Or, why are they so unpopular in the US? It’s a given that they work better (and use less water) but front loading washing machines are very scarce in America (I think I’ve seen one).
Also, I think I read that washing machines in Britain actually heat the water as well. Is this true?
I for one welcome our new insect overlords… - K. Brockman
I don’t know, but I’ll give it a stab from the armchair.
Suppose that preferences for the various aspects of washing machine quality distributed in the same way in the two countries. (a neutral assumption)
Suppose income does not affect preferences between the two products (questionable, but not obviously wrong).
Front loaders are more expensive than top loaders (that’s true in Australia, I’m guessing it’s true elsewhere).
Guess: prices of consumer durables are higher in UK than US. Suppose that this is due to transport costs and that these are the same for both types of machine.
If this is so, then front loaders are relatively cheaper in the UK. Say front loaders are $200 and top loaders $100 in the US. Now add $100 (exaggerated) transport costs for the UK. Now front loaders are only 1.5 times as expensive as top loaders rather than twice as expensive. More people will buy front loaders.
picmr
I don’t know about the issues involving cost mentioned above, I think it is simply the widely followed convention in the UK. If I think “washing machine” I picture a front-loading washing machine, it doesn’t even occur to me that there is any other kind. My gran had a toploader so maybe it’s something that has chnaged over time.
Front-loaders use much less water, but are more expensive and complex. Part of the complexity is that the door is immersed in water during use, so it needs a watertight door. Front loaders tend to have much less capacity than top loaders, though I don’t know if this is an inherent limitation. If it is, that alone can explain why Americans prefer front-loaders; Americans trust a much larger fraction of the laundry to the machine, and less frequently.
Interestingly, washers in Japan are also mostly top-loaders. Very small ones, sure, but still top-loaders. No idea what to make of that. Maybe water is even more expensive in Europe.
Be a little more diplomatic here MadHun. I remember twin tubs prior to automatic washers, and someone will post about mangels (sp?) and non-musical washboards in a minute.
picmr
I don’t really believe either of these statements. Firstly, how complex is a water tight seal? I mean, how long have there been watertight diving suits? They’re hardly a modern invention.
Secondly, is it just intuition that leads you to the statement about the fraction of the laundry trusted to the machine? I’d be tempted to disagree entirely and say that Brits are less likely to use dry cleaning as a regular weekly cleaning method than Americans, but that’s only my opinion, so has as much validity as yours!
[QUOTE]
android209:
I’d be tempted to disagree entirely and say that Brits are less likely to use dry cleaning as a regular weekly cleaning method than Americans
[QUOTE]
Or indeed any cleaning method. (Low blow, sorry)
I think the dry cleaning remark is true: certainly in Australia I would dry clean suits and overcoats and that’s it. My recollection of Britain is the same.
picmr
Destroyer of grammar
matser or typos.
Typo artist fo the world Untie!
Most of the reasons have already been touched upon. The need for the seal made front loaders more expensive (it’s not that the technology is difficult, it’s that it costs more). Also, you could put more into a top-loader. In the U.S. bigger and cheaper is always going to win out over smaller and more expensive. The fact that a front-loader is less damaging to clothes is less of a factor; Americans are perfectly happy to buy new clothes.
Once people started buying top-loaders, American manufacturers stopped making them (Price’s Rule: If everyone doesn’t want something, no one gets it). I haven’t seen on in a store in thirty years.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
The answer is simple. Automatic washing machines are a relatively new invention… when you consider the average age of a home in the UK. Most UK homes are smaller than in the US and they rarely have a suitable location for a top loading washing machine. The front loaders are smaller and can be mounted under an existing cabinet. Also, many of these front loading machines both wash and dry, though having used one I can attest that they are virtually useless as dryers.
Front loaders are more expensive and complex. The water tight seal is maintained by a vacuum, which is why you have to wait for a couple of minutes after the machine has shut down to open the door. Also, the front loaders have to be much more carefully balanced and they have heavy ballast to keep the machines from torquing their way through the wall. The front loaders in the UK spin at incredible speeds, compared to US top loaders. One of our neighbors (while we were in the UK) had the ballast in his machine shift somehow. The machine did some serious damage to the cabinetry as it went berserk from being out of balance.
I thought the reason you have to wait is because of a safety feature. And a vacuum, are you sure? How is this generated? I’ve never seen a pump for this purpose inside any machine i’ve looked in.
Also, I wanted to dispell the notion that front loaders are less damaging to clothes than top loaders. Many people in the UK seem to believe this, and perhaps it was true in days gone past when the top loaders were those open tub contraptions. However, having used three top loading machines and two front loading machines I can guarantee that the front loaders cause much more damage to clothes than top loaders. Especially heavy fabric, such as jeans. You only have to look at the filters after each wash to realize that the vigorous, high speed front loading machines shake more fibers loose from your garments. On a more anecdotal note, we noticed that our clothes wore out and wore thinner much faster while we were in the UK.
It is, a safety feature for the seal. If you were to force the door open when the vacuum is still present, you could tear the seal. Then your next wash could flood the floor.
