This was the grandest offering of features and performance of any American-made front loader with the fill valve offering 5 temperatures and a timer that offered spin periods between all of the rinses. This would be so wonderful to have. In spite of how much Consumer Reports down-rated tumble action machines for cleaning, Nobody that I knew that had one was in any way dissatisfied with the performance. The big shocker was when CU tested the Duomatic in that huge early 50s washing machine and dryer report, the Duomatic, with larger drum and water heater rated just below the highly rated Whirlpool top loading washer in cleaning and washer performance. It rated high as a dryer, too, but this is not about drying.
POD 5-22-15 The Apotheosis of the Bendix
- Thread starter tomturbomatic
- Start date
Help Support :
askomiele
Well-known member
I don't want to bring up the endless discussion of TL vs FL, but I never understood why FL didn't really caught on. If u see the features of the Bendix washer, it was a good competitor against all other washers. Was it more expensive? Or maybe slighty to "big" for space reasons?
norgeway
Well-known member
I still think!
A slant front Westinghouse or a Bendix will outwash any toploader, there is no way to get as much action in more concentrated soapy water in a top loader.
A slant front Westinghouse or a Bendix will outwash any toploader, there is no way to get as much action in more concentrated soapy water in a top loader.
In the early days of front loaders, the controlled suds detergents were not as effective as high sudsing detergents and soaps in the opinion of Consumer Reports, at least that is what they said so they said the front loaders were not as good at cleaning as top loaders. I never saw dirty laundry being taken out of a frontloader in the 50s and 60s. In 1965, when they tested the first straight front Westinghouse, they said it was average in cleaning ability. They went about a decade in the 70s without testing Westinghouse front loaders, the only brand available here, and a reader wrote in asking if they were still being made and wondered how they would be a saving energy. CU was abashed to admit that they were still being made but they just did not seem to be what people were buying because they only wanted large capacity washers (bullcrap). CU had a clear antipathy for front loaders UNTIL Maytag started making a front loader, then the Neptune was the cat's pajamas.
Since Bendix held the patents for early front loading washing machine design other makers either had to pay royalties or find ways to work around. When you consider all front loaders require suspension systems and or bolting down it is easier to go with a top loader than compete.
The early requirement of bolting down was a big turn off to many housewives since you needed to locate the washer in a basement or somewhere that was possible.
As mentioned above pure soap and then later detergents created too much froth for use in front loaders (never mind commercial laundries had been using soap in their machines since invention), so cleaning was compromised.
Do not think any of the American front loaders offered reverse tumbling patterns, my grandmother's Westinghouse back in the 1970's certainly didn't; hence the machines gained a reputation as "rope makers". That is one's wash emerged as a tangled mess that had to be sorted before drying.
For the American market top loading automatics were a logical progression from wringer/semi-automatic washing machines. It was what housewives were familiar with and how many based their laundry routines. Top loaders do not require stooping and or bending, special detergents (well they do but that is another matter), you can soak, stop or start the machine/have full control, don't require door seals and the rest of the arguments you have heard against front loaders for years.
If the American market had been larger for domestic H-Axis washers methinks more development would have gone into them, just as with Europe. However by the 1960's or so top loading washers were basically a mature technology. This meant they were cheap to build and all makers had to do was add a few new features every other model year to freshen things up a bit.
The early requirement of bolting down was a big turn off to many housewives since you needed to locate the washer in a basement or somewhere that was possible.
As mentioned above pure soap and then later detergents created too much froth for use in front loaders (never mind commercial laundries had been using soap in their machines since invention), so cleaning was compromised.
Do not think any of the American front loaders offered reverse tumbling patterns, my grandmother's Westinghouse back in the 1970's certainly didn't; hence the machines gained a reputation as "rope makers". That is one's wash emerged as a tangled mess that had to be sorted before drying.
For the American market top loading automatics were a logical progression from wringer/semi-automatic washing machines. It was what housewives were familiar with and how many based their laundry routines. Top loaders do not require stooping and or bending, special detergents (well they do but that is another matter), you can soak, stop or start the machine/have full control, don't require door seals and the rest of the arguments you have heard against front loaders for years.
If the American market had been larger for domestic H-Axis washers methinks more development would have gone into them, just as with Europe. However by the 1960's or so top loading washers were basically a mature technology. This meant they were cheap to build and all makers had to do was add a few new features every other model year to freshen things up a bit.
2 things
Didn't/or does Jetcone still have a Westinghouse/White Westinghouse that did reverse tumble?
I vaguely seem to remember a comment about GE began a trash the front loader campaign by saying all those Bendix and Westinghouse washers were going to end up flooding peoples' houses when the seals broke?
Didn't/or does Jetcone still have a Westinghouse/White Westinghouse that did reverse tumble?
I vaguely seem to remember a comment about GE began a trash the front loader campaign by saying all those Bendix and Westinghouse washers were going to end up flooding peoples' houses when the seals broke?
This POD
I gatyher from the ad copy, this model did not have the magic heater?
I gatyher from the ad copy, this model did not have the magic heater?
Well, America (yeah, I know about planet USA), isn't the only place where top loaders are popular (currently and historically) and, ultimately, when it comes to cleaning performance our testing agencies do not detect significant differences between front and top loaders at all; but rinsing is another matter entirely it seems. Again, here we have those who are convinced that their choices are superior and everyone else is just plain wrong. Seriously, who gives a toss? Why don't you just say it plain? There is no need to put out this image of tolerance, acceptance, diversity and congeniality. Everyone knows what you really are. You can't hide the truth. From yourselves perhaps, but not from everyone else.
Listen guys, I'll give you a therapy session for free. Let me take the first step to self-acceptance and truth. I will speak the unspeakable. I will say it here for everyone to read and to give you courage to be bold, since you are too bloody chicken. Here we go, this is what you really want to say - "all people who choose top loaders are idiots. They don't know anything about clean clothes. They prefer inferior technology and engineering. They don't care about the environment. All their clothes are badly damaged and made threadbare by their washers. They don't care about the poor little fishies. They don't like clean clothes. They smell. They are really bad in bed. They've all got little willies. They don't care about clean clothes." Did I miss anything?
Anyway, now that I've given you the courage to speak, what is really on your minds, with authenticity, I hope that you are robust enough to take the next step to a life of integrity and honesty.
Thank you.
Listen guys, I'll give you a therapy session for free. Let me take the first step to self-acceptance and truth. I will speak the unspeakable. I will say it here for everyone to read and to give you courage to be bold, since you are too bloody chicken. Here we go, this is what you really want to say - "all people who choose top loaders are idiots. They don't know anything about clean clothes. They prefer inferior technology and engineering. They don't care about the environment. All their clothes are badly damaged and made threadbare by their washers. They don't care about the poor little fishies. They don't like clean clothes. They smell. They are really bad in bed. They've all got little willies. They don't care about clean clothes." Did I miss anything?
Anyway, now that I've given you the courage to speak, what is really on your minds, with authenticity, I hope that you are robust enough to take the next step to a life of integrity and honesty.
Thank you.
warmsecondrinse
Well-known member
So top loaders are like ridiculously large 4x4's...... a kind of compensation, then?
(ducks and runs)
(ducks and runs)
"So top loaders are like ridiculously large 4x4's...... a kind of compensation, then?"
Could be, yup, you might be onto something there. We know what men compensate for, but what about women? What do they compensate for?
Oops, sorry, I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but since we mostly get the male perspective here what about those who are not male? (That includes pre and post-op transgender, hermaphrodites etc.). How many of those individuals own a top loader and really large 4x4s to compensate for something?
Give us your perspectives please.
Have you ever considered joining the human race by getting a front loader already? What is wrong with you people, what are you waiting for?
Could be, yup, you might be onto something there. We know what men compensate for, but what about women? What do they compensate for?
Oops, sorry, I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but since we mostly get the male perspective here what about those who are not male? (That includes pre and post-op transgender, hermaphrodites etc.). How many of those individuals own a top loader and really large 4x4s to compensate for something?
Give us your perspectives please.
Have you ever considered joining the human race by getting a front loader already? What is wrong with you people, what are you waiting for?
warmsecondrinse
Well-known member
Yes, please. Let's have the ladies respond.
Rapunzel, you have no idea what you've done! My brain is now producing all sorts of Dirty Laundry forum scenarios...
-How to prove a guy owns a FL.
-How to convert guys to FL by promising anatomical improvements after they've ditched their TL.
- Person A: "Wow, that was amazing!"
Person B: "Of course it was; I own a Front Loader."
- Wow...... Now I'm coming up with wash-in activities based on this concept.
I'm shutting up now....
