Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 166 posts

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#101

Post by semi-extrinsic »

petra wrote: post #95
rsynnott wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no-one wants to pay for that. Washing machines which last exist, but they're expensive. They use sturdier, more easily replaceable parts, higher quality motors and control systems, etc. And sometimes _iron_ counterweights (even more CO2 there). You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a har…

1000 euros per 20 years = 50 euro per year. 250 euros per ~7.5 years = 33 euros per year. See the problem ? But also improving the reliability of washing machines isn't hard or expensive. Remember, you're talking about a machine that the most common source of problem with it is a broken/faulty lid switch. cheap and easy to fix. Surely, with that level of engineered failure(or maybe extreme cost engineering), there's…

Also a common fault is the bearings supporting the drum. These actually take a lot of beating. In the olden days, you could replace them for $15 and two hours of straight-forward work. When my ~ 5 year old Bosch failed last year, I spent an hour on the teardown just to discover they now plastic weld the drum shut, so you instead have to buy a new $150 drum assembly. Youtube had teardowns of the same model built a few years earlier, which was still repairable; there were even still bolt holes right next to the plastic weld on mine. At which point I said screw you Bosch, I'm buying a new Miele. Here's hoping it lasts 20 years.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#102

Post by dx034 »

joezydeco wrote: post #88
chr4004 wrote: post #63

Having a "dead weight" has it's advantages - passive, no bacteria, mold, flex, resistant to shock etc. Pretty sure billion dollar companies like Siemens have thought this through and came to the conclusion that concrete is best. The negative externality of a disappointed customer seems to be larger (medium term) than the damage being done by producing the concrete.

Manufacturers really don't care too much about shipping costs (and the secondary CO2 burden) once the machine leaves their loading dock. Their concern is to make the machine as cheaply as possible for the features involved and maximize the margin.

Costs are probably not that high anyway. For most logistic companies, volume determines capacity for trucks, not weight. Transporting a washing machine amongst other deliveries will not cost much more than other deliveries of that size (except for the additional fuel which is probably low). Carrying it in place can be done within minutes, not much longer than other deliveries.

That's probably also the reason why machines are cheap to buy online. If shipping was a constraint, buying at big stores would be cheaper.

Therefore, concrete can save some CO2 but probably not much cost. The cost of replacing faulty water tanks could be higher than the saved cost.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#103

Post by aembleton »

beojan wrote: post #50
fps wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn't need to be shipped from the factory in China to the user. Sand can be locally sourced cheaply. Washing machine installers just need an additional material on their truck, in addition to the tools and plumbing supplies they already carry. 25kg of sand costs $0.50 from a landscaping yard.

Somehow, I don't think they ship the concrete blocks from China.

Why not? Concrete is cheap in China and shipping is cheap right now.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#104

Post by slumberlust »

jmkd wrote: post #34

Somewhat tickled to say I thought of this about 10 years ago, told everyone who would listen, and many who wouldn't. As I was not remotely interested in developing it myself I was happy to tell anyone. Got an audience with a designer at Dyson, gave it to him straight in the clearest most open terms imaginable, to be met by nonplussed disinterest. Just kept it for cocktail parties since then.

Had no clue what nonplussed was and went searching. Interesting read: http://www.punctuationmatters.com/nonplussed-definition/

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#105

Post by rsynnott »

petra wrote: post #95
rsynnott wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no-one wants to pay for that. Washing machines which last exist, but they're expensive. They use sturdier, more easily replaceable parts, higher quality motors and control systems, etc. And sometimes _iron_ counterweights (even more CO2 there). You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a har…

1000 euros per 20 years = 50 euro per year. 250 euros per ~7.5 years = 33 euros per year. See the problem ? But also improving the reliability of washing machines isn't hard or expensive. Remember, you're talking about a machine that the most common source of problem with it is a broken/faulty lid switch. cheap and easy to fix. Surely, with that level of engineered failure(or maybe extreme cost engineering), there's…

I've never been convinced about the idea of serious engineered failure for this type of device. I think there are two problems, both consumer-related; price sensitivity (adjusted for inflation, these machines are far cheaper than they used to be) and demand for features (more modes, smartphone integration, bigger drum, higher spin speed), and something has to give.

