Thread Number: 61280  /  Tag: Gatherings and Parties
Old Washing Machines Are Less Efficient and Consume More Energy
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate automaticwasher.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 839325   9/3/2015 at 03:15 (3,130 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
Interesting thesis out of Germany regarding older washing machines.

www.landtechnik-alt.uni-bonn.de/i...





Post# 839336 , Reply# 1   9/3/2015 at 05:55 (3,130 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Team Launderess sets up her spot for a leisurely afternoon at the beach.





This post was last edited 09/03/2015 at 07:27
Post# 839346 , Reply# 2   9/3/2015 at 07:13 (3,130 days old) by iej (.... )        

Of course they do as European shoppers pick machines by efficiency and that's how they've been marketed for nearly 25 years at this stage.

You're always looking for triple A rated performance - wash, spin, energy.

The A rating is also a sliding scale that moves with technology development so, as machines become more efficient the bar is moved higher and higher.

So, basically the A+++ ratings are being determined by the latest high end machines and everything else follows.

Before that system came into existence, there were no such ratings and people wouldn't even have been aware of energy consumption or water consumption, unless a manufacturer made it a unique selling point like the old Zanussi Jet System range in the 1980s


Post# 839350 , Reply# 3   9/3/2015 at 08:17 (3,130 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

I can see that in the older Miele machines, and other brands, that gave several rinses after the wash before any spins. WHICH used to rate machines on rinsing and in the 60s and 70s, none got a higher score than fair.

Post# 839363 , Reply# 4   9/3/2015 at 10:22 (3,129 days old) by 2packs4sure (houston)        
Anyone factored in the billions of dollars wasted ?????????

I wonder if anyone has ever factored in the billions of dollars wasted by consumers buying those thousand dollar front loaders from the 2000 - 2010 era that lasted 5 or 6 years with many breakdowns in between only to junked in year 7 and then buying another $1000.00 front loader.



Post# 839372 , Reply# 5   9/3/2015 at 10:58 (3,129 days old) by Realvanman (Southern California)        
Yes, or the Energy and other resources wasted

Constantly scrapping those machines and building new ones.

*Recycling*, while better than the landfill, is a very wasteful process.

Keith


Post# 839375 , Reply# 6   9/3/2015 at 11:13 (3,129 days old) by 2packs4sure (houston)        
Yes, or the Energy and other resources wasted

Also the fuel costs in transporting those beasts with their cement balancing weights.
More fuel used to ship new, then haul off to the junkyard, not to mention the sprained backs of the fools trying to install and position those things.


Post# 839378 , Reply# 7   9/3/2015 at 11:32 (3,129 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        

kb0nes's profile picture
Just skimmed the article a bit so far, I intend to read it in depth. I have a hunch that there will be a lot of negative comments here posted by people that didn't fully read and comprehend the article.

What say we give these three authors the benefit of the doubt before we bash the study?


Post# 839383 , Reply# 8   9/3/2015 at 12:32 (3,129 days old) by Realvanman (Southern California)        
Ours is a Special Group

So naturally we are going to be extra defensive about our beloved vintage machines :)

We are unusual in as much as we see and appreciate the quality in both design and execution of most things of the past. While most will holler the mantra of "dated", we appreciate things that last, and that look good, and even feel good. One can feel the difference in quality between today's flimsy plastic and yesteryear's quality, merely by handling the machines, and their controls. Heck, one can see the difference before they even touch lol.

What I'm saying is only that we're biased (or informed?) in ways that the majority are not, and so some nitpicking from us is to be expected :) I don't have children, so I probably save some resources just by using my old machines less? I don't know, some of those modern front loaders are admittedly VERY efficient.

Still, it's an interesting article. I too have only skimmed it so far, but do look forward to reading it in it's entirety.

Keith


Post# 839387 , Reply# 9   9/3/2015 at 13:04 (3,129 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)        
Hear, hear, Keith!

bradross's profile picture
Keith, you've made some great points! I cannot STAND front loaders - I don't think they get laundry anywhere near as clean as a good toploader - or furthermore - an old wringer washer! I think you need a significant amount of water to really clean clothes, and using a wringer - or a top loader with suds-saver feature - is not wasteful of water.

I got back recently from England, where front loaders are the norm, and in 3 weeks, never felt that I was getting clean laundry. Additionally, I don't think they rinse efficiently, PLUS they take so long to complete a cycle.

That's my "two cents" worth!


Post# 839388 , Reply# 10   9/3/2015 at 13:12 (3,129 days old) by iej (.... )        

Rinsing is primarily about forcing clean water through the clothes and removing it.

Multiple saturate and spin cycles are probably a lot more effective than just a big deep rinse.

Front loaders definitely get the clothes very clean. It's scientifically proven. The rinsing issue can depend on cycle and option selections though too.


Post# 839394 , Reply# 11   9/3/2015 at 14:04 (3,129 days old) by realvanman (Southern California)        
My Mom has a Front Loader

That's why I have her nice '80's Whirlpool :)

I don't *feel* like her front loader gets clothes very clean, but admit that, of course, *feel* is very unscientific :) She likes it, so that's what matters.

I do like the rippin' fast spin speed it can do. The clothes come out damn near dry lol.

But I too do not like how LONG it takes to run a cycle.

And, her machine in particular (LG, I believe), draws the water in little bursts, a practice which her flash water heater does not agree with lol.

Keith


Post# 839397 , Reply# 12   9/3/2015 at 14:12 (3,129 days old) by PhilR (Quebec Canada)        

philr's profile picture

I would like to see tests done here in North America with old front and top-loaders and also test of new washing machines (top and front loaders)  with old detergents, and the same done with new detergents!

 

Not that I care that much (or at all!) about efficiency.

 

In fact, I'd like if some scientific tests were done on the entertainment factor and consumer appreciation of vintage vs new appliances. I don't care much about how clean my clothes are, I want a machine that is fun to touch, fun to operate, fun to look at and fun to watch (or even to listen to!)!

I hope a few others think like me, at least here!

 

;-)


Post# 839415 , Reply# 13   9/3/2015 at 16:14 (3,129 days old) by turquoisedude (.)        

turquoisedude's profile picture

Uh-Oh, sounds like I should be formalizing the results from those 'Totally Unscientific Laundry Tests' from now on... LOL 

 

 


Post# 839431 , Reply# 14   9/3/2015 at 17:40 (3,129 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
To be fair

launderess's profile picture
Paper was released over ten years ago (2005) and much as changed since.

Study covered washers from IIRC the 1980's and perhaps earlier (cannot recall atm), much has changed since 2005 including various mandates about energy use affecting appliances sold in Germany.

Also IIRC the paper does account for the particular habits/traits of Germans; they are shall we say thrifty and often demand value for money. In short want something that will give service and usually hold onto it until the thing cannot be repaired.

