KerryBatemansBay
Member
Hi,
our trusty Hitachi twin tub, purchased triumphantly for $5 from the tip shop five years ago, has finally died. Time poor, we are looking longingly at top-load automatics, for fast, cold water wash (no two-hour cycle front loaders, please). Deep in the woods as we are, we wonder if great strides have been made in energy efficiency. We will run on solar and generator.
Any first-hand experience out there?
johnmath
Member
The best top load machine is a Miele or Bosch front loader. Why anyone would want to thrash their expensive clothes, linen, bath towels, etc to premature destruction whilst wasting water, energy and detergent in the process in a top load shredding machine is beyond my comprehension. I should apologise if I sound abrupt. Too much life experience!
About 20 or 30 years ago my parent went to Spain, where they used top loading tumbling washing machines, giving the best of both worlds, if you like. I don't know why they haven't appeared here, other than our current government is determined to take Australia back to the middle ages, perhaps. 
Benny
Member
Front loaders don't have to run on 2 hour cycles. Ours is 46mins for a standard, cold water cotton wash. It also has a quick 15 min cycle.
Front loaders in general are the most efficient, ie lowest number of kWh, which is important for your solar drive.
KerryBatemansBay
Member
Thanks, to both of you. Benny, what brand front loader are you using?
Lance
Key Master
I have an LG front loader that is around 8 years old, it has been pretty good although I have repaired it a couple of times, but as far as cycle time goes, standard wash is around 1 hour, but there's a 30 min quick was that does a pretty good job. On a full cotton cycle (just over an hour) it uses 120Wh of energy on a cold wash (which we do 99% of the time as there's no need for anything else).
The LG machines can be a bit variable in quality, but they are good value generally, and there are plenty of other brands, just make sure you get one that can do a true cold wash, some can't.
KerryBatemansBay
Member
Thanks, Lance.
wlb
Member
We've been living off-grid since 1998. Batteries, solar, and back-up generator. We brought our 1995 Fisher & Paykel 701 top-loader with us. Highly recommended. We wouldn't replace it with anything else. We've had 2 problems during those 19 years. About 2 years ago the pump failed. I bought a reasonably priced new pump from F&P and fitted it myself in about 20 minutes. Last year something failed in the main control module. I bought a rebuilt module on-line from a specialist supplier in NZ and installed that myself in 15 minutes. Once you've opened up one of these machines (very easy to do) you appreciate how clever and simple they are, and how well they are designed and built.
Their power consumption is quite low due to their motor's design. We only had 450W of solar for the first 8 or 10 years.
A top loader can use more water than a front loader, but we are 'off the water grid' too so the water we use is rainwater, and the water from the machine is utilized by the plants on our property, so water consumption is more or less irrelevant in that situation.
I don't know where the myth about top loaders destroying clothing comes from; probably from the manufacturers of front-loaders. Our clothes aren't ruined. You choose the cycle to suit the fabric.
There also seems to be a belief that front-loaders are new technology, while top-loaders are old technology. They are both old in their basic concepts. My mother's first washing machine, in 1952, was a front-loader. It replaced the copper and and hand-operated wringer (mangle). It lasted until the early 1960s when it was replaced by a Frigidaire. This was a large top-loader with vertically oscillating agitator. It created an annular pulsing action in the water. Rotation only occurred during the spin cycle. This machine lasted until the late 1990s when it was replaced with a smaller F&P 501. This was chosen by my mother based on our experience with our then relatively new 701. The 501 is still running too and has never had a problem.
So my advice would be to find an earlier F&P Smartdrive top-loader in good condition, and buy a few spare parts. There is very little inside these things. A large and almost indestructible multi-pole motor (used by many to built wind generators), an easily replaceable pump that's almost plug-in, and a couple of electronic control and display modules that are plug-in.
johnmath
Member
wlb said:
I don't know where the myth about top loaders destroying clothing comes from; probably from the manufacturers of front-loaders. .
You are right that neither is new. I remember my grandmother's front loader from the 1950s.
If you have used both top and front load machines you would probably be aware that top loaders usually have a lint filter, whereas front loaders do not produce lint and don't need a lint filter. The lint is formed of fibres thrashed out of your precious clothes and linen! Clothes become threadbare faster in a top loader, and every time we use one we are shocked by the amount of lint that we find on our washing afterwards, because there is never any from our front loader.
A further adjunct to the gentler nature of front loaders is that is isn't strictly necessary to separate colours from whites or light from dark, so we only do one load of everything. Quite frankly, it matters not whether the wash takes 10 minutes or 2 hours, because we are not standing there watching it - we do it when there's a load.
For a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the two methods, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_machine#Comparison
wlb
Member
johnmath said:
... fibres thrashed out of your precious clothes and linen!
Clothes become threadbare faster ...
John, do you work for Miele or someone like that?
We have very little clothing, and no linen that I would describe as precious, and if I did it wouldn't be machine washed. I have never noticed that my clothes, which last for years, have become threadbare from any other cause than wearing them. Unless our machine focuses on the elbows, knees, and inside the collars.
I suspect the main need for a lint filter is due to the different rinse methods required by the 2 designs. Incidentally, our F&P doesn't have a lint filter. Neither did the old Frigidaire. I wouldn't be surprised if you put a lint filter on the outlet of a front-loader, you would also find lint.
Ever noticed how a bedroom needs dusting more often that the rest of the house. Especially if you have polished boards, so it is more noticeable. Bedding and clothing produces dust and lint simply by using it. Tiny fibres are broken and damaged as the fabric moves. It might even occur less in a washing machine where there is a lubricant (water) present. Try shaking your clothes in a beam of sunlight before washing them and you'll see the lint in the air. I suspect that most of what ends up in a lint filter is this being washed out.
johnmath
Member
I don't work for any appliance company - I am conveying my own experience for the benefit of the OP. Perhaps you have not owned a front loader? I have owned front loaders, twin tubs and top loaders at different times. Some F&P washers don't have an agitator and they are not so hard on cloths, but they don't wash large items very well either.
It is possible to check the nature of the lint by running your waste water through a tea strainer. What is caught is definitely threads that belong in your cloths! On the other hand, anyone who has accidentally put a tissue in a front loader is surprised to see it come out clean and intact - try that in a top loader.
From Wikipedia:
Wear and abrasion: Top-loaders require an agitator or impeller mechanism to force enough water through clothes to clean them effectively, which greatly increases mechanical wear and tear on fabrics. Front-loaders use paddles in the drum to repeatedly pick up and drop clothes into water for cleaning; this gentler action causes less wear. The amount of clothes wear can be roughly gauged by the amount of accumulation in a clothes dryer lint filter, since the lint largely consists of stray fibers detached from textiles during washing and drying.
There's quite a few reasons why I choose not to use a top loading machine:
1. The whole of life ownership cost of a front loader is typically much lower due to lower energy consumption/greater durability;
2. The cradle to grave environmental cost of a front loader is lower, due to longer life and lower energy and water consumption; and
3. The cost of clothing is lower when clothes last longer by not having the threads literally beaten out of them;
4. Front loaders wash much better despite using less detergent;
5. There is no need to sort cloths, or wash large and small items separately;
6. You can wash large and difficult itemss (I have just washed my car woollen seat covers).
7. Most hand wash items that can't be washed in a top load can be washed in a front load.
interesting debate about front loaders vs . top loaders. slightly off track (but so it seems are most of the comments) so heres my 10 cents worth . one irrefutable advantage of front loaders is that they can go under a bench , making for more efficient use of space in a small room .
I like front loaders ,but was certainly interested to hear wlbs comments. always good to hear the counter argument.
wlb
Member
With all due respect, John, I think you're missing my point.
My post was in reply to the original question.
While I was a child and teenager, my mother had 10 years experience with a front loader and then switched to a top loader. I don't recall her being annoyed that our clothes then wore out rapidly.
I've had long experience with 2 top loaders, neither of which were of the typical design.
Mum's front loader was simple and built like a tank and it lasted 10 years.
Her Frigidaire top loader lasted for 30 years.
Its replacement F&P 501 is still going at almost 20 years.
My F&P 701 is still going strong at almost 20 years.
I've had the top off to replace 2 items and on the basis of what I've seen inside and a couple of parts I've put aside, I wouldn't be surprised if it lasted another 25 years.
After 20 years with this machine I see no evidence of my clothes requiring early replacement.
I am only talking about this particular brand and design of machine. It is unlike the rest.
When we moved from the suburbs in 1998 to a house with very limited solar power, I measured the current drawn by our machine and found it to be negligible apart from a brief period when the bowl was started to be rotated for a spin cycle, but it was still much less than what was drawn by the conventional top loader with gearbox and belt-drive.
The cost of any power used is irrelevant in our case because it's free if we don't run it at night.
Our machine's water consumption is also irrelevant.
If you're using rainwater and not draining you're machine into or near the local creek, it doesn't matter if you use 2 litres per wash or 20 litres.
