|
Thread Number: 10579
Wash times from brand to brand |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
Post# 193065 , Reply# 1 2/23/2007 at 10:36 (6,265 days old) by panthera  (Rocky Mountains) |
||
many reasons
One of the reasons was just plain the fixed cycle length of simple electro-mechanical timers. Since each cycle was a fixed length, there were only so and so many minutes you could devote to each step. Another reason was the fact that TLs tend to be very hard on clothes compared to FLs, though not as bad as some twin-tub Hoovers. If you thrashed and tangled the clothes for too long, they could not recover and were damaged. Another reason is that, very simply, almost all the dirt which can be removed will be removed in the first few minutes. It is interesting to note that over here in Europe (except those machines in the UK which miraculously run 10 times faster than anything I ever describe:-))) the wash cycles are very much longer than in the US; there are many more rinse cycles and the final spins are considerably faster. These things all led to mechanical timers which were much more failure prone than the simple US timers. I have replaced lots of timer motors in US machines over the years. Only once replaced a timer itself - and that was in a rollermatic which was abused by dorm kids constantly. But the mechanical wonders over here failed much more frequently than many other parts which were less complex. | ||
|
Post# 193075 , Reply# 2 2/23/2007 at 11:44 (6,265 days old) by peteski50 (New York) |
||
Wash times from brand to brand
Hi Les, I was the one that made that comment, and I think the norge was actually 10 minutes but it only showed 8 on the time line. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) In fact on my moms first Hotpoint the max time was 10 minutes for wash. (It was a 55) On the Maytags earlier center dial had I think was actually 14 minutes, than they went to 12 and cut it down to 10 minutes from the late sixties until they discontinued the center dial. I think they didn't have enought room on the center dial to make it 12 minutes. The very early Whirlpools I think went up to 20 minutes. Than they went to 14 minutes almost forever. It's amazing when comparing the cycle times of todays machines. Especially the front loaders that run very long. Peter | ||
| Post# 193076 , Reply# 3 2/23/2007 at 11:52 (6,265 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
Longer Life, Too
Since TL washers do most of their work in the first few minutes of agitation, I wonder if shorter cycle times weren't a way of getting more years out of a machine? Look at it this way- if a machine has a ten-minute cycle, it should last fifty percent more washes (though not total hours of use) than one with a fifteen-minute cycle. In the days when Maytag was very committed to legendary reliability and lifespan, that could have been a factor. Just easier on the machine per washload, and the extra wash time isn't usually all that necessary anyway.
| ||
|
Post# 193077 , Reply# 4 2/23/2007 at 12:07 (6,265 days old) by peteski50 (New York) |
||
|
Wash times from brand to brand
Hi Sandy, I think the things that wear out the machines were the fact that they had a lot of moving parts and switching from wash to spin etc etc. I do think a longer wash should always be optional. Like for example in the older GE's they had a 12 minute wash but had a Extra wash setting up to 18 minutes I think for real soiled clothes. For instance the 1/18's went up to a 15 minute wash but that long was seldom needed, most of the time with even a large load I used a 8 or 10 minute wash. The JetAction was something to me that really cleaned in a shorter time. Peter | ||
| Post# 193081 , Reply# 5 2/23/2007 at 12:14 (6,265 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
Peter:
I understand what you're saying about having the option of a longer wash time. I just was wondering if the short Maytag wash times weren't an engineering decision, intended to make the machine last as many years as possible. On the "New Generation" machines of the 1960s and 1970s, Maytag had that whole ad campaign built around how long their machines had been working for typical American families. And as corny as the ads look today, they sold a whole lotta Maytags. On my Maytag LA108, the Permanent Press and Delicate cycles are a maximum of eight minutes. The Regular cycle will give you only ten. I was a little nonplussed when I saw that, but damned if the clothes don't come out cleaner than they did in my DD Whirly. BTW, that Delicate cycle took some getting used to- this is a one-speed machine so it agitates, then sits, agitates, then sits. Whatthehell, it works. | ||
