Hacker News Reader

Comment by mastercheif | Hacker News Reader

I wonder why they went with top loader washers. Front loaders use less water cause less damage to clothing.

Maybe it's a reliability thing? Repairability? Cost?

Speed Queen laundry machines are sort of legendary for their reliability. They use standard parts. A 18" box can probably hold spare parts for a dozen speed queens. They are a known quantity which ultimately is what you want in Antarctica, even if the cost is 10% more. You can plan around eventualities with a device like that. vs buying a random machine off the floor at best buy on discount.

Commercial coin laundromat front loading washers also match all those criteria.

I think it's more that this is an American base and people in the United States seem to use antediluvian top loaders a lot, possibly because of a historical surfeit of space, and possibly never prevalence of shared machine rooms in apartment blocks.

Europeans visiting the United States are often bemused by the antiquated looking, advanced electronics-free top loading washing machines everywhere. I'm sure somebody has written a good article on why this remains the case largely in the United States.

If you want a really reliable, modern front loading washing machine, you buy German. Miele, Bosch really are the gold standard and are built to last 20-years rather than the planned obsolescence of most washing machines.

In this video from 5 years ago at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (at the south pole, not to be confused with the article which is from McMurdo on the coast, next to Scott base on the coast), the narrator specifically said water efficiency is a concern. They have front-loading machines.

But as she says, fuel has to be flown in, presumably it comes by ship to McMurdo.

https://youtu.be/vrPiVT23MhA?t=404

The difference in orientation between a top loader in Antarctica and a front loader pointed southward at the equator is negligible, so I imagine they weren't overly concerned.

My wife prefers top loading washing machines because you can stop the process to add or remove clothes and also pick something out to give it an extra scrub before continuing the washing.

So there's a non technical reason to use them.

I have one of the newer top-loading machines. It is pretty close to a front-loader turned sideways. Shortly after the cycle starts, the lid locks and does not unlock until after the cycle fully completes.

I did not get a front-loader because I've had too many friends and co-workers have leaks with front loaders. Maybe they're better now, maybe they're not. From my unscientific survey, I'm never going to get a front loader.

FWIW many front loading washers offer a pause option which allows for quick add/removal of items without having to drain the entire tub. Usually it drains the tub to just below the doorline, which for most washers should only result in 30 seconds or so of refilling.

They look like maytag or speed queen commercial ones. Reliability is probably the biggest priority.

Without going into specifics of engineering and material advances, my instinct would be to buy the thing where if something went wrong with a seal or a closure, the water would remain contained. Side loaders assume by nature that nothing will go so wrong that everything fails and water leaks out the front.

If I was purchasing for harsh conditions and intermittent supply with standard Earth gravity, I, too, would choose top loaders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com