I think there are few people that are going to really like this
...
The Story Behind the V12 General Electric Filter-Flo Washer
- Thread starter Unimatic1140
- Start date
Help Support :
Oh yes, I like... LOL
this was beyond cool and informative.....although when it got to the bottom of the page, I was expecting more, of how it did through production, and maybe downfalls they experienced and corrected....plus changes they made through model years...
but you have to admit, back then they built a quality product, bet they don't do 1/4 of that sort of quality testing, or preproduction testing today....I think Alliance is about the only one that does...
Thanks Robert
but you have to admit, back then they built a quality product, bet they don't do 1/4 of that sort of quality testing, or preproduction testing today....I think Alliance is about the only one that does...
Thanks Robert
Droooolllll
Great Doctrine - now I finally understand the point behind that massive clutch system!!
Get me a pre-pilot machine people !! Get going !!
Yes Yogi- I was wondering how many companies nowadays actually build a working prototype for testing? I think its only in the Space Program that happens now.
Great Doctrine - now I finally understand the point behind that massive clutch system!!
Get me a pre-pilot machine people !! Get going !!
Yes Yogi- I was wondering how many companies nowadays actually build a working prototype for testing? I think its only in the Space Program that happens now.
GE V-12s
Very Cool Robert, thanks again for posting this. This is is always fascinating to get this inside engineering information. This type of article offers proof of my assertions that AWs continued to improve in longevity while needing less and less repairs along the way to longer and longer life spans.
Washers and most other major appliances got better and better as the decades when on. You can pretty well assume that washers lasted far longer in the 60s compared to the 50s and continued to get better in the 70s, 80s, 90s and seem to still be improving in the 21st century.
New appliances today still go through a very long and through design and testing process, the current WP BD TL washers were being studied and tested for around 10 years, the Calypso also was in testing and review for at least 10 years, the WP DD washers introduced in 1981 were also in the works by 1972.
There is certainly no dough that Quality Control today is at an all time high in new appliances, cars and just about any other manufactured item you buy today.
Very Cool Robert, thanks again for posting this. This is is always fascinating to get this inside engineering information. This type of article offers proof of my assertions that AWs continued to improve in longevity while needing less and less repairs along the way to longer and longer life spans.
Washers and most other major appliances got better and better as the decades when on. You can pretty well assume that washers lasted far longer in the 60s compared to the 50s and continued to get better in the 70s, 80s, 90s and seem to still be improving in the 21st century.
New appliances today still go through a very long and through design and testing process, the current WP BD TL washers were being studied and tested for around 10 years, the Calypso also was in testing and review for at least 10 years, the WP DD washers introduced in 1981 were also in the works by 1972.
There is certainly no dough that Quality Control today is at an all time high in new appliances, cars and just about any other manufactured item you buy today.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
So Riddle Me This....
"New appliances today still go through a very long and through design and testing process"
So, how do such debacles as the Maytag Neptune happen? Whatever testing was done seems to have been completely inadequate to the task of sussing out that design's problems with the wax motor, the board's triacs and the door boot - major problems that surfaced within a year of the design's release to consumers.
And which led - indirectly but inexorably - to Maytag's demise as a standalone company.
I also would not describe the Calypso as a particularly long-lived design once it got out into the field....
[this post was last edited: 10/13/2014-11:03]
"New appliances today still go through a very long and through design and testing process"
So, how do such debacles as the Maytag Neptune happen? Whatever testing was done seems to have been completely inadequate to the task of sussing out that design's problems with the wax motor, the board's triacs and the door boot - major problems that surfaced within a year of the design's release to consumers.
And which led - indirectly but inexorably - to Maytag's demise as a standalone company.
I also would not describe the Calypso as a particularly long-lived design once it got out into the field....
[this post was last edited: 10/13/2014-11:03]
Oh, Robert
No words...
No words...
Great Article . . .
What a neat little article on one of the most iconic and best washers of all time!
I’m sure John is correct in his opinion of quality control in manufacturing being better than ever, but that has to balanced against much greater complexity, particularly with regard to electronics. Modern products do far more than older products in many respects but much of this is peripheral to the main task at hand, opening the question of whether the complication is really needed. There is no one answer to this, it depends on the particular circumstance. They also require almost no maintenance, a good point when few owners have the patience to deal with a service call and consequently there are fewer and fewer good service professionals.
Part of the problem is a combination of computer driven design and paper-thin profit margins. Manufacturers can’t afford to overbuild things mechanically like they used to and with computers can be far more accurate on exactly how much strength is needed in any component. Every once in awhile a manufacturer screws up. This happened years ago too, it’s just that now there are more opportunities for error due to the extra complexity.
What a neat little article on one of the most iconic and best washers of all time!
I’m sure John is correct in his opinion of quality control in manufacturing being better than ever, but that has to balanced against much greater complexity, particularly with regard to electronics. Modern products do far more than older products in many respects but much of this is peripheral to the main task at hand, opening the question of whether the complication is really needed. There is no one answer to this, it depends on the particular circumstance. They also require almost no maintenance, a good point when few owners have the patience to deal with a service call and consequently there are fewer and fewer good service professionals.
Part of the problem is a combination of computer driven design and paper-thin profit margins. Manufacturers can’t afford to overbuild things mechanically like they used to and with computers can be far more accurate on exactly how much strength is needed in any component. Every once in awhile a manufacturer screws up. This happened years ago too, it’s just that now there are more opportunities for error due to the extra complexity.
They may go through testing, but unfortunately like so many other things, once the bean counters or finance committee see it, things are cheapened down to meet cost targets.
Also let us not assume that lengthy testing automatically means longevity. Far from it. Otherwise, why are GE TL machines knows for mode shifter issues? And how did LG manage to put out a machine that exploded upon entering spin cycle?
If we are all still around 40 years from now, I'd like to see someone rebuild an LG or Samsung eco-approved machine like Jetcone did with his 57 Speed Queen.
Also let us not assume that lengthy testing automatically means longevity. Far from it. Otherwise, why are GE TL machines knows for mode shifter issues? And how did LG manage to put out a machine that exploded upon entering spin cycle?
If we are all still around 40 years from now, I'd like to see someone rebuild an LG or Samsung eco-approved machine like Jetcone did with his 57 Speed Queen.
I doubt that many of today’s appliances will be rebuilt 40 years from now. Parts won’t be available, in particular electronic modules, and the cost to replicate them will be high. Much the same is true of old cars, I hate to think of how anyone in 2055 will restore a 2015 car full of electronics and plastics. I’m sure it will be done, but most likely by a professional working on a high end model owned by someone wealthy. It won't be a hobby for the common man, all the more reason for us to preserve the old stuff we love as long as we can. Younger people today are also far less interested in mechanical products than many of us were, for them it's normal to just use it until it breaks and then replace it.
philr
Well-known member
I think one of the reason for the long testing is to avoid over-engineering any part so that a machine that lasts 15-20 years won't have parts that have failed 3 times because of bad design or weak materials and other (too cost-prohibitive) parts that are still like new when the machine reaches the end of it's life cycle.
In some cases, this testing still doesn't work as I have seen newer fridges that were just out of warranty with a sealed system failure which meant "not worth repairing". Or expensive laundry equipment that ended in the dump after a few years because of major failures due to design flaws. Well, if the same situations happened in the 1960s (and it did happen), the owners who paid $600 for their fridges then were more likely to have it repaired than those who paid about the same price 5 years ago!
Cheaper doesn't always mean less functional, less durable or less reliable. But one thing that most appliance manufacturers did away with is trying to make machines that look luxurious: Lighted panels, heavy chrome trim, porcelain coatings and exciting styles that changed almost every year are things of the past... And that's why I have interest in vintage machines.
