Hacker News Reader

Comment by majewsky | Hacker News Reader

> Top loaders [...] generally fill all the way up.

I have a top loader (a Whirlpool from 2011) and it most definitely doesn't fill "all the way up". It uses as little water as a modern front loader and also adjusts the water level based on fill level.

View on HN

> It uses as little water as a modern front loader

I am afraid that is physically impossible, unless you are washing a single pair of socks.

I think there is difference in the way top loaders are build in US and EU. US top loader is basically front loader put on it's back, that's why it have to fill all the way up. EU top loader have the drum sideways so it works in the same axis as front loader and you put your clothes trough the doors in wall of the drum.

Huh. I was really confused by GP's statement but that explains it. Never ever have I seen a top loader with a vertical spin axis.

Wow. I’ve never seen a top loader with a horizontal spin axis. Until now I never even contemplated it could be different. I wonder what other stuff is like that.

The top loaders I have seen here in Sweden have just been front loaders except the instead of having a window you load the drum through a hatch in the rim. That design should use exactly as much water as front loaders.

Yup, that's the difference. American top loaders flip the drum on its side so the opening of the drum is at the top.

This also typically allows for a larger drum.

I just went to the website of a local tech shop that sells washing machines, and grapped two midrange Whirlpool models, a top loader and a front loader. Since I'm in Europe, regulations require that shops display a trove of efficiency data that is calculated for standardized model washing cycles. The front loader has 7kg loading capacity and uses 8850 liters per year. The top loader has 6kg loading capacity and uses 8500 liters per year. Because of the difference in loading capacity, the top loader is 10% more efficient in its water usage. So okay, slightly more efficient, but top loaders are certainly not hopelessly inefficient as the discussion seemed to imply.

I looked up two entry level machines on a Canadian website:

* Top loader - 4.4 cubic feet, IWF 6-1/100

* Front loader - 5.0 cubic feet, IWF 3-1/5

Not knowing what those meant, I looked it up. The "water factor" represents how much water a machine uses, in gallons per cubic foot of capacity. In other words, the front loader uses about half the water that the top loader uses.

As another commenter said, top loaders are different in the EU - in North America, the whole drum is turned on its side and water must fill as far up as the clothes go - there's no tumbling action to shift clothes in and out of the water at the bottom of the sideways drum in a front loader (and a European style top loader)

I'd like to see how that's measured, and how it compares to real life usage. Our house came with a high efficiency top loader, but it constantly goes unbalanced if not really carefully loaded (and sometimes even then). Its solution is to try and rebalance itself by filling the drum up with water and agitating, up to three times before quitting with a warning.

He probably just looked at a European-style top loader. My family here in Sweden had one of those over 30 years ago, and it is just a window-less front loader which you load through a hatch in the rim of the drum. It is a bit more of a hassle to unload them but they use virtually the same amount of water as front loaders.

Interesting, I’ve never seen one like that in the states. Yeah, that should be functionally equivalent.

Top loaders are common in Japan and they use a tiny amount of water. They also have a feature to drain the bathwater to use instead of the tap. Of course a "bath" there isn't for cleaning but more like a jacuzzi.

I should have used past tense. I have heard the newer high efficiency ones don’t fill up all the way, but the older and cheaper models I had absolutely did.

Every old model I've used had a water level selector. Small, medium and large. Even going back 50 years.

Now the modern washers don't trust you to make the proper selection, and often don't get your clothes completely wet.

To supplement your anecdata: having used many an old top loader, they do have different fill levels - varying from "small" filling halfway up the drum to "large" as high as it can go. As an individual, even using the "small" setting uses a huge amount of water - no way to wash a few pairs of socks or whatever other small loads you might have.

I've never had an issue with modern front loaders not getting my clothes wet. They are much better at spinning them dry at the end, though.

Right, and all of those low-efficiency units had to cover the clothes in water because they only agitated horizontally. Whereas my front loader agitates vertically and lifts the clothes in and out of a smaller amount of water.

For some reason, about 15 years ago in the US it was almost impossible to get a top loader washer (out of 30 models on the floor, only a couple "value" models would be top loaders), because of efficiency requirements. Then they started to come out with higher efficiency top loaders, and now you see more top loaders again than front loaders.

I think the big thing that is different in the current top loaders, vs the old ones, are some don't have an agitator -- instead they use a low profile impeller at the bottom to force water vertically. And the ones with an agitator have the impeller shape at the bottom, so there is still vertical water movement.

The front loaders started to go out of style, partly because people complain about an oder build up in them. Not sure what that is about. And worries about the seal in the door leaking (if the float gets stuck and it puts too much water in it -- my brother has that issue periodically).

I would think that a good top-loader design would be something that has a pump at the bottom (under the basket), and circulates water to the top and sprays it down on the clothes. But I haven't seen any like that though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com