New washing methodes uneffective?

[askomiele]

Well, besides the efficient tumble frontloadwashers and the traditional topload aggitatorwashers, engineers have searched for a combination between those two. First the callypso washer, but many electronic and transmission problems. Then the GE HARMONY, who was probably bad at washing. Next the maytag topload tl washer, extreme tangling and less cleaning performance. And now the kenmore Oasis, some of the first reviews are already complaining about the cleaning issue. Are they all realy as bad as it looks like. Or will there never be anything else then turning drum or oscillating aggitators to clean clothing?

 

[peterh770]

GE Harmony and the KM/WP Oasis are nothing more that oversized impeller machines, with the GE probably just using more water. They clean very well, but at what price to the big load resting on an impeller that has to turn quickly with such force to create good washing action?

Calypso and Neptune TL were truly innovative. Had some more R&D been done, they could have been good machines.

 

[vivalalavatrice]

Tunbling for half century...

I said it... Here we have been taking out the agitator system since the fifties! When I say "here" I mean in Italy but I could extend my concept to the whole rest of the Europe, I think... perhaps in UK you can still find some traditional American TL agitatorwasher.

We were building washers in Italy under Westinghouse license, then in the 1956, there was the real first Italian washer: it was a common FL tumble washer! REX, now Electrolux's brand.

If Italian producers, but I could say European producers, discontinued to produce agitator washer (which was the same system generally used for twin tube washer too), there will have been some reason, wouldn't it?

Me, I can't absolutely say exactly why, but of course because the tubling system uses very less water than the vertical axis, then I think because they will have found that system more effectivly, perhaps because it remembers such good the movement of the rocking handwash on the rivers sides!

Honestly I can't imagine any other washing system, maybe because I haven't ever seen any other...

That's what about Europe, and Italy in particular.

Concerning American market, I can't say any more than what you have just said.
If you analyze the machines you're considering, look at that, they're all TL washers, I mean vertical axis, either the Maytag Neptune, that tried to imitate tumbling system maintaining TL access.

I think American people feel very strong with TL v-axis, so producers can't avoid to produce machine like that... many different washing system but always TL v-axis.

What they call Frontloaders are the REAL REVOLUTION, because I think you haven't been seeing any tumbling washers again since the Bendix or slantfront Westinghouse

Yes, we come back to the Westinghouse, that was the point of sharing... from that point...

AMERICAN = AGITATOR
EUROPEAN = DRUM

I was always wondering why? Why the same starting point, lead to such different results???

And after that so "religiuos" and "philosophical" sentences, I MUST stop here...LOL!

Good Bye
Diomede

 

[agiflow]

Let's face facts...the majority of washer manufacturers built TL agitator style machines....yet the very first auto was a FL machine.

We are americans..convenience,...convenience,..ad nauseum..bla bla bla

 

[launderess]

It is not just ease of use that makes most Americans favour top loading washers, but the long cycle times of front loaders, versus methods of doing laundry that are by now generations old.

American housewives have by and large adhered to doing masses of laundry once a week, for this one needs a washer that can process relative large loads of laundry quickly. While many more Americans than in previous years are going "green" others simply feel if they can afford to pay their water bills what business is it for the government to force them to use, what they consider lesser quality front loaders.

Front loaders do cost more than top loaders, and given the rather sad quality state of many models it is highly unlikely they will last long enough to recoup any of the advertised savings on "water and power", to justify the higher initial out lay.

The problem with the American laundry market, is the same one that plauges the appliance market in general; only a handful of major players cover a majority of the market. Once Frigidaire washers competed against Philco-Bendix, Philco-Bendix competed against Maytag, Maytag against Whirlpool, and so on. This competition brough about innovation, today the only innovation one sees is units trying to meet absurd government standards that have little to do with real life.

The bright idea behind low water commodes, was to save water; but if one must flush several times to get the job done, where is the savings in that? Dishwashers today use so little water people run extra cycles to get the same results they had with "normal" on previous models.

By and large most Americans have large wardrobes, so the idea of making clothes "last longer" may have a limited appeal. A washer that heats water? In theory it sounds great, and when designed correclty can work wonders, but not if the feature adds 20 to 30 mins to a cycle that already runs one hour or more. Besides most Americans will quickly counter that sales pitch with the fact they already have a hot water heater. And what's more their mother did laundry in a non-heating top loader and no one died of disease nor was pointed out on the street for wearing dirty clothes.

L.

 

[bajaespuma]

My two cents. and I agree with Laundress

1. What was once a luxury( and still is in most of the world that is not the USA) has degenerated into a commodity. Manufacturers need to stand on their heads and dress in clown suits to hawk commodities. The market will be unstable until someone successfully reinvents the wheel.

2. Americans are still in the process of rejecting synthetic fabrics in favor of more traditional textiles. Some see this as a "green" movement; others see it as a trend towards more comfort less appearance. Synthetics don't wear well in the long boosted hot water cycles typical of European-style FL's. I use cotton sheets, as my Grandmother did because they're comfortable. I, however, don't bother to iron them, as she did, because I don't care if anyone notices that my bed sheets are wrinkled.