Love both my older Miele 1070 and more modern Oko-Lavamat 88840; but would have to say in terms of overall performance the latter comes out slightly ahead.

In terms of rinsing the Miele only has one short pulse spin after three rinses with the only full spin taking place between the fourth and fifth rinse. OTOH the Lavamat spins after each of the rinse cycles. It has been known going back to the days of mangles/wringers that laundry comes out cleaner if water is extracted after the main wash and between each rinse.

That being said the Lavamat like many modern machines will do at least two deep rinses before spinning if "Sensitive" or "Fine" rinsing is selected; just as with the older machines.

Have always assumed one reason older European washers didn't spin after the first few rinses was both to cool down laundry after a hot to boiling wash. That and to prevent suds locking by diluting out as much detergent/soap from the wash before it was spun.

In terms of overall water use European H-axis washing machines for both commercial and domestic had long been decreasing water use during wash cycles. This came about as it was found wash results were better as concentrated soap/detergent and water solution being forced though the wash gave better cleaning than it swirling in a tub of water. You want high water levels for rinsing


Post# 839451 , Reply# 15   9/3/2015 at 19:39 (3,129 days old) by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor, Maine)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Thanks, but my nearly 33 year old Maytag uses 40 gallons for an ex-large load and everything still comes out perfectly clean. Sometimes I think its better to keep what you have as long as it works just fine. I am not doing several daily loads in it, so it works for me.

Post# 839477 , Reply# 16   9/3/2015 at 23:43 (3,129 days old) by abcomatic (Bradford, Illinois)        
BRAD

I agree with you 100%! You have to use WATER to clean clothes and washing in our wringer machines is a way to save water and get CLEAN clothes. That's my 2 cents worth too.

Post# 839478 , Reply# 17   9/3/2015 at 23:52 (3,129 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
Adding to my above post.

Modern European front loaders now often have sensors that can tell the machine when the laundry temperature is "hot" and perhaps cool it down via rinses before spinning. That or one can select from various options to cool down the wash water such as the addition of cold water before draining. This once was standard but now is a feature often turned off by default but can be reactivated via programming.

As for suds lock modern washers with fully electronically controlled motors can easily deal with too much froth/water whereas older machines may have had problems.

My Miele will simply stop spinning if the pump/sump is overwhelmed but keep the pump running to get rid of things. Once that period has passed the machine is given the all clear to begin spinning again. If too much froth still remains the process is repeated. However should the timer "time out" of that spin portion; tant pis, the machine will now enter rinsing regardless.

Now the AEG will slow the spinning down and or stop while continuing pumping in response to suds lock. More importantly it seems to hold the timer so spinning will continue on full cycle once conditions are right.


Post# 839489 , Reply# 18   9/4/2015 at 01:32 (3,129 days old) by electron1100 (England)        
Propaganda

electron1100's profile picture
Just sounds like propaganda to me, probably financed by a large corporation in the back ground.

But as I refuse to be guilted into an "eco" lifestyle I will carry on with my 34 year old machine, I want clean clothes at the end of the day

I have said it before I will say it again, none of the Three modern "eco" washers I had (Hoover, Bosch, Hotpoint) can touch my old Hoover 1100 with its high water levels on wash and rinse for cleaning or rinsing, and come to think of it the Hotpoint with its constant spinning of clothes to get the suds out used to crease them far more.

Gary


Post# 839572 , Reply# 19   9/4/2015 at 15:20 (3,128 days old) by e2l-arry (LAKEWOOD COLORADO)        
Your time is also worth something!

If I do 5 loads in my front loader it would take 4.25 hours. I can do the same 5 loads in 1 hour in my Maytag wringer. Physically it's much more work but time has got to be worth something. And I do think I get a cleaner wash in the wringer. That thing has just one speed: CLEAN!

Post# 839590 , Reply# 20   9/4/2015 at 19:07 (3,128 days old) by gregingotham (New York)        
frigidaire jet spray rinse

I've noticed with my 1-18 that the tub can be full of suds on the wash, and after the first spin spray rinse the water in the rinse is clear. No need for a second, third or however many rinses some of these machines use and the cycles is done in 30 minutes or less. I'd say that's pretty efficient and also produces clean clothes. Something I can't say for many high efficiency machines. They may look clean, but over time you'll notice a dingy, discolored looked. My two cents.

Post# 839595 , Reply# 21   9/4/2015 at 19:54 (3,128 days old) by PhilR (Quebec Canada)        

philr's profile picture

About the 1-18, they seem to work better than most vintage top-loaders with lower water levels. They still use more water than in a front loader or today's HE top-loaders but they seem quite efficient for 1970s machines. And the loooooong spray rinses are also using some water but clothes need to be rinsed and it's certainly no worse than any overflow rinse!

 

And for the entertainment factor, I have a lot more fun when I'm using one of these machines than when I'm cleaning the swimming pool (which I hate and rarely do!), and cleaning the pool with the filter on "drain" uses a lot more water than a washer! The pool's filter also uses a lot more energy than the washer does!

 

Here's the entertainment machine!

;-)





Post# 839600 , Reply# 22   9/4/2015 at 20:31 (3,128 days old) by pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada)        

pierreandreply4's profile picture
me i grew up with vintage washer in my family an inglis superb washer year from my birth so would estimate 1972 since it was a dial skirt model and it was a very good washer not a waste of energy and was very efficiant ps the washer is not viewed in this pic but look at the dryer it was the matching dryer to the washer that you can see a glimps on the right

  View Full Size
Post# 839613 , Reply# 23   9/4/2015 at 22:01 (3,128 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

If the Miele W1986 can't balance or has too much froth when it tries to spin after the wash, the time remaining changes from 38 to 45 and the machine adds an extra rinse easy peasy. It goes into a high speed spin after the wash, no matter the temperature and after each rinse on the cottons cycle to give excellent extraction without which you cannot have the most efficient rinsing.

Post# 839615 , Reply# 24   9/4/2015 at 23:00 (3,128 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        
FL every 7 years vs. TL once every 20

At the risk of playing Freud, I wonder if some members of aw.org (and I include myself)are less pissed off because actual machine performance and MORE pissed off because the costs incurred and resources consumed as a result of the TL's the shorter life span are not 'counted' as consumed by the FL's when in fact, they are consumed.

This reminds me of an argument I had with my sister a number of years ago: If gas, oil, etc. to drive to my parents' house for the weekend is $50 round trip AND I give up a $200 freelance job I could've taken that weekend, the cost of my trip is $250, not $50. She insisted the $250 figure was 'mine' and was a result of how I 'looked at' the situation. To be fair, I did hear her make a comment recently to suggest that now understands that the $250 cost was never 'mine' nor did I ever do any of the 'looking' she stated I had.