In some cases, this testing still doesn't work as I have seen newer fridges that were just out of warranty with a sealed system failure which meant "not worth repairing". Or expensive laundry equipment that ended in the dump after a few years because of major failures due to design flaws. Well, if the same situations happened in the 1960s (and it did happen), the owners who paid $600 for their fridges then were more likely to have it repaired than those who paid about the same price 5 years ago!
Cheaper doesn't always mean less functional, less durable or less reliable. But one thing that most appliance manufacturers did away with is trying to make machines that look luxurious: Lighted panels, heavy chrome trim, porcelain coatings and exciting styles that changed almost every year are things of the past... And that's why I have interest in vintage machines.
And now, a message from the Filter-Flo Curmudgeon:
I'm still savoring this article, the information and the pictures which are very informative in and of themselves. A couple of quibbles:
1. Even though V-12 is my"street" name, I question GE's claim. According to my math and the measurements in the article, the old solid tub's volume was better than 4853 cubic inches, while the V-12 tub's volume was little less than 4866. 13 extra cubic inches means a 20% increase in useable capacity?? Really? Last time I looked, you couldn't fit 2 lbs. of dry laundry inside a 2 1/2" cube. Also, maximum fill in the solid tubs went up to the clothes retaining ring. Not so in the perforated tubs. That new spiral activator also displaces a lot more volume from the tub. Perhaps GE was claiming that the whole system was designed to accommodate and move more laundry jammed into a similar space.
2. V-12's were introduced in 1961; curious that were using a 1962 model for this study.
3. How wonderful to now know the name of the plastic used on the mini-baskets (and maybe also the filter pans?), Cycolac!!!
4. They say that the activators are made from Phenolic resin. Is that the same thing as bakelite?
5. Interesting that they pictured the same style of perforated tub that was in my first Filter-Flo. I still wonder if there was a distinction; most V-12's had a basket with double the amount of perforations than the one pictured. Compare the tub in the article with the tub on Robert's WA-757W. I've never seen the difference mentioned in any of the literature I've seen. Probably amounts to nothing but why go to the expense of two different tubs when one would do?
I'm still savoring this article, the information and the pictures which are very informative in and of themselves. A couple of quibbles:
1. Even though V-12 is my"street" name, I question GE's claim. According to my math and the measurements in the article, the old solid tub's volume was better than 4853 cubic inches, while the V-12 tub's volume was little less than 4866. 13 extra cubic inches means a 20% increase in useable capacity?? Really? Last time I looked, you couldn't fit 2 lbs. of dry laundry inside a 2 1/2" cube. Also, maximum fill in the solid tubs went up to the clothes retaining ring. Not so in the perforated tubs. That new spiral activator also displaces a lot more volume from the tub. Perhaps GE was claiming that the whole system was designed to accommodate and move more laundry jammed into a similar space.
2. V-12's were introduced in 1961; curious that were using a 1962 model for this study.
3. How wonderful to now know the name of the plastic used on the mini-baskets (and maybe also the filter pans?), Cycolac!!!
4. They say that the activators are made from Phenolic resin. Is that the same thing as bakelite?
5. Interesting that they pictured the same style of perforated tub that was in my first Filter-Flo. I still wonder if there was a distinction; most V-12's had a basket with double the amount of perforations than the one pictured. Compare the tub in the article with the tub on Robert's WA-757W. I've never seen the difference mentioned in any of the literature I've seen. Probably amounts to nothing but why go to the expense of two different tubs when one would do?
I worked at GE Capital in 1989-1992 (when they were doing testing on the first-gen plastic machines) and they solicited employees to use in-home the machines in the 1990-1 timeframe.
mrb627
Well-known member
Capacity difference
I propose that volume of the tub does not solely determine USABLE capacity. That ramped activator could wash rings around the straight vane in the solid tub.
Malcolm
I propose that volume of the tub does not solely determine USABLE capacity. That ramped activator could wash rings around the straight vane in the solid tub.
Malcolm
firedome
Well-known member
What a great thread...
I wish I cold get that kind of insider engineering background on, say, Chrysler's '50s V8 engines on the kind of cars I restore, not the "hemis", fantastic info here.
