Thread Number: 3448
GyroJon's Morning Bendix Fix |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 85446   9/27/2005 at 07:25 (6,757 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
|
Post# 85447 , Reply# 1   9/27/2005 at 07:25 (6,757 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85448 , Reply# 2   9/27/2005 at 07:26 (6,757 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85449 , Reply# 3   9/27/2005 at 07:26 (6,757 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85451 , Reply# 4   9/27/2005 at 07:27 (6,757 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85483 , Reply# 5   9/27/2005 at 09:25 (6,757 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85486 , Reply# 6   9/27/2005 at 09:26 (6,757 days old) by veg-o-matic (Baltimore, Hon!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85491 , Reply# 7   9/27/2005 at 09:36 (6,757 days old) by peteski50 (New York)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85530 , Reply# 9   9/27/2005 at 13:40 (6,757 days old) by unimatic1140 (Minneapolis)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
The 525 RPM spin does seem slow for a FL machine Until the mid or late 1990's front loaders were the slowest spinning automatic washers of any washer made in North America. For front loaders Bendix was the fastest at 525rpm, Westinghouse was 475rpm, early Bendix bolt-down machines were 250rpm. Other coin-op front loading brands such as Norge and Speed Queen also spun below 500 rpm. |
Post# 85646 , Reply# 10   9/27/2005 at 21:36 (6,757 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85647 , Reply# 11   9/27/2005 at 21:39 (6,757 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85678 , Reply# 13   9/27/2005 at 23:19 (6,757 days old) by tlee618 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Thanks Greg for posting these, what a nice way for us to start our day!! Yay for Bendix, they really were way ahead of their time. Terry |
Post# 85696 , Reply# 15   9/28/2005 at 06:56 (6,756 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85738 , Reply# 16   9/28/2005 at 08:46 (6,756 days old) by unimatic1140 (Minneapolis)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85843 , Reply# 17   9/28/2005 at 19:09 (6,756 days old) by appnut (TX)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85910 , Reply# 18   9/29/2005 at 03:06 (6,755 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85913 , Reply# 19   9/29/2005 at 06:30 (6,755 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85918 , Reply# 20   9/29/2005 at 06:43 (6,755 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85927 , Reply# 21   9/29/2005 at 07:23 (6,755 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 85952 , Reply# 22   9/29/2005 at 09:57 (6,755 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 90239 , Reply# 23   10/23/2005 at 08:49 (6,731 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Allen /Whirlcool: I am thinking F/L-ers did not take off at first in this county because: 1- Conusmer Reports magazine gave thumbs up to T/L-ers. 2- T/L-ers saved time (quicker cycle). 3- T/L-ers saved time (larger capacities and load sizes). 4- Before synthetic detergents T/L-ers handled the soap scum and curd formation of natural soaps better. (Rather, these were perceived as less supressive of washing action when they simply sat on top of the water. Hence overflow rinses early-on with automatic T/L-ers). 5- T/L-ers have ease of loading, (location and large size of opening). 6- T/L-ers have much more water and detergent. Can hold in suspension much more grease and oily dirt. Not debatable. 7- T/L-ers: Less fear of leakage- no port-hole boot/seal. 8- Psychology. Water is needed to rinse and ya cant wash without water. The T/L-ers were (and to some extent are still) most-likely IMHO seen to work "better" /faster. 9- Before automatic washers SOAKING was a method used to clean fabrics (of course-- no back-breaking labor required). T/L-ers facilitate this, F/L-ers do not. [Again more psychology- didn't KA DW-ers have a soak cycle? What can you possibly "soak" except the bottom of the tub?] 10- F/L-ers are being and have been re-introduced here because of Federal water limit/efficiency regulations, and perhaps environmental consciousness is helping. I don't think anyone has ever been heard to say T/L-ers don't work well. ....and P.S. I have adjuted to my F/L-er and like it a lot. But NOTHING says to me "HOME" like a T/L-er. I still sit and watch my classic GE filter-flo like a kid! Our bodies are, after all, all gestated ("made") in water. We love to play with it (watch people hand-wash dishes), be in it and be near it. It is said that the vast majority of the poulation lives near water. 60 miles away or less to be exact. (Which is what, 90km or so?). |