Low flow toilets

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
less then $100 is a lot of money? There are many toliets that use the new design and work well.

And toliet makers knew for a long time low flow was coming. They fought it and then put their heads in the sand. It was not until Toto made a very simple desgin change and the low flows work just as well as before. Toto does not need the pressure assist and other things you bring up. They just did a simple redesign and it works. I know my new one uses this design and has never had any issue.
Click to expand...

Compared to $20, yes, $60, $70, or $80 is a lot of money.

You call Toto's design change "simple". It's easy to call something "simple" after the fact. After all, the changes that the Wright Brothers made to the design of their aircraft's wings were technically "simple" changes. It took them a lot of work with a wind tunnel to figure out what to do, but the changes were still small and simple.

I'm also curious, when did Toto make these design changes? 1994? Or a few years later, which would mean that the technology was still immature in 1994 when the mandate took effect.

You also don't address the core of my argument: That the proper means of encouraging resource conservation is to increase the taxation of that resource rather than mandating items that use that resource more efficiently. Notice how much more effective high gasoline prices are at driving people towards both fuel-efficient cars and to more fuel-efficient habits. High gasoline prices do far more to reduce the use of gasoline than CAFE requirements do. Similarly, increasing the cost of water would do much more to drive the use of water-saving appliances and the adoption of water-conscious habits.

Increasing the cost of water would have driven people to low-flow toilets anyway and would have increased consumer options by allowing intermediate toilets. People who felt that 1.6 gallons per flush were inadequate might then have had the option of 2.5 gallon per flush toilets that they might have liked. This would have reduced the number of people clinging to the older 3.5 gallon toilets and could have reduced water usage even more.

ZV
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
less then $100 is a lot of money? There are many toliets that use the new design and work well.

And toliet makers knew for a long time low flow was coming. They fought it and then put their heads in the sand. It was not until Toto made a very simple desgin change and the low flows work just as well as before. Toto does not need the pressure assist and other things you bring up. They just did a simple redesign and it works. I know my new one uses this design and has never had any issue.
Click to expand...

Compared to $20, yes, $60, $70, or $80 is a lot of money.

You call Toto's design change "simple". It's easy to call something "simple" after the fact. After all, the changes that the Wright Brothers made to the design of their aircraft's wings were technically "simple" changes. It took them a lot of work with a wind tunnel to figure out what to do, but the changes were still small and simple.

I'm also curious, when did Toto make these design changes? 1994? Or a few years later, which would mean that the technology was still immature in 1994 when the mandate took effect.

You also don't address the core of my argument: That the proper means of encouraging resource conservation is to increase the taxation of that resource rather than mandating items that use that resource more efficiently. Notice how much more effective high gasoline prices are at driving people towards both fuel-efficient cars and to more fuel-efficient habits. High gasoline prices do far more to reduce the use of gasoline than CAFE requirements do. Similarly, increasing the cost of water would do much more to drive the use of water-saving appliances and the adoption of water-conscious habits.

Increasing the cost of water would have driven people to low-flow toilets anyway and would have increased consumer options by allowing intermediate toilets. People who felt that 1.6 gallons per flush were inadequate might then have had the option of 2.5 gallon per flush toilets that they might have liked. This would have reduced the number of people clinging to the older 3.5 gallon toilets and could have reduced water usage even more.

ZV
Click to expand...


Where could you buy a toilet for $20? I was talking about buying a new GOOD design toilet for less then $100. I can also rebuild my low flow toilet for less then $20. So what was your point again?

And toilet makers did not even try to design a new toilet. They just reducded the amount of water and put it back on the market. the Toto design was done by 1 person who looked at it and engineered it to work with less water.

Raise the price of water? You do understand we use water for more then JUST the toilet right? And this would still not address the issue of toilet makers sitting on their butts and not redesigning the toilet. Let alone you were so worried about people paying $20+ but don;t mind them paying more for water. :confused:
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Raise the price of water? You do understand we use water for more then JUST the toilet right?
Click to expand...

Yes, water is used for more than toilets. Which is why focusing on reducing toilet flushes by two gallons per flush while people put hundreds or thousands of gallons on their grass in order to comply with city lawn ordinances.

Talk about a waste of resources. We use hundreds of millions of gallons of water on the grass to make it green because the city gets pissed off about brown grass, then we use up millions of gallons of gas every summer in to chop that grass up.

Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Raise the price of water? You do understand we use water for more then JUST the toilet right?
Click to expand...

Yes, water is used for more than toilets. Which is why focusing on reducing toilet flushes by two gallons per flush while people put hundreds or thousands of gallons on their grass in order to comply with city lawn ordinances.

Talk about a waste of resources. We use hundreds of millions of gallons of water on the grass to make it green because the city gets pissed off about brown grass, then we use up millions of gallons of gas every summer in to chop that grass up.

Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.
Click to expand...

That would be local law, low flow was Fed.

I don;t know any city that would come after someone for brown lawn. Now a HOA yea, they even tried to come after me in my wifes last place.

Cities seem to be more worried about the height of the grass/weeds. Not the color.

 
Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Where could you buy a toilet for $20? I was talking about buying a new GOOD design toilet for less then $100. I can also rebuild my low flow toilet for less then $20. So what was your point again?

And toilet makers did not even try to design a new toilet. They just reducded the amount of water and put it back on the market. the Toto design was done by 1 person who looked at it and engineered it to work with less water.

Raise the price of water? You do understand we use water for more then JUST the toilet right? And this would still not address the issue of toilet makers sitting on their butts and not redesigning the toilet. Let alone you were so worried about people paying $20+ but don;t mind them paying more for water. :confused:
Click to expand...

Considering that I was talking about replacing every internal piece of the toilet, I assumed, logically, that your "less than $100" comment applied to a similar operation on a low-flow. Your inability to clearly state your topic is not my concern.