We don't have to separate small items from larger ones.
We do wash bed sheets and towels separately, but that's mainly because we can't fit everything into one load.
I'm not trying to have a hair-splitting discussion about the general merits of top vs front loaders.
I'm just trying to answer the original question. I'm talking about this particular top loader being used on solar power. It's very good, efficient, and very durable.
KerryBatemansBay
Member
Have been away from the forum for some time, but was grateful, returning this evening, to see the effort put into answering my query. Food for thought as we contemplate our choices. Thanks all who responded.
petemoss
Member
Our Fischer & Paykel Pride 5.5 – Smart Drive 9 top loader has finally had it. In the 9 years of use, only very minor electronic problems, which our son was able to fix. It was bought second hand, and no pump replacement,etc in that time.
It uses only 63 Watts in a 42 minute wash. So if we could buy another exactly the same, we would, as we are off grid. Need to find a new one that is energy efficient.
wlb
Member
Pete,
Talk to these people. http://stores.ebay.com.au/reconmodules/
They're very helpful and our machine is running again thanks to them. Of course, that depends a lot on what's wrong with yours. They did tell me that the older ones like mine are better designed than the newer ones.
We'll be extending the house in the near future and one of the additions will be a new laundry. I intend to design it so that the machine doesn't pump out into the adjacent laundry trough, but instead drains by gravity down through the floor so I can replace the pump with a 25mm motorized valve. It won't save much power, but every little bit helps. The main reasons are that it will eliminate one of the machine's few moving parts, and probably the one that works the hardest for its size, it will empty faster, and there will be no water remaining in the machine's sump when not in use so the interior won't always be humid.
johnmath
Member
Pete, buy a secondhand Bosch (Miele or other quality European brand) front load for a couple of hundred dollars. It will probably see you out, whilst saving electricity, water, detergent AND your clothes.
Fisher and Paykel are reasonable washing machines, but they come into their own as sources of bits for tinkerers - the smart drive motor can be used for a myriad of wonderful devices. http://www.thebackshed.com/windmill/articles/gettingstarted.asp
Johnnojack
Member
Rescued a Bosch front loader with wrecked drum bearings. Ran it thru a full cycle to see if it had any other problems. Apart from sounding like a Mack Truck with no oil it worked OK. Sat there for a year until the Simpson top loader finally gave up after 20 or so years. (I had fixed it a few times but rust in the bowl finished it. I then replaced the bearings in the Bosch for $36 and it has been going ever since. Drove us mad at first with its 91 minute cycle, but I am amazed how well it can clean clothes which seem only just wet. And yes a tissue left in a pocket is no drama at all. The top loader could distribute one tissue onto every sq.mm of clothing. Front loader 15 litres per fill, Top loader 75 litres per fill, (it was a bit bigger).
johnmath
Member
The secret of dealing with the long cycle times of front loaders is to change how you do the washing. Instead of spending a couple of hours sorting and doing the washing once a week, we treat it like the dishwasher, wash when we have a load, and hang it out when it's finished. Quite frankly it wouldn't matter if it took a day to run a cycle.
You can do this with a front load because there is no real need for special cycles for different fabrics, or different loads for different colours. It's all in together on a "mixed" load cycle, unless we are washing woollen jumpers or quilts - things you can't wash in a top load anyway.
wlb
Member
Pete,
I should have warned that if you have small children, don't persist with top-loaders as they can kill infants, despite the so-called "Gentle" cycle. A front-loader on the other hand will simply caress them to sleep while caring for their garments. However, like F&P machines, they don't have Lindt filters, therefore any cocoa-based confectionery treats left in their pockets will be spread throughout the wash.
Phil A
Member
Im with you Petemoss on the F&P.
I have an unused 5.5 in the shed. We replaced it with a bigger one. If I was in the same state and it was economical to get it to you , you would be more than welcome to it.
I would possibly have any bits you might need if you care to email.
You can buy several of them for the price of a dead switch or timer for the miele or bosch, that's if you can find one, or after you wait three weeks to get it.
"Drove us mad at first with its 91 minute cycle"
A 90 minute cycle power usage would be an interesting figure. It would need to be pretty low watts to better the F&P.
The rare pump issue with the F&P is usually a foreign object stuck in it externally. If not, the pump can be changed without tools in less than 5 min. A replacement pump can be sourced from the local tip/shop.
The self diagnosis function of these machines will even tell you what is wrong with it! so that even eliminates service fees.
