What we have in South Africa

[ronhic]

Ok then....

....I find this kind of facinating and it may go some way to explaining why American machines don't do well here in comparison tests (noting that they are tested at STATED capacity)

If I am reading the above correctly, and lets choose 3.00 cu ft, that gives a drum volume of 85 litres and a tested capacity of 12.9 lb or 5.85 kg...

WOW! A machine with a drum that size would be sold here with a capacity of around 22 lb/10 kg and when tested by Choice would be expected to wash at that stated capacity....

My Zanussi/Westinghouse is rated at 6.5kg on our market (and 6kg in Europe) and has a drum volume of about 1.9 cu ft (55 litres)....yet washes/rinses well with the drum full (that is, right to the top and moving when trying to put something else in!)

This goes quite a way to explaining why I've always thought American machines were underloaded when I see them in use....quite simply, they can't wash the amount I would expect them to hold....

 

[matthewza]

capacity

well those 14kg LG twin tubs are huge. and my 13 kg top load auto is also quite big.
and here we also have that LG 9 kg standard size washing machine and tuble dryer set. they look capable hey. quite big. but now they have just introduced the 11 kg LG under counter standard size to us...I WANT 1!!! are they popular in the UK?

 

[jlbrazil]

Here is the link of the video

 

[3beltwesty]

Lbs usage in the USA is mostly for commercial machines

Here in the USA about the only time one hears a reference to pounds/Lbs of laundry is in the commercial laundry industry and their commercial machines.

It is mentioned in home machines sometimes as a test load, or in the boil-plate of government specs like my link farther up the thread. It really is not used at all for the average home user.

In researching buying a new FL washer recently, I looked at all the brands available locally and downloaded spec sheets and sometimes even repair manuals. Salesfolks who hawk these machines might as well use made up SciFi terms like Centons than use Lbs or Kgs to hawk washers.

Even in a General Electric spec sheet for Commercial washers and dryers for laundromats, the sole metric is mostly cubic feet.

On page 11 of the PDF in the link; the FL unit in the lower left says:

Capacity (cu ft.) = 16 pound (2.7 -3.1 per IEC)

16 Lbs is 7.26 Kg

In the USA there really is no reference to Lbs or Kg with home washers sold here, the metric is cubic feet. It is the primary metric, the 2nd largest number in the Advert, the 1st being price.

I really cannot remember every hearing or seeing an advert where Lbs is mentioned in the last 50 years in the USA!

It might as well be like as rare as in Australia or SA cars were hawked in capacity in Firkins. ie an old unit for butter, ie 9 imperial gallons. (10.809 US gallons).

Imagine if you washers were magically sized with mass in stones or grains , or volume in Firkins. The masses of home consumers would be confused!

****** Is the USA the only place home washers are hawked by volume for Capacity?

http://www.geappliances.com/commercial_laundry/catalog2007.pdf

 

[dj-gabriele]

That table about American machines and capacity...

Very interesting, it left me speechless! As Ronhic said, a full machine is full to the top of the drum here and again, they are supposed to wash well in that "standard" condition, not a "half load"! As the American machines are tested...

 

[3beltwesty]

Another US commercial unit where Lbs is used the specs.

Here is another USA example where Lbs is used on a USA front loader.

It is on a 2350 dollar commercial Speed Queen unit, model SWFT71 that is the US standard width of 27 inches.

Its Capacity is listed as 2.84 cubic feet 80 Liters ; with an 18 Lb capacity. That is about 8.2 Kg which seems to me like decent.

The 2.84 cu ft size at a home Appliance store would be the smallest unit, thus almost unmarketable.

I wonder if somehow commercial units are rated differently as to volume than home units, since this looks like a big washer.

http://www.macgray.com/pdf/specs/speedqueen/SWFT71.pdf

 

[3beltwesty]

Larger commercial units mostly use Lbs as the Capacity

In the brochure below that has way larger commercial washers, they go mostly by Lbs.

The pdf brochure has units from:

20 to 80 Lbs Capacity.

ie

20 Lbs /9.1 Kg with basket volumes of 2.76 cu ft / 78.1 L

75 Lbs / 34 Kg with basket volume of 22.4 cu ft / 634 liters

80 Lbs / 36 Kg with basket volume of 12.4 cu ft / 354 liters

These are what a school, hospital or hotel might have.

Stuff marketed commerically in the USA often has less fluff in the specs, since the buyers are serious and demand actual real data and not cooked data.

http://www.stardistributing.com/brochures/ac08-200.pdf

 

[ronhic]

Its Capacity is listed as 2.84 cubic feet 80 Liters ; with a

...as you mention, this is about 8kg and given the drum volumne, is right for the machine....but that will mean a full drum, not a half full one...

