omg who is next!!!

[washerfan]

"You say you would pay to see a wash-in with a row of top loaders washing hardly anything full of water just to see the foreigners running around like chicken littles, well then how would you justify that to a family who are bathing their kids in 2 plastic buckets of water."

Move?

"By the way why does it matter if the washing isn't done in 10 minutes flat, as Chris says don't you have other things to do besides waiting for your washer to finsh? if speed in washing is so important, consider getting a twin-tub, they are faster than any other washer, you can actually save water by spinning wash water back into the washtub,which I do in mine."

My point was it wastes electricity using a washer that takes 2 hours to do the job a good TL does in 30 minutes.

 

[dj-gabriele]

It doesn't save you electricity using a top loader verti

Have a look a two exaples; both Whirlpool made machines!

http://www.whirlpool.co.uk/app.cnt/whr/en_GB/pageid/pgproddtl001/catid/3/subcatid/11/prodid/662
The toploader is rated G energy, meaning that it will waste at least 390 Wh per kg of clothes while a front loader, in this case a 8 KG, also from whirlpool, see it here

http://www.whirlpool.co.uk/app.cnt/whr/en_GB/pageid/pgproddtl001/catid/3/subcatid/11/prodid/30789
uses less than 190 Wh per KG of dry clothes you put in! Plus it uses 100 litres of water less for the same job!

Also cleaning ability is A for the front loader and G for the top loader!
And think that Whirlpool is a low end brand, if you put it verus a Miele, the top loader simply disappears (and for Christ's sake, not only Miele is quality and Miele is not the only European brand in existence!)

So the figures for an averange 60°C washing are:

- Top loader G class: 0,39 KWh per KG * 8KG = 3,12 KWh used (like running a dryer) plus 165 L of water

- Front loader A+ class: 0,17 KWh per KG * 8KG = 1,36 KWh used plus 64 L of water

That's a difference of 1,76 KW and 101 L of water!

NOW THE FIGURES FOR COLD WATER WASHING

For the top loader we assume a running time of 30 minutes, the only thing powered is the 1/2 HP motor (373 W)

For the front loader we assume a running time of 45 minutes with the motor (200W) spinning only half the time during wash plus 15 minutes spent for spinning at doble the power.

Here are the calculations:

TOP LOADER: 1/2h * 373 Wh = 0,187 KWh used + 165 L
FRONT LOADER: 3/4h * 200Wh * 1/2 + 1/4h * 400Wh = 0,175 KWh + 64 L

The difference in electricity expenditure here is much less but the water use is less than 2/5 in respect of the top loader.

Now, if you're not satisfied you can bash me as much as you want but with the expensive resorces we have in Italy, each saving is a big saving and the same way of thinking should be used everywhere in our single World.

 

[washerfan]

I am not going to bash you, but those links are not that great as there are no wash times other a few mentionings. The PDF links appear not to work to get better details.

If you look under the ENERGY section for the FL, it did a 140 minute wash. There appears to be no mentioning of the TL's ENERGY test in time but I doubt it was anywhere near 2:20.

 

[magic clean]

Interesting

story. See the link

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1000759.ece

 

[dj-gabriele]

Yes, 140 minutes it the wash time at 60°C; if you get to download the instructions you can see that low temperature washing times are way shorter! And all those machines also have a quick wash at either 30°C or 40°C that does the job on everyday wash of lightly soiled clothes in as low as 15 minutes.

Even if the cold water cycle were to last 2 hours (which doesn't) the eneregy consumption would be 0,3KWh. With 100 litres of water wasted less.

At your rates of 2000 gallons per 30 USD = 2,92 € / cubic metre

you would save 0,29 euros (0,40 USD) per wash not to mention the savings in electricity while washing at anything hotter than tap cold (which in reality happens all the time).
I think that 0,40 USD is the expense for 3 KWh, isn't it?

 

[jeffg]

This discussion has, as usual, turned into a cost vs. performance debate.

Are top loaders energy hogs? You bet, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm the one who pays my energy and water bills every month, and until that changes, my government will have nothing to say about it. And I can do three loads in my TL SQ in the same 90 minutes that it takes most FL's to do one load.

If push comes to shove in the U.S., when our SQ eventually dies we'll either go vintage or go back to beating our laundry over rocks next to a river.

 

[sudsman]

If commerical Laundry took over a hour to do a load of linen

We would NEVER get any where. No foumula need be more than 55 to 60 mins at the very most..

 

[toploader1984]

OMG THANK YOU SOOO MUCH WASHERFAN!! i couldn't have said it better myself!!!! amen.

 

[toploader1984]

i have washed my clothes MANY times in cold water, THEY DO NOT COME CLEAN, and that was with using tide, so i emailed tide about it and they sent me an email back saying that all of thier detergents including tide cold water should be washed in 60 degree or warmer water, plus, after a while, the detergent both liquid or powder gums up on the inside of the washer, all you people that think it is soo great to wash in cold water.... would you wash your dishes in cold water?? or your hands?

 

[toploader1984]

try washing dishes in cold water! i guarentee they wont come clean!!!

 

[electron800]

Well first things first

A front loader could take all day to run a cycle and would still use less energy than a top loader. I believe something like 90% of the energy used in any washing machine comes from heating the water. Since a front loader uses so much less water than a top loader, it can run for hours on end and still use less energy.

Ofcourse running a top loader using only cold water will cut down on energy use dramatically, but the results will no doubt suffer because of it.

I personally feel that to demand your washing machine is less efficient just because you can't be bothered to go away and leave it to do its job for a bit longer than older machines, regardless of the consequences, is EXTREMELY selfish and greedy. It's all well and good saying you have plenty of water and affordable energy now, but using it irresponsibly is just going to make it all the more likely that this won't be the case for much longer.

