Old Washing Machines Are Less Efficient and Consume More Energy

[arbilab]

I did the math (right?) once and the drum diameter is a very minor parameter WRT velocity, to the point it can be disregarded within the range of practical diameters. E.g., a 3-foot tub @ 800rpm is roughly half as effective as a 1-foot twintub spinner at 1300rpm. That is, 3 times the diameter performs half as well as half the speed.

 

[foraloysius]

I'm flabbergasted about how this thread went off topic. The research linked was about OLDER EUROPEAN FRONTLOADERS VS NEWER EUROPEAN FRONTLOADERS! Why on earth these rants about American toploaders showed up beats me. Probably people don't read what's the subject really is about. Same happened in the "heat pumps" thread, which was about a mini-split system. And then suddenly rants about regular heat pumps show up. Makes it hard to read a thread after a while!

 

[washer111]

My opinion on that Heat Pump thread is it isn't off-topic at all. We're talking air-conditioning systems that can heat and people were sharing *their own* experiences with them. Only a couple offered thoughts on the Mr.Slim themselves. Would you rather 1 reply to the thread or a few with an interesting discussion? I'd rather take the discussion over nothing. 

 

That said, this thread might have veered; HOWEVER, the thread was titled "Old Washing Machines are Less Efficient and Consume More Energy." While the study was in Germany, I'm sure such a finding could be extrapolated to machines outside of Europe, No? 

 

One of the great things about AW is that we can still make great conversations even when things get desperately off-track. The other great thing is the site isn't filled with grumpy moderators like on other forums, who are on nothing but a power-grab. We have Robert and he is awesome. Let's keep it that way. 

 

[kenwashesmonday]

foraloysius wrote:
"Why on earth these rants about American toploaders showed up beats me."

Sorry if I went off a bit, but please understand that these expensive non-durable plastic-fantastic machines are being shoved down our throats over here. Please forgive my hartfelt intrusion.

Ken D.

 

[chestermikeuk]

Old Washing Machines Are Less Efficient and Consume More...

As much as love vintage washing machines the above statement is true imho,
aside from the longevity issue, will they last longer than an older machines and is the build quality better or worse, pound for pound, kilo for kilo, the Euro front loader washing machine is today more energy efficient in the work it does ie washes rinses and spins the loadage of clothing more efficiently than older machines. That is according to my uses of water , electricity, detergent usages and sewage costs, while these costs have risen we can now wash 8 - 11kg of clothing using a precise temperature control using the best of enzyme detergents rinsing with high or low levels ie 2 high or up to 7 low shallow rinses and the most efficient of 1400rpm to 1600 spin extraction.

Am currently using the Hoover Candy 11kg (nickname BLING) 1400rpm and the Servis Vestel WD1496 9kg Washer Dryer along with vintage washers as while I love using the Keymatics and Servis Quartz the comparison on total energy costs makes the new machines the best efficiency by todays standards.

I use a Hoover single tub capable of washing 6lb of clothing (but doesnt rinse or spin them) and pump the waste water from the Servis washer dryer into it, the total wash and rinse water does not even fill the single tub AFTER washing and 3 deep rinses of an average 9kg load, if the load is lower then less water is used.

I think we in Europe are so used to our front loaders (albeit an influx of cheaper models over the years) have produced crap results like inferior rinsing and poor washing but even the cheap washers of today appear to be giving us better results..

Ken most of us understand the front loaders you are getting in the US and the Energy Star legislation have produced a heapload of issues for you, particularly with large load plasticky machines that cant spin massive loads on wooden floors and the lack of profile heat washes to be used with enzyme detergents - just a pity you dont get to use the bulk of the efficient machines used by us in Europe (Miele withstanding). I certainly would not catagorize todays Hoover Candy BLING 11kg washer as a Euro Toy Wendy washer.

 

[keymatic3203]

Hi Mike

I know the statistics speak for themselves and even in the 10 years since this study improvements have continued to be made. But whilst the inefficiencies in water usage and lower spin speeds are plain to see. There are obvious ways in which I could make improvements to efficiency, such as increasing the spin speed between rinses, thus enabling a lower rinse water level to be used. But I couldn't describe the wash results from the hoover as `poor'.

