|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Using less electricity (Reply to this comment)
by rodandkathy
Bought our first front loader a few years ago. I was looking forward to the water and energy savings.
The main circuit board is already going bad. The part is $138 plus the labor to replace it. So far we have been able to unplug the washer, which seems to "reset" it but it's been getting worse. Soon we will have to decide between repairing or replacing.
Our old fashioned mechanical top loaders always lasted 10 years or longer with no problems. In my mind, the front loader experiment has been a total flop.
|
Mar 10 '10
10:35 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: The Myth of the Front Loading Machine (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau,  in Home and Garden
Hi, I loved (and agreed with) your wonderful comment (directly below). Too bad I didn't discover it earlier this year; but thanks so very much anyway! :-)
Mike
|
Nov 01 '09
7:53 pm PST
|
|
Re: The Myth of the Front Loading Machine (Reply to this comment)
by glen22
I agree with your point of view, which seems to be a minority. Unfortunately, as a counterpoint to complex electonically-controlled front-load or HE top-load machines, the traditional top loader (when you can find one) is also becoming hard to find. When you do, it isn't the machine of old -thinner gauge metal, cheaper parts, flimsy motors and transmissions, etc. With the possible exception of the Speed Queen, gone are the days when a washer could be depended upon to last 20 years without major repair or replacement. Most people today would never pay $700 or more (inflation-adjusted) for a super-duty, bare-bones, heavy-gauge, energy inefficient, mechanically-operated 1970s-era tech washer - though I would!
The issue is really about the perceived needs of the consumer. Today's buyers demand washers with Energy Star ratings, touchpad convenience and multiple automated options, sold at a price that all but ensures it must be assembled by third-world labor. Convenience and a desire to purchase aesthetically pleasing products attracts some to high-tech front-load machines. I have also noticed that complexity of the electronics attracts engineers and geeks like bees to honey. As a final insult, the federal government is doing its best with increasingly onerous energy and water-saving standards to mandate traditional top load washers out of existence.
The central problem is that for their level of complexity vs. price, most consumer-level front-load washers are underbuilt and undersupported. Sensors are relatively fragile, causing the machine to register a malfunction. I have even seen parts like simple lint screens constructed so cheaply that they can cause the entire machine to overheat, resulting in major damage. Front-load repairs have gone through the roof - just note how many people have started purchasing extended warranties again on front-load machines! Spare parts are stocked only for a short time, and you'll need them! No ability to rob a timer off another, similar machine - only the exact circuit board and control panel will do. When they self-destruct after a few years, they tend to do so in a most impressive manner.
The new front-loaders APPEAR to save money, are more efficient, and are undoubtedly much more modern and eco-appealing to most consumers. Of course now you have to use extra water to wash the front-load washer to get out the stench, and hotter water temps to get the clothes to the same degree of cleanliness, and replace them every five years or so, but...
|
Jun 08 '09
9:10 am PDT
|
|
Re: Using less electricity (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Hi. I didn't even discover your (below) comment till today (in late March 2009, long after you left your comment).
Again, I don't actually downright "dislike" front-loaders (recall my satirical piece's prefatory words). And I've little doubt that they are supplanting top-loaders in the U.S.; moreover, I've no doubt they use less water than do top-loaders. When my current washer eventually expires, I might even replace it with a front-loader, IF the latter could be found CHEAPLY enough vis a vis a decent top-loader.
That said, I remain firmly unconvinced that I myself would've realized a net monetary savings (over the lifetime of today's typical washer) by spending (typically) three to four times as much money as the $249 that I shelled out for my GE mid-line-model top-loader. Being a single, early-retired bachelor, I do very, very few loads of laundry per week. And some of those loads can be done quite satisfactorily using cold water. Even when I set the washer's temperature knob to "warm" or (occasionally) "hot," my monthly natural gas bill only trivially rises. [Partly this is because I keep my hot-water heater's temperature set to the lowest acceptable setting.]
Moreover, for the majority of loads I can get good results setting my top-load washer's wash-cycle "duration" knob to "medium" or even "light" (instead of "full" or "heavy"). That obviously decreases energy use. Moreover, my particular GE top-loader's tub has molded-in "ribs" that enhance water-extraction during the final spin cycle, thus reducing subsequent drying time.