The motors windings in the F&P went from wire diameter of 1mm to .8mm to .6mm.as the power of the motor went up. The earlier ones with the 1mm windings are slightly more energy efficient, although they hard to find now days. The .8mm ones are still relatively common.
Another bonus is the high spin speed. Those of us off the grid don't usually run cloths dryers. This feature probably goes un noticed by most users.
I do believe that top loaders a slightly harder wear wise on cloths than a front loader, I learned this after using a hand washing machine for years, however the simplicity, power usage, and simplicity of design are worth it to me over other brands
"bearings in the Bosch for $36 and it has been going ever since"
As a matter of interest a set of bearings for the F&P are about $14
"don't persist with top-loaders as they can kill infants"
So far luckily I have never had a top loader kill an infant. (Cant say I know of anybody who has.) If it did I would shoot it.
More than likely it would be an irresponsible adult that would let an infant climb into an operating washing machine.
johnmath
Member
Phil A said:
A 90 minute cycle power usage would be an interesting figure. It would need to be pretty low watts to better the F&P.
F&P Smartdrives' are energy efficient *for a top loader*, but still not as energy efficient as front loaders, which is one of the reasons for considering a front loader for an off grid system.
arttt
Member
johnmath said:
F&P Smartdrives' are energy efficient *for a top loader*, but still not as energy efficient as front loaders...
I looked at that link and Im pretty sure the star rating is done on the warm wash. many of the front loaders dont seem to have a cold wash energy usage recorded. My interpretation of the data is that if you want to do a cold wash the F&P top loaders are pretty hard to beat from an energy perspective.
petemoss
Member
We decided to go for a F & P top loader 7 kg model. We use a top loader to spin only, sometimes, which you can't do with a front loader. Also, as we get older, not having to bend down to add clothes is nice with a top loader. Also, not all models (top and front loaders) had cold and hot water taps. This was a requirement for us, as we didn't want to be wasting energy heating water when we have solar hot water, coupled with a wet back on the wood heater. Some models have heating elements that go hand in hand with cold water inlet only; not a good idea if you can't disable it somehow.
I asked several people about the 2 labels for energy consumption, on the top loaders. For example, our new F & P top loader has 71 Kwh for a cold wash, and 566 KwH for a warm wash. That is based on 365 washes per year, so that is 0.1945 Kwh or 194.5 watts per wash for a cold wash, and 1.5507 Kwh or 1550.7 watts per wash for a warm wash.
As they base the warm wash on the energy required to heat water, that was a no brainer for us, being off grid. So, each model we looked at, we only had to compare the cold wash energy labelling. We only use the washing machine between 2 and 3 times per week, and then only when there is clear bright skies. I'll be interested to see what the actual power usage is; the power monitor is on loan at present. 
As "arttt" mentioned, front loaders don't seem to have the cold water wash energy use recorded. That was also our experience when shopping.
Lance
Key Master
Not sure about current models, but our LG has both hot and cold inlets as well as a true cold wash. It uses around 120 watt-hours on a full wash and around 65 watt-hours on the quick 30 cycle. Max power was 650 watts when starting up for the spin cycle.
The one thing is doesn't have is a spin-only cycle, just a "rinse and spin", but not sure about current models, they may have added that by now.
wlb
Member
Our 1995 7kg F&P 701 has what they call 'controlled cold'. You can program in the desired cold wash temperature if you wish. The instructions state that many laundry detergent manufacturers say that the product works best if the cold water temperature is not below a particular level. You can choose to let the machine take the cold water as it comes, or to program the minimum temperature. If the water coming in is colder when using the 'controlled cold' option, it will bring it up with the addition of some hot water.
johnmath
Member
Lance said:
Not sure about current models, but our LG has both hot and cold inlets as well as a true cold wash.
The problem with hot water inlets on a washer that is water efficient is that the hot water never actually arrives at the washing machine. (The same is true of water efficient dishwashers.) So you pay twice for the hot water - once to heat the pipes leading to the machine, and again to heat the cold water from the plumbing that was actually delivered to the machine. Top loaders, which typically use 5-10 times as much water in the wash, will draw enough water for hot water to actually arrive at the washer.
The most effective washing powders are enzyme based and work best in the temperature range of 30 - 40 degrees. Higher temperatures actually cause the enzyme process to stop, and colder temperatures don't facilitate it. Conventional detergents are not so temperature sensitive, but don't work anywhere near as well, anyway. That's why a cold water inlet and an internally heated water to 30 or 40 degrees is a lot more cost effective than you might at first think, when using a front loader and enzyme washing powders.
