— Around The Home
New Russell Hobbs washing machine cleans up in world record time
The Russell Hobbs washing machines offering a 12 minute cycle - 7kg white and graphite models and 9kg white model
Doing the laundry probably isn't high on anyone's list of fun things to do, so anything that speeds up the chore, while also cutting down on the amount of water and energy used, is going to be welcome. A new washing machine from Russell Hobbs looks to accomplish all these goals with its "super rapid wash" cycle rinsing and spinning a load of lightly soiled clothes in a world record time of just 12 minutes as opposed to an average 90-minute wash cycle.
The time and water savings come courtesy of a twin jet system that injects detergent and water onto the dirty laundry via two nozzles instead of one. Russell Hobbs says its 12-minute washers can save two years and four months of washing time over the average adult's lifetime, while cutting energy usage by 30 percent and water consumption by 15 percent – which apparently equates to saving enough water to fill 17 average-sized swimming pools. This is based on the average machine using 90 liters (23.7 US Gal) of water compared to the 12 minute cycle using 30 liters (7.7 Gal), five times a week.
The 12 minute cycle won't do the job on heavily soiled laundry, which will require using one of the machine's 14 other programs. Other features include extra spinning and rinsing programs, variable temperature, spin speeds and a delay start function. The machine also has a half load detection system to cut washing time, water consumption and energy on certain programs.
Currently, the Russell Hobbs 12 minute wash cycle machines are only available in the UK through ASDA direct, where prices start at GBP247 (approx. US$399) for a white seven kilogram (15.4 lb) load model, increase to GBP300 (approx. US$484) for a seven kilogram Graphite model and top out at GBP320 (approx. US$516) for a white nine kilogram (20 lb) load model.
About the Author
Darren's love of technology started in primary school with a Nintendo Game & Watch Donkey Kong (still functioning) and a Commodore VIC 20 computer (not still functioning). In high school he upgraded to a 286 PC, and he's been following Moore's law ever since. This love of technology continued through a number of university courses and crappy jobs until 2008, when his interests found a home at Gizmag.
All articles by Darren Quick
Garbage. The only time spent doing laundry is loading and unloading the washer/dryer and folding the close. Who sits and wait in front of the washer/dryer waiting for it to finish? No time is saved here. Most people will return to the washer an hour or more after they washing cycle is done and then load the dryer. The savings here is in energy cost and water (only for lightly soiled clothes wash cycles). Not insignificant, but not the time saver it\'s made out to be.
Where do you get your \"most people\" statement? I\'m not going to wait an hour to go back to the machine if it\'s done in 12 minutes, especially if I have multiple loads, which I usually do. There are also usually one or two items that need to be hung up to dry, and I don\'t leave them wadded up in the washer any longer than necessary. The time actually handling the laundry won\'t change, but the overall time to complete the chore will.
All Russell Hobbs stuf that I bought in South Africa were rubbish!!!!! Hope the washing machine is better quality.
Jurie de Kock
12 minutes??? for £320!!! OMFG! ah its a Russell Hobbs that\'ll last a year at most! So £320 each year = £12800 in the lifetime of an adult doing washing 40 years or so im guessing.
90 minutes for washing ? Or for washing and drying ?
My very conventional top loading machine washes in 20 minutes and my dryer dries in less than 60 minutes.
Are front loading machines this inefficient ?
HAVE ANY ONE ACTUALLY USED THIS WASHING MACHINE,
I WANT TO BUY ONE!
Heh, 12 programs. As if anyone uses them. You only need two: normal, and heavy. No one ever puts delicates in the machine anyway.
Fisher & Paykel appliances who make Top Loading Smart Drive washing machines have been making machines almost this fast, and almost this efficient for 20 years. Whilst theirs is a top loader, that naturally will use more water than a front loader, it\'s smart drive direct drive brushless motor technology (That is so dependable they offer a 10yr warranty) is so advanced that it can just about detect what type of clothes (no exaggeration) let alone how much to the nearest few grams back through its motor controller and adjust its wash profile accordingly. It\'s high speed spin cycle means clothes are considerably dryer at the end of cycle than any front loader will ever achieve! So you may spend a few extra days, or weeks of your life washing with a Fisher & Paykel Machine over a Russel Hobbs but you\'ll shave years off waiting for clothes to Dry!!!
I\'m a kiwi, so naturally i know this informtion through patriotic intrest in innovation, I\'ve also owned a F&P machine for 2 years and never looked back! But if you don\'t believe me check out their web-site www.fisherpaykel.com
The only problem with Fisher & Paykel is they cost a bundle. We have some LG front loaders (washer/dryer) that are now 10 years old and they do fabulously. I see the F&P washer will spin up to 1000 RPM and that's respectable. Not bashing the machine but there are others out there with similar features and, some would say, better features. (Some would say = me)
Hired_help the reasons for front loaders (depending on the models) are many. They are more efficient with water, electricity and detergent. They are more gentle on clothes, the amount of lint we get is far less than we used to with our top loaders) and the very high speed direct drive motors (no transmission) practically dry the clothes. Ours can spin up to 1600 RPM. When we place them in the dryer, very little time is needed.
Finally a front loader can't do the out-of-balance dance across your floor because it won't build up an imbalance lying on its side with gravity pulling the load down until the centrifugal force spreads it evenly (I'm not sure that made any sense. Never mind it just won't run an imbalance!)
Finally this thread is ancient so why am I posting?
Over 160,000 people receive our email newsletter
See the stories that matter in your inbox every morning