I repeat, I remain firmly unconvinced that I would've realized a net monetary savings (over the lifetime of today's typical washer) by forking over (typically) three to four times as much money as the $249 that I spent for my GE mid-line-model top-loader. Too many times in past years, with sundry mechanical products (not just washers) I've eventually been disappointed to discover that a so-called "high-end" model ended up having a life span and/or cumulative repair costs that were scarcely, if any, better than what I could've gotten via a "mid-line" model (or sometimes even an "economy" model). As long as I'm careful to buy that "mid-line" model as a cosmetically (harmlessly) "scratched-and-dented" or "clearance" specimen, then my initial cost is MUCH less than usual (e.g., my most recent washer would've cost me $369 new at Home Depot or Lowe's, but at a smaller dealer's shop I instead discovered a new but "scratched-and-dented" specimen for only $249). Thus I've ended up with "mid-level" quality at a bottom-end (or even lower) price. And thus there's just no likelihood that any (MUCH costlier) front-loader you'd steer me toward would end up netting me any monetary savings over its life span (given my above-explained weekly usage and settings proclivities--especially in a geographical region where water is relatively cheap).
Mike
|
Mar 27 '09
12:24 pm PDT
|
|
Using less electricity (Reply to this comment)
by randis4927
As I did in another user's review, here's an explanation of how front-loaders use less energy despite a longer cycle time:
Traditional top-loaders will take around 12 lbs of clothes. Then, it will add around 18 gallons of water for the wash cycle. That adds up to almost 200 lbs of freight in the drum. The motor must force the agitator against the inertia of the water and (now wet) clothes. And, it must do this constantly throughout the washing portion of the cycle (we're going to ignore rinse and spin, as these will have negligible energy use differences).
Front-loaders can take 50-150% more clothing than traditional top-loaders. Let's be conservative and say it takes 50% more. So, we've now got 18 lbs of clothing. To this, the washer will add, on average, about 7 gallons of water. We're now at about 90 lbs, give or take. That's about half the weight for 50% more clothing in the same load (hence, fewer loads, hence savings).
Now, you're probably thinking, "Well, the load is lighter, but if it's 50% lighter and runs 3x as long, then you're using 50% more electricity!" Nope. The reason for this is our old friend gravity.
See, a front-loader works by hoisting the clothes to the top of the drum and letting them fall, allowing the clothes to rub against each other, scrubbing each other clean. Then, they rest for a moment before it starts all over again. This means that about 1/3 - 1/2 of the wash cycle time is spent not moving the clothes at all, and the rest of the cycle is spent moving the clothes so they can drop. In other words, half the work is done by gravity. So, if we are stingy and say that only 1/3 of the wash cycle is spent resting, then we are using the other 2/3 of the wash cycle to move the lighter load. If the cycle is 3x as long, and the load is 50% the weight, and gravity does a good bit of the work, then we should expect something like 75% of the energy use compared to a top-loader, right?
Wrong again. Now we're going to go back to water. On a normal cycle, the water won't be tap cold, it will be warm. That means water is drawn from your water heater. The more water you draw from the water heater, the more cold water goes into the water heater, and the more energy must be used to return the water in the tank to the proper temperature. If a top-loader uses 18 gallons of water in the wash cycle, and 1/3 of that is hot, then that's 6 gallons of hot water, which means that's 6 gallons of cold water going into the tank. With a front-loader, if there are 7 gallons of water being used, and 1/3 of that is hot, we're only using about 2 gallons of hot water, so only 2 gallons of cold are entering the tank. 6 gallons to a 40 gallon water heater (as an average size) is 15% of the tank, while 2 gallons is only 5%. You're using 3x the energy to heat the water in the tank when you use the top-loader.
That works out to a cumulative energy savings of about 50%. That, on top of doing fewer loads (which, of course, means less power to run the washer and less energy to heat water) and less use of the dryer (which, of course, means less electricity and, if used, gas).
It's not voodoo, it's science and math. It's understandable, though, that Americans are afraid of these things. After all, for decades we've been lagging behind most of the world when it comes to science and math. In a country where 50% of its citizens believe the world was created 6000 years ago with all the species created just as they exist now at that same time, with people alongside pteranodons, is it any surprise that these cyclopean behemoths intimidate, confuse, and frighten the masses?
