Many other countries follow EU regulations directly or indirectly so let's hope for some easily repairable products in the future!
Some have suggested that it could make the UK's desire to set its own regulatory standards after leaving the EU rather an uphill struggle. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/how-the-bruss...
[3] https://www.ft.com/content/7059dbf8-a82a-11e7-ab66-21cc87a2e...
I don't know (talking as fairly pro-EU kind of person). I kind liked washing machines that properly heated to 90C and vacuum cleaners that actually picked up dirt. But the EU are only partly to blame. Companies are relentless in their pursuit of cutting production costs. Going "green" just excused their greed for a while. And these newer machines feature more plastic parts, are harder to repair and generally considered disposable (e.g. I'm happy that a dishwasher/washing machine/fridge lasts 5 years). How's that good for the planet?
I always feel the alternative is the web, where everything gets twice as large every few years. if washing machines were as free-wheeling as webapps I can only assume one would fill the entire garage
I will be honest with you this one I just don't understand. My washing machine is A+ in EU norms and it heats properly. Maybe you bought a not so good model ?
If anything those norms should be re-evaluated with new tougher levels now, you have to go out of your way to buy something that's not at least A (which is good and it means it worked, but also that it's time to ask for more).
> vacuum cleaners that actually picked up dirt
Again, if you buy a Dyson that follows EU norms it still works great. But if at the same time as those norms arrived you also switched from being main brand product to cheaper off brands, then you're confusing the two.
It's easy to find a vacuum cleaner that works great, but they're not at the same price as most models, because the market aligned with the cheap ones that people actually buy.
Yes, LIDL and similar often have special sales on vacuum cleaner, yes they're frankly cheap, and no, they're not as good as "the vacuum cleaners of old". They're barely adequate, which is fine for most customers and allow a cheap price, that's why they sell this.
> And these newer machines feature more plastic parts, are harder to repair and generally considered disposable (e.g. I'm happy that a dishwasher/washing machine/fridge lasts 5 years). How's that good for the planet?
That is quite literally the point of the anti waste regulation (the last one and the future one), and of the repair law being discussed here.
Yes, the suction power goes down as the bag fills, but I guess that's what bags are for.
Rinse quality is lower in modern washing machines in order to meet water economy standards - even if you buy an £800 Miele and turn on all the 'extra rinse' options.
I know this because I have a relative with sensitive skin, who resorts to rinsing things by hand after taking them out of the washing machine - and doing such a rinse visibly dirties the water. Feel free to test this yourself.
This has happened across the entire market - so much so that 'Which Reports' (UK consumer reports equivalent) have lowered their standard for 'five star rinse quality' as nothing on the market could meet it.
Both my (single washer / drier /and my parents (two separate machines) have an extra button that add a "second extra rinse 5 minutes after the normal one" thatwwe always use by default because the normal rinse is indeed not good enough.
Now I'm wondering if it's not possible to have a proper rinse within the norms of if having found that workaround stopped them on fixing the issue.
Bit off topic perhaps, but in my experience: Dyson does not necesarily work great nor handles well nor does last particularly long. Ok this is only anecdotal from my experience and 2 friends (Animal pro models or similar) but still.. Main complaint: it's overengineered/designed to the point it degrades usability. The handle is about twice the weight of a 'standard' one. The hose is very short so you have to drag the thing behind you cnostantly. Sucking power is really not all good. And it gets degraded by mouthpiece design with extra obstruction and narrow pieces in the airway. Which also makes it pretty hard to get e.g. straws of grass to pass through. Design of the mouthpiece is also such that anything larger than about 4mm requires lifting it to get sucked in. It makes a lot of noise already, but if you attach the carpentry cleaning mouthpiece (which in their defense is a rather nifty idea, but for the small effectivity it adds has the disadvante it wears out carpets/couches/... because the brushes are quite harsh) it becomes really, really loud. If you accidentally suck up dust which is too fine it becomes broken (even more noise, loss of sucking power), though that can be remedied by taking most of it apart and cleaning out with compressed air or perhaps water. Mechanism for sucking in the cable is way too weak.
I get that this all might sound like it's a disaster, but I guess it could work for some people who haven't tried alternatives. After all it does suck up some dust. And it doesn't require dustbags. Still I recommend anyone looking for a vacuum cleaner to look into simpler yet more effective designs. From other things I've used: Nilfisk is really good. Models I've used are simple, just work, none of the complaints from above. I also happen to have a Festool one which I normally use for dust extraction for saws/sanders. While not really meant for it, and pretty expensive, it's still way simpler in design than the Dyson and completely blows it away on all fronts.
This is a problem if you have one rule for different countries, although the EU should be praised that it made an effort at least.
In my region drinking water is no problem. On the contrary, due to washing machines and appliances using less water, waterworks needs to pump water through the pipes regularly to keep them clean. It is also advisable to do that in your home from time to time.
The vacuum cleaners decision was just bad in my opinion. You will take a longer time to use it which removes the energy advantages.
The lighting stuff they did was decent, although I think that light bulbs would have been a thing of the past without regulation due to high energy costs.
As far as I know, that's mostly because most customers use too much laundry detergent and flush stuff down toilets they're not supposed to. The washing machines are not at fault, the problem was just hidden better before.
Is there a regulation that forbids it or it is merely an energy efficiency thing?
(Btw don't do it unless, I don't know, you're washing something heavy and very dirty https://www.cda.eu/laundry/washing-machine-temperature-guide... )
Modern front-loading washing machines still heat to 90°C. What's changed is that modern washing machines use less water than older models.