|
Post# 193082 , Reply# 6 2/23/2007 at 12:20 (6,265 days old) by peteski50 (New York) |
||
|
Wash times from brand to brand
Hi Sandy, I still think Maytag kept it at 10 minutes because their wasn't as much room on the center dial machines. The machine you have sounds like a fabric matic that soaks on and off instead of a 2 speed that goes real slow. What ever it is built real well and never will washers be made like that again. Peter | ||
| Post# 193084 , Reply# 7 2/23/2007 at 12:23 (6,265 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
Peter: | ||
|
Post# 193095 , Reply# 8 2/23/2007 at 13:20 (6,265 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
I suspect the
actual washing action was not especially hard on the machines. The reciprocal agitation is, after all, hardly a new mechanical design. It was the shift from agitation to spin, the enormous load of draining water and spinning (partially relieved by the neutral drain some models used) and the braking which, in my opinion, which caused wear and tear. Partially because of patent limitations, partially because US companies did very little real new engineering, all those new programs of the 1950's had to be accommodated using the same, fixed stepper-cycle length of the original timers. There used to be lots of blank space on early dials where you turned and turned and nothing happened. By the time they had added delicate, permanent press, soak, second-rinse, etc. those 360° were being squared. The washing action did vary tremendously, nothing comes even close to a thumper - I figure they were the only TL which ever really, truly came close to FLs in getting laundry clean. My rollermatic (the days she decided to work) could clean my grungiest jeans and T-shirts in one go; the turnover was just fantastic. And, if I recall rightly, the water consumption was not that bad, either. Oh, well. Now that we have fuzzy logic controls, has anyone noticed their top-loader doing a better job of washing than the same brand did with the old mechanical "logic"? | ||
| Post# 193111 , Reply# 10 2/23/2007 at 14:28 (6,265 days old) by zipdang (Portland, OR) | ||
I really dont know how it can be 12-15 and 18-21
Does it have anything to do with the size of the timer increment, i.e. 1.5, 2, and 3 minute timer advances? Since the increments alloted to the spins and rinse are also affected by timer advancement, a machine with a 3 minute rinse couldn't have an 8 minute and 10 minute wash, it would have to be 9 and 12 minutes, respectively. I hope that made sense. | ||
| Post# 193126 , Reply# 11 2/23/2007 at 16:36 (6,265 days old) by cbosch () | ||
|
Wash times I still cannot get used to the thought that clothes wahsed for 10 minutes get as cean as clothes washed for 1.5 hours in a front loader | ||
| Post# 193132 , Reply# 12 2/23/2007 at 17:13 (6,265 days old) by brettsomers () | ||
|
clothes wahsed for 10 minutes get as cean as clothes washed watch this video, see the action, notice the large amount of water. much more "active" than a cylinder tumble. CLICK HERE TO GO TO brettsomers's LINK | ||
|
Post# 193135 , Reply# 13 2/23/2007 at 17:32 (6,265 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
Nope, sorry, | ||
| Post# 193167 , Reply# 16 2/24/2007 at 00:41 (6,265 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
alr2903
Hey, thanks! By a huge coincidence, I have some pinch-pleated draperies in need of a laundering. Nice to know that the delicate cycle on my 'Tag will keep them from needing too much pressing. Pinch pleats are something that can be absolutely fearsome to put back in order if they're messed up! I still cannot believe how fast these things wash and dry. I could kick myself for all the time I've spent in the past seventeen years waiting for the Whirlys to finish the hell UP already. | ||
|
Post# 193353 , Reply# 18 2/24/2007 at 23:22 (6,264 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
Not enough room on timer?
