My impression is that Ms. Furness is holding the tub, yes, but that also the tub is on top of a table or something similar -- look at how her dress distorts in contact with the blue surface. That is also a bit over half the tub, they removed the front.
As for the way they described the action of the average agitator, it depends a lot on how you look at it. In the beginning, most washers had a one speed motor because a two- or multi-speed motor was much more expensive, and although back then transmissions were less expensive than electric motors, they would add cost to a machine that was already very expensive to begin with.
So, from that point of view, the average agitator *did* roll over the load and the average agitation was satisfactory, but it was still true that clothes that were on top of the tub received very little agitation until they started following the center post, then they would receive average agitation until they reached the agitator fins where they were beaten very vigorously. This is not unlike a microwave oven set to 30% power ("defrost"), the food receives very little to no microwaves for 2/3 of every minute and full power for 1/3 of every minute; conversely, a microwave with inverter "technology" will receive an amount of power much closer to 30% most of the time of every minute; similarly, the tumbler agitated the clothes in a more uniform way; as such, nukers with inverter technology are more likely/capable of defrosting delicate things without beginning to cook the outer layers and, while ordinary nukers *can* defrost things in a satisfactory way (particularly thick cuts of beef), they can cause trouble with thin frozen fish fillets, for example.
As for the slant design, we were talking about that during a wash-in or convention many years ago, and I think it was Jon Jetcone who had been doing research into the subject of automatic washers and he said that Westinghouse had patents on most of the washer including every surface of that drum. Supposedly, the idea was that when the tub filled with water, it would be in a more horizontal orientation, where it would tumble/wash the clothes, and as it pumped out the water, the tub would be more slanted and the clothes would tend to ride the "bump" in the back of the drum and distribute themselves better, thus avoiding a load too unbalanced to spin.
It may be petty by today's standards to argue about spin speed, but back then most wringer washers could barely wring about half the water in the clothes, the equivalent of about 200 rpm spin; I can't remember exactly what the speeds were and I'm sure people will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bendix front loader spun at about 200-250 rpm, a lot of the automatic toploaders in the more affordable prices had a 350-400 rpm spin more or less, the Westinghouse Laundromat had a 525 rpm spin, I think, and a few of the more expensive toploaders spun at around 650 rpm; only a couple of models of GE toploaders spun at 1140 rpm and the next models dropped the speed; and for a long time, Frigidaire was the only automatic with a 1140 rpm spin. You could get a twin-tub to spin at around 1740 rpm, but that was not automatic. It was one of the features that kept twin-tubs in the competition for a good while though, the other being that if one was willing to supervise the twin-tubs and transfer the clothes etc (which was less work than hand washing, but still hard work compared to an automatic ["Your hands never touch water!"]), you'd be done *much* faster with a twin-tub than with any automatic. Some claim that one could be done with the entire week's laundry in about one hour, but you can bet you'd be working your ass off during that hour washing 4 to 6 loads.
Low spin speed or not, automatics in general took over the market by storm, there were people in waiting lists, and there were stores doing what I believe today is forbidden by law -- they were telling customers they could have their automatic washers only if they bought a "set" of washer and dryer, or washer and ironer, or washer, dryer and ironer.
Also, if you bother going to a real library and reading the magazine reviews (including Consumer Reports) from back then, a lot of the automatics (including the toploaders) were taking a beating when compared to the wringer washers and twin-tubs, which apparently washed better because people could alter the "cycles" according to their situation, by extending the wash portion for example.
So, from that point of view, back then, the Westinghouse Laundromat was a very attractive machine for the price, and it certainly did not hurt they were one of the first soft-mount automatics out there.
Cheers,
-- Paulo.
