spin-doctor
Well-known member
What are the makes and models of the two examples you show in the pics of machines with 20K rpm motors? We can simply look up their manuals and specs and settle the debate easily with that.
Whirlpool and Samsung are reducing the maximum spin speed on their washers
- Thread starter whirlpool862
- Start date
What are the makes and models of the two examples you show in the pics of machines with 20K rpm motors? We can simply look up their manuals and specs and settle the debate easily with that.
I think you’re as equally capable as I am of doing that.
spin-doctor
Well-known member
Ok, I went back and read the older posts in this thread (just joining this discussion yesterday). Which I should have done prior to posting earlier. I see you and the other guy did post pics of washer motors with high rpms up to 17.5K. Not 20K, but certainly very fast nonetheless.
Very interesting, thanks for clarifying that. I guess my mind is stuck with the older tech of non-variable, fixed speed AC motors. The modern motors and their controllers make it possible to get the whole job done with no transmission other than a belt drive. Amazing, thanks for the education.
Many don't, and those that do don't run in it in the majority of their offered cycles.
So again, there is no heating.
Last edited:
You said you would never own one without a heater. I’m telling you most do. Just because not all cycles don’t use it, is irrelevant. The heater is there. Use the cycles that use the heater then.
Hint: that’s almost every cycle besides the Normal cycle.
It seems some people are obsessed with how fast a machine spins, it may sound like I don’t care how fast a machine spins, but as long as items aren’t dripping wet, fine by me.
I know my Whirlpool spins slower than my Maytag A806, but honestly don’t see a drastic difference.
With the way my Whirlpool dryer is setup with the moisture sensor being grounded through a thermostat, it takes a good 6 to 20 minutes depending on the load size before I hear a audible ‘click’ from the thermostat (L120-10), after that it’ll advance the timer. On average, drying times are 45 to 60 minutes (sometimes longer) on the auto dry cycle.
Again, as long as items aren’t dripping wet and get dried in a reasonable amount of time is fine by me.
Another thing is if you spin things out faster, things wrinkle easier. Items seem to feel softer and fluffy when spun out between 505 to 618 rpm, definitely smell good with dryer sheets. My guess the more moisture is present during the evaporation process, the dryer sheets have a better chance of working as intended as ludicrous as that may sound.
I know my Whirlpool spins slower than my Maytag A806, but honestly don’t see a drastic difference.
With the way my Whirlpool dryer is setup with the moisture sensor being grounded through a thermostat, it takes a good 6 to 20 minutes depending on the load size before I hear a audible ‘click’ from the thermostat (L120-10), after that it’ll advance the timer. On average, drying times are 45 to 60 minutes (sometimes longer) on the auto dry cycle.
Again, as long as items aren’t dripping wet and get dried in a reasonable amount of time is fine by me.
Another thing is if you spin things out faster, things wrinkle easier. Items seem to feel softer and fluffy when spun out between 505 to 618 rpm, definitely smell good with dryer sheets. My guess the more moisture is present during the evaporation process, the dryer sheets have a better chance of working as intended as ludicrous as that may sound.
Decoys don't count as a heater or heating. Heating is very relevant when most cycles do indeed require heating to a specific target temperature somewhere between 60*F and 200*F. Looking at US machines, nothing on the control panel tells me what cycles use the heater and what the target temperature is. So as far as I'm concerned nothing is really being heated.
I'm certainly no expert, but I believe having a higher RPM / lower torque electric PMS motor makes it more energy efficient, and also mean you can have a smaller, lighter motor with thinner windings. So uses less copper masking it cheaper too. Downsides potentially more noise and the motor bearings need to be better or they'll wear out quicker.
spin-doctor
Well-known member
It probably is more efficient. And after seeing videos of the guts visible from the backside of these modern washers I was amazed to see a simple motor and belt setup. I mean that is amazing it can operate within the full range of speeds needed with that setup due to the modern electronic digital control systems they have. The old gearboxes and transmissions gone.
After having given up on modern washers after multiple motherboard failures, ripped clothes and other problems, I reverted to the classic washer tech I grew up with. Glad I did. But it is intriguing to see how mechanically simple these machines actually are. If only they could build them more robustly and also greatly improve the reliability and long-term durability of the electronics. Even if it required a belt replacement every 5 years, I'd be ok with that considering how easy it appears to replace belts on these new units. Or even if it needed a new motor every 7 years and the motor was no more than $250 and was almost as easy as belt replacement? I'd be ok with that too. And I'd be ok with the controlling electronics lasting a solid 10 years before they went bad, as long as the replacement was no more than $250. But from what my experiences were up to 5 years ago, none of that was true. Maybe there are some modern units that approach that level of reliability? Don't know.
As far the claimed efficiency and all that, from my experience it's a false economy and a net loss for the environment too. The washer and dryer set I now own is 35 years old. It will likely last me 20 years with minimal maintenance. When you factor in how many more washers and dryers I would have to buy over that same roughly 50 year timeframe? No contest for user savings or environmental impact. Even if its motor is 10% or 25% more efficient. Even if it uses 25% less water, but I now need to wash either fewer clothes each load or more loads to achieve the same end? The global cost to access the raw materials to build 5-7 more machines, shipping to the factory, smelting/manufacturing tooling/costs, shipping to the store or end user and then disposal impact etc? If a full energy accounting was made of that, I believe the old machine is far more cost efficient, energy efficient and better for the environment. I'm sticking with the old tech.
That said, it is cool to see what's technologically possible if they would prioritize truly durable and low replacement rate machines instead of designed obsolescence with a green leaf icon sticker on it to fool naive people into thinking their consumer purchase helps "heal" the planet.
Spin speeds on (front load) washing machines sold in the UK have got a little slower in recent years, at one time some manufacturers were doing 1,800rpm and 2.000rpm spin machines, although the gains over 1,600rpm were pretty marginal. 1,600rpm seems to be the max now.
2,000rpm Gorenje:
Spin speed Residual humidity - this is for EU electrolux models around 2008.
400 rpm 85 %
500 rpm 78 %
800 rpm 66 %
1000 rpm 60 %
1200 rpm 53 %
1400 rpm 52 %
1600 rpm 44 %
1800 rpm 42 %
On the washing machines I've used, all front load of course, all but one (which had a design/manufacturing defect) the seal failed and leaked before the bearing went. One we had in the 80s had a vent hole between the bearings and rusty water leaked out of there for many months before the bearings went, on my current one the bearings had no trace of play in them before the cycle when the inner one started loudly squealing (presumably jammed by the rust) .
I have hard water so the seal gets encrusted in hard limescale which would stop it flexing and presumably cause it to wear and leak more quickly.
Someone mentioned truck bearings, those I believe are normally roller bearings, so can take much higher loading but lower maximum RPM than ball bearings used in washing machines.
(The rated rpm of the brushed motor on my 1400rpm front load machine is 15,000rpm.)
2,000rpm Gorenje:
Spin speed Residual humidity - this is for EU electrolux models around 2008.
400 rpm 85 %
500 rpm 78 %
800 rpm 66 %
1000 rpm 60 %
1200 rpm 53 %
1400 rpm 52 %
1600 rpm 44 %
1800 rpm 42 %
On the washing machines I've used, all front load of course, all but one (which had a design/manufacturing defect) the seal failed and leaked before the bearing went. One we had in the 80s had a vent hole between the bearings and rusty water leaked out of there for many months before the bearings went, on my current one the bearings had no trace of play in them before the cycle when the inner one started loudly squealing (presumably jammed by the rust) .
I have hard water so the seal gets encrusted in hard limescale which would stop it flexing and presumably cause it to wear and leak more quickly.
Someone mentioned truck bearings, those I believe are normally roller bearings, so can take much higher loading but lower maximum RPM than ball bearings used in washing machines.
(The rated rpm of the brushed motor on my 1400rpm front load machine is 15,000rpm.)
Last edited:
I'm not convinced that's the case, but perhaps you mean liquid detergents.
We've very hard water, and I didn't descale our current machine for the first 3 years, and had two elements blow and the coin trap filter got stuck in place by limescale. For the last 13 years, I've descaled it annually and have not needed to change an element again. I suspect regular descaling would likely make the shaft seal last longer too, as it gets encrusted with limescale so loses its flexibility.
I've never needed to descale previous machines, although in hindsight that was probably a mistake. I have dismantled the drums on a couple of previous machines, and they had a very thick layer of limescale, at least a quarter inch or more over the tub.
Similar threads
