Thread Number: 37582
First, some info about changes in washing machines
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 558868   11/23/2011 at 22:47 (4,617 days old) by PeterH770 (Marietta, GA)        

peterh770's profile picture

First, this article...



Post# 558884 , Reply# 1   11/23/2011 at 23:58 (4,617 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

OK? All I see is a Youtube video of a 2007 Maytag machine washing?

Post# 559018 , Reply# 2   11/24/2011 at 22:22 (4,616 days old) by PeterH770 (Marietta, GA)        

peterh770's profile picture

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


Post# 559034 , Reply# 3   11/25/2011 at 01:54 (4,616 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
I have a 20gal/load frontloader from 1998. It works perfectly, considering the restrictions goobermint has placed on detergent. At least it uses water well enough to remove the detergent, with 5 rinses.

You just can't duplicate that with a toploader, with which Americans seem ignorantly obsessed. Take the water out of a TL and you get low performance, fabric damage, and detergent residue.

But again the goobermint is closing in on full-performance toploaders, just like they did with low-flow toilets that take 3 flushes to get rid of a mookeystink.

I'm not a rightwinger. I'm not a 'winger' at all, because they are both unsustainably corrupt. These are all actions of a bureaucracy of stupidity, throwing out regulations with the primary goal always the sustenance of the bureaucracy. If they ever SOLVED a problem, the need for the bureaucracy would evaporate and that's the last thing in the world they will allow to happen.

Post# 559038 , Reply# 4   11/25/2011 at 03:25 (4,616 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        
low-flow toilets

What's wrong with them?! Mine has 6 litres "big" flush and gets rid of everything the first time!
For liquids you have a manual flush that as soon as you release your hand stops, works every time.

Regarding washing machines I think that this run to water and power conservation is right, but I can see that in the USA it has been applied the wrong way, imposing it to the consumers with visible (bad) results.
If front loaders were introduced the same way as here in the past the switch would have come naturally and not in such an abrupt manner with so much malcontent! Plus detergents companies and equipment makers would have had time to improve on their product before putting on the market all that crap!

Post# 559079 , Reply# 5   11/25/2011 at 09:28 (4,615 days old) by bwoods ()        

Front loading automatic washers are not new to the U.S.. by any means. Bendix had them in the late 1930's. Through out the 1940's through the mid 1950's front loaders were all the rage in the U.S. Bendix and Westinghouse were two of the major supplies of FL.

People seem to think FL are something new in the U.S., they certainly are not. Many people in European countries were using scrubboards and buckets while people in the U.S. were enjoying automatic washing in their Bendix front loaders.

Post# 559091 , Reply# 6   11/25/2011 at 10:19 (4,615 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        

I understand perfectly what you said! We still used scrub-boards while the USA already had automatic front loaders. Indeed my grandma had her first automatic washing machine in the late 60s. :)

But regardless of this, front loaders have always been a minority (I'd say niche product) of all the sales, so indeed they are "new" for the masses and combined with the lack of self heat, shorter cycles, imposed water savings, detergents that lagged behind and shorter cycles, the results have been less than perfect!

I hope I made my point clear now.

Post# 559186 , Reply# 7   11/25/2011 at 14:39 (4,615 days old) by bwoods ()        

I understand. But in the U.S. the first automatic toploader was not sold until 1947, by GE.

The first automatic front loader was in 1937. So the front loader, in the U.S. was the majority seller, in automatic machines for wellover ten years as an automatic toploader had yet to be marketed. Even in the late forties/early fifties, it was still number one and millions were sold.

I am not sure why the front loader eventually got superceded by the top loader. Just speculation, but I guess it was convenience as one did not have to stoop over to load and unload. Until Westinghouse came out with their Laundromat Series, where the water level stayed below the opening, you also could not add clothes once the cycle had started.

Some of the earlier front loaders required bolt-down on the floor to not dance around while spinning. Also, before the advent of FL washing tubs that reverse direction, front loaders often tangled laundry. My 1982 White Westinghouse front loader (which I loved) did have a propensity to tangle shirts and sheets sometimes.

