Thread Number: 20166
Energy star water factor question
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 321823   12/30/2008 at 22:25 (3,268 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
I hope its not inappropriate to post a thread that is not about a specific machine. I have been doing some reading on the energy star site. My question is: I have a Duet 9300 that will be four years old in April........Will it use more water than the Duets that you can purchase today? Honestly, I don't see how they can go any less with the water usage but just curious.




Post# 321843 , Reply# 1   12/31/2008 at 06:26 (3,268 days old) by toggleswitch2 ()        
Washing generally needs WATER to be efffective.

Actually IMHO the overall concensus here is that newer energy-star appliances do tend to use less and less water overall with each subesequent model.

Generally as a group I'd say we are not too fond of them.

Dishwahers especally (as a class) are generally insufficient in performance lately, and yet take hours to run one cycle/programme. Ironically one would then have to assume that lower-end non energy-star models work best...because they do!




Post# 321848 , Reply# 2   12/31/2008 at 08:36 (3,268 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
European machines

ronhic's profile picture
From an Australian (and possibly European) point of view...

Most of our front loaders either are made in Europe or Asia by a European factory (Electrolux, Bosch, Whirlpool) or are an Asian brand (LG, Samsung et.al.) so I can only really comment on them...

In general, they are getting more water efficient. Haier had a model available in our market that used 43litrs (10.5USG) for a 7kg load! It didn't rinse too well though....funny that.

Most European designed machines now have very long as opposed to just 'long' cycles. My Electrolux made Westinghouse takes 117 minutes for a full load without a prewash. Thats wash, 3 rinses and spins between each and uses about 71lt (17.5USG) for a 6.5kg load. I tend to not 'overload' my machine and use the quick wash button which (given the load is about 2/3) is 68min wash is 'topped up', 2 rinses and spins between. Water usage is about the same though as the rinse levels are higher.

My previous Australian made (but british based) 4kg Hoover Electra took a maximum of 55min for a wash, 3 rinses and spins between. It was hot and cold intake and had no heater...BUT it washed less than 2/3 of the clothes AND used about 85ltr (21 USG) per load...

So generally speaking, something has to give...

Either the cycle times increase, the load increases compared to 'last years model' yet the tub hasn't changed, rinsing suffers if the intermittant spins aren't hard enough etc...


Post# 321886 , Reply# 3   12/31/2008 at 12:00 (3,268 days old) by sudsman ()        
Toggles is right I am NOT fond of them at all

I dont understand how engery can be saved by using less water to wash with and running the machine 2 hours instead of 30 mins. One eats up the other so it seems to me. I run the 150lb machines here in the longest formua is only 45 mins. For heavy surgery loads. And 10 mins of that time is extract time.

Post# 321931 , Reply# 4   12/31/2008 at 16:31 (3,267 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

Its not all machines.

Our 3 yo Miele's programmed in AU mode complete a normal cycle in 40 minutes with 2 rinses or 52 minutes with 3 rinses, the 2 rinse cycle uses around 52L of water to wash a 5.5kg load. It seems to work well, although sometimes I find the wash time a little short. It occaisionally barely finishes the final top up before it goes into drain and spin.

I've gotten around that by programming Euro mode, which runs between about 54 and 75 minutes for a normal cycle with 2 rinses or adds about 12 minutes more if I add a third rinse.

The frontloaders in AU and the EU seem to do a pretty good job with the resources they use, so they're not all bad.

With Dishwashers, I've only had recent experiences with Miele. 15L per cycle 1:54 wash time and it removes pretty much anything you can throw at it. Mums 30yo Dishlex takes about 80 minutes on a Superwash with Pots and Pans selected and uses around 25L of water, so its not a huge time difference. I think using a filter rather than a soft food disposer helps in low water use machines as you never recirculate any food bits, they're all trapped and most are flushed down the drain rather than sprayed around the load for the full cycle. That might be why the euro dishwashers perform better in low water situations.

With the argument about long cycles wasting energy. When you're using a 200watt wash motor, the power you use over 2 hours compared to the power you use to heat multiple fills of water is insignificant. Most of the energy is from heating the water. In a normal cycle on my Dishwasher, the Main wash and Final rinse are heated, to 55degC and 65degC and the Prewash and interim rinses are cold.


Post# 321933 , Reply# 5   12/31/2008 at 16:42 (3,267 days old) by jeffg ()        

There's also the issue of clothing wear and expense. I can't imagine subjecting $150 dress shirts to 2 or 2 1/2 hour washing cycles every time they need laundered.

Post# 321934 , Reply# 6   12/31/2008 at 16:44 (3,267 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

My $120 dress shirts get a 56 minute cycle every week and are now 18 months old, no fraying around the collar and still look the same as brand new.

I couldnt imagine how bad the creaseing if someone ran them through that longer cycle, most of minimum iron/perm press cycles dont run anywhere near that long.


Post# 321935 , Reply# 7   12/31/2008 at 16:49 (3,267 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
Manufacturers caught out here

ronhic's profile picture
Some years ago, Choice magazine (the Australian consumer mag) commented when testing washing machines that it was next to if not impossible to get the stated loads into some machines and showed a picture of either a US Whirlpool or Maytag with the lid partially up and laundry hanging out. They had literally stated a capacity that the machine couldn't fit...

Now how does this effect energy and water consumption?

Well until recently, the code was voluntary for water. Now it is compulsory to display the manufacturer can choose the programme they test. Energy has been compulsory for some time but again, the manufacturer can choose the programme. Manufacturers - and with the exception of Fisher and Paykel - all had machines (predominately top load) on the market where they used the same internals and called one a 6kg machine and the other a 7kg machine. So, you now have a 'bigger' machine which is more expensive but also more energy and water efficient....

Times have changed and there is now a minimum rinse standard too which does make it harder for Manufacturers to do this.


Post# 321936 , Reply# 8   12/31/2008 at 16:52 (3,267 days old) by jeffg ()        

Quality dress shirts should last 18 years, with proper care (i.e. top loading washers, or dry cleaning).

Post# 321937 , Reply# 9   12/31/2008 at 16:53 (3,267 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Has anyone here tried adjusting the water level on their Duet? If so, are u happy with the setting? Would it shorten the life of the machine? I read somewhere you could do that....I know these machines are able to accommodate more water because some cycles use more than others.

Post# 321938 , Reply# 10   12/31/2008 at 17:04 (3,267 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

Jeff,

In a BD whirlpool with a 2 hour soak and a 4 minute gentle wash, I barely got 12 months out of the same shirts before the collars and cuffs frayed and that was only washing 5 at a time.

I now fit 10-12 in a load and experience no visible wear at 18 months old.

I tend to rotate through sets of 6 or 7 at a time, so they tend to get worn 50 odd times a year each and laundered the same 50 times per year. Over your 18 years, that'd be 900 wash cycles which seems like an awful lot with no damage occuring.

I rotate through this way, so I never get bored with the pattern or style, I get around 2 years wear from them, which by that point it's time for some new patterns and colours to brighten up the wardrobe and I can then donate the old ones to charity.


Post# 321939 , Reply# 11   12/31/2008 at 17:16 (3,267 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
Shirts

ronhic's profile picture
Our Blomberg used to run a minimum 1hr 30 on the 40c quick wash in the UK and I can tell you that my work shirts were never cleaner (ok, on the normal cycle they possibly were). Now that was in 2001 and I still wear clothes that I had then.

In fact, I have a rugby top that is now 12 years old that is worn weekly...it is getting thin, but there is next to no pilling on it and the same goes for the 22yr old chinos that still inhabit my wardrobe (and fit!) as well as towels without pulls etc....

How long something lasts has more to do with how many chemicals you throw at it (and bleach is a killer to fabric), how gentle the machine is, how heavily you load it etc. As a case in point, here are 3 extracts from the latest choice survey in Dec 2008 on Fisher and Paykel machines. Keep in mind that Choice tests at stated capacity too on a cold wash and that isn't how most of us wash...

Fisher & Paykel WH80F60W1...Front.....Gentleness 76%
....."......... GW712.......Top.......Gentleness 43%
.....".......... WL80T65DW1..."........Gentleness 58%

At Capacity, the 2 top loaders do wash better (just)...and the GW712 rinses far better but uses 178L of water! But it is gentleness that was the point here....



