Thread Number: 70686  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
2018 Regulations
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 936512   5/5/2017 at 11:24 (413 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
So I spoke with an appliance tech and he said that in 2018 new regulations kick in which basically mandated front load washers. He was unsure of the exact details, but I am curious what these regulations will be and how they will change things. Any know what they are about?

Post# 936514 , Reply# 1   5/5/2017 at 11:48 (413 days old) by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        

combo52's profile picture

From one tech to another, the one you talked to is FOS, FL washers are not going away. You should ask him to prove what he said.

Post# 936546 , Reply# 2   5/5/2017 at 13:42 (413 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
No offense to the knowledgeable techs here, but I've been told all sorts of nonsense by techs in the past.

The best were the delivery/install techs who delivered and set up my new oven back in Dec.
They were saying that they're not Home Depot employees, but GE employees, and that the majority of appliance deliveries are done by this GE logistics company.
Apparently GE delivers 3/4 of all the appliances in America, no matter the brand, and no matter the retailer.

They went on to say that the vast majority of GE and LG components are interchangeable and that they share engineering since GE owns a controlling stake in LG Appliances.

They went further to say that GE owns everything, including the little recycling triangle seen on all sorts of plastics, because they invented it in their old plastics division. AND, that GE gets a royalty for every time that little triangle is used.

Now....if any of you need me to conduct deep research into how that's all BS.....well............give me several weeks. LOL.

  View Full Size
Post# 936547 , Reply# 3   5/5/2017 at 13:44 (413 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Not that front loads are going away, bur rather top load washers which will basically force people to switch to front load. Ie, deep water wash will not be allowed.

Post# 936558 , Reply# 4   5/5/2017 at 14:28 (413 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

Well, I have expected that for a while now.

Post# 936739 , Reply# 5   5/6/2017 at 09:07 (412 days old) by washman (Butler, PA)        

washman's profile picture

Typical goobermint goobledegook nonsense.  As usual

Post# 936743 , Reply# 6   5/6/2017 at 09:43 (412 days old) by golittlesport (California)        

Fake news!!!

Post# 936760 , Reply# 7   5/6/2017 at 11:44 (412 days old) by jerrod6 (United States of America)        

Our current government administration wants to gut the EPA by slashing their budget, in fact​ all the information regarding clean water and air, and climate change has been removed from the EPA web site, so perhaps there will be no new regulations in 2018.

Post# 936822 , Reply# 8   5/6/2017 at 17:02 (412 days old) by 48bencix (Sacramento CA)        
No consultation with the Mfrs

I read somewhere that during previous regulation discussion periods, the Appliance Manufacturers were consulted. For the 2018 regulations, the regulators decided what the regulations would be and with no consultation or discussion with the Appliance Manufacturers. Appliance regs come from the Department of Energy.

And I think they may become a little less stringent.

Post# 936844 , Reply# 9   5/6/2017 at 19:25 (412 days old) by wishwash (Illinois)        

Maybe if restrictions ease up, more people will decide to take the efficient route if they feel it is their choice.

Post# 936855 , Reply# 10   5/6/2017 at 21:16 (412 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)        

gansky1's profile picture
Per the published regulations, the energy and water use-factor numbers are going down as of Jan 2018.

It's a bit confusing, the Energy Star site lists different (current) standards for clothes washers.

Given that the Energy Star program is on the president's "cut list" from the EPA budget, perhaps they've already given up and gone for a drink?

  View Full Size
Post# 936879 , Reply# 11   5/6/2017 at 22:40 (412 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
By the time that Pruitt man is finished with the EPA there won't be much regulation left regarding "saving energy".

In four years after the Trump person is gone and a saner more educated person replaces current head of EPA, everything will be put back into place, and how.

Post# 936899 , Reply# 12   5/7/2017 at 00:35 (412 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I am FOR getting rid of these ridiculous regulations-its going too far.The Energy Star program is slated to be cut---GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!Lets preserve FREEDOM OF CHOICE in appliances,light bulbs,toilets,and so on.

Post# 936922 , Reply# 13   5/7/2017 at 06:12 (411 days old) by Wishwash (Illinois)        

While I do agree with you about freedom of choice, it's quite silly to shred the EPA. Saving energy has good reasons...

Post# 936923 , Reply# 14   5/7/2017 at 06:15 (411 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I think the EPA has outlived its usefulness-time for it to go!It has KILLED more jobs in this country do to excessive regulations.

Post# 936925 , Reply# 15   5/7/2017 at 06:16 (411 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

The saving of energy should be YOUR choice NOT the gov'ts.

Post# 936951 , Reply# 16   5/7/2017 at 09:33 (411 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
It is yuor choice.

You can either select the energy saving cycles, or the deep water wash cycles.
Or restore or by a reconditioned older machine.
Some Govt. regulations are beneficial to us.
Complete all out environmental, economic, and agricultural irresponsibility had caused not only pollution, but death, illness, and financial crashes.
PBB, DDT, Hexavalent chromium, Lead, mercury, etc. cause cancers and genetic defects. Love Canal, tainted cattle feed, poisonous electrical transformer oil, Flourocarbon ozone depletion etc.
The credit union scandal of the 80's left many farmers bankrupted. The years 2002 through 2009 were also a cataclysm.

Post# 936952 , Reply# 17   5/7/2017 at 09:42 (411 days old) by washman (Butler, PA)        

washman's profile picture

I like phosphates.

Post# 936961 , Reply# 18   5/7/2017 at 12:27 (411 days old) by jerrod6 (United States of America)        

The last time I read the minutes( at least a few years ago)  from the Energy Star meetings I think I remember that many manufacture representatives said that the requirements were already so low that they were having trouble making washers that would actually work.  They said that they had reached their limit and that tighter requirements would result in machines with poor performance.   So I guess the Energy Star folks didn't want to hear any flak this time and didn't invite appliance representatives.


Even so, it doesn't mean the appliance manufactures were not right in their assessment.  I think the only reason these new requirements are in existence is because the folks at energy star want to have a job.   


I agree that we need standards but at some point enough is enough.  Let the standards of perhaps 2010 or in my case 2003(the year I bought my machine) be good enough.  Even European energy standards are not as strict as what we currently have in the USA..and what we are left with now are washers that don't even use enough water to adequately rinse clothes.


While we use to be able to choose a cycle that used more water or heat some manufacturers don't even include these cycles on the machine anymore, for example a true sanitize cycle with water actually hot to do the job, an allergen cycle for people with special problems.  Instead you find a sanitize cycle using 112F water----it's a joke.

Post# 937007 , Reply# 19   5/7/2017 at 19:14 (411 days old) by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        

speedqueen's profile picture
The ban of DDT was the most egregious of all bans on chemicals. DDT was and is perfectly safe. Even if you can make a case that DDT may increase the chances of cancer, the chemicals that replaced it are far worse.

The only reason that DDT was banned was because some far-left busybody wrote a book in which the claim was that DDT caused the reduction and near extinction of Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons. The claim was that the chemical reduced the hardness and thickness of the birds eggshell and thus they broke. This is factually inaccurate and no study has been able to reproduce this finding.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring flew off the shelves and many protested to the government for a ban on the "dangerous chemical." The government not wanting to look like it was supporting big industry at expense of the national bird banned DDT. It was only after that actual research was done. To those who say that since DDT was banned that the population of the birds in question has come back, another ban was put in place at the same time, the ban on hunting large birds of prey. Also, DDT was developed in the 1940s but Eagle and Falcon populations had been falling since the 1910s. They say that "a lie gets around the world twice before the truth gets its shoes on."