Maybe it was a combination of these things that knocked our front loading machines out of the #1 spot which they held in the late 1930's through the early 1950's.

Many younger people, in the U.S. actually think the front loader is a new invention, hehe.

They have never been out of production, in the U.S. since introduction to the U.S. home market,by Bendix, in 1937. By the late 1970's I don't think anyone mass produced them in the U.S. except for Westinghouse (actually Westinghouse became White-Westinghouse which became Electrolux.)

By the mid to late nineties they found a new following in the U.S.. So the front loader has gone from the majority in automatic machines, in the U.S. over seventy years ago to the minority, and is now on its way back to probably becoming the best seller again.

In the U.S., in the early 1980's, White-Westinghouse (White Consolidated Industries) had a media campaign selling their front loading washers as "New Generation" This was even written in script on the control panels of their machines as was on my 1982 WW FL.

I am sure the marketers at White Consolidated about laughed themself silly as they were using virtually the same assembly line and virtually the same design as the 1950's and 1960's Westinghouse front loaders. I have to give their marketing people credit for sticking a control panel onto a machine that had been in continuous production for over 40 years and calling it "New Generation!"

Post# 559199 , Reply# 8   11/25/2011 at 16:06 (4,615 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
What's wrong with low flow toilets? Nothing, if you get a good one. Mine is 6 l like yours and works fine. Does not have the quick-flush option though.

Many bad ones have been made. Seldom do you get to try them before you buy them.

Post# 559204 , Reply# 9   11/25/2011 at 17:23 (4,615 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)        
Thank a lesbian?

gansky1's profile picture

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."




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.


Post# 559827 , Reply# 10   11/28/2011 at 00:51 (4,613 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California)        

sudsmaster's profile picture
Oh, not another distorted article from the von Mises groupie crowd.

First we had the one claiming that the TSP you can get in hardware stores is what you want to add to modern laundry detergents (instead of the real thing, which is STPP). The author didn't do his homework on that one, and I very much doubt he ever actually added TSP to his laundry as he claimed.

Now we have him claiming that Consumer Reports rates HE washers as mediocre at best. Well, I've been a CR subscriber for decades and have noticed that HE washers have often been rated very good to excellent in washing efficiency - even some HE top loaders like the Maytag Bravos or its corporate badge-mate, the Whirlpool Cabrio. One must also take some of CR's results with a grain of salt. Their test articles appear to be one foot square swatches of fabric. Sort of like wash cloths. Well, how many of us wear wash cloths to work? What might work well on a square foot of fabric won't necessarily work the same on a set of king size sheets, a comforter, or even a pair of slacks or a a shirt. But I digress.

I heard enough of the von Mises claptrap over on a debate forum a few years back to know that these people generally have a screw loose (or a bunch of loose change in the dryer drum). They appear to live in some idealized world where only their pet economic and social theories are valid. I'm a bit annoyed that they are now intruding into laundry matters in order to beat their tin drums. End of rant ;-)

Post# 559876 , Reply# 11   11/28/2011 at 07:39 (4,612 days old) by JETCONE (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Now I think this is an

jetcone's profile picture

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!



Post# 559883 , Reply# 12   11/28/2011 at 09:20 (4,612 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

Amen, Jon. Restricting rinse water is without merit unless you are in a water shortage situation. Since I bear no responsibility for any population increase, I cannot worry about population levels versus available water two generations hence. If there is a problem, looming or immediate, then I would restrict those who are anti-birth control to 3 cups of fresh water a day. They can drink all of the sea water they want, however. I add nothing to the water coming out of my house that will poison the ground water. Due to the water cycle, water is inherently self-cleaning. Since the law of conservation of matter states that matter can neither be destroyed nor created, the Earth has the same amount of water it always has. Those who ruin the ground water with toxins should be made to clean it up at their own expense, but don't give us this bull crap that we cannot satisfactorily rinse laundry or dishes because we will run out of water. Most of this water usage BS is a scam by governments to avoid building water treatment plants by putting the burden of water usage on consumers. They did not want to invest in the process to remove phosphate from sewage so consumers had to deal with the removal of phosphates from detergents when most of the phosphate that is polluting waterways is from agricultural runoff, but the agriculture lobby is rich & powerful while consumers are largely uninformed and bovine in their passivity.

