In article , Harry Bloomfield
writes
ARW expressed precisely :
And washing the same clothes for 3 hours on an eco wash is going to
be cleaner?

The time allows the washing to soak for longer, with an occaisional
agitation.
If a quick ash cleaned the clothes as effectively there would be no need
for a longer wash. The annoying thing about the quick wash on our
Samsung is that it limits the temperature to 30 and the spin speed to
800. But that's EU standards cycles for you.
--
bert

In article , Richard
writes
On 03/06/18 18:24, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44340082
I only bought my washing machine because it did a quick wash (14 to
18 minutes depending on what spin I tell the machine to do)
Are Which talking ********?

Probably.
I doubt anyone says that their washing needs another wash after the
short one. If it does, the items are obviously too soiled for the short
wash which could be a problem for those who lack common sense.
Nothing stopping you doing a follow-up spin after the wash has finished
if drying is a problem.
But hat was one of the points Which was making. The extra spin pushes up
the overall cost of a short wash.
--
bert

In article , Robin
writes
On 03/06/2018 18:24, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44340082
I only bought my washing machine because it did a quick wash (14 to
18 minutes depending on what spin I tell the machine to do)


I would support Which? on this one.

As regards the cost if you tumble dry, one of the indicators of my
achieving true boring old fartdom was not just wondering if an 11
minute spin was worthwhile but sticking a container under the outlet to
see what comes out in the last few minutes.

No ones mentioned a smart meter yet.
As regards cleaning, we don't find a really quick, low temp wash gets
rid of under-arm odours in shirts etc which have been sweaty. But that
could of course be another indicator of old fartdom



--
bert

In article , Michael Chare
writes
On 04/06/2018 12:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

I just do a normal 40 minute wash!
All this talk of 3 hour washes is much longer than my machine takes
(it might get that long if I do a pre-wash or super-wash with boil
programme).
Often the longest part of the programme is me forgetting to go down
and prod it to continue from the "rinse hold" that applies for
synthetics when not using tumble dry.

It appears to be a problem with new machines. The previous machine we
had probably bought 20 years ago, was much more sensible. The new
machine won't let you select a fast spin in you select a quick wash.
Stupid!

Some of the cycles are EU specified for Energy Efficiency ratings.
As you say - stupid.
--
bert

On 06/06/18 23:00, bert wrote:
In article , Richard
writes
On 03/06/18 18:24, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44340082
Â*I only bought my washing machine because it did a quick wash (14 to
18Â* minutes depending on what spin I tell the machine to do)
Â*Are Which talking ********?

Probably.
I doubt anyone says that their washing needs another wash after the
short one. If it does, the items are obviously too soiled for the
short wash which could be a problem for those who lack common sense.
Nothing stopping you doing a follow-up spin after the wash has
finished if drying is a problem.
But hat was one of the points Which was making. The extra spin pushes up
the overall cost of a short wash.

Which were making the point about increased drying time. In that, they
bunged in the tumble dryer citing extra drying time. They should have
mentioned that an additional spin is probably cheaper that extra tumble
drying. In their drivel, I don't see any actual energy and water
consumption figures. That alone makes me wonder what they are trying to
achieve.

On 04/06/2018 10:47, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
On 03/06/2018 18:24, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44340082

I only bought my washing machine because it did a quick wash (14 to 18
minutes depending on what spin I tell the machine to do)

Are Which talking ********?




The first couple of lines of the BBC news articles leads me to infer
that people are using the quick wash when it's not appropriate and
therefore requiring additional washes and ultimately consuming more
water and energy as a result.

I guess ARW and I may not be so vain as to want to put something in the
wash multiple times to ensure that it's gleaming, and in that respect it
makes ARW environmentally friendly, perhaps? And he's clever enough to
know when a short wash will do or when it won't?

Far from talking ********, the article perhaps fails to put the blame on
stupid people who don't know when to use a full wash and when to use a
quick wash?

It's inherently obvious that *if* a quick wash suffices for the clothes
in question, it's twice as energy-efficient as the typical standard wash.


How is it inherently obvious? Time taken and energy used are nothing
like in direct proportion - at least on my washing machine - and
dishwasher come to that. 'Soak' seems to be a significant part of 'eco'
and full programmes IME. Along with agitate and rinse.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 23:15:56 UTC+1, bert wrote:
Some of the cycles are EU specified for Energy Efficiency ratings.
As you say - stupid.

If only Volkswagen made washing machines

Owain

On 06/06/2018 23:02, bert wrote:
In article , Robin
writes
On 03/06/2018 18:24, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44340082
Â*I only bought my washing machine because it did a quick wash (14 to
18Â* minutes depending on what spin I tell the machine to do)


I would support Which? on this one.

As regards the cost if you tumble dry, one of the indicators of my
achieving true boring old fartdom was not just wondering if an 11
minute spin was worthwhile but sticking a container under the outlet
to see what comes out in the last few minutes.

No ones mentioned a smart meter yet.

'Cos they tell you sod all.

--
Max Demian