Thread Number: 61280
/ Tag: Gatherings and Parties
Old Washing Machines Are Less Efficient and Consume More Energy |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 839325   9/3/2015 at 03:15 (3,130 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
6    
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# 839350 , Reply# 3   9/3/2015 at 08:17 (3,130 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
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# 839372 , Reply# 5   9/3/2015 at 10:58 (3,129 days old) by Realvanman (Southern California)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
Constantly scrapping those machines and building new ones. *Recycling*, while better than the landfill, is a very wasteful process. Keith |
Post# 839378 , Reply# 7   9/3/2015 at 11:32 (3,129 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
11    
|
Post# 839387 , Reply# 9   9/3/2015 at 13:04 (3,129 days old) by bradross (New Westminster, BC., Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
7    
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# 839397 , Reply# 12   9/3/2015 at 14:12 (3,129 days old) by PhilR (Quebec Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
4    
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 (.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
|
Post# 839431 , Reply# 14   9/3/2015 at 17:40 (3,129 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
6    
|
Post# 839477 , Reply# 16   9/3/2015 at 23:43 (3,129 days old) by abcomatic (Bradford, Illinois)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
4    
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# 839595 , Reply# 21   9/4/2015 at 19:54 (3,128 days old) by PhilR (Quebec Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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# 839962 , Reply# 25   9/7/2015 at 07:27 (3,126 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
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# 840174 , Reply# 28   9/8/2015 at 06:23 (3,125 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
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.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
|
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
|
Post# 840312 , Reply# 35   9/8/2015 at 20:48 (3,124 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
4    
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# 840349 , Reply# 38   9/9/2015 at 03:54 (3,124 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
5    
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# 840527 , Reply# 44   9/10/2015 at 05:31 (3,123 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
|
Post# 840542 , Reply# 45   9/10/2015 at 07:33 (3,123 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
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# 840686 , Reply# 48   9/11/2015 at 03:08 (3,122 days old) by electron1100 (England)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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# 840900 , Reply# 51   9/12/2015 at 19:53 (3,120 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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# 840956 , Reply# 54   9/13/2015 at 02:29 (3,120 days old) by qualin (Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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# 841119 , Reply# 59   9/14/2015 at 06:30 (3,119 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
8    
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# 841255 , Reply# 63   9/15/2015 at 02:22 (3,118 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
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. |
Post# 841408 , Reply# 65   9/16/2015 at 01:40 (3,117 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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# 841433 , Reply# 68   9/16/2015 at 08:26 (3,117 days old) by electron1100 (England)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
6    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
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.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
|
Post# 1155147 , Reply# 73   7/24/2022 at 19:49 (613 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 1155148 , Reply# 74   7/24/2022 at 20:05 (613 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
|
Post# 1155151 , Reply# 75   7/24/2022 at 20:39 (613 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
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)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
|