Jim



Post# 839962 , Reply# 25   9/7/2015 at 07:27 (3,126 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Interesting article and comments here

jetcone's profile picture

Interesting the German's on the whole load the machine to 75% capacity not 100%. There is some waste there.

Also the authors overlook the energy of production for 1980' machines versus todays machines. It could be wildly different then again it might not. But if you are still using a 1980 machine today there has to be some accountability for the production energy saved over those 30 years versus the production energy used to create the odd 4 machines you might have purchased every 7 years. Purchased due to early failure of later technology machines which is a real factor. These new machines are not as durable. That is something that should be looked at. 

We know from Car magazines driving a car into the dust is the cheapest way to drive a car, trading in every 5 years is not.

I believe water consumption has improved; and in the new machines I have; stain removal has improved because today's He machines work more like your dishwasher than your mom's washer did. 

But when it comes to removing oily soils and rinsing - hold your horses!! New machines can fail drastically in that department. And I'm not so sure its the users fault here , you really have to get your head inside the egineering of the new machines to get the maximum benefit of the way they wash; and as we ALL know too well  the majority of laundry-meisters out there don't even know the brand of machine sitting in there basements right now!

 

 


Post# 840049 , Reply# 26   9/7/2015 at 15:52 (3,125 days old) by dartman (Portland Oregon)        
I like old stuff but couldn't afford the water bill

I bought a HE top loader becuase I like top loaders, it's made by whirlpool, and our water rates here are stupid high so anything I can do to drop the bill helps my bottom line. My old Whirlpool Direct drive super capacity washer was real easy to fix and did a fine job on the clothes though it was extremely noisy and used a TON of water per load.
I probably would still be using and fixing it if it wasn't for the 300 buck combined sewer/water bills we were getting every three months.
New machine is very quiet, clothes come out very clean, and it's huge capacity compared to the old one so can do more clothes per load which also helps.
Doubt it will last as long as my old tank but I did have to replace the pump 2 times, the coupler once, and the agitator dogs, and it needed a new door switch I bypassed when I finally sold it off.
All the parts were cheap though and it was pretty easy to service, just a hassle having to pull it apart to deal with it in a small space.
Our old house the water bill was just over 30 bucks for two months use so if I was there the old dog would still be in service till unfixable. At least a semi pro apliance guy bought it from me cheap to rebuild and sell again so I'm sure it lives on cheaply and happily some where else not concerened by water usage.


Post# 840163 , Reply# 27   9/8/2015 at 04:01 (3,125 days old) by qualin (Canada)        
Math...

Doing some math...

Water where I live is $1.7175 per 1 m3 (1000 Litres) of water.
My 2004 GE TL used 180L of water per load, my Huebsch uses 83L of water per load.
Thereby the cost of water per load is $0.309 and $0.143 respectively.

A box of Tide 60-load 2.3 kg laundry detergent is $11.39. Assuming I only need to use half the amount of soap as the old HE, the cost of soap per load is $0.189 and $0.095 respectively.

I won't count Fabric softener since I rarely use it. Nor will I count the cost of heating water because who knows what it actually costs anyway.

Let's assume that I do 50 loads of laundry in a year. Almost once per week, not counting Christmas and New Years.. The cost of doing that laundry is $24.90 per year with the GE and $11.90 with the Huebsch.

Thereby, we can say that for every 50 loads of laundry, I save $13 in water and supplies.

Over the span of 20 years worth of use, it really doesn't add up to a lot, does it? The savings over that time works out to about $260.

So, realistically, even if machines have become more efficent, how much have we really saved? Am I missing something here?


Post# 840174 , Reply# 28   9/8/2015 at 06:23 (3,125 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
Save a cheeseburger lunch for two with onion-ring upgrade, per year. In a (typical) machine that becomes landfill in 5 years instead of 15 or well more using 'actual' water. Who do these eco-knotzies think they're fooling?

There's a point at which squeezing the lime harder into your iced tea just makes your knuckles sore and doesn't make the tea taste any different.


Post# 840194 , Reply# 29   9/8/2015 at 08:40 (3,125 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Let get this STR8

jetcone's profile picture

Your GE TL : 

"My 2004 GE TL used 180L of water per load, my Huebsch uses 83L of water per load. "

 

So your GE uses 47 gallons per wash and its an HE machine? And the Huebsch (I'm guessing is identical to my SQ FL uses 22 gallons per wash??

 

MY SQ on wash + 2 rinses uses 4 gallons each fill for a total use of 12 gallons per wash.

 

Something is out of whack and I can't see it.

 

 

 


Post# 840196 , Reply# 30   9/8/2015 at 08:44 (3,125 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 840214 , Reply# 31   9/8/2015 at 09:58 (3,124 days old) by electron1100 (England)        
Water Costs

electron1100's profile picture
Where I live in this country we pay the highest water charges in the country, basically because South West Water are an inefficient money grabbing company who,s only interest is profit at any cost..................any way enough of that.

When I installed my water guzzling Hoover 1100 (110 litres for a full cottons wash)

I was suprised after a few months that my water bill was reduced by £5.00 a month.

Even if had gone up I would consider it money well spent.

The only thing I could think is that I was doing less washing overall, the amount of items that came out of Aqaultis with marks etc on them I would just put them back in the wash bin and they would get done again

I remember on a UK TV program about saving stately homes, the presenter walked into the owners kitchen, pointed at his very old Hotpoint machine and stated "That is old and inefficient you should have a modern one" to which he replied "that is over 30 years old, it washes beautifully and is going no where" -)))

I seem to remember that it was Germany that decided we were going to run out of water in the 90s and washing machine water levels plummeted whilst cases of skin complaints and crap cleaning rocketed.

Good old Germany :-)

Right my brain is empty now

Gary


Post# 840293 , Reply# 32   9/8/2015 at 18:56 (3,124 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
Water cost calculations above are missing sewer costs, or is that included directly in the wate rate?  City here, sewer is a separate line-item on the bill, and it's higher than the water.


Post# 840306 , Reply# 33   9/8/2015 at 20:05 (3,124 days old) by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor, Maine)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Around here it is one bill that is broke down for water and sewer charges and a total you got to pay. But I am on a well and septic so I don't get those bills, thankfully.

Post# 840309 , Reply# 34   9/8/2015 at 20:33 (3,124 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

Old washing machines clean and rinse better, are better looking, better made, more durable and aren't gimmicky. I would never throw out something that is in perfect working order. That is being wasteful and environmentally unsustainable. Throwing out perfectly okay appliances is also disrespectful to the wonderful people who designed and developed these fantastic, durable, aesthetically valuable and functional items with so much fastidious and loving dedication. How can they even dare to compare their disposable, mass produced, plasticky rubbish to the good stuff? Heathens!

Just look at the Frigidaire 1-18 vid it is laundry poetry in motion. There is not one modern machine that can create that level of synesthesia and euphoria in the laundry room, it is poetry in laundry.

Sorry, not trying to ruffle feathers or anything, but my brain made me write this, I feel so emotional right now and, yes, I have given myself a tick too.


Post# 840312 , Reply# 35   9/8/2015 at 20:48 (3,124 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

kiss Since we don't have a kiss emoticon this is meant to symbolize a kiss to the person who gave me the second tick and there is lots more where that came from.

Post# 840331 , Reply# 36   9/8/2015 at 23:41 (3,124 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm..."

You can't help but wonder what's really going on. IIRC, laundry is not a significant portion of the average person's total water consumption (direct and indirect combined).

According to the websites below, the "average" urinal uses 150,000 litres/33,000 gallons of water per year. Assuming that figure is accurate, how many households would have to switch from TL's to FL's in order to save that much water in one year? What would the total cost be? Where would the break-even point be? How does that compare to the costs of switching ONE urinal?

Am I missing something or does something here not add up?


watersolution.com/benefits.php...

waterlesscartridges.com/...


Post# 840348 , Reply# 37   9/9/2015 at 03:19 (3,124 days old) by washer111 ()        

I'd have to agree with Warmsecondrinse; there are far more wasteful activities we *ought* to be targeting before chasing clothes washing. As the saying goes, its like plugging a little pinhole leak in a dyke where there is a gaping hole further along! 

 

(This also circles back to the thread on the EU and vacuum cleaners; Again, we still have industry using copious amounts of water, electricity and gas - but we're targeting microscopic percentages of this total use in the home world. We can go further and say, its all well and good to have manufacturing plants powered by solar and wind, but if we can avoid having to MANUFACTURE stuff in the first place, we can save more. Since when were "durable goods" not something that lasted 15, 20, 25 or more years?)

 

Thanks Rapunzel for your thoughts above. I gave you a checkmark. 

I do not believe in chucking stuff because its still good, and is just "old fashioned." Of course, thats initially it was possible to produce long-lived appliances. I know people who buy new DINING sets, "Oh, that tables lasted 10 years. I got my money's worth, so I'm getting a new one." Its why I've got several computers, doing something within their niche. I mean, sure, they don't have the latest and greatest Windoze, but they still work great for what I need - which is reading forums and LEARNING (about anything, really). 


Post# 840349 , Reply# 38   9/9/2015 at 03:54 (3,124 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

That's okay washer111, I won't take my kiss back, it is yours to keep and cherish.



Post# 840351 , Reply# 39   9/9/2015 at 05:28 (3,124 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
I would never begrudge anyone their vintage appliances, regardless of energy/water usage. That is a matter of personal preference. Were it not for everyone who lovingly collects and restores vintage machines we appliance enthusiasts wouldn't have AW's library of wonderful photos/videos of machines from the past.

For some, though, like me, it makes more sense to own new appliances. And like the vintage collectors here, it's fun to acquire different appliances---in my case, often well before the end of the natural lifespan of its predecessor. My solution to that dilemma is to give the used appliances to people who need them. It keeps them out of the scrap heap and makes the recipients very happy. In turn, I get a nice, shiny, new, feature-laden appliance and do my part to feed the beast that is the U.S. economy. Everyone wins.



Post# 840421 , Reply# 40   9/9/2015 at 13:05 (3,123 days old) by keymatic3203 (Cardiff UK)        
I agree with much that has been said

Like Gary electron1100 I also have a 36year old hoover 1100, which I've used for the last 16 years, with only a few minor repairs. As for the performance dropping, I can't see how, the machine is clean inside and out with no mould or scum build up anywhere ( this was proved when i had the tub out), the drum speeds, water temperature and levels are still as they always were, so how can wash performance have fallen as the article says.

On the financial side of the argument, yes if I needed to buy a new machine it would be worth buying highly eco machine, but when i've got a machine that only costs at most 20p in electric, as others have said working out the cost of the new one with the number of loads to break even, would the eco washer ever pay back before it was at the end of its life.

If you want to go eco on me, the machine is completely made of metal with only the electrical insulating parts of the switches/timer, hoses and detergent dispenser made from plastic,so easily recylclable plus the whole machine has only travelled 24 miles from the factory. Something no replacement machine can say.

Also from an indulgence point of view, I love the machine and even if the cost of using it trebled I would still use it and enjoy it. I walk to work, we use very little heating, I don't drive a lot of miles and I don't have a pass port. where as many middle classes have eco everything, then jet off on mini breaks several weekends a year.

So the arguments can be made but in the end, yes modern machines are more efficient, but I won't be down grading to a new washing machine anytime soon.


Post# 840428 , Reply# 41   9/9/2015 at 15:34 (3,123 days old) by keymatic3203 (Cardiff UK)        
I've also

thought over the years if we were to all be inspected to ensure we have eco appliances, then I would say that's ok, if I can't keep my old machine then I just won't have one, I'll wash by hand.

I suppose the `I won't be told what I can use' attitude is basically saying that probably even the most inefficient machine would use less resources than washing by hand in a sink or tub, I'm thinking how much you could wash in one go and how much hot water, detergent and rinsing water you would use to wash the equivalent of a full load in a machine.

Just a thought.

Mathew


Post# 840522 , Reply# 42   9/10/2015 at 04:22 (3,123 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

Jetcone, I'm a little late replying, but I thought I should clarify...

> So your GE uses 47 gallons per wash and its an HE machine?

Actually no, it was a conventional top loading machine. Also, that was total water usage with one wash and one rinse with additional spray rinses.

> And the Huebsch (I'm guessing is identical to my SQ FL uses 22 gallons per wash??

Yeah, I watched the water metre and that's what it said it used. (Nothing else in the house which uses water was being used at the time.)

Although, keep in mind, I've also modified the settings on the pressure switch, so it uses more water. When I adjusted it, I made sure that the water only went up to the rim of the inner tub, completely covering the baffle. Stock, it went only halfway up the baffle.

I wonder though, how are you measuring the water usage of your machine?

Well, even if I had adjusted it to use an extra 40 Litres of water per cycle, all I can say is that its rinsing performance has dramatically improved ever since I made the change, I rarely ever have to use the extra rinse switch now. :-)


Post# 840523 , Reply# 43   9/10/2015 at 04:35 (3,123 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

Stepping back a bit, regarding the OP's original topic...

So, we've kind of established that the cost savings between an older water hogging non-HE machine and a modern HE machine are somewhat negligible. Basically, the difference is the cost of a fast food meal per year, if that.