Enjoy your top-loader for as long as you have it. They're not bad machines, but they're not as good as what's available. If you like top-loading for the style or comfort factors, consider the Whirlpool Cabrio, Maytag Bravos, or Kenmore Oasis (all the same machine). They're as efficient as front-loaders in energy and water, and as of early 2008, the kinks have all been worked out. Happy laundering!
|
Jan 14 '09
1:12 pm PST
|
|
Re: Front (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Top-loaders are (pretty much) all I've ever known on these shores, Vas. But it appears that the "one-eyed aliens" are continuing to execute their American invasion. ;-) Hence, I'll likely be getting to know them much better someday. ;-) Both designs have their advantages and disadvantages, methinks.
Thanks, Vas, and Happy New Year to you, too!
Mike
|
Dec 30 '07
3:29 am PST
|
|
Front (Reply to this comment)
by lammet
Loaders are all I've ever known, but your piece just might make me change my mind!
Just kiddin' here, but then your essay brought a cheery spirit over me :o)
All the Best Mike for the coming year!
-Vasilis
|
Dec 29 '07
10:56 am PST
|
|
Re: The big ones even leak... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Zak, your description of how the industrial machines are set up in Laundromats is most intriguing, for sure! :-)
"Are there top loading dryers?"
Yes. In fact, I saw one up close at a nearby Lowe's store about a month ago. The models that I know of are made by Fisher & Paykel. You can take a gander for yourself at their web site (fisherpaykel.com). There could be other manufacturers, too. I'm not absolutely sure.
Thanks much for your comment!
Mike
|
Dec 18 '07
12:50 pm PST
|
|
Re: I asked my daughter-in-law... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Hey, Alma, thanks for sharing my review with your daughter-in-law and for sharing her response in this forum. In all candor (recall my introductory "Disclaimer" section), I could live happily with either configuration. That said, I'll take the one that--factoring both the initial and the ultimate costs--saves me the most money. How much did your daughter-in-law pay for her undoubtedly excellent German import? (This gets back to my original point #6.)
Also, regarding the "bending over" aspect of your daughter-in-law’s response, when one initially loads a front-loading washer, it's generally necessary to bend over (assuming there's no pricey "pedestal" installed beneath the washer), at least somewhat (unlike the case with a top-loading washer). So that's a point in favor of the top-loader. But later, when one must transfer the laundry from the washer to the (front-loading) dryer, well, indeed, that could admittedly be construed as a point in favor of the front-loading washer, at which point we see that the two, respective "advantages" sort of cancel each other. Or do they?
In actuality, when I myself transfer laundry from my top-loading washer to my front-loading dryer, I don’t have to bend my knees at all, and I only very slightly have to bend forward at the waist. (I'm an inch over six feet tall.) I merely grab the upper edge of the handle of my front-loading dryer's door to open it; then I habitually, easily toss the clothing downward and forward (at an angle) into the dryer before shutting its door from the same stance. This is noticeably easier than having to perform a "deep-knee-bend" (as your daughter-in-law evidently does) while transferring from washer to dryer. If you don't believe me, just go to your laundry room and contrast the two respective body motions.
Consequently, in my opinion your daughter-in-law loses the (friendly) "argument" on that particular point. ;-) [But I won't deny that her presumably well-built and pricey German washer is an admirable machine!]
In any case, I won't be the least bit surprised if front-loaders continue to gain market share on these shores. Indeed, I fully anticipate it. [At best, perhaps in two decades (?) the majority of remaining top-loading washers manufactured will be more or less comparable to the already available "Cabrio" units by Whirlpool, which don't have any central agitator and which conserve more water than conventional top-loaders.] ;-)
Hey, I enjoyed this, and I thank you again for initiating these musings.
Happy holidays! :-)
Mike
|
Dec 14 '07
12:54 pm PST
|
|
I asked my daughter-in-law... (Reply to this comment)
by aawehr
I asked my daughter-in-law about your review, since she has been using new front-end loaders since mid-summer and she is about 5'9" tall.
These are her comments:
__________________________________________
I disagree with the bending (points 1 & 2). I actually have less pain than the top-loading because I just bend my knees and move the wet clothes right to the dryer (the front-load washer and dryer are at the same level; compared to a top-loading washer and a front-loading dryer).
I’ve never experienced #5!
#9 I’ve experienced this and I do leave the door open to air it out. Problem solved.
#11 – It does take longer for the washer; however, you can fit 15 pairs of jeans in one load…that actually saves you time. In a top-loader, you would need to split 15 pairs of jeans into two loads.
