First, this article...

Well, that's not right...  Here is the correct link... 

From the article:

"So there you have it. Politicians, environmentalists, and meddlesome bureaucrats have teamed up to dream up another attempt to serve the public interest. Left to its own the invisible hand of entrepreneurial competition would have naturally made doing laundry easier, better, cheaper, and more efficient. Instead we have more expensive, more inefficient, and truly ineffective clothes-washing machines."

The author cites statistics from (presumably) Consumer Reports from way back in 2007, despite having published this article just last May. CR has consistently given excellent scores to many HE washing machines and have even called a few HE washers "the best cleaning washers they have ever tested" since 2007. Ignoring facts and lazy research abound in this obvious attempt at making the "goobermint" to blame for everyone slogging around in dirty clothes. Not only does this not jive with testing agency ratings, but were that truly the case, the public outcry and rates of returned washers would be overwhelming. Neither are the case.  The author, in an effort to crank out agitating schlock to affect his (or the "Institute's") political agenda also completely ignores the facts that led to more stringent resource consumption requirements for household (and commercial) appliances.  Initially, it was the manufacturers that helped to set the reduction goals which were far exceeded long before laws mandating the same went into effect.  The numbers were not pulled out of thin air, it was cooperation between government and manufacturers that brought us to where we are now.  Subsequently,  in a "race to the bottom" we witnessed firsthand the washing machine makers undercutting one another in water usage which has a direct correlation to energy bills and consumer's pockets.  Not a difficult sale to make when you tell consumers, largely ignorant of the consumption levels of then current technology, that they could see utility savings in large numbers.  "I'll take it!"  We're now seeing the same thing with dishwashers, claims of a machine's ability to scrub a huge load of dishes clean in less than four gallons of water with the latest in (hobbled) detergent technology.

While not attempting to defend the decisions and laws enacted thus far concerning energy and water usage ratings of washing machines, the fear mongering of the author is blatantly apparent.  Making people distrust, and even hate their government is the obvious goal, completely ignorant of the truth that we, the people, elect and maintain our government as we see fit.  If you are unhappy with the energy standards or the manner in which your toilet flushes, there are many avenues for citizens of a democratic republic to address their grievances.  Write your members of congress; city, state and federal representatives really do read their mail and with enough of an outcry, will alter their positions in order to keep their jobs given to them as a privilege by the people for whom they work.   Not happy with the "goobermint"?  Go vote.  It's about time more citizens take the responsibility upon themselves for our country, for too long we've had a government elected by a minority of it's citizens.  The 2010 election is a perfect example.  Numbers of those eligible to vote that turned up at the polls was pathetic.  A congress of the U.S. with a 9% approval rating?   We have nobody to blame but ourselves.   Bought a product you're not happy with?  Complain, return the product and demand more and better from manufacturers.  They also are in business to keep staying in business and adjust their engineering and development to meet the demands of consumers. 

Just what exactly is the point of this article then? A quick tour of the topics and their authors, even the founding principals would raise an eyebrow in skepticism of even the most enamored "libertarian".

From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."

"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism."

Nice.

I love my Speed Queen front load washer.  I've never fiddled with the water level and get great results every time.  Before this, I had a 2004 Duet washer that I also liked.  Never once did I feel that my clothes were not clean.  I may be a bit more fastidious in my laundry habits than the average consumer (aren't we all? we're here after all) but if I didn't think I was getting clean laundry, I would not have kept the Duet washer, let alone replace it with another front loader.

interesting article. But I do agree there is no sense in restricting water usage in the rinse cycle. Water is a renewable resource when we stay under 7 billion people!

"Yet everything made for the US market is a POS. "

I don't think you have tried Speed Queen, which by the way is Made in the U.S.A.

Until you do you can't say that.

jon

I love that !! 

""but the agriculture lobby is rich & powerful while consumers are largely uninformed and bovine in their passivity. ""

Bovine in their passivity!!

Being in Oz, getting hold of American appliances is difficult...but I have no desire what so ever to replace my Euro machine with anything else but another one....

On the topic of laundering comforters - why every 3 weeks or so if you're using a cover? By all means, wash as you see fit, but I'd suggest this is not required. Just air them for a few hours over the line or in the dryer on 'no heat' for 1/2 hour.....our duvets only see water annually, yet are aired monthly with covers changed at the same time but, I should point out, that we use a bottom AND top sheet.

Yes they do sell in Oz, but they are expensive and have proven to be, as a top load machine, ineffective when tested at the stated capacity - 64% dirt removal just doesn't cut it in my book.

Personally, for the same money, I'd have a Miele.... and put a cover on the quilt

I'm not quite sure what you mean....

A front loader IS A horizontal axis (H/A) machine.

A top-loading H/A machine could be what you mean and there are a few differences between a Front-load H/A machine and a Top-load machine with the same wash action, that is a tumbling action rather than an agitator one.....

- Front-load has bearings at the rear of the drum only - Top-load H/A may have bearings either side of the drum

- Front-load has a porthole door with a rubber boot (most cases) or door seals against outer drum (ASKO) - Top-load H/A has access via the top. This is normally via 2 doors - outer which may contain the detergent dispenser and inner, which is the actual wash-drum of the machine. A rubber seal exists here too.

- The vast majority of Front loaders sold globally are 60cm wide, with Nth American machines (and some Korean and one European one being a tad wider - Samsung/LG/Whirlpool) - Top-load H/A machines are normally between 40-45cm wide depending on brand and capacity (Staber excepted).

- Front-load machines can be accessed as soon as the door unlocks - Top-load H/A machines may require the user to manually move the drum to access the inner door (though many also return the drum with the access door facing up)

Given that it sounds as if there is a very limited (Staber only?) supply of Top-load H/A machines sold in either Canada or North America, how on earth can you say:

'...but I know it'll be more reliable'?

I would suggest, though can't prove it, that there would be very little difference in overall reliability between Front-load and Top-load H/A machines made by the same manufacturer particularly given that electronics, motors and other mechanisims, including bearings, are likely to be the same specification for a given price-point.

To conclude, these machines are not popular here and I doubt that any are currently listed for sale. They are, however, popular in parts of Europe, particularly France.

Over to you, my European colleagues!

Louis,

I had thought so too until I re-read the sentence 4 times before posting.....The previous sentence informs the intent of the second:

'In all honesty, if there were better choices in Canada, I would have purchased a large capacity H-Axis machine (If they existed) instead of a conventional front loader.'

Followed by:

'I can't see the clothes tumbling, but I know it'll be more reliable'

No, definately stating that a Top-loading H/A machine that would be more reliable than a conventional front loader.

From a European perspective, probably because they can't be built under a bench or integrated into a kitchen....

From an Australian perspective, there has only been one or two sold here...both were expensive and had a smaller capacity AND lower spin speed than was expected for the money.

I've used a Baukneckt in Germany some years ago that would have been at least 15 years old - lovely brown beast it was....relatively quiet, cleaned well and had provided my partners grandmother faultless service.

Hunter, I only commented on WIDTH because I know that US machines are generally wider than the 60cm/24" of European ones.

In Oz, over 95% of all Front Load machines sold are 60cm/24" and most are also 85cm tall, though there are always exceptions and these tend to be machines that have originally been designed for markets that have a different standard, such as the US.