Post# 321947 , Reply# 12   12/31/2008 at 18:00 (3,267 days old) by jeffg ()        

I'm glad you included the disclaimers about stated capacity and cold water, because there's no such thing as "gentle" cycle on front loaders.

Post# 321948 , Reply# 13   12/31/2008 at 18:10 (3,267 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
I beg to differ on that Jeff

ronhic's profile picture
Of course there is and they don't come any more gentle that a machine that slows it revolutions so much so that the drum goes at half speed or slower....or in the case of the old UK Hotpoints that had a 'wool cradle' - they literally rocked the clothes!

Could you explain how you come to your conclusion?


Post# 321951 , Reply# 14   12/31/2008 at 18:31 (3,267 days old) by jeffg ()        

It's basic physics. In a front loader, there's no way to avoid friction between articles of clothing in a load, and between the clothes and tub wall. That's even true for your "cradle" action. In a top loader, lightly loaded and with adequate water, each article of clothing has a cushion of water around it, and there's virtually no direct friction.

Post# 321952 , Reply# 15   12/31/2008 at 18:50 (3,267 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Yeabut!

launderess's profile picture
There's friction and there's friction.

Older front loaders used more water during the wash phase, which helped cushion the rubbing action somewhat, even when tub was fully loaded. For the same reason one does not load the drum more than one half full when doing woolens or delicates, so the extra high water level, coupled with gentle washing action will not cause harm to textiles.

When you start reducing the water usage to the wet nap level, there is bound to be more wear and tear on clothing (especilly with long cycle times), as laundry is being more forcefully rubbed against itself and the wash tub.

This month's issue of Consumer Reports tests front loaders, and clearly notes that water usage has gone down, along with longer cycle levels is causing more wear on clothing.

L.


Post# 321953 , Reply# 16   12/31/2008 at 19:01 (3,267 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture
Jeff the reality is that is not how the majority of us use our machines nor the way they were built to be used. I have been doing laundry as part of chores since I was 9. At 39 I can tell you that I have never had to resort to that to prevent something from occuring. In this case wear/pilling etc

I have used top load and front load machines from various manufacterers and feel that I am qualified enough to say that having an agitator moving to and fro is generally far more damaging than washing like fabrics together. Every consumer magazine has proven with their 'fray' tests that front loading machines are far more gentle on clothes than a top loading machine.

Now if a person was to underload and over resource their machine I am sure that similar gentleness scores could be achieved but not without an increase in water, detergent and energy use over a full wash week of say 4-5 loads. It would take 10-15 loads to do what you are suggesting. Not to mention the time factor and wear on your machines gearbox.

Now given that the average front load machine here uses about 70lts and the average top load about 175ltr of water (if used as you mention) that would mean that if I was to do my washing as suggested that I would use a minimum of 1750ltr or 440 USG compared to about 280ltr or 70 USG. Not to mention that we pay for our water and there is the associated hot water (gas/electric) that a top loader doesn't heat....

That is an extravagance that the vast majority of people in this country with its' continuing water restrictions in many towns can never justify. You'd almost set yourself up for a lynching if you told someone that was how you washed. We have a town not 60miles away that was on stage 5 water restrictions. That means a TOTAL water usage of 150ltrs (38USG)per day per person. Washing, bathing, toilet...the lot

ok...i'm of my soap box now!


Post# 321955 , Reply# 17   12/31/2008 at 19:11 (3,267 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
here is the info from Choice

ronhic's profile picture
Front Load
Pros

They’re gentler on clothes.
Most use less water.
Most use less energy when washing in warm to hot water.
Use less detergent.
More programs, and higher temperature wash options.
Cheaper to run.
Higher spin speeds, which means they generally get more water out – convenient however you dry clothes, and money-saving if you use a dryer.
Best for small spaces – you can fit most models under a bench or put a dryer on top

Cons
Longer wash cycles – up to two hours in some cases (but many have ‘fast-wash’ options for lightly soiled clothes).
Generally more expensive to buy.
Higher spin speeds and less water (and higher wash temperature options) can mean more creases – so more ironing. Some models have ‘anti-crease’ cycles to avoid this.
With many models you can’t add to the wash load after the cycle has started.
Heavy to move.
Not many large-capacity machines available.
Some models need special brackets if placed on a wooden floor.
Tend to have louder spin cycles, and some people are sensitive to the pitch.
Some may rinse poorly due to thier very low water usage

Top loaders

Slightly fewer breakdowns and repairs compared to front loaders.
Bigger range of larger-capacity machines.
Faster wash cycles.
Generally cheaper to buy.
Lighter and so easier to move.
Easy to add clothes once a cycle has started.
Tend to have better rinse performance

Cons
Generally harsher on clothes.
Uses up to three times as much water as front loaders.
Uses more energy when washing in warm to hot water.
Uses more detergent.
Cost more to run.

The experience between countrys is interesting and could be down to the way that American Front loaders wash. From what I understand the cycle times are very quick compared to European models which could mean faster/rougher drum revolutions.


Post# 322808 , Reply# 18   1/6/2009 at 19:13 (3,261 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
Consider this!

Gentleness - I think the gentleness test is not really indicative of anything much and ultimately more valuable for marketing than real life experience. The cloth they use to test for this is just loose threads woven into fabric without stitching. Of course the more vigorous agitator action and water currents of a top loader will show up wear more quickly. Does that mean I spend my life in threadbare duds - No. If you took the same piece of cloth and simply hung it out in a stiff breeze for a few hours there'd be noticable fraying around the edges too. If they rewashed the same piece of material two or three times in a front loader they would end up with the same level of wear as well. What if, instead of putting the test material through a regular cycle in a top loader, they only used the gently cycle, would they get the same sort of comparisons? Would you guys wash your silks, woolies and other dainties with your ruggers, duffle bags and studded leathers on the heavy duty cycle? BAGS NOT!

Youse all know that regular clothes are not usually meant to fray at the edges, unless they are junk, and threads don't pull apart from the middle, unless there's already damage. Mixing loose hooks, open zippers and other items that can catch and pull threads can cause damage in any kind of washer. Need I go on?

I've been washing clothes since I was nine years old too and I'm now 45 - so that gives me six more years of experience than someone else here. I've used horizontal axis top and front loaders, wringer washers, impeller washers, standard top loaders, scrubbing boards, laundry paddles, rocks, bricks, my bare hands and anything inbetween. My verdict - 99% of wear and damage to clothes occurs on the body, when bugs get at them, or when I've hit them too hard with a brick (or other really bad laundry practices). So I don't worry too much about the 1% that is the CR test on 'gentleness.'

Lots of newer front loaders wash clothes for longer in less water and they don't rinse too well - as already state in this thread and confirmed by latest CR tests. This means that there is more friction in higher chemical concentration over longer time frame, with higher chemical residue in fabric after cycle completion. The result of this may not become immediately apparent, but it ultimately means more electricity use, higher chemical and salt concentrations in grey water, as well as fabrics, which will lead to itchy skin, crappy clothes and not so happy environment. Now compare this to saving of and extracting a little more water to save on utilities - am I being too sceptical?

Reduced detergent use - hm, not so sure about that one either. My guess is that would depend on the formulation used. With products like SA8 (usable in all types of washers) I couldn't agree more. Though the regular supermarket stuff all seems to be packaged in the same quantities and costs about the same, regardless of whether its for top or front loaders. The scoops in front loader detergent boxes are as big as those in the top loader boxes. Surely households using same capacity top and front loaders with similar laundry patterns/habits would more likely spend and use about the same quantitities of detergent. Detergent companies depend on product turnover.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Cheers

rapunzel


Post# 322810 , Reply# 19   1/6/2009 at 19:15 (3,261 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
Consider this!

Gentleness - I think the gentleness test is not really indicative of anything much and ultimately more valuable for marketing than real life experience. The cloth they use to test for this is just loose threads woven into fabric without stitching. Of course the more vigorous agitator action and water currents of a top loader's regular cycle will show up wear instantly. Does that mean I spend my life in threadbare duds - No. If you took the same piece of cloth and simply hung it out in a stiff breeze for a few hours there'd be noticable fraying around the edges too. If they rewashed the same piece of material two or three times in a front loader they would end up with the same level of wear as well. What if, instead of putting the test material through a regular cycle in a top loader, they only used the gently cycle, would they get the same sort of comparisons? Would you guys wash your silks, woolies and other dainties with your ruggers, duffle bags and studded leathers on the heavy duty cycle? BAGS NOT!

Youse all know that regular clothes are not usually meant to fray at the edges, unless they are junk, and threads don't pull apart from the middle, unless there's already damage. Mixing loose hooks, open zippers and other items that can catch and pull threads can cause damage in any kind of washer. Need I go on?

I've been washing clothes since I was nine years old too and I'm now 45 - so that gives me six more years of experience than someone else here. I've used horizontal axis top and front loaders, wringer washers, impeller washers, standard top loaders, scrubbing boards, laundry paddles, rocks, bricks, my bare hands and anything inbetween. My verdict - 99% of wear and damage to clothes occurs on the body, when bugs get at them, or when I've hit them too hard with a brick (or other really bad laundry practices). So I don't worry too much about the 1% that is the CR test on 'gentleness.'

Lots of newer front loaders wash clothes for longer in less water and they don't rinse too well - as already state in this thread and confirmed by latest CR tests. This means that there is more friction in higher chemical concentration over longer time frame, with higher chemical residue in fabric after cycle completion. The result of this may not become immediately apparent, but it ultimately means more electricity use, higher chemical and salt concentrations in grey water, as well as fabrics, which will lead to itchy skin, crappy clothes and not so happy environment. Now compare this to saving of and extracting a little more water to save on utilities - am I being too sceptical?

Reduced detergent use - hm, not so sure about that one either. My guess is that would depend on the formulation used. With products like SA8 (usable in all types of washers) I couldn't agree more. Though the regular supermarket stuff all seems to be packaged in the same quantities and costs about the same, regardless of whether its for top or front loaders. The scoops in front loader detergent boxes are as big as those in the top loader boxes. Surely households using same capacity top and front loaders with similar laundry patterns/habits would more likely spend and use about the same quantitities of detergent. Detergent companies depend on product turnover.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Cheers

rapunzel


Post# 322811 , Reply# 20   1/6/2009 at 19:18 (3,261 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
We have duplication!

Don't know how this happened - my computer's playing up I think.

Sorry

rapunzel


Post# 322825 , Reply# 21   1/6/2009 at 21:16 (3,261 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
ok....

ronhic's profile picture
I think Brisnat81's comment about shirts is an indication of wear and his comparison to his current machine validates what I have said/implied above and that is that 'Front Load machines are more gentle on clothes'. That is wear is lower and they have less pilling.

I have not said that 'Top load machines can't wash 'gently' What I have said is that wear and pilling is lower in a front load machine. I also used Choice reports to confirm it.

The issue that I was more concerned with was the water usage. Jeff commented about the way a person could wash to obtain gentleness in a Top Load machine. I commented that this is not how the machines were designed to be used or how the majority of us use them. A case in point is Which? UK states the average load is 4.5kg. If I was to wash the way suggested to ensure a 'gentle wash for all', sure it may be gentle but look at the water consumption. An appropriate cycle for the appropriate material and load.

Rapunzel, of course if you wash the embroidery fabric used, multiple times in a front load machine it will show more wear. However, you would then need to wash the Top Load samples the same number of times in a Top Load machine to get a valid comparison. My guess is that the Front Load machine will still show less fraying.

Rinsing does depend to some degree how much of a chemical is used. Choice commented that 'Some (front loaders)may rinse poorly due to thier very low water usage'. Some, not 'lots'.

When it comes to detergent, we all have our own opinions on what and how much to use. Choice state that a Front Load machine uses less and I personally use less of most detergents but it depends on the load size ...yadda yadda yadda...but the more chemical load you put in the wash, the more chance there is for issues with fabric and skin especially if they are not adequately rinsed (which some front load machines may not do).

I stand by what I was effectively implying (if I didn't say it) and that is that 'A Front Load machine is more gentle on fabric (wear/pilling) than a top load machine when used with a normal load (either machine capacity or 4.5kg) on the normal cycle'

...it is kind of interesting that the start of the thread was on 'water usage'


Post# 322855 , Reply# 22   1/6/2009 at 23:21 (3,261 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
Hi rhonic

"My verdict - 99% of wear and damage to clothes occurs on the body..."

I don't dispute that front loaders are gentler on clothes. What I am pointing out is that the statement sounds more significant than it actually is.

Now, brisnat's experience with his shirts is proof to him that his front loader preserves his clothes and maybe that is true. Based on my experience I would consider that there may be another reason that has contributed to his shirts' improved longevity, since his switch to a front loader. Collars and cuffs are the first things to go on any shirt. Over the years some of my shirts used to wear out relatively quickly in those places, whilst others, many of which are now more than 10 eyars old, still look like new and they get worn and washed at least once a month. Some of these weren't even expensive or of any notable label, whilst some of my most prized and costly shirts turned out to be disappointingly average in quality.

Unless there would be damage of some sort to the agitator, I can't think of any reason why or how it can cause prolonged and concentrated abrasion in specific areas, i.e. collars and cuffs and not the rest of the shirts, it doesn't make sense. If the wash action is so much more abrasive overall wouldn't that show anywhere on a shirt, not just cuffs and collars? That said, there were and still are some types of top loaders, especially impeller washers, that could be more likely to cause intensified and abrasive friction overall. Though, with most of the center post agitator top loaders available, I can't see how, unless it comes down to the user, chemical and other agents.

I have satin and brokade table runners. They are decades old and look like new, even though I do wash them in my top loader with no issues whatsoever. Had I a front loader, I would get exactly the same results.

Domestic appliances and water consumption, like gentleness, is another one of those issues that sounds much bigger than it really is. People get manipulated into ways of thinking that often distract from the basics and principal purpose of the products they buy or the issues that need to be resolved. I am all for doing the right thing for the environment, but with a good dose of '(un)common sense'.



Post# 322881 , Reply# 23   1/7/2009 at 07:05 (3,261 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
I'm no scientist.....but

ronhic's profile picture
My feelings on the collar and cuff issue and why I believe they fray more in a Top Load machine (from my own, my mothers, sister and Brisnat81's experience) could be due to the following..

- Collars and cuffs tend to be stiffer than the rest of a shirt. Either through multiple layers of material with stitching reinforcement, backing material or a combination of both. This is particularly so with mens shirts.

- The action of the agitator in a Top Load washer interacts with not only the water, but also the fabric and because of the movement created by the agitator stroke, this causes the stiffer material to rub and wear exacerbating any wear and tear from generally wearing the shirt.

- This ends up creating pilling and then thread-bare areas on the collars/cuffs.

- The same movement creates lint

- Many Top Load washers have a lint filter to catch the lint caused by the washing action. Front loaders (European and Asian ones anyway) do not have or need one as there is negligible linting.

- The action of a Front Load machine is different (who'd a thunk?). The baffles are there to move the clothes to towards the top of the drum where the clothes tumble/fall. This is the mechanical action that pushes the water through the clothes. The clothes effectively 'push' the water through 'themselves'

- Because it is a 'tumble/drop/squish' action (and lets be honest, the 'drop' may only be 2-8" depending on load), there is much less movement in general and what movement there is, is weight of wet clothes pushing the water through.

- This gives less friction and less opportunity for wear and pilling and no lint

When it all boils down to it, we care about our laundry otherwise why would we be on this forum? Some of us prefer to launder one way, some the other and we will treat our treasured items (such as table runners etc) with the care they deserve. Some of us have noticed significant differences from one style of washing to the other while some may not have.

Maybe we need to have a wash-a-thon....

Machines at 2/3 capacity, standardised loads (same percentage of each item in each machine) with 2 identical items that are known to 'pill' as the controls. Run each machine through banks of 10 normal cycles with no detergent or conditioner and the 'control' items being line dried between runs.

Now if we could solve the issue of time, inclination to actually do it and put the water in a 'loop' so we aren't being stupidly wastful, we at least could test this ourselves.


Post# 322949 , Reply# 24   1/7/2009 at 18:19 (3,260 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Here is where my water level is after a normal cycle fill. Prior to the adjustment, part of the baffle wasn't completely covered, now it's completely covered. I'd guestimate perhaps one gallon more water is being used.

Post# 322950 , Reply# 25   1/7/2009 at 18:20 (3,260 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
didn't upload first time

Post# 322963 , Reply# 26   1/7/2009 at 20:08 (3,260 days old) by favorit ()        
@ Jeff

Think of your finest garment, that one you wouldn't even dare to to handwash
When you take it to the drycleaner, anyway it goes into a a frontloader .
Drycleaning machines are nothing else than special frontloaders that use other solvents rather than water. Wetcleaning machines are inverter motor frontloaders that besides regular cycles have special programmes to wash "dryclean only" items in VERY LOW water level, with special revolving -not tumbling- patterns & special detergents/sours.

If frontloaders were so harsh, drycleaners wouldn't use them.



Post# 322971 , Reply# 27   1/7/2009 at 20:46 (3,260 days old) by favorit ()        
@ Mark

Don't worry, bearings will not suffer because of that increase

Now I understand it !!!
My washer too uses such a low level on cottons, permapress and wool/handwash cycles.
Cotton cycles allow a nearly full tub load, so when i run a load of towels the machine stops many times to add water during the first 10 minutes of the wash part.
This means that very load needs 10 mins to saturate, so the machine "senses" the load size and "adds time" even if "short" is selected. Small loads that saturate faster are washed faster (30 mins full load, 15 min small load)

US timed machines with much shorter wash part times (9-21 mins) probably saturate a load of towels just a while before the wash drain


Post# 322974 , Reply# 28   1/7/2009 at 20:56 (3,260 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
I agree...

ronhic's profile picture
Even my Hoover Electra used to fill, tumble and fill more if depending on the pressure sensor...this was especially evident with a full load of towels.

The Westinghouse/Electrolux/Zanussi that we have does the same but with less water....tumble and fill until the contents are saturated but the water level is still below the door...this takes somewhere between 5-10 minutes of the 40m wash component of the 68m quick 40c program which still gives a decent 30-35m 'wash' plus rinses etc....


Post# 323235 , Reply# 29   1/9/2009 at 04:02 (3,259 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Dry Cleaning Machines Use Front Loaders

launderess's profile picture
For many more reasons than "saving water".

First, various local and other government laws and rules require dry cleaning machines using solvents be somewhat air tight, to prevent fumes from the chemicals from leaking out, exposing workers and everyone else around to some rather nasty stuff. This simply cannot be done easily with top loading washing machines.

The amount of water in dry cleaning solvent (charging) will vary by what is being cleaned. It can range from minimal with things such as woolens and wools, to perhaps more with cottons,linens and maybe even silk.

True, there is one benefit front loading washing machines have in any commercial setting, they can be designed to hold more than any top loading washer. This has been true since the large rotating cylinder tumblers of old and still holds true today with modern 50lb. 75lb and more machines.

As to the issue of abrasion and wear:

Any washing method will cause wear, and in the case of machine washing if the tub is loaded fully or over full, then you are going to have more rubbing action as cloths rub against each other as well as being banged against the tub/baffles. The solution is simple, increase the water to laundry ratio by loading less laundry.

Ideally, modern front loading machines work on the theory of using a highly concentrated wash liquor, then lots of water for rinsing (well, if one could call it that today).

Older front loaders (like my vintage Miele), used about 5 or six gallons for cottons and PP cycles. However when doing shirts or such, I load the machine only about half full. When doing items of pure linen ( a fiber that loves water), I very much underload the washer to give things room to move about.

Miele's newest washers, have special settings for high water level washes, such as "sheets" and "bulky" items.


Post# 323280 , Reply# 30   1/9/2009 at 11:05 (3,259 days old) by jerrod6 (United States of America)        

Mark

In your picture is this the minimum amount the washer will fill to? Many FL adjust the amount of water to the load size so wouldn't your tub contain more water than this if it contained clothes?


Post# 323320 , Reply# 31   1/9/2009 at 14:44 (3,259 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Jerrod.

Yes, it would. If I tossed clothes in they would absorb that water thus the machine would fill back to that level in the picture. Prior to the adjustment, if I filled the machine without clothes on a normal/heavy duty cycle, it would fill with about 2 inches of the baffle not touching the water, now the baffle is completely submerged and then some. I can tell when I'm running a load that the "sloshing" sound is much more pronounced!


Post# 323341 , Reply# 32   1/9/2009 at 16:35 (3,258 days old) by electron800 ()        
I've often wondered if US FL's used less water than

But from seeing that picture, I'd say that even prior to adjustment that is about the normal level for a modern front loader.

This confirms for me that any problems that people have had with these machines producing poor results is not down to them using too little water.

This means the poor results many people have had in the U.S. from modern front loaders must be caused by either cycles being too short or not vigourous enough, low water temp in machines without heaters, poorly designed HE detergents or simply incorrect usage.

I think it is most probably a combination of cycles being too short and incorrect usage/poorly designed detergents.

As for wear and tear I've never had anything damaged in either a top loader or a front loader. I have only ever used a top loader once or twice, so I can't comment on long term wear but family members have clothes which are about 25 years old and still regularly being worn and washed in front loaders and are not showing signs of wear.

Matt


Post# 323375 , Reply# 33   1/10/2009 at 00:38 (3,258 days old) by revvinkevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        
My two and a half cents... hope you don't get jealous!

revvinkevin's profile picture
Below you can see my 12 year old (3.1 cu.ft) Frigidaire washer which, by todays standards uses a HUGE amount of water (LOL).

I did not modify the water level at all, but I did modify it so it will tumble as it fills. Originally it would sit still as the water flowed in, then after the water level switch was satisfied, would start tumbling. If I was doing a load of towels or something else that really absorbed the water, it would sometimes stop to re-fill 2 or 3 times, very annoying.

Recently I had an *itch* to get a NEW washer & dryer.... but after doing a load at a friends house in their 2 year old FL LG set I decided to save my $2000 for something else! I did not like the really low water lever AND the long cycle time. It took over an hour to complete the load!


Post# 323377 , Reply# 34   1/10/2009 at 01:01 (3,258 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
....over an hour...

ronhic's profile picture
That is fast for a 'normal' cycle...

Most European (and asian) machines take between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 hours on the normal cycle.

I only ever use the full cycle if the load is particularly full (or dirty) otherwise I use the quick wash feature. At 40c (warm) that is still 68min....though


Post# 323391 , Reply# 35   1/10/2009 at 05:19 (3,258 days old) by aquarius1984 (Ripley, Derbyshire)        

aquarius1984's profile picture
HMmm

That Frigidaire looks to be a right hash of machines.
(I am aware as to who makes them but its still a right hash)

*Door of Europoean Zanussi/Electrolux
The wash dial and smaller dials are the same as my Grandparents *Belling Wash Wise 1100/1300. (Gorenje) Can you still adjust the part you grip to suit where you want it in relation to the pointer?
*The drum looks somewhat Gorenjeish but not the same as my grandparents. THeirs was somewhat similar to the Hotpoint one in the UK crossed with an old style Bosch.


Post# 323397 , Reply# 36   1/10/2009 at 07:50 (3,258 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        
Frigidaire

chestermikeuk's profile picture
Oh Kevin ANOTHER washer!!!...Lol....having seen a range of your front & top loaders at the shops and in action I am mighty impressed with the Frigidaire range & hear great reviews as well!!!, your mate Rich with schnitzels,(hi Rich) introduced us to them at the washer convention many yrs ago!!! simple in design & solid in construction, just what you need, looks a decent water level as well!!! I looked at the newer ones in Omaha last year (not last yr 1997) the ones with the square /round door, if I had to pick one I`d pick Frigidaire!!!

My MaytagAsko really has a good range for features IMHO, variable wash times & cycles, I can do a 95d superquick wash from cold in 48mins with 3 rinses & 1600rpm....similarly if I need long extended for white table clothes after after the vac & washer boys have been round then long can be 2.30hrs...Can also add super rinse up to 7 rinses if needed & high water levels across all programmes,

Happy washing, Mike


Post# 323413 , Reply# 37   1/10/2009 at 10:01 (3,258 days old) by revvinkevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        
That Frigidaire looks to be a right hash of machines.

revvinkevin's profile picture
Robert... I'm sorry but I don't know what "right hash" means.

Mike... Another washer? LOL.... well yes I suppose so. But this Frigidaire washer (and matching dryer) has served for the weekly laundry needs since I bought them new almost 12 years ago. We have (probably) done an average of 4 loads per week which works out to roughly 2400 loads run through them. I have to say I've been pleased with their performance and reliability. The ONLY problem I have ever had is.... about two weeks ago I pulled the timer knob to start the machine and the knob came off in my hand! I looked it up on line, 2 days and $18 later it had a new timer knob! (the internet is an amazing thing, isn't it?)

I did not know for a number of years that Electrolux makes this washer for Frigidaire... and they still make it today. I have also seen this same machine sold under the Kenmore and GE names as well.

Yes my friend Rich has the same "square door" set you have pictured and I assume it's also made by E-lux. Differences are it has a "slightly" larger capacity (3.5 cu ft vs. 3.1 for mine), a larger door opening and a lot more cycles. He says he like his a lot, but it's OVERLY sensitive load imbalance when trying to spin.

OH... I almost forgot! While I have not actually timed it, this washer does the "normal" cycle in I believe 35 - 40 minutes. This is for a main wash, 3 rinses and spin after each. If I choose "Heavy wash", that only adds 4 minutes to the main wash time. Being that is has a mechanical timer, even the "extra rinse" option does not lengthen the cycle time . I'm sure I could sit down and time it.... IF inquiring minds really want to know!

:-)


Post# 323440 , Reply# 38   1/10/2009 at 14:12 (3,258 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Revinkevin

Thanks for that picture. I've always wondered what the water level was like in the older Frigemore's. That tub isn't tilted is it? It does use a good amount of water but I was imagining since it was an older FL washer that it would come up more. But that still uses plenty of water to wash with. Is the rinse level higher? My Duet drum is tilted so its hard to compare, though there is definitely more water in yours than mine. The Duet does rotate as it fills though. I don't think I want to adjust my washer anymore because watching it wash, I feel like there is a good amount of water in there. I turned on the delicate cycle and the water touched the glass door.


Post# 323476 , Reply# 39   1/10/2009 at 19:31 (3,257 days old) by revvinkevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        
Frigemore? No, Frigelux!

revvinkevin's profile picture
Hi Mark, to answer your questions....

> No the tub on this one is not tilted. This machine was built (1997) before they started tilting the tubs (or was the Neptune FL out by then? If so I stand corrected)

> The water level is rigidly fixed, no adjustments, no choices, no higher levels for rinses, no "water+" button and no water level adjustment for cycles (like delicates). I have added extra water through the dispenser drawer, but that is the only way it will go higher. As I am pretty happy with it I have no intention of messing with the water level.

The photos below are my older Westinghouse style (Kenmore badged) front loader. It has a water level adjustment (with reset) and the photos below are the lowest level setting and the highest.


Post# 323481 , Reply# 40   1/10/2009 at 20:24 (3,257 days old) by autowasherfreak ()        

I have the washer and dryer in Mike's post, and they are excellent machines. I have no complaints about them at all, with the exception of the cycles being longer. Cleaning wise, I couldn't be more pleased.

Post# 323488 , Reply# 41   1/10/2009 at 20:30 (3,257 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Thanks for those pics and taking the time to do that! I emailed Whirlpool asking that they should give the customer the "option" to add more water to their future front loaders. They can still have the energy star rating as the customer can choose the option for more water if they want. LOL Not that they will listen to me but who knows. They replied stating thanks for my input, that they are always looking for customer feedback to improve their appliances. I'm happy with my Duet. It's almost 4 yrs old. I saw the Kenmore HE5t commercial today and they stated "rated best cleaning" machine. Probably by CS. I dunno. Anyway. I'd keep that frigemore. It looks great. I can't believe they STILL make that machine!

Post# 323545 , Reply# 42   1/11/2009 at 06:14 (3,257 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Ahh a subject close to my heart.

One of the main factors that are important to me in my laundry process is rinsing. Now with a modern machine it is the first thing to suffer as you can't take any more water away from the wash, so it has to be taken from the rinse water.

They was a period in the early 2000's where manufacturers went abit crazy and some machines on their eco cycles used as little as 39litres!!! far too little. Thankfully they've rised by about 10litres over the past 5years.

Now were abit more fortunate this side of the pond and in europe as all of our water miserly machines (except for a few) have an extra rinse option, and more premium machines have water plus options that increase not only rinse water levels but also the wash water level too!

I currently have a bosch from 1997 which standardly has low water levels, *about a couple of inches deep* with maximum speed interval spins including the spin after the wash* which with low foaming loads is acceptable. However it does have the hidden gem of the higher water level button! which increases the wash water level into the doorseal and then does high rinses and adds a rinse! Which is very fun to watch, aswell as very well performing!!

Attached is a picture of the final rinse water level!

I have to agree that your machines should have the option of a higher water level. Especially with such large load capacity. From watching videos of various US models the low water level in the wash is fine for your robust fabrics as the lift and drop motion of the load is more effective. Too much water will cushion the load. but you do need the load to be well saturated!

I have always believed that water efficency is a good thing when it doesn't come at the expense of the wash!

Here in the uk they had the right idea in the 1990's when being more economical was becoming a priority.

They used the right amount of water so that the machines were efficent but also washed and rinsed well! For example a hoover machine from 1986 used 120Litres *I'm afraid i don't know what that is in gallons* & then a hoover machine from 1996 used 68litres. based on a 5kg load.

The scarey thing is now a modern 8kg machine uses less than the machine from 1997!!!!

I do think it would pay for us to write to some manufacturers and give them this website if they wanted to hear how their machines should work. Then people would be very satisfied with their future purchases!!!

Darren


Post# 323553 , Reply# 43   1/11/2009 at 06:52 (3,257 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
Agreed....

ronhic's profile picture
Darren,

I personally thing you are right. There should be an option for a higher water level such as that offered by Miele. Gorenje used to have the option years ago and my mothers old Asea did too. All she had to do was hold the 'gentle' wash button in and the machine would take extra water. Let it out and the machine would continue with the 'normal' cycle but with more water in the wash.

My Westinghouse (think Zanussi ecovalve or John Lewis machine) uses about 68lt on its normal cycle for an 'Australian 6.5kg' load. The same drum in the UK would do 6kg. Go figure. Anyway, I find that it rinses quite well. The normal long cotton cycle has 3 rinses that don't hit the door, though the last is a little deeper. On the quick cycle though, the 2 rinses are about the same height as the one in your picture. In all cases there is a spin between stages.

Ultimately, I would like to be able to completely customise my wash cycle and think this should be an option. It wouldn't be hard for a manufacturer to offer this either....

Ideally I would like

- prewash option on every cotton/synthetic cycle and 30m/30c
- to choose between 15-60min wash component where at 15min, the machine automatically used water say an inch above the bellows but could be adjusted for wash times longer than this
- between 2-5 rinses each with a variable water level but higher default if 2 choosen
- choose to have a strong interim spin rather than what I am 'told' is correct.

My ideal cycle would be

- 20-40min wash at low/medium
- 3 rinses the first of which would be 'med/high', then 1 'low' and final 'medium'
- 1000 rpm 2min interim spins
- 1200-1600 final 10minutes with the final 4-5 min at top rpm

Total time 72-92 min....and a 'guestimate' given my current machines water usage at about 75ltrs



Post# 323559 , Reply# 44   1/11/2009 at 07:16 (3,257 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Ronhic!
I'm glad you agree lol. Your westinghouse is just like my parents AEG which is essentially an electrolux machine with an AEG badge.

The quick option on the machine operates identically to your westinghouse. The rinse levels are really good and you still get fast interm spins!

Though i've selected rinse + on the machine perminantly so all the rinses are deep but the spins are slower which i think is purely so the machine reduces wear and tear as my bosch does the same thing with higher water level selected!

One thing i forgot to mention is recirculation jets! I did read somewhere that below a certain water usage a machine should have a recirculation jet. I find them very good. except the only grumble is as it comes back on for a rinse it dumps some suds back on the load!!

My bosch has a cascade fill which starts when the machine is spinning at maximum speed and fills as it slows down and then tumbles to the required level! Which i find very effective.

Don't whirlpool duets do this? can anyone confirm for me?

I have to agree that manufacturers should look more into the custom features.Then you can truely say you get the ultimate wash as it is set to your requirements!

My ideal cycle would be water up to the rim of the drum like my old zanussi does.

Slow tumbles for the first 10minutes, then long tumbles with short pauses for about 20minutes maybe throw in a couple of distribution tumbles to power the water through,

The fast spin after the wash with a cascade fill up to about 4inches up the door glass for the rinses and as my bosch does a guarenteed rinse time *irregardless of the fill time it will rinse for 5mins per rinse* then a final spin with minor faffing for balancing making its way quickly up to max spin.

All in all about 1hr-1hr 10mins!

Darren


Post# 323560 , Reply# 45   1/11/2009 at 07:24 (3,257 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
What do manufacturers really know.....

ronhic's profile picture
......we the users should be put in charge of product development and lets see what we come up with...

I will say one thing, there won't be a machine out there that won't rinse properly and they will still use a small amount of water when compared to 15 yrs ago....

...and I reckon skin complaints will reduce as a direct result!


Post# 323564 , Reply# 46   1/11/2009 at 07:57 (3,257 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Amen to that!!

Post# 323651 , Reply# 47   1/11/2009 at 17:31 (3,256 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Yes! The Duets *do* the cascade rinse/spin. The drum slows down while water is being sprayed on the clothes It maintains a slow spin as the rinse water fills the drum. It does this for maybe two min's, then starts tumbling and still filling with water until the water level is reached. Honestly. I think it uses the same water to wash with as does to rinse with. Mine will rinse three times when extra rinse is chosen. With my water level adjusted a bit higher than before. I'm pretty happy with it. Though I'd still LOVE a water plus button or even a water plus rinse button, so the rinse will be deeper. I wonder how much water the modern FL's can handle without doing any damage? I know when I chose delicate cycle, the water touches the glass, but at the same time, its a delicate cycle, so the machine it very calm during this cycle.

Post# 323714 , Reply# 48   1/12/2009 at 00:49 (3,256 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
One day...

ronhic's profile picture
manufacturers will listen....

....one day


Post# 323720 , Reply# 49   1/12/2009 at 02:37 (3,256 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Cascade Filling

launderess's profile picture
Or whatever you boys are speaking of, is found on commercial and laundromat front loaders all the time.

After spin machine starts to fill while the draining valve (these machines do not have pumps), remains open, thus water comes in and goes out, all while the drum is tumbling one way. After awhile valve closes and machine begins to fill.

Think this is a feature that can be disabled or set by laundromat owner, as only the large 50lb machine will do this. It also is set for four rinses, while the smaller machines have three.



Post# 323722 , Reply# 50   1/12/2009 at 03:29 (3,256 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        
"One Day Manufacturers Will Listen"

chestermikeuk's profile picture
What makes you think they arnt now!!! with the on-line blogs & customer feedback forums, most manufacturers and detergent companies are regularly viewing on-line information about their companies & products for feedback!! I know for a fact that the R&D & training for P & G & Lever UK read AW forums!!!

The issue is "will they convert the feedback into results that we want!!!I regularly feedback pros n cons about new machines & detergent products, my big feedback gripe at the moment is the spin/rinse programming...the problem is with detergents is that people regularly overdose!! with the newer machines having the narrowest of gaps between the two drums its imperative that any machine can cope with sudz lock or able to detect & clear the suds & detergent residues by means of extra rinses or high water levels until clear!!

The narrowness of the drums almost acts like a Mr. Whippy machine, it tends to aerate the detergents while spinning and make the situation worse, the easiest way to do that is open the cold water valve and have the water (assuming its coming into the top of the drum) spraying onto the spinning drum....the older Servis, Hotpoint & Hoover machines did this, same as Laundress is saying with commercial machines,

Of course the key issue is keeping within the EU efficiency ratings and to use a little water as possible, now while you may think spraying water over a spinning drum is wasteful if it does the trick of clearing the sudz quicker, then less water is required on the deep rinse!!

AND, the more we all feedback to the manufacturers, the more possibilities that programmes & detergents will be adapted!!!


Post# 323723 , Reply# 51   1/12/2009 at 03:31 (3,256 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        
Washers

chestermikeuk's profile picture
Hi Mark, what make/model of washing machine did you have before the Duet?? and what are the likes / dislikes between the two??

Cheers, Mike


Post# 323726 , Reply# 52   1/12/2009 at 03:47 (3,256 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
V-Zug

ronhic's profile picture
That's it....

I want to adora V-Zug


Post# 323730 , Reply# 53   1/12/2009 at 04:27 (3,256 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
One Must Understand

launderess's profile picture
It is not purely the fault of appliance makers.

On both sides of the pond, regulations via government are shaping things on the ground. Worse still persons wishing to purchase, and those seeking to produce appliances that are not energy efficient or careful with resources risk scorn from the Raffia Mafia.

Simply put aside from commercial washing machines, which fall under different regulations, if any, get used to doing laundry with less water for modern machines.

Of course the secret is to keep using vintage washers long as possible. Intend to keep my Miele going long as parts can be had, even if one has to scour obscure warehouses in Germany.

L.


Post# 324018 , Reply# 54   1/13/2009 at 13:28 (3,255 days old) by toggleswitch2 ()        

Scary that 4 and 5 inches is now impressive, as water levels go.

~I did not modify the water level at all, but I did modify it so it will tumble as it fills.

Would love to know how to do this. I too have a FridGeMore-Lux simialr to yours.
A private email would great if you choose not to post it here.


Post# 324058 , Reply# 55   1/13/2009 at 16:50 (3,254 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Chestermikeuk

Prior the the Duet I had a Whirlpool top load washer. I don't know the model. It was bought in 2002 and I had it for three years. I sold it to my sister who works for Whirpool in Greenville OH who got me a discount on the duets. I noticed when moving the old unit and loading it in the truck to take it to her that there was a small amount of oil on the laundry room floor. The thing is now 6.5 yrs old and still working according to her. I liked the machine. It was 3.2 cu ft capacity it had the xtra roll agitator that pushed clothes to the bottom; it also had extra rinse. When I bought it I was looking for four things. Large capacity (3.2 cu ft at the time was the largest I could find for a TL), extra rinse, the xtra roll agitator and the speckled porcelain tub (not plastic) .

My grandma had a Kenmore top loader from 1984 that just died last year. It had the dual action agitator and I always felt it rolled the clothes over better so that's the type of agitator I was looking for. I went from doing six loads a week in the Whirlpool TL to four loads per week in the duet.

Speaking of my Duet. I want to add something. I just started using Tide HE powder, prior to me using that, I always used Sears HE powder in the big bucket. I can't find it anymore so I bought a large box of tide he and just poured it in the pail. Since using the Tide HE. I can smell it on the clothes once finished washing if I don't use extra rinse. If I do use extra rinse, I smell nothing at all. The Sears detergent isn't heavily perfumed so it wasn't as noticeable as the Tide HE. The person mentioned above about the CASCADE rinse. The Duet does not drain the rinse water it adds as its spinning, it retains the water and clothes just slosh through as the tub spins slowly.


Post# 324059 , Reply# 56   1/13/2009 at 16:54 (3,254 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Hi there mark!
It was me that mentioned the cascade rinse :D Seems your whirlpool rinse is just like my bosch!:) I find the cascade very beneficial with the water hitting the clothes at speed and then the cascade remains as the machine tumbles and fills to the required level!

I do like those duets. Dreamspace was there name here in the UK! i wanted one when they came out!

Darren


Post# 324060 , Reply# 57   1/13/2009 at 16:59 (3,254 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
P&G Holds Patents For Scent

launderess's profile picture
Designed to remain on laundry after rinsing, drying and for extended periods in cupboards/closets. Apparently some focus or marketing group asked consumers what they found lacking in laundry detergents, and a repeated request was for the "fresh scent" to remain longer.

Soo P&G came up with perfumes that are designed to remain, which is why one has a hard time getting rid of the stench, sorry, smell. This is more easily noticed on the various highly scented detergents like "Lavender Rose" and such.



Post# 324202 , Reply# 58   1/14/2009 at 03:13 (3,254 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
....and that explains

ronhic's profile picture
....why some of our laundry powders have such a powerful fragrance...

I can't stand most Colgate-Palmolive products and Radiant is another highly perfumed offender....



Post# 324220 , Reply# 59   1/14/2009 at 06:30 (3,254 days old) by toggleswitch2 ()        

Long-lasting "fresh-scent"?

Subtlety is a lost art, apparently.

Sad that such masking odors will cover the fact that the laundry is often still dirty, even right out of the "energy-star" washer [read: no-water machine].

The parallel is a freined of mine who uses incense in his home rather than enmptyng the cat-box, scrubbing the toilet, dusting (which is definitely needed from the incense)vacuuming and moping. Who exaclty are you fooling? No one.


Post# 324352 , Reply# 60   1/14/2009 at 15:08 (3,254 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture
eeeewwwwwww

.....and to think I have just had our carpets steam cleaned yesterday. I should have just lit a joss stick and been done with it.


Post# 324354 , Reply# 61   1/14/2009 at 15:27 (3,254 days old) by toggleswitch2 ()        

To me the best secnt is a load of freshly washed and bleached whites that have been rinsed to HELL, then dried in a dryer whose vent is redirected back into the room.

OMG it is to me the smell of heaven when without chemcicals and articfical perfumes!

And the Gadget has now gottem me used to clothes off the line. Reluctantly, I must admit they do smell wonderful.


Post# 324444 , Reply# 62   1/14/2009 at 21:59 (3,253 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
U know u can use distilled white vinegar to clean your carpets in most any steam cleaner. No rinsing/No residue. The vinegar smell goes away when the carpets dry. Sorry I know this is not a carpet cleaning forum but I read the post above and wanted to comment. I have a steam cleaner and just did mine the other day.

Post# 324469 , Reply# 63   1/15/2009 at 02:32 (3,253 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
Carpets

ronhic's profile picture
Mark,

Thanks for that....but you should have seen them!

They are very pale/buff colour and we have a dog with a medical 'issue'....so we really do need steam and good suction to get it out....

But, what you suggest is in line with what I have been told in the past about white vinegar being able to remove pet urine smells too...I have used that successfully at 1/2 strength


Post# 324551 , Reply# 64   1/15/2009 at 11:39 (3,253 days old) by j2400 ()        

"The parallel is a freined of mine who uses incense in his home rather than enmptyng the cat-box, scrubbing the toilet, dusting (which is definitely needed from the incense)vacuuming and moping."

Incense certainly won't help the dust issue. For that, you need to change to really low wattage light bulbs.

I wonder how far the trend for using less and less water will go. Eventually, I have this vision--a washer that uses 2 teaspoons of water, but has cycle times of a month.


Post# 324568 , Reply# 65   1/15/2009 at 13:26 (3,253 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
I'm definitely OCD. I couldn't handle the dirt.

Post# 324809 , Reply# 66   1/16/2009 at 21:53 (3,251 days old) by dnastrau (Lords Valley, PA)        
Epic (Duet) water level at 1 1/2 turn increase

Here is the normal cycle water level in our Maytag Epic 9700 after I increased the water level by one and one-half turns. I outlined this in a separate recent thread.

The new level is 5 1/2" deep at the rear of the drum and the paddle is completely covered. The water comes up just before the tub boot. When doing an actual large load the water ends up covering part of the boot coming up almost to the point where you would have water spill if you opened the door.

The Delicate cycle raises the level even more where the water comes part way up the beveled part of the door glass where you would have a real mess were you to open the door.

I am happy with the results. I believe clothes need an ample amount of water to be washed and rinsed effectively.

Andrew S.


Post# 324811 , Reply# 67   1/16/2009 at 23:00 (3,251 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Wow......How long did it take you to get it to the point you wanted it. Looks pretty decent to me.

Post# 324850 , Reply# 68   1/17/2009 at 06:24 (3,251 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Thats a good water level Andrew! Not to high not to low:) Would love to see a pic of said machine in action with a load:D

Darren


Post# 324872 , Reply# 69   1/17/2009 at 15:44 (3,251 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Yeah. Thats the level I tried to achieve in my Duet. I could never find that happy medium. Do you think this additional water could damage the machine or shorten the life of it in any way?

Post# 324874 , Reply# 70   1/17/2009 at 17:17 (3,250 days old) by newwave1 (Lincoln, United Kingdom)        

newwave1's profile picture
Hmm with modern machines excessive weight could make the suspension not so good. But amounts like in andrews pic ain't really life threatening to it. Now if you were filling it to the top of the window...lol.

Darren


Post# 324875 , Reply# 71   1/17/2009 at 17:28 (3,250 days old) by dyson2drums (United Kingdom)        

dyson2drums's profile picture
Darren, preciously in this thread you posted a pic of your bosch and wrote it'd be better if manufacturers could see our points on this website!

They should also have facilities like build your own washer and choose what you want and they'll make it and deliver directly to your according to your spec.... i'd like that- specially with LG. LoL


Post# 324882 , Reply# 72   1/17/2009 at 18:51 (3,250 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
For The Final Time

launderess's profile picture
It is not manufacturers who are to blame for the current "wet wipe" washing machines, theytake their marching orders from various rules and laws. If a government mandates a washing machine built in X year, use less water than one produced in Y, their hands are tied.

In the United States, at least things may get worse. California is already making some very loud noises about requiring such machines sold in there, much more water stingy.


Sure you can innovate and such, but R&D costs money, and with washing machines rapidly becoming a "throw away" appliance, it is not too clear if consumers would pay increased costs. What is saving American appliance makers is the return of front loaders (some would say forced), to the market, thus giving them room to add on features that really do not do much, but drive up costs by making what should be a simple machine difficult.


Post# 324906 , Reply# 73   1/17/2009 at 20:43 (3,250 days old) by dnastrau (Lords Valley, PA)        
Adjustment - trial and error

Hi Mark:

I tried an adjustment of 2 full turns of the screw first and it seemed too high - especially on the delicate cycle. That was the amount that the person used on the separate web page that I linked to in my original water adjustment thread. I backed it off to 1 full turn from original position and that was not enough. 1 and 1/2 turns turned out to be perfect in my opinion. I doubt that it will damage anything as it does not appear to be excessive. As far as the suspension is concerned, I have noticed no difference in noise or vibration during wash cycles.

Hi Darren:

I'll try to post some pictures of an actual full wash load in the next few days.

Andrew S.


Post# 324910 , Reply# 74   1/17/2009 at 21:15 (3,250 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
We're lucky here....

ronhic's profile picture
...if in parts of the USA there is actual legislation in place that regulates how much water an appliance can use.

We have no such legislation - yet

We do, however have both an energy label and a water usage label (if needed) which must be affixed to every major appliance. The implication is that a water or power hungry appliance will cost you more to run, is worse for the environment and, with the droughts we have had, is socially irresponsible to own/use. Not to mention the rebates that are available for water efficient appliances from some councils.

Now, having said that, manufacturers such as Miele score quite highly on both fronts with 4-5 stars (out of 6) for energy and water. However, with a Miele, you can alter the wash and rinse water level without having to resort to pulling the machines apart...just programme it in. The owners manual tells you how on the machines we get here. On others, the use of the 'additional rinse' automatically increases the water used and decreases the overall efficiency rating. In the case of my Electrolux/Zanussi/Westinghouse I push the button and get an additional 2 rinses. Asko use a standard 3 rinses, but the super rinse button increases this to 7 on Australian machines.

So, for our market and probably Europe and Asia (though I am happy to be corrected) there is no reason why we can't have a standard suite of programmes like we do (and that a machine is rated on) but also have the options of us telling the machine what to do and how to do it.


Post# 324936 , Reply# 75   1/17/2009 at 22:17 (3,250 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
I agree. They can build these super energy efficient machines as long as they give the customer the "option" to push a button to add more water. The appliance companies can still use the current energy star rating.


Dnastrau

As u can see on my pic above, mine isn't using as much water as yours, though is using more than originally. When I made the adjustments. I may be crazy but I don't think I got anywhere close to a turn and a half. Before I adjusted back down, at one point, on the normal cycle, the machine was almost half (scary) full of water and STILL filling. It never did stop before I wimped out and pushed the pause/cancel button. I adjust back down a SMALL amount from there and the results are what u see in the pic above. I can't believe that such a small turn back downward went from half full to a little over three inches deep. If I turn on the soak cycle, I have the EXACT amount u have in your picture, delicate is even more. I wonder if with that much more water you need to up the amount of detergent you use since it wont be as concentrated. What do u think?


Post# 324975 , Reply# 76   1/18/2009 at 00:03 (3,250 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
IIRC; some early "HE" washers sold in the US did have ways to add more water. Also, IIRC the rules simply stated water/energy usage for the "normal" or default cycle, leaving room for the consumer to make changes. Well Feds, got wise to themselves and put a stop to that as well.

It all goes back to the mandates on water saving toilets. Feds and local governments got wise to persons trying to snooker those huge old American Standard's into new construction, and devised ways to put a stop to that as well.

If one must choose between wet-wipe laundry and a poor flushing toilet, will take a high water use toilet every time. *LOL*

L.


Post# 324981 , Reply# 77   1/18/2009 at 01:28 (3,250 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
on the subject of toilets....

ronhic's profile picture
New builds in most parts of Australia have dual flush toilets with either 9/4.5litres or 6/3litres being the norm (thats 2.25/1.1 or 1.5/.75 US Gallons per flush)....but then our toilets flush differently to yours from what I understand....

I have not heard of any issues with them in new builds at all and many councils will replace older single flush cisterns with 9/4.5litre ones free of charge as well as older high flow shower heads. This doesn't mean that the new shower heads feel like you have 12 mice p*@sing on you, they have less holes and smaller ones at that in conjuction with a flow restrictor....they work well and you still get the 'feel' of a high flow shower...but at a maximum of 2.25gallons per minute.

So between new cisterns, low use shower heads and pearlator taps, we seem to do ok



Post# 324983 , Reply# 78   1/18/2009 at 01:39 (3,250 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
and it's an...

ronhic's profile picture
...Australian invention....

CLICK HERE TO GO TO ronhic's LINK


Post# 325025 , Reply# 79   1/18/2009 at 08:37 (3,250 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA)        
For The First Time From Me...

People say the manufacturers aren't at fault for making crippled machines (water-wise and internal heater-wise) for the US market, because the government made them do it. But in the US we have something called "lobbying", where you pay someone to influence legislation. I believe appliance manufacturers could successfully lobby for more reasonable washer standards, if they wanted to. But that would be for the consumer's benefit, not their own, so they don't invest the money and time to do it.

Post# 325054 , Reply# 80   1/18/2009 at 10:30 (3,250 days old) by dnastrau (Lords Valley, PA)        
Raised water level and more detergent

Hi Mark:

Yes, we do use a bit more detergent than we did earlier as a result of the water level increase - just to make sure there is enough. Since we have hard water here, oversudsing is not normally a problem anyhow.

On your Duet I would try increasing the level adjustment by 1/8 or 1/4 turn at a time until you get the desired results - if you are still interested in trying that. The switch does seem to have a threshhold where it adds way too much water. Mine seemed to hit that at 2 full turns. When I tried using it at that setting the machine would actually drain some of the water as it must have sensed that there was too much for the normal cycle. 1 and 1/2 turns of adjustment from stock (5 and 1/2" water level at the back of the empty drum) has been great so far.

Andrew S.


Post# 325094 , Reply# 81   1/18/2009 at 14:47 (3,250 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Dnastrua

Thanks. If I get bored late I may do some more adjusting. I'm surprised that mine when it filled to such a high level, didn't drain on its own, I didn't let it get to that point I guess. But it was literally half way up the door and still filling when I paused/canceled. When I did hit pause/cancel, the machine drained all the water, but once the water was gone, it KEPT running as if it were still draining, it got locked up so I had to unplug it. Will post pictures if I get it right.


Post# 325409 , Reply# 82   1/19/2009 at 20:46 (3,248 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Andrew

Question. With your water level in that picture is pretty high. If you use delicate or soak, does in not trip an overfill fault? I was reading another person in another forum adjust back down, that the water level she had was great for normal/heavy duty/whitest whites cycles, but that delicate and ultra hand wash uses more water so it tripped an overfill fault. I'm guessing you don't have that problem since you didn't mention it. I wonder what the point is where the overfull fault is tripped?


Post# 325454 , Reply# 83   1/19/2009 at 23:57 (3,248 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Well I got bored and made another very very small adjustment at about 1/8 of an inch. I now have just over 4 inches in the back of the drum, just over 2 inches in the front. Not quite as high as Andrew's but almost. I think I'm going to leave it at that. :)

Post# 325483 , Reply# 84   1/20/2009 at 06:31 (3,248 days old) by alr2903 (TN)        

Was this issue ever a discussion during the american made w/d combo units . I always wondered did they spray only, with water accumulating in a sump for recirculation. Or did they have a small pool of water similar to above pictures. Combo owners please weigh in...:-) alr2903

Post# 325487 , Reply# 85   1/20/2009 at 07:19 (3,248 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture
Arthur, the w/d combo you are referring to was made by Whirlpool and predominately for the Kenmore brand. There was a small pool of water at teh bottom of the tub in addition to the recirculating spray, which was quite powerful and strong--so washing was not simply accomplished by spray only. You couple this with quite a large drum and fabrics had quite a bit of room to open p and flex while tumbling

Post# 325664 , Reply# 86   1/20/2009 at 20:14 (3,247 days old) by dnastrau (Lords Valley, PA)        
No Epic (Duet) overfill fault so far

Hi Mark:

On delicate I have not seen an overfill fault with the increased level - we are actually doing a delicate load this evening so I will pay close attention to it. I will take a picture as well.

When I had the adjustment screw turned 2 full turns the machine did drain some water prematurely from the normal cycle, but there was no error code displayed. It does not do this at the current setting of 1 and 1/2 turns.

Andrew S.


Post# 325670 , Reply# 87   1/20/2009 at 20:59 (3,247 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Anderew

I just did some laundry. After the very last adjustment I made, it was almost as much as the water level in your pic above but just a tad under that. Anyway, I did some laundry on heavy duty and whitest whites cycle. The water was touching the bottom of the glass! If I were to have opened the door, water would have ran out! I also noticed the clothes were sort of rolling in the water as opposed to lifting and dropping. Not sure why the water level looked ok (like your pic) without anything in the washer but a large load was TOO high for me. I adjusted back down slightly. It amazes me that on my adjustments are so very small, like less than 1/8 of an inch this last time and it was too much for my liking. Now I have it back down to the level I had in my pic above. Can't wait to see pics


Post# 325694 , Reply# 88   1/20/2009 at 22:29 (3,247 days old) by dadoes (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Water level on these machines is more complex than just being controlled by the pressure switch. There's probably also a flow meter involved.

Post# 325829 , Reply# 89   1/21/2009 at 14:39 (3,247 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Yeah. What I don't understand is why when I made that adjustment, I started the machine on a normal cycle with no clothes to see what the water level was and it was not quite the level in Andrews pic and when I did an actual (decent sized) load the water level was Way up there almost exactly like Newwave's pic above. An ever so small adjustment I made. I went ahead and did three loads of laundry like that and the clothes seemed to be clean but watching the wash action made me wonder if more water was better.

Post# 327190 , Reply# 90   1/27/2009 at 19:20 (3,240 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA)        
US gov't energy "mandates" aren't mandator

I just found the link below, which confirms what I've been suspecting: US-market washers' increasingly parsimonious water and energy usage is because of tax credits, not government mandate. Plenty of buyers would probably be willing to shell out an extra $200-$250 for a washer that does what they want. But the market hasn't developed, because no one realizes there could be a choice.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO suburbanmd's LINK


Post# 327200 , Reply# 91   1/27/2009 at 20:52 (3,240 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Yeabut

launderess's profile picture
Consumers have been brain-washed into seeking out the "Energy Star" information. Also states are starting to get into the act with their own energy/water restrictions. California probably will lead the way, and other western states may follow. This probably isn't a bad thing as drought conditions seem to be getting worse, not better.






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