|
Thread Number: 66566
/ Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
Wait, reviewed.com knows us? |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 892203 8/2/2016 at 11:08 (2,817 days old) by henene4  (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany)) |
||
|
| ||
|
|
Post# 892214 , Reply# 1 8/2/2016 at 11:48 (2,816 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN) |
||
I like what all they have going on the wall behind the machine.
Give me data!!
View Full Size
| ||
| Post# 892221 , Reply# 2 8/2/2016 at 13:10 (2,816 days old) by billiedyer1954 (Ohio, USA) | ||
|
they put the detergent in the fabric softener dispenser!! | ||
| Post# 892224 , Reply# 3 8/2/2016 at 13:50 (2,816 days old) by Sbond22 (Grove City, Fl. USA) | ||
Re: The Wall. | ||
|
Post# 892235 , Reply# 4 8/2/2016 at 14:42 (2,816 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
 I'll have to let them know Speed Queen's Patronus Absolutus is in our family. Love the look of the electronic control panel.
Aside: What was with pouring the quarter-teaspoon of liquid detergent into the softener dispenser? I suppose it's kind of like putting a phonograph in front of a kid. A traditional washer is alien to them, LOL.
Hi, Ben! 
| ||
|
Post# 892237 , Reply# 5 8/2/2016 at 14:47 (2,816 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN) |
||
|
the quarter-teaspoon of liquid detergent | ||
|
Post# 892238 , Reply# 6 8/2/2016 at 14:48 (2,816 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 892269 , Reply# 7 8/2/2016 at 17:13 (2,816 days old) by whirlykenmore78 (Prior Lake MN (GMT-0500 CDT.)) |
||
LOL!  | ||
| Post# 892271 , Reply# 8 8/2/2016 at 17:17 (2,816 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA) | ||
Almost... | ||
|
Post# 892273 , Reply# 9 8/2/2016 at 17:24 (2,816 days old) by RevvinKevin (Tinseltown - Shakey Town - La-La Land) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 892278 , Reply# 10 8/2/2016 at 18:22 (2,816 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
takes a bow....................:) hi Frig! | ||
|
Post# 892299 , Reply# 11 8/2/2016 at 22:48 (2,816 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
Washer Cult - Free KoolAid? I wouldn't call that a "review" but on the product page, they state that they haven't done a full test and review on the SQ, so this must be just the trailer. They did make a lot of bold statements about the machine, reliability, easier to repair, etc. so it will be interesting to see what they say about the performance once that data-wall gives up it's secrets. CLICK HERE TO GO TO gansky1's LINK | ||
|
Post# 892659 , Reply# 12 8/5/2016 at 17:03 (2,813 days old) by logixx (Germany) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 892660 , Reply# 13 8/5/2016 at 17:24 (2,813 days old) by whirlykenmore78 (Prior Lake MN (GMT-0500 CDT.)) |
||
|
All that copper tubing:
Could make many stills. It is actually there to test the machines under various water conditions, temperatures and pressures to see how they handle the variances.
I have seen a set-up like this first hand at the old Ecolab R&D center In Mendota MN. There were at least a dozen commercial dishwashers of varying makes, types and ages hooked to it. All sitting under a massive canopy hood to draw out the steam. THe purpose of it all was to test how various Ecolab products worked in a wide range of dishwashers and water conditions. Cool stuff science is. Too bad many don't believe in it anymore. WK78 | ||
|
Post# 892670 , Reply# 14 8/5/2016 at 19:40 (2,813 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
Wonky review 1) "... it did particularly poorly against protein-based stains. During the Whites cycle, we suspect that an improperly timed hot water rinse baked those stains into fabrics instead of washing them out." 2) As mentioned previously, detergent in the softener dispenser. 3) I suppose it's just a demo of the panel but the video shows setting the temp, water level, and soil level, then changing the cycle which changes those settings. 4) Most modern machines don't have a spin-only selection? | ||
| Post# 892717 , Reply# 15 8/6/2016 at 08:13 (2,813 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH) | ||
 | ||
|
Post# 892728 , Reply# 16 8/6/2016 at 11:11 (2,813 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
Cleanability
I see a lot of bashing about clean ability, at least that this machine isn't as good as other modern machines. I call flaming BS. In my experience a Speed Queen will out clean most modern US front and top load washers. Consumer reports and other always seem to somehow down play their clean ability, but in all honesty I would not be surprised if they are being influenced by select entities... Lets face it, consumer reports and the like are a marketing platform controlled by the big players. Its easier to sell by stating the obvious (Speed Queen is more dependable) and down play the less obvious (clean ability). That way machines even out, and impeller garbage has a level playing field. The most unequal thing of all is equal treatment of unequal machines... Americans are left to think its all machines have their individual pros and cons with everything evening out and people buying based on their own personalty traits/preference... Come reality some machines are all cons and some like Speed Queen are all pros.
| ||
| Post# 892731 , Reply# 17 8/6/2016 at 11:46 (2,812 days old) by jkbff (Happy Rock, ND) | ||
I agree with reviewed's view. I asked around the store, our techs and other sales staff agree as well. (Well, we all disagree with the soap in the softener portion...)
It may not have perfect clean-ability ratings, nothing has that, but it is probably one of the most durable and reliable washers on the market. Perfect for Joe and Susie Farmer and their 12 kids after a long day of slopping the hogs here in rural ND. (We are only a Speed Queen Platinum dealer.) | ||
|
Post# 892738 , Reply# 18 8/6/2016 at 12:36 (2,812 days old) by henene4 (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany)) |
||
|
Are all pros 40gal water usage, "small" capacity, low spin speeds, no boosted wash temps. Yes, all pros, I mean, duh, how could anyone not see that as a pro. | ||
|
Post# 892753 , Reply# 19 8/6/2016 at 14:59 (2,812 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Pros
Compared to impellers that tangle and rip clothes, dumbed down temps, locking lids, hour plus cycles, no real suspension, 5 year life expectancy, cheap parts 1/2 the cost of the machine and front loads without heaters that still last 5 years (temps will drop way faster assuming hot water entered the tub from the small water fill) yes all those would be considered pros.
Yes high spin speed and boosted temps are a big plus, but you have to keep in mind that in the US we do not have 240 volt 13/16 amp receptacles at the washer so we do not have many front loads on the market that can take cold water and can heat it up all the way to a boil wash (and our detergents have to reflect that). As is a tankless gas water heater is pennies. Thus if you want a machine that can wash a load of clothes with really hot water that does not take an hour and a half a deep fill top load is the only way to go in the US. As for capacity being small I disagree. It would be considered large in front of most European machines that fit underneath kitchen counter-tops and larger than some vintage machines like genuine Maytags. | ||
|
Post# 892764 , Reply# 21 8/6/2016 at 16:53 (2,812 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"And I wrote "small", not small. Of course, more then I could I ever dream to get my hands on, but small compared to pretty much any FL or TL."
