every machine just about on the market for years and years has had an extra rinse facility! Because it takes a certain amount of water to Rinse detergent out effectively!!!!!!!!!!
Though it appears the manufacturers know this, as machines are slowly creeping back up in water usuage.
Cold fill is great, heating in the machine the amount of water needed.
I've always gone on the line that doing full loads & using the right amount of detergent is the best way to be do things economically, as opposed to little and often!
Darren
There was a time over here when manufacturers decided to start making machines save unnecessary wastage on machines, they for a few years stuck to the 65-70litre bracket, i don't know what that is in gallons for the US guys.
Now that seemed to be a good amount, the machines didn't over use water, they rinsed to a good standard too.
then in 2000, they dropped to stupid levels, and it is no coincidence that from the year 2000, skin problems in the uk rose with the decline in washing machine water usage! & that is why every machine just about on the market for years and years has had an extra rinse facility! Because it takes a certain amount of water to Rinse detergent out effectively!!!!!!!!!!
Though it appears the manufacturers know this, as machines are slowly creeping back up in water usuage.
Cold fill is great, heating in the machine the amount of water needed.
I've always gone on the line that doing full loads & using the right amount of detergent is the best way to be do things economically, as opposed to little and often!
Darren
westyslantfront
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,718
Hi Darren. Our machines in the US generally do not heat the water. I use warm water for colors and hot water for whites.
I have had two tankless water heaters installed. They are much more expensive than the average 40 gallon hot water heater used in most homes. The tankless also required a larger gas line, larger exhaust, and an air intake.
I am all for reasonable conservation.
They came up with the 3 liter flush toilets but many times, people who have them have to flush 2 or 3 times. Where is the water savings? A low water usage toilet would be ok if it worked better.
I have found that many of the newer machines have longer cycles. That leads me to believe that they may use less water but more electricity. Again, where is the savings?
Ross
I have had two tankless water heaters installed. They are much more expensive than the average 40 gallon hot water heater used in most homes. The tankless also required a larger gas line, larger exhaust, and an air intake.
I am all for reasonable conservation.
They came up with the 3 liter flush toilets but many times, people who have them have to flush 2 or 3 times. Where is the water savings? A low water usage toilet would be ok if it worked better.
I have found that many of the newer machines have longer cycles. That leads me to believe that they may use less water but more electricity. Again, where is the savings?
Ross
kirk280980
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 172
Couldn't agree more 
)
Having had a washer with super-stingy water levels (Zanussi Jetsystem), I would never want another one again. It did wash well, but a normal cottons cycle with extra rinse took 2h 26m to complete, and even then the rinsing performance was consistently dreadful. Nothing particularly unusual for a Euro machine at the time, but I too am glad this trend is reversing somewhat and we now have other choices.
About a month ago I had a Hotpoint Aqualtis delivered, and the difference between the two machines is like night and day. Gives a nice, splashy wash followed by three deep rinses, or four with the extra rinse option selected. The Shirts cycle fills halfway up the door glass in each stage of the programme. It also takes a much bigger load, and the normal 40c cotton wash almost a whole hour quicker. What's not to like about that? Have to say I've been very impressed with it so far, and am not missing the old machine one bit. Only downside is the lack of a rinse hold facility, but I'm sure I'll survive without that.
There's a very fine line between being *too economical* purely for the sake of it, versus being *economical enough*. Give me the latter any day! There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a sufficient amount of water to do the job properly, as long as it's not being wasted unnecessarily.
)Having had a washer with super-stingy water levels (Zanussi Jetsystem), I would never want another one again. It did wash well, but a normal cottons cycle with extra rinse took 2h 26m to complete, and even then the rinsing performance was consistently dreadful. Nothing particularly unusual for a Euro machine at the time, but I too am glad this trend is reversing somewhat and we now have other choices.
About a month ago I had a Hotpoint Aqualtis delivered, and the difference between the two machines is like night and day. Gives a nice, splashy wash followed by three deep rinses, or four with the extra rinse option selected. The Shirts cycle fills halfway up the door glass in each stage of the programme. It also takes a much bigger load, and the normal 40c cotton wash almost a whole hour quicker. What's not to like about that? Have to say I've been very impressed with it so far, and am not missing the old machine one bit. Only downside is the lack of a rinse hold facility, but I'm sure I'll survive without that.
There's a very fine line between being *too economical* purely for the sake of it, versus being *economical enough*. Give me the latter any day! There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a sufficient amount of water to do the job properly, as long as it's not being wasted unnecessarily.
1 U.S. gallon (as opposed to an imperial gallon) = 3.78 litres. Therefore 4.0 litres per gallon is a quick an easy mnemonic device/method.
Let me bring you up-to-speed on the English system. (That's TRES ironic isn't it?)
1 cup = 8 fluid ounces = 230ml.
2 cups = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart (a/k/a 4 cups)
4 quarts = 1 U.S. gallon
There will be a quiz next week.
