Solid Tub Washers

[Chetlaham]

Why were solid tub washers discontinued? More specifically why did GE discontinue solid tub machines? Looking at how these operate, I don't see any major disadvantages. The solid tub design is anything saves on water since the outer tub doesn't have to hold all the water back.

 

[combo52]

Solid tub top loading washers

Were discontinued because they left too much sand and grit in clothing, and no matter how they try they never could get rid of lint as well either.

Solid tub machines often got pretty smelly because you had it top that was more sealed to the outer tub and you got a lot of buildup in the outer tubs in many cases.

It is ironic that they were more water efficient or at least could be. But the way they were used with waste full overflow, rinsing, etc. to try to get rid of lint and scum. They ended up using just as much water anyway but that could’ve been more efficient.

When GE redesigned their solid tub machine went to the Filter Flow V 12 machine. They made a drastic increase in reliability machines lasted about 50% longer immediately .

John.

 

[Chetlaham]

That makes a lot of sense, thanks John!

 

 

 

 

 

[Unimatic1140]

Let's Look at the Actual Numbers...

I love you John but I have to step in here and put in my 2 cents as I disagree with some of those assumptions. I use solid tub washers for 99% of my weekly wash and never do I have any issues with lint or grit. I could see if I worked in farm fields full of ground soil a front-loader or perforated tub washer would perform mostly better but that isn't the case the for those of us in urban populations. I have never had any disagreeable odor coming out of my machines nor do I remember my grandmother's Frigidaire Pulsamatic as a child ever having any scent besides the clean smell of 1960s/1970s detergent. I also have found a ton of old solid-tub washers over the past 28 years and I do not remember any of them having any bad smell. Solid tub machines are superior in their ability to rinse out clothes which can clearly be seen in using a belt drive Whirlpool/Kenmore washer vs any solid tub machine. This is the reason I never use my belt-drive Kenmore washer to ever wash towels as that design was very prone to suds-locking where most solid tub machines rarely suds lock, even when I use vintage detergent with lots of suds in the wash.

As for water consumption, while some brands of solid tub washers used an unnecessary amounts of water (Hotpoint's early design was just ridiculous) the majority used less water than perforated tub washers. Let's look at the total cycle water consumption numbers that Consumer Reports reported for both 1954 and 1960 models. It is also interesting to note that the front loaders of the 1950s used almost as much water as the solid-tub machines.

 

[qsd-dan]

I remember many years ago seeing a picture here of a solid tub Frigidaire out of the machine and it was massively plugged with lint....I think in the upper portion of the tub if my memory sticks aren't failing me.

 

When I had my WCI-63, it was "ok" at floating some of the dog hair out but not nearly as well as the Maytag and I didn't like the idea of sending it all down the drain even though I was on a public sewer system at the time. I was most likely plugging up those upper holes in the tub, too, I'm sure. I didn't use the washer very much nor tested it out with dirt/sand, so no comment there.

 

Now that I'm on 3.3 acres and spend a lot of time gardening/mowing/weeding/ every inch of it, there's no way a solid tub, front loader, and even a neutral draining perforated tub could handle the mess I throw in there. Even with a pre wash, main wash, 1.5 minute spray rinse and 3 minute deep rinse (we're talking over 65+ gallons of water), I occasionally have a little grit at the bottom corners of the tub with my dirtiest loads.

 

[norgeway]

The only thing

They dont do better is sand disposal, they wash better because the action does not bleed out thru the holes, they use less water and as a rule they spin out more water.

 

[gyrafoam]

I remember well the solid-tub machines found in most Floridian homes back in the 1950's and 1960's and with rare exception I hardly recall any sediment issues.
Perhaps most parents in those days had enough sense to tell their kids to shake-out anything that came in from the beach as opposed to Betty Furness pouring a cup of sand in a machine. Almost all of the coin-op laundries in Florida in those days had solid-tub machines. I don't ever recall going to use one and finding it full of sand. By the 1980's most of those old machines were still chugging along even if the cabinets were all rusty from the salt-air.
There was a Frigidaire laundry in Tampa that limped into the early 1990's with the same (by then, very rusty) 1965 coin-op Unimatics they had when they opened.
I never ever remember a smelly solid-tub machine. Ever. Maybe because people still used hot water and bleach.

If anyone ever wanted to see evidence of lint removal capability, they should have seen some of the tubs I pulled out of the 1965-1970 Frigidaires! Every drain slot completely plugged with lint. I envisioned lots of kids and dirty towels/ wash cloths. I still believe nothing ever caught lint and pet hair better than a Filter-Flow, solid-tub or perforated.

I have a 1963 Multimatic that does a pretty lengthy over-flow rinse, and a 1962 Norge that is just a ridiculous water-hog. I cherish both machines for those loads I use Clorox in. Great rinsing capability. I usually set the Temp. switch on Warm/Warm, and turn off the Cold water to make sure I can get a Hot/Hot complete cycle. Kitchen towels are left spotless and grease-free. I never saw a solid-tub machine with a nasty black grease-ring around the agitator.
I always thought the Unimatics were pretty good with water usage, and the GE solid-tub Filter-Flo's seemed like water-hogs, back in the day.

