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
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.
turquoisedude
Well-known member
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.
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
NepBob
To answer your question all the patents on Bendix are now public domain so anyone could build a Duomatic today. The funny thing is Neptune blundered in the first few designs because they spent $1Mil in research that they could've easily gotten from the 1939 Bendix Patents! The research Bendix did in the mid 1930's defined what a front loader should be since they invented the Automatic Washer.
When I started collecting and all of your were still shaking rattles , I was very green. I used to come across lots of Bendix machines and turn them down because they were so simple mechanically. The rollermatics intrigued me. Now I realize with hind site that the reason Bendix was so simple was due to the fact that they were the first and so got it right with the easiest mechanical method.
John & I have discussed this a lot, GE made their Combo along with Sears right up to 1970 and quit! If they only had continued another 5 years they would have hit the Condo Boom and those machines would have been SO much better for a Condo than those ridiculous Up/Down things that burp after two pair of pants are loaded in them.
To answer your question all the patents on Bendix are now public domain so anyone could build a Duomatic today. The funny thing is Neptune blundered in the first few designs because they spent $1Mil in research that they could've easily gotten from the 1939 Bendix Patents! The research Bendix did in the mid 1930's defined what a front loader should be since they invented the Automatic Washer.
When I started collecting and all of your were still shaking rattles , I was very green. I used to come across lots of Bendix machines and turn them down because they were so simple mechanically. The rollermatics intrigued me. Now I realize with hind site that the reason Bendix was so simple was due to the fact that they were the first and so got it right with the easiest mechanical method.
John & I have discussed this a lot, GE made their Combo along with Sears right up to 1970 and quit! If they only had continued another 5 years they would have hit the Condo Boom and those machines would have been SO much better for a Condo than those ridiculous Up/Down things that burp after two pair of pants are loaded in them.
Combos are made today that have suspension systems so they can spin much faster than the Duomatic. Unfortunately, most are tiny things, often Chinese made and the quality of construction is not up to the rigors of every day use for very long before parts start failing. There is a Duet (I think) with a fan that will air dry a light load overnight after washing it so the dream still exists, but if it does not use heat to dry, it is no good for PermaPress items. There is that LG thing, but even in spite of good spinning, it takes forever to dry because it runs on 120 volts. Peter can tell you about his misadventures with that machine. It takes more than a big drum to make a washer a combo. It has to have an efficient method of drying the clothes, disposing of the moisture, managing the lint, etc. Anyway, short answer: yes.
I remember reading about combos in old Which magazines from decades ago and they extracted well, but of course, they were the size of European washers. Probably the United States patent only covered manufacturing combinations with a suspended mechanism here, but there was no importation of washing machines decades ago and the smaller machines would not have been attractive to most families here. Look at the Brobdingnagian drums in modern front loaders compared to the drums in Westinghouse washers from the early 60s until they ceased production which were capable of washing a full 10 lb. load for a family, did not take an hour or more per load and went into spin without dithering around seeking a perfectly distributed load. It is ironic that as families get smaller, the capacity of washers must be larger.
I remember reading about combos in old Which magazines from decades ago and they extracted well, but of course, they were the size of European washers. Probably the United States patent only covered manufacturing combinations with a suspended mechanism here, but there was no importation of washing machines decades ago and the smaller machines would not have been attractive to most families here. Look at the Brobdingnagian drums in modern front loaders compared to the drums in Westinghouse washers from the early 60s until they ceased production which were capable of washing a full 10 lb. load for a family, did not take an hour or more per load and went into spin without dithering around seeking a perfectly distributed load. It is ironic that as families get smaller, the capacity of washers must be larger.
None of the combos had to be bolted down although some were anchored like the Easy's legs which fit in cups to keep it from moving around during the spin and surge rinsing. Actually, I think there were cups for the GE also. The undercounter GE had a different way of being anchored. There were tracks into which the legs fit. Yes, the Duomatics had shock absorbers under the tub which was suspended by springs. Patents prevented any other manufacturer from using them which is why no other combo could do a decent job of extracting water.
Neptune
Jon, when Maytag first started advertising the Neptune, they made it sound like they had invented the horizontal axis washer. Maybe they really did not do historical research, ignored the Bendix/AVCO patents and just started off cold. The odd thing to me was that Maytag actually sold a tumbler washer in the 20s, I believe, that was a style popular at the time and sold by several manufacturers. It looked like a white tank on legs to bring it to work height and had a flat cover that doubled as a work surface. Inside was a perforated cylinder with an opening on the side for loading and unloading. A power-wringer could be mounted at one end. I saw this in a poster at Lanham Maytag, a dealership where John worked for a number of years.
One grievous mistake they made in designing the Neptune was suspending the mechanism from 4 springs, but only supporting it with two shock absorbers mounted at the middle of the tub underneath. From watching the machine operate with the back removed, it was easy to see how an unbalanced load caused the tub to pivot on the two shocks and fishtail from side to side. 4 shocks would have eliminated this motion. Their engineering was abysmal. The Duomatic also used two shocks, but the tub was not slanted and only in the rarest of situations did the tub wiggle like the Neptune's and only in the low speed spin. It disappeared entirely when the spin speed shifted to high. Because of the electronic speed sensor feedback, the Maytag could not shift to high speed spin until the load was sufficiently evenly distributed so that the tub stopped fishtailing.
Jon, when Maytag first started advertising the Neptune, they made it sound like they had invented the horizontal axis washer. Maybe they really did not do historical research, ignored the Bendix/AVCO patents and just started off cold. The odd thing to me was that Maytag actually sold a tumbler washer in the 20s, I believe, that was a style popular at the time and sold by several manufacturers. It looked like a white tank on legs to bring it to work height and had a flat cover that doubled as a work surface. Inside was a perforated cylinder with an opening on the side for loading and unloading. A power-wringer could be mounted at one end. I saw this in a poster at Lanham Maytag, a dealership where John worked for a number of years.
One grievous mistake they made in designing the Neptune was suspending the mechanism from 4 springs, but only supporting it with two shock absorbers mounted at the middle of the tub underneath. From watching the machine operate with the back removed, it was easy to see how an unbalanced load caused the tub to pivot on the two shocks and fishtail from side to side. 4 shocks would have eliminated this motion. Their engineering was abysmal. The Duomatic also used two shocks, but the tub was not slanted and only in the rarest of situations did the tub wiggle like the Neptune's and only in the low speed spin. It disappeared entirely when the spin speed shifted to high. Because of the electronic speed sensor feedback, the Maytag could not shift to high speed spin until the load was sufficiently evenly distributed so that the tub stopped fishtailing.
Yes TOM
And not only did they ignore the design of the Bendix, they also ignored the construction that Bendix discovered. Bendix found there is a certain optimal gap ratio between the outer tub and inner tub that allows washing currents to carry away dirt and soil. Maytag ignored this and got the outer tub as close to the inner tub as possible to save water. That created all kinds of problems not the least the mold problem.
And not only did they ignore the design of the Bendix, they also ignored the construction that Bendix discovered. Bendix found there is a certain optimal gap ratio between the outer tub and inner tub that allows washing currents to carry away dirt and soil. Maytag ignored this and got the outer tub as close to the inner tub as possible to save water. That created all kinds of problems not the least the mold problem.
Maybe they were just trying to copy their top loader design for tub clearance. Didn't Maytag sales literature feature the paperclip test to show the comparative space between the inner and outer tubs and tout that they had the closest space in the industry? Back to FLs, the lack of adequate space and a good sump like Bendix and Westinghouse machines had, coupled with their powerful pumps, is also the reason that modern FLs sudslock so easily, that and refusing to use the water for the Assured Rinse flush spray after the wash drain. Penny wise and pound foolish.
For those not familiar, you open the end of a paper clip, stick it through one of the drain holes in the side of the tub and note the distance before it struck the outer tub. With the perforated tub GEs, it was like sticking it into a black hole. What Maytag did not tell customers, however, was that most other brands with perforated tubs used a recirculating water lint filtration system so that the water was drawn from that space and reintroduced into the tub. If you will remember the Sears ad when they first came out with the Dual Action agitator, the GE, with its FilterFlo recirculating water system, came in a surprising second best at cleaning the folded, soiled bibs in the packed load test, the only case other than coffee brewing where the trickle down principle worked.
For those not familiar, you open the end of a paper clip, stick it through one of the drain holes in the side of the tub and note the distance before it struck the outer tub. With the perforated tub GEs, it was like sticking it into a black hole. What Maytag did not tell customers, however, was that most other brands with perforated tubs used a recirculating water lint filtration system so that the water was drawn from that space and reintroduced into the tub. If you will remember the Sears ad when they first came out with the Dual Action agitator, the GE, with its FilterFlo recirculating water system, came in a surprising second best at cleaning the folded, soiled bibs in the packed load test, the only case other than coffee brewing where the trickle down principle worked.