Now I have to ask, was the process of manufacturing older machines more environmentally unfriendly than the process of manufacturing new machines? We've already established that older machines used considerably more steel, but on the downside, modern machines use considerably more plastic and contain electronics which contain things like lead, arsenic, etc.

I guess more to the point, would everyone agree that the process of replacing a broken down modern machine with another modern machine is considerably more environmentally unfriendly than any resource which that modern machine would use over its lifespan?

If so, doesn't it kind of drive home the point that studies like this are somewhat pointless? The study should focus on machine longevity rather than efficency!


Post# 840527 , Reply# 44   9/10/2015 at 05:31 (3,123 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
I feel perfectly safe saying the study's authors had an agenda and it was NOT objectivity.

Post# 840542 , Reply# 45   9/10/2015 at 07:33 (3,123 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany)        

mrboilwash's profile picture
I totally agree with the study that older European FL machines did not clean as thoroughly as new (2005) ones while wasting lots of water, energy and in some cases even detergent.

But does it justify to replace a good working machine with some cheap disposable piece of s**t ? I don`t think so !

"This may be due to
the fact that in older washing machines
there is nothing to prevent sump
losses of detergent. Accordingly, large
proportions of the detergent probably
go unused"

While there isn`t much one could do to reduce water and energy consumption of an old washer, there are work arounds for detergent loss. Just use a dosing ball or in case of powder let the washer fill for a few seconds first, then turn it off, add powder to detergent drawer, then resume. That dosing net thing which came with Ariel Futur also made perfect sense back in the days when only few people had the luxury of a system to prevent detergent loss in their new washers.

I also miss a comparison of rinsing performance in the study. While many of the old water hogs did not really shine in the rinsing department because of lack of interim spins and if they did spin there was still no electronics to handle sudslocks. But despite of that I have a feeling that they did a better job at rinsing than today`s washers.


Post# 840568 , Reply# 46   9/10/2015 at 11:58 (3,122 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

Qualin, You did not factor in the energy used to heat the water which is a huge cost for some and which would have been far greater with the GE than your FL.

Jon, you did not factor in the amount of water used to saturate the load in your 12 gallon figure. With heavy fabrics or a large load, it can add up to Qualin's figure.

Detergent lost down the sump: Excellent point with older designs. Even in my Mieles with the ball cock thing, I do not add detergent until the machine has filled a bit. The SQ fills a bit into the outer tub before it starts filling through the dispenser to flush the detergent. I do not use the dispenser in the Creda Supa Speed 1000 because I would imagine that it is the type of machine that would send detergent right into the drain hose during the first part of the fill, much as I like the machine.

Certain solid tub time fill machines would fill long enough for the wash in some situations to overflow the tub, sending clean hot water down the drain.


Post# 840648 , Reply# 47   9/10/2015 at 19:12 (3,122 days old) by washer111 ()        
Detergent Losses

I think newer machines do have some technology to alleviate such an issue. 

 

For example, our Miele first flushes the glass door with the spray nozzle, before dispensing first the Pre-Wash, then proceeding to the Main-Wash dispenser (on a typical cycle with no prewash added). 

 

A similar thing often happens to start the rinses on cycles with less than exhilarating spin portions; the sprtiz down the door helps to flush suds straight to the pump, so they aren't caught up as much in the rinse. 


Post# 840686 , Reply# 48   9/11/2015 at 03:08 (3,122 days old) by electron1100 (England)        
Detergent loss

electron1100's profile picture
The only time I have seen such an issue is with very old (1960s) machines where the water inlet for the tub is almost at the bottom of the tub only inches away from the outlet, under these circumstances I can see that powders etc could be flushed into the outlet, but even if this happens the water which will be mixed with detergent sitting in the outlet will get drawn back into the water in the tub by the action of the drum turning, so maybe the losses are not as bad as made out remember these claims are made to boost sales.

But on later machines where the inlet to the tub is at about 10/11 oclock on the tub I don't see this as an issue as the water goes into the drum at that angle.

I have never seen a which report on any old machine that says the rinsing was poor or fair most of them all get good ratings for rinsing (uk models)

I see most modern innovations as just fine tuning and not the great innovation they claim to be.

The middle classes are the worst of all in this country, 4x4s with bike racks on the back for the second country home, top brand goods bairly used to there maximum capacity..............the list goes on.

Like Mathew I would choose an old machine over a new one any time, the other makes of the time Hotpoint, Servis, Zanussi all were broadly the same performance aswell

Gary



Post# 840699 , Reply# 49   9/11/2015 at 06:34 (3,122 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

Tom,

You said,

>You did not factor in the energy used to heat the water which is a huge cost for some and which would have been far greater with the GE than your FL.

While I'm certainly in agreement in regards to this, I deliberately left it out, only because I thought that the difference was somewhat negligable.

Even so, you have me thinking now.. Forgive me if my math is out...

My water heater holds 151.4 Litres. Using the formula,
Q = mass x specific heat x delta T

With delta T being 55 degrees C (Input water being 5 C and output water being heated to 60 C) and the specific heat is 4.186 Joules/gram...

For the metric impaired, 1 Litre of water = 1 Kilogram. :-)

Thereby, 151,400 g x 4.186 J x 55 C = 34,856,822 Joules.

Natural gas in my area right now is $3.69 per Gigajoule including fees.

Now, if I then assume that the gas burner on my water heater is 85 percent efficent, it would take about 41,008,025 Joules to heat that water.

If I were to completely drain the tank and refill it with cold water and then heat it, I figure it would cost about $0.15 in natural gas to heat the entire tank up to 60 C or about 140 F. (That's easier than figuring out a percentage.)

Thereby, my GE top loader, had I used a hot water cycle, would cost about 9 cents in Natural gas, while the Huebsch would cost 3 cents instead, a savings of 6 cents.

So, even over 50 loads in a year, the cost of the extra hot water a Non-HE top loader would use over a HE front loader would be pretty close to $3.00.

So, the total savings is $16 instead of $13 per year. :-)

The conversion is easy in this case because I'm using natural gas, but I'm wondering how much more expensive electric water heaters would cost to heat the water.

I'm thinking.. 1 kWh = 3,600,000 Joules.. stepping back, with 85 percent efficency (I'm just pulling a number out of my rear end on this) is 11.391 kWh.

Where I live, 1 kWh is $0.089, so thereby heating an entire tank of the same water with electricity instead of natural gas would cost $1.01 instead of $0.15.

So, using the same machines, a hot water load costs $0.60 to heat, while in the Huebsch it would cost $0.18 .. a cost savings of 42 cents per load. For 50 loads in a year, the cost savings would be a much more considerable $21.00 instead of $3.00.

So, instead the total savings add up to $34.00 a year, which is more considerable, but still sounds like a small amount to me. That's about $2.83/mo.

Does this math sound right? Am I missing something here?


Post# 840789 , Reply# 50   9/11/2015 at 20:58 (3,121 days old) by dartman (Portland Oregon)        
water bill savings for me

Well my combined water/sewer bill went down about 50 every 3 months so for me its a pretty good savings and I use about 1200 cf of water vs 1400 before the upgrade. I'll probably upgrade to dual flush 1/1.2 gallon toilets from the builder grade pro flo 1.6 ones the house came with too. The newer ones work well now and don't plug if you get a well designed one with good reviews.
I paid less then 600 for my Kenmore 28102 he washer so not that bad, got a 50 energy saving rebate too.
We'll see how long it holds up but I expect servicing and parts not to be much worse then the old direct drive washer was.


Post# 840900 , Reply# 51   9/12/2015 at 19:53 (3,120 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
I have a device that measures

jetcone's profile picture

actual fills on hot and cold water that figure I quoted was for a 4.5 gallon fill after I tweaked the SQ water level switch. Because you have to consider newer machines don't use 100% hot water anymore- hot is an energy efficient combination of hot supply + cold supply. Thats why I bought two devices.

 

It does 1 wash and 2 rinses for a total of 13.5 gallons after I tweaked it to fill just above the lip of the rubber boot.

 

 


Post# 840938 , Reply# 52   9/12/2015 at 22:34 (3,120 days old) by dartman (Portland Oregon)        

That's pretty darned good for a old school style SQ. Mine probably uses about that depending on what wash mode its in but my old direct drive Whirlpool used about 50 gallons for a large everything load so happy with my new machine as it also cleans better and is quiet.

Post# 840954 , Reply# 53   9/13/2015 at 02:23 (3,120 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

Jetcone:

I think I know where the discrepency is between what you see and what I see.

I was washing a large load of cottons in my Huebsch and watched the water metre out of curiousity, that's how I came up with that number. I remembered it and used it as a worst case scenario.

So, running on an empty load, I suspect I'd probably be closer to your numbers.

Sorry to geek out everyone, I was pretty curious.

If anything, where I noticed the biggest cost savings wasn't with the replacement of my non-HE top loader with a front loader, but rather switching from an electric to a gas dryer. My utilities bill dropped by nearly 30 percent!

Which then lends the question, what is more efficent, a drying cabinet or a conventional tumble clothes dryer? (See link below)


CLICK HERE TO GO TO qualin's LINK


Post# 840956 , Reply# 54   9/13/2015 at 02:29 (3,120 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

Previous to my last post, actually what I had meant to say is, how much more efficent are drying cabinets compared to regular tumble clothes dryers?

Post# 840993 , Reply# 55   9/13/2015 at 09:39 (3,119 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
I think the most efficient

jetcone's profile picture

are drying racks. My mom had drying racks for many years before getting a dryer and I remember the only differences were under the drying rack you had to add two days before you could wear something again and somethings like jeans were crusty so you have to bash them before you put them on. Getting the 1961 GE Clothes Conditioner I first noticed how soft and pliable everything was coming out of it.

But we never had shrinkage problems with the rack either. The conditioner was hot dryer and we had quite the learning curve. 


Post# 841009 , Reply# 56   9/13/2015 at 11:19 (3,119 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Random related tidbits, all IIRC so please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Most of the energy (not water) savings of HE and FL machines actually occurs IN THE DRYER as a result of the washers higher spin speeds. There's a thread here somewhere showing:

X increase in spin RPM ---> Y decrease in moisture content ---> Z decrease in joules required to dry

Formulae are given as are the assumptions made for the laundry equivalent of STP.

2. If the dryer is vented, the outside air drawn in to replace it must be heated/cooled. The cost of doing so varies widely depending on location, season, and method of heating/cooling. This is where a condenser dryer has an advantage. There's a thread on that as well.

3. I assume the drying cabinets are not vented. Therefore one is essentially running a 1500 watt electric heater/humidifier in one's home when the cabinet is in use. If this 5120 btuh would be produced anyway, this would be an energy savings. If not, then the cost of running a/c to compensate would be part of the operating cost of the cabinet. Granted this cost could be much lower than running a tumble dryer, but it's still there. I suspect this is why drying cabinets are/were so popular in northern Europe.

4. $1800+$tax+$delivery= a LOT of heating and/or air-conditioning so I suspect the break even point is rather far in the future.

Perhaps one of the many math guru's here can explain all this better than I can?

Jetcone has a good point. Drying racks/line drying is often the most efficient, especially if you already have the major components of a drying rack. For example
-hang clothes over a radiator
-hang clothes in a basement in which there's an old fashioned boiler throwing off a lot of 'waste' heat
-use an HEATED drying rack (see link) to speed dry times.

I plan to buy a unit in the building where I'm presently renting. My most likely set up will be a condenser dryer and 1 or 2 fold-up heated drying racks. I have a dehumidifier running much of the time anyway so that'd speed drying time even more.

Qualin, have I answered your questions?

Ok guys, have I missed anything major? Please jump in.

Jim






CLICK HERE TO GO TO warmsecondrinse's LINK on eBay


Post# 841031 , Reply# 57   9/13/2015 at 15:36 (3,119 days old) by kenwashesmonday (Carlstadt, NJ)        

warmsecondrinse wrote:
"X increase in spin RPM ---> Y decrease in moisture content ---> Z decrease in joules required to dry "

You need to also factor-in the diameter of the tub/drum to get the actual G-force, and how well the clothes are distributed around it, to figure out how well the water is being extracted from the clothes. Spin RPM is only part of the story.

That said, a vintage Maytag with it's spin-drain and 3 full minutes at 618 RPM does a pretty darn good job of extraction.

Of course this all matters little if you hang your clothes to dry them. That would save more energy than any fancy new washing machine.


Post# 841048 , Reply# 58   9/13/2015 at 17:25 (3,119 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Agreed, there are a whole bunch of other factors.

IIRC, the guy who worked out the math went into that and explained exactly how he got those numbers. He assumed a given tub size, etc. and spelled it all out. However, if I understood him correctly, the curve was very similar for most machines, meaning a spin speed increase of 100 rpm would reduce the moisture content by about the same factor in most machines.

How to apply? Again, IIRC ... weigh your clothes before washing and after to determine the amount of water remaining. Plug that number into the equation and you could figure out how much more water you'd get rid of by using a machine with a given higher spin speed.

Am I making sense? I'd look for the link myself but I can't remember enough to do a proper search. Maybe someone here remembers?

Jim


Post# 841119 , Reply# 59   9/14/2015 at 06:30 (3,119 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
I did the math (right?) once and the drum diameter is a very minor parameter WRT velocity, to the point it can be disregarded within the range of practical diameters. E.g., a 3-foot tub @ 800rpm is roughly half as effective as a 1-foot twintub spinner at 1300rpm. That is, 3 times the diameter performs half as well as half the speed.

