POD 01/02/2018 - Bendix Tumble Agitator front-load washer

[rolls_rapide]

"anionic or nonionic"

It was probably non-ionic in 'All', as that surfactant is supposed to be low-foaming (used in auto-dishwasher detergents too). Non-ionics aren't exactly the best for greasy stains though.

Anionics are higher sudsing, but are supposedly better for oily soils. Frequently used in hand-dishwashing liquids too.

Nowadays, I'm sure they're able to brew surfactants to do a job, at a moment's notice.

 

[tomturbomatic]

Many early automatics had solid tubs and used overflow rinsing. They were better at getting rid of suds. Two neighbors who went from early 50s Kenmores to solid tub Filter Flo machiness remarked at how surprised they were that there was no trace of suds in the rinse. Part of that was because the suds floated over the top of the tub and part of it was because there was not the suds residue left in the outer tub which you always saw as the machine began to fill for rinse as the water rose and came through the holes at the bottom of the tub. It is true that when agitation began in any washer with a recirculating lint filter that the first water to emerge from the filter was some leftover wash water, but the amount of suds added to the rinse water was not as visible as the amount of residue from high sudsing detergents left between the tubs in a perforated tub washer.

 

[supersuds]

It's wrong to say consumers couldn't "access" low suds detergent in the period when Bendix and Westy frontloaders were sold. In addition to All, which was continuously available in several forms (including Fluffy All for those who wanted to use a full cup) and Dash, there were Salvo and Vim tablets which got a big marketing push, and Colgate had a whole series of "adjusted suds" or "controlled suds" products in the Sixties including Ad, Punch, and Burst. In fact, it was easy to get low suds detergents and the makers weren't shy about advertising their advantages. All of these brands were available in every supermarket in the U.S.

There were also detergents such as Lever's Drive which were not advertised as low sudsing, but still don't produce the froth of Tide, Cheer, or Oxydol.

As a collector I've had the pleasure of using most of these products recently, and they perform as advertised. I used Salvo today to wash some sheets and there was no layer of suds to be seen, using two tablets as recommended on the box.

By and large, however, the old high-suds detergents did clean better, and I believe that's why housewives used them, not because of a nefarious conspiracy. The low suds products underperformed in the marketplace largely on merit, not advertising. It isn't that difficult to tell if a detergent is working well or not.

And I have to say I've never observed any problems personally using high suds detergents in top- loading DD Whirlpools. I don't doubt they could cause problems with some washers, but I think it was a non-issue for a lot of people.

 

[jetcone]

not to pun

All interesting points.

 

I love the old commercials! We tried Tide once in the 60's in our '56 GE FF, if you can believe it , it sudslocked!!!! Never used it again!
 

 

anionics are good for dirt removal

non-ionics attack and lift grease and oils Esp body oils which is 90% of the grime on clothes.

cationics are for fabric softening and used in rinse formulas

 

I remember reading about Corporate espionage in the 1950's at FORD, the EDSEL division was sabotaged by the Mercury division so sales of Edsel would fall and Mercury would succeed and it did.

It was a crazy predatory corporate structure. 

 

Does anybody know the inventor company of ALL in Ohio, I'd love to do some digging on that?

[this post was last edited: 2/5/2018-13:27]

 

[wft2800]

Internal competition can be healthy, but when it's actually leading to direct sabotage between divisions, that's just bonkers!

That said, the Edsel's styling alone was bound to doom it. I never did like that era of FoMoCo products as much as their GM counterparts, though - from '57 Bel Air to the bonkers '59 Cadillacs, GM had the best styling...

 

[speedqueen]

While they aren't my personal favorite,

you cannot forget the Chrysler "Forward Look" cars that precipitated the look of the 1959 GM models. While I like them, the '58 GM cars are often described as looking as though they were sinking under the weight of their own styling. Chrysler challenged them to lean things out and make them more sharp and angular.

Here is a '58 Oldsmobile 98 and a '58 Chrysler Saratoga.

 

[wft2800]

True, Chrysler had some great designs. Virgil Exner was no fool - but Harley Earl was more flamboyant IMO. What a life he had! Born in the 19th century, before cars really existed; lived through two world wars and retired as the supersonic jet age was unfolding, having designed some of the most outrageously charismatic cars ever made. As a child of the 90s, growing up under much more incremental change (and sometimes massive backward steps, like the retirement of Concorde), it's difficult for me to comprehend what a seismic transformation the world underwent in such a short time...

BTW, I absolutely HATE those extended-bumper spare-wheel-cover 'continental kits', as I believe they're called. Ruined the looks of every car ever fitted with it.