Friday, July 31, 2009

Front Loading Gleick

The Man, The Legend,
The Poster Boy For
San Francisco Smug

Dubbed a "visionary on the environment" by the British Broadcasting Corporation and named one of 15 people the president should listen to by Wired Magazine, Gleick continues to create and advocate vanguard solutions to our most pressing water and environmental threats.

Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.

And Dr. Peter Gleick wants to know Why do YOU still have a top-loading washing machine?

Gleick's SF Chron article was brought to my attention by Marc Miller in comments about Colorado Power raising fees on "Solar panel freeloaders."   Maybe in a few years we'll see this headline:

San Francisco Municipal Water to ratchet up fees on front loading free loaders!

Marc was actually drawing attention to comments made by Bay Area readers. Sample:
Gee. Aren't front loading washing machines an ENTITLEMENT? Doesn't the world OWE me a $1000 "green" washing machine? Gee, I want one. And a house on the Pacific. But I have to save up so I can pay the increased TAXES. Why do I have to pay TAXES? I'm not a millionaire. BTW, what kind of "doctor" is this guy? What credentials does he have? Did he get them at the University of F.W. Woolworth?
 Most of the others were, I thought, predictably pasty faced.  But it's the Gleickster I'm after.  First of all, he fits perfectly my vision of what a condescending, meddling, pasty faced San Francisco Liberal ought look like, don't you agree?  The perfect male bookend to generic pasty faced maggot pie girl of long standing.  The BBC thinks he's one of 15 people Obama should listen to?  I bet this guy had something to do with Bill Clinton too. On his way out the door, amidst  the spree of pardon selling and furniture stealing, Clinton issued the executive order killing the top loading washing machine.  Some comments I recorded at the time included:
In another of the little-noticed Clinton midnight regulations, the Department of Energy (DOE) -- the same agency that couldn't keep nuclear secrets -- issued a stealth edict that will force the popular top-loading washing machines off the market. Instead consumers will be forced to buy so-called "horizontal access," or front-loading machines, which cost $200 to $300 more. Needless to say, the appliance manufacturers rushed to embrace this ruling since there is room for more profit in the higher-price structure. And besides, they got tax credits for being good sports.
and ..
In a back-room deal without consumers or taxpayers present, the Clinton-Gore environmentalists conspired with industry to mandate the manufacture of only front-loading, instead of top-loading, washing machines . . . . [T]he regulations will actually add $240 to the price of a clothes washer. . . . The reason for these mandates is that the Gore-style environmentalists want to reduce the amount of water and electricity Americans use in order to comply with United Nations treaties about energy, even if the United States hasn't ratified them. . . ."
So, I'm not well disposed to be buying one. When I leave this mortal coil, my home will  have in place my original 50 gallon toilets, and our top loading washer.  I take my victories where I can.  USA UAS USA 

19 comments:

B....... said...

I was considering a front-loader for my next washer. Thanks for the course correction Rodger........

Anonymous said...

I just need to find someone with parts to keep my 20 year old top loader working. I understand that the new top loaders use less water. Which ones will actually clean clothes? mary

Anonymous said...

Smug Alert
(South Park episode)

tom said...

My folks had a front loader Bendix [don't see that name much any more]. It was bolted to the floor in the basement. I think my dad made a pad of concrete with embedded bolts. When that thing went into spin mode, you could see that it wanted to GO someplace.
Of course they also had 12 kids and the detergent and water bill difference added up quick.
Too bad the Goracle and goat-boy mandate make you so mad you avoid a good product.
I have one that I bought at the Monkey Wards outlet store in Oakland in 1978. It uses half the water and half the detergent and gets the clothes cleaner. It is also gentler on cottons and such. It spins enough that the dryer doesn't have as much work to do.
Try telling that to your wife who doesn't like harvest gold. "It doesn't match". I painted it to match and told her the next time the top loader breaks, out it goes.
Most top loaders use a 'transmission' that was designed in the first half of the last century.
Top loaders do not clean as well, but are cheap to make. Almost any front loader will do better than the best top loader.
tomw

Anonymous said...

My european exchange student kids have front loaders. The machines have no agitator trans to wear out, and in place of an agitator, use bumps and undulations in the wall of the drum to massage the clothes. The drum turns for a minute or so, then pauses, turns, pauses, etc. I found that it cleans clothes better without flogging them to death. That's the upside. The downside is that a wash cycle may be ~2 hours instead of 15 minutes. Don't know about water savings, but I did notice that the clothes were much less wet when removed than with my top loader here at home.

mary - since the all-wise gubbmint mandated phosphate removal from laundry soaps, it's difficult to get clothes clean. I found it helps to use a pre wash spot spray for oily spots, use a little oxygen bleach (not chlorine bleach!), start the wash cycle until the clothes and chemicals are well mixed, then stop the wash cycle and let the clothes soak for an hour or two. This works for me in my twenty year-old top loading cement mixer....ahhh top loading washer.