Post# 841195 , Reply# 60   9/14/2015 at 17:08 (3,118 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
I'm flabbergasted about how this thread went off topic. The research linked was about OLDER EUROPEAN FRONTLOADERS VS NEWER EUROPEAN FRONTLOADERS! Why on earth these rants about American toploaders showed up beats me. Probably people don't read what's the subject really is about. Same happened in the "heat pumps" thread, which was about a mini-split system. And then suddenly rants about regular heat pumps show up. Makes it hard to read a thread after a while!

Post# 841210 , Reply# 61   9/14/2015 at 18:34 (3,118 days old) by washer111 ()        

My opinion on that Heat Pump thread is it isn't off-topic at all. We're talking air-conditioning systems that can heat and people were sharing *their own* experiences with them. Only a couple offered thoughts on the Mr.Slim themselves. Would you rather 1 reply to the thread or a few with an interesting discussion? I'd rather take the discussion over nothing. 

 

That said, this thread might have veered; HOWEVER, the thread was titled "Old Washing Machines are Less Efficient and Consume More Energy." While the study was in Germany, I'm sure such a finding could be extrapolated to machines outside of Europe, No? 

 

One of the great things about AW is that we can still make great conversations even when things get desperately off-track. The other great thing is the site isn't filled with grumpy moderators like on other forums, who are on nothing but a power-grab. We have Robert and he is awesome. Let's keep it that way. 


Post# 841221 , Reply# 62   9/14/2015 at 19:42 (3,118 days old) by kenwashesmonday (Carlstadt, NJ)        

foraloysius wrote:
"Why on earth these rants about American toploaders showed up beats me."

Sorry if I went off a bit, but please understand that these expensive non-durable plastic-fantastic machines are being shoved down our throats over here. Please forgive my hartfelt intrusion.

Ken D.


Post# 841255 , Reply# 63   9/15/2015 at 02:22 (3,118 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        
Old Washing Machines Are Less Efficient and Consume More...

chestermikeuk's profile picture
As much as love vintage washing machines the above statement is true imho,
aside from the longevity issue, will they last longer than an older machines and is the build quality better or worse, pound for pound, kilo for kilo, the Euro front loader washing machine is today more energy efficient in the work it does ie washes rinses and spins the loadage of clothing more efficiently than older machines. That is according to my uses of water , electricity, detergent usages and sewage costs, while these costs have risen we can now wash 8 - 11kg of clothing using a precise temperature control using the best of enzyme detergents rinsing with high or low levels ie 2 high or up to 7 low shallow rinses and the most efficient of 1400rpm to 1600 spin extraction.

Am currently using the Hoover Candy 11kg (nickname BLING) 1400rpm and the Servis Vestel WD1496 9kg Washer Dryer along with vintage washers as while I love using the Keymatics and Servis Quartz the comparison on total energy costs makes the new machines the best efficiency by todays standards.

I use a Hoover single tub capable of washing 6lb of clothing (but doesnt rinse or spin them) and pump the waste water from the Servis washer dryer into it, the total wash and rinse water does not even fill the single tub AFTER washing and 3 deep rinses of an average 9kg load, if the load is lower then less water is used.

I think we in Europe are so used to our front loaders (albeit an influx of cheaper models over the years) have produced crap results like inferior rinsing and poor washing but even the cheap washers of today appear to be giving us better results..

Ken most of us understand the front loaders you are getting in the US and the Energy Star legislation have produced a heapload of issues for you, particularly with large load plasticky machines that cant spin massive loads on wooden floors and the lack of profile heat washes to be used with enzyme detergents - just a pity you dont get to use the bulk of the efficient machines used by us in Europe (Miele withstanding). I certainly would not catagorize todays Hoover Candy BLING 11kg washer as a Euro Toy Wendy washer.



  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 10         View Full Size
Post# 841336 , Reply# 64   9/15/2015 at 17:29 (3,117 days old) by keymatic3203 (Cardiff UK)        
Hi Mike

I know the statistics speak for themselves and even in the 10 years since this study improvements have continued to be made. But whilst the inefficiencies in water usage and lower spin speeds are plain to see. There are obvious ways in which I could make improvements to efficiency, such as increasing the spin speed between rinses, thus enabling a lower rinse water level to be used. But I couldn't describe the wash results from the hoover as `poor'.

Maybe I'm just trying to defend the indefensible, maybe I'm just reliving happy times from the past, hopefully I'm not living in the past. I too love the old machines and respect the latest developments, in the end I'm happy to pay the price of using one of the machines I enjoy most.

As note to add, at least 3/4 of our washing is line dried and much of what does go in the dryer is only being finished off, so the 1100 spin speed is not an inefficiency in my circumstance.

Time to stop digging lol

Mathew





Post# 841408 , Reply# 65   9/16/2015 at 01:40 (3,117 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        
Oh Err Misses...

chestermikeuk's profile picture
Hi Mathew just went back and read my comments to see what triggered your reaction ha ha...didnt make myself clear, I meant to explain We are so used to our front loaders here that have performed great from the 60`s 70` 80 onwards etc (at the time we didnt know better efficiencys because they hadnt been invented) and we did suffer from a hiatus of cheaper modern front loaders in the 90`s such as the rainwaves which implemented low rinses and wash water levels that did give crap results as well as more expensive models doing the samr.

But as times have moved on amd technology progressed even the cheapest of front loaders today gives us better wash results albeit longevity issues than those 90`s inferior washers.

Thats probably as clear as mud, we will await Lord Pasty choking on his breakfast and his interpretation!!

Cake anyone?




This post was last edited 09/16/2015 at 02:03
Post# 841419 , Reply# 66   9/16/2015 at 04:44 (3,117 days old) by electron1100 (England)        
hmmm its that stale Viota sponge again :-)

electron1100's profile picture
Mike I have to say I agree with you in some ways, our front loaders were so very good from the start that as you say we became accustomed to the high level performance they gave.

As you know my experience of 3 modern washers was not good and I was only too pleased to go back to older machines, when I had a garage full of them I would rather take my washing there and do it one of the old machines than use the modern pile-of-shite at home

I often think that people on the other side of the pond have gotten a raw deal with FL washers.

Gary


Post# 841431 , Reply# 67   9/16/2015 at 07:54 (3,117 days old) by keymatic3203 (Cardiff UK)        
I see Mike

yes just dropping the water levels and not adjusting other factors, such a inter rinse spins and not fully clearing water spun out before progressing to next rinse.