People tend to forget that before the community and state wide DDT spraying in the southern US during the 1950s malaria was not just a 3rd world problem, there were yearly epidemics here too. Not only does DDT kill mosquitoes, it also has a repelling ability.

To summarize, a sensational story triumphed over sensibility and research.

Post# 937021 , Reply# 20   5/7/2017 at 20:46 (411 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Lead is a critical nutrient that humans need for brain development.
These people in Flint and elsewhere are idiots who just don't understand they're trying to run up nonsensical municipal costs, when their lead pipes are really a health benefit.
And don't get me started on the banning of leaded gasoline!
It was perfectly safe!
How did we become the global superpower we are today with all that lead in the air?
It's all a ruse.

Post# 937024 , Reply# 21   5/7/2017 at 21:08 (411 days old) by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
Don't get me wrong,

speedqueen's profile picture
I am not opposed to banning dangerous chemicals, it's just that DDT wasn't a dangerous chemical.

Post# 937028 , Reply# 22   5/7/2017 at 21:33 (411 days old) by 48bencix (Sacramento CA)        

I appreciate how efficient many appliances are these days. New Air Conditioning systems are very efficient. LED bulbs are efficient, long lasting and produce very pleasing light. In California our building energy standards utilize lots of insulation and multi pane windows and the new building built are much more energy efficient than the old ones. Many of us have installed additional insulation and dual pane windows to use less energy.

But I do think the appliance standards for washers and possibly dishwashers are going too far for the Appliance Mfrs. to make washers that can wash laundry clean and last without breakdown. A modern TL or FL washer has a computer controlled system that must sense and adjust agitation or tumbling and spin to use so little water. The poor motors are constantly changing speed and unless they are really well built, will not last, same for the computer control board.

So I want to be efficient, but only to a certain point.

Post# 937059 , Reply# 23   5/8/2017 at 02:54 (411 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

Yes,that is what I do for a washer or even a dishwasher--buy an older one from the swap shop.LEDs have some advantages and not so-Life on them is still largely inconsistent-some may last for years-others not so.ALL electric lighting will fade or fail from age-yes including LED-on LED-the DRIVER circuit is more likely to fail than the LED-and to get good light levels from LED-they have to be driven hard or even overdriven-increasing chance of failure.The ban on mercury and probe start MH bulbs is STUPID-these light sources are proven,efficient-more so than incandescent and even some fluorescent.They are reliable,inexpensive,and can give MORE lumens per watt than LED.I signed a petition to reverse the ban on mercury lighting and probe start Metal Halide.Some mercury lamps have burned for 10 yrs in streetlights with only slight dimming or degradation.As we all know energy and water prices vary according to area.In my locale water is the lowest priced utility.So a water saving washer or potty is not going to payback for me.
As pointed out ealier there is an overreaction to lead water supply pipes-when these are used over time-a coating of minerals and calcium covers the insides of the pipe-so the lead is no longer a hazard.If the water has a slight acid content than it could be a hazard.I feel more of the bans are being done by people that are not qualified to make them.They do not have the techcial knowledge to make the decisions.

Post# 937070 , Reply# 24   5/8/2017 at 06:54 (410 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Um Ok then,

if bottled water were sold with lead, or DDT added, you would drink it?
The Romans used lead for their plumbing. They were all whacko. Lead causes memory and brain disorders, among other things. Lead paint chips anyone? Enjoy.
Richard Jolly, before you were born, it was proven DDT caused many diseases, in fact the canals down near 9 mile road off of Jefferson in St. Clair Shores had to be dredged and remediated of it.
Diazinon is another dangerous pesticide.
I was more gullible also at your age. Swam at Metro beach lately? No, be cause it's been closed for years, with good reason.

Post# 937081 , Reply# 25   5/8/2017 at 08:19 (410 days old) by Iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas)        
Vacerator: One correction please

iheartmaytag's profile picture

There was no "Credit Union Scandal"  It was the "Credit Thrifts"  The Savings and Loans. 


I worked for Credit Unions during the 80s and 90s, I do not recall a Credit Union Scandal.  NCUA & CUNA are still as strong as they have  always been.

Post# 937082 , Reply# 26   5/8/2017 at 09:02 (410 days old) by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
I respect your opinion but disagree,

speedqueen's profile picture
Again, I am not defending lead.

*A rather famous professor for 40 years as part of his lectures drank a small amount of DDT and lived until the age of 84 and only died whilst climbing a mountain.

*The Nine Mile canals had to be dredged because of PCBs or PolyChlorinatedBiphenals which are a proven carcinogen and tend to stay in the environment. DDT in studies has been inconclusive or only slightly higher a risk. Just about every chemical currently in use for even household uses such as most cleaning products show about the same results as being mostly inconclusive or possibly carcinogenic.

*Metro Beach is still open with no threat from chemicals, I swam there last year. The real concern for some beach closures is all the Canada Goose droppings and seaweed causing high bacteria levels due to the general water current patterns causing it all to stay in the bay and accumulate. If you haven't heard of the park recently, it is due to the fact that Huron-Clinton Metroparks changed the name to "Lake St. Clair Metropark" a few years ago.

Post# 937100 , Reply# 27   5/8/2017 at 11:46 (410 days old) by ryanm (New York)        

I do hope these regulations do NOT go into affect as others have said here the water regulations have gone too far already. I agree to save resources, but there is a limit. We went from having machines that lasted 12 to 15 years or longer to machines that are going to the dump after a few years because the electronics or design causes them to fail and the cost to fix them far greater than the price of the machine, so now our dumps will fill up more with trash. Machines now can take an hour, two hours or more to complete a cycle thus using more 'energy' in electric as well, so we are saving on water but using more energy in other ways like having machines 'heat' water because the water temperature coming into the machine is less than 'hot'. We now have some 'good' machines that use less water, but if new regulations restrict water even more I can't see how any machine could operate properly and clean. I truly hope it just stays the way it is without any further changes, time will tell. When I watch the videos of older washing machines and how they washed and circulated clothes, there is just no comparison to the way newer machines work today, and this goes for front loaders as well where we used to be able to at least see water, now they look like they are being 'dry cleaned' and those in my family and friends who have them complain their kids clothes just don't come clean no matter what they do. We do need water to clean the clothes no matter what..... period.

Post# 937106 , Reply# 28   5/8/2017 at 12:07 (410 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
So.....once again, as with anything.....there's a NUANCED approach.

From that article it looks like DDT is generally safe for humans.
But there's evidence of it doing considerable damage over time to ecosystems when used in overabundance in agriculture.
So because humans suck at nuance, and seem to lean towards black and white solutions, it's probably too much to ask using DDT as a positive home pesticide to battle malaria-laced mosquitoes, bed bugs etc. Without it being used and abused, en mass, for agribusiness.

And just because that professor was seemingly 'fine' eating DDT for 40 years. Does not mean it would NOT be damaging to others.
We just celebrated my grandfather's 90th birthday.
He has chain-smoked pipes since he was 16, and he's in practically perfect health.
Does that mean that we should roll back smoking recommendations?
Hey everyone! Smoking is safe! This guy is 90!
"Lucky Strikes are your doctor's preferred cigarettes."