Post# 559886 , Reply# 13   11/28/2011 at 09:48 (4,612 days old) by Hunter (Colorado)        
I have no objection to water efficiency...

...but only if the machines work.

I am PRO front loader. I've used numerous Euro front loaders both here, and in Europe. Yet everything made for the US market is a POS.

Take the Whirlpool Duet I have (please). I sold my old (Euro sized) Asko to buy it. WHy did I do this ? 'Cause king sized comforters would not fit in the 50 litre drum. Well, this is fine BUT:

1. It's use of internal heat is spotty at best, claiming that it will reach the various temperatures (which the manufacturers are cagey about telling you) for "at least 5 minutes during the wash." Hello? If I want to wash something at 105 degrees F, I want it to do a profile wash at that time.

2. It's needed FIVE repairs in under 5 years. I've had a whole new motor put in, a gasket, and other things. Fortunately I bought the extended warranty.

3. It doesn't rinse. Again, my euro front loader DID.

4. It's relatively noisy by comparison.

And the price difference between the Euro machines and this is not great.

Why aren't the Euro machines more popular in America? Folks complain that 80-120 minutes for a wash is too long. Well, since I don't decide to wash my clothes 45 minutes before going out, it isn't a big deal for me.

The American mania for washing things in cold water is also to blame....US folks don't know what CLEAN, SOAP FREE clothes are.

I'm thinking when this Duet goes (probably any day now) I'll get another Asko...they now have a 3 year warranty, and some of them have 60 litre drums...which MIGHT fit the king sized comforter.

And don't even get me started on ovens that don't keep even temperature :)

Post# 559909 , Reply# 14   11/28/2011 at 11:42 (4,612 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

Hunter, You could use duvet covers which would cut down on the amount of laundering of the comforter itself. Since the duvet covers are essentially the size of the corresponing sheets, they would fit in a regular washer.

Post# 559918 , Reply# 15   11/28/2011 at 12:11 (4,612 days old) by Hunter (Colorado)        
I do :)

I do indeed do that, but wash the comforters every 3rd week or so...

I was using this as an example just to illustrate the frustration !

Post# 559922 , Reply# 16   11/28/2011 at 12:46 (4,612 days old) by wringingwet (Walterboro South Carolina)        

wringingwet's profile picture
This is why I love my asko washer that has a high temp of 205. Yes it may take longer more time for me to watch the tumble ... I also have an Asko dishwasher and it is amazing what the machine will clean with 4.5 gallons of water ... also hi temp for germs ...

I do believe that having high temp machine is what kept my husband and I healthy for 15 years with HIV ... I would not have anything else. Yes I know Asko is crap for service but where I live anything is almost crap for service.


Post# 559926 , Reply# 17   11/28/2011 at 12:49 (4,612 days old) by JETCONE (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        

jetcone's profile picture

"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.



Post# 559928 , Reply# 18   11/28/2011 at 12:51 (4,612 days old) by JETCONE (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        

jetcone's profile picture

I love that !! 

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


Bovine in their passivity!!



Post# 559942 , Reply# 19   11/28/2011 at 13:55 (4,612 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

There was a time when houses built with septic tanks or cesspools had dry wells for the so-called gray water. There also was a time in the South when the laundry was done on the back porch and the used wash water was used to scrub the porch and the rinse water either went to rinse the porch or went into the garden. Up in West VA, john drains his laundry line down the mountain below his house and the water rarely makes it more than 2 or 3 feet before disappearing into the ground. My soil is very porus. I think I am going to have a small hole drilled through the back wall over the laundry sink in the Spring. I will place the submersible pump in the sink and pipe the rinse water outside. I have one such arrangement near where I have the KA, but I don't use the top loaders much at all any more and the FLs are all on the back wall. The only hesitation I feel about this is not moving enough water through my sewer pipe to get stuff out to the street and having it get constipated. I guess I can put those enzymes in my toilet to start dissolving organic matter as it makes its way to the pipe under the street. As my little cousins used to say before their mother flushed, "Bye-bye, doo doo."

Post# 559961 , Reply# 20   11/28/2011 at 14:59 (4,612 days old) by Hunter (Colorado)        
Too true!

Perhaps I should have said

Everything made for the US consumer market seems like a POS!

Post# 560056 , Reply# 21   11/28/2011 at 21:49 (4,612 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture

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.

Post# 560324 , Reply# 22   11/30/2011 at 05:16 (4,610 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

I love how the article says how Front loaders are "Inferior".

It's kind of sad when I think about it that Speed Queen/Huebsch are probably one of the last manufacturers to make a "Traditional" top loader with normal high water levels for a full load. The local Future Shop sells a brand called "Regency" which is also as close to a traditional top loader as you can get. I was surprised you can still buy them that way.

I switched to using a front loader because of a few reasons.. but before I get into that, my previous washer was a 2004 vintage GE Profile.

- The GE drank 180 liters of water per load, the Huebsch I have drinks 75 liters.
- The GE occasionally liked to rip or tear clothes, especially if I accidentally used the wrong cycle. The Huebsch hasn't ruined anything yet.
- The Huebsch can wash items that my GE simply can't, due to it's agitator.

I've considered keeping my old top loader, but the reasons are hard to justify. It has a soak cycle which the front loader doesn't have, but I can't ever remember using it. It's nice that it has 28 cycles, but I rarely ever used more than three.

As far as energy efficiency is concerned, I do like the idea where I'm using a bit more than half the amount of water and half the detergent to do the same job.

Although, the reason why I picked Huebsch was because it actually uses a decent amount of water to clean the clothes, as opposed to using as little as possible, like other brands. Even I know, you need water to clean clothes!

Post# 560325 , Reply# 23   11/30/2011 at 05:18 (4,610 days old) by qualin (Canada)        
To Ronhic

Alliance Laundry Systems does sell stuff in Australia, I'm pretty sure of it. Although, I can understand brand loyalty.

My comforter just barely fits into my washer.. It doesn't tumble at all unfortunately. If it's getting wet, that's good enough for me. I like to wash it probably once every three months or so, because I have very oily skin.

If I want it to tumble to get additional gunk out, I'll just take it to a laundromat.

Post# 560327 , Reply# 24   11/30/2011 at 05:28 (4,610 days old) by qualin (Canada)        
To Hunter

I think the problem is that Europeans take a different approach to designing the typical washing machine. They're proud of their engineering and the engineers build the kind of machine they would want in their home.

I don't understand why American companies design their machines so cheaply and poorly. (Excluding Alliance) It's not a difficult concept when you think about it. The beancounters probably control what the engineers think.

I kind of wonder what kind of machine a company like V-Zug would make if they ever decided to get into the North American market. Their washers have engineering which is practically unheard of anywhere else.

You know guys and gals, I think it'll be the European companies which will have to re-educate the North Americans on what makes a good washing machine.

When Whirlpool, Maytag, GE, LG, Samsung, etc all start hurting badly because Miele, Asko and Alliance are all eating their lunch, maybe we'll see some decent machines showing up in the retail outlets.

Post# 560338 , Reply# 25   11/30/2011 at 06:12 (4,610 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture

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

Post# 560542 , Reply# 26   12/1/2011 at 03:00 (4,610 days old) by qualin (Canada)        
To Ronhic

As much as I like top loaders, I would probably never buy another top loader again.

My front loader got things out of my clothes that my top loader didn't.

I think it's a shame that more manufacturers don't sell H-Axis machines. They give you all of the advantages of a top loader with none of the disadvantages and with all of the advantages of a front loader.

There is Staber Industries, but I've heard all kinds of negative things about their machines, unfortunately. Expecting your customers to fix the machine when it breaks down is idiocy. They have some neat concepts, but not the best execution of those concepts.

