mrcleanjeans
New member
What is THE very best combo in history? Me thinks it is the 1958 Bendix DuoMatic! This should be interesting, thanks!
The Very Best Combo Ever In History!!
- Thread starter mrcleanjeans
- Start date
Help Support :
norgeway
Well-known member
I ..
Second the bendix, but I think all the Bendix combo's are superior.
Second the bendix, but I think all the Bendix combo's are superior.
The 1957 and the 1958. Now, for "convenience and true automation", any 1960s Duomatic that had automatic rinse and bleach dispensers.
BEST COMBOS
Best combos of the 1950s hands down the big 1952-8 Bendix. The best of the 1960s and best overall is the 1961-1971 WP and WP built KMs. Both the Bendix and the 29" WP built combos got a little better as time went on in terms of reliability. I always said that these were the two best combos but like most 1950s washers they were not nearly as reliable as the washers of the 1960s and washers got even better for the most part in the 1970s.
I have as many of you know a 1957 Bendix combo that was only used about three years and put in storage. Last fall before our trail washer party my great friend John E the worlds greatest living Bendix combo expert spent many hours getting the 57 up and running. And it runs with few problems and several weekends since last fall I have taken my laundry over the the warehouse to do in various classic washers while I worked on others. And the Bendix is a very cool machine, but no where near the match overall for the very capable WP built 29" combos. The WPs with thier triple dispensers auto dry and lighted interior automatic prewash and powered rotospray washing are just plain more fun and effective. Even John E has a 1970 KM gas combo that he really loves, but he may well be more partial to the Bendix as I am to the WPs.
Best combos of the 1950s hands down the big 1952-8 Bendix. The best of the 1960s and best overall is the 1961-1971 WP and WP built KMs. Both the Bendix and the 29" WP built combos got a little better as time went on in terms of reliability. I always said that these were the two best combos but like most 1950s washers they were not nearly as reliable as the washers of the 1960s and washers got even better for the most part in the 1970s.
I have as many of you know a 1957 Bendix combo that was only used about three years and put in storage. Last fall before our trail washer party my great friend John E the worlds greatest living Bendix combo expert spent many hours getting the 57 up and running. And it runs with few problems and several weekends since last fall I have taken my laundry over the the warehouse to do in various classic washers while I worked on others. And the Bendix is a very cool machine, but no where near the match overall for the very capable WP built 29" combos. The WPs with thier triple dispensers auto dry and lighted interior automatic prewash and powered rotospray washing are just plain more fun and effective. Even John E has a 1970 KM gas combo that he really loves, but he may well be more partial to the Bendix as I am to the WPs.
mrcleanjeans
New member
What was the powered RotoSpray ,John ? Was it the same as the JetStream washing of the 50s?
ROTO-SPRAY WASHING
Yes it was the same as thier earlier combs except the spray entered the tub at the 2 o'clock position instead the 5 o'clock position like the earlier 1956-1960 33" combos did.
Yes it was the same as thier earlier combs except the spray entered the tub at the 2 o'clock position instead the 5 o'clock position like the earlier 1956-1960 33" combos did.
I'll let you know when I get the 56 GE Combo in the Kithcen Centre's dry function working... LOL
arbilab
Well-known member
Nobody mentioned Westy. I wonder why? >\ /<
OTOH I never knew GE made one, or anything that tumbled with water in it.
OTOH I never knew GE made one, or anything that tumbled with water in it.
Dispensers aside, and the chute at the top of the Bendix made adding any wash product easy, I think the more positive water extraction after each drain period and the complete drain of the Bendix during each drain period makes it a better rinsing machine. The first model of the Duomatic, when tested in the huge 53 or 54 report on washers and dryers ranked just below the WP agitator washer for cleaning. The 29 inch combo holds some water in the sump after each drain. I could see this because the tub light was wired by John so that it was on whenever the timer was rotated out of the "OFF" position. When it starts filling for the first rinse, the first water out of the nozzle is "white with foam" thank you, Irving & Kate. When I had my Kenmore combo, the door switch stopped working meaning I could open the door and it would continue running. When I washed king sheets in it, one would invariably be pulled across the tub as it went into the first spin. I would have a 4 gallon pail of water ready and pour it into the machine against the surface of the sheet so that there was no splashing. All of that water would spin through the load and go down the drain because there was enough water above the pump intake for it to really suck the water. Not only did this water give the sheets a superb spin rinse, but the first rinse water to spray into the tub was very clear because it was not left over wash water. It also took longer for the wash stream to appear since there had been a more complete draining of the sump.