I think you are referring to a different machine. I can list a dozen washers smaller than Speed Queen, and most every Euro washer is smaller than a US front load. "Don't bring that impeller argument. It has been shown these claims are 95% user error." Can you show me something to back up this claim? "And still: basicly half the extraction spped of some machines. We have several members with FLs beyond the 10 year mark." I doubt they will make it to 20 years when used daily. Yes, any front load will out do a top load in terms of spinning, but as I said most US front loads do not have heaters and are very poorly made. | ||
|
Post# 892842 , Reply# 24 8/7/2016 at 08:07 (2,812 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Check rates | ||
|
Post# 892918 , Reply# 26 8/7/2016 at 16:01 (2,811 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany) |
||
Capacity
Have done more than just a few loads in Speed Queen toploades over the years and can confirm they don`t hold more clothes than an average Euro 5kg frontloader.
While the Speed Queen tubs are considerably larger in sq.ft. you have to load them loosley to get good turnover and avoid damage to clothes whereas you can stuff a Euro FL with their endless wash cycles and still get good results. (I wouldn`t try to cram full any US FL with their quick wash times.) I have no intention to turn this thread into another FL vs. TL discussion just saying SQ`s TL capacity seems a bit overrated to me. | ||
|
Post# 892921 , Reply# 27 8/7/2016 at 16:23 (2,811 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 892993 , Reply# 31 8/8/2016 at 07:48 (2,811 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"Not exactly true. Timers are expensive, the transmission is a small fortune, in fact, there are not very many "cheap" parts on a speed queen."
Sounds like the point is being missed. Those parts will last 20 to 30 years unlike most other modern machines so price becomes irrelevant. On a modern machine where those parts will fail one after another after only 3-5 years the high cost becomes a major factor needing consideration. BTW, the timer, belt ect is cheaper than the control boards on many modern front loads... Speed Queen is now refereed to as a "Luxury" brand where just 30 years ago any American could walk into any store and purchase the same construction if not better. A low income family could purchase a dirt cheap Galaxy or Filter Flo and have it last as long as a modern Speed Queen will. This is a classic example of the declining middle class. People are told less is more, more is bad, evil, uneducated, not good for the environment ect ect. | ||
|
Post# 892997 , Reply# 32 8/8/2016 at 08:08 (2,811 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"-Its called progress. Just like cars used to get 3 miles to the gallon, and broke down every other day. Things become more efficient."
Progress is just a feel good term, one which I see it for what it is. Cars use more gas today on average than they did in the 50s and 60s. While gas motors have become more efficient the cars themselves have become a lot larger. Families went from Chevy Impalas to decked out climate controlled mini vans. And the longevity you mention. That was in the 1900s. The cars in the 50s and 60s did not break down every other day with care. "Just to be clear, I absolutely love speed queen products. I own the top load 9 series, and the front load set. I am an authorized speed queen dealer, as well as authorized to service them. Speed queen is a very, very reliable washer/ dryer that does just a GOOD job washing clothes. Its the best machine on the market in terms of reliability, and warranty, but I can't say its the best performer out there." And the best performer is? I going to be honest. I see many knowledgeable sales men and appliance techs, but when it comes to selling appliances I see a what looks like a pre written script. I've been in stores where I see appliance sales people push HE machines or insist the customer they will be happier with TOL giving each one the same speech. Its almost as though customers who refuse to buy HE or the status quo are somehow doing something socially unacceptable. The truth is consumers are just being toyed with and punished at no fault of their own. Ok, I get saving water. But why remove every soft food disposal out of every DW with a manual clean filter? The point voyager system and the re-designed low water version after that (the one I have on my DW) works very will with food particles while saving water. So what was the point to remove that from every new Whirlpool made DW while customers everywhere are being told its better? | ||
|
Post# 892998 , Reply# 33 8/8/2016 at 08:19 (2,811 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
Just another frontloader versus toploader discussion. These discussions have never lead anywhere because one is not perse better than the other, it depends on a lot of circumstances. To each his own plays a big role here.
Chetlaham, You appear very in favour of Speed Queen toploaders, but I noticed that your profile says that Miele is your favourite appliance brand. Funny! | ||
|
Post# 893003 , Reply# 34 8/8/2016 at 09:35 (2,811 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Miele
It was until I discovered Speed Queen. When you take Speed Queen out of the equation all thats left in the US is Bosch and Miele in terms of passable modern quality. I should have put none for modern brands but I still like to think things haven't gotten that bad. But my favorite brand of all time would be Maytag.
I have nothing against front loads washers, I've used several and when washing normal day to day items with light soil they do indeed save water. But, when it comes to durability (and perhaps even clean ability) IMHO top load and front load Speed Queens out do any modern US or European washer. | ||
|
Post# 893017 , Reply# 35 8/8/2016 at 11:36 (2,810 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN) |
||
|
Well we are WAY off topic here but I saw this...
"Cars use more gas today on average than they did in the 50s and 60s." Ummm please cite your factual evidence to back this claim up. I'd bet that the average today is quite a bit better. Sure some late models could be huge and heavy but if we compare 50's apples to modern day apples the cars today are VASTLY more fuel efficient. And in every other performance metric they are superior too. The reliability claims are laughable, my 6 year old Honda has yet to go in for ANY service (other then maintenance fluid changes I have done myself). How many sets of points and plugs would a 50's car have needed in 6 years? Vintage cars are cool in their own ways, but automotive progress has made a LOT of distance in the past 60 years. Back to appliances, the same is true. Personal preference will play a big part in the comments you read here and in reviews. Top loading machines use more water and they have more complex and expensive parts and in general will require more service. Overall they lack the progress in evolution that has brought us to the mechanically simple front load machines. Really the only reason that toploaders exist today is due to personal preferences and people's inertia towards change. There are many frontload fans that have made the needed adjustments to their laundry methods and they would not go back. Clearly the machine style isn't at fault. | ||
| Post# 893023 , Reply# 36 8/8/2016 at 12:20 (2,810 days old) by glomain (tuscarawas cnty. (eastern ohio)) | ||
well | ||
|
Post# 893026 , Reply# 37 8/8/2016 at 12:43 (2,810 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
You'll notice I stayed out of the discussion in the latter part of this thread. I tend to give Ben a fair amount of leeway in the 'SQ vs. Other Brands' debates, considering his position as Patronus Absolutus of all things Speed Queen; and frankly, there's a lot to love about the brand. I do try to gently remind him that some things, like global warming, are matters of science, not politics---just as the whole 'smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease' argument came down to science and not politics. But he still smokes, so there's work to be done. Hi, Ben! 😘😎
On To Other Matters: Let's sort out the notion that cars from the 1960's can compete with today's in the mileage department right here, right now. Average MPG of a 1965 Chevy Impala: 13.5 Average MPG of a 2016 Dodge Grand Caravan: 21 (Mileage figures courtesy of Fuelly) This post was last edited 08/08/2016 at 13:22 | ||
|
Post# 893036 , Reply# 39 8/8/2016 at 15:49 (2,810 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Great news! This is an example in which being a quitter is a good thing. 👏👏👍
OK, this thread is returned to its original topic with apologies to Henrik for the detour. This post was last edited 08/08/2016 at 16:36 | ||
| Post# 893050 , Reply# 40 8/8/2016 at 18:06 (2,810 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
we now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast | ||
|
Post# 893069 , Reply# 41 8/8/2016 at 20:56 (2,810 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893085 , Reply# 44 8/8/2016 at 22:42 (2,810 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"This statement is false as well. I will say, the transmission will last likely 30 years, as long as it never gets wet. Timers fail, and they fail at a much higher rate than controls. Id bet you a dollar that the failure rate of Speed queen's timers vs. their electronic controls is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 1. As in they will see 100 mechanical timer failures before they see 1 electronic control failure. Further, timers cost around $100, and I've seen some as high as $200. They are definitely not cheap. You are right, Speed Queen belts are cheaper than LG front load belts. ;)"
