|
Thread Number: 22112
The BIG Question |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
| Post# 346650 , Reply# 1 5/5/2009 at 04:47 (5,462 days old) by laundromat (Hilo, Hawaii) | ||
Are you for real????
Using more water is not a pro.We need to conserve and if you were to understand the way front loaders work,you'd probably change your mind. front loding washers do not need as much water,detergent,bleach or fabric softner because tumbling clothes, as oposed to agitating them,uses less water,detergent,bleach and fabric softner. It doesn't need a pool of water to float the clothes in just enough to saturate them with water and detergent.You see very little, if any, in through the window.As it tubles the clothes,they cross each other and two things,friction and gravity take over. I have had the Asko,Miele,LG,Frigidaire,GE and Westinghouse front loaders and every single one of them had either a short or quick cycle option.My LG was the best.Its Quick Cycle was only 28 minutes and great results. I set the program I wanted then pushed the Quick Cycle option which eliminates the spin between the was and three rinses.it only has one spin and that's the final one just after the final rinse. There were different programs that used different options and the Perma Press cycle did fill with around one more gallon of wash water than most other cycles but,using the right detergent(Wisk HE)and pre treating stains prior to washing made my washday a fun chore especialy when I'd hang my wash outdoors and get complements from my neighbors.I'd rather wash 20 pounds of dry laundry in 7 gallons of water than 18 pounds of laundry in 28 gallons of water.I dare anyone to even attempt to wash a queen size down comforter in ANY top loading/agitator washer!Have fun cleaning up the feathers!!! | ||
| Post# 346661 , Reply# 3 5/5/2009 at 06:13 (5,462 days old) by davek () | ||
|
I'm sure that saving water in Hawaii is a much bigger deal than it is in most places in the continental US. | ||
| Post# 346684 , Reply# 5 5/5/2009 at 08:00 (5,461 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia) | ||
Mmmmm
Front load washers tend to be more expensive to design, and manufacture to start with. Then you get to the service side of things. They tend to be dearer if something does go wrong. Both top load and front load machines were pretty much level-pegging when it came to the 'market', but automatic machines which were relatively simple and more convienient overall won the day in the USA...that means top loaders. Early front loaders could not be opened once started without a flood. Many today still can't be so you can't 'add the sock' you forgot. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that they didn't reverse tumble either until the 1960's which could result in a rather large 'ball' of washing and a severe out of balance load. Add to this the higher cost and the need to bolt many of them down (and some top loaders too) and you can see why many more chose top load... ...but then Top load machines do use a HUGE amount of water and are known to be rougher on clothes when loaded to their stated capacity (in laundry dry weight rather than cu.ft On the note of water use.... People in parts of the US may be flippant with water use, but I can promise you that in other parts of the world, we are not. Canberra, the capital city of Australia, has had stage 3 (out of 5) water restrictions for over 4yrs. Our dam capacity is sitting at 43.5% today and is continuing to fall as we have not had good rain for weeks. We can water garden beds on an odds and evens basis (house number:date) but not lawns using a hand held hose with a trigger spray. We may not wash cars with potable water at all. i.e water you can drink. We may not wash paths or driveways unless there has been a hazard caused...say something slippery on the drive. We may not wash windows using a hose. All toilets to new houses and replacements are to be dual flush 3 and 6 litre. (3/4 and 1 1/2 US gal). No topping up of swimming pools without a permit and no filling of new pools without a permit. Most new shower roses are 9 litre (2 1/4gal) per minute MAX flow. Water saving is a way of life in this city, and many others in this country. As an example, Goulburn, a town only 60miles away from here has been so restricted that they have a daily maximum per person of 150 litres (37.5 gal) for everything..washing, showering, toilets etc....try running an older style top load machine for a family of 4 with that water allowance... | ||
Post# 346693 , Reply# 6 5/5/2009 at 08:18 (5,461 days old) by yogitunes  (New Jersey) |
||
So far the best would be a front loader....but shop for a good quality...the best we have seen on here is the Speed Queen FL...maybe a little higher in price but built solid...stainless steel...all metal construction...and an excellent guarantee...of the many problems with the new ones not being built well and short life span...this would be the best bet....that's what I'm going for next... with a FL: low energy use, low water use, low hot water use, low detergent use...high spin speed=less dry time, all pluses in my book, although I do still like watching a TL washing...never get away from that, but if I only had one machine to use it would be a FL definately! | ||
| Post# 346716 , Reply# 8 5/5/2009 at 10:27 (5,461 days old) by sudsman () | ||
|
Waaher Fan I guess its is not a WASTE when I can wash a 100 lb load in my machines here in LESS water than a top loader uses for a 20 LB load??? Front load and Side load machines have always been the ONLY machines used in commerical laundries. 
