Episode 8 Watchdog Test House

Take a look around your home.

Can you be sure that every appliance is safe?

Is everything a company tells you about a product true?

And are you getting the best value for your money?

With the help of the country's top experts, we're going to see

what it takes to test the household products we use every day.

We'll discover how they're pushed to their limits.

We'll put the makers' claims on trial.

And show you how to make your money go further.

You'll find these products in any ordinary house.

But this is no ordinary house.

And no ordinary street.

This is the Watchdog Test House.

Hello. We're deep inside

one of Britain's leading science centres.

Here at the Building Research Establishment

some of the products and materials

that we use every day are put to the test.

To make sure that they're safe, environmentally friendly

and that they don't fall apart.

Coming up on today's programme...

It was thick, black smoke

and there was flames coming out of the back of the machine.

It's the appliance most likely to cause a fire when faulty.

So how does the latest testing ensure washing machines are safe?

Confused by all those kitchen roll claims?

You see it's wettable, wringable, strong as bull!

We put three big brands through their paces.

And more cars, but fewer deaths.

All thanks to this superhuman device - the crash-test dummy.

Washing machines. Arguably the most essential item in the home.

But also the most likely to cause a fire.

There were more than 3,500 fires

triggered by faulty domestic appliances last year

and one in seven of them was caused by a washing machine.

And if it does go up in flames, the consequences can be pretty scary.

It was black smoke throughout the kitchen...and there was flames.

I didn't even think there was that much that could go wrong with

a washing machine.

One Saturday morning, Debbie McFadden was doing the family's

weekly wash when her machine developed a problem.

I put the washing on.

As I come down the stairs, I could smell burning.

Like a rubber smell.

Then I went into the kitchen, and the kitchen was full of smoke.

So I've gone to the washing machine, unplugged it from the socket...

Debbie then went out into the garden to hang out the wet washing.

By unplugging the machine she thought she'd made it safe.

But she was wrong.

As I come back in, it was thick, black smoke

and there was flames that was coming out of the back of the machine.

And my first thought was just get it out the house.

And as I pulled it out it was absolutely boiling.

I burnt my fingertips and part of my hand.

Debbie had no option but to get out of the house.

By the time the fire brigade put out the flames,

the damage had already been done.

The kitchen floor was burnt.

Obviously the washing machine was melted.

The whole bottom part of the washing machine was totally welded.

Debbie and her daughter Rachel, who was also in the house at the time,

were unharmed.

But it could have been so much worse.

We were lucky because normally I would have put it on at night

and gone to bed.

Or I put it on and go shopping.

Now, I don't have any of them on at all unless I'm downstairs.

I wouldn't even go up and have a bath

and leave the washing machine on.

Debbie contacted the manufacturer,

who immediately replaced the machine.

They've since told us that the fire was a result of a fault with

the heating element inside the machine which caused it to overheat.

So what is it about a washing machine that makes it

the appliance most likely to catch fire when faulty?

Washing machines, like all mechanical items, can be

a dangerous product.

In washing machines we have a combination of mechanical

action, electricity and water.

And those three factors,

if not controlled correctly, can possibly lead to a fire.

Especially when some of the machines are very, very, low cost,

which often means components may not be up to the standard

we would particularly like.

But, of course, it's also one of the most common appliances.

And with millions of machines in homes across the UK,

and fewer than 600 reported fires last year caused by faults,

the chances of this happening to you are actually pretty rare.

That's not to say a washing machine can't develop other problems.

They can flood. Or even explode. So the challenge for manufacturers

is to reduce these risks whilst keeping machines affordable.

And how do they do that? With thorough testing.

Later we'll be heading to the UK National Standards Body to

witness just how rigorously washing machines are put

through their paces before they come on to the market.

Now, any idea what "duralock" is?

How about "unique pocket technology"? No?

Well, it's all to do with this, the humble kitchen roll.

They're just some of the confusing words companies use to

encourage you to buy their brand.

But is there any difference between their product

and the cheapest one on the market which makes no such claims?

Time to put them to the test.

Yes, Sophie, the trusty kitchen towel.

From spillages and food prep, to cleaning windows

and scrubbing carpets, it's long been a household essential.

'Thirst Pockets are super-absorbent.

'They have exceptional pocket technology

'and each sheet rapidly absorbs spills and locks in moisture.'

Exceptional pocket technology? Sounds impressive!

But I'm not sure I quite understand it.

Any more than I understand this.

'You see it's wettable, wringable, strong as bull!'

So, with so many manufacturers now making bold claims, how do you

decide which one to buy?

Value for money would be the first priority.

Quality. I suppose. Durability and price.

Absorbency?

One that doesn't fall apart when I use it.

Not a lot to ask, is it?

Time to cut through the advertising jargon to find out exactly

what it is you're getting for your money.

We've chosen the three kitchen rolls we could

find in the supermarket that make the strongest claims.

Those are...

The Thirst Pockets Super Absorbent, which claims to have

"unique pocket technology" and the power of an elephant

in just one sheet, and costs 1½ pence per towel.

Plenty Original.

At 1.9 pence per sheet, this claims to come with "duralock",

which they say enables you to "rinse and re-use".

And ASDA's own brand, Shades Power Towels.

This costs 1.6 pence per sheet and boasts that they are even

stronger than the leading brand, which is Plenty.

Our fourth roll is the cheapest we could find.

At just half a penny per sheet,

this one makes absolutely no claims whatsoever.

Got all that? Good. Let's start testing.

We've come to Surrey Quays shopping centre in east London.

Which kitchen towel do the public prefer?

Starting with the touch test.

-It's definitely this one.

-This one's quite rough.

That feels OK.

We asked 20 people to rate each roll on how they thought it felt.

One rated the basic product as the best.

Four voted Thirst Pockets as their favourite.

Five voted for Plenty.

But top of the touch test with 10 out of 20 votes was ASDA Shades.

I didn't see that coming.

On to our next challenge - absorbency and durability.

For this test, we set up a table with four different lanes.

In each lane we pour an equal amount of blue water.

Our 20 testers then use one sheet of each roll to wipe up each spill

and vote on which product they felt did the best job.

And to make sure the test is fair,

they each have ten seconds to wipe up the water spill.

Come on, put some elbow grease into it.

Definitely not that one.

That's not bad.

-A?

-It's B.

Surprisingly, A.

I'd buy the D.

-It's A.

-D was the best.

Good news for ASDA fans - their brand has come top again.

Really?

Really? Wow.

In second place was Plenty, in third was Thirst Pockets,

and in last place was the cheapest roll that made no claims.

So the people have spoken. And if you haven't got it by now,

across all our tests the kitchen towel they felt performed

the best overall - drum roll please -

ASDA Shades Power Towels!

Out of the 20 people we asked, ASDA Shades got 11 votes.

Plenty Original got five votes,

and Thirst Pockets got four votes.

As for the cheapest brand - the one with no claims - it scored

a big fat zero.

But that's just public opinion - what about a more scientific one?

We're heading to the lab, where Kate Leach, an expert in paper science,

will be putting the four towels through their paces.

It'll be interesting to see what the results of this are,

because to be honest,

even I don't know how they're going to fare against each other.

She's excited, I'm excited, I hope you are.

Join us later to find out the results.

Most products that we use every day are constantly being improved

and made safer as a result of testing.

And the motor industry has made great strides.

In fact there's one figure who's done more for human safety

than even Lynn Faulds Wood.

The crash-test dummy.

-LYNN FAULDS WOOD ON TV:

-'Welcome to Watchdog. In tonight's programme,

'all these people have written to us...'

MUSIC: "Blue Danube Waltz" Johann Strauss

The crash-test dummy.

A superhuman feat of engineering that's been saving lives

for 65 years.

It's helped researchers predict how much force can hit the human body

in an accident.

It's helped car manufacturers to do exhaustive testing

and it's helped us to be much, much safer in our cars today.

Just take a look at this footage.

A head-on collision between a classic American car

from the '50s and a modern vehicle.

If these had been people without seat belts

and airbags, the driver of the classic car would have died.

But with the benefit of decades of crash-test research,

the driver of the modern car could have walked away.

'Over now to New Mexico.'

In the early days of research,

manufacturers thought there was little they could do

to protect people in a crash.

Research was mainly done by the military

and volunteers, like US Air Force Colonel John Stapp.

Here he is, test running a rocket-powered sled designed

to simulate the forces hitting the body in a crash.

'At 421mph, the sled speeds along the track.

'The jolt of starting off is equal to driving into a brick wall

'at 120mph.'

Despite his extreme bravery, there is of course only so far you can

take testing when experimenting with real human volunteers.

ROCK 'N' ROLL MUSIC

But then there was a breakthrough in the form of Sierra Sam.

Made of rubber and steel and modelled on an average pilot,

Sam was built for the US Air Force to test ejection seats,

helmets and harnesses.

But the car industry soon adopted him as the first crash-test dummy.

His role was to show where a body would travel

and what it might hit in a crash.

Your chance of survival, if you're ejected from a moving vehicle

during the accident, is very slight.

At this stage, they weren't necessarily

looking at the likelihood or level of injuries or level of injuries...

It was all about the space around drivers -

whether they'd stay in it and how it would collapse around them.

So it was thanks to Sam that cars began to be designed with

reinforced areas around occupants

and crumple zones designed to absorb the force of the crash.

But there was only so much

they could learn from what was essentially a lump of rubber.

As cars became more affordable and road deaths increased,

it was clear a new solution was needed to improve survival chances.

MUSIC: "Be My Baby" The Ronettes

That came in the form of dummies with articulated joints

that could sit behind the wheel like a human.

For the first time, they were wired with scientific instruments.

This allowed manufacturers to study the impact of a crash

on the body itself and led to perhaps the greatest

advance in car safety, the three-point seat belt.

Although it wasn't made compulsory here until 1981,

it's estimated this single invention may have saved 60,000 lives.

But if more progress was going to be made, car makers had to

agree on one dummy that could be used across the industry.

So wherever the test will be carried out, you know

the dummy is going to perform in exactly the same way,

so that we're all testing to the same level.

MUSIC: "Heart Of Glass" Blondie

It wasn't until 1971, that car makers agreed the Hybrid model

would become the standard dummy.

It was tweaked and improved until 1977, the year it became Hybrid III.

Reliable crash after crash,

it remains the dummy of choice around the world to this day.

We can remove the back of the head off...

Although the Hybrid III is not actually human -

the advanced scientific devices in its head...

..that is where we have our accelerometers...

to assess the injury level for head impacts.

..chest and even its thighs can provide manufacturers with

detailed information as to what would happen to your organs

and bones on impact, so they were able to come up with ever

more sophisticated ways of protecting them in a crash.

MUSIC: "Blue Monday" New Order

The work of Hybrid III led to the development of airbags

in the '80s and '90s.

And by now, he had a family - a smaller wife and children.

Other dummies came along to test specific types of collision.

The side-impact dummy led to side impact air bags.

And researchers studying whiplash

use the biofidelic, rear-impact dummy.

Dummies have even been used to test safety on trains.

But they don't come cheap,

with today's standard dummy costing £100,000.

It's fair to say the crash-test dummy has been the most

extraordinary success story.

In 1960, over 50 years ago,

nearly 7,000 people died on our roads.

By 2012, although we've got ten times the number of cars out

there, deaths were down by almost three-quarters.

That's not at all bad for a dummy.

Portable radios, remote controls, torches - they all need batteries.

But which type should you buy? Lithium or alkaline?

Rechargeable or disposable?

Brand or non-branded? It's hard to know.

So what do the tests show to be good value for money?

Richard Headland from Which is here.

We've got some battery-powered items in front of us.

When you look at the array of batteries on offer now, it can be

quite baffling, and the price difference can be quite big.

Absolutely.

There's a massive difference between cheap and expensive batteries,

between disposable and rechargeable batteries.

But even if you're just looking at disposables,

there's two main types to choose from. Alkaline,

which tend to be cheaper, and lithium batteries which are more

expensive that have come out in recent years.

What is the difference between lithium and alkaline batteries?

Lithium batteries are ideal

if you have a flash in your digital camera that uses a lot of power.

A lithium battery will last longer in that scenario.

But for these kind of items, which are relatively low or medium

drain, you'll be fine using alkaline batteries.

There are some very well known brands out there.

Compared to the non-brands, how do they stand up?

We tend to find that the big brands perform

best in our tests for absolute longevity of life.

But the non-brand batteries are very good value

when you look at them in terms of how much you pay per hour.

You may have to change them more frequently than you do with the big

brands, but they're still pretty good in terms of overall battery life.

What about rechargeable batteries? Is that worth it?

Rechargeables are worth it

if you have lots of battery-powered things in your home.

Kids' toys use a lot of batteries.

So in our tests we found that

if you bought four rechargeable AA batteries, plus a charger,

and you charge them 100 times, that would cost about £90,

whereas if you bought 400 AA batteries, disposable ones,

that's going to cost you at least £170.

So quite a big difference.

Richard, thank you.

Back now to our kitchen rolls and those confusing claims.

Earlier we saw 10 out of 20 members of the public rate this

product, ASDA Shades, the best when it came to strength and absorbency.

But were they right?

To find out we're taking our paper towels to the lab.

First a quick reminder of our four contenders.

The Thirst Pocket Super Absorbent at 1½ pence per towel.

Plenty Original. They cost 1.9p per sheet.

And of course that ASDA Shades Power Towels.

They cost 1.6 pence per sheet.

We're also comparing those to a very basic towel - the cheapest

we could find - at just half a penny a sheet.

This one makes absolutely NO claims.

ASDA Shades might have won over the public.

But how will they all perform in the lab?

The two main things they tend to brag about

in their advertising is the strength and absorbency.

So it makes sense that we should test them for ourselves.

Good idea. Let's get to it.

Kate starts by cutting each sheet into strips of equal width

and equal length.

First up, it's the strength test.

It'll be interesting to see what the results of this test are because, to

be honest, even I don't know how they'll fare against each other.

Kate doesn't want to make it too easy, so she wets the strips first.

She then hangs them from this bar with crocodile clips and attaches

plastic cups which she will load up with an equal number marbles.

The last one to break is the winner.

It does emulate quite nicely the tensile tests

they would actually do in industry to check how strong these

products were from a quality control perspective.

So here come the marbles!

OK, I'll count the marbles out

and I'm going to start by putting five in each one to start off with.

Because these things can be quite strong.

The first to go is our cheapest product,

the one which makes no claims.

-It breaks after just five marbles.

-Oh!

Next, it's Thirst Pockets.

It survives 20 marbles. But ASDA Shades Power isn't far behind.

Despite claiming to be stronger than the leading brand -

Plenty - it falls after 23 marbles.

And in fact Plenty Original is our strength test winner,

holding on in there with an impressive 32 marbles.

So the best one we found was the Plenty Original,

the next one was the ASDA one, not the Thirst Pockets.

The Thirst Pockets was closely behind,

and bottom of the pack was the basic range,

which is what we'd kind of expect, I'd have thought.

Time now for the absorbency test.

How much cranberry juice can each of the kitchen rolls soak up.

And how quickly?

We're going to look a rate and capacity of absorbency.

These are terms that we use in the trade, and all they mean

is the speed at which we can suck up the liquid that we're trying

to mop up, and the total quantity that can be sucked up altogether.

In other words - which towel sucks up the most

liquid at the fastest speed?

-And they're off.

-They're all very evenly matched in terms of rate.

And capacity, we're looking at the Plenty

and the ASDA premium being pretty much neck and neck.

Followed by the basic brand.

And then Thirst Pockets is just marginally behind.

So the winner?

The market leader again - the Plenty Original which sucked up

the MOST liquid, closely followed by the ASDA Shades Power Towels -

the people's favourite - or at least the 20 we asked.

But the surprising result here is that the cheapest paper towel -

the one which makes no claims - didn't come last in our test.

That honour went to Thirst Pockets who,

despite boasting of the power of an elephant in one sheet,

sucked up the least liquid. You could call that the elephant in the room.

So the one we found that was the least,

had the least capacity and the slowest rate of absorbency,

was actually the Thirst Pockets -

which is the product which brands itself on being able to shlurp up

all the spills we have at home, which is quite surprising really.

The makers of Thirst Pockets told us they aim to provide

performance AND value for money, and that in their own extensive

testing, their product performed above other economy ranges.

They add the brand has recently been taken over by a new

manufacturer, who will be investing to improve the product further.

So come on, Kate, don't keep us in suspense.

Across all our tests, how did each of the rolls do?

We sawn that the Plenty was slightly better than the others.

Closely followed, really, by the ASDA premium brand,

there really wasn't much in it in most of the tests we did.

The Thirst Pockets were definitely third

and in some cases actually fourth.

The basic range was by far the weakest

but had quite good absorbency rate and capacity

which as consumers we tend to care about quite a lot.

But then if we factor in the price of these things,

the basics is so much cheaper than the rest

that really it doesn't really justify the difference

in strength and capacity there is

between that one and the premium brands or the branded brands.

Back now to washing machines -

The appliance most likely to cause a fire when faulty.

It makes the testing a washing machine goes through

before it comes onto the market all the more important.

So how high are the standards?

And how strict are the safety tests?

Well, this is the place to find out.

The British Standards Institution.

It's not just one of the country's leading independent testing

facilities, it's also responsible for the national safety standards.

Although the manufacturers of washings machines

don't HAVE to meet the standards, nearly all do, as a way of ensuring

their products comply with safety laws.

Now it's fair to say testing a washing machine

to British Standards takes some time.

Testing a washing machine comprises some 31 different series of tests.

Typically a full set of tests would take us two to three weeks.

So today we've asked Graham to take us through the highlights

on a typical mid-range product currently on the market.

First we're going to need some laundry -

and if we're talking British Standards,

you can't just use any old washing.

What we have here is the standard test cloth.

So it's a very specific dry textile material.

What we have here is 8kg of it,

which is the maximum load for the machine we're looking at today.

Graham's team then rig the machine up

with a whole host of electronic sensors,

they turn on the machine on and wait to see what happens.

We monitor lots and lots of different temperatures -

of motors, of insulation, of switches, of safety components.

And we check that none of those components

exceed their permitted maximum temperature.

They monitor the machine over three wash cycles

whilst checking for any signs that the parts are overheating.

So far, so good, but time to take it up a notch.

It's the electrics next, and the machine is about to be

subjected to a short, sharp shock.

For 60 seconds, 1,000 volts is pumped through the machine -

four times the normal mains supply.

Will it survive without any of the wires or insulation failing?

Of course it does.

Next up, that all-important test -

whether the machine can withstand fire.

This is what we call a glow-wire test.

It's a test we apply to non-metallic materials

which are likely to be exposed to abnormal heat or flame.

Graham and his team take a square piece of plastic

from the washing machine and attach it to the glow rig.

The whole point of it is if you have a bad connection

or electrical fault, the plastic doesn't deteriorate or spread fire

that which actually generate into a bigger fire in your kitchen.

If the material burns, it's only allowed to burn for 30 seconds.

It has to self-extinguish.

If it doesn't burn at all, that's a pass.

Again, this typical mid-range machine passes the test.

So far, we've seen a snapshot of the electrical

and heat tests carried out.

But what about the mechanics?

Graham's turning his attention to the door.

In the past when these types of machines were first invented

they didn't have door locks and interlocks

and there were instances where children climbed inside

tumble dryers and washing machines and harmed themselves.

So in response, the industry's improved standards.

So the test here is to see whether you could accidentally open

the door using reasonable force when it's supposed to be locked.

The team first measure the force to open the door normally.

Then they multiply that by ten, to a maximum of 50 newtons,

to make absolutely certain the door can't be opened

when the lock is engaged.

It's really quite important that when the machine's

full of hot water and spinning, it shouldn't be opened accidentally.

Despite all this testing, just like any appliance,

things can still go wrong. So the testers need to plan for this too.

It's something they call "abnormal operation".

So for this test, they flood the machine.

The test we're doing here is an overflow test.

We've actually broken the valve which normally controls

the water coming into the machine - we've physically broken it.

That means when we try to fill the machine up, it will carry on,

it won't ever stop. And we suspect it will overflow.

We don't know what will happen yet.

But what we're checking is that the water doesn't overflow

to a point where it gets onto any electrical parts,

and could present an electrical hazard.

In other words, if the machine fails, it must fail safely.

So how will ours perform?

It starts to fill up as expected.

Only after a couple of minutes, it stops.

It turns out this is a very clever machine.

So it's trying to avoid flooding your house by draining itself.

This is going very well.

It's an excellent result. This is fine. It's a good pass.

Our machine has survived high voltages, extreme heat

and even flooding.

It's passed with flying colours. That's not always the case, though.

The majority of the products submitted to us

don't pass first time.

So we test products, we find the faults,

the manufacturers fix them, we test them again,

until the end they reach a conclusion where the product

actually passes the entire standard.

If you want more information on the safety

of products in your home, you can go to our website.

That's all for today. Thanks for watching.