I may be young, but I still remember life in the early 90s on the south side of Chicago when the air would just STINK in the summer.
We used to also have ozone action days when it got really hot and smoggy.
You can also boat/kayak in the Chicago river without coming down with some debilitating disease now.
We don't have that anymore!
Nor do we have the roaring, belching industry we used to have.
But it's not like it's ALL gone.
Many of the industries still in the area are still building things. Ford's Chicago plant is thriving. There's other smaller shops and manufacturers that have opened up over the years, as well as an ultra-green, massive, soap factory for the Method brand.
Industry is still producing, but with cleaner methods and technologies.
Except Koch Industries on the south side. They still do the bare minimum, or nothing at all. And people complain all the time about the dust and pollution from their coal dust piles and such.

In general, increasing efficiency is a net benefit to everyone.
That's the key, everyone.
Are there areas of dispute? Sure, but I'd hope we're smart enough to work through it.
Those who draw a line and refuse to move forward will be left behind.

Post# 937107 , Reply# 29   5/8/2017 at 12:10 (410 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Wow, and how many more times does it have to be said, that just because a machine is running for 2-3 hours, does NOT mean it's using more energy?
Such a simple, elementary misnomer.
These machines are using more efficient, smaller motors, some with rare earth magnets that deliver much more power and torque for their size and consumption. don't like the time-table.
But many of these are using the same or less electricity than a 60 watt bulb. And doing far more work than putting out just a little light for your living room.

Post# 937112 , Reply# 30   5/8/2017 at 12:57 (410 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        
I'll just put this right here:

johnb300m's profile picture

Google currently has the right to pump up to half a million gallons a day at no charge. Now the company is asking to triple that, to 1.5 million. That's close to half of the groundwater that Mount Pleasant Waterworks pumps daily from the same underground aquifer to help supply drinking water to more than 80,000 residents of the area.

"It's raised the issue that these resources are not limitless," he said, "that we do need to manage them."

Post# 937117 , Reply# 31   5/8/2017 at 13:28 (410 days old) by jerrod6 (United States of America)        

You are young? I thought you sounded like you were in your 30s or 40s. Nothing wrong with that.

Post# 937136 , Reply# 32   5/8/2017 at 15:21 (410 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
I am in my lower 30s.
That's 'young' on here. LOL! :P

Post# 937183 , Reply# 33   5/8/2017 at 18:24 (410 days old) by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        
If 30s is "young"

Then I'm a baby!

John we still have ozone action days in the summer. The smog still gets pretty damn bad when the humidity kicks up real high and the wind isn't blowing. Idk how I'd survive on those days without A/C, entering an air conditioned space is like putting an oxygen mask on for survival then.

Post# 937193 , Reply# 34   5/8/2017 at 19:18 (410 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
So break this down for the less bright like my self ;) This means that 2018 top loads can only use 16 gallons of water max?

Post# 937225 , Reply# 35   5/8/2017 at 23:32 (410 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        

As far as I understand, a washer can only use the amount of water in the tabel posted earlier.

The way I understand the maths to apply backwards is that number in the list times its cubicfootage per one cycle.

Energy is weirder. That includes the energy used to heat the water electricly. And the number in the tabel is cubicfootage divided by kWh used per cycle. Means a TL greater then 1.6ft³ would be allowed to use 0.64kWh per ft³ of volume.

But what makes this system of yours werired anyways is it base on ft³ and not load size. Load size is determined according to ft³, and from the numbers I remeber reading once, they don't scal well at all.

You see, in the EU, manufacturers decide the load size, and thus can choose it in a way that suits their wash system the best. Some use a lower drum volume for the same amount of laundry somebody else might use, for example. Thus they just have to meet the ratings and can manipulate the fillrate for the machine themselfes, for example 1kg of laundry per 10l of drum volume.
The US regulations force you to design you washer for 1, maybe 2 verry specific conditions that you can't influence. Both your energy regulations and consumer test magazines use pretty simmilar testing methods, so manufacturers just focus on that one situation during design of the normal cycle.

It's just like the UI labeling system the US has for washers (Words instead of numbers).
It says you something, but really not the best thing used to suit the situation.
The labeling should be reformed, and place less restrictions on the manufacturer in ways that are not really ment to be regulated.

(To explain that last sentence: Manufacturers need to be restricted in terms of usage and results in conjunction: They need to produce clean, well rinsed and spun loads while using an for the current technology acceptable amount of resources.
How full they load their drum, or how the cycle that achieves that rating is called should not be concern of the labeling agency, not even how the cycle achieves that usage.)

I think that the EU system is way fairer then the US one, though not perfect:
- We require a certain cleaningresults.
- We require a certain efficency.
- We do not require the most efficent, though the more efficent appliances are labeled as such.
- We do require certain non cycle related design aspects (the label cycle has to be marked as being the most efficent, it has to be in a position that suggests the user to use it - for example on digital push button machines it has to be the default after turning on with default settings - and most appliances require a self-shutoff at the end of a cycle - which is a smart thing as most people don't remove their laundry right away and that reduces the unused standbye time without bothering the user.)
- We allow the actual most used (and most practicable) cycle to be less efficent and still allow it to be 'in the users eye'.

The only big drawback is that we sometimes don't consider other factors about the results (for washers rinsing; for DW we require a minimum drying efficency, but that is kind of not really a challange to pass nor is the result required considered 'good' by consumers; on condenser dryers, we require a labeling on how much water is reclaimed from a load in percent, but not how much moisture stays in the load, and the load used to determine the usage is way to damp for todays standard).

So if I was from the US, I would not ask for a set-back of regulations, but a change in how the regulations are set up.
Look at the EU:
You over there complain that machines often only can wash loads clean that are far smaller then what the tub could hold. Why? Your machines are tested for a fixed load sizes that is far smaller then what the drum could hold.
In the EU, machines are tested for full and half load usage, and how big a load is is determined by the person who build the washer and thus knows how the machine is best used.

But I doubt any of this will be taken into acount by anyone...

Post# 937276 , Reply# 36   5/9/2017 at 03:12 (410 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Taken into account by me :) And yes, I think we should use the EU system. But to be fair, I think part of the issue is that most US consumers do not care about how many kg should be loaded per cycle. Most users simply stuff their machines full and walk away. In fact machines that can hold more clothes sell better.

Post# 937306 , Reply# 37   5/9/2017 at 08:49 (409 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
"small amounts" Richard;

of DDT, lead, mercury, etc. in small doses are not harmfull.
Of course, it's the long term effect. Same with Dioxin.
Yes I heard about the goose droppings, and now we have raw sewage going into the Canal road spillway, and the lake from the Fraser sink hole.
I think the original contractors should have to pay for that repair, not us.
They are being sued. Our water bills are high enough.

Maybe I am old on here. I've seen and smelled some things from the Clinton river one should not have to smell. A 6 mil property tax to smell that.
People are saying it was Kwamee Kilpatricks fault. Maybe the 2004 sink hole was on 15 mile between Utica road and Hayes (Villa Fontana), but not this one. He went to prison in 2009. This one was inspected and worked on two years ago and was qualified as safe.
That street isn't ten years old yet. The sewers had to be inspected before the street was poured. It's on the Detroit water and sewer commission, and or Wayne county, not Macomb. It's also whom ever was hired by the developers.
Look on the Google street view map in front of that house that sank on the corner. You can clearly see the sidewalk already sinking in the photo and the back hoe track marks in the grass. That means Google was there following the work and inspection two years ago.