MORE THOUGHTS ON COMBOS
Other US combos used hydraulic shocks as dampers in thier suspension systems, the 1957-? Hotpoint's and the all the SQ Combos 1961-? and of course all WH slant front washers from 1959-1963. So it would be interesting to see if Bendix really had a patent on this or whether they paid royalties to Bendix [ calling Mr patent expert Jon are you there ].
The last WP built KM combos were made in the fall of 1971 and the last GEs were made in late spring of 1972 I have machines from these dates.
On rinsing I am sure that having a fast spin between the wash and various rinses will do a better job of rinsing overall. But having had a GE and KM combo in my laundry arsenal for over 30 years I can say they rinse just fine, I seldom if ever feel the need to add an extra rinse. There at least too schools about rinsing and I have always subscribed to the idea not to over rinse. Detergents have properties that protect the clothing and the washer and unless you have perfectly soft mineral free water as you keep rinsing the last of the detergent out you are leaving mineral deposits in your clothing and washer. These deposits can make your clothing dual and gray and less soft, the mineral deposits destroy water pump and main seals in the washer and harm every other part of the washer that water touches. There is certainly no one correct answer for the amount of rinsing necessary in any given wash load, but in general the appliance manufactures knew what they were doing.
I still believe the best ever US built combo is the 29" WP built machines as they were the only one that got a nice large capacity machine into the space of a regular washer. But it is a little unfair to compare a great 1950s machine to a 2nd generation 1960s machine. It would be like comparing the best car of the 1950s to the best car from the 1960s. The 1960s car would win on many important areas not the least of which would be durability. I would be the first to call the original 36" 1952-1958 Duomatics one of the 10 best laundry appliances ever made. I would also include the 29" WP built combos, the original bolt down Bendix washers, the WP BD washers 1947-1987, the MT helical drive machines 1956-2006, the WP DD washers 1982-2011, the GE FF washers 1961-1995 and the Frigidare 1-18s 1970-1980. To me these are some of the most significant designs that made laundry history.
Other US combos used hydraulic shocks as dampers in thier suspension systems, the 1957-? Hotpoint's and the all the SQ Combos 1961-? and of course all WH slant front washers from 1959-1963. So it would be interesting to see if Bendix really had a patent on this or whether they paid royalties to Bendix [ calling Mr patent expert Jon are you there ].
The last WP built KM combos were made in the fall of 1971 and the last GEs were made in late spring of 1972 I have machines from these dates.
On rinsing I am sure that having a fast spin between the wash and various rinses will do a better job of rinsing overall. But having had a GE and KM combo in my laundry arsenal for over 30 years I can say they rinse just fine, I seldom if ever feel the need to add an extra rinse. There at least too schools about rinsing and I have always subscribed to the idea not to over rinse. Detergents have properties that protect the clothing and the washer and unless you have perfectly soft mineral free water as you keep rinsing the last of the detergent out you are leaving mineral deposits in your clothing and washer. These deposits can make your clothing dual and gray and less soft, the mineral deposits destroy water pump and main seals in the washer and harm every other part of the washer that water touches. There is certainly no one correct answer for the amount of rinsing necessary in any given wash load, but in general the appliance manufactures knew what they were doing.
I still believe the best ever US built combo is the 29" WP built machines as they were the only one that got a nice large capacity machine into the space of a regular washer. But it is a little unfair to compare a great 1950s machine to a 2nd generation 1960s machine. It would be like comparing the best car of the 1950s to the best car from the 1960s. The 1960s car would win on many important areas not the least of which would be durability. I would be the first to call the original 36" 1952-1958 Duomatics one of the 10 best laundry appliances ever made. I would also include the 29" WP built combos, the original bolt down Bendix washers, the WP BD washers 1947-1987, the MT helical drive machines 1956-2006, the WP DD washers 1982-2011, the GE FF washers 1961-1995 and the Frigidare 1-18s 1970-1980. To me these are some of the most significant designs that made laundry history.
John, since you bring up the 1957 Hotpoint LY-1 combo which spun at 365 rpm, we should disclose to newer members that all models were recalled by the manufacturer under very suspicious circumstances with owners being told, according to a posting by a member here whose father worked for Hotpoint, that the machines were a fire hazard. We collectively figured it had more to do with patent trouble than safety.
Hotpoint Combo!
I had saved some pictures from past posts of I think the 1957 Hotpoint combo. I thought it was the same animal as the GE combo. Is that assumption wrong?
I had saved some pictures from past posts of I think the 1957 Hotpoint combo. I thought it was the same animal as the GE combo. Is that assumption wrong?
Hotpoint Combo
next
next
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
45 miles east of nashville is a free brand new powerclean!
- Latest: gelaundry4ever
-
-
Sponsored
