Whirlpool/Kenmore BD twitch

[kenmorebd]

I am full of questions tonight, but something that I have been wondering about is the belt drives wash motion, I've dubbed it the Kenmore Twitch! While watching various videos of Kenmores and Whirlpools doing there thing, ive noticed the tub seems to torque /rotate with every sweep of the agitator. This is best demonstrated in Jasonlava's video on youtube (link enclosed), just watch the ring on the top of the tub twitch or torque with the wash motion. Is this just caused by the motion of the agitator?

How does the suspension work on the Belt Drives too? From what I gather the wash assembly sits on the baseplate, and then the drive assembly "hangs" from underneath the baseplate, and 4 rods come up from the top side of the base plate and connect into the corners of the cabinet at the top, as if the whole assembly hangs from the top of the cabinet? Is that how it is? I guess that doesn't leave much room for the tub to move on off balance loads.

 

[peteski50]

Kenmore / Frigidaire

That is Not the origional commercial - In the origional commercial Frigidaire had better rollover action. The origional commercial was put out by General Motors.
Peter

 

[washoholic]

Frigidaire/Kenmore

It looks like someone overfilled the Frigidaire 1-18 with water. Normally, at full water level the 1-18 is only ¾ full of water. This one is filled almost to the top with water. That dramatically affects the turnover, but I guess if this is the Kenmore commercial then that’s what had to be done to make the Kenmore look better.

Check out the turnover when the correct amount of water is used in the 1-18.

Jeff

http://www.automaticwasher.org/VID/1-18/1-18_Turnover.wmv

 

[DADoES]

I believe this is a homemade comparison video done by JasonL, from two clips edited together.

IMO, the Kenmore is underloaded ...

Anyways, in response to Kenmorebd's question ... yes the tub movement is related to the agitation action, with a little help from sloshing of the water and clothes. And yes, the tub/mechanism hangs from rods attached to the left/front, left/rear, and right/rear corners of the cabinet (three rods, not four, there is no suspension rod at the right/front corner). Rubber "balls" are at both ends of the suspension rods, beneath the baseplate and enclosed in the corner gussets at the top. The rubber resists flexing, helping limit oscillation of the assembly.

 

[kenmoreguy64]

Hey there Kenmorebd.....

The "twitching" you notice is indeed related to the agitation stroke and is created by torque, just as you theorized. The transmission is a faily heavy sort, especially in today's standards, and is always agitating, at least internally, whenever the motor is running.

When I test a machine that I'm working on, I will sometimes test run the mechanicals before I have the top half re-installed (tub, basket, etc). With the reduced weight of the unit, you can see that twitching even in basic idle, caused simply by the forces from inside the trans. The movement is not dramatic, but it is there nonetheless.

On a fully functional machine, the twitching is more pronounced if the snubber is removed. This device dampens or "holds down" some of the less intense twitching momentum. I have seen variations from one machine to another in snubber effectiveness, which is at least one reason why some machines do your "twitch" more than others, load size not withstanding.

 

[fa_f3_20]

Kenmore BD spin speed

"The transmission is a faily heavy sort, especially in today's standards, and is always agitating, at least internally, whenever the motor is running"

I didn't realize that! It's obvious now that you've pointed it out, but I never thought about it. Clearly, this would limit the max spin speed -- an 1100 RPM spin would probably shake the trans apart. Thus the anemic spin speed on the BD Kenmores is finally explained.

 

[kenmoreguy64]

On Spin speeds

Funny, twice yesterday I had folks mention to me that the WP belt-drive spin speed was not well regarded here. I can see the point loud and clear as compared to an 1100 rpm machine. My DD washer spins faster than my belt drives, BUT using the same dryer with both, I have noticed that the DD spins in some wrinkles, especially in my Levis, that I don't get from the belt-drivers.

Honestly, I have never had reason to complain about wetness of clothes (the result of slow spin speed and the reason behind the comment I'm assuming). I do not however use the Perm-Press cycles, ever. All my life my clothes have been washed by a Kenmore belt-drive of one model or another, with the exception of one DD that is only a supplemental toy machine for me. When the belt drivers are working properly, I get towels out of them that are pressed into half-moon shaped wedges, and the loops in the towels have gone into the baset holes, making this funky looking reverse image of the basket on the towel.

My dryers take about 45-50 minutes to dry a full load, even heavy bath towels. I don't see how I could complain about that.

All that aside though, here are a couple thoughts on belt-drive spin speed changes...

1) I t h i n k however I am not certain that spin speeds in 1960s models may have been a little faster? I may be very wrong in that. The way to speed them up or slow them down would be to change the position of the clutch pads, relative to the basket drive pulley. The pads were indeed relocated at least somewhat due to the advent of the fast-brake design in 1971 that UL brought about. I'd swear I read somewhere, maybe 20 or more years ago, that this gave the WP designers a chance to make the machine more "user friendly" in dealing with spun-in wrinkles, since perma-press was such a big topic of the day.

2) Bearing wear / failure seems to have been a bigger issue in the 60s/earlier 70s than in the later models. Some of this was improved with the shortening of the centerpost in 1978, but a faster spin speed would exaserbate this problem. Worn bearings (highly highly noisy) were the end of my mother's first Kenmore, and I have several in storage that exhibit the same symptoms.

3) The belt-drive is not exactly the most spin-steady machine already, and in my humble opinion, the DD machines overcame this problem nicely as compared to their ancestors. Belt-drives "walking" or taking leisurely strolls across laundry room floors was an occasional problem for many machines. Giving them warp-drive spins would only make that happen more frequently.

You'll never hear me say that the belt-drive WP was the ultimate washer design. Just like anything else, they were introduced with the knowledge that their designers could bring to production at the time, and were occasionally improved upon, but they had limits too.

For me, I'll keep using my belt-drives as long as we have 60 cycle a/c and water to put in them. Their rythmic "whir whir whir" is almost hypnotic music to me - I'm still not bored with hearing it after all these years.