Posted by Peter H.M. Brooks on August 24, 2003, 12:32 pm
I have quite a simple question. Is a top-loading washing machine a better
buy than a front-loading one?
As I see it there are a few factors:
- The engineering of a frontloader must be more complicated than a top
loader so more likely to go wrong.
- A top loader ought, in theory, as I see it, use less energy than a front
loader for the same work.
I might well be wrong as most washing machines appear to be front loaders.
Why is this?
I have only used front loading machines myself so I'd be interested to know
of any problems that top loaders are prone too.
--
Middle age is when you're sitting at home on a Saturday night and the
telephone rings and you hope that it isn't for you - 'It takes all sorts'
Milton Shulman
Posted by Eric Lee Green on August 25, 2003, 10:39 am
> I have quite a simple question. Is a top-loading washing machine a better
> buy than a front-loading one?
Maybe. Cost-wise they cost much less. If you have cheap water, and can wash
your clothes in unheated water with good results, they can have a reasonable
cost of operation. But they use MUCH more water, as in, 20 gallons per
wash vs. 3-4 gallons per wash for a front-loader.
> - The engineering of a frontloader must be more complicated than a top
> loader so more likely to go wrong.
Correct. That is why the majority of washing machines in the United
States are toploaders. The U.S. moved from washtubs to washing
machines 20 years before the rest of the world did, and technology at
the time that the U.S. went to washing machines simply would not
support a reliable front-loader. U.S. homes are also larger, and many
had space for a dedicated laundry room. This made it easy to ignore
the space-hogging nature of a top loader (which must be placed such
that the lid on top can be opened, thereby using not only the floor
space it occupies, but several feet above it, making it impossible to
stack on top of or place in a cabinet). Top loaders have remained the
primary type of washing machine in the United States because of low
up-front cost and inertia.
> - A top loader ought, in theory, as I see it, use less energy than a front
> loader for the same work.
Nope. They use much more water, and it takes a lot of energy to heat that
water. Agitating that much water also takes a lot of energy.
> I might well be wrong as most washing machines appear to be front loaders.
> Why is this?
Most washing machines in the United States are toploaders, for
historical reasons (back in the 1940's and 1950's, technology for
reliable front loaders was very iffy). Front loaders became popular in
Europe in the 1960's (Europe's economy prior to that was still a
shambles from WWII) mostly because they could be compact enough to be
placed under a kitchen counter, as vs. a top-loader that needed to be
free standing so you could put clothes in the top. I presume that
there in Aussi-land or Kiwi-land front loaders became popular
because your main trading partner was Britain.
> I have only used front loading machines myself so I'd be interested to know
> of any problems that top loaders are prone too.
They are reliable and long-lasting, but use a lot of water. I personally have
a front loader because I live in a desert and wasting 20 gallons of water per
wash is not a nice thing to do in a desert. They also leave the clothes wetter
than front loaders (because they do not spin the clothes as fast), which
raises the cost of drying clothes.
--
Eric Lee Green mailto:eric@badtux.org
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Posted by charles on August 25, 2003, 1:47 pm
> Most washing machines in the United States are toploaders, for
> historical reasons (back in the 1940's and 1950's, technology for
> reliable front loaders was very iffy). Front loaders became popular in
> Europe in the 1960's (Europe's economy prior to that was still a
> shambles from WWII) mostly because they could be compact enough to be
> placed under a kitchen counter, as vs. a top-loader that needed to be
> free standing so you could put clothes in the top. I presume that
> there in Aussi-land or Kiwi-land front loaders became popular
> because your main trading partner was Britain.
This doesn't quite agree with the way that I have seen things on this side of
the pond. My mother's first washing machine was a top loader (Hoover 1950s) -
but it was small enough to be pulled /pushed into place from under a worktop.
The first front loader I ever saw, in Scotland, was in the 1950s and it was a
personal import (Bendix) from the USA. Top loaders continued in use for many
years, mostly with small wheels so that they could be moved between the place
of use and the storage place, but yes, by the late '60s front loaders were
becoming more common.
Posted by Randall Bart on August 26, 2003, 1:11 am
'Twas 25 Aug 2003 09:39:05 -0500 when all uk.tech.misc stood in awe as
>> I have quite a simple question. Is a top-loading washing machine a better
>> buy than a front-loading one?
>Maybe. Cost-wise they cost much less. If you have cheap water, and can wash
>your clothes in unheated water with good results, they can have a reasonable
>cost of operation. But they use MUCH more water, as in, 20 gallons per
>wash vs. 3-4 gallons per wash for a front-loader.
Why does a top loader use more water than a front loader?
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ http://RandallBart.com/ Ånåheim Ångels 2002 World Chåmps!
a |/ Multiple sclerosis: http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com
Posted by Peter H.M. Brooks on August 26, 2003, 2:11 am
> 'Twas 25 Aug 2003 09:39:05 -0500 when all uk.tech.misc stood in awe as
> >> I have quite a simple question. Is a top-loading washing machine a
better
> >> buy than a front-loading one?
> >
> >Maybe. Cost-wise they cost much less. If you have cheap water, and can
wash
> >your clothes in unheated water with good results, they can have a
reasonable
> >cost of operation. But they use MUCH more water, as in, 20 gallons per
> >wash vs. 3-4 gallons per wash for a front-loader.
> Why does a top loader use more water than a front loader?
I'd like to know that too, but, when I heard that, it seemed to make sense
as a matter of geometry.
In a top loader, the drum has to be filled to cover the clothes since they
are not pulled down into the water. In a front loader the water only goes a
third or half the way up as the clothes are moved in and out of the water
during the washing cycle.
This would mean a few things:
- The top loader should be slower as it will take longer to fill.
- The top loader should leave less detergent and dirt as there is a higher
ratio of water to clothes during the rinse cycle.
It seems odd to me that there isn't a comprehensive list of the pros and
cons for consumers to make an informed choice - I've looked all over the
place, and e-mailed a washing machine manufacturer but only found any sort
of response here!
--
Hark, wretches! how I mean to martyr you. This one hand yet is left to cut
your throats, Whilst that Lavinia 'tween her stumps doth hold the baisin
that receives your guilty blood. -Titus Andronicus (Hastivibrax)
XML site map
> buy than a front-loading one?