What bells and whistles do you want on kitchen appliances?

Dave D,
I agree with a lot of what you say. The only gizmos I want are temperature control and a “go” switch.
I’m not sure about you figures on the 23 year old model using only a quarter of the electricity that a modern machine does though?
It could be that the older model had hot and cold supply fill, whereas modern machines tend only to be cold fill.
Reality is however that even back then they wern’t really hot fill.
In my house and I’m sure most houses turn on the hot tap and it takes a while to get hot water because the initial water is what is the cold water in the pipework between your tap and hot water cylinder or combi boiler.
Translate that to a washing machine “hot fill” and you’ve filled with cold water before any hot gets to the washing. So in most cases you still need the heating element in the washer to do the job. This being the case I don’t see how an old, most likely hot fill, washer really gets by with a quarter the electricity usage? Water heating is energy hungry, gizmos and contol circuitry use very little.

This, and of course cost of manufacture, is why modern machines are only cold fill. The hot fill more often than not actually “wasn’t”.

@ Chris, Gloucester.
Well, I know that my old machine really does use a quarter the electricity of the EST recommended modern one because I measured the energy use of the LG and the old machine using the same plug in power monitor on a good many occasions when gathering evidence to make my complaint to EST, which as I am sure you have read already, the EST made no attempt to dispute.

As for the argument that not much hot water actually reached older machines, this is of course technically possible and in some installations with unusual and contorted pipe runs, especially those fed from older combi boilers that took a long time to start to deliver hot water, it is certainly a thought that cannot be dismissed out of hand, but in an average installation, especially one fed from a cylinder, plenty of hot reaches the machine. Mine is in a utility room and the hot water cylinder is directly above the washer and the boiler directly next to it. I also have solar hot water heating. In my case, which is possibly not the most common but it certainly isn’t UN common, hot water reaches the washer instantly and makes a huge difference to wash times and energy use compared to cold fill only.

The other board on this topic, to which Richard English has also referred several times, has discussed these postulations for several years and reached an almost unanimous conclusion amongst all participants that due to the almost infinite number of plumbing configurations, what is desperately needed is machines that accept hot and cold water and can also be user-configured for the specific plumbing configuration to which they are connected.

Dave D,
I can accept what you say about “better plumbing” enabling one to actually make use of the hot fill facility on older machines, athough I would still argue that in most cases it would go the way I explained.
As for your 23 year old washer using only a quarter of the energy (but to be fair you said electricity) I still have my doubts.
Look at what the energy in a washer is used on. Very little on the flashing lights, the clock or the control circuitry, but I too still accept some of this is unnecessary. By far the lions share of power is used to heat the water and some to run the spin cycles.
Your energy monitor will be showing the wattage consumed at any given time, but the power consumed is really what level of wattage over the time of the whole washing cycle. In other words Kwh’s.
Now I cannot believe a newer washer is going to use so much more hot water or spin at such tremendous speeds that vastly more electricity is used. If you are managing to hot fill then great but the energy used to heat that water going into the machine has to be added to the total. so another batch of Kwh’s to include.
If that hot water comes from your solar array great for you it’s free, but that bonus is an external factor not everyone can call upon so nothing to do with the primary energy consumption comparison between the older and newer machines.

Fact is you need the same number of Kwh’s of energy to heat the same quantity of water to the same temperature today as you did 23 years ago. Yes you’ll use a bit more power on higher spin speeds and a tiny bit more on the clock, controls and lights but I still have a job believing you’ll use four times as much. If you are, what’s all that power being used to do?
Or is it just you’ve ommited water heating costs?

Hi Chris (Gloucester).

Sorry – the energy used is indeed the whole number of kWh over the cycle. This is an argument that has been had many many times on the other board that Richard English and I referred to and many people attempting to defend cold fill only machines make the mistake of thinking that those of us who have measured consumption are only taking the momentary readings; we’re not.

I hate to point it out as if trying to score points but I am a qualified electrician and the EST did accept and agree with the kWh figures when they wrote to state that they know all new machines use more energy (electricity) to operate.

My old washer spins faster than the LG I had so it isn’t that that explains the difference, though the fact that the old washer spins for exactly 6 minutes and the LG used to spin for something indeterminate between 8 and 12 mins might account for a very tiny amount of the difference.

