POD 01/12/2017 - Bendix 30" Tumble Action soft-mount washer

[wft2800]

I'm guessing this is essentially a Duomatic, slimmed down six inches and deprived of the drying side? There is a very similar machine in the collection of "chestermikeuk", I believe badged as a Gyramatic. His has no heater, apparently, and spins at 600rpm. I wonder why these spun at 525rpm when the Duomatic only went to 505? I'm also curious about the very short wash times. I thought these were the exclusive domain of the top-loaders. With a maximum 10 minutes' wash time, the cleaning can't have been that effective...

 

[launderess]

Wash times on many laundromat front loaders today aren't very long. The SQ washers at our local do a total wash on "Heavy soil" in 30 minutes. Think the main wash is between 10 to 15 minutes.

One reason why that Bendix may have had short wash times is if soap was meant to be used for "detergent". Soap does not have great soil anti-redeposit qualities. Better off doing two short washes than one long in dirty water.

 

[frigilux]

I believe the maximum wash time was actually 14 minutes, according to the ad copy. You can see the number 12 and then a line, which I'm guessing would add two minutes.

Still, very short by today's HE standards. The wash tumble was around 50 minutes on the Normal cycle (heaviest soil setting) of my 2015 Maytag 8100. It was well over 70 minutes on the Sanitize cycle (heaviest soil setting). That gives today's detergents with their enzyme cocktails and Herculean abilities to keep soil suspended in the wash water plenty of time to eradicate stains.

 

[norgeway]

They didnt need long wash times..

For two reasons, they used enough water, and they were continuously washing, not stopping and starting like so called HE machines do today!

 

[wft2800]

Norgeway, that's an idiotic statement. Go back through the great European automatic machines of the 1950s through to the present - stuff like the AEG Lavamat Regina, the Miele W421S, the old Constructas and so on. They all use loads of water, a lot of heat, and don't tangle the hell out of clothes because they all reverse frequently! Nonetheless, their cycle times are far longer than the American machines... 10 minutes simply is not enough to get clothes washed effectively, even dumping them straight in hot water (which tends to set stains anyway).

 

[norgeway]

Think what you want!

Idiotic I'm not!, I know what works, !

 

[speedqueen]

You asked a question and you got an answer and now you go and criticize it.

Only slant Westinghouse machines were terrible for tangling. Bendix wasn't that bad for it as I understand.

As for hot water setting stains, I have removed blood stains with hot water, which by the stain setting logic should make them all but permanent.

 

[tomturbomatic]

This machine was not a Duomatic design without drying. It did not have the larger tub of the Duomatic. It had the same tub of the earlier-introduced Gyromatic washers.

The Duomatic could not spin as fast as a plain washer because the designers and engineers had to factor in the necessity for the load to release from the tub at the end of the spin before the drying began. This is the reason that all combos, no matter how poorly they extracted had a short spin period followed by a stop to allow everything to drop down to the bottom of the drum. This was followed by a tumble period and then the spin. In the Duomatic, the spins were two speed. After the 3rd rinse drained, there was a 3/4 minute spin at low speed and then a full stop to allow the load to disengage from the drum walls. This first spin extracted enough water from the load so that it did not pack as tightly against the drum in the final high speed spin which allowed the load to drop at the end of the final spin. According to what I read in Which a long time ago, the UK Bendix combo had to be reset to dry after the wash cycle was completed. Maybe at the time of setting the dry operation, the fabrics could be pulled away from the drum. Some of the lower speed spinning combos used what Maytag likened to squeezing a sponge and if you release the grip and reposition the sponge before squeezing the sponge again, more water will be extracted. They went through two or three different spin periods in the final extract period so that more fabrics had a chance to be pressed against the drum walls for better extraction.

Regardless of the wash time, I did not know any owners of front loaders who were dissatisfied with the washing results of their washers. Maybe the use of bleach in the US made it possible to get laundry cleaner with shorter wash periods. Maybe the greater supplies of hotter water made a difference, too. Maybe the larger tubs in wider US machines made a difference.

One other comment I remember from this Which article was that none of the front loaders rinsed very well. Maybe it was the lack of extraction between water changes which even my first Miele exhibited. At least the front loaders in the US extracted better between water changes.