Ahh, Speed Queen to Speed Queen. Lets see a Speed Queen next to an LG, Frigidaire or Whirlpool... And yes I know timers cost $100. Control boards... a bit higher. And when it comes to DW things like this were unheard of with mechanical controls: www.kitchenaidfire.com/p53.html... "This statement has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. If you truly believe this, then there is no point having any type of conversation with you. Please click the EDIT button and delete it. Internet lurkers will stumble upon this site and read something like this. It will completely invalidate all the good information on this website ,and make all of us on here looks like a bunch of crazies." You are acting like you know nothing about politics or the real world. How many times have you heard the word progress only to see something become a total wreck? Its best not go further as it will derail the thread... but Id like more substance rather than empty disparaging. "Cars even through the early 90's required oil every 3k, spark plugs every 5k, Trans fluid flush every 30k. All that and the car was essentially scrap at 100k miles. My last ford truck went 138k on the original spark plugs. (2004 model). At the moment the Koreans are holding that trophy." No matter what, modern machines will not last 30 years with daily use. It just isn't going to happen. | ||
|
Post# 893087 , Reply# 45 8/8/2016 at 22:45 (2,810 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
And oh | ||
|
Post# 893088 , Reply# 46 8/8/2016 at 22:53 (2,810 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
No matter what, modern machines will not last 30 years with daily use. It just isn't going to happen.Beginning at what year of market or production is considered a modern appliance? This post was last edited 08/09/2016 at 03:36 | ||
|
Post# 893090 , Reply# 47 8/8/2016 at 23:15 (2,810 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893091 , Reply# 48 8/8/2016 at 23:20 (2,810 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893093 , Reply# 49 8/8/2016 at 23:28 (2,810 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893103 , Reply# 50 8/9/2016 at 03:50 (2,810 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
Place bets on a Belt Driven Whirlpool/Maytag/Filter Flo vs anything none Speed Queen. You tell me what will cost more to maintain in that period of time. What will last before needing any part changed?Compare classic belt-drive Whirlpool of 1986 and earlier, Filter-Flo, and/or helical-drive Maytag to anything "modern" that's non-Speed Queen for a period of 30-years use? | ||
| Post# 893126 , Reply# 52 8/9/2016 at 08:36 (2,810 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
Very well said Edward and it proves again 100 million times over, that the free market, ie consumer demands, result in the best quality at the best prices. Not burdensome goobermint regulations that show no concept of reality or what is practical. | ||
|
Post# 893127 , Reply# 53 8/9/2016 at 08:38 (2,810 days old) by Lorainfurniture (Cleveland ) |
||
|
The only machine that I think has a fighting chance of going 30 years with NO repair is the Dependable care (Newton) maytag. Even that is a stretch | ||
|
Post# 893136 , Reply# 54 8/9/2016 at 09:39 (2,810 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893142 , Reply# 55 8/9/2016 at 10:10 (2,810 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"The only machine that I think has a fighting chance of going 30 years with NO repair is the Dependable care (Newton) maytag. Even that is a stretch"
Excluding the basics like a belt, the chance is very good and I know of family owned Maytag dealers who can say the same. I am not talking about small repairs and never have been, but rather pricey ones or major over hauls. "From a real world experience as a service technician i am in about 150 homes each month. I see very few appliances that are 10 or more years old. And I am talking about all the appliances in the home not just what I am repairing. When I first started in 1990 I was repairing appliances in the 15 to 20+ years. Now more than 75% each day are no more than 5. I'm not claiming this to be a scientific study just what I see every day. So without any doubt something has changed." Id say its three things: 1. All the machines capable of surviving 20 years have hit their end of life. Longevity peaked in the 70s and 80s IMHO, on average through the industry. So if you had a 1989 machine that could go 20 years in 2016 it would already be 27 years old. 2. When something minor does fail like a motor coupler, the trend is to replace it. 3. People are tossing about perfectly good appliances in the name of energy efficiency. I know of plenty of folks who got rid of their perfectly good DD to get a front load or impeller. "But I think that several reasons are involved in people's decisions to replace much more often than in the past. Focusing only on washers since that is the topic of this thread most people are hesitant to exceed $300 in repairs. On modern high efficiency models (FL or TL) a bearing or board failure will usually exceed what the customer will pay. Very often the customer will state that " I really never liked this washer anyway so I'll just get a new one". We can argue that the customer just isn't educated in how to use modern machines but my real world experience is that people are often unsatisfied with performance." I agree with everything you said here. Yes part is of it mis-use, but lets face it: you will never mimic a front load with an impeller and US front loads themselves are still evolving. While smaller, European front loads are light years ahead of the game, as well as their detergents. Our detergents are still stuck in the top load arena and are being minimally modified to fit front load nitch. "High eff machines have been around a long time now so how long is it supposed to take for people to "learn" how to use them. How do you explain the quick rise in Speed Queen sales. 10 years ago very few people ever heard the name. They are selling $900 basic TL washers in a world where much less can buy a much fancier machine. Remember that in the entire market SQ sales are still a small part of the total but I am amazed at how many I see out in the field. Ask yourself the question if the public is so happy with HE machines why are major manufactures placing so much emphasis lately on how much water they use as opposed to how much they save. Is there a current Whirlpool TL product that doesn't have a "deep water wash"? Much of the in store promotional material focuses on more and more water. They must be hearing or feeling something from the consumer." Because customers are being mislead, abused and manipulated by our government and the manufactures that bend over in submission. Water saving and electricity usage isn't about the environment, its about not having to upgrade a 100 year old infrastructure. One must ask how come America, the most powerful, educated and resourceful country on earth for decades choose top loads over front loads when the technology was in place for both. I know I will get flack for saying this, but Id go on a limb and say Europe went with front loads due to minimal infrastructure, economic and raw material resources which has plagued them for decades. For example, after WWII the UK started to use ring mains for their power sockets. Not because ring mains are somehow superior, but because they saved on copper. The UK had a massive material resource shortage after WII necessitating savings over all else, where as the US could built cities and not blink an eye. In fact in the 60s and 70s many US sky scrappers did not even have switches because electricity was so cheap. If we invested in our best minds and built more of what we lack water, electricity and the rest would practically be free at no cost to the environment. | ||
|
Post# 893147 , Reply# 56 8/9/2016 at 10:24 (2,810 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
The 1962 Whirlpool toploader that "grew-up" my family was replaced at 15 years and had *many* repairs during that time. Belt, wig-wag, brush filter deteriorated, pump leak, water valve flood, mercury lid switch bracket rusted off, motor centrifugal start switch sticking, bakelite agitator cracked, centerpost bearings & spin tube replaced. The bearings were bad again which is what led to the machine being retired. It's 7 years older than the 2006 "modern" trigger-point ... but my 1999 Fisher & Paykel (with three computer boards) has had only the pump replaced in 2011. It was handed-down to the grandmother, then sister, now nephew is using it. | ||
| Post# 893153 , Reply# 57 8/9/2016 at 10:48 (2,810 days old) by murando531 (Augusta, Georgia - US) | ||
Threads on this website have become nothing more than glorified conservative vs. progressive political debates. If I wanted to see people who deny that climate change is real, deny that water and energy consumption IS an issue, and claim that anything "new" or "modern" is bad and a "conspiracy against good ol' Americans" and a piece of junk, I'd go to Facebook. There's plenty of that there with Trump supporters and republicans running amok.