I don't understand why a mfg couldn't just stick a slower gear in the timer mechanism, to make the wash time last longer. It's not as if a full turn of the timer dial must last only one hour... it could last 1.5 hours, 2 hours, etc, depending on the gearing. Or am I missing something? However, the Maytag A606 has a 14 minute normal wash time. The 608 has a 10 or 12 minute normal wash time. Here's a list of the lonest wash times on my various top loaders: Maytag A606 - circa 1967: 14 minutes (inferred) GE Filter-Flo - circa 1978: 18 minutes Lady Kenmore - circa 1971: 14 minutes (possibly longer with extended wash option) If my memory serves me correctly, my '83 Whirlpool Super had an 18 minute cycle as well. Can't remember what my 50's Maytag top loader had for longest cycle. | ||
|
Post# 193372 , Reply# 19 2/25/2007 at 02:20 (6,264 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
no index to 60 minutes
Rich, You are right, of course - the manufacturers can speed up or slow down the steps with gearing. There is a problem with fixed step length gearing. Since the dial has to cover all the possible programs within one 360° turn, one doesn't want the duration of each step to be too short. Imagine a 15 second step...well, a spin of three minutes would take 180/15= 12 steps...obviously that would cut down on the space for other programs very fast. On the other hand, too long of a step also has its consequences. Somewhere around 180 seconds/step maximum the point is reached at which one can do a normal, permanent press and delicate program. Up that a bit, maybe a short "soak". But by the time the 2nd rinses and pre-washes and and and are there...well, you can see why some makers just said, fine - if you want a longer wash or second rinse, just turn the dial back. Some even advertised this as a "special" feature - total control in your hands. (I guess Microsoft copies everything, "it's not a bug, it's a feature" has to have come from those ads). Electrolux in early Frigimore FLs just let the US timers run faster than in Europe - the 50/60Hz thing. That one got fixed pretty early on tho' - but was still true in 1997. Some US makers did introduce variable pitch to their steps, this made it possible to add more cycles or adjust individual step lengths to better match needs. Those machines were expensive and complex relative to the standard US timers. European timers used different systems to solve the problem. The simplest (cheap Candys in the 1960s and cheap Siemens) simply turned the timer motor (and agitation) off until a certain temperature (about 40°C)in the tub had been reached. Candy even saved an adjustable thermostat by simply having an enormously long time span for each step. If you set the machine to do a 40° wash, the moment the temperature of 40° was reached, the time motor started up and the clothes had the shortest agitation period. If you chose 90°, the machine simply ran through several more steps. The heat rise from a given point was more or less linear and the machine could simply "anticipate" any given temperature based on the time lapsed. Sorry that is not clearer. The Siemens system did have an adustable thermostat, the motor started when the temperature was reached which you wanted and each load of clothes got the same length of agitation - you could chose more or less. Bauknecht (before Whirlpool messed that up, too) used incredibly complex timers. Some had two motors, others had solenoids which swapped the timer step advance gear in and out permitting the machine to agitate back and forth during heating. AEG, Electrolux, etc. used various similar solutions. Miele for years and years used a system which made "rapid stepping" through the cycle possible. Primitive solution to out of balance loads, but it worked. Of course, with the introduction of reliable electronic timers, all these mechanical solutions are dying out. Given the lousy reliability of the electronics in US washers and the very high reliability of mechanical US timers (only thing the Americans do better than the Europeans is mechanical timers), it is a form of built-in obsolescence. Oh, the electronic timers can be built to be reliable...Miele solved the problem in the 1980's as did others... | ||
|
Post# 193375 , Reply# 20 2/25/2007 at 02:46 (6,264 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
|
Keven, I can see the problem... especially with the impetus on the part of the manufacturers to offer additional cycles, which naturally might make the dial more crowded. The US made Speed Queen front loader, the one with the internal heater, uses Candy (formerly Hoover)/Siemens system of stopping agitation while the heater is working. US made electronic washer control panels seem to be getting better. Since both the main and motor controllers were replaced in my Neptune in 2003, the machine has been running more or less flawlessly. I was told that in both cases the replacements were upgraded versions. I suspect the motor failure damaged not only the controller, but also the main board. The machine still worked after the motor/controller were replaced, but would halt randomly in the middle of cycles with an error message. A new main controller fixed that issue, plus it had updated firmware that addressed some anomalies in the Favorites program editing. One of these days I'm going to have to do a test run on the '71 piano key Lady Kenmore. Various keys can modify the timer function, such as extending the wash or adding a second rinse. The timer dial itself has little indication of what is happening, it's dependent upon the key selections. | ||
|
Post# 193391 , Reply# 21 2/25/2007 at 05:57 (6,264 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
weren't those