 

[launderess]

Rinsing and European H-Axis washing machines.

IIRC someone posted a while ago that even late as the 1980's or 1990's (discussion was about the Miele w700 or W1070/W1065 series if that narrows down years), and what a leading consumer publication gave those and similar washers low ratings for rinsing quality.

Many European front loaders from thirty or forty years ago now did not extract until after four rinses. Even then the first spin may have only been a short pulse (as with my Miele). Basically relying upon dilution to remove detergent and muck; not always the best way to go.

 

[cuffs054]

Hmm, I thought the pic was of a dryer did I miss something?

 

[gyrafoam]

I never saw a Bendix that tangled clothes.

I launder a lot of bloody stuff. Hot water and Phosphated Detergent spiked with Clorox. The SQ TL gets it all clean, every time.

 

[launderess]

As have said previously

Commercial laundries for ages have dealt with blood by using nothing more than hot water, soap and sodium metasilicate, and or another equally strongly alkaline substance. This was long before enzymes came upon the scene and still largely prevails. Exception today is that detergents have mostly replaced soap.

 

[henene4]

Stopping and starting

Has 2 reasons.

1: Reversing. One could reverse tumbling without pausing as some older machines did (Lauderall, in the EU Eudora, etc.). But pausing, allowing the drum to stop and restarting needs less power and poses less wear on parts like belts and potential transmissions due to the lower force needed for reversing.

2. Soaking. Continous movement dosen't allow for true soaking. True soaking works as the water and detergent surrounding a partioular area have time to ineract and don't simply flow by. Pauses in modern machines do exactly that.

3. Water movment. Clothes catch water while tumbling. They can't absorb all the water they catch. If a modern FL stops for longer, you see the water level slowly climbing as water drips out of the laundry. That its part of the wash motion as this means the water in the fibres is exchanged. Again, something that tumbling can't do well: exchange water from fibres to the bath water.

All tumbling does is mostly move water arround fibres and cause agitation of the fibres.
So stopping and starting isn't dumb at all.
And saying they used "enough" water implies that moder FL generally don't. Some do, some don't.

These short wash times were indeed due to the high water levels. Fast tumbling and high water levels allow for wash mechanic simmilar to TLs. Keep in mind that laundry was basicly floating in these washers as well, so it basicly worked like a TL.
And, further, it still had a higher detergent concentration then TLs of the time. I think rule of thumb was to use half the detergent a TL would use, but thils were about 1/3rd that of a TL.

What I was always wondering was: Some of these area FLs had a load size selector. Using a modern HE detergent, would it be possible to run a full load on the smallest load setting and still get well enough wash results? And how about rinsing?

 

[norgeway]

Enough water

To my way of thinking is at least 1/4 of the way up on the window!NOTHING today uses that much, but these old Bendix machines do., hours to do a wash means the machine is lame to start with, just like my Kitchen Aid dishwasher does the longest cycle in a hour, why, because it wORKS, not plays like the new ones do, 50 gallons a minute spraying on dishes will CLEAN!

 

[henene4]

Then you are wrong

Your definition of enough is wrong. You base "enough", which is a factual statement, on a personal feeling.
That is post-factual thinking and just plane useless.

"Enough" means that the machine gets the job done.
Modern machines don't play. No idea how you can defend that that is a factual statetment.

50gal/min recirculation rate clean. Half that do to. Even 10gal/min do.
Water levels 1/4th up the door clean. Water levels below the boot can clean just as well.
Just look at your claim "1/4th up the door glass". By that definition, a slanted front Westinghouse wouldn't use enough water. Clearly shows you are not correctly formulating your thoughts.

You can't call what you classify as "enough" just as generally enough.
What you think of is "to your satisfaction". That can be any amount you wish.
"Enough" is as much as a certain machine needs to do the job, NOT as much you think it should use.

 

[tomturbomatic]

Is someone feeling cranky? Please agree to disagree. You are too young to know how things used to be done very successfully and Hans is not. Yes, it is a different world now, but appliances used to do a good job when built to different standards and, yes, appliances in the US were profligate in the space they took up and in the energy and resources they used, but we were the land of plenty and no one had ever told us not to use as much as we damn well pleased so we did. I have seen pictures of streets in European towns where two full size US cars from the 60s could not pass each other. That is not a put down of Europe, just a statement of fact about the way things were. A lot of things were different and some of them are remembered fondly. There is no disputing, however that older tumbler washers that used more water were gentler on the fabrics because, in all of that water and good, phosphated detergents, they did not abrade against each other as much as in modern machines.

 

[norgeway]

It doesent matter

What I say Tom, some people know everything, so I will leave them ALONE!

 

[henene4]

Agree to disagree

In this particular case, no, I will not.

I never said that him wantig machines to use more water is wrong. That's what he wants, that is totaly fine.

The thing is that he confronts the 2 way one can define enough.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/enough

He means enough to satisfy his desire. That is fine.

He however implied the use of enough as enough for the need. And - you can argue as much as you want - "enough" to clean a 9lbs load of laundry is far less the 1/4th up the door glass.
And that definition of enough actually means within 30min.

That has nothing to do with roads, enviroment, or being cranky. He used an incorrect or not exact enough phrasing, I explained that.
I don't need to agree to disagree.
I am right about my point, he made a mistake.

 

[speedqueen]

I believe that Hans is referring to the fact that many FL machines are too stingy on water to the extent that it impedes wash action. We have all heard how you have to get a MOL or TOL LG so you can have the TurboWash feature because without it clothes might not even get fully saturated. Older FL machines didn't have this problem and had less chothes wear than ones of today.

As to your point on pauses letting the water move through the fibers, how can a pause move more water through fibers than lifting, dropping, and plunging clothes through the wash water? I just cannot see how that would work. The enzymes can work just as well as they are flowing though the fibers.

Don't get me wrong, I like Euro front loaders, they don't try to wash 5 standard capacity loads in 3 cups of water like some of the larger US front loaders.

 

[ea56]

I’ve owned and used both an older FL, an 87’ Westinghouse and a 2015 LG BOL FL. I really like the FL way of washing, but not unless there is sufficient water to wet the entire load from beginning to end of the cycle.

The Westinghouse filled right away with amount of water the user selected. It looked like it was 1/4 up the window, but if I opened the door the water was below the edge of the tub, This washer was an excellent performer and finished each load in about 40 to 45 mins, or less.

The LG on the other hand filled in bursts of water. Because of this I had to install water hammer arrestors to prevent water hammer in the pipes. What was most distressing about this machine is that it would take well over 5 mins for the washer to finish adding water, so the clothes were tumbling during this time with the detergent and the load was partially dampened. If I selected heavy soil, I kid you not it took over 30 mins. before the center of the load would finally be saturated while it continued to fill in bursts. Now thats 1/2 hr. of the wash cycle that really for all intents and purposes was wasted time, as how are you cleaning clothes that aren’t even wet.

Now I could circumvent this by selecting the Bulky cycle, with water plus option and it would actually fill to a level equivalent to the older Westinghouse, but then I was limited to a med or slow spin speed, thereby negating the main reason I bought this washer, better extraction for faster drying. So, at the end of the cycle I would need to then run a separate ex high or high speed spin cycle.

If this LG had filled all at once, with sufficient water it may still be here in my home. But the other problem I had with it was its capricious attitude about going into a spin. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. I actually had loads that took over 3 hrs and would never spin. And I’ve been washing clothes since 1965, so I do know how to properly load and operate a washing machine, and I read the owners manual cover to cover, more than once looking for an answer to the spin problems, I could never solve it. And this was the 6th FL washer that I’ve owned, the older FL’s didn’t have these problems.

We own a set of heavy bath towels from Restoration Hardware that we couldn’t even use while we owned the LG FL. These towels REFUSED to spin, no matter what else they were washed with or if they were washed alone, no matter how fast or slow the spin speed selected. The last time I washed these towels in the LG FL, after 3 hrs. I needed to take the sopping wet towels the the laundromat and re wash them so I could get them spun out. That was the last straw for me.

The Maytag Centennial that I now own washes these heavy towels flawlessly in 50-55 mins. spins the first time, every time and never hesitates or goes out of balance, and coincidentally, it uses just about the same amount of water that my beloved old Westinghouse used. I’m a happy camper at last.
Eddie [this post was last edited: 12/4/2017-15:50]