It seems one can't even come to AW anymore without the constant battle between the Speed Queen extremists and everyone else. I thought the intent of the Deluxe forum was to be able to talk about new machines in peace without a decades old washing machine with a primitive single-post agitator and spin drain being crammed down our throats. If the Speed Queen design is your cup of tea, that's completely your right and your opinion, but it's been proven countless times in countless ways why there are modern front loaders AND top loaders that run absolute circles around them, in cleaning performance, capacity, and resource efficiency. It has been tested, the numbers are on paper. Let. It. Rest. | ||
| Post# 893168 , Reply# 58 8/9/2016 at 11:33 (2,809 days old) by mtn1584 (USA) | ||
|
Kleenex please.................. Could someone please get the above millenial a box of tissue, I think he may cry. | ||
|
Post# 893175 , Reply# 59 8/9/2016 at 12:21 (2,809 days old) by henene4 (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany)) |
||
|
Can you believe it? Argues for a washer design 3 or 4 times older then me, but in a way that not even I would resort to if I knew I was wrong. And anybody who knows my posts here just a little knows I hate to be wrong. | ||
|
Post# 893186 , Reply# 60 8/9/2016 at 13:40 (2,809 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"Threads on this website have become nothing more than glorified conservative vs. progressive political debates. If I wanted to see people who deny that climate change is real, deny that water and energy consumption IS an issue, and claim that anything "new" or "modern" is bad and a "conspiracy against good ol' Americans" and a piece of junk, I'd go to Facebook. There's plenty of that there with Trump supporters and republicans running amok."
If climate change really was an issue we would not have disposable machines. It takes energy to manufacture, recycle and transport all which in itself creates tremendous green house gas. Its facts like this which raise red flags for anyone logically analyzing this blindly touted claim. "It seems one can't even come to AW anymore without the constant battle between the Speed Queen extremists and everyone else. I thought the intent of the Deluxe forum was to be able to talk about new machines in peace without a decades old washing machine with a primitive single-post agitator and spin drain being crammed down our throats. If the Speed Queen design is your cup of tea, that's completely your right and your opinion, but it's been proven countless times in countless ways why there are modern front loaders AND top loaders that run absolute circles around them, in cleaning performance, capacity, and resource efficiency." Nothing wrong with a healthy debate. IF I see any incorrect information I will challenge it, its how forums work. "It has been tested, the numbers are on paper. Let. It. Rest." By people putting detergent in the fabric softener dispenser. "Can you believe it? Argues for a washer design 3 or 4 times older then me, but in a way that not even I would resort to if I knew I was wrong. And anybody who knows my posts here just a little knows I hate to be wrong." Its all trivial until you can explain to me how a Euro washer happens to be larger than a Speed Queen. | ||
|
Post# 893208 , Reply# 61 8/9/2016 at 15:17 (2,809 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Global warming has no politics; it's science. It is occurring whether you watch FOX news or MSNBC. This post was last edited 08/09/2016 at 15:38 | ||
|
Post# 893212 , Reply# 62 8/9/2016 at 15:40 (2,809 days old) by Mayfan69 (Brisbane Queensland Australia) |
||
Yay to Frigilux | ||
|
Post# 893213 , Reply# 63 8/9/2016 at 15:43 (2,809 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"Global warming has no politics; it's science. It is occurring whether you watch FOX news or MSNBC." The science can not even agree to what degree its happening or if its man made or part of a natural cycle. Google the studies, they are all over the place. "This is the same argument we used to get about smoking. Science pointed out that it caused lung and heart disease, but the holdouts argued well into the 1980s that claiming tobacco use was detrimental to health was just a bunch of nonsense by the pinko/commie/fairy/anti-American progressives. Guess what? Science was right. Smokers died of lung cancer, strokes and heart attacks regardless of their political leanings. The argument over seat belts a few decades ago played out the same way. Science was right. Many lives were lost unnecessarily because some people chose not to use them. Didn't matter they were liberal, conservative, rednecks or faggots." It goes both ways. There were doctors and people who said cigarettes were dangerous and they were called conspiracy theorists. The tobacco companies did everything to slander these people in order to keep their myths alive. "One Global warming isn't trivial." Of course its not trivial. But manufactures seem to make it so with disposable appliances. Every machine purchased in the name of water savings is a money scored. "Grousing about whether a Euro washer can match the capacity of a top-loading Speed Queen is trivial." I made a claim, I was shown facts and was rightfully proven wrong. Thats how it works. Yet I keep hearing this claim that Euro washers hold more clothes than a Speed Queen yet so far no one here has shown me any evidence to back up that up. "Science and technology brought you the miracles of modern medicine as well as the internet you seem to enjoy using as much as the Millenials you disparage." I never said science and technology does not. But who is to stop someone from hijacking it for their own gain? Any corporation can make a claim and back it up with bogus science. How many products have turned out to be a complete fraud or snake oil? | ||
|
Post# 893215 , Reply# 64 8/9/2016 at 16:10 (2,809 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
|
Capacity | ||
|
Post# 893216 , Reply# 65 8/9/2016 at 16:17 (2,809 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893218 , Reply# 66 8/9/2016 at 16:20 (2,809 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893219 , Reply# 67 8/9/2016 at 16:25 (2,809 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893220 , Reply# 68 8/9/2016 at 16:29 (2,809 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
|
I can only speak for the Dutch market. According to the Dutch consumer organisation there are 135 washers with a capacity over 8kg available. And there are 133 washers with a smaller capacity available. Given the fact that the Speed Queen rating is 7.5 kg, the conclusion must be that the Speed Queen rating is below average. Brand that sell 8kg+ machines are AEG, Alluxe, Asko, Bauknecht, Beko, Bosch, Candy, Daewoo, Electrolux, Haier, Hoover, Indesit, LG, Miele, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Siemens, Whirlpool and Zanussi.
| ||
|
Post# 893235 , Reply# 70 8/9/2016 at 18:26 (2,809 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 893244 , Reply# 72 8/9/2016 at 19:13 (2,809 days old) by mtn1584 (USA) | ||
|
Sorry frig. Didn't mean to get so cranky. I apologize. | ||
|
Post# 893281 , Reply# 74 8/10/2016 at 04:31 (2,809 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany) |
||
|
I don`t take the kg ratings of a washer too seriously. You can gain quite a few more kg`s in a FL just by extending wash times. That`s exactly what many European manufacturers have done over the last years to increase "capacity" while keeping the small standart cabinets.