Post# 937488 , Reply# 38   5/10/2017 at 08:36 (408 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        

is it safe?

Post# 937541 , Reply# 39   5/10/2017 at 17:18 (408 days old) by ryanm (New York)        

Everyone has good points here but what I don't understand is most of the US manufacturers have now come out with top load models that have improved with the 'deep fill' option, and they have even gone back to putting agitators in most of the brands as an alternative to just a wash plate, so why would they spend time and effort on research and development of these features if the 'new regulations' are going to force them to do 'away' with these options? It just does not make sense to me unless those insiders in the industry know more about the subject of what regulations are really going to be 'mandatory' and which may not really be used? If the regulations were 'mandatory' then Speed Queen would not have been able to continue with their machines all these years, so I have to wonder if the machine will fulfill the regulations as long as the machine does 'offer' the low water option while it can still have the option to 'override' that low fill? Just food for thought, and I really like the idea of having the choice to let the machine do regulation when I don't need lots of water, but if I happen to have a really heavy dirty load, I can choose the deep fill. I have noticed many appliance dealers now carrying a large selection of top loaders as well, which means many people here in USA still prefer them, it is a personal preference that we are offered both top and front load to satisfy everyone's likes and dislikes. Most people don't even know about what is happening with water restrictions on washers until they have to buy a new one and realize it is so different. What a shock people will be in for if regulations go even further here to use that ridiculously low water measures that were in the document shared here! I know I will need a machine soon and now feel pressured to get one before year end because of the 'unknown' effects of this new regulation.....

Post# 937548 , Reply# 40   5/10/2017 at 18:02 (408 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Excellent point, Ryan.
It's a great question.
My office is already evaluating and working on new fire safety requirements for 2018.
They're not kept secret from us in industry.

Post# 937559 , Reply# 41   5/10/2017 at 18:55 (408 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


You are *almost* there -- just a few more steps and you'll get it.

*Please* do not confuse local regulations (for example, some places in California prohibit the installation of electric dryers in *new* construction, but grandfather old stuff, or the entire state of California decides to *prohibit* traditional top loading washers in laundromats) with Federal Regulations.

Federal Regulations (particularly Energy Star) for washers and dryers are *voluntary*. If the manufacturers want the Energy Star stamp on particular models, they need to comply with the regulations and they get money back from the government for doing so. It is *voluntary*. No one is saying they can't make whatever they want, only that if they do it a certain way, they get rewarded for it.

If they make anything like a traditional Speed Queen toploader, they get no money.

If they make a toploader that cheats and dumbs down the temps, they get a bit of money. If they lower the water levels, they get a little more money. If they come out with a High Efficiency washer, they get the most money.

And, if that was not enough for you to take in, please look up Regulatory Capture, link below.

Because *everything* that ended up in the Energy Star program was written with the consent of and by the manufacturers themselves. They set the timeline, they set the goals, they set the way it's gonna work. They do that by getting together, agreeing on the "program" and then all of them together lobby the lawmakers at several levels to propose and pass *exactly* what they want passed.

Then, to complete the package with a nice bow, they pay people who go on tour interviewing and/or posting online about how the government is ruining everything and how we have no choice and no one listens to the population.

You know why they do that? Because they are not prepared to release good products that work well under the circumstances we need them to. Bad toilet makers just lowered the water level on the tanks to provide 1.6 gal/flush without re-engineering their toilets, for example -- result? Bad flushes, things that clog. Meanwhile, toilets coming from Toto, Japan, flush just fine with only 1.2 gal/flush without clogging.

Same thing with dishwashers and washers etc here. Some can't work with no-phosphate detergents, despite the lots of water, while some Euro dishwashers work just fine thank you with less water and the new no-phosphate detergents. Not to say anything of new HE frontloaders in Europe that work with less water and energy, washing and rinsing much better than most machines here, traditional or not.

Because here, when we test, the Energy Star only tests partway: for example, which machine needs less energy, while not testing if they clean.

For the longest time, the Energy Star program tested dishwashers with sensors with *clean* dishes, so they all flew thru the test, got the stamp, but reverted to water and energy guzzlers the second the dishes had any dirt in them. That took a few years to fix. (BTW, doesn't that remind you of a certain "scandal" with a certain car which zipped thru the EPA test but then used much more fuel, sorry, "felt peppier", under actual road conditions?)

In my opinion, if we're gonna test, we should *test*: put dirty loads in the washers and dishwaters, make sure they come out clean and well rinsed. See how dry things come out. See if the machines wear out clothing or break dishes in their effort to clean. Etc.

Also, in my opinion, and I have done this, when I call the DOE/EPA, manufacturers etc, I don't say stuff like "it needs more water", or "it should not be saving water/energy" etc. Because you should realize that there are places that are running out of water and/or energy, even if my neighborhood and your neighborhood are just fine.

What is *effective* is to complain that the machines are not cleaning adequately -- because in Europe, where the resources are more scarce and more expensive, the very same manufacturers that have subsidiaries here and there can make very good very effective machines there.

We need, as a country/community, to stop rewarding manufacturers for stabbing us in the back and making bad appliances! Please stop crying about high efficiency and start asking for high efficacy -- they are not mutually exclusive. Do you really *want* to waste 5 gallons/flush if a toilet works at least as well with 1.2 gallons/flush? Start asking for *productive* stuff: I want the washer to reach 140F so it can get rid of dust mites. I want the washer to clean *and* rinse. Etc. Manufacturers pay attention to that.

   -- Paulo.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO earthling177's LINK

Post# 937584 , Reply# 42   5/10/2017 at 20:48 (408 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Like x1000

Post# 937618 , Reply# 43   5/10/2017 at 21:44 (408 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Thanks, John!!!

Post# 937705 , Reply# 44   5/11/2017 at 08:18 (407 days old) by mayken4now (Panama City, Florida)        
Buy A Seed Queen

mayken4now's profile picture

machine today!  


albeit, they can not stop ME from hooking my washer hoses to a certain inlet valve and manually fill and or control the temp of the water used in my machine.  Now conquer that one.  Anyone?

Post# 937938 , Reply# 45   5/12/2017 at 08:06 (406 days old) by ryanm (New York)        

Here is an interesting note from one of the distributors which shows Speed Queen will most likely be going down the same path as other manufacturers have in the change of their machines.


All washing machine manufacturers must comply with all safety and energy standards issued by the Department of Energy. The current residential top loading clothes washer standards were last amended on March 7, 2015 and the next set of regulations will impact machine designs beginning January 1, 2018. In order to comply, both the integrated modified energy factor and integrated water factor become more stringent.

New Speed Queen designs will still deliver long life, high commercial quality parts, reliability and clean clothes. Speed Queen will not compromise on that now or in 2018.

Speed Queen occasionally receives questions from consumers online or through social media who were told that Speed Queen Top Load Washers or other brands will go away in 2018 or sooner. Nothing could be further from the truth and Speed Queen will not be going anywhere.

The 2018 top load design modifications have been in development for several years. As we get closer to production launch, they will formally unveil their new design. We are confident customers will agree that the new added machine features will have the same great appeal as current models.

Thank you for your commitment and support of Speed Queen Home Laundry. We look forward to continuing to supply you with world class washers and dryers that are built better to last longer.

Post# 938065 , Reply# 46   5/12/2017 at 17:44 (406 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Sorry, but that is not even worth the paper it was written on.