1kg of water is the definition, IIRC, of a litre.
One U.S. gallon of water weighs 8.345 lbs. (pounds)so figure 8 lbs. rounded. Since a U.S. gallon of water is 4 quarts with 4 cups in each, then a gallon of water is 16 cups. Therefore each cup weighs half a pound. Since there are 16 ounces per pound, each cup then weighs 8 ounce or 1/2 a pound.
How's that for useless tid-bit?
There will be a quiz nex week.
Let me bring you up-to-speed on the English system. (That's TRES ironic isn't it?)
1 cup = 8 fluid ounces = 230ml.
2 cups = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart (a/k/a 4 cups)
4 quarts = 1 U.S. gallon
There will be a quiz next week.
1kg of water is the definition, IIRC, of a litre.
One U.S. gallon of water weighs 8.345 lbs. (pounds)so figure 8 lbs. rounded. Since a U.S. gallon of water is 4 quarts with 4 cups in each, then a gallon of water is 16 cups. Therefore each cup weighs half a pound. Since there are 16 ounces per pound, each cup then weighs 8 ounce or 1/2 a pound.
How's that for useless tid-bit?
There will be a quiz nex week.
dirtybuck
Well-known member
Uh, Toggle...
In regards to the quiz, I won't be here...I'm gonna have a uh..er, headache or something. How much will it count towards my final grade?
In regards to the quiz, I won't be here...I'm gonna have a uh..er, headache or something. How much will it count towards my final grade?
Cracks whip....
oh a headache is certainly not the way to get a make-up grade.
oh a headache is certainly not the way to get a make-up grade.
decodriveboy
Member
"The Shirts cycle fills halfway up the door glass in ea
Something that you will never even come close to seeing in the US!
I wish our country would import some European sense.
Something that you will never even come close to seeing in the US!
I wish our country would import some European sense.
What I don't understand is why go from one extreme to the other----from top-loaders with plenty of water to a few tablespoons in a front-loader.
Why not a front-loader with a nice decent water-fill level?
Why not a front-loader with a nice decent water-fill level?
Front Loader vs Top Loader
I guess it depends on the Brand of washer. I have the FridGEmore front load washer, and very please with it.. I did not want to spend over $500 for a washer. Got this washer on sale for $400, and does the job.
On normal cycle it takes about 40-45 minutes to do a load of wash.
Water is cheap here, but saved over 13,000 gallons of water in year, gas bill droped from $88 a month down to $66 a month. (dryer and water heater is gas.)
I don't know about the other guys out there like LG how long it takes to do a load. But I see no point of spending that much money.
I guess it depends on the Brand of washer. I have the FridGEmore front load washer, and very please with it.. I did not want to spend over $500 for a washer. Got this washer on sale for $400, and does the job.
On normal cycle it takes about 40-45 minutes to do a load of wash.
Water is cheap here, but saved over 13,000 gallons of water in year, gas bill droped from $88 a month down to $66 a month. (dryer and water heater is gas.)
I don't know about the other guys out there like LG how long it takes to do a load. But I see no point of spending that much money.
Why not a front-loader with a nice decent water-fill level?
Isn't it because they clean better with little water? It's better when the clothes are actually DROPPED into water, not merely twirled around with it, which was the case with earlier front loaders that did not clean very well.
Btw, if you look at my thread showing a new Whirlpool Duet, it does do a high-water level rinse, so rinsing is NEVER a issue, and the normal cycle only takes 51 minutes.
And as fas a top-loaders, they are WAY past their prime. New TL's just plain suck these days. I'd rather enjoy the rich heritage of TL's, but move on when it comes to new washers. Fl's are just a better design.
Isn't it because they clean better with little water? It's better when the clothes are actually DROPPED into water, not merely twirled around with it, which was the case with earlier front loaders that did not clean very well.
Btw, if you look at my thread showing a new Whirlpool Duet, it does do a high-water level rinse, so rinsing is NEVER a issue, and the normal cycle only takes 51 minutes.
And as fas a top-loaders, they are WAY past their prime. New TL's just plain suck these days. I'd rather enjoy the rich heritage of TL's, but move on when it comes to new washers. Fl's are just a better design.
kirk280980
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 172
Why not a front-loader with a nice decent water-fill level?
Indeed, and we're not necessarily talking about vast increases here either. Raising the water level by just an inch or two would be more than enough to satisfy most users, while still maintaining sufficient lift-and-drop wash action. Overall this would make little difference in total water consumption... a few gallons perhaps? Point is there would still be considerable savings when compared to a top loader.
Indeed, and we're not necessarily talking about vast increases here either. Raising the water level by just an inch or two would be more than enough to satisfy most users, while still maintaining sufficient lift-and-drop wash action. Overall this would make little difference in total water consumption... a few gallons perhaps? Point is there would still be considerable savings when compared to a top loader.
Similar threads
