Thread Number: 6925
New washing methodes uneffective? |
[Down to Last] |
|
Post# 137309 , Reply# 1   6/22/2006 at 14:09 (6,489 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
GE Harmony and the KM/WP Oasis are nothing more that oversized impeller machines, with the GE probably just using more water. They clean very well, but at what price to the big load resting on an impeller that has to turn quickly with such force to create good washing action? Calypso and Neptune TL were truly innovative. Had some more R&D been done, they could have been good machines. |
Post# 137340 , Reply# 3   6/22/2006 at 18:27 (6,489 days old) by agiflow ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Let's face facts...the majority of washer manufacturers built TL agitator style machines....yet the very first auto was a FL machine. We are americans..convenience,...convenience,..ad nauseum..bla bla bla |
Post# 137420 , Reply# 4   6/22/2006 at 23:33 (6,489 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
It is not just ease of use that makes most Americans favour top loading washers, but the long cycle times of front loaders, versus methods of doing laundry that are by now generations old. American housewives have by and large adhered to doing masses of laundry once a week, for this one needs a washer that can process relative large loads of laundry quickly. While many more Americans than in previous years are going "green" others simply feel if they can afford to pay their water bills what business is it for the government to force them to use, what they consider lesser quality front loaders. Front loaders do cost more than top loaders, and given the rather sad quality state of many models it is highly unlikely they will last long enough to recoup any of the advertised savings on "water and power", to justify the higher initial out lay. The problem with the American laundry market, is the same one that plauges the appliance market in general; only a handful of major players cover a majority of the market. Once Frigidaire washers competed against Philco-Bendix, Philco-Bendix competed against Maytag, Maytag against Whirlpool, and so on. This competition brough about innovation, today the only innovation one sees is units trying to meet absurd government standards that have little to do with real life. The bright idea behind low water commodes, was to save water; but if one must flush several times to get the job done, where is the savings in that? Dishwashers today use so little water people run extra cycles to get the same results they had with "normal" on previous models. By and large most Americans have large wardrobes, so the idea of making clothes "last longer" may have a limited appeal. A washer that heats water? In theory it sounds great, and when designed correclty can work wonders, but not if the feature adds 20 to 30 mins to a cycle that already runs one hour or more. Besides most Americans will quickly counter that sales pitch with the fact they already have a hot water heater. And what's more their mother did laundry in a non-heating top loader and no one died of disease nor was pointed out on the street for wearing dirty clothes. L. |
Post# 137454 , Reply# 5   6/23/2006 at 06:52 (6,489 days old) by bajaespuma (Connecticut)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
1. What was once a luxury( and still is in most of the world that is not the USA) has degenerated into a commodity. Manufacturers need to stand on their heads and dress in clown suits to hawk commodities. The market will be unstable until someone successfully reinvents the wheel. 2. Americans are still in the process of rejecting synthetic fabrics in favor of more traditional textiles. Some see this as a "green" movement; others see it as a trend towards more comfort less appearance. Synthetics don't wear well in the long boosted hot water cycles typical of European-style FL's. I use cotton sheets, as my Grandmother did because they're comfortable. I, however, don't bother to iron them, as she did, because I don't care if anyone notices that my bed sheets are wrinkled. |
Post# 137472 , Reply# 6   6/23/2006 at 08:28 (6,489 days old) by mayken4now (Panama City, Florida)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I wonder if the American folk (in the "fast track") realize that in this day and stressful age it takes: Two major incomes to run a household. DSL, not dial-up. Get home from work at 6-7 PM. Get ready to go again at 5 AM. Try to pack down dinner as fast as we can. Get involved/caught in road rage. Deal with our government (the bushes) What's the market going to do today? "Got to get a new one, """It's Faster""", """More is best""" Then you add the kids, well well well. The plays, the ballgames, the after school projects, Scouts, playing with friends, and soon it is time for Christmas shopping to start. Oh my, what to buy. Then they all seem to have/be Bi-Polar, ADD, LDD, etc. "My child must ride in an air conditioned school bus." With the kids, comes pets. The vet, the kittens, the puppys, and all the need and care combined. A home cooked meal where the family sits down at 6 to have dinner. Oh please, don't exist gang! Ok, my .02 cents, the American folk do not have time for the front loader. We create this turmiol. We continue to thrive on faster, faster, faster, more, more, more, and are getting less, less, less. We hardly find time to sleep, let alone laundry. We (All Americans) should join this club. There is a lot to know about having multiple machine(s) in any household. Steve |