Again, it's all part of the talking points manufacturers give their reps to agitate some people into a frenzy -- it gets them to buy stuff now for fear it will change in the future.

Will it change in the future? Who knows. It might. Most manufacturers want the rebate and tax breaks from the government, after all. 40 years ago, management of big companies had a fiduciary obligation to keep the stocks from a company *valuable* over decades. Lately, most investors seem to think management has a fiduciary obligation to maximize *dividends* for the investor, not quality, not stability etc.

Please keep in mind that investors are the worst possible people to pay attention to: they have no loyalty to a company, and they provide no services that you can't get from anywhere else. All they provide is investment money, which you can get from any bank or any other investor. They don't like what your dividends were for last quarter, not only they're gone, but they *lower* your stock price in selling it.

Actual clients, who buy your product and like it are much more desirable. Just look around here how the satisfied SpeedQueen clients manage to get other clients to buy too. For next to nothing.

SpeedQueen can choose to cave into the desires of their investors if they want to, and grab the money from Energy Star. They'll lose clients just like any other company.

And yet, the truth is that SpeedQueen has NO obligation to produce an Energy Star machine, none whatsoever. Personally speaking, if I were in their top management, I'd produce the best HE frontloader we could, with a heater and everything, and grab Energy Star money for those, and I'd also put out a traditional toploader with no energy or water saving features whatsoever.

So all the toploader fans could get one, and I'd keep gaining market share by selling HE frontloaders.

Make no mistake, toploaders are not for long -- not because federal government and/or DOE/EnergyStar whatever. Toploaders days are marked because people don't want them anymore.

You folks may be set in your ways, afraid of change or whatever reason.

But new clients are not like you. They have a busy life, they have kids, they hate doing laundry, they are *done* with top loading washers.

Every person with kids that came to my home to try laundry equipment ends up buying a front loading washer, period end of sentence.

Here's what most people have done since 1900's: pre-tread *all* stains (hard, unpleasant work, takes over 30 minutes per load for super- or extra-capacity load, particularly when kids clothes are stained for every item); sometimes you need to soak and/or make the washer manually pre-wash. Then you finally start the wash cycle. Sometimes you need to do an extra rinse even for machines that include an automatic extra rinse. In short, you may have a short 30-45 minute cycle, but you'd *better* be nearby paying attention to the machine and manually intervening for best results.

We may find all of that fun, but we are not typical.

Here's what the *typical* customer does, when they finally get what they want.

They want to load the machine without pretreating anything. They want a machine that will do a profile wash automatically if necessary for very stained items. They want a machine that if necessary, they can load all the detergent, additives etc (including an automatic pre-wash, if necessary), they *go away* for an hour or two, come back and put all the clean clothes in the dryer. Done. People who came to my home, put their kids clothes in the frontloader, ignored it while we had dinner and just found everything to be clean ready for the dryer never want to go back to the old ways.

In summary, they want their clothes washer to behave like a modern dishwasher: load it, put all the detergent for the pre-wash if necessary, wash, turn it on, come back later. No one wants to be around babysitting the appliances anymore.

Dial pushers are complaining about the electronics because it makes it hard to skip and/or repeat part(s) of a cycle.

Typical customers are welcoming the electronics/computer controlled machines because they don't *have* to be dial pushers.

Are computer controlled machines ideal? Nope. Their interface sometimes suck, there are plenty of manufacturers that can't seem to offer a quality product, or adequate cycles etc. Most of the interfaces are not accessible to handicapped users and that needs to change for the better and it will.

But rest assured that all the brute force we had engineered into appliances from 1950's to compensate for lack of computer control and the lack of patience of a user are going away.

We are running out of water in places like Arizona and New Mexico, we are running out of energy in places like New York state and Massachusetts, and we're running out of water *and* energy in many other places.

As soon as clients see an old-style toploader next to a new HE frontloader and compare the energy stickers just to find out that the new HE machines consume less than 1/3 the energy and water *and* they don't have to do the time-consuming and labor-intensive work of pretreating stains anymore with HE machines, they are sold.

Some later regret the longer wash cycles. Some understand the longer cycles are still *shorter* than manually pre-treating every freaking stain, and calm down. Some just give up a Monday laundry day with 10 cycles, and they do a cycle every two or three days when *that* kind of load (say, whites) is full and choose to do the darks, or towels, or linens a few days later, when they get a full load.

But the truth is that people adapt very quickly to doing less work and getting better results.

Because honestly, if we *were* to take you toploader fans seriously when you bitch about cycle time etc, well, *nothing*, not even a good wringer washer, has beaten a good twin-tub for effective cleaning and speed. You can let them wash as long as you want until the stains are gone, which is usually less than 20 minutes, you can change washing solutions at will, you can rinse to your heart's content. And every load usually takes less than 30 minutes each.

But I don't see many people going back to twin-tubs. Even people who *have* one. We usually only fire them up on occasion when we have time to fiddle, or to show to people who's never seen one. But try to do the whole week's wash on one, and most people will end up with back aches next day. No, thank you.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 938066 , Reply# 47   5/12/2017 at 17:46 (406 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Oh, and just so we don't forget, I believe it was even cited on this thread: who wants to bet the Department of Energy will even *be* there in 2018, given how many departments and regulations are being sent to the trash?

And the EnergyStar "regulations" are *voluntary* to begin with?

Post# 938231 , Reply# 48   5/13/2017 at 06:53 (405 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
"And the EnergyStar "regulations" are *voluntary

launderess's profile picture
Well yes, but federal government gives appliance manufactures a promised sum for being in the program. What is more by now many, many, many consumers look for those yellow labels/information when buying a new appliance.

Sure we here may want washing machines or dishwashers that use more water or whatever, but what does the average American consumer say? Would such appliances of old sell in enough numbers to justify production?

Post# 938245 , Reply# 49   5/13/2017 at 08:29 (405 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I agree with the above, but also disagree as a lot is based on assumption.

First, yes, top loaders will be going away- but only because manufactures are compelling users to switch to front load via aversive conditioning. Lousy cleaning, cycle times equal to front loaders, tearing up clothes by agitating during the fill, rough impellers, lid locks, horrible rinsing, not being able to fill and load, ect, ect- all which will force users to switch to front load washers. In truth nothing stops manufactures from replicating the Maytag dual disk design, adding a recirculating pump to mimic resource saver rinsing, and DC breaking motor so the lid lock can be ditched, multi rinse and stain options... add a touch of longevity and top loaders will be very attractive once again.

Second- I do not pre-treat stains. Often I do not even sort. High end Speed Queens come with soak, prewash, second and even 3rd rinse. If I only choose once rinse, I do not have to come back for softer- just add and walk away.

Third- Many top load users are also busy folks. I am to; and my Speed Queen does not interfere.

Forth- you mention baby sitting. This simply untrue. There is nothing my Top load Speed Queen does that necessitates me watching over it during the 30 minute cycle.

Post# 938316 , Reply# 50   5/13/2017 at 16:50 (405 days old) by mwb (Missouri)        

I think we have some confusion here. These are standards that ALL manufacturers of washing machines MUST meet. EnergyStar appliances must be 25% MORE efficient than the minimum standards published above. Only those washers that meet the E Star standards are eligible for a government rebate.

Once again, the standards published above are MANDATORY for all washers. There is no "opting out."

Post# 938341 , Reply# 51   5/13/2017 at 18:08 (405 days old) by jerrod6 (United States of America)        

No manufacturer is required to make a washer that meets or exceeds energy star requirements. They can make one that does not,they just won't get 100+ dollars back from the government for each machine. Right?

Manufactures opt in to the program for the machines they produce.

Post# 938347 , Reply# 52   5/13/2017 at 18:37 (405 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Maybe my experience is unusual, but...

1. I've yet to see a twin tub that was not designed for Hobbits. i wonder if that's part of the reason the didn't persist. It wasn't until Yogi put one up on cinder blocks that I had any interest.

2. I ALWAYS put my clothes into a TL, added detergent, etc. and walked away. I never had to babysit a washer unless I was experimenting with some cycle or other. The only pre-treating I do is to dab a little detergent onto a stain... a couple times per year.

I think what modern consumers really want is to not have to THINK about laundry. They don't want to know anything about sorting, water temps, additives, etc. I agree they want a washer that behaves like a dishwasher, but the reason is that they don't want to think.

Beside, if clothes don't come out clean the first time, just wash them again. It'll be just like toilets that don't flush properly get flushed twice or dishes that come out dirty just stay in the dishwasher for a second cycle. This extra use of resources doesn't count in efficiency ratings, of


Post# 938354 , Reply# 53   5/13/2017 at 19:10 (405 days old) by mwb (Missouri)        

"No manufacturer is required to make a washer that meets or exceeds energy star requirements. They can make one that does not, they just won't get 100+ dollars back from the government for each machine. Right?

Manufactures opt into the program for the machines they produce."

I'll try this again. All washer manufacturers have to meet the minimum energy standards published above. Those that choose to make EnergyStar washers have to make machines that are 25% MORE efficient than the minimum energy standards that ALL manufacturers MUST meet. Making E Star appliances is totally voluntary, but the Gov. encourages it by providing rebates on machines that meet E Star Requirements.

Post# 938403 , Reply# 54   5/14/2017 at 01:48 (405 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

I would like people to please acknowledge the difference between "EnergyStar regulations are voluntary, the government just provides incentives (rebates, tax cuts, tax incentives etc) to each manufacturer that complies to those standards" and what some are saying here that the standards are mandatory.

I do not think that manufacturers have been conditioning customers to frontloaders "via aversive conditioning". That is ludicrous in and of itself, *particularly* if you have interacted with manufacturers, their distributors, sales people who echo back the "talking points" of their sales literature and, last, but not least, repairmen, who also repeat what manufacturers trained them to do/say. From at the very least 1950s to 1990's, *all* repairmen *consistently* repeated the cliche that frontloaders all leaked and tended to get the boot destroyed and leak. Even against actuary tables that showed that both toploaders and frontloaders had exactly the same chance of failure when it comes to leaks: first off, most leaks came from failing water valves, then failing water level control. And until mid-90's there were toploaders with a boot, it was just hidden under the outer tub instead of visible by a window.

What you have been complaining about is a disparate set: lousy cleaning makes me laugh, because for decades now, people who have compared Euro-style FLs to North American TLs have complained about how badly TLs clean. I just mentioned that people who came to my home to try out different kinds of washers before buying, with no pressure at all, just by trying the machines themselves, ended up buying a FL. Rough impellers, long washing times (equivalent to FLs) etc are just the manufactures trying to replicate what is *easy* to do with a FL in a TL because American people are essentially under the impression that FL are evil incarnate.

Ask Maytag (now WP) *why* they stopped making the "dual disk" design. Or why WP stopped making the Calypso design. They were both good HE designs, but they do not replicate a traditional toploader, so anybody that is married to the traditional TL design will reject it. They even refuse to adapt to the new design and change some habits, so of course, they bitch to the manufacturers, they hire lawyers and start class-action suits etc. People who *had* the machines and used them according to the design and instructions usually did well and liked them. The class of people you are trying to cater to, only wants a traditional agitator deep fill TL.

Several people here claim that they do not pre-treat stains.

Good for you!

But you are not the majority of the population, most of which *have* stains to deal with. And if you have no stains to contend with, by all means, just run the "quick" or "short" cycle on the new HE designs, it will clean just as well as any traditional TL used to.

Here's the deal: it takes *at least* 15 minutes for *current* enzymes to work at 140F to remove stains from clothes. It takes more than 30 minutes for the same enzymes to work at 110F. And most TL's, even the ones that *offer* a pre-wash cycle, usually mean manual prewash cycle -- you start it and have to come back to start the ordinary wash. Very few TLs had/have a dispenser to hold the wash detergent and actually do a prewash and automatically follow it with a wash cycle. Very few TL's had/have a wash cycle that will run for 15 minutes without wearing out the clothing.

As for babysitting, I will refer people to the recent post about a TL (I believe it to be a SQ) that is banging during spin. Also the many many posts here and elsewhere with people complaining about their TLs halting the cycle when they get unbalanced. Yes, I agree, you can't win: if you halt the cycle, people complain, if you let it bang people complain.

So, here are *two* things a lot of new FLs can do automatically and unattended: they can rebalance the load if necessary and the vast majority of them can sense oversudsing and add one or more rinses. *Some* TLs (all HE with impellers) can do both. I doubt that your TL SQ can do that, and if it can, it will take longer than 30 minutes, because each deep rinse adds more than 10 minutes to the cycle.

And let's be honest here. Even people who has used the same brand of detergent for the past 40 years *will* at some point, given how often manufacturers change formulas, need to provide extra-rinses for the cycle(s) they overdosed until they learn the new dosage, and if you are not nearby "babysitting" or the machine can't do that automatically, then you have poorly rinsed clothes. Most people don't care or notice. Some people have skin condition(s) that make it necessary to pay attention to such things.

The reason twin-tubs do not persist is because they are labor-intensive. You *do* finish sooner than any other method, *provided* that you are there the entire time, and that you don't mind rinsing in the spinner, which many people don't like. Also, even when you reuse the wash solution they still use a lot of water.

As for what Mark (mwb) is saying, do you have any references?

Because EnergyStar is *voluntary*. You take the machines the current market is selling, run the numbers and get an average, then any machines that are 25-35% more efficient get the EnergyStar stamp.

The EPA regulates an awful lot of things (including cars), but does not regulate washers.

The Federal Safety Standards regulate things like appliances electrical safety (3-prong plug, current leakage etc), and water safety (to avoid contaminated washer water back-syphoning into the fresh water supply), fire safety, among others, and even a *lot* of those standards are dealt with by UL (which is an arm of the Insurance Industry).

If what you people are complaining about were true, as opposed to manufacturers are doing what they think is best for them and their investors, you would not be seeing the dozens of "one-off" appliances for sale at Amazon: portable automatic TLs, twin-tubs etc.

Start asking questions when people come around with statements like "the government is *forcing* us to do this or that" -- more often than not, there is *no* law/regulation people can point you to, it's just that the manufacturers want to get more profit and that's the most convenient thing they can tell a client bitching to them to shut them up.

I will also tell you another "secret" -- y'know when you're in an airplane and ask for water or soda and the flight attendants tell you "I'll be right back" and then take 30 minutes to do it? They wish they could tell you to get lost because they are busy with sick people and other chores and they can't tell you that.

Post# 938406 , Reply# 55   5/14/2017 at 03:10 (405 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
My goodness, do I understand this well? On every Energy Star washer there is a 100+ dollar subsidy by the government? I mean commercial manufacturers of white goods take money from the government for every washer they bring on the market? How much money does that cost every year? Gives a whole new meaning to the word socialism! LOL

Post# 938425 , Reply# 56   5/14/2017 at 05:29 (404 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture

"I do not think that manufacturers have been conditioning customers to frontloaders 'via aversive conditioning'. That is ludicrous in and of itself,..."