I wish I cold get that kind of insider engineering background on, say, Chrysler's '50s V8 engines on the kind of cars I restore, not the "hemis", fantastic info here.
Ken
yes Phenolic resin = bakelite but the word Bakelite was trademarked so GE had their own molding plant in Pittsfield and had to call it by its process name.
Ken, did the '61 FF have the flume still at 12 0'clock? And then moved it in '62, and was that how they were able to reduce cabinet depth?
yes Phenolic resin = bakelite but the word Bakelite was trademarked so GE had their own molding plant in Pittsfield and had to call it by its process name.
Ken, did the '61 FF have the flume still at 12 0'clock? And then moved it in '62, and was that how they were able to reduce cabinet depth?
mayken4now
Well-known member
Very Intersting
that GE spent that much money in the 50's & 60's to perfect the correct tooling etc.
that GE spent that much money in the 50's & 60's to perfect the correct tooling etc.
Jon
GE plastics were done in Pittsfield? Is there still a factory up there?
The FF flume began at 12:00 (following the Solid Tub configuration)early in the 1961 model year but, as with most GE production years, there were at least 9 versions indicated in the model numbers. Sometime in the middle of the run they moved it to the 1:00 position where it remained. Somebody figured out that it would be easier and cheaper to run the recirculation nozzle through the rubber splash guard than through a piece of the metal cabinet flange requiring cuts in both the top and the lid.
I have 3 1961 FF's in my collection and only one of them has the old 12:00 recirculation flume. The 1:00 flumes IMO were made better and worked better than the old ones.
Malcolm, you made a good point about the Activator and increased ability to move the loads, but I'm a stickler for truth in advertising and I think GE's capacity claims were outright lies. We had a scale near the washing machine in our bathroom and I weighed out a 12 lb. load and tried to stuff it into the machine. There was no way that machine could effectively clean and rinse that load; it wouldn't have broken the machine, but it wouldn't have worked to anyone's satisfaction. I think Consumer Reports at said that the realistic maximum load size for most 1960's vintage machines was 8 lbs. and I'd have to agree. What GE did accomplish with the change to the V-12's was still really significant; pre selectable water levels (although the difference between max. and min. amounted to very little), effective filtration at all water levels and Activator and that powerhouse to run it.
GE plastics were done in Pittsfield? Is there still a factory up there?
The FF flume began at 12:00 (following the Solid Tub configuration)early in the 1961 model year but, as with most GE production years, there were at least 9 versions indicated in the model numbers. Sometime in the middle of the run they moved it to the 1:00 position where it remained. Somebody figured out that it would be easier and cheaper to run the recirculation nozzle through the rubber splash guard than through a piece of the metal cabinet flange requiring cuts in both the top and the lid.
I have 3 1961 FF's in my collection and only one of them has the old 12:00 recirculation flume. The 1:00 flumes IMO were made better and worked better than the old ones.
Malcolm, you made a good point about the Activator and increased ability to move the loads, but I'm a stickler for truth in advertising and I think GE's capacity claims were outright lies. We had a scale near the washing machine in our bathroom and I weighed out a 12 lb. load and tried to stuff it into the machine. There was no way that machine could effectively clean and rinse that load; it wouldn't have broken the machine, but it wouldn't have worked to anyone's satisfaction. I think Consumer Reports at said that the realistic maximum load size for most 1960's vintage machines was 8 lbs. and I'd have to agree. What GE did accomplish with the change to the V-12's was still really significant; pre selectable water levels (although the difference between max. and min. amounted to very little), effective filtration at all water levels and Activator and that powerhouse to run it.
doug
Well-known member
1962 v-12 Ge washer
Yes enjoyed the article! Still wondering about your brand new 1962 v-12 Ge washer Robert, did you ever use it if you did do you have any videos? -Doug
Yes enjoyed the article! Still wondering about your brand new 1962 v-12 Ge washer Robert, did you ever use it if you did do you have any videos? -Doug
Similar threads