Post# 137527 , Reply# 10   6/23/2006 at 14:11 (6,488 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
The only reason that Americans stick with TL is because that is what they are used to! They went from the wash tub and scrub board to the agitator wringer. 99% of everyone had an agitator wringer. Women were very much used to soaking in the wringer and letting clothes agitate as long as needed in the wringer. So when FL automatics came out, while millions were sold, my guess is that most women wanted the better control they had over washing with their wringers. So when TL automatics started coming out, women went back to them because that better mimicked what they were used to. As life became more complicated and laundry became more of a "thoughtless, workless" process, users didn't want to worry about "enough suds to come half way up the window" or a suds overflow through the soap chute. Throw your clothes in the TL with soap, set the dial and walk away. They rarely didn't perform up to snuff, and users quickly knew to balance the load with the initial loading to prevent OOB, which was really the only thing that could go wrong. Here we are today, and people making the switch have tons of ignorance, tons of questions, tons of problems, and tons of dissatisfaction with the new FL's. Energy Star guidlines for 2007 are only going to make it worse. I believe for 2007, washers need to meet a "water factor" or 9 or less, with that factor calculated by the total number of gallons used divided by cubic feet of the wash tub. That plus the MFE of a cerain number will equal more people squawking about having to adjust their laundry habits. It's all at the link below. CLICK HERE TO GO TO peterh770's LINK |
Post# 137552 , Reply# 11   6/23/2006 at 16:11 (6,488 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I had no idea this was such a trauma for folks in the 'States. I grew up with a unimatic, so every TL which came after was already a disapointment. FLs - at least the good ones (Miele, AEG, LG, Bosch/Siemens, Electrolux) was cleaner with less energy, water and chemicals than TLs. They also spin dryer - meaning less time drying and in many cases no ironing. Certainly they are much better at taking care of natural and synthetic fibres because the wash action and water level can be much better varied - as can the temperature and spin. There are no advantages to TL. Having said this, I live in a country with 6l toilets which flush away everything without difficulty. The imposition of those silly toilets on US citizens ranks right up there with some of the "curved-banana" nonsense we get from the EU here in Europe. Of course the older toilets wasted water. They also got the job done with one flush. Including the paperwork. |
Post# 137578 , Reply# 14   6/23/2006 at 19:23 (6,488 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
There is no getting around that for good results, top loaders need WATER to clean and rinse well. Given the government requirements, appliance makers have tried to have it both ways: present Mrs. Average American Housewife with something they are familiar with, and also combine some of the features of a front loader. Americans by and large do not like bending over to load and unload washing machines. Manufacturers responded with several designs, ranging from tilted tubs to pedestals, with various methods of sucess. The other problem is capacity: there is no getting around the fact that front loader design becomes complicated after about 6kgs. Larger machines require more robust suspension systems and parts designed to withstand the forces of 12-18lbs of wet laundry, especially when spinning. There is a reason commercial front loaders are built the way they are, and so expensive. Domestic washing machines makers do not have the luxury of charging upwards of $2000 USD for a washing machine. Well not if they wish to sell many of them anyway. IMHO as the government keeps imposing silly restrictions/design requirements we are going to see those that know better seek out or keep running vintage washing machines. Just as there is a small but growing market for "older" commodes. L. |
Post# 137615 , Reply# 15   6/23/2006 at 22:42 (6,488 days old) by maytagbear (N.E. Ohio)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Most modern FLs I've seen have optional platforms. I have decided that the Maytag I have now is going to be the last new TL I ever own. Lawrence/Maytagbear |