Jim
Rapunzel, you have no idea what you've done! My brain is now producing all sorts of Dirty Laundry forum scenarios...
-How to prove a guy owns a FL.
-How to convert guys to FL by promising anatomical improvements after they've ditched their TL.
- Person A: "Wow, that was amazing!"
Person B: "Of course it was; I own a Front Loader."
- Wow...... Now I'm coming up with wash-in activities based on this concept.
I'm shutting up now....
Jim
washingpowder
Well-known member
Well
Seems like we share very similar attitude Rapunzel. Wish I was a member with a history long enough to speak my mind as bold *LOL*.
Thank you.
Seems like we share very similar attitude Rapunzel. Wish I was a member with a history long enough to speak my mind as bold *LOL*.
Thank you.
golittlesport
Well-known member
LOL
Of course, the same is true of the TL-loving gang. Can't we all just get along?
Of course, the same is true of the TL-loving gang. Can't we all just get along?
There is the truth that FLs do not rinse all that well if they do not do a good job of extracting water between the water changes. WHICH magazine used to give FLs fair to poor grades for rinsing, but I appreciated that they even cared. CU never did. FLs use relatively small amounts of water and, unlike top loading agitator washers, they do not force water though the fabrics to the same extent which is why they take longer to perform the laundering operation. Even the older FLs with higher water levels, did not rely as much on forcing the water through the fabrics as did top loading agitator machines. If you put rags that you have used for picking up dirty water in a top loader and want to run them through a rinse and spin before washing, you will see that within a few strokes of the agitator, the water is completely discolored by the dirt forced out of the fabrics. It is not the same with minimal water use front loaders where the bulk of the dirty water is removed in the spin. Top loaders are impaired in their rinsing by only doing one rinse and often only agitating for 2 minutes which in some machines is not enough time to get everything turned over once so both have inherent flaws.
The rinsing in Westinghouse FLs was impaired by not having a spin between the 2nd and 3rd rinse. The last WCI machine made in the US, like the Kenmore Dual Tumble, with some European parts had spins between the rinses so it rinsed better. The Miele W1918 does not extract all that much between the wash and the first two rinses so it needs 5 deep rinses to do the job. The Miele W1986 extracts very well after every drain so it only needs 3 deep rinses to rinse well, although I have both of them set for Sensitive rinsing so they use more water.
Huge things like drop cloths do not ball up in a top loader. A large canvas one did not wash well in the FLs, but had much more uniform cleaning in the KA top loader. I like being able to fully immerse blankets to soak them clean with minimal agitation in a top loader.
Nothing is perfect.
The rinsing in Westinghouse FLs was impaired by not having a spin between the 2nd and 3rd rinse. The last WCI machine made in the US, like the Kenmore Dual Tumble, with some European parts had spins between the rinses so it rinsed better. The Miele W1918 does not extract all that much between the wash and the first two rinses so it needs 5 deep rinses to do the job. The Miele W1986 extracts very well after every drain so it only needs 3 deep rinses to rinse well, although I have both of them set for Sensitive rinsing so they use more water.
Huge things like drop cloths do not ball up in a top loader. A large canvas one did not wash well in the FLs, but had much more uniform cleaning in the KA top loader. I like being able to fully immerse blankets to soak them clean with minimal agitation in a top loader.
Nothing is perfect.
Rinsing is a process of dilution.
While yes in theory laundry should be extracted after the wash and before each successive rinse there is room for variation. Equally depending upon several factors be it H-Axis, top loading, hand or whatever method all produce good results.
My vintage Miele does not spin until between second and third rinse (out of total of five), and even then that is a short pulse (30 second) extraction. The main and only full extraction takes place before the fourth and final rinse.
Interestingly on the AEG on "Normal" cottons/linens the machine will extract after the wash and each of the successive rinses. However if one chooses "Sensitive" not only is an extra rinse added but the sequence changes. Here the cycles mimic that front loaders of old; that is two deep rinses, short pulse/distribution extraction (low rpms), another deep rinse *then* a full speed extraction which will follow each of the successive rinses.
Clearly the method behind the madness is to dilute out detergent/soil by saturating the wash with clean water. The first spin/extraction would then force out what all that water taking with it large amounts of detergent/soil.
We have discussed rinsing methods of early front loaders before in the group. One rationale given for not spinning directly after the main wash and perhaps a few subsequent rinses focused upon wash that still could be very warm to hot (from a very hot to boil wash). Other reason was to avoid suds lock caused by throwing excessively frothy water out of the wash in excess of what the pump could handle.