 

[mayken4now]

A world of QUICK-Get it Done

I wonder if the American folk (in the "fast track") realize that in this day and stressful age it takes:

Two major incomes to run a household.

DSL, not dial-up.

Get home from work at 6-7 PM. Get ready to go again at 5 AM.

Try to pack down dinner as fast as we can.

Get involved/caught in road rage.

Deal with our government (the bushes)

What's the market going to do today?

"Got to get a new one, """It's Faster""", """More is best"""

Then you add the kids, well well well. The plays, the ballgames, the after school projects, Scouts, playing with friends, and soon it is time for Christmas shopping to start. Oh my, what to buy. Then they all seem to have/be Bi-Polar, ADD, LDD, etc. "My child must ride in an air conditioned school bus."

With the kids, comes pets. The vet, the kittens, the puppys, and all the need and care combined.

A home cooked meal where the family sits down at 6 to have dinner. Oh please, don't exist gang!

Ok, my .02 cents, the American folk do not have time for the front loader. We create this turmiol. We continue to thrive on faster, faster, faster, more, more, more, and are getting less, less, less. We hardly find time to sleep, let alone laundry.

We (All Americans) should join this club. There is a lot to know about having multiple machine(s) in any household.

Steve

 

[vivalalavatrice]

BUT...

OK, I've understood that NO AMERICAN WANTS A FRONT-LOADing (meaning tumbling washers) with such long time cycles...

BUT:

1. First of all, is not up to you to do the laundry, as I've just said it other times... Once you put all in the drum, what does it matter if your washer takes 2h, or more or less???BETTER SO THE SHOW LAST MORE ))If you stand to see it going on...

2. The old tumbilng washers took untilL 2h (my Grandma's FL took 170min!!!!!), but that was only for the withest-whites cycle, which included a 20min-45°C pre-wash then 80min-90°C wash and 5 rinses with a 15min final spin!!! But there was only the cold inlet valve so the washer had to increase by itself the temprature of the water and that was the boring point, because during that phase the timer was stopped, until the temp had been reahced!!!

NOW IT IS NOT LIKE SO AGAIN!!!!

IF you consider that:
- even if the washer has got a built-in heater you can let it fill with water already heated up;
- cycles are more effectively that you can avoid to run pre-wash, and use low temperature!!! 90°C is almost not used more, whitest-whites go at 60°C-70°C max;
- detergents make less suds and so you need less time/water to rinse, so less rinse cycles.

A NORMAL CYCLE (i.e. Coloured Cottons), don't take of course more than 60-70 min.

Every European washers producer (Euro-folks help me to list them, please!), includes in the choice of the cycles of each machines at least one cycle like the one I described above.Electrolux for example hag got it!

THEN IF THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EURO-tumbling AND AMERICAN-tumbling, IT'S ALL ANOTHER THING. )

Diomede

 

[rinso]

HMMMMMMM----Funny thing is, I had an old White-Westy front load machine, the kind with the potato pulley. It was a very good performing machine, had three deep rinses, and took no longer than a typical front-load machine at the time. Extraction wasn't great, but still better than a WP/KM BD machine.

I realize that when you buzz a load of clothes up to 1000+ RPM, that balancing is crucial, but when I watch my HE3, I have observed other time-wasting processes in the cycles that might have been approached differently. Rinses need only be about a minute, and the intermittent catalyst fill doesn't need to be used on a rinse cycle. I have also wondered why, after a load is balanced and spun up to speed, the machine then slows and retumbles the load, which then has to be rebalanced.

 

[Bearpeter]

.... I just don't get it.....

For me, An FL with long wash times, starting with cold and gradual heat with bio detergent is the only way to remove stained clothes.

I have never gotten great cleaning without pre treating from a TL and I find the rinsing amazingly bad!!! (I accept I had a fridgidaire without extra rinse)

So long as I can set and forget, go to work and while there, the machine completes a long wash sequence, leaving my clothes spotless, I am happy. At the end of the day, the flippin' thing can take as long as it wants.... am I bovvered???

NO!

That's my bitty to it all!

Happy times to you all

Peter

 

[peterh770]

Stick with what you know that has been engrained in you from

The only reason that Americans stick with TL is because that is what they are used to! They went from the wash tub and scrub board to the agitator wringer. 99% of everyone had an agitator wringer. Women were very much used to soaking in the wringer and letting clothes agitate as long as needed in the wringer. So when FL automatics came out, while millions were sold, my guess is that most women wanted the better control they had over washing with their wringers. So when TL automatics started coming out, women went back to them because that better mimicked what they were used to. As life became more complicated and laundry became more of a "thoughtless, workless" process, users didn't want to worry about "enough suds to come half way up the window" or a suds overflow through the soap chute. Throw your clothes in the TL with soap, set the dial and walk away. They rarely didn't perform up to snuff, and users quickly knew to balance the load with the initial loading to prevent OOB, which was really the only thing that could go wrong.

Here we are today, and people making the switch have tons of ignorance, tons of questions, tons of problems, and tons of dissatisfaction with the new FL's. Energy Star guidlines for 2007 are only going to make it worse.