The more universally perforated tub of the Bendix spinning about 100 RPM faster than the Kenmore in the final spin extracted better. Since it also ramped up to the full spin speed between each water change while the Kenmore only spins at intermediate spin speed until the final 400 RPM spin, the Bendix carried over less water from the previous portion of the cycle. The Kenmore's three solid surface baffle tanks also give less perforated area for water extraction. The 29" WP-made combos are an outstanding design achievement in that, in spite of the hideously constraining patents AVCO held on the design of the washer-dryer combination, it was able to achieve water extraction second only to the Bendix and without a suspension system for isolating vibration, but rather through a balance system that detected the heavier side of the drum and injected water into the tank or tanks on the opposite side while controlling the acceleration until a balanced condition was reached. It would be much simpler to do today with electronics controlling the motor, but then it was done with hundreds of parts of machinery, a lot of which were fragile. The lack of a suspension system is especially noticible when the Kenmore is tumbling a heavy load while washing or rinsing and the load suddenly hits the bottom of the tub as a lump. You can feel the thud even on a concrete floor. I don't know of another front loader to use water balancing for the spin until the V-ZUG of recent time.
One area where the WP-made 29" combo clearly excelled was in the lower noise level of the high speed spin. The square cut gears of the Bendix transmission are noisier than the Whirlpool's.
The more universally perforated tub of the Bendix spinning about 100 RPM faster than the Kenmore in the final spin extracted better. Since it also ramped up to the full spin speed between each water change while the Kenmore only spins at intermediate spin speed until the final 400 RPM spin, the Bendix carried over less water from the previous portion of the cycle. The Kenmore's three solid surface baffle tanks also give less perforated area for water extraction. The 29" WP-made combos are an outstanding design achievement in that, in spite of the hideously constraining patents AVCO held on the design of the washer-dryer combination, it was able to achieve water extraction second only to the Bendix and without a suspension system for isolating vibration, but rather through a balance system that detected the heavier side of the drum and injected water into the tank or tanks on the opposite side while controlling the acceleration until a balanced condition was reached. It would be much simpler to do today with electronics controlling the motor, but then it was done with hundreds of parts of machinery, a lot of which were fragile. The lack of a suspension system is especially noticible when the Kenmore is tumbling a heavy load while washing or rinsing and the load suddenly hits the bottom of the tub as a lump. You can feel the thud even on a concrete floor. I don't know of another front loader to use water balancing for the spin until the V-ZUG of recent time.
One area where the WP-made 29" combo clearly excelled was in the lower noise level of the high speed spin. The square cut gears of the Bendix transmission are noisier than the Whirlpool's.
Tom
Didn't the Maytag Neptune's have a liquid filled ring around the drum?
Didn't the Maytag Neptune's have a liquid filled ring around the drum?
Yes, Louis, but the Maytag was more of a passive balancing system rather than one that relied on feedback from the cylinder in motion to direct water into tanks opposite the heavy side to balance the weight while controlling the acceleration. Sometimes the Neptunes never achieved balance. Of course, in rare instances, the 29" combo did not balance well enough to come up to full spin speed either. Sometimes the load would be heavy enough and in such a position (like between two of the baffles/tanks) that after the available balance tank was filled with water nothing more could be done but to limit the top spin speed. Then it hissed with each revolution of the cylinder all through the 4 minute final spin as it bled off air pressure from the clutch to keep the speed down. If the operator (me) was watching the machine, I could catch it before the end of the spin when it drained all of the ballast water. Then I could repeat the spin sequences with the partially extracted and lighter load giving it better odds of balancing. If you let the water drain after the spin, the owner's manual said to push the RINSE & SPIN button to repeat the last rinse mainly to fill the machine with water again so that there would be water for balancing. The fly in that ointment was that the hard to balance item was once again saturated with water. In practice, I spun out all but the lightest of fabrics in a top loader before drying, at first in the Maytag and later in a Frigidaire.