New front loaders may be superior to top loaders for quality of wash and water use, but I resent the hell out of the Bubba or any other Fed mandating anything we do in our ordinary day at home. If I want to wash with a post hole auger in a 55 gallon drum, that's my business, not the Federales.

And another thing - the !^$&#($& designers put undulating curves on the top of these machines, so where do you pile the clothes before/after the wash? Are they trying to make them curvy like a woman so men will buy them? Idiots. Real men love flat-tops in their world in certain applications - hair, ships, washers and dryers.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Anonymous said...

My appliance tech told me the main benefit of a front loader is, besides doing bending exercises, the drum spins at a higher speed therefore the clothes enter the dryer with less water, hence a shorter drying time.

Marc M

I-RIGHT-I said...

Front loaders are a piece of crap. They DO NOT get clothes cleaner. That little tumble action bullshit will NOT clean a kid's clothes worth a damn.

The transmissions are NOT the same as they were twenty years ago, they are direct drive with state of the art variable frequency drive motors that eliminate the transmission. And as far as wear and tear on the clothes goes, it's not the washer that wears out your clothing, it's the high temperature in your clothes dryer that does that. What do you think LINT is? It's your clothes after a drying cycle.

Practical aspect: Try adding clothes after the cycle has begun to a front loader. Have fun moping up the soapy water when the front loaders seals give it up. What are you going to do when the machine breaks with a full load of clothes and water still inside?

The only advantage to a front loader I can see that means anything in the real world is water extraction. Balance is easier to achieve and they will spin faster. Though women will not find the vibration of the front loading machine nearly as beneficial as the old tried and true top loader. Now you know.

Gore sucks.

Chuck Martel said...

That guy who runs Appliance Direct! in Orlando could tell you which is the best one to buy.

Anonymous said...

"2 hours" ?!?!?!? Are they insane???!?!? Do I look like I have that kind of time??!?!?

Or enough energy to bend over like that?!?!?! WTH is this -- gubbmint-enforced calisthenics?!?

[and how does "2 hours" use less 'lektricity?]

dang gampigs.

e~C

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Oh e-C, you perked me right up.

Anonymous said...

Getting clothes clean is about getting the detergent/water mix correct and allowing time for the detergent to work. Less detergent more time, more detergent less time.

Been cleaning dirty diapers by hand now for 4 months, he's such a good boy! :) and I would say I've gotten pretty good at it. Just spray off the solids, put them in a bucket of water and add detergent. A couple stirs and let it sit for an hour and they are clean.

Cracker Barrel Philosopher said...

Then there's the "smelly washer" problem ith the "high efficiency" frontloaders - see http://www.smellywasher.com/press

Gayle Miller said...

Why should I go out and buy a new and very very expensive front loader when my top loader is working very well, thank you very much! I know what the Yale degree means - B.S. indeed!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick, and everyone else for the info. FYI, we are able here in TX to buy imported Mexican detergent which still has (Shhh)more phosphate. Makes a nice head of foam! I dread when my old Top loader quits. mary

alanstorm said...

Got no problems with front loaders - they do the job, and (very important with a well that could get very low in the summer) they used a lot less water. Clothes do come out dryer, so we use less power drying them.

HOWEVER, it is NOT the business of government to make everyone buy one! Isn't that the basic problem - gov't looks at an idea and says "What a great idea - let's force people to do it!" and then, where people formerly had a choice, there is no choice.

Anonymous said...

alanstorm - Amen! 'zakly what I was trying to say in too many words.
And I've never had 'smelly washer' in the 20 years we've had our top loader. Our city is on a river, and what water we don't use goes to the sea, so it stays cheap. Given current costs here, before I'll spend $1,000 or more and need chemical and biological engineers to supervise my laundry, I'll rebuild my cement mixer, thanks very much.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Anonymous said...

Yes, they use less water, 'cause the drums are smaller. That means several smaller loads instead of one or two big ones.

Try washing a king-sized bedspread in one of those little things. That's about all you can get into it at one time. You wind up doing more loads, which actually uses more total water than the top loader.

Anonymous said...

Cracker Barrel Philosopher, That link was a real eye opener!
ozaoB

JMcD said...

You're right Anon 11:18..... It's like those g*ddamned baby size toilets the gov't forced on us....If you want to keep them from plugging up, you soon learn to flush them twice to make sure they're clear, thereby wasting water...You still end up plunging them a hell of a lot more than the old bigboys....Then there the topic of simple comfort....Don't get me started.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.