I believe for 2007, washers need to meet a "water factor" or 9 or less, with that factor calculated by the total number of gallons used divided by cubic feet of the wash tub. That plus the MFE of a cerain number will equal more people squawking about having to adjust their laundry habits.

It's all at the link below.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=clotheswash.pr_clothes_washers

 

[panthera]

this is all very intersting

I had no idea this was such a trauma for folks in the 'States. I grew up with a unimatic, so every TL which came after was already a disapointment.
FLs - at least the good ones (Miele, AEG, LG, Bosch/Siemens, Electrolux) was cleaner with less energy, water and chemicals than TLs.
They also spin dryer - meaning less time drying and in many cases no ironing.
Certainly they are much better at taking care of natural and synthetic fibres because the wash action and water level can be much better varied - as can the temperature and spin.
There are no advantages to TL.
Having said this, I live in a country with 6l toilets which flush away everything without difficulty. The imposition of those silly toilets on US citizens ranks right up there with some of the "curved-banana" nonsense we get from the EU here in Europe. Of course the older toilets wasted water.
They also got the job done with one flush. Including the paperwork.

 

[brisnat81]

I couldnt understand how a low flush toilet could be bad

and then 2 weeks ago, I had to experience a US low flush monstrosity in San Francisco.

It took 2 or 3 flushes to get rid of everything, and that was at 1.5Gal per flush.

We've got 4.5L full flush toilets in AU now, and it just works.

The Problem here in the US, seems to be, that they've persisted in using the same design of throne, as when it was invented in the 1800's

The toilets in AU dont use a vacuum to empty the bowl, you force water down from above, which displaces the solids below and forces them down the pipe. The fact that there is only about 400ml of water in the trap in an AU, means that nothing floats, and you can just force it all downwards. Once it makes it over the trap, there's no comming back, unlike in a US toilet.

The US way is pretty with the swirling vortex of water, but unless its using huge amounts of water, it doesnt seem very effective.

 

[mrsalvo]

Traditionally, American households had toploaders because that is what manufactures offered.My mother did alot of laundry from
1959 to 1985, as did most of our mom's, but my mother HATED frontloaders for bascially one reason....they didn't get clothes clean ENOUGH for her standards....and her standards were military. She just felt they didn't clean well. To be fair though, she was not too hot on some top loading models either, but nothing compared to her feelings on the frontloaders. For most of that time, we owned a Speed Queen, with a Wards-Norge thrown in for good measure. How many of our mom's (and dads's) were PARTICULAR about their machines???????
Now times have changed, we need things done NOW, our lifestyle is moving faster and faster and more IS required of us to make it in this life. Many of us simply do not have 80 minutes to washer one load of laundry, unless that is the only type of machine we are offered to purchase. American folks DO NOT have this kind of time on their hands....by and large. Steve you said it best.
Also, many felt you could really get best results from a top loader when washing only 2 or 3 items.
My 2 cents.

 

[launderess]

There is no getting around that for good results, top loaders need WATER to clean and rinse well. Given the government requirements, appliance makers have tried to have it both ways: present Mrs. Average American Housewife with something they are familiar with, and also combine some of the features of a front loader.

Americans by and large do not like bending over to load and unload washing machines. Manufacturers responded with several designs, ranging from tilted tubs to pedestals, with various methods of sucess.

The other problem is capacity: there is no getting around the fact that front loader design becomes complicated after about 6kgs. Larger machines require more robust suspension systems and parts designed to withstand the forces of 12-18lbs of wet laundry, especially when spinning. There is a reason commercial front loaders are built the way they are, and so expensive. Domestic washing machines makers do not have the luxury of charging upwards of $2000 USD for a washing machine. Well not if they wish to sell many of them anyway.

IMHO as the government keeps imposing silly restrictions/design requirements we are going to see those that know better seek out or keep running vintage washing machines. Just as there is a small but growing market for "older" commodes.

L.

 

[maytagbear]

Uh,

Most modern FLs I've seen have optional platforms.

I have decided that the Maytag I have now is going to be the last new TL I ever own.

Lawrence/Maytagbear

 

[tolivac]

I like the "Tried and True" best-the TL machines and the 5Gal potties.My home has the water gusher potties and I will stick with 'em.And yes I beleive in using WATER to wash clothes and dishes-as much as needed to do the job right-I want my dishes esp properly rinsed-otherwise you get the "hershey squirts" from poor rinse jobs-or food remains still on the dishes.As I have pointed out-cut the agency that determines energy and water standards for potties and appliances-we don't need big brother choosing our toilets and washers for us--I know more about it than they do!!The above matters--please let the market decide.That measns customers and the appliance-potty makers.After all-water use of appliances and toilets is NOTHING compared to how much water some people deluge onto their lawns and gardens-then they fill up those HUGE portable pools each spring-or leaving the hose on while soaping and scrubbing the car!!!enough water used in those activities to fill even the most water hog washers and potties MANY many times.True the water isn't heated for these-but being used just the same.Think of how many COLD water washer loads you could do!!!And the water runoff into the street drains --fertilizer from the lawn-pool chemicals from that pool-and detergent from the car wash going into the drains where it may not be treated and pollutes the lakes and what not.