 

[3beltwesty]

Other end of the spectrum, but in TL

The tiny Haier HLP21N top load portable washer says on its box:

Pulsator Portable Washer- Maximizes Wash Load Capacity ( 6.6 Lbs ) { 3.0 Kg }

The manual says 1.0 cubic feet.

The manual gives a table of Recommended Water Levels:

Load Size in Lbs: Water Level: Approx Gallons Used:
3.9 {1.77 Kg} High 7.40
3.44 {1.56 Kg} Med 5.31
less than 3.44 Low 3.17

I converted the numbers to metric in { }

It is interesting to note the default medium setting is about one half the max load claimed on the box of { 3 Kg }

1.5 Kg seems like a better number for such a dinky washer.

 

[ronhic]

You may think it more appropriate....

....but then this is half the problem - most people NEVER load a machine to capacity....

...and this is where so much of the disconnect between the way Europeans and users of European-style front load machines here and in other parts of the world have never been able to 'get their head around it' compared to the USA and your industrial sized front load machines.

By removing weight as a capacity measure and giving capacity in cu ft, the USA has effectively made their machines incapable of being compared with those made elsewhere. This is evidenced by the conversion chart above and the actual loads used to test these machines and both mine and DJ-Gabriel's comments about machine loading...it also echo's a comment made by an American in a laundrette in London in 1997 when confronted by a front-load machine....

- This lady walked into the laundrette at Russell Square with 2 huge garbage bags of washing to do....she proceeded to load a few items into a machine and went to close the door...
- I stopped her (it was not even up to the glass) and said she could put more in...
- 'Really?' was the response
- Yep, was mine....so she did. By now about 1/4 up the door and she went to shut it again...
- So again I said, 'keep going'
- Her reply ' Are you sure it'll wash?'
- My reply 'Millions of Europeans can't be wrong'
- She filled to about half way up the glass....and then SAT THERE INTENTLY WATCHING IT....

Now, she may have never used a front load machine before, but the 'half full' or 'lightly loaded' mentality seems to be very prevalent in the USA and the use of huge machines with effectively small (given their size) actual usable capacities seems to exaggerate it....

 

[ronhic]

Just as a comparison...

....my 1.9 cu ft - based on drum volume (or 6.5kg stated capacity in Oz) Zanussi/Westinghouse will happily wash:

- 4 Queen sized sheets
- 2 Queen quilt covers
- 8 pillow slips.....

...on its standard 'cotton 40c - warm' cycle

Most Americans would NEVER contemplate putting that load in a machine with such a small stated capacity (or maybe in one with double that)...

 

[3beltwesty]

Do countries even use the same spec to measure basket volume

Ronhic;

Cool discussion. I wonder if your 1.9 cuft machine if transported ala star trek to the USA would be called a 1.9 model? or higher.

ie are there some monkey business with the specs in Volume too?

Marketers are crafty lot, they get engineers like me questioning their goofy numbers.

I mention this because in small concrete mixers hawked for home usage they quote often the FULL volume of the drum, when in actual usage one can only fill it to is to the lip:

I bought this mixer at a Homier tool "tent sale" for 150 dollars back in 2006. It is called a 5 cubic foot model. In practice it will hold about 2.5 to 3 cubic feet of concrete being mixed.

With a real professional mixer they do not do this monkey business.

http://www.opentip.com/Musical-Inst...t-Concrete-Cement-Mixer-Wheels-p-1339661.html

 

[ronhic]

It would be 1.9 cu ft as the drum volume is 54 litres.

The only difference in stated capacity that I know of for this machine is that in Europe it is rated at 6 kg not 6.5 kg...

 

[3beltwesty]

Any "weight to save" weighing scales on SA and othe

With the 1976 Westinghouse FL LT570 washer here, the drum's inside diameter is about 21 inches, and the average width is about 11 inches. I say average because it is about 12 at the outer and less at the inner. If I use the 21" dia. and 11" W. numbers to be conservative,

this gives a volume of 3810 cubic inches, 2.2 cubic feet, 62 Liters.

Somewhere eons ago I remember these old machines had a capacity of 9 Lbs, that would be about 4.1 Kg.

****This old machine has the "weigh to save" scale where one places ones clothes on the door and one weighs them, to set the water level.

Now after using Westinghouse FL washers for many decades, I wonder how many Lbs /Kg that trap door scale actually is calibrated for!

Thus this thread has rattled some interest for me to measure it! This was on Westinghouse machines for over 4 decades, our 1947 machine had one too.

In this thread on the link ; Reply# 13 shows the "weight to save" scale to the left of the boot on an even older machine than mine.

*** Do/Did any machines in SA, Europe, Asia, Australia have a gizmo weigh scale like this as a guide for setting the water level?

http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?31713_18

 

[ronhic]

In a word....

...no...

Least I'm fairly certain they didn't.

