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 ?
On 4/14/2016 10:57 PM, email@example.com 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.
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.
The electronic *controls* are not significant problems. Most of
the problems seem to be mechanical ones (door latches, shock mounts,
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.
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.
On 4/15/2016 4:07 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org 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!)
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.
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.
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.
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:07:55 AM UTC-4, email@example.com 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
<frown> Clearly, someone needs to start counting beans before
making "feel good" policy.
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
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
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.
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. (-:
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.
On 04/15/2016 06:07 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yep. though hardly 'state of the art' nothing simpler than those
Even though they may severely "jack up" the price, they are still way
cheaper than an electronic control board.
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.