Base cabinet for front-load washer?
RimaNeas
loading washer. Given the condition of my back, I am thinking about putting
it (and the dryer) on a base cabinet to raise it up around 14-16 inches. I
can easily make the base to match my other cabinets.
Do I need any special design considerations for the base or its top? I
imagine the appliances would want to walk some, so a lip would be in order
and the dang things are heavy, but I normally build beefy. I am thinking of
a tiled top for the cabinet... Any info/experience would be appreciated.
Cheers, Shawn
k-nuttle
> eed any special design considerations for the base or its top? I
> imagine the appliances would want to walk some, so a lip would be in order
> and the dang things are heavy, but I normally build beefy. I am thinking of
> a tiled top for the cabinet... Any info/experience would be appreciated.
>
> Cheers, Shawn
>
This is just my opinion but it seems that it would have to be quite
solid and fasten to the wall. Have you ever seen a washer walking
across the floor when things get out of balance?
George W Frost
"RimaNeas" <Rima...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iuqpav$vog$1...@dont-email.me...
They do walk sometimes and a 1" lip would be good
tiled top would not be any good as if the machined decided to take a trip
somewhere, the movement would crack the tiles.
I built one out of 14 ply 12" high and cut the corners out of the top piece
for more stability for the feet of the machine.
You could go over the top and put a drawer in it for the washing liquid etc.
I only went 12" high because of the dryer on top of the washer.
RicodJour
A number of the front load washer manufacturers make pedestals for
just such a situation, and you should investigate that route before
committing time and money into building one. They're not cheap, but
if you keep an eye on eBay and Craigslist you could probably scoop one
up for a reasonable amount. A drawer in the store-bought pedestal
base is a major benefit, and the pedestals usually bolt to the
underside of the machine so there's little danger of the thing walking
off.
R
Ray
wall, with oak plywood on the sides and OSB for the platform painted
the same color as the walls. The oak matches the trim in the house
and was left over from another project. Total cost less than $20 and
looks a whole laot better than the $250 for the store bought ones. I
got the washer up by tilting it side to side while my wife put a 2x4
under the high side. Tepeat ten times. I put a lip on top but the LG
washer has dynamic balancing and does not move
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:09:20 -0800, "RimaNeas" <Rima...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
I'd think the vibrations of the washer's spin cycle would be pretty tough on
glue joints, not to mention the problems with exposure to water.
RicodJour
>
> I recently built one. 2x4 construction for the frame screwed to the
> wall, with oak plywood on the sides and OSB for the platform painted
> the same color as the walls. The oak matches the trim in the house
> and was left over from another project. Total cost less than $20 and
> looks a whole laot better than the $250 for the store bought ones. I
> got the washer up by tilting it side to side while my wife put a 2x4
> under the high side. Tepeat ten times. I put a lip on top but the LG
> washer has dynamic balancing and does not move
$250? Maybe if you're paying full MSRP. Check the completed auctions
on eBay. You can get one for well less than half that if you are
patient. Factor in time, the fact that you have to take the machine
off of your platform to service it, whereas the bolted on pedestal
moves with the machine, the painted steel pedestal is less susceptible
to water damage, etc. I would think that the pedestal designed by the
manufacturer to go with the washer would match the machine perfectly,
so I'm not sure how a homemade one could look better. Not trying to
rain on your parade, just offering the OP different opinions.
R
m II
Cheers, Shawn
-----------------------
Save your money and time, each wash. Get an old fashioned top load and have
some actual storage cabinets above it on the wall.
With a top-load washer your clothes will actually get clean in less than
four hours of waiting without detergent residue to irritate your skin. If
you want to save water get a suds saver machine. The fad is fading, from
poor user experience, just as it did back in the 50s and 60sm before, due
too many problems that haven`t been fixed yet. It`s all hype no matter what
the sales con-artists are telling the wallets. I have experienced a few very
expensive machines.
Flame away
mike
Puckdropper at dot
news:e4d85aec-42ed-4e68...@n5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> A number of the front load washer manufacturers make pedestals for
> just such a situation, and you should investigate that route before
> committing time and money into building one. They're not cheap, but
> if you keep an eye on eBay and Craigslist you could probably scoop one
> up for a reasonable amount. A drawer in the store-bought pedestal
> base is a major benefit, and the pedestals usually bolt to the
> underside of the machine so there's little danger of the thing walking
> off.