Well, water was pretty cheap back then and still is where I live.

 

[cfz2882]

ST Hotpoint ...

..,did often have sand and sediment at bottom of tub,but it took in a lot of sand it had to dispose of Washer was a 1969 or'70 model and lasted until 1981,when aluminum sediment tube corroded and broke loose,lodging in the pump.I watched the Hotpoint get buried in the landfill,a white rollermatic nearby in the debris

 

[repairguy]

There was a speed queen laundromat about 10 minutes from my house that still had some solid tubs running into the late nineties.

 

[Chetlaham]

Robert, I can't thank you enough. You've given me so much to think about here. I'm tempted to opine solid tub machines should've been in production longer. 

 

 

Why/how did the Hotpoint use so much water? That has me asking lol.

 

 

 

 

[gyrafoam]

I have an early 80's SQ (big tub) solid tub machine. It really is a good machine and it is nice that it holds a larger load. However, due to the usual Government interference involving water usage, the rinse fill is always about 3/4 of a tub full when agitation begins. The first part of what should be an overflow rinse, is just time spent filling the tub the rest of the way. Then the water pauses for a few minutes. Then there is about one minute of a proper overflow rinse before the final spin.

So, with these machines you get the added room for a larger load, trading rinsing performance for the sake of Government over-reach.
Leave it to a Government to kill anything good.

 

[swestoyz]

Leave it to a Government to kill anything good

Hum, I'm not so sure it was "Government" influence but rather that SQ recycled timer interval sequences / interval durations / water valve GPM output between the standard capacity and large capacity solid tub washers.

SQ used the same 3-1 sequence for the 70's large capacity rinse portion of the cycle that was being used with the 60's machines, and having the same interval duration and GPM. 3 intervals of fill and 1 interval of fill during the first interval of agitation, during rinse.

If I had to guess, it wasn't the Feds chasing the brass in Rippon but rather the bean counters in Rippon not wanting to fork more money for a higher GPM water valve for the large capacity machines. They were already toggling between the 3.5 on the standard capacity and the 3.8 on the large during this time, both recycled from the 60's. The 3.5 was reserved for the standard capacity/timed fill, with the 3.8 being used on the pressure fill and large capacity machines.

I can't imagine these were cheap machines to build by the late 70's and they were looking to cut costs anywhere they could. Adding a third valve to the mix wouldn't make sense, plus the clothes were still getting clean.

Ben

 

[gyrafoam]

Maybe, or------

a combination of both. We do know that there had already been years of pressure from the (so called) Consumers Union to force manufacturers to reduce water consumption.
And, the Government certainly was involved at the time, as well.
Using up the original water valves would have been like Frigidaire using the last of the Jet-Action agitators on the 1-16's or Maytag using up the solid-fin Gyratator's on the early BOL New Generation of 1966/1967.
It's all about the $$$$$$.

 

[combo52]

Lower rinsewater fill 1980 Speed Queen

Energy guides were required by 1980 on washing machines so I’m sure Speed Queen was concerned about sales and we’re making minor changes to reduce water usage and give the machine a more attractive energy guide.

Like it or not the majority of Americans want lower utility bills and want to save water and energy. Substantial majority of Americans are voting for energy, saving measures, which will hopefully lessen the climate crisis.

John

 

[gizmo]

Solid tub machines of recent vintage

Are there any recent model solid tub machines in the US?

 

In Australia, Simpson did make a sort of "semi-solid tub" machine that was a bit of a half-way design. This would have been in the last 10 or 15 years?

It had a stainless steel inner basket that had a very small number of holes, I'm not clear on the details, but I think the idea was it worked more or less like a solid tub machine, but a predictable amount of water "leaked" out through a few holes into the outer tub, fell to the bottom and a recirculation pump returned it to the inner basket. The holes were small enough and few enough that there was mainly air between inner and outer tubs, not water. It was done to make their top loaders more water efficient - Australia is generally very water conscious.

 

I have no idea if these machines were any good, if the current models are still like that or not, or exactly when this design came in. Others might like to chime in with more detail or corrections. They aren't really "my thing."

 

[washerlover]

Hey Gyrafoam, would love to see a recent video of your ‘62 Norge, please?!

 

[maytag85]

Reply #13

Sorry to take this off the tracks, but If people want lower energy costs and bills, then we need to build more nuclear power plants which produce clean and abundant electricity. Once nuclear fusion is figured out, then we’ll have an unlimited supply of energy.

People who are against nuclear energy simply fall for propaganda and false information that’s put out there by the oil companies along with the bureaucrats who know nothing about energy production and such.

 

[combo52]

Reply number 16

Hi Sean, post number 16 has nothing to do with washing machines and nothing to do with solid tub washers.

You’re the one that said you don’t want politics in here I’ve reported your post to Robert.

John

 

[maytag85]

Reply #17

Let me clarify, I DID NOT mention politics of ANY kind, I simply was replying to your reply. If I REALLY did mention politics, I’d be mentioning the names of political parties and figures.