Matt

 

[dj-gabriele]

Thanks Matt, that's exactly what I was trying to point out in numbers

 

[electron800]

"I would almost pay money to go to a US wash-in with a whole bunch of TLs running full of water not washing hardly anything just to see the foreigners run around screaming as if the sky was falling down."

That is possibly the most irrational and immature comment I have ever heard.

Thanks by the way Gabriele!

Matt

 

[favorit]

Frontloaders & washing times & washing habits

Hi, some thoughts :

#####Don' t mess commercial FL with household ones######

Commercial FL usually have faster formulas than household FL; i.e. Miele's Little Giants run "cottons 140°F/60°C" by 49 mins, household mieles need 105/120 mins .
Both machines are the same size; speed is the main requirement in commercial machines : occurring not clean items are rewashed, while Mrs Housewife wants perfection a.k.a. "A" wash performance.
Obviously commercial machines use slightly higher levels to achieve a faster saturation of the load (meaning shorter washing times)

@@@@@@ Washing habits @@@@@@@@@

We Europeans (and Aussies too) now and then simply load our washers and forget about them, so we don't care if they take 45 mins or 118 mins. In "emergency" situations ("that very shirt I want to wear this evening")we have quick cycles, usually 30 min, latest machines have a 14 mins W-R-R-S cycle (IMHO way too short)

You Americans seem to be still used to do some guesswork as you did in the non-automatics age. Probably that's why you feel all this need for speed. Or maybe you still wash just one day per week ??

§§§§§§§§§ Washing times §§§§§§§§§§

Old frontloaders had a thermostop (timer stopped at the beginning of the main wash until the selected temp was achieved; in the meanwhile the cylinder kept on tumbling)

So, colder the temp meant shorter the wash. Washing heavy soiled non colourfast clothes was an issue as the wash step was too short. In the 80' s began the boilwash "sunset" and the 60°C/140°F era was rising. Lower temps and longer times to save energy, so longer times were even considered a selling point

The trick to have a 60°C wash that lasted a little more than a boilwash was the "economy button" to extend washing time. Miele first introduced the automatic time warranty meaning that a warm wash lasted as a boilwash. Today every AAA rated euro FL behaves this way, unless you press "short", "timesaver" or similar options

PS @ Pierreandreply : which FL doesn't have a perma press cycle ?? that's sounds veeery strange. FL can also spin faster without wrinklin' thanks to pulse spins

 

[suburbanmd]

To the Rugged Individualists on City Water & Sewer

With increasing population, water/sewer utilities are faced with rising demand. If it gets to the point where they must expand their facilities, this can be very expensive and complicated. It's much easier to reduce demand, by encouraging more efficient appliances, less thirsty landscaping, lower-consumption fixtures (BTW, there are great-performing and inexpensive 1.6 gallon toilets these days, like American Standard Cadet 3 and Toto Drake. I have one of each, and they're amazing to watch...no time or kinetic energy wasted on "swirling", just slam dunk down the drain). So there's a big picture beyond your willingness to pay your own bill.

Just for argument's sake, let's say your house is on well water. Your present well doesn't put out much water, but it's adequate if you have efficient appliances and fixtures. Plenty of water is available, but you'd have to pay for a new, much deeper well in order to reach it. How much would you be willing to pay for a new well, so you could use your top-loaders and old toilets?

 

[jeffg]

You guys are missing the point. I'm not saying there aren't situations where FL washers are more appropriate. What I am saying is, I won't allow an obscenely bloated and overreaching government to dictate how much water I'm allowed to use to clean my own clothing. This kind of socialist BS might be good enough for Europe, or Australia etc, but NOT HERE. As long as our government isn't paying our energy bills, it's none of their damned business how much we choose to use. When new powerplants and water reserves/treatment plants are required, who pays for those? Yep, we do.

Look, bottom line here: we already have the technology to produce so much energy, there wouldn't even be a need to meter it. E.g. France now produces something like 85% of their energy from nuclear plants. What's standing in the way of progress is a government who's been in bed with the oil industry for over a century now, and a hysterical socialist left-wing faction who's afraid of damned near everything. In their little pea brains, they scream about global warming out of one side of their mouth while they scream about the evils of nuclear power out of the other side. If it wasn't so tragic it would be downright funny.

 

[kenb]

little pea brains

Why is it that some people can't discuss something without resorting to insults?

I see it time and time again...

Why can't we just accept that the Europeans have different outlooks and customs without resorting to insults?

 

[ronhic]

Energy consumption

The Australian Governement legislated some years ago that ALL major appliances have energy rating labels affixed.

This is based on the cycle the manufacturer chooses to have their machine tested for wash performance and includes the cost of water heated externally at a set rate should it be required such as with a top load machine.

Maytag 6AMTW5555 = 805Kwhr - top load
Maytag MAH7550AAW= 473KWhr - front load

Both 8kg machines and both using a warm wash both on the cycle Maytag choose for wash performance testing....cycle time is irrelevant in this test.

nuf said....

 

[jeffg]

> Why can't we just accept that the Europeans have different outlooks and customs without resorting to insults? <

We've had this same debate over and over, and over again. It just gets old reading posts from people who, for whatever reason, are unable to go this website's main page and read the third line of text:

"Automatic Agitator Washer"

Not agitation. Agitator. As in top loading washing machines. I've always thought that's the main focus of this site. If that's incorrect I definitely do apologize for the insult.

 

[aquarius1984]

"The website, cyber-library and discussion forum dedicated to automatic clothes washing machines, dryers and dishwashers, collectors of antique and vintage Automatics, as well as anyone who likes to do laundry and dishes Automatically!"

I dont see a mention of agitators in that statement