Then tell me what reason a top loader has for agitating while its filling for a DEEP wash:

If this is about thoroughly saturating the clothes why not engage the splutch and gently pulse the whole basket like a Fisher & Paykel (and other washers) while filling? You can not tell me Whirlpool did this by mistake... The only thing that agitation is doing is wearing down the clothes. When a user is going through clothes like tissues, of course they will be compelled to switch to something a lot gentler.

"What you have been complaining about is a disparate set: lousy cleaning makes me laugh, because for decades now, people who have compared Euro-style FLs to North American TLs have complained about how badly TLs clean."

Euro washers clean better than most American front loads. Built in heaters mixed with 40 years of matured detergents and technology produces better results compared to something still under development that often lacks a heater.

"Rough impellers, long washing times (equivalent to FLs) etc are just the manufactures trying to replicate what is *easy* to do with a FL in a TL because American people are essentially under the impression that FL are evil incarnate."

True- if purely talking about low water impellers. But what about deep fill agitator top loaders that now take their time in doing absolutely everything? The very, very slow fills, long pauses, slow drains... whats the point? All it does is take traditional deep fill agitator system (that used to take 25-30 minutes) and stretch it to over an hour / hour and half.

When people find that their new traditional top loader shreds clothes and takes triple the time to do what their old washer they will be considering a FL- especially when the HE impeller still has a rough side.

"Ask Maytag (now WP) *why* they stopped making the "dual disk" design. Or why WP stopped making the Calypso design. They were both good HE designs, but they do not replicate a traditional toploader, so anybody that is married to the traditional TL design will reject it."

Calypso was far from good- it was a disaster in all regards. It tangled anything larger than a dish cloth, produced tremendous lint and cleaning varied. They also had service problems. I remember when they came out in Sears under Kenmore. The sales people were pushing them, and they had sales banners on them. Within months the sales people no longer uttered Calypso as the sales floor and back rooms were filling up with returns more than I have ever seen of any other appliance. People were willing to give HE a try- but Calypso was simply something that only look good on paper and only did well in a lab. Much like the first front loads in the US- they had problems today's machines do not.

As for the Maytag dual disk you would be correct, I do not know why they stopped, but my limited use in one was positive. It was not bad, and with more evolution I think it would have become a very good design.

"But you are not the majority of the population, most of which *have* stains to deal with. And if you have no stains to contend with, by all means, just run the "quick" or "short" cycle on the new HE designs, it will clean just as well as any traditional TL used to.

Here's the deal: it takes *at least* 15 minutes for *current* enzymes to work at 140F to remove stains from clothes. It takes more than 30 minutes for the same enzymes to work at 110F. And most TL's, even the ones that *offer* a pre-wash cycle, usually mean manual prewash cycle -- you start it and have to come back to start the ordinary wash. Very few TLs had/have a dispenser to hold the wash detergent and actually do a prewash and automatically follow it with a wash cycle. Very few TL's had/have a wash cycle that will run for 15 minutes without wearing out the clothing."

But there are deep water top loaders that did if one wanted to spend the money. As their are FLs which are very basic and do not offer prewash/soak/pretreat and machines that go all the way up to everything and then some.

"As for babysitting, I will refer people to the recent post about a TL (I believe it to be a SQ) that is banging during spin. Also the many many posts here and elsewhere with people complaining about their TLs halting the cycle when they get unbalanced. Yes, I agree, you can't win: if you halt the cycle, people complain, if you let it bang people complain."

Which is user error. If I decided to wash a single large pillow in a FL on high speed spin, would I not have problems?

"So, here are *two* things a lot of new FLs can do automatically and unattended: they can rebalance the load if necessary and the vast majority of them can sense oversudsing and add one or more rinses. *Some* TLs (all HE with impellers) can do both. I doubt that your TL SQ can do that, and if it can, it will take longer than 30 minutes, because each deep rinse adds more than 10 minutes to the cycle."

Both are user error. You can't fix the machine to fix the user. Sometimes its better the machine give signs forcing change then having a FL (or TL for that matter) spend more water and energy to pardon user ignorance.

I have been using TLs forever, and I rarely if ever have it go off balance. In fact the rare occasions it has, has been my fault. Setting the water on high while washing a few items, washing pillows and bath mats of varying sizes (one large several smalls) that will never balance well in a FL. BTW, FL, by their very nature are more likely to go of balance as the clothes take the drum in even proportions during ramp up is sometimes more probability than anything else. So yes FL need such a feature- or in the case of some commercial FL: sit and take it.

"And let's be honest here. Even people who has used the same brand of detergent for the past 40 years *will* at some point, given how often manufacturers change formulas, need to provide extra-rinses for the cycle(s) they overdosed until they learn the new dosage, and if you are not nearby "babysitting" or the machine can't do that automatically, then you have poorly rinsed clothes. Most people don't care or notice. Some people have skin condition(s) that make it necessary to pay attention to such things."

Your basically admitting that FL use more water without consumer knowledge to pardon customer mistakes. I don't think that is good. Again, its better to know, and no, that does not take any babysitting.

Post# 938447 , Reply# 57   5/14/2017 at 07:49 (404 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
Well truth of the matter is TL washers are still the preferred washer type in the US. FL's have become very popular, but most people still prefer a TL. So really the manufacturers are just responding to demand, which is what it's all about anyway. Because of regulations of course they've had to modify their designs to comply...and I think they are doing a pretty good job considering. Granted TL washers are a hell of a lot more "quirky" than they used to be, but they sell so I'm glad they are keeping up with modifications to make consumers happy.

Our current president wants to do away with anything environmental so all of these efforts might soon be for nothing anyway. Be interesting to see how the manufacturers respond.

Post# 938456 , Reply# 58   5/14/2017 at 08:46 (404 days old) by ryanm (New York)        

All I can add is that in my area where I live, according to every single place I have visited looking for a washer there has been a big swing BACK to top loaders (including big box places like Best Buy, Lowe's and Home Depot, TOP LOADERS are the TOP SELLING type of washer in this area, and the stores reflect that with several isles of top load washer models, and only 1 aisle of front loaders. In addition I have been told by at least 5 places I have been too that they can't keep up with the demand for top load Speed Queen washers which shows so many still desire that type of machine, and I am not pushing Speed Queen here just making a statement. Several people in my family own HE top loaders, everyone is satisfied and I have not heard one person complain about wear and tear on clothes. Front loaders are fine for those who like them, but again most of the 'young' people I know who bought a front loader have now gone back to a top loader being unsatisfied, so again a matter of opinion. As long as the demand is there, manufacturers will produce. I personally find top load much easier to load and unload, and prefer it, but that is my opinion. The top loaders now are using much less water, and take about the same time or less than a front loader, so why should they 'go away'. US market is very different than Europe. We can project our thoughts here but the companies that manufacture will control what happens in the future. As for cleaning, my clothes are spanking clean with top load washer I have so there is no complaint from me there, and my clothes do not show any sign of 'wear and tear' from agitator (the only one I had that did that was the Sears 'shredmore' years ago). In closing, as I have stated before I actually called Speed Queen to ask about new models, and I heard directly from them that they are going to change their machines to meet standards, and will be doing away with the dial model, so what standard they are doing remains to be seen, I guess we will find out when they release the new models.

Post# 938472 , Reply# 59   5/14/2017 at 10:53 (404 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA)        

Paulo, I'm glad you brought up the subsidies (tax credits) that the government has given to manufacturers for exceeding requirements. A few years ago I urged Consumer Reports to tell readers how the system works. Without going into the whole thing, I'll say that the Home Editor not only didn't know about the credits, but refused to believe me when I told him. Yes, the credits are a powerful force that's hard to resist, but consumers should know about them.


There are mandatory minimum standards for clothes washer energy and water use. Search for "clothes washers" in this document:


Post# 938479 , Reply# 60   5/14/2017 at 11:19 (404 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        
"Dual-disc" Maytag vs. Calypso

dadoes's profile picture
I have both a Neptune TL ("dual-disc" Maytag) and a Calypso.  The Calypso has been my daily-driver for almost 9 years and I find it to be superior of the two in several respects.

Calypso rinses better.

There's no way for anything to come out of a Calypso without having been thoroughly doused with detergent & rinse solution and mechanically tossed

Neptune TLs are interesting for sure but have a trouble with being unable to consistently roll loads of light-weight fabrics and some types of bulky loads.  Of course the typical consumer would have no clue of this problem due to inability to see through the locking lid.  I've washed LARGE loads of typical cotton/synthetic casual "button-down" shirts that did not roll over even once through the entire wash period without my help.  I watched from the start and let it go through the full wash period to see if *maybe* it'd eventually roll ... but no.  The disc could not get sufficient grip on the load to roll it.  I restarted the cycle and helped it along.  Some loads may roll a few times then get "stuck" for some minutes and either not roll any further, or eventually start rolling again.  Two days ago I ran a small fleece/microfiber blanket and a black cotton t-shirt.  Warm water.  I didn't watch the load from start but I checked it toward end of the wash period.  The items were jiggling between the discs, not rolling at all, and there was a blob of undissolved STPP caught in the blanket. This would not have happened in the Calypso.

The Calypso has *never* gone off-balance during spin.  The Neptune TL often has trouble balancing/distributing.  It aborts after four tries on the before-rinse spins and does a long drain instead.  It refills and tumbles after four failed attempts on the final spin, does that twice if necessary, then beeps for help.  The final spin is limited to 500 RPM if the tub impacts the cabinet during any distribution attempt.  Terrible tangling of some types of loads impairs separation of the items during distribution attempts which contributes to balancing trouble.  The Calypso's center dome avoids this problem.

I have had items damaged in the Neptune TL.  Never in the Calypso.

Reference this video of a bulky-items load getting "stuck" in a Neptune TL (from 0:14 to 3:03).  I have seen instances of a load getting stuck after several rolls and not "breaking-free" to roll more.

Post# 938492 , Reply# 61   5/14/2017 at 12:34 (404 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Perhaps your experience was good with Calypso- and yes these do rinse things thoroughly via recircualtion- but a lot of customers did not seem to like them. Perhaps it might have been service issues more than performance. The Maytag dual disk was a good idea IMO- but was not given enough time to mature. The discs do not reverse for one thing. Spacing needed to be tweaked more.

In truth I am sure both designs were not given the time to mature- but IMO if either one had been advanced, I think they would have done a much better job than today's impellers. Bouncing, tumbling and showering is much better than an impeller scratching a heap of fabric.

Post# 938495 , Reply# 62   5/14/2017 at 13:02 (404 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
I've always been an advocate of H-axis toploaders. They work like frontloaders, but they load from the top. With so many new designs you would exepect that they at least would give an old design a try.

Post# 938505 , Reply# 63   5/14/2017 at 13:52 (404 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Honest opinion...

chetlaham's profile picture
I could be wrong, but here is my honest opinion based on facts: It would be much cheaper and much simpler for manufacturers to switch to front load only. Having only a few designs, perhaps one that covers a global market- is much cheaper and much simpler then having multiple very separate and very different designs (ie TL and FL). TL machines that are made to replicate FL will always be more complicated. And in general any top loader- even a deep fill- will always have more moving parts.

I know it sounds like I am knocking on top loads, but in truth with energy requirements becoming inevitable (look at Speed Queen), front loaders are highly preferred by manufactures. However that does not mean the market will go away if consumers demand them, but at the same time it would not surprise me if manufactures try and convert people over to FL in the coming decades.

Post# 938513 , Reply# 64   5/14/2017 at 15:11 (404 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
IMO much of the consumer dislike for Calypsos is inability to adapt to using them properly and misunderstanding about how they work.  I read reviews long ago on the now-gone Epinions from people who clearly had no clue, and have had a few discussions with people on other message boards.  One woman said her service tech told her that Calypsos reuse the wash water for rinsing.  That's silly and obviously wrong if one just *listens* to the water draining and filling frequently throughout the cycle.  Another said she often had items that were dry at end of the cycle.  I asked her to check some of the videos on YouTube and explain how that's possible with the constant recirculation shower and she couldn't explain it.

Reversing Neptune TL's tumble would involve more complex engineering.  They wash nicely when the load type is appropriate but are a dud on loads that don't work.

Love my Calypso.

Post# 938542 , Reply# 65   5/14/2017 at 18:52 (404 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Reversing Neptune

chetlaham's profile picture
Can't they just reverse direction of the motor? And employ a splutch with a separate shaft for the basket? I think Maytag was on to something but gave up to soon.

Also I am pleased to here you got the most out of your Calypso. Maybe it was user error after all.

Post# 938544 , Reply# 66   5/14/2017 at 18:55 (404 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Neptune dual disc:

I see the issue. I can't help but wonder how that combination of disc design and water level made it into production.

Calypso: I've used one a number of times and have to admit my clothes come out clean and well-rinsed. Personally, I'd like the water level to be a bit higher... but that's just me.

User Opinions: I'm beginning to think that the largest single factor in how well a given machine does with the general public is how well it cleans when the consumer stuffs it with unsorted clothing and pushes random buttons. Over the years I've read A LOT of user reviews.

A strangely high percentage of the rave reviews have some comment about the reviewer being clueless and blindly following the the instructions that came with the machine.

An equally high percentage of negative reviews have the reviewer blaming the machine because his red wool sweater shrank and turned pink when washed with LCB in hot water... Or stuffing a combo with jeans and blaming the machine for ridiculous drying times.

In short, most positive and negative reviews seem more a reflection of the reviewer than of the machine. Go figure.


Post# 938548 , Reply# 67   5/14/2017 at 19:26 (404 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        
Neptune TL reversing & Calypso water level

dadoes's profile picture
Neptune TL motor does reverse, for spin.  It uses a dual-shaft drive, with a sort of torque spring clutch that spins in one direction vs. releases in the other direction to rotate the discs.

Higher water level in the Calypso ... you're aware that the water level is always below the wash plate and the clothes are doused only by the recirculation spray (or the fresh water spray for some of the fills & rinses)?  Raising the water level above the wash plate would cause a huge amount of splashing.  Raising it higher but still below the wash plate would have no appreciable effect.  Probably 85% of the water usage per cycle is for rinsing.

Post# 938552 , Reply# 68   5/14/2017 at 19:43 (404 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

I was kind of curious as to how spin would work...

Lol, I know that at an intellectual level. It just looks like there isn't enough water... even though my clothes come out clean and well rinsed. :-)

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.

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