Modern front loaders with electronically controlled (multi-speed) motors and sensors are less bothered by suds locking. But older mechanical machines like my Miele simply begin spinning. If there is too much froth the machine will slow (to protect itself) but if the cycle times out before the froth can be cleared, tant pis...
When the AEG detects excessive frothing it will not only slow or stop spinning but hold spin cycle until the pump can clear. Once that happens it will try again....
We also know from the group rather than the tiring process of moving wash between the tub and spinner on Hoover and some other twin tub machines for rinsing, persons move laundry to a basin or sink (with or without spinning first) and rinse there, then put the lot back into the spinner for final extraction.
As for top loading washing machines being superior to front in terms of rinsing; oh I don't know...
Every single load I took from my Whirlpool compact after a finished cycle and rinsed in the Miele produced detergent residue. This was even when the rinse water in the Whirlpool was "clear".
While yes in theory laundry should be extracted after the wash and before each successive rinse there is room for variation. Equally depending upon several factors be it H-Axis, top loading, hand or whatever method all produce good results.
My vintage Miele does not spin until between second and third rinse (out of total of five), and even then that is a short pulse (30 second) extraction. The main and only full extraction takes place before the fourth and final rinse.
Interestingly on the AEG on "Normal" cottons/linens the machine will extract after the wash and each of the successive rinses. However if one chooses "Sensitive" not only is an extra rinse added but the sequence changes. Here the cycles mimic that front loaders of old; that is two deep rinses, short pulse/distribution extraction (low rpms), another deep rinse *then* a full speed extraction which will follow each of the successive rinses.
Clearly the method behind the madness is to dilute out detergent/soil by saturating the wash with clean water. The first spin/extraction would then force out what all that water taking with it large amounts of detergent/soil.
We have discussed rinsing methods of early front loaders before in the group. One rationale given for not spinning directly after the main wash and perhaps a few subsequent rinses focused upon wash that still could be very warm to hot (from a very hot to boil wash). Other reason was to avoid suds lock caused by throwing excessively frothy water out of the wash in excess of what the pump could handle.
Modern front loaders with electronically controlled (multi-speed) motors and sensors are less bothered by suds locking. But older mechanical machines like my Miele simply begin spinning. If there is too much froth the machine will slow (to protect itself) but if the cycle times out before the froth can be cleared, tant pis...
When the AEG detects excessive frothing it will not only slow or stop spinning but hold spin cycle until the pump can clear. Once that happens it will try again....
We also know from the group rather than the tiring process of moving wash between the tub and spinner on Hoover and some other twin tub machines for rinsing, persons move laundry to a basin or sink (with or without spinning first) and rinse there, then put the lot back into the spinner for final extraction.
As for top loading washing machines being superior to front in terms of rinsing; oh I don't know...
Every single load I took from my Whirlpool compact after a finished cycle and rinsed in the Miele produced detergent residue. This was even when the rinse water in the Whirlpool was "clear".
arbilab
Well-known member
Tom: "Both have inherent flaws"
They do, don't they? I've been laundering 60 years and as I find machinery entertaining, I watch closely. Almost evenly distributed, I've used FLs, TLs and TTs.
Wash: TLs scrub better. They also wear out clothes better. Well, you have to throw them away eventually anyway. FLs are gentle but REAL DIRT-- as distinct from office dirt-- can elude them. Ideal TT would be agitator (spiralator). Next would be 70s Panasonic offset washplate; great turnover and didn't make a tornado tangle of everything bigger than socks. Last would be what I have now and what passes for many TLs today, flat washplate. Tangles everything from t-shirts up, ate holes in my jeans the first time they were washed. That was before/how I learned to use it as a soak tub with very short duty cycle... what would you call it? Not exactly agitation. Stirring? Swashing? Plating? Motoring? Osterizing?
Rinse: I'm a rinsaholic. Drinking tumblers, 4 times in running hot water. Repeat rinse cycles in dishwashers (when I had/used one). I was relatively satisfied with vintage KM/WP, MT, WH rinsing. If I wasn't I repeated. In the TT, the detergent is extremely concentrated. But since I'm standing there anyway I can control spin/rinsing until it's clear THEN agitate rinse and do that sequentially for ever how many loads there are. A bigger BUT is, how many people are OCD enough to stand there and supervise? Ideal world, the machine would do the necessary work without supervision. The '98 FL sudslocked briefly on towels. Their answer to that was split the first 2 spins in half with a pause between for the suds to settle. The WH mostly didn't care. Perhaps more clearance between tub and drum than allowed today. Can't say I ever saw KM/WP or MT suds lock. But then I never dumped a half box of powder in and walked away.
