new washer rant

Page 2 of 3  
On 04/14/2016 11:51 AM, Tony944 wrote:

Glad the warning was posted here.
I looked at Sears and they still have the old electro-mechanical dial type for $300 - $400 bucks
Will absolutely not got one of those electronic models
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was set on a front loader - the only one I could find with old-style controls was a $ 2800. Huebsch. I did consider it briefly - then opted for the $ 800. LG. Your Sears unit was a top-loader, I suspect ? John T.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/14/2016 10:57 PM, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

But, comrade? Isn't it worth any ammount of money to save the planet we live on? Al Gore must be horrified with your choice.
BTW, my washing machine is a Whirlpool top loader. Belt drive, not direct drive. The last owners left it because it needed a $65 part. I've repaired it a couple times in the 22 years I've lived here. Still works.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/14/2016 09:57 PM, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

Yes, it was a top loader...
I guess it makes a difference to some people but I can't imagine why a front loader would be better. The only thing I've seen is that front loaders are more prone to mold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When we bought our first front-loader - the one I've just replaced - I was a bit dubious also - but the spin speed was great because it helped us save on dryer costs - big time. The un-balance issue was not eliminated completely - but greatly reduced - the old Inglis could be found dancing around the room during the worst situations ! .. never nearly that bad with the front loader. Water savings were a factor over the old Inglis top-loader. ... much less so when comparing the old front-loader to the new front-loader. Modern top loaders can spin ~ 1000 now which is equal to our old front loader - newer front loader spins up to 1300 - again less of a factor. When I replaced the spider on the old washer - I was impressed with the design simplicity - if it wasn't for the bearing issue every 7 years - I could see that washer lasting 20 + years with only some minor maintenance items. John T.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/15/2016 09:23 AM, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wrote: Xsituations ! .. never nearly that bad with the front

well for me, 32 years without even one small issue was not too bad.
and it's still going
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/14/2016 6:28 PM, philo wrote:

The electronic *controls* are not significant problems. Most of the problems seem to be mechanical ones (door latches, shock mounts, pumps, etc.
OTOH, the fact that the front-loaders inherently require such "precise" control over the "tub" (e.g., to rock the clothes back and forth to soak them well; to toss them around if an imbalance is detected; etc.) has me worried what will happen when the electronic *drive* quits.
By contrast, an old top-loader has only two "motor functions" (agitate and spin) that are handled mechanically.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At this point - 1 week into the life of the washing machine - the durability & repair ramifications <of the controls> are not in question - but the logic that seems to be built into those controls is very suspect. I can't understand how anything has improved, in any way, over the old-style timer & switches. With my old front loader I chose water temp; spin speed; and extra rinse via 3 simple switches ; then set the timer knob for shorter or longer wash cycles. The tub did it's reversing thing and it's slower to faster spin speed just fine, got everything wet at the start of the wash cycle - not 12 minutes into the wash cycle. I doubt that the water usage was much greater - just much smarter. John T.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/15/2016 4:07 AM, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

Our (front load) washer essentially has three settings: - temperature (hot/cold, warm/warm, warm/cold, cold/cold = wash/rinse) - spin (none, low, medium, high) - soil level (light, normal, heavy) A large rotary knob allows you to pick from types of wash cycles -- which basically is just a shortcut for these three switch settings (though some add steam to the cycle)
I.e., our "temperature" control is the same as yours (assuming you have the same four combinations); our "spin" coincides with yours; and our "soil level" essentially adjusts the overall length of the wash cycle. We don't have an "extra spin" capability (though there is a "rinse+spin" cycle).
The thing that is "missing" is a "soak" ability; i.e., you can't throw items into the tub, let it FILL with water, then PAUSE the cycle while things sit and stew, indefinitely.
We don't set a timer as the machine looks at the clarity of the waste water to decide if more washing is needed -- or if the process can end, now. So, we don't have to "guess correctly" and ensure the machine doesn't WASTE any electricity on an *unnecessarily* prolonged wash! Nor run the load through a second time if we guessed too short!

Newer (front loaders) models use ~10G of water for a load. An older top loader would use more like 30G for the same load.
An older machine uses about twice the electricity of a newer model.
Also, newer models leave the clothes "drier" than older models -- which translates into energy savings in the drying cycle.
You can also fit more clothes in a new front loader than an old top loader (no agitator taking up space) so do fewer loads, overall.
If you don't believe this, you should be able to find corroborating data on-line complete with actual numbers (for water and electric usage). Or, look in your owner's manual.
[Of course, you'll be hard pressed to get that same information for a 20 year old unit as it wasn't a "concern" back then.]
We haven't been happy with the longer wash cycles. But, have been very pleased with the quality of wash! We've just learned to plan on WAITING for the machine longer than we did in the past (but, waiting is easy!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/15/2016 8:07 AM, Don Y wrote:

Our top load still has that. I think it was used once in two years so not a big deal for us.

New top loaders are improved too. Agitator is gone. There are larger capacity models available, but it is a long reach to the botgtom of the tub for short people.

Cycle time is not a concern for s. With just the two of us, only about 3 loads a week are done. Most times I put it on at night and empty it in the morning so as long as the cycles is less than about 8 hours, I'm good to go.
Normal wash stuff is about 48 minutes. Whites, sheets,bulky stuff is about 1H 20M.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:28:43 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Every top load washer I've had you could do that. Just start it going, when it fills and first starts to agitate, pull the control knob out. Wait as long as you like, then resume. Some models do have a setting on the knob just for that, where it will do it, stop without you having to pull the knob. Not something used here very often, so not a factor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/15/2016 6:29 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Shrotly after our purchase, I wanted to "soak" something. Stared at the washer for quite some time before I realized that "soak" just is incompatible with a front loader (you can't "fill" it!)

When we were looking, there were many comments about poor agitation/mixing of clothes with the agitator-less top loaders. You look inside and it seems like it should be exactly the same as for a front loader!
Then, you watch how the front loader "tosses" the clothes and realize you can't do the same thing spinning on a vertical axis.
Reaching to the *back* of the drum/tub is just as difficult as bottom of tub. And, as things tend to be much drier, it is not uncommon for something to be plastered to the "top" of the drum -- requiring you to roll it just to check for that possibility.

I'd guess we're in the 2-3 cycles/week usage pattern. Some weeks I won't do any wash and just let "dirty" jeans accumulate. But, when I do them, it's always on "heavy soil" cycle as I tend to be WORKING in them. One of the cycles I use is close to 2 hrs washing. But, machine just sits there quietly, patiently tossing things around in slow motion so we don't even hear it in the adjoining kitchen (door to laundry is never shut)

I just checked: "Sanitize" cycle for heavy soil is 2:02 but the normal cycle is ~55 minutes (for heavy soil). I think the shortest cycle ("quick wash") is only about 25 minutes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:07:55 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

The new ones use substantially less water per load and also less electric energy than the old ones. I doubt most people would ever recover the increased cost, both upfront and for possible repairs. And as you've noted, there are other disadvantages, like the substantially longer wash cycle times. But if you're a tree hugging hippie and it makes you feel good, then there's that.

I think you're wrong on that. The old front loaders, you coud see water sloshing around, with the tub maybe 1/4 to 1/3 full. The new ones, there is very little water in there. If you want to say that the cost of that water isn't that great, I'd agree that for most people, it's not. The biggest cost is likely the energy to heat the water. But for municipalities, if you had everyone using these new low water usage models it does help reduce the overall sewage needing to be treated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

There are significantly reduced costs to society in general when you conserve both water and electricity. The ROI calculations for even simple things like washing machines get muddy very quickly. I wonder how low income people will fare now that the entry level HE washer is headed into price stratosphere. I *really* love my old top loader now because we do a LOT of pre-soaking and some pretty big loads.
I was have an argument with a tree hugger who believed in recycling every last atom of *potentially* recyclable material.
I pointed out that the assumptions many recyclists are old, outdated and were perhaps never valid to begin with. No sale. Recycling is good.
I noted that China no longer buys anywhere near the scrap material (especially paper) they used to, drastically changing the cost equations. No sale. Recycling is good.
I pointed out that recycling involves putting lots more carbon dioxide in the air than using landfills and requires water to rinse out plastic containers. No sale. Recycling is good.
At least this time they countered by saying we're running out of landfill space. I replied: Ever fly coast to coast at night? We're not running out of nowhere any time soon. We might have to build some tracks or a highway to reach it, but wherever those two go, business development surely follows. Still no sale. Recycling is good.
My conclusion is that recycling has been tattooed on their brain and it's part of being a good, conscientious liberal EVEN IF it means junking up the atmosphere in a way previous models never considered. Recycling seems like the ideal *voluntary* program but I know that each year my property taxes pay an ever-growing fee for it.
I am not a anti-recycle monster. I recycle cans, batteries, CFLs and keep other toxic stuff out of the trash stream. However, when it comes to wasting *any* of my time deciding whether a pizza box is or is not recyclable leads me to: "Trash it all, let Nature sort it out." So far, I have eluded the recycling police (but not my liberal friend who felt empowered enough to sort my kitchen trash for me while my wife is away. Really! )
The fear of landfills really gets me. Any civil engineers out there know if it's anywhere near as nasty a process as "tree huggers" make it out to be? I recall reading that now they mix semi-processed trash with some sort of recovered cement dust to make it more suitable for coastal landfills and ones in earthquake zones. IIRC, San Franciso's landfilled seafront didn't fare too well in a recent earthquake.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/15/2016 5:22 PM, Robert Green wrote:

The "Corporate" nature of modern recycling makes little sense. "Let's *pay* to save stuff".
When I was a kid, we used to recycle newspaper and glass -- by dropping it off at a "lot" set aside by the town for that purpose. Volunteers would load the BALED newspaper into a semi trailer parked on the lot.
There were three concrete walled "pens" for white, green and brown glass. Folks could drop off paper trash bags (they hadn't invented plastic ones) of presorted glass by these pens and volunteers would empty the bags on the growing mountains of glass.
Folks who were more "interested" in an opportunity to throw glass bottles at a concrete wall WITH IMPUNITY would elect to empty their own bags! :>

The problem with most landfills is they are too close in and eventually become developed land. The city is currently addressing a problem related to trying to support a bridge on land that had previously been a landfill. The "soil" isn't strong enough to support the load and, as a result, pilings must be driven much deeper through the accumulated trash.
Recycling shouldn't be addressed AS "recycling" but, rather, as a multitude of reuse/reclamation techniques -- and each evaluated with respect to the cost of that activity vs. the potential gains from it.
If you can divert an item from a landfill (or incinerator) and reuse it "as is", there is high value for little cost. If you can invest a small amount (time/money) and reuse or repurpose, then you similarly achieve worthwhile results.
[I've probably WITHHELD $40-50K from the economy over the past decade simply by rescuing, repurposing and reusing items that would otherwise be buried under a layer of soil!]
It costs very little to pull an aluminum or copper heat sink off a CPU and toss it in a barrel. Then, haul that barrel to a firm that will pay you for that (reasonably) clean metal.
OTOH, tossing the computer that HAD that heatsink in it into the trash -- or, to a recycler -- adds lots of cost to extract that chunk of metal.
Apparently, aluminum cans are relatively easy to recycle. Yet, the local munis do NOT want it in the "unsorted recyclables" that they (pay someone!) to pick up at curbside, each week. OTOH, they are happy to accept "tin" cans, paper, plastics, etc.
<frown> Clearly, someone needs to start counting beans before making "feel good" policy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

Containing the toxic soup forever so that it doesn't enter the groundwater, aquifers, etc, wherever it winds up is really the main problem.
The city is currently addressing a problem

Presumably that is part of the process and decision on what to do with trash. Putting it in a landfill isn't cheap, especially if you have to haul it away from civilization. I think most municipalities are considering the cost of putting it all in a landfill vs recycling a lot of it. We've been recycling here for decades now and it's greatly extended the life of the landfill and it's been done on the basis of minimizing cost.

What is done varies by area. Here bottles, cans, plastics, cardboard, and paper all go into one stream. Regular garbage is another.

I think in most cases they do, and in general recycling typical household stuff works out economically, but I'm sure there are places doing some things that don't work out economically.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

That's more of an urban planning problem. The land can be zoned for parks, not construction. Or the stuff can be transported further away by very efficient barge or rail transport.
I had a friend who bought a house that ended up near a trash incinerator. It was not a good experience as humans seem very able to detect even minute particles of smoke in the air. I also shudder to think what went into that trash that really shouldn't have been burned because I've watched police academy cadets sort through garbage looking for murder victim parts.

I've read that a gypsum-like byproduct of some mining process added to the landfills really stiffens the soil enough to build *small* buildings on. As I recall they inject it under pressure to fill all the voids in the landfill material and it eventually harders. IIRC, it works best with sewage sludge. (-:

That's one of those problems that can be solved by adding a little more money to compensate for bad planning (anchoring a bridge in a landfill!!!).
Some problems, like the poor resistance to earthquake shaking, can't be solved with just a little money. I believe several areas in California and Japan have already suffered the consequences. The civil engineers who allow landfilled land to be used inappropriately should be interred in those landfills when the die. (-:
--
Bobby G.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green posted for all of us...

Have you found a cure for ED?
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/15/2016 8:22 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Recycling is good if done properly. At work we take foam plastic and recycle it. A local appliance dealer gives us a bunch of it about once a month. And we also get people coming by to drop off 8 ounces of plastic and are driving a big '65 Caddy getting 6 mpg.
Trash to energy can be done cleanly too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/15/2016 06:07 AM, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

Yep. though hardly 'state of the art' nothing simpler than those electro-mechanical timers. Even though they may severely "jack up" the price, they are still way cheaper than an electronic control board.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.