| ||
| Post# 346721 , Reply# 9 5/5/2009 at 10:45 (5,461 days old) by davek () | ||
|
Commercial FL If I could get a Dexter commercial type FL for the same price as a Kenmore top loader, I would. That said, a $400 Kenmore vs. the $3,000 for the Dexter D-300 that's actually worth having, $2,600 will buy a lot of clothes, detergent, and water. | ||
| Post# 346725 , Reply# 10 5/5/2009 at 10:58 (5,461 days old) by sudsman () | ||
|
Dave your would be shocked at what commerical washers you can buy on ebay for 400.00 dexters too. I bought a 100lb for only $50.00. | ||
| Post# 346739 , Reply# 12 5/5/2009 at 11:59 (5,461 days old) by vivalalavatrice () | ||
|
TLHA! Nothing to add.... alwasy ever the best fusion: TL convenience with FL efficiency! | ||
| Post# 346741 , Reply# 13 5/5/2009 at 12:05 (5,461 days old) by lebron (Minnesota) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 346758 , Reply# 16 5/5/2009 at 13:59 (5,461 days old) by laundromat (Hilo, Hawaii) | ||
|
water level adjustment
When I had my first Frigidaire front loader,I had previously had a Kenmore compact front loader that was made by Zanussi.It would fill about 1/3 up the window.So,when I saw how the Frigidaire didn't come anywhere near that,I pondered the thought of increasing the water level.after a few adjustments,the water level was just under the opening.I did that with the Frigidaire,Kenmore and KitchenAid washers I owned.I didn't notice any improvement in cleaning levels but did notice better rinsing.
| ||
| Post# 346762 , Reply# 18 5/5/2009 at 14:38 (5,461 days old) by washerfan () | ||
|
I forgot to mention if I could have a old dream machine, it would be a Maytag A806 top loader from around 1975 in turquoise. | ||
| Post# 346763 , Reply# 19 5/5/2009 at 14:40 (5,461 days old) by washerfan () | ||
|
In regards to the pedestals, yes I am also convinced they are a complete ripoff new. | ||
| Post# 346807 , Reply# 20 5/5/2009 at 18:39 (5,461 days old) by dogboy44 (Los Angeles) | ||
|
vivalalavatrice Gabriella Ferri was my Mother in Law. | ||
| Post# 346827 , Reply# 22 5/5/2009 at 20:01 (5,461 days old) by supremewhirlpol () | ||
|
Sudsman ... Where should I be looking on Ebay to find machines that cheap? | ||
|
Post# 346836 , Reply# 23 5/5/2009 at 21:06 (5,461 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 346838 , Reply# 24 5/5/2009 at 21:08 (5,461 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Have posted links to eBay auctions for commercial washing machines and the like here in the group for ages. Most if not all are in the category listed above, but sometimes they are found under "Major Appliances" sub-category "washing machines" and or "washing machines and dryers". If you really want to cry, check out the same listings for any of the European eBay sites. We're talking some serious commercial laundry equipment. | ||
|
Post# 346842 , Reply# 25 5/5/2009 at 21:24 (5,461 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Front, Side, & Top Loading
H-Axis washing machines have long dominated the commercial laundry market, leaving aside laundromats for a good reasons. Capacity, gentleness of wash action, and ability to do more wash with less water than a top loading washing machine with a central beater. Indeed once one goes about washing machines rated for say 25lbs, you aren't going to find a top loader, certianly not one for 100lbs of laundry or more. Top loading washing machines, later automatic top loading washing machines came to dominate the American market for several reasons. In the early days of washing machines, there were all sorts, including tumblers (like the Thor washer in another member's post), and wringers. What all these machines had in common was the fact none spun laundry dry. In a commercial laundry workers unloaded the washers into extractors, but that was neither practical nor safe for wide household use. So women dealt with wringers, automated and hand crank. Meanwhile Bendix was at work on their front loader, and due to their work and patents, no other manufacturer could build nor improve upon the design for their own use without paying royalties, if Bendix allowed it at all. Front loaders then only tumbled in one direction, causing Madame's laundry to emerge often in one tangled mess. Indeed these machines were nicknamed the "rope maker". Since Bendix had the front load market tied up, American laundry makers continued to innovate and develop the top loading model. These machines gave acceptable results for most American housewives, especially when coupled with the ample supply of hot to very hot water from the taps, and chlorine bleach used for stain removal and whitening. What is also important to remember top loading washing machines were a natural evolution from the way most women did laundry; that is in a tub using a dolly stick to "agitate" the wash water. | ||