Correct me if I`m wrong but I *think* my tiny 5 kg Miele is rated at 6,5 kg for the Autralien market. Not so much difference to a 7,5 kg Speed Queen. From personal experience they can both handle an equal amount of laundry but the FLs clean better, are easier on clothes and most importantly easier on the environment. Admittedly when using a Laundromat in the States I always look out for toploaders, preferably Speed Queens because they are a nice change from what I`m used to and they`re fun to use. (And I hate the larger capacity DD Whirlpools for beating clothes to a premature death) This post was last edited 08/10/2016 at 05:12 | ||
|
Post# 893296 , Reply# 75 8/10/2016 at 06:36 (2,809 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Not to jump into this debate late
Which by the way seems to be turning into a night with the Krup family. *LOL*
Comparing capacity between an H-axis washer and top loading with a central beater is simply not fair. Without a central beater tubs of H-axis washing machines *can* often hold *and* wash far more items (or item in the case of bulky things) better. Thing vary by beater design but am sure we all have seen videos of top loading washers on Youtube. Some TLs move water through the laundry, others move/pull/jerk/drag laundry through water. Some top loaders gave excellent roll over and movement of laundry round, up and down; others simply seemed to beat things closest to the agitator to death while those on the outside of load barely moved. The two types of machines clean laundry by different methods. To each his or her own long as they are happy with the results, that's what I say. Will say that with a good quality H-Axis washer, one that uses enough water to get the job done, TL units cannot touch them for capacity and cleaning results, IMHO. Washing machines of same vintage as my older Miele advised users to pack them full (within the rated load amount) as the machine could handle. At first glance you'd swear this woman was overloading washer. But once the load is good and wet there is plenty of room for washing and rinsing action to happen. Now here is a SQ washer some claim is overloaded: Now here is an older SQ laundromat top loader. Notice the sheets have wrapped around the agitator and IMHO taking a beating instead of moving about. | ||
|
Post# 893308 , Reply# 76 8/10/2016 at 08:09 (2,809 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Thanks for weighing in with video examples, Launderess. Extra credit for you, my dear. We hit a deer coming home from a gig last night and I am ridonkulously hung-over, but here's my two cents:
> I can't believe anyone would think the new Speed Queen is overloaded. Items are moving easily through the water. In fact, several more items could have been added to the load. The Surgilator-like agitator really does a great job.
> While the solid tub machine is my 'soft spot' favorite in the SQ lineage for several reasons, I've always felt its agitation was noticeably less efficient than, say, Kenmores, Whirlpools, or Frigidaires of the same time period. A commercial SQ of this vintage was in the laundry room of an apartment building I lived in. Loads made up primarily of shirts, shorts, kitchen whites, bath linens, etc., rolled over better than the load of sheets shown above, but the agitator used these days definitely takes the checkered flag. | ||
| Post# 893311 , Reply# 77 8/10/2016 at 08:38 (2,809 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan) | ||
|
tangled sheets, but better than torn corner seams like I get now with my h.e. top loader. I wash them on hand wash cycle also. Agitate slow, then soak. Maybe it was the quality of the 800 thread count cotton? | ||
|
Post# 893313 , Reply# 78 8/10/2016 at 08:56 (2,809 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
If by "HE Top Loader"
You mean one of those machines with an impeller, that could be the problem. *LOL*
Impeller/disks have been promoted as a substitute for central beaters going way back; leave us just say they haven't quite fulfilled their promise. Think Maytag's "Gyrofoam" action and a few other agitators were better with sheets. Know my Whirlpool portable didn't do well with crisp percales. Things always wound around the agitator and or got air bubbles. | ||
|
Post# 893315 , Reply# 79 8/10/2016 at 08:58 (2,809 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893346 , Reply# 80 8/10/2016 at 12:37 (2,808 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
WASHING PERFORMANCE FL vs. TRADITIONAL TL: Here's how the deck is stacked in favor of HE front-loaders.
I'm always amazed that people get upset when they see a Samsung, LG, or Maytag front-loader outscore a SQ top-loader. There's nothing wrong with the SQ. It's simply fighting an uphill battle against machines that wash longer, wash with a far greater concentration of detergent, have more capacity, spin clothes drier, and use considerably less water (especially hot water) and energy.
If I used one-fifth of the detergent and limited wash time to 12 minutes, my Maytag wouldn't score as well as it does in testing.
I use the Normal cycle, medium soil (20-minute wash time; total cycle time of 45 minutes) for most loads and the results are great. With a 1400 rpm final spin speed (which I now use for everything but delicate items) the reduced time in the dryer makes up for the longer cycle time.
Again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a Speed Queen top-loader. The deck is simply stacked against it when it comes to performance in cleaning, spinning, capacity, and water/energy use compared to an HE front-loader.
Ben, on the other hand, points to SQ's country of manufacture, warranty, build-quality, shorter cycle time, and potential longevity. He's also not fond of 'clean machine' cycles and electronic controls (although I'm sure SQ uses commercial-quality electronics on their new line). In those areas, SQ trumps (Jesus, why do I keep using that word?!) most other brands. This post was last edited 08/10/2016 at 13:01 | ||
|
Post# 893352 , Reply# 81 8/10/2016 at 13:21 (2,808 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893363 , Reply# 82 8/10/2016 at 15:15 (2,808 days old) by henene4 (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany)) |
||
|
Shorter cycles? One thing got me thinking: For example, the Maxima 8100 rinses twice on the normal cycle, right? The SQ TL only rinses once, right? So, is the SQ TL actually faster if I see these cycle times?
View Full Size
| ||
| Post# 893366 , Reply# 83 8/10/2016 at 15:52 (2,808 days old) by psych101 (Australia) | ||
|
I think the operator of that machine has selected a second rinse option or some other addition to the cycle. Using the normal wash cycle with a single full tub rinse my SQ takes approximately 37 minutes from start to finish, including fill times. | ||
|
Post# 893376 , Reply# 84 8/10/2016 at 17:03 (2,808 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
To be fair, most HE frontloaders use two rinses, as less water is used for each compared to the single deep rinse of a traditional top-loader. Adding an extra rinse on the Maytag 8100 provides three.
Magic Minute: From the videos I've seen, the tub is nearly three-fourths full of water when the Magic starts. Not as concentrated as a front-loader; water continues to be added, so any concentration is short-lived. Fun to watch, but I question how much it actually improves cleaning. New SQ Line: That really is a sleek, elegant-looking console. This post was last edited 08/10/2016 at 17:50 | ||
|
Post# 893387 , Reply# 85 8/10/2016 at 19:26 (2,808 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Will say this
Almost since they arrived on the scene commercial laundries in both Europe and North America used H-Axis washing machines. Only laundromats and other places where consumers did their washing used top loaders in the USA historically. Now even that has largely come to an end.