#16 – American-made front-loaders had the most recalls compared to European front-loaders when they first introduced to the American market. (My sister received about $400 because of the recalls on their front-loader.) Mine was constructed in Germany.
______________________
Take care!
Alma
|
Dec 14 '07
6:28 am PST
|
|
Re: I wouldn't like to be in your laundry room. (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Not to worry. I've a top-loader. ;-)
Have a great day!
Mike
|
Dec 05 '07
9:04 am PST
|
|
I wouldn't like to be in your laundry room. (Reply to this comment)
by gillandtony
Bending forward is not only annoying but also embarrassing if anyone's nearby when you unintentionally toot.
|
Dec 05 '07
8:15 am PST
|
|
Re: Loved your piece (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Wayne, I'm pleased you're pleased with my piece, and I thank you for the information you've provided below.
You're right. Not having lived with a front-loader myself, I didn't mention any "vibration" issue for old homes. For that matter, certain cheap top-load makes/models (not my "auto-balance" GE model, thankfully) can get out of balance during the final "fast-spin" phase; but perhaps the level of vibration you refer to is still worse than that?
Oh, indeed, your Fisher & Paykel units must be marvelous; after all, they weren't exactly cheap. Hopefully, they'll last proportionately longer and thus seem well worth it in the long run. They're surely great to live with in the short run, too (I recently saw some comparable Fisher & Paykel units at a nearby store, and they exuded elegance!). I look forward to enjoying your review(s).
I just checked out www.staber.com as you suggested. Wow. Quality-wise, their intriguingly designed washers sound reminiscent of the old "Maytags" of yesteryear. Hmmm. I also noticed their high prices (starting at about $1,300). I can't help but wonder if the water/energy savings they'd provide would be largely offset by their initially higher cost (contrasted with a $250 "clearance" top-loader like mine) for a user who, like me, doesn't do more than a couple of loads per week. Nonetheless, they look magnificent.
Like you, this Thoreauvian can, of course, appreciate the "simplicity" of their "internals". ;-)
P.S.: As for “bending”, well, I just turned 54 today; and I don't find the bending to be any major problem, either (not unless I devoured half a box of prunes earlier!). Still, I couldn’t resist starting off with several wise cracks in that vein. ;-)
Mike
|
Nov 24 '07
10:45 pm PST
|
|
Loved your piece (Reply to this comment)
by waynephinney
Great argument for top-loading!
One thing you probably didn't know about. Front-loaders vibrate flooring if it's not the sturdiest out there. I'm in New England where there are a lot of older homes, and I have to tell people NOT to buy front-loaders almost half the time they come in for one because they want to put them upstairs in their 100 year old home. That will shake the whole house!
Ran into that incident once with a crippled lady who had no choice. Per my advice, she got her nephews to get a rubber cashiers mat under it, which made it tolerable for her.
Being in a mobile home is exactly why I don't like front-loaders. As for bending. I'm only 25, and even though I'm quite heavy, I don't yet find the bending to be a problem. Still, I have the Fisher & Paykel set (both washer AND dryer load in the top), and I find it to be super convenient. It washes just as well as the Bosch front-loaders, is nearly as efficient (according to energystar.gov), and only takes an hour to wash (compared to up to 90 minutes on some front-loaders).
I love my Fisher Paykel set, which inevitably, when I find some time, I will be reviewing.
Also, if anyone wants to see a really interesting washer (although it is as expensive as a Duet), check out www.staber.com. If you ask me, their machine is the best of both worlds. Horizontal axis, but loads in the top. Had I known about that machine before I got my Fishy Pickle, I would have gotten it. I still would have gotten Fisher's top loading dryer though.
The thing that appeals to me most about the Staber is just how simple the internals are. Even a caveman could service it! (cue the Gecko). :)
Excellent piece Mr. Thor-o. I look for to reading more of your work.
Now if only I could find the time in my youthful oversaturated life to pen a few more reviews of my own! :)
|
Nov 24 '07
7:29 pm PST
|
|
Re: Interesting observations (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Allan, you're quite right: I wanted to have some unbridled fun with this piece (while, hopefully, simultaneously injecting some thought-provoking, factual observations for the benefit of certain consumers). Moreover, I went into this one with the foreknowledge that a few readers might not find it to their taste--especially if they owned front-loaders and didn't read--or believe--my "Disclaimer". (No big deal. Maybe they'll prefer something else I'll post within a week or few.)