I'm not sure what the stigma is against H-Axis machines. Maybe people just like the idea of watching their clothing tumble in a window or through an open lid?

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

Post# 560544 , Reply# 27   12/1/2011 at 03:46 (4,610 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
but I know it'll be more reliable.

ronhic's profile picture

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!

Post# 560546 , Reply# 28   12/1/2011 at 05:57 (4,609 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        
"but I know it'll be more reliable"

foraloysius's profile picture
Perhaps this refers to the not so reliable Staber?

Post# 560548 , Reply# 29   12/1/2011 at 06:10 (4,609 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture



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.

Post# 560555 , Reply# 30   12/1/2011 at 06:46 (4,609 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Let's ask Bud what he meant with that statement.

Post# 560745 , Reply# 31   12/1/2011 at 23:10 (4,609 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

Well, yes, I should clarify.

A Top loading H/A washer doesn't have the boot that a traditional front loader has, so there's nothing to collect mold, mildew and other yucky things.

If they designed the rubber seal on the sliding door at the top of a Top loading H/A machine correctly, it shouldn't collect water.

It is my understanding that a Top loading H/A washer can have bearings on both sides of the tub instead of a front loader which can only have one at the rear of the tub. In theory, two bearings sharing the weight and G forces of the tub should provide better reliability.

Now, in saying this, I don't personally own one of these machines, so I don't know exactly what other peoples experiences are. So far, all I've heard are the problems Staber machines have, which isn't encouraging.

Apparently, Staber machines apparently suffer bearing failures just as often as normal front load machines, so maybe they only just have one tub bearing?

I apologize for the confusion.

So, Why are these style of machines not that popular anyway, when in theory it would be a perfection of tumble-style agitation technology?

Post# 560759 , Reply# 32   12/2/2011 at 00:52 (4,609 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
TL HA was/is a staple of very-large volume commercial laundries. However, I've seen firsthand 50# FL HA commercial machines and they go as high as 150#. Just for fun, call the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas, ask for the laundry, and see what they use.

Look at the biggest Unimacs, they are all hugely expanded versions of a home FL. But then look at the biggest Wascomats. They are another beast yet. H axis, double bearing, trapdoor loading, but they load from the front nonetheless. No home machine works this way.

Hypothetically, the bearing loads are lower when the tub is supported at both ends. But don't you just know, that consumer manufacturers use that advantage to reduce the bearing integrity and cost rather than increase the reliability.

Post# 560761 , Reply# 33   12/2/2011 at 01:52 (4,609 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        

Here in Italy around 10-15% of all the sales orignates from top loading (horizontal axis ) machines.
We even have top loanding dryers and washer dryers.

In theory, as Arbilab said, the TLHA machines can be more reliable than front loading, because of the double bearing structure but in reality they are not as they are mechanically more complex!
Think of the double door and the opening on the side of the drum or the auto return mechanism to have the drum always ready in position (no new machine lacks this mechanism).

Staber machines looks interesting but they're hugely water wasteful (because of their werid washing drum) compared to their European counterpart and I too read that they're very failure prone.
Plus they have short wash cycles and a wimpy extraction speed. Too bad for a good concept gone bad.

Anyway I wouldn't ever get a machine where I can't see the clothes tumbling.

Post# 560764 , Reply# 34   12/2/2011 at 02:24 (4,609 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
Not popular...

ronhic's profile picture

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.

Post# 560767 , Reply# 35   12/2/2011 at 03:54 (4,609 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Long Before H-Axis Washers That Were Front Loading

launderess's profile picture
For both commercial and even domestic use had top loading H-Axis washers. Heck I've seen photo's and also are included in my vintage laundry manuals are models with tubs made from wood.

The advantage is was easy to see then in that such *pony* washers didn't require water tight seals the way modern front loaders do today.

As for modern "pocket" washers (large H-Axis washers are often divided into compartments beneath the bonnet),the advantages are easy to see.

First such machines are easier to load and unload than a similar sized front loader with a boot, especially as one goes up in capacity weight.

