Sun, 03 May 2026 10:48:56 +0100 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5821#Comment_5821 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5821#Comment_5821 Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:13:16 +0100 Neil K


I am looking to source 3 toilets for a new build and obviously they will need to be dual flush and preferably with low overall water requirements, but this leaves a problem... or more accurately I don't want them to. i.e I want a low flush loo that clears the toilet bowl properly.

I am in a rented house at the moment and it would probably win an award (if someone was sad enough to invent one) for the worst flushing toilet in the world. I am keen to avoid buying the latest version of this turd stirrer, hence this post. The problem with it being that I don't want to have a toilet that uses less water per flush, but has to be flushed twice to clear!

I have been to my local builders merchant and they seem less than keen on letting me try the stock out (which I can understand!), but I am not sure if there is a standard for this sort of thing that I can seek to use in a spec. Clearly the industry standard isn't good enough because if it was good enough I wouldn't keep seeing turds left behind!

Any ideas?
]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5830#Comment_5830 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5830#Comment_5830 Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:04:57 +0100 biffvernon
Your observations, Neil, are all too common I'm afraid.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5837#Comment_5837 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5837#Comment_5837 Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:54:53 +0100 Dominic Cooney Any way the main difference I have noticed between our Loo and other peoples is:
1. the shape of the bowl
2. the volume of the bit where the water sits at the bottom of the bowl.

1. is hard to describe, but I guess it is "sloping downwards towards the water" in a sort of channeling shape. You only begin to appreciate it when you see other examples that could be described as altogether "flat-bottomed" or even "squarish"!
Imagine my horror when using some european Loos, one example in the Netherlands had what could only be described as a "shelf" perhaps for some kind of health inspection? need I say more.

2. the volume of this bit of water seems smaller than in other loos, which I guess helps with clearing the contents. The only problem is that with large quantities of said contents, there can be a lot of surface contact and resulting skids. This can result in a second flush/work with loobrush/complaints from the other half.

Sorry to go into so much detail before breakfast, but I am altogether pleased with it but would go for the same bowl with the dual flush cistern if I had to choose again.
Of course all this is just a compromise anyway, to save my relationship when I wanted a composting toilet.
= no water.

Oh and one more thing - what about Interflush? hold the handle down until the bowl is clear and then let go, no more water is used than is absolutely necessary, whatever design of bowl you have. This then leaves it all down to the design/shape of the bowl.
http://www.interflush.co.uk/
I should get one of these.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5838#Comment_5838 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5838#Comment_5838 Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:59:45 +0100 Novy Mlyn
Do you know of anyone who has the sealand low flush toilets installed?]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5840#Comment_5840 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=5840#Comment_5840 Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:20:22 +0100 nigel
Twyford have recently introduced a new rimless design which is a 4 litre flush. Dont know how well it actually flushes.

Dual flush is of questionable benefit as a lot of people will always use the biggest button which is normally a 6 litre flush.
Much better to go for a better designed toilet.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=6120#Comment_6120 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=6120#Comment_6120 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:41:37 +0100 mzthomps https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=6125#Comment_6125 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=6125#Comment_6125 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:43:39 +0100 Nick Parsons https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=6129#Comment_6129 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=574&Focus=6129#Comment_6129 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:27:33 +0100 Ads http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/water.php for the IFO type of loos. You will see that they major on the problems inherent with the dual flush valves - ie they leak a lot. Seems to make a lot of sense, and anyway why not go for the simple tried and tested siphon option - not sexy but it works!

Interesting comments from Dominic Cooney, though, regarding the problems of remaining evidence. Clearly if a second flush has to be made (with any loo of course) any water saving principles become irrelevant.]]>