Random halts caused by electrostatic discharge across the controller board? I seem to recall better grounding and isolation put an end to that. When you see things like no drain holes in the first Neptune boots or motor control boards with inadequate cooling you wonder if the engineers even once saw what we had been doing in Europe with FLs since the 1970's. I had a Philips "Vollwelle" electronically controlled machine from 1978 that had enough heat dissipation that the logic ran perfectly day in and day out for 25 years (and was still going when I gave it away). It's not like the rules of mosfets and cmos technology were invented yesterday or 10 years ago or 20 or 30 or... I never cease to be amazed just how backwards the US is technically compared to Europe. What's funny is how many folks in the US have not the slightest idea how far behind the country really is in telecommunications, robotics, logic controlled circuitry, avionics...even essentials like power distribution and automated control systems (think of the recent failure in the NY trains). | ||
|
Post# 193402 , Reply# 22 2/25/2007 at 07:04 (6,264 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Front loaders have longer wash cycles due to the nature of their mechanical action. Lifting and dropping laundry against itself and or the wash tub is far gentler than thrashing it as most top loading washers do. Remember the four factors of good laundry: time, temperature, chemicals and mechanical action. An increase in one usually means a decrease in the others. Thus one can beat laundry to death for 10 minutes or toss it about for 15 minutes or more; in the end the result should be clean laundry. Of course this means the other variables must be in proper alignment as well. One must also consider laundry detergents are streets ahead of what was available 50,40, 20 or even 10 years ago. Modern TOL detergents, especially liquids work faster in all temps of water and do a much better job than what our grandmother's used. Soap based detergents and or those relying heavily on washing soda,borax, etc need long mechanical action to beat the grime/dirt out of laundry. Today one can pretty much leave dirty laundry in a soaking only bath, and given enough time it will soak clean without much if any mechanical action at all. L. | ||
|
Post# 193464 , Reply# 23 2/25/2007 at 13:52 (6,263 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
|
Launderess, I'll have to disagree with the statement that modern laundry detergents are "streets ahead" of what was available decades ago. That's because, decades ago, STPP and other complex phosphates were still added to laundry detergents, and STPP does a far better job at building, breaking, water softening, and anti-redeposition than the cocktail of chemicals used in modern detergents to try to duplicate that action. I would however agree that modern laundry detergents are much better than those that appeared without phosphates just after the bans went into effect. Those seemed merely to substitute more sodium carbonate to replace phosphate without adding the enzymes and other ingredients that sort of halfway replace phosphate's functions. Keven, The random halts did not occur until after the motor and its controller went out. So my conclusion is that an electrical surge from the motor somehow damaged the main controller board, resulting in the random halts. Or, perhaps, the new motor controller wasn't 100% compatible with the older main board. In any case, replacing both fixed the problem. The only quirk that continues is that occasionally, when one pressed the pause buttong, the door won't unlock. This occurs perhaps 5% of the time. If the door doesn't unlock in 10 seconds, I just press the button again to "relock" it, and the press it a third time, at which is generall does a slight basket movement and unlocks the door. This seems to occur less frequently than before the main board was replaced, but it still happens. I have noticed that if I press the pause button while the drum is moving, the failure to unlock doesn't ever occur. Weird but every machine has its peculiarities, and this one is relatively minor. | ||
|
Post# 193469 , Reply# 24 2/25/2007 at 14:05 (6,263 days old) by dadoes (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
Rich, your keyboard LK has a traditional mechanical timer that differs very little from a non-keyboard models other than having the rod-and-cam mechanism to handle the pull/turn-to-stop/push feature. If the timer isn't clearly marked with the traditional array of wash time, spin, rinse, spin, etc. indications, that is just to make it appear more mysterious and automatic.
| ||
|
Post# 193610 , Reply# 25 2/25/2007 at 21:14 (6,263 days old) by gadgetgary (Bristol,CT) |
||
The rule of thumb at one time... | ||
| Post# 193624 , Reply# 26 2/25/2007 at 21:41 (6,263 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
Yep!
"I'll have to disagree with the statement that modern laundry detergents are "streets ahead" of what was available decades ago." I'd have to disagree, too. I was around in the 1950s and 1960s, before the phosphate ban. My grandmother was an Oxydol fan, and for excellent reason. That stuff was absolute death on dirt! And Tide was a completely different animal back then- very powerful and able to clean even kids' jeans and T-shirts without pretreatment. Of course, the trade-off was pollution, and so I don't mind the reformulations that took place for that reason. But I well remember the dismay going around when the new phosphate-free stuff hit the shelves- "It doesn't CLEAN!" was the cry. Things got better, but it took awhile. | ||
|
Post# 193653 , Reply# 28 2/26/2007 at 04:26 (6,263 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
Ken, | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