For commercial laundries in hospitals and or those that frequently do infected/hospital linen these units can be built into a wall where one has a clean and dirty side.

Despite their advantages top loading "H-Axis" washers have had limited market penetration in Europe and are virtually nil on this side of the pond except for Staber.

One big drawback is that once one goes over a certain capacity the drum must switch to a side to side design. This would be fine for a small washer but to handle large loads you're likely looking at a unit whose cabinet won't fit the standard 24" (or whatever it is) width of American top loading washing machines.

With toploading H-Axis washers of a small size such as those sold in Europe by Miele and others the drum is recessed and thus one has a flat surface. By nature *pony* washers have drums/tubs that are raised and covered over. This means giving up that flat surface. Now one could lower the tubs but that means for a washer of any decent capacity (to compete with the 18 or pounds an Amercian top loader holds), but then you are going to have a very deep tub with perhaps a small opening. Not something your average Mrs. American housewife may relish on laundry day trying to fetch out items from the bottom of the tub.

Post# 560771 , Reply# 36   12/2/2011 at 05:49 (4,608 days old) by Haxisfan (Europe - UK / Italy)        
18 Pounds American Washer... that's about 8kg right?

haxisfan's profile picture
Hi there... sorry for butting in... first congratulations to 'Launderess' for your profile picture showing my favourite actress of all times... Patricia Rout... I mean Mrs Bouquet!

You were mentioning 18 pounds TL H-Axis washers and... on condition that my conversion skills didn't betray me, it should be equivalent to approx 8 kilograms, which is the capacity of the 40cm TL featured in the link below from 'Hoover'. I don't have any experience with these machines but I find it hard to imagine such a huge drum in a confined space 40cm wide. It must have a larger diameter drum... meaning the user must be provided with very stretchy arms and a very solid backbone to unload this machine!

I agree with what 'arbilab' was saying about the reliability issue that might affect this kind of washers... the type of construction suggests they are sturdier and less susceptible to bearings failures compared to FLs but it's not necessarily the case. Have you seen the size of the bearings used on TLHAs and the flimsiness of their spider? If they had the same bearings assembly of a front loader on both sides of the tub, then yes... they would be indestructible!


Post# 560828 , Reply# 37   12/2/2011 at 13:07 (4,608 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        
Let me tune in here...

foraloysius's profile picture
As a well known Topload H-axis lover I guess I can add my two cents here.

I guess you can say that each design is as good as it's execution (is that good english? lol). It's the way you build them, not the design itself that makes it good.

Topload H-axis machines have their own quirks and their own advantages.

Rubber gasket: They don't need a rubber gasket when there is an extra lid on the outer tub. My Philips has three lids, one in the inner drum, one in the outer drum and one on top of the machine. It doesn't need a gasket because the outer drum is closed by that second lid.

Two bearings: Not all toploaders have two bearings. Miele uses only one, just as in their frontloaders. The drum is only on one side mounted to the machine.
Miele did this because they claimed that it solved the problem of two bearings getting out of line. Apparently it was possible that the bearings got out of alignment in a severe off balance situation or so. Frontloaders would not have a problem with this.

Capacity: In a way topload h-axis machines use the cabinet space more efficiently. That's why for a long time the smaller h-axis machines had about the same capacity as the frontloaders. European frontloaders have a foot print of 60 x 60cm. Toploaders are usually 60 x 40 or 45cm. I'm waiting for a manufacturer to come with a toploader with a 60 x 60cm footprint, the capacity could be bigger than a same sized frontloader.

I told here before that Whirlpool still has an H-axis design on the shelf. Apparently they chose to make the V-axis HE toploaders over the H-axis design. It was explained to me that the H-axis with the two or three lids would be too complicted for the American consumers. I don't know if this would be true, we will never know I guess.

Yes, such a machine will be deep, but the big HE toploaders now on the market have deep tubs as well.

Here's the Whirlpool design again.

Post# 560830 , Reply# 38   12/2/2011 at 13:13 (4,608 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Interesting Machine

launderess's profile picture
You can read more about the Hoover here:

Yes, 8kg runs about 18lbs (or 17.6 closer to be exact)so compared to a standard European "top loader" this washer holds more.

However as stated above and as with all H=Axis washer to increase capacity there are several options; increase diameter and or depth of the tub.

Considering the small and rather narrow opening of most top loading H-Axis washers like the Hoover it may not be up every woman's street to go digging down into the bowels of the washer to fetch laundry.

Post# 560837 , Reply# 39   12/2/2011 at 14:50 (4,608 days old) by Jsneaker ()        
Post# 559034, Reply# 3 For arbilab

Hey there, you and I must think exactly alike about our "goobermint" and politicians/bureaucracy! A-MEN! (:

Post# 560843 , Reply# 40   12/2/2011 at 15:09 (4,608 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Should Like To Make Something Clear

launderess's profile picture
Federal goverment in the United States did *not* regulate and or otherwise control phosphates or laundry/dishwasher appliance design directly.

Rather they used the Clean Water Act to get states to reduce pollution entering waterways. States could have chosen to build and or improve waste treatment plants to deal with phosphates but that cost is quite dear. Given how cash strapped most states are at the moment it would have been a tough sell especially with residents voting *no* to anything or anyone that increases their taxes. So the easier route was to simply ban the stuff.

Since most detergent manufacturers by and large have stopped regional production and now use central plants for a good area of the country making phosphate versus non-phosphate to suit various markets was by and large a no go. Such things are expensive and with the detergent market mature and declining there isn't much incentive.

As for water use of washing machines and dishwashers again the federal government hasnt' laid down any laws. Whirlpool or anyone else is perfectly free to design and produce *water hog* washing machines or dishwashers. However then they will loose out on all that Energy Star money not to mention potential sales. The government and consumer groups have done quite a good job in getting people to look for and purchase ES rated appliances. Thus one wonders how well a unit without such a label would do in the market place. Again with the domestic appliance market being a mature one for quite some time, there just isn't that much interest in spending huge amounts on R&D that may not be recouped.

Post# 560845 , Reply# 41   12/2/2011 at 15:27 (4,608 days old) by Jsneaker ()        
Post# 560544, Reply# 27 12/1/2011 at 03:46 by ronhic

Chris, many Korean-made front-loaders like my Samsung are slightly DEEPER than most US machines, with very few exceptions. Same goes for the height, my Samsung is about 2+inches higher than our old Kenmore TL.(look at my photo) The Electrolux FL I had for a month last year before I sent it back, was a bit higher than most every North American-made machines. As far as width, most every front-loader sold here today is about 27" wide, the "standard" wahser/dryer width. Whirlpool-made brands still have many machines of the old-fashioned 29" conventional-type dryers, with drying systems to match!

Post# 560847 , Reply# 42   12/2/2011 at 15:34 (4,608 days old) by Jsneaker ()        
Post# 559886, Reply# 13 11/28/2011 at 09:48 by Hunter

Remember well: Asko is made by Electrolux. 'Nuf said.

Post# 560848 , Reply# 43   12/2/2011 at 15:37 (4,608 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        
"Asko is made by Electrolux"

foraloysius's profile picture
No, it isn't and never has been. Asko is owned by Gorenje, see link.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO foraloysius's LINK

Post# 560861 , Reply# 44   12/2/2011 at 17:54 (4,608 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

"The government and consumer groups have done quite a good job in getting people to look for and purchase ES rated appliances."

I'm not so sure they are going to have as easy a time getting people to buy that second ES POS dishwasher. While some are very good, especially if they have an onboard water softener or the house has one or the water is naturally soft, others are bad news and the removal of STPP from DW detergents has made things much worse.

Post# 560895 , Reply# 45   12/3/2011 at 00:25 (4,608 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
slightly DEEPER than most US machines, with very few excepti

ronhic's profile picture

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.

Post# 561704 , Reply# 46   12/7/2011 at 11:54 (4,603 days old) by Hunter (Colorado)        

Yes, it's those metric measurements again :)

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