Going back to the early 1900's Hurley Machine Company advertised that their Thor Cylinder washing machine (a domestic version of larger washers found in commercial use) not only cleaned better but was more gentle on laundry versus other models of washing machines. Maytag made a small top opening H-Axis washing machine also in the early part of last century. They bragged that the "millrace" principle of washing got all laundry cleaner from the heaviest to most dainty textiles without damage. Detergents for top loading washing machines are called "high dilution" for a reason. They are meant to work in the relatively large volume of water used in such machines. This explains why you cannot use such products (normally) in H-Axis washing machines. There is too little water to reach the proper dilution ratios amounts of detergent needed for good results. You *can* try using less but that often and usually does lead to problems down the line. Vintage detergents one has a problem with in the Miele or AEG (Biz, older versions of Tide, etc..) clean and rinse quite well when used say when doing laundry in the bathtub or other similar large vessel. Biz in particular can take ages to rinse out in a front loader, not so otherwise. The fact commercial laundries almost exclusively use H-axis washing machines should tell you something. It just simply is a superior way of doing laundry (especially large amounts) with less damge to clothing. Americans who have gone from top loaders to front are often amazed they don't need all that pre-treating, soaking and so forth as often the case with top loaders, and their wash comes out quite clean. Because H-Axis washing on principle flexes textiles it makes for better breaking up of stains and soils. With top loading washers this will vary by agitator design, but IMHO none will do the job same as an H-Axis washer. | ||
| Post# 893388 , Reply# 86 8/10/2016 at 19:33 (2,808 days old) by stricklybojack (South Hams Devon UK) | ||
The results are in...
.
4.9 SCORE TESTED BY EXPERTS The Speed Queen AWNE92SP113TW is better than 2% of the washing machines we tested. It is better than 1% of the washing machines we have tested under $1,000. It is better than 1% of the top-loading washing machines we have tested. They conclude: It doesn't clean as well as a more modern machine, and it's not as efficient as the best front-loaders, but that flashy new washer also won't have Speed Queen's five-year warranty or commercial design. We can't recommend that tradeoff, which explains why this machine gets such a low score. That's because our priorities are stain removal, fabric handling, and efficiency. If your priorities are a long warranty and commercial-grade durability, however, the Speed Queen AWNE92SP113TW may be worth a look. CLICK HERE TO GO TO stricklybojack's LINK | ||
| Post# 893394 , Reply# 87 8/10/2016 at 20:15 (2,808 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
Ain't no party like a Speed Queen party cause a Speed Queen party don't stop. Hi Frig! | ||
|
Post# 893404 , Reply# 88 8/10/2016 at 21:31 (2,808 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Think what many are forgetting
Is how laundry was traditionally done when using even wringer washers, that is before fully automatic top loaders came along.
When washing was done by hand, and or using say a conventional washer there was a whole lot of prep work before the actual washing began. First stains were treated for removal. Then came a pre-wash or soak (white, badly soiled or stained, etc...), finally would come the main wash followed by one, two or even three rinses. As top loading automatics took over with their supposed promise of faster/load and go laundry days many of the old ways were discarded. Here is a video from a past Wash-In showing members putting a Maytag wringer washer through its paces. You can hear someone say "these towels are still dirty....". Proving even with that washer's famous "Gyrafoam" action that could not be sufficient to remove all soiling. Now I know what you are going to say; well just leave things in the wash longer. Well yes, suppose you *could* do that, but if you were a housewife in the 1940's or 1950's with several more loads to get done along with God knows how many other household chores, leaving one load to wash for hours on end likely wasn't on. From one looking a possibly nabbing a wringer washer to speed though large loads of linens, it would be for just that; doing wash that isn't badly stained/soiled and only needs average washing. Anything badly stained or dirty will continue going into the Miele or AEG. | ||
|
Post# 893405 , Reply# 89 8/10/2016 at 21:36 (2,808 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"It doesn't clean as well as a more modern machine&# | ||
|
Post# 893433 , Reply# 92 8/11/2016 at 06:26 (2,808 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
It will surprise absolutely no one that I've been carrying the banner for front-loaders since purchasing a Frigidaire in 1987. In a nod toward HE things to come, I realized very quickly that lowering the water level actually improved washing and rinsing action. I used the lowest water level setting at first, but eventually popped the top and adjusted the thingy.
Looking ahead a few years, I will probably sell the house and move into an apartment. Have already picked the place. There's a garage for each tenant and laundry hook-ups rather than a communal coin-op laundry room. Here's the cool part: Each tenant's laundry is actually in the hallway right next to their front door. These little alcoves look like a double closet with no doors on it. Why the 8-plex is arranged this way, I have no idea. Looks like the place was built in the mid-1960s. At any rate, you can see what kind of washer/dryer everyone has. No bothersome/embarrassing/illegal snooping around in their apartments, LOL.
Hi, Ben! This post was last edited 08/11/2016 at 08:40 | ||
| Post# 893482 , Reply# 93 8/11/2016 at 11:00 (2,808 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
my take...
Hola compadres.