| Post# 346844 , Reply# 26 5/5/2009 at 21:33 (5,461 days old) by supremewhirlpol () | ||
|
Thanks Launderess!! | ||
|
Post# 346854 , Reply# 27 5/5/2009 at 21:53 (5,461 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Once Again
Keep in mind the four variables of good laundry practice: Time Mechanical Action Water Temperature Chemical Action Be it by hitting it against a rock, beating it with a wooden paddle, scrubbing it against a wash board, you name it, women have been using heavy mechanical action to get through their wash day. While it can be hard on textiles, the more mechanical action one applies, the less time one has to spend "washing", especially with high water temperatures. Considering the above a top loading washing machine suited what many women felt was the proper way of doing laundry. More importantly it allowed them to get the job of doing tons of wash over quite quickly. In the days of large familes, this was important. Finally remember low sudsing detergents are a must for front loading washing machines, and aside from Dash, and a few others they were hard to find. Until around WWII and probably for a good while after, soap was the most often used product for laundry, and soap requires hot water to clean and creates lots of froth. The last bit rules out their use in front loaders. | ||
| Post# 346899 , Reply# 28 5/6/2009 at 03:01 (5,461 days old) by washerfan () | ||
|
Wow Laundress! Thanks for all that information! :) So Bendix had all the patents essentially? I assume the proliferation of front loaders today is due to their patents expiring or the company not being dominant? | ||
|
Post# 346902 , Reply# 29 5/6/2009 at 03:51 (5,461 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
That I Do Not Know
Am sure others will chime in however. IIRC Bendix held patents on suspension systems and so forth, but the suspension system is the key to any decent front loader, both then and now. Without a great system, you are limited in many ways, especially how fast the washer can spin. Well you could try high spin speeds, and also risk the machine taking off and going for a walk, if not falling over one someone. | ||
| Post# 346941 , Reply# 32 5/6/2009 at 10:01 (5,460 days old) by tlee618 () | ||
|
I agree Tom, and we have the same problem with the new dishwashers. Just doesn't make any sense!! | ||
| Post# 346948 , Reply# 33 5/6/2009 at 10:55 (5,460 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia) | ||
|
From what I can gather from here regarding American made front load machines, it would appear that the cycle times are not sufficiently long enough to cope with both the lower water levels and the large capacity of the machines. Laundress has stated above that there are 4 variables that need to be in sync to achieve a good wash result. European machines have no problems providing a consistantly good to excellent result (depending on brand) whilst using very little water and, in our market, no bleach (there is no provision for it in the drawer in any front loader sold here). As an example, Miele machines sold here are generally at the top of the washing performance scores and mid to high mid range for rinsing yet a 6.5kg or (16 pound) normal cycle uses only 50 litres (12.5 US gallons) of water whilst still retaining one of the highest gentleness ratings for fabric care. So what have we achieved and what has had to give to get there. Wash performance - Excellent Rinse performance - Good Gentleness - Excellent ahhh...the wash time. Standard wash cycle at full capacity (so no quick wash or time reducers) is 112 minutes at 30c. Now before people start to say that it must cost a fortune to run a machine like that and you are better off being quick with the cycle and heavy with the chemicals and water...consider this. An equiv. capacity standard Fisher and Paykel top loader rates as follows Wash performance - Excellent Rinse performance - Excellent Gentleness - Poor Wash time 47m....which is fast, but then the water usage was 157 litres (40 US Gallons) or more than 3 times what the Miele uses. Now stick with me as here is the crunch. Estimated cost to run both machines through the same number of cycles over 10yrs is: Miele $336 F&P $688 ...and that is with cold water washing in the Fisher and Paykel. Now it gets better. When you start looking at life expectancy of an appliance, Miele tends to come out on top. I would fully expect a Miele to last between 15-20yrs if it is looked after and a Fisher and Paykel to last about half that. So when you factor