Thread Number: 75703  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
Everything old is new again
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 995278   5/26/2018 at 16:07 by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA)        

I speak from total ignorance, but wouldn't going back to a single solid tub same water overall?

Post# 995307 , Reply# 1   5/27/2018 at 02:38 by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany)        

mrboilwash's profile picture
Wouldn`t Betty Furness turn in her grave then ?

Post# 995311 , Reply# 2   5/27/2018 at 05:10 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Assuming you mean for top loaders

launderess's profile picture
No, it wouldn't really save much water as overflow and long spray rinses would likely be needed I shouldn't wonder.

Then consider even though many do use a dryer, for top loaders filters do help in fluff removal. Granted some more than others, but there you are.

Suppose you could design something like Maytag's sediment filter used on their wringer washers.

Oh and IIRC one issue with solid tub washers was that Madame had to clean the thing out (just like a wash tub) after use.

With many modern front loaders holes for inner tub have become much smaller than in past; this IIRC helps keep water consumption down as less is needed between the tubs. Could be wrong but think top loading washers are moving that way as well.

Post# 995312 , Reply# 3   5/27/2018 at 05:11 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Betty Furness Would Spin In Her Grave

launderess's profile picture
Over *any* top loader, single or double tub. *LOL*

As you can see from this "impartial" test only the H-axis Westinghouse disposed of all that sand and dirt.

Post# 995334 , Reply# 4   5/27/2018 at 12:08 by Johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
OMFG, they used their husbands' names to introduce the ladies?!

Post# 995340 , Reply# 5   5/27/2018 at 13:34 by IowaBear (Cedar Rapids, IA)        

iowabear's profile picture

Great video!  Thanks for sharing it.


Would love to see this "two cups of sand" test on some of today's machines! 

Post# 995342 , Reply# 6   5/27/2018 at 14:17 by appnut (TX)        
Husbands last names

appnut's profile picture

John, that was the accepted norm back then for certain things. 

Post# 995358 , Reply# 7   5/27/2018 at 16:14 by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA)        

I meant this more for top loaders. I was watching my TAG and thought about all the water in the outer tub doing jack while my clothes rubbed themselves raw in no water. Wouldn't spray rinses work with this idea? Or maybe one real deep rinse?

Post# 995380 , Reply# 8   5/27/2018 at 19:06 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
"..used their husbands' names to introduce the ladie

launderess's profile picture
That is how things were done until rather recently. It has only been since the 1960's or maybe 1970's in the post "women's liberation" generation that things changed.

Hence that famous opening of and film "The Women" of 1939, which pre-dates the Betty Furness clip by only < two decades.

For centuries a married woman's legal name was "Mrs. Albert Windsor", signifying she "belonged" to her husband.

Socially a married women could use "Mary Haines" or "Mrs. Haines". The latter was also used formerly say by trades/service people and or others not intimate and or same social level as a married woman.

In that famous scene after that manicurist finishes spilling all that dirt about Crystal Allen and Mr. Haines and says "I'll tell Mrs. Fowler you were in... what did you say your name was...?" Mary pulls herself up to her full height and grandly says "Mrs. Stephen Haines", as if she were the Queen of England or something.

Post# 995387 , Reply# 9   5/27/2018 at 19:20 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Back on topic

launderess's profile picture
IIRC the idea behind solid tub automatics is they worked well (as did wringer washers) when soap was still dominate for laundry day.

The overflow rinses pushed scum laden water up and over the tub so it wouldn't be strained through the wash. Detergents don't have same issues as soap and perfectly well can keep muck in suspension (in theory). Thus you can have two tubs and get that newfangled features, recirculating water and lint filters.

Remember automatic washing machine sales early on vastly outstripped tumble dryers. If a family could only afford one laundry appliance Her Indoors would go for a fully automatic washing machine. The addition of lint filtration meant (again in theory) a cleaner wash that was hung up on the lines to dry.

Filtering wash and rinse waters presumably means less of the latter would be required since (hopefully) less fluff and whatever would be deposited on wash.

It does seem as if some solid tub washers did have recirculating water/filter systems:


But not Speed Queen:

This post was last edited 05/28/2018 at 03:35
Post# 995391 , Reply# 10   5/27/2018 at 19:29 by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA)        

Launderess, couldn't it be achieved by self clean tech like we have now? Or pull from small sump and 'filter flow' it?

Post# 995399 , Reply# 11   5/27/2018 at 20:51 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
But why go through all that trouble reinventing the wheel so to speak when tweaking automatics with two tubs gives same benefits in terms of water/energy savings. That is keeping of things consumers like such as spray rinses and recirculating lint filtration.

For the record there are single tub washing machines out there, however IIRC they are all mostly various semi-automatic twin tubs and such.

My Maytag wringer (solid tub) has a "sediment zone" and indeed the thing does trap much muck. However quite a lot of lint and whatever still moves in the water as one can see it when filling tub and water is moved about by the agitator.

Did a load of black t-shirts in the Maytag wringer that came out covered in hairs and lint.

Post# 995471 , Reply# 12   5/28/2018 at 17:59 by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA)        

But Launderess, IMHO the TL modern machines like my TAG are not offering enough water/energy savings. I run the TAG on deep water wash with all extra rinses just to approach what I want my clean clothes be be like. It seems conunterintuitive to have dry clothes thrashing around in the tub when an equal if not greater amount of water (I'M TALKIN TL HERE) is sitting in the outer tub. I just don't get it.

Post# 995488 , Reply# 13   5/28/2018 at 20:15 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Yes, and one does understand.

launderess's profile picture
But has have said often in this forum; traditional top loading washers that Americans long have loved are dead or dying out like the Dodo. It just isn't possible to have them with ever more puny energy restrictions.

This is why don't think manufactures are going to pour heaps of R&D into making a "better" top loader. SQ has done so and by all accounts ticked many off.

Top loading washers need water, a good amount of it; otherwise you are just beating things about.

Post# 995516 , Reply# 14   5/29/2018 at 02:55 by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany)        

mrboilwash's profile picture
I`m not entirely sure on this one, but I could imagine that all the TLs we see in the Westinghouse commercial might have been solid tub automatics.
This would explain their struggle on heavy sediment removal. Tow cups of "dirty" sand... *LOL*

Would expect every sane person to shake their beach towels thoroughly before washing so at first glance solid tubs still seem to be a better way to save resources than SQ`s grey water rinses or lots of the other horrid things that have been done to each and every traditional TL washer in recent years. Or maybe it`s even worse that HE washplate TLs appeared on the market which again seem to work best only if you override the HE fill level.

I think the worst disadvantage of solid tubs apart from bad sediment ejection was no accurate ability to take control of the water level for partial loads.
This problem has never been solved, has it ?
And even if water level control could be done I have my doubts that two full solid tubs of water would still meet current energy and water requirements for an eco cycle.

Post# 995522 , Reply# 15   5/29/2018 at 05:56 by tolivac (greenville nc)        

Sand+water=ABRASIVE SLURRY!!Think of this going thru your washer's pump!!!Yes,try to REMOVE the sand from things BEFORE loading into the washer!!

Post# 995523 , Reply# 16   5/29/2018 at 05:57 by tolivac (greenville nc)        

Forgot to put in my previous post-Sand pumpted into your plumbing----CLOGS!!!since sand doesn't "float" thru plumbing as other waste does.

Post# 995535 , Reply# 17   5/29/2018 at 09:28 by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
I honestly don't think a perf tub in a solid tub wastes that much water at all.
Considering the improvements a perf tub gives you, that added water is minimal.
The only design that was grossly wasteful were the GE FilterFlos because of the enormous difference in diameter between the perf tub and solid tub. They needed lots of extra room for the basket to oscillate inside the solid tub, requiring insane wall clearance.
Other brands had very little clearance between their tubs because they oscillated together on the suspension.

Post# 995579 , Reply# 18   5/29/2018 at 18:52 by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Quick peek through 1950's CR Buying Guides

launderess's profile picture
Show that on average solid tub washers (Frigidaire, Blackstone (?), etc...) used only about two gallons less water than perforated for an average 8lb wash.

This would make sense when you consider all overflow and perhaps extra rinsing needed to ensure muck and lint were flushed off laundry.

Even extrapolating that out for an 18lb or whatever top loader don't think needle will move much in terms of energy/water savings.

As duly noted washers both top and H-axis for some time now have reduced the space between inner and outer tubs.

Post# 997760 , Reply# 19   6/19/2018 at 18:09 by wft2800 (Leatherhead, Surrey)        

Could you elucidate on the design of the GE FF and why it was so much more of a water-hog?

Post# 997769 , Reply# 20   6/19/2018 at 18:46 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        

speedqueen's profile picture

GE was a water hog because, like the older solid tub models, the inner tub was suspended within the outer tub rather than both being suspended together. As such, there needed to be quite a large gap between the two tubs for movement during spin which in solid tub models wouldn't have water in it until spinning, but in perforated tub models was filled as well for washing and rinsing.


Why this happened was quite simple, GE, always ones to cut costs, wanted a perforated tub and made no real effort to actually redesign the machine, they just put a tub with holes in and called it done. Don't even get me started on the terrible quality of GE's electronics, but to say simply, you will never find a 1960s GE color TV as they hardly lasted 2-3 years let alone 50 like the RCA in my living room.

Post# 997804 , Reply# 21   6/20/2018 at 00:45 by beekeyknee (Columbia, MO)        

beekeyknee's profile picture
That was so funny. I’m sure none of us recognized any of those machines except the Westinghouse “Tanglemat”. My mother always shook the sand out of our clothes if we had been to the beach.

Betty should have washed a load of sheets and dug all that out of there.

Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      

Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.

Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy