<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>A couple years ago, we had to hire a rooting company to help us figure out why we were having clogging issues in our stack. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Turned out it was due to a puppy pad that was successfully flushed down our Toto Aquia by one of my children, but had clogged itself within the next couple feet inside the line.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">My kids have flushed just about everything down those Aquias, and they have never clogged. But barring that experience with the puppy pad, I couldn't imagine how much more sh!t would have gotten stuck in a 2" line.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Unless it's your own house your experimenting on, I'd trust the experts on this one. Switching that line out down the road would be a pain in the a$$ for anyone.<br><br>Matt</div><div><br>On Apr 24, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Reuben Deumling <<a href="mailto:9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Maybe I'm all wet, but this conversation reminds me a little bit of the Big Three in the early sixties blowing off Yutaka Katayama. Why on earth would anyone prefer fewer than eight cylinders? <br><br><br></div>There are, after all, reasons someone might want to avoid that 3" pipe running through walls and basements and around corners. I tend to fiddle with houses that were built before indoor plumbing, and the bulky cast iron lines that were added later have a way of interfering with just about everything, not to mention remodeling. I've gone to considerable lengths to accommodate the still large ABS successor pipe for upstairs bathrooms and under slabs. To think that something smaller might be just as good or even slightly better is (to me) tantalizing. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:03 PM, John Salmen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:terrain@shaw.ca" target="_blank">terrain@shaw.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I can echo Joe on this and the cadet is a good design as it has restricted<br>
flow to provide a scouring action - and that said oversizing pipe can be a<br>
problem for the same reasons - but current designs are based on 3" and<br>
perform well and that is where I would want to sit 'so to speak'.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Greenbuilding [mailto:<a href="mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]<br>
On Behalf Of Joe Killian<br>
Sent: April-24-16 4:47 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] 2" drain line for a 0.8gpf toilet?<br>
<br>
Reuben,<br>
The American standard Cadet 3 toilet (a popular and very good unit) has<br>
for it's exit aperture:<br>
"Fully-glazed 2-1/8" trapway with 2" ball pass"<br>
If there's a stoppage anywhere, you'd want it to be AT the toilet, not<br>
somewhere down the pipe. So a pipe substantially larger than the fixture's<br>
exit aperture would be advisable.<br>
<br>
With a macerater, a 2" pipe is acceptable, afaik. ...If you wanted to<br>
trade that complication for the smaller pipe.<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/24/2016 3:29 PM, Reuben Deumling wrote:<br>
> I have long wondered whether or when anyone would dare diverge from<br>
> the 3" standard drainline diameter as we get toilets that use less and<br>
> less water per flush.<br>
> Interpolating from this chart:<br>
> <a href="http://www.mpwmd.net/rules/Apr2008/pdfs/RegII/rule24_table1.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.mpwmd.net/rules/Apr2008/pdfs/RegII/rule24_table1.pdf</a><br>
> I see that in terms of fixture units, a 0.8gpf toilet is now at 1,<br>
> which puts it comfortably within the same class as sinks, which as we<br>
> know do not require anywhere near a 3" drainline. So..... does anyone<br>
> on this list know if there is any movement toward allowing a 2"<br>
> drainline for a 0.8gpf toilet? Or whether there's been any testing of<br>
> this configuration?<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Greenbuilding mailing list<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener
gylists.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener<br>
gylists.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Greenbuilding mailing list<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Greenbuilding mailing list</span><br><span>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>