I'm back from hiatus. Figured I'd throw my few cents in the coin tray. 1. Reviewed.com is pretty awesome with their testing, except in areas where they are not. They are NOT technical people in any regard to machinery, except when it comes to running experiments. And when they do run experiments, I think they're good at execution, but they have very shallow knowledge of the "why and how" of the results. Therefore they just spew data to readers with little explanation. 2. The politics here are amusing. There's a deep thread of "don't tread on me or my water guzzling appliances." LOL. But what many forget, except for those esteemed members in our arid Southwest, is that water is a limited, shared resource. It even impacts us here in the Midwest with our vast Great Lakes. In a sense where other areas/states are always trying to get their grubby hands on our lake water! Because they've already squandered their wells and such. On top of that, the more efficient appliances save myself and others a great deal of money. 3. However, some argue that the newer appliance do not last long anymore. And that's a valid complaint. The complaint that they use less water/energy, yet break down sooner and cannot be repaired, therefore wiping out their net savings, can be valid as well. But on a whole, I don' t think so. Not to mention, appliances are far far FAR cheaper today than they used to be 20-40 years ago. Yet the statistics I've seen say that they last just about as long as appliances of yesteryear. Averaging 7-10 years. Now, individual experiences may laugh in the face of that data. But...on the whole, I've started to believe, from repairmen testimony, and my own visual observations, that these "old and bulletproof appliances just don't seem to be around that much anymore. Except for KitchenAid dishwashers. LOL. THOSE legitimately just do not die. And yes, my parents still have their 1982 LA511 Maytag washer, but it's on borrowed time. The dryer bit the dust YEARS ago to be replaced by a 2004 Neptune dryer that's still going strong (with its evil electronics and everything). BUT, NOBODY else I know, from friends or family, have any appliances older than the mid 90s. They don't. They're gone. They all broke down, to be replaced by modern machines that are more efficient, and work very well and aging averagely as well; 7-10 or more years active. My Maytag Maxima set also cost me HALF the price as my parents paid for their Maytags back in the 80s, as a percentage of paychecks. And I expect to get 7-10 years out of them. Maybe with a repair or two, which I can do myself as an advantage. And if need be, I can buy another set. To which my machines would be mostly recycled, melted down and used to make other machines. 4. With that said, I get the huge draw to Speed Queen in this community. They're very traditional. They're tough. They're US made. But with all that nostalgia comes the realities of yesteryear. Such as HUGE amounts of water use. Detergent use, clothing wear and tear, as well as lackluster washability. I'm glad SQ still makes machines like these. But they're not for me. I think there's better machines out there for my needs. But that doesn't mean SQ is bad. Yet they by no means deserve the jingoistic pedestal they're put on by others either. IMO of course ;) 5. And finally the climate change debate, real quick, since office snack time is almost over. What I LOVE about climate change is that the science behind it. Any science really, will be right, whether you believe it or not. Those who fight, bully, deny and bark against the fact that the climate is changing at a more rapid rate, will eventually be surprised. Or their kids will be. It'll happen no matter what they say. And if I'm lucky, I'll get to see their coastal properties sink under water. The Trumpster is already starting to build a sea wall around one of his Irish golf courses because over the decades, the water level keeps creeping upon the land. LOL! The Exxon CEO's mansion on the Outer Banks will be under water in 20 years, OR LESS! It does not matter what they say. All of our flights will have more turbulence because of the ever increasing warmth of the planetary air. You can scream as much as you want how much it's a hoax, but the airlines will still log that ever-increasing level of turbulent flights. Your wells and lakes will continue to recede, starving your 30 gallon top loader from the water is so preys upon. Cheers! | ||
| Post# 893510 , Reply# 94 8/11/2016 at 12:44 (2,807 days old) by Stricklybojack (South Hams Devon UK) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893511 , Reply# 95 8/11/2016 at 12:45 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Climate change and science
Yes, real unbiased well understood science does not lie. But again, the scientific community can not agree as to whats behind climate change for a variety of reasons. Just Google the terms and you will find a plethora of contradicting reports, papers and data. I find it interesting how those preaching climate change as being man made support half the evidence while denying the other half as though it does not exist. Discarding information which is otherwise inconvenient. BTW, you want to know the biggest green house gas of all? Try water.
Its kind of like R-12 refrigerant. The government put the blame on HVAC techs and people using propellants when the US military emitted countless times more through aviation cleaners. At least in that case it was determined without contradiction CFCs were a danger to the atmosphere. But when it comes to climate change the science is not only far more complex, but there are special interests at work too... | ||
|
Post# 893512 , Reply# 96 8/11/2016 at 12:50 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"Speed Queen's cult following can't justify its
Thanks for the heads up :)
laundry.reviewed.com/content/spee... To that I say Oh please. Until they can say exactly how they did those tests I ain't buying it. Again, the detergent in the softener does it for me. Americans have been using top load washers for 50 years with great results, yet all of a sudden it seems a tried technology can't do what it once did. | ||
|
Post# 893515 , Reply# 97 8/11/2016 at 13:00 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"and they're easy to fix if they do break"
Sorry for the triple post, I can not edit, but to that I call BS!!!!!!! Speed Queen may last a long time, but they are among the hardest washers to fix hands down ever created. A pump, timer and belt are easy; but try a transmission, tub seal, bearing, or anything else for that matter and its far easier (and cheaper) to junk the whole machine. You need special tools and knowledge which will deter DIYs while repair men will call out sick awaiting hours of labor. 20 years from now when these machines start to fail every last one of them will end up in a land fill.
Once again we have an article (propaganda) taken to heart by many which can not keep its facts straight. | ||
|
Post# 893517 , Reply# 99 8/11/2016 at 13:14 (2,807 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
chetlaham-- reviewed.com explained the 'detergent in the softener dispenser' controversy in a reply to someone's comment. The (undoubtedly non-washerhead) video team, not the testers, decided they needed to do that shot to add some color to the edit. I'm sure they thought "who the hell will notice?" We at AW caught it immediately, of course.
I follow the tests done by Consumer Reports. While they've nearly eliminated the in-depth play-by-play surrounding tests (and a big thumbs-down for that), their testing protocol is actually better than it used to be.
reviewed.com is interesting to read, but I don't take their tests as seriously as I do CR's. CR is even more methodical and they don't accept advertising or corporate money. They buy units off the shelf just like we do and then test them.
Having said that, I'll read what little they still put in their articles and occasionally go "oh, really?" at a comment like "...tangling that's caused by high spin speeds". No, the tangling occurs during the 45-minute wash portion of the cycle, not during the spin. Despite gaffs like that, I rely on what they say when making a new purchase--along with some user reviews and the input of AW members. Haven't been let down. Others will argue differently, but that's been my experience with CR. | ||
| Post# 893518 , Reply# 100 8/11/2016 at 13:21 (2,807 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
FWIW At the end of the day the SQ does what I need it to do which is clean my laundry. Bonuses are: Easy to use, easy to maintain, fast, and bottom line, cleans my clothes without drama. That is all I need and all I want. | ||
|
Post# 893519 , Reply# 101 8/11/2016 at 13:22 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Explantion | ||
| Post# 893520 , Reply# 102 8/11/2016 at 13:25 (2,807 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
BTW Didn't "science" tell us in the 1970's that we were heading for an Ice Age of sorts? Mehtinks "science" today is whoever wants to pay enough money to a group to advance a certain agenda, usually more control and regulation over our daily lives | ||
| Post# 893521 , Reply# 103 8/11/2016 at 13:34 (2,807 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
@washman
What you see as a defect of science, saying one thing, then saying another. I see as a feature.
It is ever changing as better experiments are done and more data is collected. You see, science (though now sadly, a pejorative word) is merely a process of collecting data. Obviously the data in the 70s was new, green, incomplete, wrong, maybe had its scale tipped. But it's gotten much better over the decades. And even then, the esoteric numbers aren't even needed for the proof. You have stark, often scary, visual proof now of changing climates in areas where real harm is being done. Not everywhere yet, but it's starting. | ||
|
Post# 893522 , Reply# 104 8/11/2016 at 13:39 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"Climate change
Ok, first I have to state that I am convinced man made climate change does exist." Only be ignoring half the data... "But even if it's not man made, it sure is there. I mean, it was 5C this morning here in the middle of Germany. In August. I mean - that is the hottest month in the year for the most part. And even if i is not entirely man made, why can't we do something about it? If your dog chews on your carpets, you don't cause it, but it affects you, and as you can do something about it, you do something about it." Ok, its real. I believe it is as data from the past tells us. The world was 10*F hotter when dinosaurs walked the earth. But if its not man made why should we make changes as though man is responsible? Id rather we put our effort on hardening infrastructure. | ||
|
Post# 893525 , Reply# 105 8/11/2016 at 14:01 (2,807 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Reply #100: Then you're using the right machine for you, Ben. 😊
Honestly, when it comes time to sell the house, the final appliance purchase I make will probably be a front-loading SQ set. Once I'm retired and on a fixed income there will be money for repairs, but probably not for a spendy new washer and dryer. I'll learn to live without the internal water heater. And the steam. And the capacity. And my beloved tub light. 😢
Science: The beauty of science is that there are continual improvements and refinements as technology evolves. I also remember the "Ice Age" educational films of the late 1960s-early 1970s. Saw at least one when I was in 6th grade.
