- This topic has 27 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It may change madmac.
I can’t say too much for now but, over the past few weeks, one thing I’ve been doing is beating up various government spods over the whole “save energy” BS and trying to move the focus of their attention away from that to a more balanced, “how do we stop the waste in the first place” rather than the focus being on how to save energy or replace machines.
What Johnny Punter has in their head, much thanks to the likes of AMDEA (plus members thereof) and the cr4p they’re peddling ATM about an appliance scrappage scheme, is that if they buy a new one they’ll save money on energy. This is clearly not what people think it is and the advertising is EXTREMELY misleading at best. To my mind some of it borders on criminal.
Couple this with cheap appliances that are available in Tesco for throwaway money and you get into exactly the scenario you describe.
The problem of course with this is that it doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts it elsewhere.
Getting this message out and across to as many people as possible is a bit of a mission will we say. 😉
The good news is, I’m not the only person thinking this way.
K.
Re: Worst Week Ever
With ref. to what Ken said about energy saving I remember back in 1992 I did a bit of investigation into the subject with reference to Hotpoint’s then current promotion of the new Aquarius range. They claimed it saved something like 55{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of something, can’t remember if it was energy or water and some equally dreamlike {e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of the other thing. From somewhere I got the figures for their previous machines, possibly from themselves. Doing a careful comparison I found they were comparing the new front loader not with the old front loader, which would have shown a saving more like 5{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} but with the old TOPloader! You know how the water level was in those massive drums. Not hard to use 55{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} less than that and consequently quite a bit less juice too. Misleading the public in advertising is a well established malpractice.
Mike.Re: Worst Week Ever
The Aquarius range actually did use quite a bit less water than the preceding 9500 front loader series.
Most of the WM/Aquarius range are set to the old 95 series half load quantity of water by default. You can get the machine to fill to the 95 level on the rinses by selecting Super Rinse button but you cannot put more water in on the first wash fill.
The load on the old top loader was between 9 and 15 gallons depending on the load setting so even the 95 series saved around 66.6{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} on a full load, the Aquarius would save a good deal more. 😉
Jim.
Re: Worst Week Ever
Well, I don’t remember the exact figures, except for the 55{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} bit. What I do remember, and I doubt that you would deny this, is that the comparison figures in the advertising could only be obtained by comparing the then current front loader with the old top loader. Comparing like with like gave much less favourable figures. I maintain that the advertising was misleading.
Mike.Re: Worst Week Ever
leavemetogetonwithit wrote:Well, I don’t remember the exact figures, except for the 55{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} bit.
Here are the exact figures. 😀
Non Aquarius front loader energy consumption..0.8kwh
Aquarius……………………………………………….0.55kwhRe: Worst Week Ever
Ok, can anyone get hold of these figures, e.g. on the web?
Anyway, assuming those figures to be well substantiated, that makes 31.25{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} saving. Very good. So was it the water which was 55{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d}?
I am 100{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} certain that the figures I had in 1992, probably posted to me by Hotpoint, were indicative of the misinformation that I have alleged.
You seem to want to dispute that your ex-employers were ever guilty of such a thing. ❓
Without wishing to wander too much further off topic, I’d be interested to have your opinion and that of anyone who’s interested, on the subject of whether anything was lost in terms of wash performance. It’s seems odd that so much could be gained without losing something.
Mike.Re: Worst Week Ever
leavemetogetonwithit wrote:Ok, can anyone
Without wishing to wander too much further off topic, something.
Mike.I agree!
Re: Worst Week Ever
leavemetogetonwithit wrote:It’s seems odd that so much could be gained without losing something.
That’s because it’s not really possible without some very clever stuff going on. 😉
If you dig about a bit you’ll find that the claims are not substantiated at all and little, although usually no, evidence is given to support the claims being made. In fact, I struggle to think of one that proved to be 100{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} pukka that I’ve looked at where even a scrap of evidence was produced.
Most of the claims being made these days are a spin on the “green” angle and people swallow it hook, line and sinker. Energy consumption is only one part of a very complex puzzle. For me that’s like telling me because it’s raining more this year in central Ghana global warming is a real phenomena, it’s just ludicrous.
What they do is compare against a range normally and pick the figure that gives the most dramatic result. So, we get 30{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} better energy consumption but no detail of what that comparison is made against. And, 30{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of what exactly? 30{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d}, a meaningless figure, but it sure sounds good in a brochure or when you’re trying to flog the new super duper version.
The laugh of it is the actual savings are usually ridiculously low and there’s an impact on performance but people don’t notice the lack of saving (other than in the cost price) they just notice the reduced performance… then we get a call. :rolls:
Unlike the car industry, where claims like that would be torn to shreds by several well respected journalists in a heartbeat, then the public at large, nobody cares when it comes to, well, much of anything else really. It’s all very sad that many people aren’t intelligent enough to see through the marketing cr4p.
It does provide me with endless entertainment and a healthy dollop of frustration that people are that Goddamn stupid as to fall for it though thinking they only get conned by small traders. Global corporations are only scaled up market traders but most don’t get that.
K.
Re: Worst Week Ever
kwatt wrote: they just notice the reduced performance…
K.Yep, I often hear that criticism of new machines.
1. “Takes so long”
2. “Doesn’t fill up enough” :rolls:
3. “They’re only made to last 2/3/5 years” :rolls: :rolls:Had a really funny one today. Old fellah calls me out to look at his 1 yr old Samsung. P1523. The other day he couldn’t open the door.
I asked him what programme he’d been using. He showed me. He programmed up a rinse and spin, then selected rinse hold. 😆 Programme time was 5 minutes. He didn’t realise this would leave water in the drum and not allow him to open the door. I asked him why he selected rinse hold. He said it was the only way he could get the programme time down to 5 mins. 😆 Bless. He’s an intelligent bloke but lives half his year in Chicago so gets used to his Maytag.
Mike.Re: Energy Efficiency Con
Unfortunate really. Maytag are currently subject to a class action in the US over the Neptune front loader fiasco. This is entirely based on mould, mildew and odour…. Any UK engineer reading up on the subject will laugh out loud at the complete failure of the US market to understand what they see as new technology.
If you’re used to a top loader which will use 40-50 gallons of water, doesn’t have a heater and will do the laundry to your (low) expectaions in 45 minutes, the Neptune had little chance of being appreciated, let alone understood.
If Maytag lose, those damned colonials will probably carry on destroying the planet with their water-hungry top loaders.
Good in Europe sometimes, isn’t it? We can bathe in the warm glow of “We’re doing it right” as far as energy efficiency is concerned. Where we blow it is by allowing the market to sell cheap, badly built appliances with minimal destruction cycles under the guise of “A” ratings.
“It only did 600 washes before it died, but it was AAA rated, so we were saving the planet 😥 “
Complete obllocks – the appliance hasn’t even begun to justify it’s production energy footprint. But – hey – we can re-cycle it…… back to China……… so we’re still doing the right thing……….
Aren’t we?
Chris.
Re: Energy Efficiency Con
wonderd this, how is it more energy efficient only having cold fill machines? ie doin a hot 90 wash ie bein able to take in hot an cold water in. but on only cold fill. having to heat the water up from cold with the heater?
Re: Energy Efficiency Con
Explained here ADV. 😉
Basically hot fill is a total waste of time, energy and can cause more harm than good. But people in the UK just don’t get it.
K.
Re: Energy Efficiency Con
My take on this is that none. not one of the political parties or any of the world goverments are remotely interested in saving energy or making our planet greener, it simply would not be in the financial interests of Goverments and the mega energy corporations to go green, its far easier to spoon feed the mass population with the idea that the end is nigh is we all don’t reign in our use of energy and drive green cars.
The technologies are here to produce non carbon based fuels as well as more or less free energy for everyone and although there are many who are already using this stuff if the masses started doing it can you imagine the panic that energy companies would have ? suddenly a huge downturn in people wanting to buy their comodities, with the energy companies not then requiring so much oil ? the goverment with huge tax revenue losses ?
that could be the stuff to cause real problems and thus why there is no serious effort on anyones part to develope and establish real green and non polluting fuels.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.