This is not a post to read when you are about to eat. You have been warned!



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?

We have an Ifo Cera, it's the wall mounted version (I don't expect this makes any difference) with the slimline cistern (which is inside a box/unit that the sink also sits on), I think it is a 4 litre flush. We didn't go for the dual flush option at the time - something to do with people not understanding it at the time (I wish we had now, it seems perfectly obvious to me) and possibly having to flush again if they chose the wrong button.(maybe it was because we wanted a handle rather than a two buttons? I forget)
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.

The ifo Cera is a 4.5 litre flush and seems to flush pretty well.

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.

mz thomps, I have to ask, does this relate to a liking for East German Motorcycles?! If so, they don't thomp, they zing. (sorry for the 2-wheel hi-jack!)