Maybe I'm just trying to defend the indefensible, maybe I'm just reliving happy times from the past, hopefully I'm not living in the past. I too love the old machines and respect the latest developments, in the end I'm happy to pay the price of using one of the machines I enjoy most.

As note to add, at least 3/4 of our washing is line dried and much of what does go in the dryer is only being finished off, so the 1100 spin speed is not an inefficiency in my circumstance.

Time to stop digging lol

Mathew

 

[chestermikeuk]

Oh Err Misses...

Hi Mathew just went back and read my comments to see what triggered your reaction ha ha...didnt make myself clear, I meant to explain We are so used to our front loaders here that have performed great from the 60`s 70` 80 onwards etc (at the time we didnt know better efficiencys because they hadnt been invented) and we did suffer from a hiatus of cheaper modern front loaders in the 90`s such as the rainwaves which implemented low rinses and wash water levels that did give crap results as well as more expensive models doing the samr.

But as times have moved on amd technology progressed even the cheapest of front loaders today gives us better wash results albeit longevity issues than those 90`s inferior washers.

Thats probably as clear as mud, we will await Lord Pasty choking on his breakfast and his interpretation!!

Cake anyone?[this post was last edited: 9/16/2015-02:03]

 

[electron1100]

hmmm its that stale Viota sponge again

Mike I have to say I agree with you in some ways, our front loaders were so very good from the start that as you say we became accustomed to the high level performance they gave.

As you know my experience of 3 modern washers was not good and I was only too pleased to go back to older machines, when I had a garage full of them I would rather take my washing there and do it one of the old machines than use the modern pile-of-shite at home

I often think that people on the other side of the pond have gotten a raw deal with FL washers.

Gary

 

[keymatic3203]

I see Mike

yes just dropping the water levels and not adjusting other factors, such a inter rinse spins and not fully clearing water spun out before progressing to next rinse.

Another factor I have often seen on my repair rounds, is people using the wrong programmes for the clothes to be washed. How many times have you heard, Oh we only ever use the quick wash, or I can't wait 2hrs. I've had people tell me how their old hotpoint 1000 dried better than the new 1400, not realising of course the quick wash only spins at 800. So perhaps these sorts of experiences have lead to myths of poor performance in the first round of modern machines, perhaps things will improve with subsequent machines, as people get used to the recent developments and actually let the machine work parameters out for itself and get on an give the results it's been designed to do.

Also how many people actually realise how little detergent you need these days with the more concentrated powders, how many people remember doses of 2 cupfulls being recommended, and therefore the new 50ml or whatever doses don't look enough to many people, so overdosing enevitably lead to poor rinsing in many 90's machines.

So great to clear that one up lol,

 

[electron1100]

Dropping It

Oh I totally agree about the 90s machines, peoples skin fell off and were eaten alive by enzymes due to the new "eco" wash/rinse levels imposed on us in Europe and eventually the rest of the world.

Use Of Machine

"oh yes it will wash 11kg etc etc" you go and see it and is 1/4 full if that, "oh no I only wanted it so I can wash my quilts in it"

or as Mat said full to bursting on the 20 min daily wash

It left manufacturers in a panic as to what to do how to get a machine to wash and rinse clothes in a cup of water, ultimately the consumer has the paid for all this, so that tree huggers can sleep at night and feel good about them selves................ooops drifting off subject there!

A waist of time and money basically as far as I am concerned

Gary

 

[foraloysius]

Some things have changed. In the past European frontloaders didn't spin between rinses at all or only after the third rinse and thereafter. My Philips toploader from 1982 begins to spin only after the fourth rinse. Rinsing/diluting was done by greater amounts of water.

I've scanned that research and found that Raininger Stamminger has become professor since the publication of the article and works at the "Instut für Landtechnik" at the university of Bonn, Germany. They do research on environmental stuff, including household appliances.

Now, about that article.