in replacing the Fisher and Paykel half way through the life of the Miele and it was half the price initially, suddenly the Miele looks not only better value for the environment with its lower usage of resources, but it is cheaper to run by half and lasts longer. So over 20yrs, you could save upwards of $700 (in Australia) in utility costs at todays prices (and you are washing in warm water not cold) AND based on 7 loads a week over 20yrs, 728000 litres of water or 182000 US Gallons. So if we change the way we do things, we can benefit as well as the environment. If the makers of appliances in the US increased the wash cycle of their front loaders, stuck a heater in them so they could at least maintain the wash temperature and re-educate the population about the use of (or excessive use of) additives such as LCB, then everyone would win (I have never quite understood the addiction to LCB that people in the US seem to have) Clothes would be clean (as they should be - clean that is), there would be less chemicals used and less water washed down the drain. Isn't that worth saving? | ||
| Post# 346949 , Reply# 34 5/6/2009 at 10:56 (5,460 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 346992 , Reply# 36 5/6/2009 at 12:47 (5,460 days old) by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas) | ||
I have never quite understood the addiction to LCB that peop
Hello, My name is Iheartmaytag, and I'm a Bleach-a-holic. I can't remember a time I wasn't addicted to bleach. It may have started in the days when I worked in a resturant and did many sinks full of dishes by hand. It could have been those many times I cleaned the restrooms and didn't want to leave any survivers in the germ and virus department. Perhaps it could have been heridatiry as my mother too is a Bleach-a-holic. Mother always insisted on Bleach for her Whites. Mom is an obsessive like myself so all of our sheets were washed, hung to dry and ironed daily. (This was, of course, when she was a stay-at-home-Mom and had the time to devote to her addiction). I have always associated the clean fresh smell of chlorine as sanatized and perfectly clean. We have linens that are 30 or more years old with no holes or signs of fabric breakdown; yet still as white as the day they came home. They have always been washed in a top-load machine, ususally hot water, and yes LCB. Thank you for listening, I have no intentions of being cured--I'm a bleach-a-holic. Oh-OH, not to mention chlorine is almost solely responsible for cheap, safe drinking water, as well as crystal clear swiming pools. Chlorine is not an addiction, chlorine is your friend. ***** The proceeding message has been brought to you by the Chlorine lovers of America, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the webmaster. | ||
| Post# 347007 , Reply# 37 5/6/2009 at 13:09 (5,460 days old) by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas) | ||
|
After my long-winded
and tongue in cheek response above. Here is the skinny and sweet. Many Americans are germ-o-phobes. It comes from a Dr. Spock upbringing. Everything has to be sanatized, and steralized. Bleach is associated with the sanitary environmet we need to live in. Being obsessive, germ-o-phobes this leads to our addiction. There are also studies that show we are making ourselves sick from being too clean, which causes our immune systems to not develope as well as causes our systems to go overboard when we are exposed to something. Speaking as an addict and Asthmatic, I can almost attest. | ||
| Post# 347021 , Reply# 38 5/6/2009 at 13:26 (5,460 days old) by favorit () | ||
|
germ-o-phobes in IT we too were LCB (and boilwash) addicted. Now the wash-fashion says 30°C/85°C or even tap cold, so we have this CLICK HERE TO GO TO favorit's LINK 
| ||
| Post# 347023 , Reply# 39 5/6/2009 at 13:32 (5,460 days old) by favorit () | ||
|
and the Reckitt-Benckiser one NAPISAN. available either liquid, powder or tabs. Once it was a diaper detergent, now is used with regular detergents to sanify laundry CLICK HERE TO GO TO favorit's LINK 
| ||
| Post# 347037 , Reply# 41 5/6/2009 at 13:49 (5,460 days old) by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas) | ||
|
Clean wool in a TL to this . . . | ||
| Post# 347058 , Reply# 43 5/6/2009 at 14:38 (5,460 days old) by washerfan () | ||
|
I love this video... CLICK HERE TO GO TO washerfan's LINK | ||
|
Post# 347067 , Reply# 44 5/6/2009 at 15:55 (5,460 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA) |
||
|
2140 WasherFan, I've got to point out that you're seemingly judging front-loaders from your experience with one of the least expensive, most basic models sold in the U.S. I can't imagine going back to a top-loader after owning a Miele W4840 for a few months. | ||