The major difference is that the LG heated all water from cold and, for whatever reason I know not, took a hell of a lot longer to heat the water than the old machine does. My unscientific guess is that this might be due, at least in part, to the modern machine constantly circulating the water through pipes and pumps (and the pumps will of course use a tiny bit of extra power) and spray jest in order to try to make an inadequate amount of water do for the wash, rather than having the water contained entirely within the tub but an adequate level to do the job. I guess that the water being constantly circulated probably makes it cool down rapidly and take longer to heat to start with.

Energy for heating the water before it reaches the washer: you are right that I have not allowed for this in so far as I have not attempted to calculate the amount of gas used to heat the fraction of the cylinder-full of water that is used in the washer. However, as I get all my hot water and indeed much surplus too heated by the sun for about 8 months of the year, and always have a vast cylinder full of water heated by gas for the dishwasher (also hot fill), the power shower and all other domestic hot water needs, I don’t actually use any fuel to heat water for the washer that I would not be using to heat water for other jobs. In other words, I never heat water purely for the washer.

Sorry if this sounds a bit defensive: it’s just that I am fed up (like Richard E) of having to repeat these same things over and over again to ‘non-belivers’.

The most frustrating thing is that there are so many washer manufacturers who openly tell all consumers in almost every country except the UK that hot and cold fill does use less energy (electricity) to run than cold fill only. It’s clear that these are the facts but the mystery is why the UK won’t accept it.

Well dave, interesting debate.
But I think we’re sightly at cross purposes.
Your comments to date have suggested, to me at least, that newer cold fill only machines are less energy efficient that the older hot and cold fill.
Wheras in reality you are saying, I think, that if and because your plumbing is such that instant hot fill is possible less electricity will be used when washing with an old hot fill machine?
No electricity is used to heat water therefore less is used.
Well yes of course that is true, but total energy use to complete the wash cycle will be not much different because the water won’t heat itself, so there are no grounds to say older machines are more “energy efficient”.
In fact I’d suggest modern machines which often use less water and have fancy cycle programmes will overall be more energy efficient. That is of course energy effecient rather than purely electricity effecient.
When it comes to total energy cost an older hot fill machine could well be a little cheaper to run than a modern cold fill machine (if hot fill is instant) because heating water by gas, solid fuel or solar is usually cheaper than by using electricity. Although in the overall scale of thing we’re not talking about very much water (or water heating cost) for washing cloths.
However I would still maintain that for most people with normal plumbing hot fill offers very limited or no advantage because of the delay from turning on the hot to actually getting hot. I’ve just checked my own combi system and it takes 25 seconds so very limited hot fill advantage there, and I’d suggest a very common situation for most people.
If you are able to get instant hot water, good for you, get yourself a hot fill machine, and have slightly lower overall energy costs to run it. But to suggest (if you are) that modern machines are much worse or less energy efficient than older models just because of the way they operate is perhaps a little unjustified.

Hi Chris,

I would be rather inclined to agree with you had I not had the experience of the LG EST recommended washer which was A++ rated and found a) that it used over 4 times as much electricity as my old hot and cold fill machine and b) got a letter from EST in which they write in black and white that they KNOW that ALL modern machines WILL use MORE electricity than older ones.

That’s why I got a 1983 reconditioned hot and cold fill washer and now enjoy very much lower energy bills.

I think it is also important to recognise the difference between energy EFFICIENT and ECONOMICAL energy use.

EST themselves point out in the context of white goods and also gas boilers that an appliance can guzzle many times the AMOUNT of energy that an old one did and this does not concern them as long as it uses that energy EFFICIENTLY. This is, for example, why British Gas can get away with saying that replacing your boiler will not see you use any LESS GAS, but you will (supposedly) get more heat out the gas that you do use.

I think this is an area that Trading Standards should take a keen interest in because the general public is easily tricked into thinking that energy EFFICIENT means using LESS energy, and this is far from always the case.

Well Dave at the risk of extending our debate any longer than the subject justifies I’ll make one final comment.
Yes modern cold fill only washers will use more electricity than older “hot and cold” fill machines plumbed into instant hot water, simply because they will heat the water electrically themselves within the machine, rather than have hot water externally supplied.
However this does not necessarily make them any less energy efficient when, and as should be the case, the total energy consumed is taken into account (which includes external water heating).
If you disagree with me on that we’re going to have to agree to differ.