>
> R
A word of caution: Not all pedestals can be mounted to all machines
easily. They intentionally change mounting patterns and the like to keep
this from happening.
We mounted one on the dryer with a help of a couple of drills and sheet
metal screws. It just took a little work.
Puckdropper
Joe >
Shawn--
16' is a good height for me. It leaves just enough room underneath
to store the essentials - and still fit under the cabinet above.
'Beefy' may not be adequate enough without extra support. ;)
It seems that a very thick top helps. My guess is that otherwise it
acts a trampoline.
Mine is double - to hold dryer also. The unt is 32" deep by 61" wide.
I started off with a 2x4 box with 2x4 'studs' every 9" or so.
2 more sets cross the middle with about a foot between them.
---------------------------------
| | | |
|------------|----|--------------|
| | | |
---------------------------------
Top was 3/4 ply. It's on carpet on a concrete slab.
Washer would walk all over. Adjusted feet, great for that load, then it
may or may not walk the next load. Added more 'studs'. No change.
Added another sheet of ply to top and a small piece of trim around
feet to act as a corral - just in case.. The extra ply cured it.
It may be that it's double-wide, but that would seem to make it more
stable, not less.. I don't know how the manufacturers can make them
out of thin steel. The appliances are LG.
Don't consider tile until it's been well tested - if then.
I'm interested in your results.
--Joe
Lew Hodgett
> I will be remodeling my laundry room shortly and will be getting a
> front
> loading washer.
-------------------------------
That's your first mistake IMHO.
Start with a front loader.
You will be much happier.
Lew
Joe >
The diagram works in my text editor, but not in my newsreader.
Just make everything line up.
Shawn--
16' is a good height for me. It leaves just enough room underneath
to store the essentials - and still fit under the cabinet above.
'Beefy' may not be adequate enough without extra support. ;)
It seems that a very thick top helps. My guess is that otherwise it
acts a trampoline.
Mine is double - to hold dryer also. The unt is 32" deep by 61" wide.
I started off with a 2x4 box with 2x4 'studs' every 9" or so.
2 more sets cross the middle with about a foot between them.
---------------------------------
| | | |
|------------|----|--------------|
| | | |
---------------------------------
Top was 3/4 ply. It's on carpet on a concrete slab.
Washer would walk all over. Adjusted feet, great for that load, then it
may or may not walk the next load. Added more 'studs'. No change.
Added another sheet of ply to top and a small piece of trim around
feet to act as a corral - just in case.. The extra ply cured it.
It may be that it's double-wide, but that would seem to make it more
stable, not less.. I don't know how the manufacturers can make them
out of thin steel. The appliances are LG.
Don't consider tile until it's been well tested - if then.
I'm interested in your results.
--Joe
>>>
I will be remodeling my laundry room shortly and will be getting a front
Steve Turner
Lew Hodgett
I wrote:
>> -------------------------------
>> That's your first mistake IMHO.
>>
>> Start with a front loader.
>>
>> You will be much happier.
"Steve Turner" wrote:
>
> Eh?
-----------------------------------
DUH!!!
Try top loader.
Lew
Lee Michaels
"Lew Hodgett" <sails...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4e114d73$0$21306$c3e8da3$a909...@news.astraweb.com...
-------------------
I just figured that you were using a double negative. As in stay the hell
away from those totally hyped front loaders. eh?
Mike Marlow
> I'd think the vibrations of the washer's spin cycle would be pretty
> tough on glue joints, not to mention the problems with exposure to
> water.
Exposure to water???? Ain't supposed to be no exposure to water in your
laundry room.
Today's front loaders don't quake, shake and creep like the the top loaders
used to. Different dynamics.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Mike Marlow
>
> Save your money and time, each wash. Get an old fashioned top load
> and have some actual storage cabinets above it on the wall.
>
> With a top-load washer your clothes will actually get clean in less
> than four hours of waiting without detergent residue to irritate your
> skin. If you want to save water get a suds saver machine. The fad is
> fading, from poor user experience, just as it did back in the 50s and
> 60sm before, due too many problems that haven`t been fixed yet. It`s
> all hype no matter what the sales con-artists are telling the
> wallets. I have experienced a few very expensive machines.
