New domestic toilets - small cistern - WTF

New domestic toilets - small cistern - WTF

Author
Discussion

fatboy b

Original Poster:

9,500 posts

217 months

Wednesday 23rd May 2007
quotequote all
Just getting our bathrooms redone - incl new furniture. The old toilets that were taken out held 9 litres of water in the cistern, and would generally get rid of the bowl contents in one flush - occasionally 2 (maybe after a curry smile ).



The new ones are 6 litres "to help conserve water". WTF! It now takes 3-4 flushes to rid the bowl contents. That equals 18-24 litres, as opposed to 9, but sometimes 18. Where's the sense there!

confused

fatboy b

Original Poster:

9,500 posts

217 months

Wednesday 23rd May 2007
quotequote all
miniman said:
3-4 flushes? yikes What the are you eating?!
Yeah - it's worrying isn't it.

fatboy b

Original Poster:

9,500 posts

217 months

Wednesday 23rd May 2007
quotequote all
ATG said:
If your toilet is perfectly installed so that the u-bend drains very "cleanly" into the soil pipe with the appropriate siphoning etc, then the flow from the small cistern works OK. But back on planet Earth, where the bog is often attached to the soil pipe by a horizontal run and a bend or two, and the bog doesn't siphon properly when it flushes, then the small cisterns are a complete waste of time.
Yep - think that's my problem. It does a 90 left behind the loo, then a shallow run to the main house soil pipe ( about 4 ft), then a 90 right, then a run of about 1 ft, then into the outside verticle pipe.



ATG said:
What is particularly stupid is that if you sell someone a larger cistern, and it turns out the bog flushes perfectly well with a reduced volume, the plumber can always reduce the large cistern's working volume by putting a couple of house bricks in the bottom of it and adjusting the ballcock so it doesn't fill to the brim. Given the choice, who wouldn't choose to save a few quid each year by making a simple adjustment to their cistern?
Exactly!

fatboy b

Original Poster:

9,500 posts

217 months

Wednesday 23rd May 2007
quotequote all
Andy Zarse said:
I defy anything a ringpiece can throw at it to never need two flushes. It laughs in the face of curry, kebabs, fry ups, and people who say things like "I must have had a dirty pint last night". It eats "foot long monsters" for breakfast. And it also has the benefit of making one sit up straight thereby allowing a longer period for reading and reflection before the blood cuts off to your legs.



These modern loos are an absolute disgrace. You sit too low down for a start and consequently you're positioned too far back on the seat. The result is that upon making egress from your "gentlemen's passage", your turd/diarrhoea (delete as diet and drinking habits dictate) tends to smear itself down that back of the pan. This is fine if you are German, but for the rest of us, one is thus forced to give the porcelain a good toilet brushing if one is to avoid castigation from the missus/vicar. The force of the flush is generally woeful, many's the time I've had to enlist the aid of a length of two-be-one to chop up a log that a weak flush can't deal with. Indeed in an hotel I once had to call to call Room Service to ask for someone to come and "mash it up".



I'll stick with my "Thunderer" thanks.
OK, OK I'm jealous. My flush barely smooths the surface of a turd after a night on the Abbot Ale!