7 ms·

> Front-loading washers use 40-75% less water and 30-85% less energy than typical top-loaders. It's not clear to me why front-loading washers are more efficien

> Front-loading washers use 40-75% less water and 30-85% less energy than typical top-loaders. It's not clear to me why front-loading washers are more efficient than top-loaders. Is there something inherent in the design? Or is it simply that top-loaders are "old"?

ggm 3y ago
Front loading washers churn the washed material through a trough of water in the bottom 1/4 to 1/3 Top loaders churn them around in a bath of water. Designing a top loader to cycle water over churning clothes would probably demand more complexity and energy than tumbling in a horizontal drum. Tl;Dr less water has to exist to pass clothes through it if it's a horizontal rotating cylinder of clothes. Plus the tumbling is mechanically beneficial to cleaning. Top loaders are being scraped and agitated, front loaders tumble. OTOH top loaders can take larger loads. At a cost of more water. I believe the spin cycle may also distribute better horizontally. Less likely to become a disc around the centre so more efficient centrifuging. (Have had both btw. Currently a front loader from LG which plays a typically korean perky "I'm done here" tune at the end)
cantrevealname 3y ago
I presume they use less water because a front-loading washer can saturate all the clothes with a shallow pool of water in a sideways rotating drum whereas a top loader could not possibly soak all the clothes in a vertical drum unless it fills completely with water. I assume that less hot water means less water to heat, so less energy used. (Heating water uses much more energy than a motor, so the motor running longer in a front loader isn't a big factor in energy usage.) But no matter how efficient they are, I hate front-loading washers. A top loader can wash a load in 20 minutes; front loaders takes hours. That means extra noise for many hours and inability to do multiple loads quickly. And usually front loaders have a much smaller capacity than top loaders. Furthermore, once a front loader starts, it locks the door to prevent water spillage, but this prevents you from throwing in extra items that you found or taking items out part way through. And front loaders cost more, are harder to repair, and end up smelling bad (probably because of the rubber gasket--needed to waterproof the door--that accumulates gunk).
- rzzzt 3y ago
  What is the name of those "top loaders" that also have a horizontal drum with a locking escape hatch on the side? My mind went immediately to those when seeing the word.
  - b112 3y ago
    How could it be a top loader, if the drum isn't open at te top?
    - fabioborellini 3y ago
      That’s exactly and literally what top loaders are in Europe. The drum has a hatch and the machine tries to position it next to the outer hatch for unloading.
    - rzzzt 3y ago
      There is a section of the drum that opens and closes. You rotate the drum to align the opening of the outer shell on the top, also protected by a door.
    - Rygian 3y ago
      Here's a pic: https://ibb.co/QcMwqnm https://ibb.co/QcMwqnm
- kelnos 3y ago
  > A top loader can wash a load in 20 minutes; front loaders takes hours. This doesn't seem accurate. The regular permanent press cycle on my front loader completes in about 40 minutes. There's also a "quick wash" cycle that takes about 20 minutes. The last top loader I used also took quite a bit more time than 20 minutes. This was a good 25 years ago, so maybe they were just slower then.
  - LUmBULtERA 3y ago
    I agree, this doesn't match my experience at all. I recently replaced a top loader that took about 30-45 minutes a load with a front loader of similar capacity. The front loader does all loads in about 30 to 35 minutes.
winrid 3y ago
Front loaders also have more maintenance on average... If we're talking cost not sure you'll save that much once first repair comes.
- tralarpa 3y ago
  What kind of maintenance do they need? Maybe I'm doing something wrong :)
  - wrp 3y ago
    The front-loaders I've encountered seemed to have more electronics to fail and had less sturdy load-bearing parts.
  - rzzzt 3y ago
    The main bearing has an unfortunate position in that it has to hold up the weight of the drum + clothes on one side and so experiences uneven wear.
    - tralarpa 3y ago
      How does that manifest itself? I'm asking because I'm pretty sure that no washing machine in my extended family (parents, siblings, etc.) has broken down because of this in the last 45 years. All but one have made it well over 12 years. Three had problems during their lifetime: One needed a new control board, two needed a new waste water pump. (I know all this because I recently had to replace our 17-year-old washing machine and I wanted to know which brand to buy)
      - rzzzt 3y ago
        It should get noisy and rotate less freely then ultimately seize up. From there it depends on the drive type, in direct drives the motor burns, in belt drives the belt gets worn.
  - jimhefferon 3y ago
    We have several times experienced having to change the electronic board. It cost more than buying a new washer. The electronics does many many options, almost none of which we care about. I would just like a button or dial, and just press go but there are no units like that on the market.
wrp 3y ago
I wonder about real total savings. When I use a front-loader, I generally have to run the rinse cycle twice to get the detergent out. I also have to distribute the clothes into more and smaller loads.
- Retric 3y ago
  Use less detergent in your front loader. Less water takes less energy to heat and less detergent to have the same concentration.
  - wrp 3y ago
    I have through trial and error determined how much detergent is required to get clothes clean in a particular machine. A front-loader does require less detergent since it uses less water and has the clothes sit longer, but that does not resolve the problem of rinsing. It is the rinse cycle, not the wash cycle, that needs to be run twice.
    - b112 3y ago
      Use 1/2 a cup of vinegar in the rinse, as an acid, it neutralizes the soap. It also help remove smells. Front loaders get mold too, fun fact, mold eats soap. So vinegar helps here too. Downside? Clothes wear and fade faster.
    - switch007 3y ago
      Indeed. Here in the EU we’re basically gaslit over this kind of eco stuff. To me, clothes just don’t come out as clean as they used to. I always use the extra rinse button on my front loader and a temperature of 60C to approach the kind of washes we had the 90s and 00s
      - amelius 3y ago
        Do clothes really need to be 100% clean? I know people who never wash their jeans to reduce wear, and they seem to have no problem with it. (They do occasionally put their jeans in the freezer overnight to kill germs).
tobylane 3y ago
I see only front-loaders in Europe, and a mix favouring top-loaders in North America. Could it be that Europe (consumers or the EU) has encouraged efficiency more?
- Reason077 3y ago
  Yes, energy efficiency requirements are definitely the driver behind front-loaders becoming universal in Europe. But in recent years, they've also come to dominate the market in many other countries that aren't bound by those requirements.

ggm 3y ago

Front loading washers churn the washed material through a trough of water in the bottom 1/4 to 1/3 Top loaders churn them around in a bath of water. Designing a top loader to cycle water over churning clothes would probably demand more complexity and energy than tumbling in a horizontal drum. Tl;Dr less water has to exist to pass clothes through it if it's a horizontal rotating cylinder of clothes. Plus the tumbling is mechanically beneficial to cleaning. Top loaders are being scraped and agitated, front loaders tumble. OTOH top loaders can take larger loads. At a cost of more water. I believe the spin cycle may also distribute better horizontally. Less likely to become a disc around the centre so more efficient centrifuging. (Have had both btw. Currently a front loader from LG which plays a typically korean perky "I'm done here" tune at the end)

cantrevealname 3y ago

I presume they use less water because a front-loading washer can saturate all the clothes with a shallow pool of water in a sideways rotating drum whereas a top loader could not possibly soak all the clothes in a vertical drum unless it fills completely with water. I assume that less hot water means less water to heat, so less energy used. (Heating water uses much more energy than a motor, so the motor running longer in a front loader isn't a big factor in energy usage.) But no matter how efficient they are, I hate front-loading washers. A top loader can wash a load in 20 minutes; front loaders takes hours. That means extra noise for many hours and inability to do multiple loads quickly. And usually front loaders have a much smaller capacity than top loaders. Furthermore, once a front loader starts, it locks the door to prevent water spillage, but this prevents you from throwing in extra items that you found or taking items out part way through. And front loaders cost more, are harder to repair, and end up smelling bad (probably because of the rubber gasket--needed to waterproof the door--that accumulates gunk).