Some new machines let you tell it that it is a smaller load (Haier...multistage water level control not just a 1/2 or quick wash) or have electronic systems to detect (Miele) and will either use less water or tell you to use less detergent....

...or they have a '1/2 load' or 'quick wash' button which will shorten/delete some sequences for smaller loads - normally 1/2 capacity and will reduce the cycle from 1/3 to 1/2 the overall time...

 

[matthewza]

weight

all digital top loaders herer in SA weigh the washing before it starts. it pulsates about 6 or 10 times with no water to detect the weight and then starts the cycle. both my machnes do this. a nice feature to stop guess work!

 

[matthewza]

weight

the fancy front loaders like LG, Samsung, AEG, etc... also weigh the load before washing

 

[3beltwesty]

reposing the weighing question again

Sorry to all for not posing the weight question correctly.

What I meant was were/are there any non-USA FL washers that used a manual weight scale gizmo/gimmic like a FL Westinghouse used.

ie you manually weigh the clothes as an operator, and the operator then dials in the water level ie load setting.
'
This came out about 1950 in FL Westinghouse's and was a marketing thing too for over 4 decades.

ie "weigh to save". The door has a spring scale gizmo connected internally. One placed the dirty clothes on the open horizontal door and weighed them. Then one set the water level control that governed the water level for the wash cycle. This control of course was just the common simple pneumatic switch that would shut off the water level to the tub.

Modern FL washers here mostly seem to do a "sense the load size" by some pre wash tumbles rotating back and worth, to sense the inertia of what is in the drum. ie the computer uses the motor's torque to "sense" the load.

My question was whether any non USA machines used a dumb spring scale.

 

[dj-gabriele]

Never seen such a device myself!
All the machine I know of either had a "half load" button or sensed the load automatically.

The "half load" button usually suppressed a rinse and shortened the wash time but otherwise didn't change how the machine washed the clothes, the water level, if the pressure sensor had only one setting is the same...
In a (European) FL "sensing" is automatic, even in completely mechanical machines as the load, while tumbling wicks the water and decreases the level in the tub and the machine accordingly to this added more water as needed.
Also no machine (FL I mean) I know of floated the stuff in that much water whilst never stopping for reverse tumble or even a pause during spin/wash/rinse.
It seems that the Westinghouse machine was like the top loaders of the time but with a horizontal tub where clothes swished in a lot of free space and water compared to the European front loader that used (even when the machines used 100 L or more per wash) a puddle of water usually below the door level and the clothes were washed by hitting the tub while falling or the other clothes.

Also, again, in a "full" load at the European way, the tub is filled with clothes to the top.

I think that the only machines like the Westinghouse were the first English Electric aren't they? And something like the Hoover automatic front loader from the 60s that was like a twin tub into a front loader, am I wrong?

 

[3beltwesty]

First you Weigh, then you save!

The old 1976 LT570 Westinghouse FL I have here was rated as the US washer that used the least amount of water in a 1978 Consumer Report, ie 30 gallons. ie {227 Liters } That is for a full 42 minute cycle. When one sets the water level to low it is far less. A box of soap will last me a year.

Actually the Westinghouse FL machines were marketed as water savers even when the came out almost 70 years ago. They used far less water than a TL machine. The manual for my parents 1947 westinghouse FL machine mentioned saving water. The "weigh to save" came out about 1950 with the spring scale in the door. FL washer here were once a lot more expensive compared to TL machines.

Re "weight to save" was in adverts for westinghouse here on TV squawked by a parrot over a 1/2 century ago.

 

[matthewza]

no

i dont hink we had anything like this in SA. as someone said about the half load button. we had that before the fancy machines came out that sense the load. the half load button would use less water. nothing else changed (this being on the machines in SA)

 

[MrX]

The reason for the US attitude is very simple: agitator-based top loader machines need a lot free space to slosh the clothes around. The same is not true of front loaders. The agitators also take up a considerable amount of space in the drums too.

If you pack a traditional US toploader tight with clothes, it will not wash the clothes at all. They just barely move, where as if it's about 50% loaded they wash exceptionally well as they get loads of water sloshing through them.

In a front loader, this is not the case. If you fill the drum to capacity, the clothes still wash very well as the water's forced through them by rotating the drum, causing the water to cascade through the wash load rather than relying on sloshing the water and clothes about with an agitator, which naturally needs a lot more space between items to work effectively.

 

[matthewza]

mrx
i think everybody knows that. wich is why you can slightly over load a front loader and still have good wash results (just a little bit of creases hrer and there). although i must say, when i had a speed queen and whirlpool heavy duty top loader, i realised its also how u pack the machine (especially the whirlpool). i noticed if you take the time to pack it properly it washes better. and the agitator on the whirlpools are awfull! i find the speeed queen agitators clean the clothes alot better than the whirlpools. but thats just me