Well, this is what one of our washer repair guys told me. I have no idea how the vacuum was generated, however he pointed something out to me as the washing machine was starting up - before the water started coming in. You can see the seal suck up in a balloon-like manner. Also, this guy had to force the door open. He first jimmied the latch, then as he started to pull the door open, he slipped a screwdriver in the side of the door and penetrated the gasket seal. You could hear the air rush in.
Im in Calif, USA & I use a front loader washing machine each week. So there.
But the front loaders we use are for very large loads.
“‘How do you know I’m mad’ said Alice.
'You must be, ’ said the Cat, ‘or you wouldn’t have come here.’”
I must say that this thread is entirely fascinating to me! I haven’t really ever thought much about it. If I go to a laundromat, I use a front-loader. If I do it at home or at a friend’s place, I use a top-loader.
I could completely turn things around and ask about front-loading vs. top-loading dryers!! Then again, I’m not 100% sure dryers like that exist… 
“I can never give a ‘yes’ of a ‘no.’ I don’t believe everything in life can be settled by a monosyllable” *Betty Smith
Re: relative capacity of top-loaders vs. front-loaders -
It’s true that a top-loader’s drum has more volume than a front-loader, but that is a separate issue from capacity. Consider: A significant part of the inside of a top-loader is given over to the agitator, while in a front loader, *gravity is the agitator. Also, you can only put so much into a top loader, and it’s a bad idea to try to pack in more; your clothes won’t get clean if you do. With a front loader, if you can cram it in and force the door shut, the load will get clean. These two factors mean that despite having fewer cubic inches of interior volume, front loaders have comparable capacity. Add in the fact that front loaders use (much!) less water and half as much soap, fabric softener, etc., and it becomes obvious that over the long haul, a front loader is more cost-efficient even though it may cost more up front. So why are there only a few front-loader models on the U.S. market, and dozens of top-loader models? Inertia and an unwillingness to take the long view on the part of the consumer. Never mind, they get what they deserve.
As for the person above who said that front loaders cause more damage to clothes than top loaders do, I say “nonsense.” Back when we had a top loader in the house, some item was forever getting shredded by our agitator, which had apparently been a Rottweiler in a former life.
The stackability is nice too…we’ve done that with our set. I would never go back to a top loader.
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef
Chef Troy - You can now get top-loaders without agitators.
picmr
Perhaps it’s just an old rumor, but I distinctly remember that front-loaders had a bad reputation for reliability at least as late as the 1960s. I don’t think it was propganda by the manufacturers, because pretty much everyone who made a top-loader also made a front-loader.
And while some of you insist that front-loaders have a comparable capacity, they certainly don’t look that way, and water use was not an issue (at least in most areas.) In baby-boom America, bigger was always better, and perhaps the pro top-loader bias wound up being carried over from one generation to the next.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
Front loaders ARE available in the U.S.!!
We have a Maytag Neptune washer and dryer, and they are fabulous. We purchased them when we bought our house over a year ago. They were expensive, but not much more expensive than a top-of-the-line top loader. Because of their increased efficiency, they will pay for themselves in about 7 years. And that is only dollars saved on water and detergent and electricity. They will also extend the lives of our clothes and be better for the environment. This is all compounded by the fact that we do more laundry than a typical household because we don’t use paper towels or napkins–we use cloth rags and napkins. They have all the fancy features you would expect from an expensive washer/dryer–but we have found that many of these features are very useful. For example, the dryer has a “moisture sensor,” so you can set it to stop when your clothes are at a certain level of dryness. This saves energy and wear-and-tear on your clothes because the dryer is not sitting there “drying” your already dry clothes. Also, you don’t have to go and check on the clothes to see if they are dry. It’s a small thing, but it is a good thing.
There are a few factors that keep Americans from buying front-loaders, but I think the most important is that we live in a “disposable” society. We do not tend to “invest” in things that will pay off over time. Why pay more for a washer when you will just be moving in two years? Why prolong the life of your clothes when they will be out of style next year?
My husband and I have a different attitude. We tend to choose our things carefully and sometimes pay more, and them keep them for a long time. We even do this with clothes. I may have paid $75 for 3 plain black t-shirts from L.L.Bean, but they have been through hundreds of washings and they still look perfect. We tend to consider the environmental impact of disposal, but we don’t think so much about the environmental impact of manufacture. So, by buying stuff that lasts for a long time, we save doubly. Also, we don’t have to take the time and energy that it costs to buy the new stuff.
I think that people in the UK, and in Europe in general, have a more conservationist attitude. This may be because many things are more expensive over there. Even the higher price of gasoline cuts down on the “disposable” attitude.
Graphic post warning…
It doesn’t take that long to relieve a vacuum. About two or three years ago, in California (probably the Bay Area, that’s where I was), a little boy got his arm ripped off by a front loader in a laundry-mat. He reached in while it was still turning, and got his arm caught by the wet clothes. It made the local news (of course). I think they attempted to reattach it, but I don’t recall how it turned out.
It is too clear, and so it is hard to see.