What we have in South Africa

[3beltwesty]

ratings in different countries

One has legal reasons probably why the same design has different ratings.

If an Appliance such as a Vacuum, washer, audio amp, circular saw, chain saw has large numbers in the advertising, the lay public likes bigger numbers. If brand A and Brand B in SA compete and use *different* standards/ratings, brand B might look worse when it is actually better. Thus marketing chaps are going to use the more liberal rating; if that country allows it.

In the USA most home washers are marketed by cubic feet, Lbs or Kg of laundry is really about never ever mentioned. The Westinghouse 3 belt westy here from 1976 mentions a 9 Lb load in "an operational test" in a repair manual I saw; this is 4Kg. To adjust the springs that hold up the tub, one uses a 1 Lb load so the machine has enough jiggle to overcome the friction of the 4 dampers/8 shoes.

As far as mass a FL washer could handle, it really matters more how well the machine can handle an imbalanced load in the spin cycle,and not go nuts and walk across the floor.

Most FL washers have big bearings, the failure mode is about always the seal leaks and the bearings rusts.

 

[3beltwesty]

westinghouse in the usa

Passatdoc;

Westinghouse sold the old type FL washers from the maybe early 1940's to maybe mid 1990's. There really were no years accept during WW2 that they were not made.

If I take say 1995 as a guess as the cut off and 1941 the start as a guess; that makes about 1/2 + century of FL washer production. The 3 belt potato pulley design went from the mid/late 1950's to roughly about 1988.

Later they the used a variable speed motor and 1 belt, and dropped the slinky clutch spring and oval potato pulley. These machines were still in stores being sold new until about the mid 1990's, I think production stopped about 1994 to 96 but not fully sure.

These many Westinghouse machines were sold under the Gibson, Sears, J C Penney, Frigidaire, Tappan brands. The FLS14B1D5 was sold as a Laundromat Commercial Front Loading Tumber machine see the link. This was often the token smallest tumber machine at some commercial laundromats.

Many internet articles read like the USA first got FL homes washers in the mid 1990's , the authors thus ignore 1/2 century worth of history. It is like saying Microsoft started with XP and ignoring older windows, DOS or BBS usage too.

Most folks in the USA never used a FL washer at home until the last decade, there might be one oddball in the neighborhood that had one.

**** To All;

In South Africa did FL washers just really get popular in the last decade, like the USA?;

or were they used not much before this?

http://www.searspartsdirect.com/par...Parts/Model-FLS14B1D5/1816/0153100?pathTaken=

 

[matthewza]

front loaders in South Africa..

front loaders have been very popular for many years here. at 1 stage they were more popular than top loaders, but then the digital and cleevr top loaders from LG and Samsung came out so everybody and their mother in law got an LG or Samsung top loader (after many decades of having a frony loader). but now front loaders are becomin more advanced than top loaders so they becomin more popular again
but in a nut shell, south africans have used front loaders for many decades. not just the last. we have used front loaders for about as long as the british!

 

[3beltwesty]

SA washer marketing

Matthewza,

Are FL and TL washers marketed there in SA any at all by volume?

Here in the USA that seems to be the sole metric used in all washer marketing.

There really is no mention of load size of clothes by weight or mass in home use washers.

Thus advertising is by cubic feet. One might see FL washers at a store with 3.6,4, 4.2 , 4.5, 5.5 cubic feet as one pays more.

 

[ronhic]

Washing capacity by volume....

....rather than by weight (..and this is cotton cycle too BTW) appears to be a uniquely American way of doing things.

From what other posters have said in the past it came about because of increasing capacity statements by manufacturers that couldn't be backed up. Cubic capacity, on the other hand, is potentially more reliable....

From an Australian perspective, several manufacturers have been taken to task by Choice, our consumer magazine, for claiming impossible capacities on machines. This is especially true of top-load machines. Either Whirlpool or Maytag were the worst offenders. In one instance that I can recall seeing in the magazine, the machine in question when loaded to the stated capacity was so full the lid was at 45degrees with clothes overflowing out.....

 

[matthewza]

SA washer marketing

they are always all marketed by their KG capacity. its easier and more understandable than cubic feet. and its always been KG so changing now would probably upset consumers

 

[ronhic]

That's interesting then....

....because with the possible exception of the front load machines, it is impossible for the top loaders to actually wash with that much in them...

Try it. Weigh yourself and a clothes basket and then add sufficent clothes/towels/sheets to take it up an additional 13kg....given that an average washing basket completely full ('rounded with clothes', not 'level') will weigh somewhere between 5-6kg, I cannot see how at LEAST 2 or more will fit and actually wash...

Interestingly, this seems to only be the case with top load machines. Front load machines sold in South Africa appear to be inline (capacity wise) with Europe/Australia...

 

[hoover1100]

Capacity

Don't get me started!

I love how the 11kg LG has a 78litre (7-8kg) drum.

I saw a video on youtube from Australia (can't remember it for the link) Which proved that a 6kg Miele could fit 2 more bath sheets in it than a 7kg Fisher and Paykel top loader.

For a twin tub to wash 14kg (let alone spin it), it would have to be HUGE (think industrial size), same for a top loading automatic to wash 13kg.

The worst offenders for false capacities are dryers, My mum's "7kg" Zanussi dryer can just about handle a full load (4.5kg as I weighed myself) from her "5.5kg" Whirlpool. Now LG reckon they can produce a 9kg dryer in a standard size cabinet? Yeah right!

It would be so much more sensible to measure capacity by drum volume, but then the manufacturers wouldn't be able to make such ridiculous claims, which consumers believe.

Rant over....

Matt

 

[ronhic]

They have...

...introduced minimum performance standards here on washing machines...they must be able to wash and especially rinse the load when at stated capacity....

Mind, the bar is pretty low, but Haier were taken to task about water consumption in two separate cases...one was too low and the machines failed the rinse test and another was stating the water consumption was low and it used far far more...

Personally, I think anything greater than 7kg in a standard cabinet is starting to ask for trouble....

 

[3beltwesty]

USA's government mumbo jumbo tests for washers

USA's government mumbo jumbo tests for washers is about 40 percent down on this long webpage

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title10-vol3/xml/CFR-2010-title10-vol3-part430.xml

 

[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....