There is however a comment you made I certainly do agree with.
Energy efficiency and economic efficiency are not always the same.
An example.
Now you’re electrically qualified so you’ll know a heat pump system for space heating can give 2 or on exceptional days even 3 Kwh of heat output for 1 Kwh of electricity input. Now thats a theroretical efficiency of well over 100%.
However electricity cost per Kwh is as much as three times the cost of the gas you might use to run your 90% efficient condensing boiler. So although the heat pump is more energy efficient which system makes more economic sense? Which is more economically efficient most of the time? This is an even more pointed example if the difference in installation cost and life of system is factored in. To go for a heat pump system or not I would suggest is more about the existence of a gas supply or not. So clearly energy efficiency and economic effeciency are not always the same thing.

Now the same argument could be used where hot fill washers use gas (or even cheaper solar) as the hot water source. But washers use only a few litres of water heated to say 40 degrees so the cost difference gas (or even solar when the extended installation payback period is taken into account) to electric is to say the least minimal.
And if you’ve NOT got perfect instant hot water supply plumbing, as most of us won’t have, there is little or no saving at all.
As for modern machines consuming electricity (on other than water heating) at the alarming rates you suggest, well I simply don’t believe it’s really happening in the way you think it is. So there we’ll have to agree to differ.

Finally, I would agree manfactures should when asked tell us just what the electricity in their washer is used for. They should without too much difficulty be able to break down consumption relative to water heating, the spin cycle, the control system, pump system etc. etc. Then you can make your own judgements on both the energy efficiency and economical efficiency.

Hi Chris,

I’m happy to agree to differ and I certainly don’t want us to “hijack” this convo for this one topic.

I’ll only add (or rather repeat) that the facts that I have presented have been accepted and in no way disputed by the EST, and that on the White Goods Help Blog to which Richard and I have referred there are large numbers of people, of all qualifications and backgrounds, who have found the same; and, of course, some more people who find it as hard to accept as you do.

The crucial aspect of this, and indeed the one that is most relevant to this convo, is, as you have said in your last post, that manufacturers and test institutes (such as Which?) need to be obliged to be explicit and clear about what energy is used by appliances and in what way it is used. This would both enable people to make informed choices (as you pointed out) and would also expose the truth about modern appliances in a way which would be hard to dispute (or misunderstand).

Regarding washing machine energy efficiency – This is an interesting discussion. Reflecting over our results of the last ten years, the same period the Energy Label scheme has kicked in, there are some notable changes. Firstly, machines have got bigger, increasing from an average 5kg capacity to 7kg. The energy used in a complete wash cycle has also crept up, however, and this is the interesting part, energy use per kg of load has remained more or less the same but seems to be reducing over time.

Fully agree with you David, on everything except the Pause button matter: I have a 1983 washer (which is hot and cold fill). It has no pause button. In fact it has just one knob and that’s it. You turn the knob for the programme you want, pull it out to start and push it in to switch off. If you do find a forgotten sock or whatever you simply push tie knob in and open the door, then close the door and pull the knob out again.
As you quite rightly say, David, the new “features” are just reinventions of the wheel and in the case of the pause button it’s a way to get round the fact that modern solid state (and in my experience sadly unreliable) controls, when made cheaply, don’t ‘remember’ where they were (like a rotating knob) if you stop the machine to add the sock.
If the machines were made to a decent standard (e.g. mum’s Miele – which does have solid state electronic controls, doesn’t have a pause button, but does remember where it was at if you stop it temporarily, as does my own Miele dishwasher) then there would be no need to invent daft things like pause buttons.

But, in-depth discussion on the pause button aside, yes, David, you have got it absolutely right about inventing “features” for the sake of it.

As for hot and cold fill: yes, as per another recent convo there is a substantial campaign group running on another site pressing for this, especially as we are now just about the only country in the world, certainly in the EU, that does NOT have hot and cold fill washers.

Warm rinses: mum’s Miele offers this as did an LG that I briefly had (but it was useless so it went fast!). Both manufacturers say that warm rinses shift detergent better and indeed mum is of the opinion that this is correct having tried it. That said, there is absolutely no doubt whatever that my 1983 machine, like mum’s last machine, which rinses in water that comes half way up the door, shifts far more detergent, in much less time, using cold tap water, than the Miele or the dreadful LG. In my opinion trying to rinse in a teaspoon of water, and heating that water up electrically from cold, is both stupidity and also far less environmentally friendly (not to mention costing more) than using a decent level of water to start with. What’s more, the time saving means that my old washer does a 95 degree hot wash in an hour and 10 minutes – modern machines seem unable to do a 40 degree “quick” wash in under an hour.

Which, bringing this back to the original convo intro, comes back to my earlier post: “Back to basics”. Hot and cold fill washers, with no daft gimmicks, that wash and rinse well and quickly, would be infinitely better than all the gimmick-laden and ineffective modern machines. And the same applies to most other appliances: we just need machines that do the job they are supposed to do without all the bells and whistles.

David – I’m with you on the pause button, I have used mine numerous times as I’ve suddenly spotted the dropped sock on the floor by the washing machine as the machine has started filling or wanted to change the programme. It is great as it stops the fill immediately allows you to make amendments and do not have to wait for the door lock timer to release to add an item to to the wash

Hi Dave

I’ve got the LG direct drive washing maching which I absolutely love and a 40 degree quick wash on it is 40 mins standard, 47 mins if you turn the spin speed up to 1400 rrp. Although if I’m doing a quick wash I tend to leave it at 30 degrees which is 37 mins on 1400 spin

Louisa

A sensible suggestion – what is the point of having an appliance that is your ideal or dream one if you can’t get it into your home?

@David.
My positively ancient washer fills with hot water only for 60 degree and hotter washes, and with a mix of hot and cold water for 50 degree and cooler washes. This makes it much faster and far cheaper to run as it isn’t heating the water from cold in every cycle.
The main wash water level is about the same as modern machines (possibly a little higher) but crucially the machine fills “all in one go”, not, as some modern machines do, a spurt at a time over about a 10 minute period. This also makes the wash faster and means that the washing starts immediately too.
The machine is controlled by an electromechincal timer, as all older machines used to be. This operates in conjunction with the pressure switch for the water level and the thermostat for water temperature. The result is that the machine washes in a reasonably fixed time (unlike new machines) and it really does wash AT the selected temperature, not in tepid water which is drained the very second it REACHES the selected temperature. This means that the duration of the cycle is pretty well known and varies little and that the washing phase doesn’t need to be anything like as long as newer machines as the wash process is far more effective.
Rinsing is carried out by first adding cold water to the wash water at the end of the wash phase. This dilutes the soapy dirty water and gets rid of a lot of soap at the first drain, and then by three rinses with water half way up the door. After the first rinse there is a short spin which extracts almost all the dirty water so that the second rinse water is usually all but clear. Each rinse lasts barely 2 minutes, unlike modern machines which seem to make 2 rinses last nearly and hour, judging by the LG and Miele ones I have experience of. Finally the last spin starts as soon as the timer ticks over to spin, and I don’t know whether it is good luck or superb design and manufacture, but the machine doesn’t waste anything up to 45 minutes trying to balance the load, it just spins, and in 20 plus years of me using this same model I doubt if there has been an out of balance load more than 4 times. This means that it is not only quick but also far quieter than Mum’s Miele, my partner’s Zanussi and the awful LG I tried once, all of which waste ages so-called balancing and then sound like pneumatic drills when they do spin.

Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, my machine gets through a boil wash (95 degrees) using about 1.25 units of electricity and does a ‘non fast coloureds’ (40 degree wash) using less than 0.5 units of electricity. The LG I tried was A+++ rated and used well over 4 units to do a 60 degree wash and almost 3 units to do a 40 degree wash. How much of that energy use was down to it being cold fill only and how much was down to the stupidly long wash times (about 3 hours and just under 2 hours respectively, compared to about an hour and 10 mins and about 50 mins for the nearest cycles on my old washer) I don’t know, but it was the energy use that prompted me to correspond with EST and I have referred to their assertion that “all new machines use more energy………” above. That’s why the LG went in a skip and my current machine was brought back into service.

There have been endless arguments about old versus new washers on many forums, most especially white goods help blog run by washerhelp (Andy Trigg), and whilst no one seems to be able to to agree on why it is the case, there is widespread agreement that modern washers (made in the last 10 years or so) are costly to run, unreliable, ineffective (most especially at rinsing), short-lived (even very expensive ones) and cannot really compete with the old hot and cold fill machines for either speed or running cost.

Frustratingly most washer manufacturers (Miele, Zanussi, Electrolux, LG to name 4 big names to start with) sell hot and cold fill models all over the rest of the world and advertise them as being more energy efficient, but refuse to sell them in the UK. As yet no one I know of has managed to get anyone to say why this is.

I fear that I’ll be told off for straying so far off topic, but I hope this answers your question.