If you compare a low-end washing machine, say a Whirlpool or Inndesit or something, to a mid-range one (Bosch etc), to a high-end one (Miele), it's immediately obvious what's going on. On the low-end one, costs are cut to the bone; everything feels flimsy. The door, the drum, even the buttons feel cheap and flimsy. The mid-range one, things feel better (and repairs become easier; easily replaceable drums etc). The top-end one feels like an industrial machine (and durability improves; high-quality motors, the afore-mentioned iron counterweight and so on).

To a large extent, with washing machines, you get what you pay for (as long as you avoid smartphone integration and other nonsense). There's consumer demand for really, really cheap ones, so manufacturers make them, and they break quickly. You can still buy a top-end one which will last, but it'll cost you.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#106

Post by rsynnott »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #101
petra wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1000 euros per 20 years = 50 euro per year. 250 euros per ~7.5 years = 33 euros per year. See the problem ? But also improving the reliability of washing machines isn't hard or expensive. Remember, you're talking about a machine that the most common source of problem with it is a broken/faulty lid switch. cheap and easy to fix. Surely, with that level of engineered failure(or maybe extreme cost engineering), there's…

Also a common fault is the bearings supporting the drum. These actually take a lot of beating. In the olden days, you could replace them for $15 and two hours of straight-forward work. When my ~ 5 year old Bosch failed last year, I spent an hour on the teardown just to discover they now plastic weld the drum shut, so you instead have to buy a new $150 drum assembly. Youtube had teardowns of the same model built a few…

Huh, I thought Bosch still had replaceable bearings. That's disappointing.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#107

Post by rsynnott »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #84
rsynnott wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no-one wants to pay for that. Washing machines which last exist, but they're expensive. They use sturdier, more easily replaceable parts, higher quality motors and control systems, etc. And sometimes _iron_ counterweights (even more CO2 there). You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a har…

> You can get a washing machine that might last perhaps 5-10 years for about 200-300 euro... or a Miele one that'll probably last over 20 years for 1000 euro. It's a hard sell for most people. The other side of the coin is that the Miele will possibly do a better job than the cheaper model. I used to buy $100 vacuum cleaners and just replace them when they break, which they usually did after a year or two. The last t…

Oh, yep, it'll do a better job than the cheap stuff. Most people just aren't willing to spend this sort of money on an appliance, though.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#108

Post by joezydeco »

egeozcan wrote: post #82

Can't we just fix the damn things to the walls or floor? Maybe sell a separate, universal "base"?

They'll eventually tear themselves apart, especially in a damp corrosive environment.

It's better to just find a solution to the vibration (which other machines have done).

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#109

Post by joezydeco »

ynniv wrote: post #90
taneq wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, but I figured it was doing something more like: int speed = 0, retries = 0; for (int time = 0; time TOO_MUCH_SHAKING) { time = speed = 0; if (++retries > MAX_RETRIES) break; } set_spin_speed(speed); sleep(1); }

While it's possible that it is this simple, spinning the drum back and forth to detect load shows a significantly more advanced understanding of control theory.

I have an LG and noticed that it takes a very measured approach to spin cycles, as if it's taking a bunch of measurements at certain speeds before going into the high speed final spin.

It can also reverse the drum to try and loosen loads that have fixed together in one lump. That has to be a huge advantage of the direct drive system and most likely something that concrete-filled belt-driven UK banger can't do.

Re: Concrete-free washing machines are lighter to transport, just as good in a spin

#110

Post by joezydeco »

omtose wrote: post #14
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it wasn't a priority. Plastic is more expensive than concrete. It's only now that "look how green we are" is able to tip the balance to where it's worth implementing. If someone really wanted they could come up with a more complicated counterbalance solution and probably eliminate the dead weight entirely. I really want to see how they came up with their numbers. I suspect that they're overly optimistic. +/-1…

I somewhat doubt that a hollow plastic tank is significantly more expensive than a concrete block. Factor in the added cost of shipping the much heavier concrete block, and it seems like the manufacturer would also save money in the process.

How much energy do you need to harvest the crude oil, transport it, and refine it into ~3kg of ABS plastic?

How much energy does it take to melt it into a slug and blow-mold it into a tank shape?

Post reply on HN