>
> Flame away
>
Not me - I'm not going to flame your comments. We bought a front loader a
few years ago, and if I had to do it again, I'd have a top loader there now.
Front loaders require HE detergents or the tub bearings get eaten alive,
they really do not clean as well as top loaders. But - it's down there in
the laundry room now, and it'll stay there until the time comes when it's
going to cost me money.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Swingman
> Not me - I'm not going to flame your comments. We bought a front loader a
> few years ago, and if I had to do it again, I'd have a top loader there now.
> Front loaders require HE detergents or the tub bearings get eaten alive,
> they really do not clean as well as top loaders. But - it's down there in
> the laundry room now, and it'll stay there until the time comes when it's
> going to cost me money.
Ditto ... last time we bought, about nine years ago, I let LOML make
that decision since she is the one who is doing the washing and she went
for the front loader.
Big mistake. Next time, and it shouldn't be long, it will a top loader,
or it's back to a wash tub and wringer for her. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Hoosierpopi
- the forces are entirely different.
Having said that, think of how a wood floor system is built - maybe 2
x 8 with a three-quarter inch sub-floor and tiled over and build that
and trim out to match your cabinets. Don't over think it, Yes the
washers are HEAVY, but the kid from our local Sears actually lifted it
out to the truck for us! Boy, is he going to have back issues later on
in life!
Get the pair - take your time - look for closeouts. We got the RED one
for $39 (washer) and saw the Dryer go or $199! (Originally $1,100
each!
Han
news:FMidnZxcrMzaIIzT...@giganews.com:
We've had a Kenmore #43142 front loader for 7 1/2 years now. It doesn't
seem to be very highly rated, but we are totally satisfied with it. Having
it on some kind of stand would be nice, though. Of course, it's just the 2
of us, most of the time, although when the family from Somerville, MA
visits, there are 4 more (happy!!!) ...
RonB
> "RimaNeas" wrote in messagenews:iuqpav$vog$1...@dont-email.me...
Not flaming but we have had front-loaders for about a year now and
love them. We have \had them long enough to be sure our water and gas
consumption are down. Wash quality is great. Granted, a year isn't a
valid test of durability. But our daughter's family of seven, who has
been using the Sears front loaders for six years without problem is.
Addressing the OP - We considered building the base for ours before we
started serious shopping. I was concerned about the wear and tear of
spinning. As it turned out, we made a sale deal that was cheap enough
it wasn't worth the time or money to build it.
RonB
Swingman
> We've had a Kenmore #43142 front loader for 7 1/2 years now. It doesn't
> seem to be very highly rated, but we are totally satisfied with it. Having
> it on some kind of stand would be nice, though. Of course, it's just the 2
> of us, most of the time, although when the family from Somerville, MA
> visits, there are 4 more (happy!!!) ...
Youngest daughter, now again at home, came back from five years of
college in 2010 and I swear she's still washing stuff from her freshman
year.
I keep hoping she'll wear the front loader out.
RicodJour
>
> Not flaming but we have had front-loaders for about a year now and
> love them. We have \had them long enough to be sure our water and gas
> consumption are down. Wash quality is great. Granted, a year isn't a
> valid test of durability. But our daughter's family of seven, who has
> been using the Sears front loaders for six years without problem is.
Ditto on the front loader. Works fine, quiet enough, cleans well and
four or five years in. The only thing I find irksome is the beeping
when the load is done doesn't automatically shut off.
> Addressing the OP - We considered building the base for ours before we
> started serious shopping. I was concerned about the wear and tear of
> spinning. As it turned out, we made a sale deal that was cheap enough
> it wasn't worth the time or money to build it.
Another ditto. I used to build everything for every thing, and now I
pick my battles. A washer stand is not high up on the axis of evil
list, so store bought (on sale) it is.
R
Han
news:FaedndK7uJNST4zT...@giganews.com:
> On 7/4/2011 9:04 AM, Han wrote:
>
>> We've had a Kenmore #43142 front loader for 7 1/2 years now. It
>> doesn't seem to be very highly rated, but we are totally satisfied
>> with it. Having it on some kind of stand would be nice, though. Of
>> course, it's just the 2 of us, most of the time, although when the
>> family from Somerville, MA visits, there are 4 more (happy!!!) ...