This is one of those dilemmas with older appliances: the older appliance is in perfect working condition, but uses much more water per wash (or more electricity). Do you keep the older appliance? Or buy a modern model that will save you water (or electricity)?
I've read reports to the contrary (when researching current machine). A machine having a 90C cycle does not mean it heats to 90C, and for a decent amount of time.
Yes, they use less water. Which means I often do an extra rinse cycle at the end. ("Use less detergent", well, I like clean clothes)
Sure, some don't hit the sticker temperature. _But they never did_; cheap machines always had difficulty actually hitting high temperatures.
Washing machines sold in the EU can (we have one in the basement). But heating to 90°C is extremely inefficient if 60°C is sufficient, and it is in most cases (we are not any more using just soap for laundry like in the 19th century). In fact, recommended temperatures have fallen so much that it is now recommended to wash with 60°C once in a while to prevent mould and smell. And more and more clothes such as shirts and tresses, but even socks, have a washing temperature of 40°C recommended.
The wider issue is that energy conservation will not come by itself. Self-regulation will not give the speed of change that we need. With self-regulation alone, Americans would still use leaded gasoline which was obsolete in the 1960ies.
As for machines with plastic parts, there should be a standard that machines need to last ten years. And if one shows up at the dump before then the manufacturer has to buy it back from dump for the prorated list price.
It's (potentially mandated) poor design if it's so easy to misuse.
– Charles Babbage
How can a dishwasher possibly be designed to discourage people from doing things to the dishes before they put them into the dishwasher?
And yeah if it was just a light wash you could set it to 'low'
Also that machine I installed in 1995 and it finally died in 2006. Friends buy expensive European machines and invariably some plastic part dies after 6-8 years. Low end machines are worse.
Your washing machine is likely defective. Nothing about the rules makes this particularly difficult and modern machines with good energy ratings can do it (though, mind you, you'll notice if you read the small print that the energy rating is pretty much just for the mode they expect people to use; the 90 degree mode will use quite a lot of power).
> vacuum cleaners that actually picked up dirt
Your vacuum cleaner is definitely defective. At best, the functional advantage provided by super-high-wattage machines over ~1kW ones was marginal and hard to measure, in many cases it was non-existent. Super-high wattage vacuum cleaners were primarily a marketing thing; 1600 is a better number than 1400 so people buy the 1600.
(Note that appliance manufacturers continue to do that where allowed; most washing machine manufacturers perform market segregation on 1200 vs 1400 vs 1600 rpm spin, for instance, even though once you go over a 1000 or so improvement is very marginal, and your machine will likely never actually reach the sticker rate anyway due to damage protection system)
> And these newer machines feature more plastic parts, are harder to repair and generally considered disposable
You're talking about two separate issues. Cheap shit washing machines existed both before and after the regulations. You can still get a washing machine with longevity similar to 70s/80s models (Miele in particular makes these) but it'll be expensive. As it was in the 80s; look at the inflation-adjusted costs.
And require "suckage per watt" also.
People went by power usage because that was the only measure they got.
Example of typical packaging of LED bulb in Denmark: https://imgur.com/a/J5PiGLb
It has: actual watt usage, "old watt equivalent" and lumen. It won't take that many years before people know the lumen value they want.
However, these were removed following a court ruling in favour of Dyson, which complained that the cleaning power tests were not realistic, as they were always conducted with an empty bag.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/11/dyson-wins-eu-vacuum-ap...
Consider that these rules apply to countries with very different economies. People in Bulgaria have an average income of $9,000 a year compared to $54,000 in Germany. They have access to the same vacuum cleaners and washing machines, but they can't afford the same ones.
Did they, tho? That's not my memory of cheap 90s/noughties era washing machines, at all. If you go back much further than that, cheap machines didn't exist; adjust the price of a basic 80s washing machine for inflation and you're looking at something that's more than most people would pay for a washing machine today.
EDIT: One thing that the 90s cheap machines were better on was noise, though. It's not that the modern ones are _louder_; I think they're actually lower decibels. But the motors, especially the pump motors, in the newer ones make a much more _annoying_ noise.
Difference between primitive universal motor + Triac speed controller versus BLDC + controller one is max around $20 BOM. In return you get vastly better efficiency and quieter operation, but we cant have that in a low end product oh no, how would we upmarket the expensive ones?
Example modern product sold with realistic markup, $30 impact driver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AERn5japFs8
EDIT: Just noticed the accidental pun; by true in a vacuum I mean true without extra information, not true in a vacuum cleaner :)
This is a bit like having better VRM's and cooling improves the life of CPU's.
I read that manufacturers were actually happy about the new regulation. Before, customers only looked at W for performance which made any innovation useless. With the new rules, manufacturers that are able to provide the same suction at a fraction of the power are actually at an advantage.
Similar with fridges, new rules put manufacturers with heavy R&D at an advantage.
Have you ever heard of delta electronics? They manufacture 90% of power supplies on the planet and their CEO is a huge environmentalist. They have a philosophy of improving efficient for the hell of it, because a 1% improvement in their efficiency = thousands of megawatts saved due to their sheer volume.
When I brought my washing machine, I made sure it had a proper barrel mixer and properly filled with water. That means it's not on the top green category, it's two pegs lower. Yet, it existed, and those weren't the only hidden features I had to compare anyway. When I brought my vacuum cleaner, I made sure it had proper suction. It's also no on the top green category, only near it, but that also didn't make it unavailable.
On the other hand, when I brought my fridge, I made sure it was on the top category, because my interests here were completely aligned with the classification.
Anyway, my point is that informative labels are always great. If you don't want a top performer, just don't get one, the label being there won't harm you.