Spin: 3 elements; ability (not locked or unbalanced), speed (rpm), duration (min). Judge for yourself.
Sorry for writing an encyclopedia of machine laundry that's all but irrelevant today. The vintage machines you probably already know. The small TTs are not practical for anyone with any volume of wash or any shortage of spare time. The computerized ones, I don't know and that's the way I like it. Could have been worse, by twice. I'm just brimming with irrelevant data. I coulda just said "read what everybody else said" cuz it sums pretty well.
They do, don't they? I've been laundering 60 years and as I find machinery entertaining, I watch closely. Almost evenly distributed, I've used FLs, TLs and TTs.
Wash: TLs scrub better. They also wear out clothes better. Well, you have to throw them away eventually anyway. FLs are gentle but REAL DIRT-- as distinct from office dirt-- can elude them. Ideal TT would be agitator (spiralator). Next would be 70s Panasonic offset washplate; great turnover and didn't make a tornado tangle of everything bigger than socks. Last would be what I have now and what passes for many TLs today, flat washplate. Tangles everything from t-shirts up, ate holes in my jeans the first time they were washed. That was before/how I learned to use it as a soak tub with very short duty cycle... what would you call it? Not exactly agitation. Stirring? Swashing? Plating? Motoring? Osterizing?
Rinse: I'm a rinsaholic. Drinking tumblers, 4 times in running hot water. Repeat rinse cycles in dishwashers (when I had/used one). I was relatively satisfied with vintage KM/WP, MT, WH rinsing. If I wasn't I repeated. In the TT, the detergent is extremely concentrated. But since I'm standing there anyway I can control spin/rinsing until it's clear THEN agitate rinse and do that sequentially for ever how many loads there are. A bigger BUT is, how many people are OCD enough to stand there and supervise? Ideal world, the machine would do the necessary work without supervision. The '98 FL sudslocked briefly on towels. Their answer to that was split the first 2 spins in half with a pause between for the suds to settle. The WH mostly didn't care. Perhaps more clearance between tub and drum than allowed today. Can't say I ever saw KM/WP or MT suds lock. But then I never dumped a half box of powder in and walked away.
Spin: 3 elements; ability (not locked or unbalanced), speed (rpm), duration (min). Judge for yourself.
Sorry for writing an encyclopedia of machine laundry that's all but irrelevant today. The vintage machines you probably already know. The small TTs are not practical for anyone with any volume of wash or any shortage of spare time. The computerized ones, I don't know and that's the way I like it. Could have been worse, by twice. I'm just brimming with irrelevant data. I coulda just said "read what everybody else said" cuz it sums pretty well.
Launderess, that is why top loaders needed to give two rinses to rinse well. Machines with only one deep rinse in the cycle did not rinse completely.
warmsecondrinse
Well-known member
So ideally one would have a TL for wash and one rinse, then throw it into an FL for multiple rinses and high speed spin. Let's see.....
TL: http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/TLW21PS.html
FL: http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/WM3997HWA.html
1300rpm spin. Set it to rinse, spin, & start drying in case you're called away.
Dryer: This, if you're limited to 120v
http://www.amazon.com/Sonya-Portabl...cp_5_E7TB?ie=UTF8&refRID=0BPX635SXA6FH99KQ8HW
Otherwise, any LG to stack on top of the FL
all bases covered?
Jim
TL: http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/TLW21PS.html
FL: http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/WM3997HWA.html
1300rpm spin. Set it to rinse, spin, & start drying in case you're called away.
Dryer: This, if you're limited to 120v
http://www.amazon.com/Sonya-Portabl...cp_5_E7TB?ie=UTF8&refRID=0BPX635SXA6FH99KQ8HW
Otherwise, any LG to stack on top of the FL
all bases covered?
Jim
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
I was thinking of a real top loader with a real agitator, a machine that fills with water and moves items through the water and water through the fabrics, not one of the newfangled things that is more computer than washer and, worst of all, locks the lid so you can't see what's happening when it is operating. That's worse than a damn AMP.