>
> Youngest daughter, now again at home, came back from five years of
> college in 2010 and I swear she's still washing stuff from her
> freshman year.
>
> I keep hoping she'll wear the front loader out.
I much prefer the stable, fast washing, well centrifuging front loader over
the waltzing matilda (no offense, Oz-dwellers) that was worse in all
respects.
Youngest is on his way back for a week of work up "North" while DIL and 2
sprouts (almost 5, and 6 months) stay with us. That'll mean more work for
the Kenmore, but so what.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<mmarlo...@windstream.net> wrote:
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> I'd think the vibrations of the washer's spin cycle would be pretty
>> tough on glue joints, not to mention the problems with exposure to
>> water.
>
>Exposure to water???? Ain't supposed to be no exposure to water in your
>laundry room.
I suppose there has to be *one* person who's never had a leak or spilled water
in a laundry room.
>Today's front loaders don't quake, shake and creep like the the top loaders
>used to. Different dynamics.
They still vibrate.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<mmarlo...@windstream.net> wrote:
>m II wrote:
>
>>
>> Save your money and time, each wash. Get an old fashioned top load
>> and have some actual storage cabinets above it on the wall.
>>
>> With a top-load washer your clothes will actually get clean in less
>> than four hours of waiting without detergent residue to irritate your
>> skin. If you want to save water get a suds saver machine. The fad is
>> fading, from poor user experience, just as it did back in the 50s and
>> 60sm before, due too many problems that haven`t been fixed yet. It`s
>> all hype no matter what the sales con-artists are telling the
>> wallets. I have experienced a few very expensive machines.
>>
>> Flame away
>>
>
>Not me - I'm not going to flame your comments. We bought a front loader a
>few years ago, and if I had to do it again, I'd have a top loader there now.
That's what I thought when we bought the Whirlpool Cabrio (agitatorless
top-loader). After 3-4 years, its transmission is just about shot (sounds
like jet-powered cement mixer). Evidently it's a *very* common failure and
costs upwards of $700 to fix. It seems all washers are crap anymore.
>Front loaders require HE detergents or the tub bearings get eaten alive,
>they really do not clean as well as top loaders.
Nothing wrong with HE detergents but the tub bearings are a problem with
front-loaders, in any case. That's why I went with the Cabrio. Good plan;
lousy implementation.
>But - it's down there in
>the laundry room now, and it'll stay there until the time comes when it's
>going to cost me money.
Best idea of all.
RimaNeas
price of the factory pedestals at $250 each, seemed silly since I could
build a double-base for $100--I will be building the other cabinets in there
at the same time. But I will look on Ebay for sale items. It also sounds
like I should go M1-Abrams beefy for the cabinet if I make one--double 3/4"
walls, mid-span brace, and a double 3/4" top, bolted to the wall studs on 3
sides. I wonder if I can also just bolt the washer/dryer to the cabinet
from the underside...
Thanks again. Cheer, Shawn.
HeyBub
> I will be remodeling my laundry room shortly and will be getting a
> front loading washer. Given the condition of my back, I am thinking
> about putting it (and the dryer) on a base cabinet to raise it up
> around 14-16 inches. I can easily make the base to match my other
> cabinets.
> Do I need any special design considerations for the base or its top? I
> imagine the appliances would want to walk some, so a lip would be
> in order and the dang things are heavy, but I normally build beefy. I am
> thinking of a tiled top for the cabinet... Any info/experience
> would be appreciated.
Sounds like a plan. I have two suggestions:
1. Overbuild. A washer full of water is VERY heavy. Use screws, glue, and
metal bracing.
2. Plan on a pull-out drawer in the base to store stuff.
ups...@teksavvy.com
>I keep hoping she'll wear the front loader out.
Have a look at "Broken Appliances" under consumer alert, (after the 10
second obligatory advert)
http://toronto.ctv.ca/consumer/#TopVideoAn
Lew Hodgett
------------------------------------------
Build 16" tall stud walls using 2x4's. Add 2x4 joists, then cover with
3/4" ply on both sides and top, but not bottom.
Add 2x2 "fiddles" (Found on marine interior counters as follows:
2x2 x "L" where "L" = appliance dimension - 4".
Add 1/2" carriage bolts inset 2" from end.
Drill 17/32" holes in top to accept bolts.
These "fiddles" can now be dropped in place to retain appliance or
pulled up to make sliding appliance out easier.
Figure on installing some kind of tile on 3/4" ply top since small
foot size on the washer foot will gouge a low point if allowed to bear
directly on plywood.
Alternate to above:
Buy a commercial item, it will be cheaper.
Lew
Lew Hodgett
See bottom of post for comment.
"Lew Hodgett" <sails...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4e1274ec$0$26172$c3e8da3$2e00...@news.astraweb.com...
---------------------------------
The above suggestion is based on building a riser big enough to
support both a washer and dryer.
Lew
RimaNeas
> Sounds like a plan. I have two suggestions:
>
> 1. Overbuild. A washer full of water is VERY heavy. Use screws, glue, and
> metal bracing.
>
> 2. Plan on a pull-out drawer in the base to store stuff.
>
Oh too funny... I had not even thought about the weight of water!! Lets
see, a 4 cf washer can hold .11 cubic meter of water which comes in at
another 220Lb... and if the dryer is full of wet heavy clothes. Yep, that's
heavy. Thanks for pointing that out.
Cheers, Shawn
PS: I will also look up "Marine Fiddles"... thanks.
HeyBub
> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message >
>> Sounds like a plan. I have two suggestions:
>>
>> 1. Overbuild. A washer full of water is VERY heavy. Use screws,
>> glue, and metal bracing.
>>
>> 2. Plan on a pull-out drawer in the base to store stuff.
>>
>
> Oh too funny... I had not even thought about the weight of water!! Lets
> see, a 4 cf washer can hold .11 cubic meter of water which comes
> in at another 220Lb... and if the dryer is full of wet heavy clothes.
> Yep, that's heavy. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
Remember the ditty: "A pint's a pound the world around." Eight pints to a
gallon = 8 pounds.
Or, 4cf washer = 4 x 7.5 gallons/cu ft = 30 gallons x 8pounds/gallon = 240
pounds
Don't forget the basket of dirty clothes sitting on TOP of the washer.
m II
news:CMSdnfwcpqCBao_T...@earthlink.com...
----------------------
Only in the USA
mike
Hoosierpopi
1. Overbuild. A washer full of water is VERY heavy. Use screws, glue,
and metal bracing.
Nah. First off, a FL is NEVER "full of water." No where near it. (One
of the selling points is that they use water sparingly).
The pull out drawer idea is a good one. When pulling clothes out of
the washer, you may drop something - usually whites - and an open
drawer to catch same . . . well, it's a good thing. I got a
commercial base at Lowes for $25 (scratch and dent/closeout something
like that) and stuck it under the old dryer (doesn't fit right, but)
and it's work for a couple years now.
But I will build my own elevated double base when I move the units to
their new location. Try a Torsion Box approach to the top of the new
base. I'll bet one made of crossed half-lapped two by twos sandwiched
between half-inch plywood on top and quarter-inch in the bottom would
be more than sufficient for the 60-inch wide drawer approach. Use two
by twelves along the rear and on each end and Elmer's or similar wood
glue to bind all the members if the torsion top.
I've made similar torsion box "shelves" to hold large TV's using luan
5mm plywood and three quarter-inch white pine ribbs and it works
marvelously - very strong, stable and light weight.
-MIKE-
How's that any different from having a couple people standing close to
one another?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
RicodJour
> On 7/5/11 6:35 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> > RimaNeas wrote:
> >> "HeyBub"<hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message>
> >>> Sounds like a plan. I have two suggestions:
>
> >>> 1. Overbuild. A washer full of water is VERY heavy. Use screws,
> >>> glue, and metal bracing.
>
> >>> 2. Plan on a pull-out drawer in the base to store stuff.
>
> >> Oh too funny... I had not even thought about the weight of water!! Lets
> >> see, a 4 cf washer can hold .11 cubic meter of water which comes
> >> in at another 220Lb... and if the dryer is full of wet heavy clothes.
> >> Yep, that's heavy. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> > Remember the ditty: "A pint's a pound the world around." Eight pints to a
> > gallon = 8 pounds.
>
> > Or, 4cf washer = 4 x 7.5 gallons/cu ft = 30 gallons x 8pounds/gallon = 240
> > pounds
>
> > Don't forget the basket of dirty clothes sitting on TOP of the washer.
>
> How's that any different from having a couple people standing close to
> one another?
...while rhythmically bouncing. ;)
R
RimaNeas
>
> Remember the ditty: "A pint's a pound the world around." Eight pints to a
> gallon = 8 pounds.
>
> Or, 4cf washer = 4 x 7.5 gallons/cu ft = 30 gallons x 8pounds/gallon = 240
> pounds
>
> Don't forget the basket of dirty clothes sitting on TOP of the washer.
>
Absolutely... I just took 10% of 1 metric ton instead of the 11%.... then
again the washer can only take 3.7 cuft so it all works out. Not much of a
defense actually, since I had not even thought of the water weight
originally :-)
RicodJour
Ummm...the 3.7 CF is the overall volume of clothes, not the volume of
water. Read the specs on your machine - it'll tell you how much water
it uses per wash, then divide that in two (wash/rinse) and you'll know
the rough amount of water inside at a given time in the cycle.
R
George W Frost
"RimaNeas" <Rima...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iuvulh$fuk$1...@dont-email.me...
very confusing because at school were always taught that there were 10
pounds in a gallon of water at 62 degrees fahrenheit at 30" of mercury air
pressure
But, that was probably because we were taught in the imperial measurements
where we get more mileage out of our gallon than the yanks
RicodJour
> "RimaNeas" <RimaN...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> gallon = 8 pounds.
>
> >> Or, 4cf washer = 4 x 7.5 gallons/cu ft = 30 gallons x 8pounds/gallon =
> >> 240 pounds
>
> >> Don't forget the basket of dirty clothes sitting on TOP of the washer.
>
> > Absolutely... I just took 10% of 1 metric ton instead of the 11%.... then
> > again the washer can only take 3.7 cuft so it all works out. Not much of
> > a defense actually, since I had not even thought of the water weight
> > originally :-)
>
> very confusing because at school were always taught that there were 10
> pounds in a gallon of water at 62 degrees fahrenheit at 30" of mercury air
> pressure
> But, that was probably because we were taught in the imperial measurements
> where we get more mileage out of our gallon than the yanks
We wear ten gallon hats - a hundred pound hat would just be too heavy.
R
George W Frost
"RicodJour" <rico...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7b995f20-dc5f-492a...@e7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
R
******************
Shirley you jest sir,!
I have heard that a lot of Yankees are big headed
enough for a 100 pound hat
Eric
"George W Frost" wrote in message
news:THYQp.8050$CS3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
Shirley you jest sir,!
I have heard that a lot of Yankees are big headed
enough for a 100 pound hat
===================
"Yankee"???
Isn't that when you can't wait for a "nooner" and you are alone?
--
Eric
Scott Lurndal
>On Jul 4, 6:10=A0pm, "RimaNeas" <RimaN...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:CMSdnfwcpqCBao_T...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>
>>
> a
>> > gallon =3D 8 pounds.
>>
>> > Or, 4cf washer =3D 4 x 7.5 gallons/cu ft =3D 30 gallons x 8pounds/gallo=
>n =3D 240
>> > pounds
>>
>> > Don't forget the basket of dirty clothes sitting on TOP of the washer.
>>
>hen
>> again the washer can only take 3.7 cuft so it all works out. =A0Not much =
>of a
>> defense actually, since I had not even thought of the water weight
>> originally :-)
>
>Ummm...the 3.7 CF is the overall volume of clothes, not the volume of
>water. Read the specs on your machine - it'll tell you how much water
>it uses per wash, then divide that in two (wash/rinse) and you'll know
>the rough amount of water inside at a given time in the cycle.
>
Yes, my bosch front-loader doesn't have more than three gallons of water
present at any one time. All the water is held by the clothing, very
little is present in the drum. Certainly well below the level of the
door.
These aren't the old front-loaders where the water level was at the top
of the window on the door. You won't see the water level at all.
scott
HeyBub
Could be. In this case, however, I'm sure "yankee" is the second and third
syllable of the word whose use decorum discourages.