The first thing I noticed is that they talk about washing results, but in the research they didn't look at rinsing performance. But they only look at the total amount of water a machine used (They looked at the European Energy Label). This means that if you compare the total water usage of a machine and the washing efficiency, there is basically something wrong with the research. Things could only have been compared rightly when they only had measured the amount of water used in the main wash. Through the years, washing machines have become more frugal with water by saving the most in the rinsing cycle, not in the wash cycle. Newer washing machines use less water in the wash cycle too, but that has not been reduced as much as the amount of water used for rinsing. Therefor the comparison between the older and newer machines is not done right.

Second thing is that nowhere in the article the prewash is mentioned. IIRC older data of energy usage included a prewash. The standard cycle for measuring was a 95°C cotton wash with prewash. Nowadays a standard cycle is without a prewash. This has an effect on the outcome of the figures for both water and energy (most washing machines heated the water in the prewash up to 30°C or 40°C which makes an older machine look more energy inefficient and more of a waterhog than it really is. As they say results are not always comparable, but probably even worse than they think! Therefor the curve in figure 3 is probably not as much as a straight line as shown.

Third is the fact that they used the "Stiftung Warentest" for the data of older
machines. This means that only figures of washing machines available on the German market were used. In the seventies the market was very different in every country. Each country had his own manufacturers, although some brands were sold in several countries, there were differences. The British market for whitegoods was quite different than the German market. Scandinavia was different with it's own brands. And France again was totally different too. Italy had big manufacturers that played a big role in some countries, but were hardly sold in other countries. Besides that, the amount of water and energy used could differ a lot between machines. In that same figure 3 you can see that the differences in energy used for a cotton programme is much bigger in the 70's than in the 90's. But that is only in Germany. We know nothing about the differences between machines in other countries. Were the machines in other countries similar, or were they more frugal?

Fourth thing I noticed is that a few machines from the eighties (see fig. 3) were already rather frugal with energy. The energy used for a 90°C wash is way less than other models. They probably don't use much more energy in a 60°C energy saving programme as tested on the models in the 2000's. That would make it less interesting to purchase a new machine if the old one is still working fine!

Well, that's it for now.

Louis

 

[electron1100]

Clear

Hello Louis

I like your approach to this and your observations too.

It is just like Which Reports etc they only apply to local so to speak machines.

So if this research unit found that German machines of the time were uneconomical and did not wash/rinse well, then it is clearer to me that the report is inappropriate for the rest of Europe.

On modern machines you need all those spins to get suds out, but the downside is more creasing in the fabric.

Thankyou
Gary

 

[gelaundry4ever]

efficiency still relevant

I know this is an old thread, but this is still relevant. It would be nice to have a machine that will "violently" stir the clothes in a full tub of water. That's how you clean clothes.

 

[DADoES]

 
Violently stirring clothes ... not necessary with enzyme detergents.  Soak time for the enzymes to work, with gentle stirring through the soak and after works nicely.  I do it often.

 

[maytag85]

May be efficient in water usage BUT certainly aren’t efficient in the amount of precious time they consume as it assumes on how much water it should use.

 

[DADoES]

 
Time is the least-precious resource in my supply of laundry tools.

 

[maytag85]

This is usually what I do every morning, as soon as my breakfast is all settled I do a load of laundry, while the washer is going I vacuum the floors, take out the trash and do whatever tidying up there is to do in the morning, as soon as I am done cleaning in the morning the washer is done then I move the stuff to the dryer and sometimes do a second load of laundry and while that’s going sometimes I’ll do a little bit of yard work while that’s going and by the time I am done doing yard work the dryer is done then I move the stuff to the dryer, fold and put away the clean laundry. While the final load of laundry is drying, I usually try to work on a quick project or something to pass time then I fold and put the second load of laundry for the day. If I had an HE machine, I’d have to rearrange my ENTIRE morning routine around the house and since I am busy, it would throw me off greatly and would never be able to catch up on anything.

 

[golittlesport]

I don't find much time difference

My LG front loader takes about 40 minutes to do a load of laundry set to average soil with three spray rinses and two deep rinses. Dryer time is reduced with washer's 1200 rpm spin.

If heating the water it does take over an hour, but that is the exception.