rzzzt 3y ago
What is the name of those "top loaders" that also have a horizontal drum with a locking escape hatch on the side? My mind went immediately to those when seeing the word.
- b112 3y ago
  How could it be a top loader, if the drum isn't open at te top?
  - fabioborellini 3y ago
    That’s exactly and literally what top loaders are in Europe. The drum has a hatch and the machine tries to position it next to the outer hatch for unloading.
  - rzzzt 3y ago
    There is a section of the drum that opens and closes. You rotate the drum to align the opening of the outer shell on the top, also protected by a door.
  - Rygian 3y ago
    Here's a pic: https://ibb.co/QcMwqnm https://ibb.co/QcMwqnm
kelnos 3y ago
> A top loader can wash a load in 20 minutes; front loaders takes hours. This doesn't seem accurate. The regular permanent press cycle on my front loader completes in about 40 minutes. There's also a "quick wash" cycle that takes about 20 minutes. The last top loader I used also took quite a bit more time than 20 minutes. This was a good 25 years ago, so maybe they were just slower then.
- LUmBULtERA 3y ago
  I agree, this doesn't match my experience at all. I recently replaced a top loader that took about 30-45 minutes a load with a front loader of similar capacity. The front loader does all loads in about 30 to 35 minutes.

winrid 3y ago

Front loaders also have more maintenance on average... If we're talking cost not sure you'll save that much once first repair comes.

tralarpa 3y ago
What kind of maintenance do they need? Maybe I'm doing something wrong :)
- wrp 3y ago
  The front-loaders I've encountered seemed to have more electronics to fail and had less sturdy load-bearing parts.
- rzzzt 3y ago
  The main bearing has an unfortunate position in that it has to hold up the weight of the drum + clothes on one side and so experiences uneven wear.
  - tralarpa 3y ago
    How does that manifest itself? I'm asking because I'm pretty sure that no washing machine in my extended family (parents, siblings, etc.) has broken down because of this in the last 45 years. All but one have made it well over 12 years. Three had problems during their lifetime: One needed a new control board, two needed a new waste water pump. (I know all this because I recently had to replace our 17-year-old washing machine and I wanted to know which brand to buy)
    - rzzzt 3y ago
      It should get noisy and rotate less freely then ultimately seize up. From there it depends on the drive type, in direct drives the motor burns, in belt drives the belt gets worn.
- jimhefferon 3y ago
  We have several times experienced having to change the electronic board. It cost more than buying a new washer. The electronics does many many options, almost none of which we care about. I would just like a button or dial, and just press go but there are no units like that on the market.

wrp 3y ago

I wonder about real total savings. When I use a front-loader, I generally have to run the rinse cycle twice to get the detergent out. I also have to distribute the clothes into more and smaller loads.

Retric 3y ago
Use less detergent in your front loader. Less water takes less energy to heat and less detergent to have the same concentration.
- wrp 3y ago
  I have through trial and error determined how much detergent is required to get clothes clean in a particular machine. A front-loader does require less detergent since it uses less water and has the clothes sit longer, but that does not resolve the problem of rinsing. It is the rinse cycle, not the wash cycle, that needs to be run twice.
  - b112 3y ago
    Use 1/2 a cup of vinegar in the rinse, as an acid, it neutralizes the soap. It also help remove smells. Front loaders get mold too, fun fact, mold eats soap. So vinegar helps here too. Downside? Clothes wear and fade faster.
  - switch007 3y ago
    Indeed. Here in the EU we’re basically gaslit over this kind of eco stuff. To me, clothes just don’t come out as clean as they used to. I always use the extra rinse button on my front loader and a temperature of 60C to approach the kind of washes we had the 90s and 00s
    - amelius 3y ago
      Do clothes really need to be 100% clean? I know people who never wash their jeans to reduce wear, and they seem to have no problem with it. (They do occasionally put their jeans in the freezer overnight to kill germs).

tobylane 3y ago

I see only front-loaders in Europe, and a mix favouring top-loaders in North America. Could it be that Europe (consumers or the EU) has encouraged efficiency more?

Reason077 3y ago
Yes, energy efficiency requirements are definitely the driver behind front-loaders becoming universal in Europe. But in recent years, they've also come to dominate the market in many other countries that aren't bound by those requirements.