So, toilet makers didn't even try to design a new toilet? Then what did Toto do? The one person who designed it wasn't an employee of Toto? And you still didn't answer my question of when this "simple change" occurred. If it occurred after 1994, then it would seem to indicate that the technology was immature and that the advance came only after there had been enough time to observe the drawbacks in actual use and refine the design.

I'm not worried about someone having to pay $20+ to fix a toilet. I simply pointed out that being inexpensive to repair was one of the advantages that traditional toilets held over pressure-assist designs. Surely you're not claiming that pressure-assist designs are simpler and cheaper than traditional designs.

Of course I realise that water is used for more than just the toilet. That's precisely why increasing the tax on water would drive far more conservation than merely mandating low-flow toilets ever will. Increased water costs would drive people to install low-flow faucets and shower heads. It would drive people to make their showers shorter. It would discourage people from excessively watering their lawns. It would drive conservation in all aspects and encourage behavioral changes. As it is, people still leave the faucet run when brushing their teeth, take 30-minute showers, etc. If the true desire is to reduce the consumption of a resource (in this case water) then the most effective means of achieving that reduction in usage is to increase the price of that resource.

ZV
 
F

Fiat1

Senior member
Dec 27, 2003
880
0
0
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
Get one of these , and your toilet woes will be over.

Read some reviews of the Toto Drake and see for yourself.
Click to expand...

****** Recommended (have one and washes all your troubles down the drain)
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Where could you buy a toilet for $20? I was talking about buying a new GOOD design toilet for less then $100. I can also rebuild my low flow toilet for less then $20. So what was your point again?

And toilet makers did not even try to design a new toilet. They just reducded the amount of water and put it back on the market. the Toto design was done by 1 person who looked at it and engineered it to work with less water.

Raise the price of water? You do understand we use water for more then JUST the toilet right? And this would still not address the issue of toilet makers sitting on their butts and not redesigning the toilet. Let alone you were so worried about people paying $20+ but don;t mind them paying more for water. :confused:
Click to expand...

Considering that I was talking about replacing every internal piece of the toilet, I assumed, logically, that your "less than $100" comment applied to a similar operation on a low-flow. Your inability to clearly state your topic is not my concern.

So, toilet makers didn't even try to design a new toilet? Then what did Toto do? The one person who designed it wasn't an employee of Toto? And you still didn't answer my question of when this "simple change" occurred. If it occurred after 1994, then it would seem to indicate that the technology was immature and that the advance came only after there had been enough time to observe the drawbacks in actual use and refine the design.

I'm not worried about someone having to pay $20+ to fix a toilet. I simply pointed out that being inexpensive to repair was one of the advantages that traditional toilets held over pressure-assist designs. Surely you're not claiming that pressure-assist designs are simpler and cheaper than traditional designs.

Of course I realise that water is used for more than just the toilet. That's precisely why increasing the tax on water would drive far more conservation than merely mandating low-flow toilets ever will. Increased water costs would drive people to install low-flow faucets and shower heads. It would drive people to make their showers shorter. It would discourage people from excessively watering their lawns. It would drive conservation in all aspects and encourage behavioral changes. As it is, people still leave the faucet run when brushing their teeth, take 30-minute showers, etc. If the true desire is to reduce the consumption of a resource (in this case water) then the most effective means of achieving that reduction in usage is to increase the price of that resource.

ZV
Click to expand...


It was a single line...

"less then $100 is a lot of money? There are many toliets that use the new design and work well."

It should be clear i was talking about a toilet, I put a break after that line.

So makers have to wait for the law to change then adjust later? So car compaines should just keep making the same car after a rule changes and wait to see what happens? That is what toilet makers did. They put money into paying off republicans and tried to get the law changed in the late 90's. It did not work and they had to use somebody elses design. It did not cost anything extra, as you tried to tie in, and works. The replacment parts are also cheap.

Now if you want to talk water conservation that is a another issue. As current toilets show that low flow works fine. That and what major US makers did after the law was passed show that they would have not changed anything. So raising water prices, which is a local thing not national, would have done nothing but hurt the poor and average americans.
 
GregGreen

GregGreen

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2000
1,687
4
81
Originally posted by: Marlin1975

I'm not worried about someone having to pay $20+ to fix a toilet. I simply pointed out that being inexpensive to repair was one of the advantages that traditional toilets held over pressure-assist designs. Surely you're not claiming that pressure-assist designs are simpler and cheaper than traditional designs.
Click to expand...

There are some real nice flushing low flows with non-pressure assists! The Gerber Viper comes to mind.

On another note, with a pressure assisted design, sub-1gpf is starting to become something that is actually attainable.
 
Dualist

Dualist

Platinum Member
Dec 5, 2005
2,395
0
86
What you probably need to do is to update your toilet with a new and efficient one, and use Draino Max Gel, that stuff really works in unclogging tough drains from sinks and bathtubs.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Originally posted by: waffleironhead
You probably have one of the first gen low flow toilets which were poorly designed. Time to invest in something that actually flushes properly,IE something newer.(I see you are in an apartment, good luck).
Click to expand...
When I was in an apartment last year we all had "new" lo-flo toilets.
I clogged mine up constantly and after about 2 months they had to get a new one put in.
Awesome.
My first poo was delightful.
 
IHateMyJob2004

IHateMyJob2004

Lifer
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
All toilets are low flow these days. I have one of those toilets that say they can flush a bucke of golf balls or whatever. They are ttotal pieces of crap and I will never get on again.
 
40Hands

40Hands

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2004
5,042
0
71
Don't blame this on low-flow toilets. I've taken mega-duces in ours and it's done the job just fine. Yours just sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom