Here are some interesting figures (from an tumble dryer user manual) which give us an insight into the effectiveness of faster spin speeds . The figures are based on a 6kg capacity drum size and an efficient condenser dryer. They show the residual dampness of laundry (cottons) after being spun at various speeds.
They also (much more interestingly) compare the difference in energy that’s required to tumble dry the laundry after spinning it at at say 1200 rpm compared with if it was spun at 1000 rpm or 1400 rpm.
Results would vary between different washing machines and tumble dryers, but they do give an accurate representation of the differences between the efficiency of different spin speeds, which I suspect is much less than most people are likely to expect, and the main point of this article.
Washing Machine Spin Speed Efficiency Figures & Drying Costs
| SPIN SPEED | RESIDUAL DAMPNESS | ENERGY USED TO TUMBLE DRY |
|---|---|---|
| 800 | 70% | 4 kWh |
| 1000 | 60% | 3.7 kWh |
| 1200 | 53% | 3.3 kWh |
| 1400 | 50% | 3.1 kWh |
| 1800 | 42% | 2.6 kWh |
These figures imply there isn’t such a big advantage to paying a lot more for a 1400 spin washing machine over a 1200 spin washing machine.
The difference in dryness between 1200 rpm & 1400 rpm after spinning cottons is just 3%. And it would cost only .2 of a kWh extra to tumble dry the cottons spun at 1200. (Most other fabrics would have the same water extraction regardless of the washing machine’s spin speed because only cottons are spun at the top speeds).
Spin speeds are good marketing tools
Washing machine manufacturers have long since used faster spin speeds as a way to increase sales and command higher prices. Most people believe faster is better, and “better” is worth paying more for.
But the difference between an 1100 spin speed and a 1200 spin, or a 1200 and 1300 and even 1400 are pretty negligible. To make a significant difference in the amount of water extracted you have to have much bigger jumps than one to two hundred revolutions per minute.
Slower spin speeds mean –
- Cheaper washing machines
- Quieter washing machines
- More stable washing machines
- Longer lasting washing machines because there’s less wear and tear on the bearings, motor, carbon brushes, suspension etc.*
- Gentler on laundry
* The point about longer lasting washing machines has been somewhat diminished by the throwaway washing machine problem afflicting the majority of washing machines these days. This is because the price of parts is often so high that it makes many of them artificially uneconomical to repair. This prevents them lasting any where near as long as they would otherwise last. Nevertheless, the slower a washing machine spins the less wear and tear it has.
Faster is definitely better but..
I appreciate that faster is better up to a point. Even if faster only gets a fraction more water out then arguably it’s preferable. But what I’m saying is that because faster comes at extra cost, and with several disadvantages, it is not better per se – all the time, and for every one.
As washing machines get faster, sadly their quality does not increase to accommodate the extra strains and wear involved. So an 1800 rpm washing machine is no better built than a 1200 one. The motor is usually exactly the same size, the suspension is exactly the same, the bearings are the same and the thickness of the cabinet are the same.
So the cost, noise, how much it jumps around, wear and tear, and even how long it will last all get affected and all this should be taken into account.
What about 1800rpm?
It’s only when you jump from a 1200 spin washing machine to 1800 rpm that you see a more tangible benefit in extracting water.
If comparing the costs of tumble drying after spinning at 1800 rather than 1200 then it would use 2.6 kWh instead of 3.3 kWh. That equates to 26 pence instead of 33 pence – a saving of 7p (using a 10p per kWh figure). However, an 1800 spin washing machine could easily cost £100 more than a 1200 spin.
This would mean someone tumble drying 2 or 3 loads a week would take about 9 years to get a £100 premium purchase back.
If you also factor in the fact that an 1800 spin washing machine may be subject to more wear and tear because of the extra speeds involved it’s not necessarily a good investment.
Of course this argument is based on tumble drying laundry. If not tumble drying then the only difference is that it will take a bit longer to dry on the line or in the spare room next to the radiator but at no extra cost. In this scenario the cost issue is replaced by a convenience issue, which for some will be negligible, but for others it could be more significant.
But using less electricity is better for the environment
That’s a fair point. From an environmental point of view it is better that we all pay £100 more for a washing machine and use less electricity if tumble drying – even if the electricity saved is a fraction of the extra costs buying the faster spinning washer.
This is a very different argument to the personal economic considerations covered above and is based on the premise that regardless of the cost to the consumer, the less electricity we use the better.
However, as with many environmental arguments, the whole picture needs to be taken into account and all too often it isn’t. There’s no point saving in one area if the savings are destroyed because it affects another area.
If faster spinning washing machines aren’t built to a high enough standard, and break down more often, or just don’t last as long, then the whole environmental benefit is compromised and the scales could even tip the other way.
Many of the most common washing machines are not made to a high enough build quality to cope with very fast spin speeds. They can be noisy, bounce around too much, refuse to spin many loads at full speed because of over-protective and less sophisticated out of balance systems, and parts can wear out or fail quicker and more frequently.
Summary
For the average person buying an averagely built washing machine, 1200 should be the best compromise between drying efficiency and cost, noise, stability and wear and tear.
However, it seems that 1400 rpm is becoming the new default spin speed. The figures above show that a 1400 spin washer doesn’t get that much more water out, but if it’s the new default speed it should be adequate for most people.
In my opinion 1600 – 1800 rpm is too fast for most brands because they aren’t built any better than the 1000 spin versions they used to make.
Even 1400 is probably too fast for some washing machines these days. (related: Washing machines exploding what’s going on?)
If you use a tumble dryer excessively it may be worth considering a higher spin speed, but again, the figures show that you may need to jump to an 1800 spin to get a significant difference.
If an 1800 spin is going to cost a lot much more then it’s debatable whether you will save much money at the end of the day unless you tumble dry all the time. It will still save on drying time though.
As is often the case, trying to look at the bigger picture is complex and there are many variables that make it impossible to advise a common best tactic.
The main thing is to not get carried away thinking faster is definitely better, and ask yourself why manufacturers make washing machines that spin at so many different top spins.
Surely there has to be an optimum that should mean all washers should spin at the same ideal spin speed? It costs manufacturers very little extra to make a washing machine spin at a faster spin speed. Many spin speeds are set artificially by simply configuring the same PCB differently.
- Washing machine spin speeds
- Are Washing Machine Spin Speeds A Con? (Forum discussion)
- Find out which are the best washing machines – 1 month trial offer is available
The arguments in this article are based on electricity charges being at certain (quoted) rates. If electricity charges increase significantly it may affect the argument. At the end of the day if you can follow the argument and factor in the amount you are paying for your electricity you can decide for yourself.
Spares
Spares4Appliances is a spares company run by repair engineers who understand all about spare parts for appliances.
l have an ancient 1957 “ACME” spin drier.This is very much overengineered and weighs a ton,but it gets out FAR more water than any automatic washer will.lt doesn’t surprise me that many new machines fail prematurely,they’re not made to last and parts as you say are extortionately priced.Hardly a very “green” way of carrying on!So they get dumped and replaced by more rubbish build machines,which will also go phut.then the idiots in charge have the front to complain about where’s all this scrap going to go!Madness.
Very good point River.
Maybe all washing machines would last longer – even the cheap and nasty ones – if people used the slowest spin speed or choose not to have a final spin, if there’s that option. Then put the washing straight into a spin dryer for just 4 minutes. Now the washing will be virtually dry and that would save a fortune on tumble drying costs!
It’s a matter of having the space for a spin dryer and the extra room needed to collect the water if the spin dryer doesn’t have a pump.
There is a blog section on the White Goods Help website about the poor quality of modern washing machines. Here’s the link to it:
Why don’t most modern washing machines last very long?
Why didnt you simply weigh the test towels as they came out of the various spin cycles? You only needed one towel to do this.
Hello doh: I think that’s how people like Which? do it, but I think you would need very sophisticated weighing equipment to measure the difference in weight between two items spun at different speeds. As my article describes, there is very little difference in the amount of water extracted when spinning just a few hundred revolutions per minute so I don’t think I would have been able to detect the difference in weight without very sensitive equipment.
I think doh has a point. Digital kitchen scales can usually resolve to the nearest gram, and even the old-fashioned balance type are pretty sensitive – far more so than the spring/dial variety used in the intervening 50 years!
Checking the rpm might be an idea, though. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that it only applies to empty drums and well run-in motors…
A related tip: if you have a control to select the spin speed, you might as well spin at a slow speed if it’s a sunny day and you’re going to dry your washing outside. I check the forecast for a sunny day, do my washing then, and only need to spin at 600 rpm. Our machine’s fastest spin speed rarely gets used during the summer.
But why not spin at full speed? It uses little electricity and the wet load will have been reduced by the slower spinning beforehand. I understand if you’re trying to conserve brushes and bearings, although these should be designed for the job!
Hello James P and welcome: I don’t think measuring this difference with scales would produce helpful results. For example, if it was measured and I came up with results that showed an extra 2 grams of water were extracted on a particular spin it wouldn’t really mean anything to me. I wouldn’t have a clue how that affected anything other than it definitely got more water out than a slower spin.
The main idea of my article is to put any differences into a useful context, such as how much quicker the laundry dried on the washing line or more importantly in a tumble dryer and is extracting “more” water always better per se?
One of my major points was that, let’s say a really fast spin speed got a cupful of extra water out. Does that matter enough to pay £70 more for the machine, suffer extra wear and tear, noise – maybe even more than a 12 month reduction in lifespan – or do we need to arrive at an optimum spin speed and be happy with that? That’s the last thing manufacturer’s would want though :-)
I think Chris was building on the point that I made in my article. Spinning very fast, especially with many modern washing machine’s being poorly constructed has hidden cost – if drying on the line you can spin slower, reducing the stresses strain and wear on the washing machine helping to increase its lifespan. The cost would only be extra time on the line. It’s not for everyone but it does make sense if you are prepared to do it.
My AEG has performed perfectly for 8 years with an 1800 rpm spin – the max speed lasts for over 1.5 minutes and a full load of cotton requires 40mins in the dryer max. It’s less noisy than cheapo Hotpoint crap and came with a 10 year guarantee. The thing is built like a Sherman tank – no plastic anywhere !
.. and another thought, what’s all this about wear and tear? If a car promises 130 mph then you expect it to go at 130 mph with little effort. If it’s sold as fast and you pay for that option then it should be able to acomplish the specification – unless of course it’s an advertising con! ie the cheapo brands
Hello Mike: It sounds like your AEG is one of the last to be made that way. Current AEG washing machines are all plastic and hardly any better made than an averagely decent machine. Many modern washing machines spin much faster than they are built to properly endure, with poor quality suspension and out of balance software as well as poor design. It’s mostly about selling features now, by making them spin faster they can charge a lot more but they don’t build the motor or other components any better than their slowest spinning machines.