Another factor I have often seen on my repair rounds, is people using the wrong programmes for the clothes to be washed. How many times have you heard, Oh we only ever use the quick wash, or I can't wait 2hrs. I've had people tell me how their old hotpoint 1000 dried better than the new 1400, not realising of course the quick wash only spins at 800. So perhaps these sorts of experiences have lead to myths of poor performance in the first round of modern machines, perhaps things will improve with subsequent machines, as people get used to the recent developments and actually let the machine work parameters out for itself and get on an give the results it's been designed to do.

Also how many people actually realise how little detergent you need these days with the more concentrated powders, how many people remember doses of 2 cupfulls being recommended, and therefore the new 50ml or whatever doses don't look enough to many people, so overdosing enevitably lead to poor rinsing in many 90's machines.

So great to clear that one up lol,


Post# 841433 , Reply# 68   9/16/2015 at 08:26 (3,117 days old) by electron1100 (England)        
Dropping It

electron1100's profile picture
Oh I totally agree about the 90s machines, peoples skin fell off and were eaten alive by enzymes due to the new "eco" wash/rinse levels imposed on us in Europe and eventually the rest of the world.

Use Of Machine

"oh yes it will wash 11kg etc etc" you go and see it and is 1/4 full if that, "oh no I only wanted it so I can wash my quilts in it"

or as Mat said full to bursting on the 20 min daily wash

It left manufacturers in a panic as to what to do how to get a machine to wash and rinse clothes in a cup of water, ultimately the consumer has the paid for all this, so that tree huggers can sleep at night and feel good about them selves................ooops drifting off subject there!

A waist of time and money basically as far as I am concerned

Gary


Post# 841437 , Reply# 69   9/16/2015 at 09:08 (3,117 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Some things have changed. In the past European frontloaders didn't spin between rinses at all or only after the third rinse and thereafter. My Philips toploader from 1982 begins to spin only after the fourth rinse. Rinsing/diluting was done by greater amounts of water.

I've scanned that research and found that Raininger Stamminger has become professor since the publication of the article and works at the "Instut für Landtechnik" at the university of Bonn, Germany. They do research on environmental stuff, including household appliances.

Now, about that article.

The first thing I noticed is that they talk about washing results, but in the research they didn't look at rinsing performance. But they only look at the total amount of water a machine used (They looked at the European Energy Label). This means that if you compare the total water usage of a machine and the washing efficiency, there is basically something wrong with the research. Things could only have been compared rightly when they only had measured the amount of water used in the main wash. Through the years, washing machines have become more frugal with water by saving the most in the rinsing cycle, not in the wash cycle. Newer washing machines use less water in the wash cycle too, but that has not been reduced as much as the amount of water used for rinsing. Therefor the comparison between the older and newer machines is not done right.

Second thing is that nowhere in the article the prewash is mentioned. IIRC older data of energy usage included a prewash. The standard cycle for measuring was a 95°C cotton wash with prewash. Nowadays a standard cycle is without a prewash. This has an effect on the outcome of the figures for both water and energy (most washing machines heated the water in the prewash up to 30°C or 40°C which makes an older machine look more energy inefficient and more of a waterhog than it really is. As they say results are not always comparable, but probably even worse than they think! Therefor the curve in figure 3 is probably not as much as a straight line as shown.

Third is the fact that they used the "Stiftung Warentest" for the data of older
machines. This means that only figures of washing machines available on the German market were used. In the seventies the market was very different in every country. Each country had his own manufacturers, although some brands were sold in several countries, there were differences. The British market for whitegoods was quite different than the German market. Scandinavia was different with it's own brands. And France again was totally different too. Italy had big manufacturers that played a big role in some countries, but were hardly sold in other countries. Besides that, the amount of water and energy used could differ a lot between machines. In that same figure 3 you can see that the differences in energy used for a cotton programme is much bigger in the 70's than in the 90's. But that is only in Germany. We know nothing about the differences between machines in other countries. Were the machines in other countries similar, or were they more frugal?

Fourth thing I noticed is that a few machines from the eighties (see fig. 3) were already rather frugal with energy. The energy used for a 90°C wash is way less than other models. They probably don't use much more energy in a 60°C energy saving programme as tested on the models in the 2000's. That would make it less interesting to purchase a new machine if the old one is still working fine!


Well, that's it for now.

Louis


Post# 841443 , Reply# 70   9/16/2015 at 10:22 (3,116 days old) by electron1100 (England)        
Clear

electron1100's profile picture
Hello Louis

I like your approach to this and your observations too.

It is just like Which Reports etc they only apply to local so to speak machines.

So if this research unit found that German machines of the time were uneconomical and did not wash/rinse well, then it is clearer to me that the report is inappropriate for the rest of Europe.

On modern machines you need all those spins to get suds out, but the downside is more creasing in the fabric.

Thankyou
Gary


Post# 1155144 , Reply# 71   7/24/2022 at 19:36 (613 days old) by GELaundry4ever (Nacogdoches, TX, USA)        
efficiency still relevant

I know this is an old thread, but this is still relevant. It would be nice to have a machine that will "violently" stir the clothes in a full tub of water. That's how you clean clothes.

Post# 1155145 , Reply# 72   7/24/2022 at 19:41 (613 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
Violently stirring clothes ... not necessary with enzyme detergents.  Soak time for the enzymes to work, with gentle stirring through the soak and after works nicely.  I do it often.


Post# 1155147 , Reply# 73   7/24/2022 at 19:49 (613 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
May be efficient in water usage BUT certainly aren’t efficient in the amount of precious time they consume as it assumes on how much water it should use.

Post# 1155148 , Reply# 74   7/24/2022 at 20:05 (613 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
Time is the least-precious resource in my supply of laundry tools.


Post# 1155151 , Reply# 75   7/24/2022 at 20:39 (613 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
This is usually what I do every morning, as soon as my breakfast is all settled I do a load of laundry, while the washer is going I vacuum the floors, take out the trash and do whatever tidying up there is to do in the morning, as soon as I am done cleaning in the morning the washer is done then I move the stuff to the dryer and sometimes do a second load of laundry and while that’s going sometimes I’ll do a little bit of yard work while that’s going and by the time I am done doing yard work the dryer is done then I move the stuff to the dryer, fold and put away the clean laundry. While the final load of laundry is drying, I usually try to work on a quick project or something to pass time then I fold and put the second load of laundry for the day. If I had an HE machine, I’d have to rearrange my ENTIRE morning routine around the house and since I am busy, it would throw me off greatly and would never be able to catch up on anything.

Post# 1155173 , Reply# 76   7/25/2022 at 09:40 (612 days old) by Golittlesport (California)        
I don't find much time difference

golittlesport's profile picture
My LG front loader takes about 40 minutes to do a load of laundry set to average soil with three spray rinses and two deep rinses. Dryer time is reduced with washer's 1200 rpm spin.

If heating the water it does take over an hour, but that is the exception.



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.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
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