maytaga806
Well-known member
That got off topic real quick
Speed Queen TR7 with a transmission!
- Thread starter aussiestayover
- Start date
Help Support :
Talked To Our SQ Rep Yesterday
There is no though of building a TC7000 series TL washer, they are struggling to keep the TC5000 series in production with increased Energy Regulations as it is.
I would look for a commercial version of the TR TL machines one of these years and the old transmission machines will go away completely, they are simply too costly to build and use too much electricity and are not as reliable or long lived as the TR machines.
John L.
There is no though of building a TC7000 series TL washer, they are struggling to keep the TC5000 series in production with increased Energy Regulations as it is.
I would look for a commercial version of the TR TL machines one of these years and the old transmission machines will go away completely, they are simply too costly to build and use too much electricity and are not as reliable or long lived as the TR machines.
John L.
windrivers
Well-known member
I know some are pretty smug about how the regulations are making it difficult to get decent TL machines. Yet somehow I guess you think the regulations won't come after your physics-defying FLs. People pushing the regulations and their "green" agenda aren't going to stop. You can bet they eventually they'll start decreasing the amounts of water even a FL can use during a cycle, limit the number of rinses to one, force them to use weaker motors, limit the cycle times, and make them lighter weight (and I think it's a fool who thinks you can't tell something about the quality of a machine by studying its construction), etc. That is, if we even have electricity to run them, thanks to the energy policies. It's not so free a country after all.
John, given your view of front loading machines being nearly perfect, why would you think commercial establishments would want a TR? I've never even been clear on exactly how much water and energy they're suppose to save anyway. Are you going to claim they clean better also?
How do you know the TR are so much longer lived? They require greater force and a more powerful motor to sling tubs full of water around. Wouldn't that put more stress on the bearings and such? Have they been out long enough for you to state it as a fact that they live longer. I guess it's like your statement that the FLs will last twice as long.
Dan, thanks for the link for the Toyota parts. I'm not going to tell the color of my vehicles. Too much personal information, and I don't discriminate based on color.
John, given your view of front loading machines being nearly perfect, why would you think commercial establishments would want a TR? I've never even been clear on exactly how much water and energy they're suppose to save anyway. Are you going to claim they clean better also?
How do you know the TR are so much longer lived? They require greater force and a more powerful motor to sling tubs full of water around. Wouldn't that put more stress on the bearings and such? Have they been out long enough for you to state it as a fact that they live longer. I guess it's like your statement that the FLs will last twice as long.
Dan, thanks for the link for the Toyota parts. I'm not going to tell the color of my vehicles. Too much personal information, and I don't discriminate based on color.
Reply number 62
Sorry Jeff you have to get your facts right the TR has a much smaller motor in it uses much less electricity does not put as much load on the motor as it drains before it spins the machine is much simpler, and therefore much longer lived.
I am not gonna debate ridiculous points about front loaders, and top loaders that you don’t understand, and there is still a market for top loaders in certain commercial installations, mostly very tight, laundry rooms in apartment, buildings condos, etc.
John
Sorry Jeff you have to get your facts right the TR has a much smaller motor in it uses much less electricity does not put as much load on the motor as it drains before it spins the machine is much simpler, and therefore much longer lived.
I am not gonna debate ridiculous points about front loaders, and top loaders that you don’t understand, and there is still a market for top loaders in certain commercial installations, mostly very tight, laundry rooms in apartment, buildings condos, etc.
John
windrivers
Well-known member
What a cop-out of an answer, "you're just too stupid to understand".
Though I still find it interesting that you don't seem to think that idiots like me have any business buying and using TLs, yet you see uses for commercial applications.
So just keep up with your hyperbole, facts you can't back up, and insults.
Though I still find it interesting that you don't seem to think that idiots like me have any business buying and using TLs, yet you see uses for commercial applications.
So just keep up with your hyperbole, facts you can't back up, and insults.
just wait
Just wait until Speed Queen is forced to make HE top load washers with wash plates in them.
Just wait until Speed Queen is forced to make HE top load washers with wash plates in them.
windrivers
Well-known member
BTW, when the TC drains, the belt slips until the tub is up to speed, so it's not like it puts an extreme load on the motor as our physics expert and mechanical engineer would have you believe. The TC motor turns an agitator through the water, so I believe the main force would be water resistance, while the TR slings an over 100 lb tub full of water around.
So there is wear and tear on the belt on a TC. So if a belt last 5 years, and a TR lasts 10 years before a part needs to be replaces, I'm sure John will say the TR lasts twice as long.
So there is wear and tear on the belt on a TC. So if a belt last 5 years, and a TR lasts 10 years before a part needs to be replaces, I'm sure John will say the TR lasts twice as long.
windrivers
Well-known member
"TR has a much smaller motor"
So, as I recall, the TR series uses a 1 hp motor, the TC series uses a 1/2 hp motor. But what really matters is the load on the motor.
So I guess I'm still incapable of understanding John's reasoning as to why the TR uses a more powerful motor, and how it uses so much less electricity at the same time. If a transmission model consumes so much more power, than why does it have a motor that's half the size?
So, as I recall, the TR series uses a 1 hp motor, the TC series uses a 1/2 hp motor. But what really matters is the load on the motor.
So I guess I'm still incapable of understanding John's reasoning as to why the TR uses a more powerful motor, and how it uses so much less electricity at the same time. If a transmission model consumes so much more power, than why does it have a motor that's half the size?
classic clean versus perfect wash
The classic clean will outclean the perfect wash by miles. I bet the perfect wash will just spread dirt around even on heavy duty.
The classic clean will outclean the perfect wash by miles. I bet the perfect wash will just spread dirt around even on heavy duty.
Speed Queen top load washers
Jeff, I’m talking about the weight of the motor. The motor is twice as heavy in the TC washer as the TR washers.
The motor in the TR washers use 1/4 of the power of the TC washers and barely even get warm in operation, where is the motor in a regular machine gets too hot to touch.
The motor in the TR washers will probably last 5 to 10 times as long as a plain old induction motor Induction motors just have cheap sleeve bearings in them and are known for failures plane induction motors used in standard washing machines and dryers are one of the major items that cause these machines to be thrown away because of failures of the bearings, etc.
Front loading washers with high speed motors are similar to the motor and the TR washer. I have almost never seen one fail.
The belt in the TR washer likewise should last 5 to 10 times as long as the belt in the TC washer , that’s long been a trouble spot in top loading speed, queen washers.
I did not use the term stupid, but if it fits use it.
John
Jeff, I’m talking about the weight of the motor. The motor is twice as heavy in the TC washer as the TR washers.
The motor in the TR washers use 1/4 of the power of the TC washers and barely even get warm in operation, where is the motor in a regular machine gets too hot to touch.
The motor in the TR washers will probably last 5 to 10 times as long as a plain old induction motor Induction motors just have cheap sleeve bearings in them and are known for failures plane induction motors used in standard washing machines and dryers are one of the major items that cause these machines to be thrown away because of failures of the bearings, etc.
Front loading washers with high speed motors are similar to the motor and the TR washer. I have almost never seen one fail.
The belt in the TR washer likewise should last 5 to 10 times as long as the belt in the TC washer , that’s long been a trouble spot in top loading speed, queen washers.
I did not use the term stupid, but if it fits use it.
John
panasonicvac
Well-known member
As much as I love the TR7 when I tried it out, I'm not fully sold into it. Just because they're quieter and uses less electricity doesn't mean they clean better or last longer. There's already proof on YouTube that the classic Speed Queen top loaders definitely outperforms the TR models. And according to consumeraffairs.com, there's already people having technical problems with the TR series especially the bearings, even under the warranty. I've heard only one or maybe two issues with the TC5 so far. The whole reason why the TC5 was introduced in the first place is because of the negative feedback of the TR series, the same thing would happen all over again if SQ did discontinue their classic top loaders again but it'd be much worse if they also discontinued the commercial models as well.
windrivers
Well-known member
Yes, according to the "energy guide", for what that's worth, a TR uses approx. 10% less. Big deal if it cleans even as much as 80% as effectively as a TC. I'm just using the 80% figure as an example, it may well not be that much, I don't have any more basis for it than John seems to have for most of his figures. When called out on certain statements he makes, he just runs and comes up with more questionable statements.
Even if on a classic model I have to replace the belt occasionally, or even a motor, which I believe is unlikely, I'd much sooner do that than have to replace a bearing or something on a TR. To me it's worth it. Besides, I enjoy the spin drain. It doesn't take much to entertain a mindless clod like me.
BTW, if you look at reply #10, John did indeed use the word "stupid", and implies it otherwise. I won't get into the psychology of why John thinks smaller is better.
Even if on a classic model I have to replace the belt occasionally, or even a motor, which I believe is unlikely, I'd much sooner do that than have to replace a bearing or something on a TR. To me it's worth it. Besides, I enjoy the spin drain. It doesn't take much to entertain a mindless clod like me.
BTW, if you look at reply #10, John did indeed use the word "stupid", and implies it otherwise. I won't get into the psychology of why John thinks smaller is better.
to combo52
I'd love to see a video side by side of the perfect wash and classic clean on heavy duty cycles with a full load of laundry and get back to me. I bet the classic clean will clean laundry better than perfect wash without damaging clothes.
I'd love to see a video side by side of the perfect wash and classic clean on heavy duty cycles with a full load of laundry and get back to me. I bet the classic clean will clean laundry better than perfect wash without damaging clothes.
windrivers
Well-known member
Reply #70: "The motor in the TR washers use 1/4 of the power of the TC washers..."
Where do these figures come from? Do the TC motors have a power factor of around 20% or less, or do the TR models have a power factor of well over 100%. Do the TRs also defy physics?
According to the serial plate on the machines, the TC is rated at 9.8 amps, and the TR at 7.7 amps. So, yes, that may be a significant difference to energy conscious people or organizations who use their machines significantly more than me, or have many machines, or otherwise value energy savings above all. But assuming that the amperage rating is an indication of the ratio of power used throughout the cycle for a TC compared to a TR (I assume those are the maximum amps and not necessarily those used throughout the cycle, but then, as John says, I may lack understanding) then the TC uses approx 1/4 more energy than the TR, or the TRs use about 80% of the energy of the TCs, not 25% as John seems to claim. At least I would think that most of the power used goes to the motor. If John's figures are correct, than I guess the majority of electricity used must be going to the control boards, in which case they should go back mechanical controls to meet energy requirements and have machines that would be rated at something more like 2 or 3 amps. I'd be all for that. Or maybe the neutral pump in the TRs use 7.7 amps, and the motor only uses a fraction of that.
Whatever. Again, even the "Energy Guide" doesn't even back up a savings of 20%, much less the claims made here.
Where do these figures come from? Do the TC motors have a power factor of around 20% or less, or do the TR models have a power factor of well over 100%. Do the TRs also defy physics?
According to the serial plate on the machines, the TC is rated at 9.8 amps, and the TR at 7.7 amps. So, yes, that may be a significant difference to energy conscious people or organizations who use their machines significantly more than me, or have many machines, or otherwise value energy savings above all. But assuming that the amperage rating is an indication of the ratio of power used throughout the cycle for a TC compared to a TR (I assume those are the maximum amps and not necessarily those used throughout the cycle, but then, as John says, I may lack understanding) then the TC uses approx 1/4 more energy than the TR, or the TRs use about 80% of the energy of the TCs, not 25% as John seems to claim. At least I would think that most of the power used goes to the motor. If John's figures are correct, than I guess the majority of electricity used must be going to the control boards, in which case they should go back mechanical controls to meet energy requirements and have machines that would be rated at something more like 2 or 3 amps. I'd be all for that. Or maybe the neutral pump in the TRs use 7.7 amps, and the motor only uses a fraction of that.
Whatever. Again, even the "Energy Guide" doesn't even back up a savings of 20%, much less the claims made here.
water efficiency
They need to leave water levels alone. I'm so sick and tired of being gentle on clothes. It especially doesn't work in low water situations.
They need to leave water levels alone. I'm so sick and tired of being gentle on clothes. It especially doesn't work in low water situations.