I also remember the "margarine is better for you than butter" articles and advertisements back then. Now we know that the trans fats that were in margarines until recently were actually worse.
Can you imagine being one of the scientists trying to convince the the rest of medicine, politics, and society that germs/bacteria caused illness? Talk about a tough sell, LOL! "So, you're telling me that germs cause illness---but we can't see them. And there are thousands of different kinds. Riiiiiight."
Science does the best work it can with the tools it has at any given time. Think of how much technology and scientific knowledge have advanced since the 1970s. That's why I choose to go with science. Unlike, say, religion, which doubles down on the knowledge of 2,000-3,000 years ago, science can stay abreast of the latest advances and refine its results.
While the entire scientific community doesn't completely agree on climate change, an ever-increasing amount of data points to the fact that it is happening and that it's being accelerated by human behavior. Even the ones who aren't convinced it's man-made concede that there is a 'point of no return'. Once we cross that, there is no fixing it.
Given that information, I'll go with the majority in this case.
And yes, pseudo-science is always pushed by political or corporate money. See my smoking and seat belt analogies above. Tobacco companies trotted out their handful of medical experts who said, "Well, I think the connection between smoking and heart/lung disease is debatable."
My seat belt came in very handy, by the way, the night before last when we hit a deer turning from a gig. (Note To Apple: No tow truck emoji?!) | ||
|
Post# 893537 , Reply# 108 8/11/2016 at 15:10 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893539 , Reply# 109 8/11/2016 at 15:22 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
"First of, my opinion doesn't even have to line up with any data. Opinions don't have to be fact based. That is basicly what most pro-HE people around this post try to point out.
That means as well though that your verry own opinion can be titled as factualy wrong." Its not my opinion NYC was not hardened for Hurricane Sandy. That still would have happened even if the world went to 100% renewable energy a day earlier. Also, I said and it keeps being ignored: the experts can't agree on climate change. "For example: You're opinion might be that SQ TLs are the best cleaning washers out there. I value your opinion. It's just factualy plain wrong. We think that HE FLs are the way to go. Its our opinion, you should value it. It is however factualy true. Same goes with everything else: Opinions can collide with data." In my case it is more of an opinion since clean is subjective and varies greatly on water, detergent, dirt, usage to name a few. However data backs up longevity for Speed Queen. "Now, if you want to build infrastructure to overcone mass floodings, heat waves, drinking water shortages and storms that might actualy blow your mind (sorry for that pun), I just want to point out that roads in Germany can be hell on earth to drive on. And that is without the things mentioned above." Which means we have a much greater problem at the heart of society than what type of washer people are using. "Anyway, I'd like to hear which half of the science I am ignoring. Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the 1900s in conjunction with more extreme weather and overall rising average temperatures, mass extinction of animals... What again points out that is not connected to us?" Just sift through Google and plenty of studies and sites say global warming is not man made, some saying its not even real. Yet you say it is. But regardless, the earth has been far hotter and far colder over millions of years. Through ice core drilling science has shown us that CO2 varied and cycles through out history. Even if humans were 100% sustainable, chances are the climate would be changing anyways. | ||
|
Post# 893540 , Reply# 110 8/11/2016 at 15:26 (2,807 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
Lets start with this
www.drroyspencer.com/global-warmi...
"This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution." www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016... www.napsnet.com/pdf_archive/34/50... | ||
|
Post# 893544 , Reply# 111 8/11/2016 at 16:03 (2,807 days old) by ea56 (Cotati, Calif.) |
||
|
This post has been removed by the member who posted it. | ||
| Post# 893547 , Reply# 112 8/11/2016 at 16:16 (2,807 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
oh dear....
View Full Size
| ||
| Post# 893549 , Reply# 113 8/11/2016 at 16:33 (2,807 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
I wonder what the next climate change will be? Global flooding? Too much clouds? not enough clouds? And who will take over for Algore in the 21st century as the patron saint of environmental concerns? | ||
|
Post# 893551 , Reply# 114 8/11/2016 at 16:39 (2,807 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN) |
||
|
Indeed 100% of scientists don't agree on climate change... But at what point is the evidence considered good enough to consider action? And note the dates on the surveys cited in that graph, that was years ago! I bet they agreement today is even higher percentages.
I was raised in a family that recycled in the 70's. The idea is that all of us are but one person that lives on this big rock, and that we should all use only what we need. I just don't get why people resist the idea of doing things in an environmental or efficient (dare I say green) manner. To a degree I think it was typified by Reagan when he took over from Jimmy Carter. Carter had environmental views and he added solar panels to the White House and did his television appearances wearing a sweater after he turned down the thermostat. Reagan came in and scrapped that and ripped down the solar panels. Apparently it is just un-American to not just use everything we wish consequences be damned. There are thousands of words written about FL vs TL machines, but really in the end we should be doing everything we can to just do the most with the least. Seeing as all of us only have a brief spin on this planet, the responsible thing is to consider those that will come after us. Not a single one of our resources is limitless... To anyone that denies global climate change, I can say this is one time when I dearly wish you are right and I am wrong. Pity that science proves this isn't the case.
View Full Size
| ||
|
Post# 893554 , Reply# 115 8/11/2016 at 17:12 (2,807 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA) |
||
|
Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise" has a chapter on climate change, discussed from the point of view of statistics and probability. | ||
|
Post# 893555 , Reply# 116 8/11/2016 at 17:14 (2,807 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
I'm going with the roughly 97 percent consensus on this one. Even Tol admits the consensus.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO Frigilux's LINK This post was last edited 08/11/2016 at 18:26 | ||
|
Post# 893563 , Reply# 117 8/11/2016 at 17:58 (2,807 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 893569 , Reply# 118 8/11/2016 at 18:53 (2,807 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 893579 , Reply# 119 8/11/2016 at 19:56 (2,807 days old) by Sbond22 (Grove City, Fl. USA) | ||
|
And who will take over for Algore in the 21st century ? | ||
|
Post# 893774 , Reply# 120 8/13/2016 at 15:11 (2,805 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
|
On the subject of cleanability | ||
| Post# 894109 , Reply# 122 8/16/2016 at 06:43 (2,803 days old) by Sbond22 (Grove City, Fl. USA) | ||
|
SQ TL Cleaning Ability | ||
| Post# 894134 , Reply# 124 8/16/2016 at 09:47 (2,803 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
All the Speed Queens I've used over the years in rentals have been decent on cleanability. They didn't clean any bettor or worse than my parents' Maytag back home.
But the SQs kinda suck at spinning. They seem slow. My clothes were always pretty damp, which led to long dryer cycles. And the SQ dryers always seemed to run very very hot, even on PP or Delicate cycles. :/ | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}