Regarding that mildly controversial "#5", even I myself winced (ever so slightly) while writing it. But it did evidently greatly amuse at least one reader (see below). And I suspect that more than a few non-Epinionators will likewise enjoy it. BTW, though the wording is all mine, I didn't just "fabricate" that story; I really was reporting the gist of an actual "review" I'd read elsewhere in cyberspace. ;-)
|
Nov 24 '07
4:32 pm PST
|
|
Interesting observations (Reply to this comment)
by Carrathon
I can tell that you had a lot of fun with this review, and I had a lot of fun reading it. I admit, however, I winced slightly after reading reason #5 (which fortunately, is unlikely to happen to me or anyone in my household)!
|
Nov 24 '07
10:19 am PST
|
|
Re: The (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Ew! I sure wouldn't want any "mold and funk" in my boot(s)! ;-)
But seriously, maybe some of the latest front-loaders are at least somewhat improved in that regard? (Perchance Teresa would know!)
As always, thanks for your input, George!
Mike
|
Nov 23 '07
5:50 pm PST
|
|
The (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot
mold and funk around the boot is a big reason to eschew the old fashioned front loader. My dad used to fix them and that was a pervasive problem.
|
Nov 23 '07
1:19 pm PST
|
|
Re: & (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Hi there, Teresa! Now, please do recall my initial "Disclaimer" wherein I said:
"In reality, I like both types of washing machines...."
Moreover, given that I often prefer "European" to "American" music (not to mention certain other arts), it shouldn't surprise you that I'm by no means opposed to your being "Europhilic"! ;-)
Thanks for chiming in, and there's surely no need to "duck". This piece was largely an ironic, not a serious, "review". Nobody should take any actual offense—unless, that is, they just can't take a joke! :-)
|
Nov 23 '07
9:30 am PST
|
|
& (Reply to this comment)
by virtuelle2
Ha ! Not taking the bait here, but I remain an unrepentant front-loader type, and a Europhile to boot. Guess I should duck now before the arrows begin flying in my general direction.
All the same, you have some fine arguments here, done with wit and humour, too !
Take care ~
T.
|
Nov 23 '07
7:06 am PST
|
|
Re: Well, if you'd just flashed #16 (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Should I ever elect to sell this maintenance-hungry house and ensconce me in some cut-rate apartment, who knows but what I might avail me of a modest washboard for a portion of my laundry! ;-)
|
Nov 22 '07
2:39 pm PST
|
|
Well, if you'd just flashed #16 (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray
you wouldn't have needed to list the other reasons! I salute your loyalty to American tradition, which is top-loading, washboards being forgotten...
|
Nov 22 '07
9:22 am PST
|
|
Re: Great! (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
Peggy, it really does me good to know you appreciated my "review". [And, btw, the first draft of my "de-pooping" anecdote was, er, a tad over-the-top. It's just as well I applied some prudent self-editing there before posting this piece!]
Mike
|
Nov 22 '07
9:12 am PST
|
|
Great! (Reply to this comment)
by pilarzmom
I learned a lot and got a great laugh or two! (still imagining the poopy underpants). I constantly throw in an extra piece of clothing or two in my top-loader as well.
Peggy
|
Nov 22 '07
7:10 am PST
|
|
Re: Hey now.. (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau, in Home and Garden
"I don't care for front loading washers either, but..now Connie Stevens! She was so fine - she could probably still turn this 56 year old head for an approving eye."
Oh, actually, front-loaders are basically all right by me. But their former allure has now been eclipsed by a simple aversion to their high sticker prices. Not to mention I've belatedly come to appreciate the top-loader's own aesthetic appeal. My hope is that there'll always be a market for both configurations, though I suspect your Whirlpool Cabrio's tub design (sans any conventional agitator) could be the wave of the future for top-loaders, more or less.
Yep, Connie already turned my head just enough that (around early 1991) I collected her several early-sixties LP's. About a decade later, when they were released as CD's, I snapped those up, too. Not that I listen to her "every day"; but every now and then it's nice to wallow in some nostalgia, right?
Speaking of which, who can ever forget that catchy Travis/Ford tune?
Thanks for your comment, Alex, and Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!
Mike
|
Nov 21 '07
8:42 pm PST
|
|
|
|
