Thread Number: 14658
More water?
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate automaticwasher.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 249017   11/19/2007 at 05:47 (5,974 days old) by vivalalavatrice ()        

Hi all!

as your help has been so usefull for me, and as you know I'm nearly, nearly to the end of my tesi which argument is "new sustainable scenary of washing", I need to ask agai your help easly if you would like to answer to this question:

- Concerning the horizontal axis system in washing methodes, so speaking about Front Loading and Top Loading (HA), how much would you rate the increasing of the water level, either in wash than in rinse cycle, if it were possible to recycle it (in many manners), so that the cycles begin shorter?

Thanks very much to all those could help me...
Diomede





Post# 249053 , Reply# 1   11/19/2007 at 08:42 (5,974 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

Hello Diomede,

You may be interested in the following link. The information on this website is a little different to the general information one gets regarding the 'sustainability/environmental' impacts of washing machines. Even more useful for you, it is an Australian website belonging to an independent laboratory that specializes in soil, water and effluent testing. This includes detergent analysis for environmental impact studies etc. They provide researched information and comparisons on both, vertical and horizontal axis washing machines, which would be hard to get in Europe. So, I hope this might give you some more info that you can work with.

Take care

rapunzel


CLICK HERE TO GO TO rapunzel's LINK


Post# 249097 , Reply# 2   11/19/2007 at 12:30 (5,973 days old) by vivalalavatrice ()        
Rapunzel...

You're WONDERFUL! :)))) THANK YOU so much... I need indeed of informations like these...
Diomede



Post# 249523 , Reply# 3   11/21/2007 at 15:29 (5,971 days old) by liberator1509 (Ireland)        
Bumping this up

The report in rapunzel's thread (copied here) is WELL worth a read...seems like a Fisher and Paykel top loader is the way to go...even better than a front-loader!

Essential reading...I wonder when the EU rating system will catch up...and when F&P will bring their washers over here...


CLICK HERE TO GO TO liberator1509's LINK


Post# 251231 , Reply# 4   11/30/2007 at 07:47 (5,963 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

I don't think so Liberator. V-axis washers are a niche product in Europe, which require hot and cold connections and usually have a larger footprint than most European washers as well. Thus making them more expensive to install and less attractive to consumers. Their tiny sales volume and limited range doesn't really justify extensive research for EU standards.

Surely, if you were to contact Fisher and Paykel in the UK, they'd be able to ship one over for you.

They do pop up on Euro e-bay from time to time as well.

Take care

rapunzel


Post# 251273 , Reply# 5   11/30/2007 at 12:45 (5,962 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Overhere in the Netherlands AFAIK there is not a single V-axis washer on the market except for a non-automatic Velo. Since the introduction of the automatic frontloader they disappeared rapidly.

I think a while ago somebody contacted Fisher & Paykel with this question and the answer was they weren't importing washers.

A while ago I contacted Huebsch. They sell gas dryers overhere. They were willing to import a washer, but that would be a special order. No plans to do that though, these machines take indeed to much space for a small Dutch bathroom.


Post# 251608 , Reply# 6   12/2/2007 at 08:53 (5,961 days old) by liberator1509 (Ireland)        
Importing F&P washers

I was that person who asked F&P UK if they would import washers, but as predicted they said while they would like to, market volume limitations, amongst other reasons, made it unlikely. There were also issues with noise/electronics harmonisation (EU rules again) that would need development, but limited market interest would make that unecomonic.

That response came before the 'Cabrio/Oasis/Bravos' style F&P was launched, so perhaps now that they have a low-water top loader they may reconsider - all it needs is a heater. Top loaders still had a market in the UK, at the top end (the sort or people who have big country/London houses, AGA-cookers, Range Rovers etc) - generally supplied by Maytags. Now that the Neptune and Atlantis are gone, what will replace them?

If the F&P eco-TL design were developed further (as I'm sure it will be), there could well be an up-market 'Home and Gardens' opportunity for a clever marketing team! Perhaps Maytag UK will spot this gap and bring the Bravos here - does anyone know if they make a 220/240 volt version of the Barvos/Cabrio?


Post# 251654 , Reply# 7   12/2/2007 at 14:12 (5,960 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        
Its called the Fisher Paykel Aquasmart

And its been on sale here for 12-18 months.

Its 240v 50hz and the only thing missing is a heater.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO brisnat81's LINK


Post# 257501 , Reply# 8   1/3/2008 at 19:05 (5,928 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
up, up...

...to the top once more.

Post# 257802 , Reply# 9   1/5/2008 at 06:22 (5,927 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        

Uhhh... interesting reading, it gives an overview of the Australian situation I dind't have an idea!
But I think that the study is biased in favour of top loading machines: as an example they don't take into account that the motor in a front-loading machine runs only half (or even less in some programmes) of the time (left-stop-right-stop), not continuosly like in a top loading one (agitate-agitate-agitate).
So even if the programme run 2 hours (istead of 1 hour of a top loading) the motor actually runs only 1 hour or something like that. Plus they don't think that people almost never use a programme that runs that long, cold water ones can be as short as 20 minutes and a long one rarely exceeds 3/4 of hour.


So, what do you think? Do you want to fire me? ;-) J/K
Any comment on my observation will be really appreciated.
Thank you. Gabriele


Post# 258914 , Reply# 10   1/9/2008 at 19:59 (5,922 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
Hi dj

No, you are not fired (just yet ;o)). First you will have to read and respond to my post.

I would describe this study as spirited, not biased. The author - Dr Robert Patterson- has a doctorate in science (he is a soil, agricultural scientist and environmental engineer) and can be contacted via the Lanfaxlab website. So, if you have any questions you can shoot him an e-mail. He is very friendly.

The report doesn't tell anyone that they should buy a top over a front loader. Though, it makes a number of astute points and observations in an attempt to cut through the nonsense and misinformation that is put out there to direct consumer spending.

As he points out, there is no such thing as an environmentally friendly washing machine or detergent and, in essence, when comparing overall performance and efficiency, the differences between modern top and front loaders are very small. He also points out that, by pandering primarily to environmental sentiments in our product choices, we may actually not achieve very much in an environmental sense, but end up short-changing ourselves as consumers. Hence, the allocation of public funding, to get people to buy certain types of washers, is wasteful and questionable. He wants us to think about the entire life-cycle of the products we buy, not just the marketing spin that usually lacks acurate and useful information. He is also asking where exactly do a lot of the new environmental standards come from? How do official instances arrive at the figures that they throw at consumers to set their new benchmarks for efficiency?

At this point some people may say that 'every little bit counts' when it comes to the environment. So, by saving an extra couple of liters per wash we are doing the right thing. On the surface that may sound right. Though, when looking at the bigger picture, a drop in the ocean is only ever going to be just that.

A lot of companies are marketing their products on the 'environmental guilt' principle. Yet, they actually produce their wares in countries with no discernable environmental and quality control standards. I refuse to be manipulated like that. I will not be told by my government and other public service bodies, that I am wasting resources through my product choices, when they are the 'embodiment of wastefulness'. Like most ordinary people, I can't afford to waste, I use what I need. The products I choose to buy are not for public or government scrutiny and I certainly will not have them turned into some moral issue by people who obviously have far too much time to waste.

As far as 'sustainabilty and modern environmentalism' are concerned - they are concepts that have been highjacked by lots of different interest groups with all kinds of agendas. They are quickly becoming the defining terms for a new kind of fascism that is becoming quite ugly. It is clear that these concepts have more to do with re-negotiating people's access to resources and economic/political power, than actually saving the environment. It is very much an upper middle-class driven initiative, aimed at restricting the opportunities (and therefore competition) from those who are economically vulnerable.

I hope this gives you enough to comment on - of course other people are welcome to throw their 2 cents in as well.

Cheers

rapunzel


Post# 258951 , Reply# 11   1/9/2008 at 23:00 (5,922 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

Hi Rapunzel,

The one point you never touch on, and that I disagree with, is that many cities in Australia are about to run out of potable water. This is due to government idleness and many other factors, but it still has a high probability of occuring, if the Desalination plants, water recycling schemes and or more rain doesnt fall shortly.

In that instance, saving every drop does help. Its not the solution to the whole problem, but it is a start.

Our old Whirlpool top load machine used 160L of water per 5kg cycle. The Miele FL holds more clothes and uses around 60L with an extra rinse and high water levels selected. Therefore I save 500L of water per week without changing anything in my life.

500L by 500,000 households becomes 250megalitres of water per week saved.

I dont disagree that over the lifecycle of the machine, it is probably less environmentally friendly to build a FL machine, but when the 2 key factors are to conserve water and electricity, the frontloader meets those requirements better than a toploader.

Using your logic that seems to keep coming out, we should keep our 20l/min shower heads and 11L single flush toilets, keep hosing our driveways and letting the taps run needlessly. There is plenty of water in North Queensland, but there isnt in the South east corner. If the primary consideration is to save water, then a FL or a HE Toploader is the only way to do it. If the primary consideration is to save energy, then the simplest, most reliable machine is the answer.


It is a great shame that Electrolux and soon F&P are looking to discontinue manufacturing in Australia, but if people keep choosing to buy cheap Korean rubbish over Australian made products then Electrolux and F&P are left with no choice. The only way to bring back Australian manufacturing, would be to remove globalisation and re-instate the import tarrifs that gave us such a closed market up until the 80's as we have too small of a population to build enough product competitively.

Either type of technology can do a good job or a bad job, it just depends on whether it is engineered and programmed correctly.



Post# 258982 , Reply# 12   1/10/2008 at 06:11 (5,922 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        

>Rapunzel

"there is no such thing as an environmentally friendly washing machine or detergent"
--You're more than correct in pointing this out, but one can be less "not friendly" than another.

"produce their wares in countries with no discernable environmental and quality control standards"
--This is up to people buying the stuff, ask for a thing that is made in a certain country than another respecting some standards.

"So, by saving an extra couple of liters per wash we are doing the right thing."
--This is not correct it's more like 20 or even 100 litres... plus if I started thinking this way I will also keep open the tap while brushing teeth and so on!

"As far as 'sustainabilty and modern environmentalism' are concerned - they are concepts that have been highjacked by lots of different interest groups with all kinds of agendas. They are quickly becoming the defining terms for a new kind of fascism that is becoming quite ugly. It is clear that these concepts have more to do with re-negotiating people's access to resources and economic/political power, than actually saving the environment. It is very much an upper middle-class driven initiative, aimed at restricting the opportunities (and therefore competition) from those who are economically vulnerable."
--I don't think I got your point here... you're saying that all this "change for enviroment" is only due to the fact that is fashionable and "correct"? Plus, how can they be "restricting opportunities"?

Plus I add that new machines "aren't as good as they used to be" and this applies to both top loader and front loader ones, either way their life span has decreased so one can't blame one kind or another in producing more waste. Building a front loader is just as not eviromentally friendly as building a top loader so starting from the same level I go the way of less water waste and less electricity waste. Even if a front loader can be cold fill only the machine has to heat up only, say 15 litres of water, opposed to a full tub of a top loader even if that water can be warmed by gas.

Again this is my opinion, I see the videos of vintage top loaders full of sloshing water and clothes and I enjoy them the most but this is simply not good to the enviroment. The same aplies to old front loaders that used 5 rinses with a full tub of water. A waste is a waste.

Cheers. Gabriele


Post# 258999 , Reply# 13   1/10/2008 at 08:00 (5,922 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
Hi dj and Brisnat

Brisnat you say:"Using your logic that seems to keep coming out, we should keep our 20l/min shower heads and 11L single flush toilets, keep hosing our driveways and letting the taps run needlessly."

and you dj say:"This is not correct it's more like 20 or even 100 litres... plus if I started thinking this way I will also keep open the tap while brushing teeth and so on!"

I say:"Not at all." It neither says that in the study nor did I apply that kind of logic. Laundry makes up a fraction of overall household water consumption. In my household, our regular TL (7.5 kg capacity, 150 L per regular cycle), roughly accounts for 10% of all water used. Everything else (yes, I have water saving taps, showerheads, cisterns etc.), accounts for the rest. Here in Sydney, our household is large - usually more than 6 people. We average one full laundry load per day. If I were to use a front loader of same capacity, I would not save much more than 6% overall.

We are not a regular household due our size, yet, I doubt that most other (smaller) households would exceed this 10% figure (at least not for the sake of my argument). Switching to a front loader - taking into account different capacities, frequency of use and all the other stuff - other households would very likely achieve savings ranging from as little as 3% and generally not more than 7%. Now, even if all of Brisbane's housholds changed to front loaders - it still wouldn't save your water problem by any more than those single digit percentiles. In fact, I recon they should start mandating twin-tubs and make people re-use their wash water more than thrice ;oP.

Instead of feeling guilty about using water, what we really need to do is get up our politicians and water companies, instead of splitting hairs over a few hundred megaliters - out of how many trillion liters? Apparently, domestic water cosnsumption makes up less than 20% of all fresh water used around the country. Strangely enough, there are no reliable and consistent figures available to accurately quantify what I've discussed in the above paragraphs. One would think that our governement should want such information before they go out wasting our hard-earned money on their rebate schemes.

South East Queensland's population growth has been on a runaway train and a lot of money has changed hands as a result. Though, none of it has been used to create the necessary infrastructure to meet new demands and fortify SE Queensland against the drought cycle - which, btw, is breaking. There are a lot of areas in NE NSW and SE Queensland, where rain falls regularly - even when much of the country is in drought. Unfortunately for Brisbane, your main water catchement happens to be in the wrong spot at present.

If we can be ingenious enough to transport oil and gas over thousands of miles, surely we can find a workable solution to Brisbane's water problems, that doesn't involve desalination plants and other stop gap nonsense.

dj - there has been quite a bit of development going on in the TL department. Technology hasn't stood still outside of Europe either. TLs now come with all kinds of features to reduce their load on the environment. This seems to be a point lost in these discussions for some reason. On a related note, did I mention that my washer can sudsave? If I used that function, I could reduce our overall water consumption by a whopping 2 or 3 percent.

Anyways that's all for now folks.

Take care

rapunzel


Post# 259030 , Reply# 14   1/10/2008 at 13:49 (5,921 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        
Target 140

Hi Rapunzel,

With Brisbanes Water Drive, the average consumption has now dropped from 450L per person per day, to 135L per person per day.

If you look at a 2 person household, based on 140L, that is a total consumption of 2 x 140 x 7 = 1960L per week. If you add the 500L extra, then its a total consumption of 1960 + 500 = 2460L. That gives me a difference of 25%.

If you have a 6 person household based on the 140L per person per day that Brisbane seems to be managing on, 6 x 140 x 7 = 5880L per week

Assume with a Larger FL machine you're using 70L per load, for a saving of 80L over the TL machine, that would be 80 x 7 = 560L per week. That then gives you a saving of 9.5%

Lets apply the same figures to a 4 person family, 4 x 140 x 7 = 3920L per week, a saving of 90L per load x 7 loads per week = 630L per week. That then gives a difference of 16%.

So the savings arent just 2%-3% when your primary consideration over all is to conserve water, in a 2 person household it could be as much as a 25% saving of their water consumption.

The reason I see that the Govt is pushing FL machines is as I said above. They require no change in how a person does laundry. You dont have to reuse water like in a TT, people dont have to cope with the germphobic icky idea that they have of reusing wash water, its just the same as it always was. You put the clothes in and get clean ones out at the end. You then save 30%-50% of the water per cycle without having to reprogram peoples habits.

You mention that the drought has broken and also that Brisbane's catchment is in the wrong location. You're right on both counts, but until there is more water in Brisbanes dams, then we're still in a period of drought, its fine to have rain, but if little of it is collected then it doesnt help the situation.

I agree that the government it entirely to blame for a lack of all infrastructure accross the state, luckily with Teflon Pete gone and Captain Bligh in charge, maybe there will be some decisions and changes made. Once the Desalination and Recycling plants are open that will ease some of the burden, and as long as K Rudd keeps his nose out of Traveston Crossing Dam and doesnt prevent the construction from proceeding, then in 5-10 years time, the water crisis of SEQ will be over, unfortunately unless we get a dam full of water at Somerset, Wivenhoe and Sampsonvale, Brisbaneites are going to have to keep living with a primary focus on conserving water.



Post# 259174 , Reply# 15   1/10/2008 at 23:39 (5,921 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

Hi Brisnat,

Thank you so much for that information, you are right. The figures you provide are very informative. As you know, I was only discussing my household situation and applying that in a broader (theoretical)context, since I don't really know what other people do. May I point out that, although my household uses water above the parameters that you have given, we don't waste it either. We use what we need and I would not consider cutting back further.

Now, consider this. Although front loader sales have increased, present sales figures still put TL purchases at approx. 75% overall. Current estimates place top loaders in 80% of Australian homes. Hence, it would appear that the 70% reduction, of Brisbanes per capita water consumption, was achieved without significant changes to most people's laundry equipment. A 70% reduction is huge, which makes it very clear that the rebate scheme is a waste of public money and a whole bunch of manipulative bollocks. People do not need to change to front loaders to save the environment and governments should butt out of our personal sphere and be more accountable for their incompetence.

You're fine with your washer and I'm cool with that. Though, I wouldn't want one. The features that I consider important only come with top loaders. I also don't feel it is appropriate to make purchases on my government's recommendation, to support their silly, intrusive and wasteful agendas.

Take care

rapunzel


Post# 259292 , Reply# 16   1/11/2008 at 15:22 (5,920 days old) by lederstiefel1 ()        
Yay!!!

Das geht runter wie Öl!!!!
(that goes down like oil)
I nearly was on the way to loose my faith in top-loaders as all the world tells they are rubbish....poooh!!!

Nevertheless I'd not given up my washing in twin-tub washers, single-tub washers and american top-loaders - NEVER!!

Bye the way....just five minutes ago I bet on a "new" washing machine in EBAY ... and ... GOT IT! (try the link!)
Ralf


CLICK HERE TO GO TO lederstiefel1's LINK on eBay



Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      



Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In



New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy