Why do frontloaders use so much less water?

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

de409

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
83
Location
Maryland
Was reading today about water usage; my Maytag Centennial TL probably uses around 19 gallons on a regular load. There is a Whirlpool FL that uses 7 gallons. Whats the big difference?

Are FL any good? Harder to work on? I always liked the TLs for ease of maintenance.
 
In a TL, laundry has to be suspended in water in order for proper agitation.

A FL drops laundry from a height onto the surface of the drum causing agitation.
Water here just aids as a solvent, basicly, allowing dirt and detergent to intermix.

Thus, you need far less water for that, to much water hinders cleaning sometimes as it cushions the tumbling action to much or dilutes detergent to far.
Less water means hotter water with the same energy usage as well.

7gal is a little ambitious and probably refers to an 8lbs load in the Normal cycle.

Usually, with 2gal per pound, you can get a wash and 3 rinses in low but good enough water levels.

Same as with TLs here: full loads are more efficent on a per pound calculation.

FLs have a few more wear prone parts.
On a TL, tub bearings only have to carry significant forces during unbalanced spins and the suspension is only wear down during spins as well - loosely speaking.
Suspension has to be more elaborate as well.

Working is harder in the sense that there is more going on in the washer. Springs, dampers and pipes on any point around the tub basicly.
 
I will disagree slightly with Henrik on a couple of points.

First, most bearings favor only one direction of operation; top-loading machines require the bearing to both resist forces side-to-side (from spinning or rotating) and up-and-down (to support the basket and/or agitator/impeller). No bearing is excellent for that -- roller bearings would not do well with supporting the weight, ball bearings wear out faster in this mode than in other modes, and the bearings that set rollers at a 45 degree angle, which in theory would help in this mode, are not very good at hight speeds for spinning.

In contrast, a front loader has the vast majority of the load toward the floor, and, even though the weight is kept in cantilever, the forces that would tend to move the axis into-and-out of the bearing in a front-loading configuration are smaller (this is the same direction that the "weight" would show up to the bearing for a top loading machine).

People make a *big* deal of the cantilever situation, but a washing machine is a very light duty thing for such bearings, a *car*, or worse, bus or truck, is much harsher and no one even blinks when they see a car. At least here in USA, the "bearing supports a cantilevered load" is used against FLers as propaganda, no one ever mentions it in cars or machine-tools.

The second thing I've often seen is the "front-loaders are more complicated" and/or "have more wear parts".

I don't think so. Front-loaders were always very simple machines, particularly when compared to top-loaders, particularly 60 years ago.

Very few FLs had a transmission, for example. They were much more often than not just bunch of pulleys and belts, with a simple solenoid to activate the spin. A lot of them, particularly the ones built in the 60s and 70s didn't even use anything but one belt between two pulleys, and a motor that went from 2 to 16 poles or equivalent. Granted, they did not have the faster spin, but they were dead simple.

People get stuck on the door boot thing, but the truth is that plenty of the most popular toploaders *also* had a very similar boot, but it was "hidden" between the basket and the tub where regular people would never suspect it.

*Currently* FLs got very sophisticated, with lots of electronics, but from that point of view, it's no different, most TLs here are also filled with electronics and controller boards etc.

The *closest* thing to a modern FL as to simplicity of construction is the Fisher&Paykel TL that also doesn't have a transmission. Most of the other TLs are filled with complicated clutches, splutches, or full-fledged transmissions. Those used to be cheaper to make than electric motors way back then, but that had more to do with how much labor costs changed, making those parts (particularly the ones that needed to be machined as opposed to poured into a mold) was always more complex and work intensive.

People often look at external things like dispensers, but the original frontloaders did not have dispensers either, just like the toploaders, and currently a lot of machines, front- or top-loading have the same or very similar dispensers anyway.
 
Bringing this back on home...

Query was "Why do frontloaders use so much less water?"

Answer is compared to traditional top loading washing machines that submerge laundry in water, h-axis washing machines rely more upon the "beating saturated laundry against a rock" type of action.

That is with h-axis washing machines only enough water is used to saturate the load (to various degrees), but not submerge. Laundry is then moved about in tub to be lifted and dropped against itself and sides of tub. This action works the concentrated water/detergent solution through textiles providing cleaning.

Remember the laundry pie that covers all types of washing.

Mechanical action
Water (amount)
Temperature
Chemicals
Time

Any decrease in one means the others must increase to compensate.

H-axis washing is far more gentle than the mechanical action of a central beater. As such cycles are longer to compensate.

H-axis washers use less water than top loaders, so again ditto.

There are two main ways of doing laundry. One either moves textiles through water, or moves water through textiles. Top loaders tend to do the former, while h-axis the latter.

This is why top loaders run with far shorter cycles than h-axis. The more brutal central beater provides stronger mechanical action that forces laundry through a highly diluted wash water. Rinses can be one or maybe two because higher amount of water is used, and again product is diluted in all that water.

Generally and borne out of decades of testing and use h-axis washers will produce cleaner and better results with less wear to textiles than top loaders with central beaters. All this using less water, energy and chemicals than top loaders.

Commercial/industrial laundries never went with top loaders, but remained with h-axis machines. Laundromats are another story, but outside of North America there two h-axis washers dominate and have dominated.

Proof of this is the vast and bewildering array of stain treatments, boosters and other laundry aids American housewives (or anyone else) doing laundry needs when top loaders dominated. This and the heavy use of chlorine bleach which hides a multitude of sins.
 
Wow, a very cogent discussion!  I've been using my FLs for about 10 years now and I do agree they are much kinder to fabric, I see little wear on anything.  Would never go back, ever.

 

Just a little side story that really does not add much to the discussion but...  I'm at the end of a head cold, last week it was at it's worst I but I put my TL into double duty.  I tossed a load of whites in and tented it to act as a vaporizer of sorts.  All the steam really did help by sinuses, but honestly I cringed at the amount of water it took to fill the tub.  I used to do 5, 6 or more loads a week, hate to think of all the water that I went through compared to now.  I might do 2 or 3 loads twice a month partly due to th larger capacity.  Would love to have one of the new LGs or the Electrolux posted about in another thread.
 
Longtime member of the front-load fan club here, as well, and for all the reasons listed above. As much as I’ve enjoyed the truly vintage top-load experience of a Speed Queen, I will undoubtedly make the switch back when the new SQ front-loaders appear at the local dealership.

In my experience they clean better, use substantially less water and energy, spin the load much drier, and use less detergent/bleach/etc. I certainly wouldn’t have employed front-loaders from 1986-2017 had they not done a sterling job.

Having said that, the top-loader wins in ease of loading—and especially unloading—in the tight quarters of my apartment building’s laundry area. The open door of a modestly-sized SQ front-loader will literally come within a hair’s width of bumping into the neighbor’s Kitchen-Aid set, which resides opposite mine.
 
Highest usage cycle

Ran my towel load today.

Prewash, main wash, 4 rinses, each with full interim spins; 140F maintained for 40min in the main wash, full 1600rpm final spin, then dried.

All in all not more then 42gal and 3kWh of usage, if even that.

Even when translating that to US FLs, no way a TL could compete with that.
 
No decimal missing

That's a 6 fill cycle, all really deep fills.

7gal on average per fill for about 12lbs of towels with interim spins of 1000rpm.
160l is the max this washer can use basicly.

Edit:

For perspective, the same cycle with the same load but without prewash and water plus and extra rinse would clock in at about half that, 80l or 21gal.

Edit edit:

One should possibly add as well that it uses about the same at rated capacity (8kg or 16-17lbs) and on the label cycle the cycle is condensed to a 3 fill cycle with about 54l usage equal to about 14gal.[this post was last edited: 5/3/2019-18:06]
 
sorry to be a waster

We have a 450 foot well that was guaranteed to never run out of water. We of course don't pay for water . I use thousands of gallons of water. We pay a flat sewer fee every 3 months. We were told by the town that if we metered our well, we would pay less for sewer taxes. No way are we doing that because I use so much water. I have a top loader that uses 27 gallons per full fill. I had considered a front loader because I do believe that they clean better. I chose a huge top loader because that is what I am used to. It cleans beautifully and I am very happy with it. To each their own I suppose.
 
Frontloaders have not always been more water efficient than toploaders of a similar capacity, at least not in Europe.
The average water use of European FLs in the 1960s and 70s was about 180 liters which is more or less 50 gallons. Many of them did not spin at all between rinses even in a normal cotton cycle and if they did there was usually no way to keep them from sudslocking. Hence they still had to be waterhogs to ensure good rinsing. Their low energy use however made all the difference compared to a TLer.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top