| Post# 347125 , Reply# 45 5/6/2009 at 21:03 (5,460 days old) by supremewhirlpol () | ||
|
If you were creative, you could create your own 3 phase power supply. A hard-mount commercial front loading washing machine means BUSINESS when it comes to the extract part of the cycle. | ||
|
Post# 347127 , Reply# 46 5/6/2009 at 21:23 (5,460 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Bendix Patents | ||
|
Post# 347129 , Reply# 47 5/6/2009 at 21:40 (5,460 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Americans "Obsession" With Germs
Was born out of very good reasons. Before science revealed the exact cause, transmission, and prevention, there were many, many diseases that ravaged the population. Also since this was before antibiotics, sulfa drugs, and other modern day "miracle" cures, a simple cut or scrape could turn into an infection that lead to death. Polio TB Thyphoid Fever Influenza (especially the great pandemic of 1916) And so on. The best defense was thought to be a good offense. Hence proper Amercian housewife saw it as her moral duty to protect her house and family from disease. This meant keeping all and sundry clean as possible. When it came to laundry, Europeans favoured boiling their wash over "Eau de Javel" or other forms of chlorine bleach for a very simple reason. Most all linens bed, body, personal, household and so forth was just that, made from pure linen. Chlorine bleach will do serious damage to linen fibers, so it was avoided at all costs. The quality of European housewives, housekeepers and the rest of the wealthy went to great lengths to make sure their fine linen was not subjected to bleach. OTHO cotton, which grew in the United States, and was abundant, replaced linen for most if not all purposes. More so after the southern states began to grow and produce the stuff en masse via slave labour. Cotton while also a cellouse fibre like linen, can withstand chlorine bleaching. On both sides of the pond, boiling was done to laundry AFTER it had been soaked for several hours and or soaped. In short it was done to shift soils without all that beating and scrubbing. Boiling also killed vermin and germs, but we're not on that right now. When washing machines came upon the scene, boiling started to die off as part of routine laundry in the USA. However Europeans still had all that linen, and favoured high temperatures for washing regardless. When Henkel invented Persil with oxygen bleach, it cemented high temperature washing in Europe until rather recently. The favoured method of bleaching in the wash for Europeans was with perborate bleaches. Sodium perborate will not begin to release oxygen until temps reach about 60C, and the action is greater the higher wash temperatures go. Hence all that boil washing. | ||
|
Post# 347133 , Reply# 48 5/6/2009 at 21:55 (5,460 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Wool Shrinking/Felting
In order for wool to shrink one must have at least two factors: Heat Agitation If one keeps wash water temperature to 80F or lower, one can toss and turn wool much as one likes, and it will not shrink. However it isn't wise nor required to launder wool longer than five minutes. Wool can be washed in hot or even boiling water, long as it is not moved, it will not really shrink. Before the advent of modern disenfectants, wool blankets and the like that came into contact with "infected" persons was routinely boiled as part of the laundering process. Felted wool is nothing more than wool that has been washed in hot or boiling water and moved about to cause shrinkage. Wool also does not like sudden extreme changes in water temperature when laundering. This caused a problem when pure soaps were used for washing wool, as most would not work in cold water. Using warm water for the wash, then shifting to cold for the rinse could "shock" wool fibers and they would shrink. To avoid this it was often suggested to keep the wash and rinse waters the same or near the same temperature. However once SLS based "wool washes" came upon the scene (read Woolite), which worked in cold water, one could wash a wool sweater safely without "shrinking, stretching, or fading". (LOL) | ||
| Post# 347209 , Reply# 51 5/7/2009 at 09:39 (5,459 days old) by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 347255 , Reply# 53 5/7/2009 at 12:53 (5,459 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Cotton pretty much killed off linen production and use in Europe, which was once the capital of the stuff. Once "easy care" cotton became widely available and affordable, housewives and pretty much everyone else were more than happy to shutter all their linens in those huge cupboards and lock the doors. This is true even of some of the most beautiful monogrammed, and embroidered pieces. Today of course those cupboards and linen closets are opened only mainly to sell off the contents. Ebay, estate/chateau sales, flea markets and so forth up and down Europe are full of linen by the chest fulls. Fine old linen, even some modern stuff does not do well in today's modern washing machines. Have seen beautiful linen sheets that have survived for decades if not centuries, turned to shreds in a matter of a year or less because of harsh laundering. IheartMaytag: What was it you needed to clear up that one left out, or maybe I shouldn't ask? *LOL* | ||
| Post# 347272 , Reply# 54 5/7/2009 at 14:31 (5,459 days old) by aquarius1984 (Planet earth) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 347277 , Reply# 55 5/7/2009 at 15:05 (5,459 days old) by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas) | ||
|
IheartMaytag: What was it you needed to clear up that one left out, or maybe I shouldn't ask? *LOL* I was clarifying that I stated that my mother's linens were regularly washed in bleach, but in reality they are 100% cotton. Just for some reason we always refer to sheets and such as linens. I am guessing it has become generic, but your excellent definition made me realize the err of my ways. I always enjoy your comments and insites. | ||
|
Post# 347296 , Reply# 56 5/7/2009 at 16:50 (5,459 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Ohh!
Got it! *LOL* Well actually "linens" as a generic term for everything bath, bed, table and body came about because at one time they were all made of mainly linen. Ok, for the wealthy there was silk, but for most of the Old World, with the exception of places like Egypt and India, where cotton has always grown, linen and to a lesser extent hemp and nettle were fabrics of choice. Indeed one has to becareful searching on eBay in many European countries for "linen" or "lin" , "linge", Wasche, and so forth. Not only do these terms mean linens as in sheets, towels and such, but undergarments as well. Darn near got a very nasty shock when searching eBay.de (Germany), for "Wasche". *LOL* | ||
| Post# 347304 , Reply# 57 5/7/2009 at 18:10 (5,459 days old) by favorit () | ||
|
do washers enjoy while washing hemp clothes ?? sorry... couldn't resist :-) | ||
|
Post# 347308 , Reply# 58 5/7/2009 at 18:23 (5,459 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
I'm Sorry? | ||
|
Post# 347443 , Reply# 59 5/8/2009 at 08:32 (5,458 days old) by logixx (Germany) |
||
As far as water consumption, I think manufacturers are doing kinda like the same thing they did with cell phones. In the beginning, they were bulky and heavy, then they became smaller and smaller (to the point where one almost needed a toothpick to operate them). Finally, they came up with innovative technologies (such as sliding mechanisms and now touch screens) to make then, again, easier to operate. Washer manufacturers did the same thing: decrease water consumption from over 100 liters to as little as 35 liters. Finally, they realized they are going in the wrong direction and water consumption increased again - albeit slightly. I'm hoping US manufacturers (government?) will learn that lesson, too. Over here, three rinses are basically the standard; many manufacturers offer Allergy cycles with five rinses; TOL Bosch/Siemens washers allow up to three extra rinses; Electrolux washers add quite a bit of extra water with the Sensitive option selected... Here are two pics I took yesterday of our 2006 Electrolux washer. It's on Cottons 60°C with Extra Quick option, which eliminates one rinse but increases the rinse water level. RINSE 
| ||
|
Post# 347445 , Reply# 60 5/8/2009 at 08:33 (5,458 days old) by logixx (Germany) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 349484 , Reply# 63 5/17/2009 at 04:21 (5,450 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia) | ||
|
Yep...pretty much The one thing that wasn't clear though is that many European homes (including UK and Ireland) don't have separate laundry rooms so the kitchen or bathroom is 'it'. My flat here in Oz has no separate, own title laundry being shared. As a result, when I bought it I had the plumbing around the vanity changed so that a standard front load machine could be incorporated next to it. Worked a dream. In the UK, our kitchen was laid out with the dryer to the far right followed by the washing machine to its left and then the dishwasher closest to the sink - appliances in bathrooms being a big no-no in the UK (and I gather, Ireland). | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