With a heavy load like towels, one of the other interesting noises during the spin was the 2 quick snaps made when the diverter valve changed position from recirculate to drain and then quickly back to recirculate as sufficient water was spun out of the load to raise the water level in the sump enough to trip the pressure switch and send a small rush of water down the drain.
With a heavy load like towels, one of the other interesting noises during the spin was the 2 quick snaps made when the diverter valve changed position from recirculate to drain and then quickly back to recirculate as sufficient water was spun out of the load to raise the water level in the sump enough to trip the pressure switch and send a small rush of water down the drain.
mrb627
Well-known member
Obviously...
the LG.
< ducking and running >
Malcolm
the LG.
< ducking and running >
Malcolm
Kevin, if you will use the search function of the site, you will find this explained, but I don't know of any diagrams. Try searching and if you don't find the answers you want, I will try to explain, but I think I have done this before unless it is too old to be searchable.
TomTurbomatic: I did do the search and did find some helpful information, mostly posted by yourself. Amazing engineering technology for that era and all done mechanically and electrically (and pneumatically in KM/WP design). No wonder they were so heavy. The speed shifting operation with the little drive motor and chain that operates a variable speed sheave sounds alot like the GE Combo. Is that correct? Would like to hear more about the air driven clutches? Did they neeed a gear type transmission with variable pitch pulleys? Sure would love to see these in action. Any service manuals or information that you know about? Thanks for your help. Kevin
s
s
Easy combo wash-dry
Looking for more info on the Easy Combos. What years were they made and did they always use a 2 motor drive system? Was there a mechanism to engage/disegage each motor for tumble & spin? Or did each motor just freewheel when it was not bbeing called upon to run? Did they lack a suspension system as well? Thanks, Kevin
Looking for more info on the Easy Combos. What years were they made and did they always use a 2 motor drive system? Was there a mechanism to engage/disegage each motor for tumble & spin? Or did each motor just freewheel when it was not bbeing called upon to run? Did they lack a suspension system as well? Thanks, Kevin
Easy combos were introduced in late 56-early 57 and manufactured through 1963. Easy offered the largest number of models in their line, second only to Philco, probably. The basic design of the machine changed little because as I said somewhere, nobody except Sears/WP had enough capital to invest in a complete redesign of the machine with the disappointing sales failing to return the initial investment expenses. The high point came in 1958 with 180,000 units sold, but by 1964 that figure had slipped to 27,000 units. And how much could they redesign when they were so constrained by the threat of patent infringement from AVCO? 1964 was the last year that Speed Queen produced their combo, although there might have been some sold the following year. Philco stopped in 1968. 1961 into 62 was the last year WP sold the combo under their own name; from then on it was only sold as Kenmore. Maytag pulled the plug on their combo in 1965, but Westinghouse was done by 1960 and mercifully so. GE lasted into the early 70s, largely on builder sales to apartments & condos. The Watergate had GE combos. GE and Kenmore, the last two in the game, sort of put down their cards and pushed back from the table about the same time.
John and Jeff had/have the two motors so I guess they saw the machine and can be more authoritative about this than I, but the Accelux motor as it was called only did bursts of acceleration during the 4 rinses and then to extract before drying so there was tumbling with bursts of speed. That fast acceleration was kind of radical for the combos because most had slow spins and slow ways of building up speed except for the combos with transmissions and the Easy. What they did was very smart in a way. I don't know the proper language to exlain this, but an unbalanced load spinning at slow speed makes for an exagerated swing out of the center position wherever the heavy part of the load is, but if you quickly speed up the drum with the load, not only do you have a better chance of more evenly distributing the load, but the higher rpm means the heavy side is moving around in a circle so fast it is producing a less exagerated swing out of the center position. Distributing a load around a larger diameter drum was a problem with the combos just as it has been a problem in the larger drums of FLs today. So Easy did that. With the rubber cups screwed to the floor to hold the legs in place, the machine did quick speed ups and long coasting periods for the spin. It made best use of strong G forces or C forces for Centrifugal force, helped eliminate vibration from sustained periods of spinning and, by mounting the motors at the top of the cabinet, it allowed the tub of the Easy to sit very low in the cabinet which was also a stabilizing factor.