David – Try using less washing powder or liquid than recommended. That can help eczema sufferers and everyone else to save money. Biological powders/liquids are best avoided by SOME eczema sufferers, though it is best to use them if you are not affected.

There are better ways to save water than to design washing machines that do not use enough water.

Absolutely agree Wavechange: when I had the LG I used to have to rinse EVERY load I did at least 3 more times after the programme had ended to get anything like all the detergent out, and I was (still am) very frugal with detergent. sometimes I took the washing out of the machine and rinsed it by hand in the bath, then spun it again.

Whether I used extra rinses in the machine or manually did the rinsing, the amount of water used was far far far greater than anything an older machine used to use to do the job right.

And to be fair to LG, you only had to read Which? test reports on Washers, which I have to say I take with a pinch of salt because Which? give “Best Buy” to machines that according to their own reports I would never touch as they appear to be very poor, to see that poor rinsing necessitating extra rinsing is a very very common thing on almost every brand these days. It isn’t an exclusively LG problem.

I do agree with David though: how can Which? possibly recommend, let alone give Best Buy status, to any machine that doesn’t rinse really well? If which? stopped doing so at least some manufacturers would make changes to the machines very very swiftly indeed.

IMHO rinsing that is less than “outstanding” (by which I would mean at least 95% or detergent removed) should prevent a machine from being a Best Buy and rinsing that is less than “average” (Which? will know what the average amount of detergent residue is) should make any machine a “don’t buy” without any further hesitation.

To say something on topic, washing machines should allow the user to choose the number of rinses and spin speed for all programmes.

It seems odd that any washing machine that does not rinse adequately should be selected as a ‘Best Buy’, but that depends whether other machines are significantly better in this respect. It is possible that manufacturers are under pressure from to cut water consumption. There must be some reason why modern machines use much less than those made 30 years ago.

You make a good point wavechange.

Instead of all the fancy features that no one uses, all appliances should allow the users to choose what they want rather than a restrictive ‘menu’ of things they don’t want.

In the case of washers that would mean being able to select water levels, temperatures, spin speeds and whether the machine is to use hot water inlet or now. Miele do this – they call the machine the AllWater…but they refuse to sell it in the UK. That machine is a good example of how appliances, not just washers, SHOULD work: user-configurable.

I agree: Which? needs to have “teeth” and if an appliance isn’t doing the job well they need to be bold enough to say so, even if that means that the number of appliances they recommend becomes a very small number.

Hi Longley Shopper

Regarding washing machine rinsing scores, we’re tough on rinsing but all Best Buys get at least 3 stars for this. We also aim to mention if machines have an extra rinse option if rinsing is comparatively poor to other models on market. Rinsing is a notoriously difficult subject but it’s worth noting that detergent fragrances intended to stay in fabric after washing are a likely source of irritation.

A brilliant suggestion. Why have none of the manufacturers thought of this? So simple yet so valuable.

That would be a great idea though it would need to only kick in when the door is almost closed as we often need to leave the door ajar whilst loading, cleaning, or reaching in with one hand whilst cooking or juggling beers 🙂

David – Liquid capsules will not leave the white residues that powders and tablets leave, but they are not so good with whites. People react differently, so it is essential to find out the best solution.

Proper rinsing and using a small amount of detergent are probably the best solutions.

My Miele Dishwasher doesn’t do a cold rinse at the start – but the instruction book claims that this is because rinsing dishes with food scraps on them in cold water makes the debris stick more firmly. The book especially mentions protein items like egg in this situation.

Possibly this is why Dishwashers don’t usually have a cold rinse at the start?

I hope you have good smoke alarms Colin. Ever since I had to deal with a small fire for a neighbour, over 30 years ago, I have never left the washing machine on when I am out of the house or in bed.

I agree with wavechange regarding leaving any washing machine, tumble drier or dishwasher on unattended. These things can flood the kitchen or catch fire, it’s just not worth the risk!

Percentage figures are commonly the most misleading figures ever. They advertise washing on 30 degree washes can save 41% on electricity but my calculations when I researched it were that this equated on average to about 2 pence because they don’t use that much energy on a 40 degree wash.

Washing machines do not use vast amounts of electricity to do one load, and one load is all you can set them to do during the night. According to a leading detergent manufacturer the average wash programme uses 0.482 KWh – less than half a unit of electricity. Even if paying 30p per unit it’s 15p so you might only be saving 40% of 15 pence.

What could be more useless than chilled water dispensers?

I’ve long wanted to get one of those big American style fridge-freezers; the factor that more than anything stops me from getting one is the ridiculous amount of space wasted by (to me) totally useless water and ice cube dispensers. Fridges and freezers are for storing perishable foods. Why would I want to store tap water in them? It keeps perfectly well in the tap as it is!

If one could have them as an option, that would be fine, but they appear always to be built-in.

I’ve heard good stuff about ISE appliances. ISE claim to be very reliable and cheaply repairable when repairs are needed in future – *much* cheaper to repair compared to Miele.

I do hope Which? are reading these comments. Please Which? – test ISE appliances from now on, only award “Best Buys” to washing machines that rinse properly and persuade manufacturers to include hot fill on their washing machines AND dishwashers.

Most of the early ISE washing machines were relatively normal washing machines with the emphasis on ease of repair and aftersales.

However, the ISE10 is potentially the best washing machine available when the promise of much cheaper no-profit-markup parts, freely available technical information and ease of repair plus the definite higher build quality are taken into account.

I think it potentially is the best washing machine available at the moment for potential longevity and ease of maintaining over its life, something that needs to be very much more taken into account by reviewers. What use is a washer that washes fantastic, uses low water and energy but doesn’t last very long because of poor build quality or outrageously expensive parts, lack of technical information or deliberate not-repairable design?

Hello Adam

Which? did test an ISE washing machine but it was back in 2007 so the review has been archived as the model is no longer available and our testing has changed since then.

I can give you some information about the CI555WH washer we did test.
Although it wasn’t good enough to be a Best Buy, it wasn’t a long way off. The cleaning was good on the standard 40 degrees and easy care cycles and the short wash was pretty good, however we found the main 40 degree cycle rinsing wasn’t great.

Pros: Good cleaning, excellent short wash, free five-year warranty, delay start
Cons: Noisy, poor rinsing on standard 40 degree program

We’re currently planning ahead and looking at what models are planned to launch in 2012, so will keep the ISE brand in mind, though I’m unable to categorically say we will include one of their models.

I hope this information is of some use

Wow! A washing machine with intelligent dual fill – just like I – and others – have been suggesting on the washerhep forum for years. It’s a pity it’s not a washer/dryer as space consideration preclude my having separate units.

But I will be writing to them to ask whether they intend to make one and furthermore, whether they have any plans for a dishwasher as well.

What’s the betting that, once these machines are introduced and pprove to meet a need, the other manufacturers will suddenly discover that, what do you know, dual fill is better after all!

You are absolutely right, Patsy. I assumed that the need to reprogram anything would be gone by the end of the 1980s, but it did not happen. We can name and shame manufacturers but it would be useful for Which? to look at this when testing appliances.

Appliances should consume no mains power when not in use. In the case of equipment that is activated by a timer (e.g. PVRs and DVD recorders) it is possible to store the power needed in an internal battery or capacitor.

We agree with WashierHelp

In Austria we had a Miele which was called AllWasser. It would use rainwater from the tanks on the roof, hot water from the sun heating and tap water too. It was simple in use and we had all 3 pipes connected to the proper taps, but we found that here in the UK we only had a tap for the tap water, so we did not ship the machine over as it was expensive and bought a british model with one pipe.

It isn’t as good and is very slow

This is ideal for those who know what they are doing or are prepared to find out. I know people who have sophisticated central heating timers but make more use of the on/off switch. I do not know many people who customise their word processors and email clients to meet their needs.

Some heat their water in different ways according to season, and not just those with solar heating. Many use a single programme on their washing machine, irrespective of what they are washing and what sort of detergent they are using. There is only so much that fuzzy logic can do, and because of poor design, electronic controls can fail and mistakes in programming could introduce further problems.

I suggest that manufacturers choose useful default settings carefully, on the basis that most users may not change them. Having a display of those settings could encourage the user to customise their settings, but to avoid unnecessary service visits there should be a button to restore factory settings.

My hot & cold fill washing machine will be 30 next month and you might find me on your forum asking for advice.

I agree with Wavechange (and WhiteGoodsBlog and WashingMan). In particular, as one who is guilty of, but very satisfied with, using just 3 cycles on my washer for over 20 years, I recommend that machines should default to a 60 degree (or slightly hotter – my machine does 75 degrees), cottons cycle (otherwise known as “Fast Coloureds”), a 90 or 95 degree cotton wash (otherwise known as “Whites”) and a Woollens cycle that is woolmark approved, sometimes known as “Delicates” or “Hand wash”.

In a quarter of a century of doing my own washing, all but 18 months of that in just the one machine, I have never ever needed or wanted any of the other cycles on my 15 cycle, 1983 machine, and in the 18 months I did have to tolerate a modern machine a couple of years ago not only did I have to choose endless options every time I used it (though credit to it where it is due, it did default o a 60 degree cotton wash on start up …………just one that didn’t wash, didn’t rinse and took 3 hours!) but not one of the cycles on it actually did the essential job of a washing machine: wash an rinse the laundry.

The factory restore idea is also a great idea if we are to stick with modern, but more often than not unsatisfactory, electronic controls.

Wavechange and I have commented extensively about CFL’s and the fact that their inherent unreliability is almost certain;y down to the atrociously built and impossibly cheap electronics within them: most appliances suffer the same fate because manufacturer want profit. QUALITY electronics, WELL BUILT, and with some SENSIBLE default options should be absolutely indestructible. It can be done!

If the money was spent on the QUALITY rather than the QUANTITY of daft gizmo’s, we’d have outstanding products from every manufacturer.

We had red, orange and green LEDs for many years before it was possible to produce blue or white versions. I suspect that the blue LEDs are used to make appliances look more modern.

If silly noises prevent you leaving appliances on overnight this could save your life or avoid a serious flood. See the posting by ‘whitegoods help’ above.

A friend has a microwave with an amazing – and pointless – colourful animated display, plus the silly sounds. Maybe that’s why this ‘designer’ microwave was so cheap.

Those brightly coloured Dyson vacuum cleaners look like something out of the Fisher Price catalogue and I will not be surprised if the next versions play tunes and flash lights.

Totally agree with Prudence and also with Wavechange.

I detest the flashing lights and I’m certain that Blue ones are just because the geeks at the design offices are still childishly-fixated by the “new” blue LEDS ( even though they are now really quite old-hat).

I hate the daft sounds that appliances make and have a personal view that these are also due to the child-like fascination of the geeks at the design offices (who probably all wear Casio Digital watches that play strangulated waltzing matilda on the hour every hour!). I agree that leaving appliances on overnight is a suicide bid and as such if the noises have any purpose at all, it’s to mean that you can’t leave the appliances on whilst you sleep, but personally I’d rather not have the noises and also remove all delay start options plus get insurers to refuse to pay out (or insure you at all) if you leave appliances running unattended. Hopefully that would stop people laving things on unattended.

And I’m totally and utterly with Wavechange over the completely berserk Dyson cleaners. I would never dream of touching one of these with a barge-pole, partly because I would not give one of them house-room looking like they do, but also because out of the only 5 people I know who had or have a Dyson, 3 have had them catch fire in use (one person twice with two different models) and 1 person has found it to be completely useless as a vacuum. 4 our of 5 dis-satisfied customers seems like a fair damnation to me but that’s besides the point.

So, come on Which? – if you are going to “make sure manufacturers listen”, lets see machines devaoid of all sparkling blue LEDS, nice and quiet with no tunes, bleeps or noises and preferable made in “grown up” colours and shapes! Baby-walkers for babies!!!!

Dave – I imagine your mobile phone is set to go ‘ring-ring’ rather than play muzak and flash lights. Maybe the ringtone enthusiasts actually like the blue flashing lights on their kitchen appliances. Maybe the next step will be bright lights that cycle through a spectrum of colours in sequence with the muzak.

If we do get hot & cold fill washing machines, some manufacturers will undoubtedly require us to play some sort of button pushing game to activate this option, and we will have to play the game again if we dare to pull the plug to save power rather than leaving the machine on standby.

@Wavechange:

Mobile Phone? What is this “mobile phone”?!!!

Seriously, of course I have a mobile ‘phone – in fact I have an iPhone and I love it, but it is set to ring a proper British GPO ‘phone ring tone and it took me ages to force it to do so, and I switched off ALL the other tones for things like typing each letter or getting a new text and so on.

I’m sure you’re right about what you suspect re new machines of any kind.

If the button pushers and knob twiddlers and flashers like all their toys and games, let them have them: I have no issue with sat all. What I do have an issue with is manufacturers who make it impossible to switch these things off and who make having every possible flashing light and silly tune enabled the default option which comes back every time an appliance is powered up.

I also object to the fact that those of us who don’t use the bells and whistles end up having to pay for them even though we don’t want them, but that’s a lesser objection on my part than being unable to switch them off.

Time was when people like you and I could get inside an appliance and disconnect things like sounders and speakers to stop these things. Some appliances now are so designed that if you do this, the appliance won’t work any more – if the manufacturers put as much effort into making the appliances do their designated job properly as they have into making sure we can’t stop the toys we would have world-class, ultra efficient, appliances all round!

Oh how I agree with you Andy! (Whitegoods help).

I really don’t understand why anyone would want these remaining time displays when they are so misleading.

I know that we’re never going to see a resurgence of electromechanical timers in appliances, but I can tell you almost to the minute when my washer will finish the cycle just by putting my hand under the hot tap before I start it (to see how hot the incoming water is) and knowing which cycle it is on. I’m never more than 5 minutes out even on a really bad day!

Even with electronic controls, a user who takes notice of what their appliance does can soon get a very good idea of timings, as you have said.

Certainly agree about looks and colours.

Miele are very upfront about boasting that their appliances are designed to last at least 20 years and as such come in plain white, without any fancy curves and bumps, so that they are timeless in appearance.

I rather suspect that simple, box-shaped, cabinets are probably stronger too, which is quite important if reliability, strength and longevity really are intended.

We have to cover several difference factors when choosing what brands to test, as we’re only able to test a certain number of products each time.
We generally try to reflect the market as much as possible, and ISE is a relatively small brand, but thanks for the feedback, and we’ll definitely look into this brand going forward.

This is the sort of small detail that an intelligent person can check when comparing appliances on display in shops. Well designed kitchen appliances will be easier to clean and not have dirt traps that make them old and tatty quickly. Some manufacturers worked out how to avoid print rubbing off over 50 years ago but modern designers sometimes do not think about simple practical matters.

Sadly, it is much more difficult to spot design flaws when buying from online retailers.

My thoughts exactly David, but I too would love to hear from someone who already has one. Interestingly ISE appear NOT to recommend their hot and cold fill machine unless you have ready access to very nearby ‘cheap’ hot water (eg solar). ISE clearly reckon that the overall energy costs would be higher if hot water is not very close by (to avoid cold pipe-water being primarily used) and/or water is heated by, presumably, either gas or electricity.

The intelligent program I suggested would have taken into account the various delay times imcumbent in re,ote hot water systems.

Simply build in a bypass that takes the initial hot water flow to the drain and only takes it into the machine for the first fill once it is hot enough. The simple way to arrange for the correct delay would be a user-controlled timer, which would need setting in accordance with the characteristics of the user’s plumbing system.

A more sohpisticated system would measure the incoming water temperature and divert it to the drain until it is warm enough. A default maximum delay setting would ensure that, should there be no hot water in the plumbing, the drain diversion would shut off after a reasonable period and the machine would then admit cold water to the drum and heat it as required.

This second system – surely easy enough to contrive with modern computerised controls – would mean that those of us who have solar heating (whose water temperature can vary from near freezing to near boiling) will not need to adjust the water admission delay.

In both systems the actual water temperature admitted to the drum would be controlled by a simple thermostat (similar to the one used is thermostatic showers) adjusted by the controller in accordance with the washing programme’s needs.

Any competent designer with engineering ability would easily be able to build an intelligent machine of the typer I describe – which rather makes me wonder who does design modern appliance? The marketing department, the accounts department, the sales department – or the engineering department?

Hoover machines used to do the spin on wash too. I would guess it was a marketing fad and now forgotten about. If it truly improved wash efficiency it can’t possibly have been discontinued at a time when wash efficiency has never been so much in the spotlight.

That would put a lot of load on the motor and with some detergents could cause foaming.

LOL. Just come back to this convo after a few months and read about the Zanussi Jet System.

I remember those and in fact I almost bought one once.

The cause of my opening “LOL!” is that the useless LG that I had for a short while used to cause an incredible amount of over-sudsing (as it called it) on every rinse and spin it did, so much so that soap suds poured out of the powder drawer on every wash and all over the floor. This was using proper Automatic detergents including barely half-doses of powder and also liquid capsules (so no chance of over-dosing by the user). When it rinsed very little foam was removed and each spin used to cause it to make a horrible noise as it “suds-locked”.

It occurs to me (hence the LOL!) that LG had re-invented the spin wash …. but made it happen all through the rinses too.