Philco might even have borrowed the physics behind this when they reduced the machine to its 27 inch width. The original low speed spin stage of the 36 inch machine could not be be accommodated in the narrower cabinet because the tub swung too much and crashed into the cabinet sides so they went to the timer increment between the last rinse and the final spin where the machine briefly accelerated, then coasted a few times to remove enough water from the load so that it would not pack so tightly in the high speed spin that it would stick to the tub afterwards. If it did not fall from the tub after the spin, the load would not dry properly.
John and Jeff had/have the two motors so I guess they saw the machine and can be more authoritative about this than I, but the Accelux motor as it was called only did bursts of acceleration during the 4 rinses and then to extract before drying so there was tumbling with bursts of speed. That fast acceleration was kind of radical for the combos because most had slow spins and slow ways of building up speed except for the combos with transmissions and the Easy. What they did was very smart in a way. I don't know the proper language to exlain this, but an unbalanced load spinning at slow speed makes for an exagerated swing out of the center position wherever the heavy part of the load is, but if you quickly speed up the drum with the load, not only do you have a better chance of more evenly distributing the load, but the higher rpm means the heavy side is moving around in a circle so fast it is producing a less exagerated swing out of the center position. Distributing a load around a larger diameter drum was a problem with the combos just as it has been a problem in the larger drums of FLs today. So Easy did that. With the rubber cups screwed to the floor to hold the legs in place, the machine did quick speed ups and long coasting periods for the spin. It made best use of strong G forces or C forces for Centrifugal force, helped eliminate vibration from sustained periods of spinning and, by mounting the motors at the top of the cabinet, it allowed the tub of the Easy to sit very low in the cabinet which was also a stabilizing factor.
Philco might even have borrowed the physics behind this when they reduced the machine to its 27 inch width. The original low speed spin stage of the 36 inch machine could not be be accommodated in the narrower cabinet because the tub swung too much and crashed into the cabinet sides so they went to the timer increment between the last rinse and the final spin where the machine briefly accelerated, then coasted a few times to remove enough water from the load so that it would not pack so tightly in the high speed spin that it would stick to the tub afterwards. If it did not fall from the tub after the spin, the load would not dry properly.
neptunebob
Well-known member
Tom, perhaps you could answer this...
You say that Bendix so patented the Duomatic that no other manufacturer could build a competitive machine. What about today? Would the patents have "run out" or could whoever inherited Bendix "license" the design? That is, could a manufacturer if they wanted to build a Duomatic today?
It seems that a combination machine the size of the inside of the Duet might sell well, even if it could only hold half the laundry, for apartments in places like NY city.
You say that Bendix so patented the Duomatic that no other manufacturer could build a competitive machine. What about today? Would the patents have "run out" or could whoever inherited Bendix "license" the design? That is, could a manufacturer if they wanted to build a Duomatic today?
It seems that a combination machine the size of the inside of the Duet might sell well, even if it could only hold half the laundry, for apartments in places like NY city.
Thank you Tomturbomatic, you really know your stuff. Isn't true that many of the new FL's of today come in washer dryer combos? I know the LG does. The engineers of the vintage machines were very creative in their designs and how they overcame unbalanced loads amd clothes "sticking" and all without electronics and induction motors. I never understood the whole "redistribution" cycles on the newer machines and the slow to fast bursts during the rinses and spins, but it all makes sense now. The more water you can get out of the clothes in small bursts, the better distributed they can be entering the final spin. Thanks
Similar threads
