seeping one piece Am Std low volume ??'s

Hi All,

I'm stumped thought maybe somebody might have some suggestions. Been contracting, making boards shorter piles of scrap higher since Christ was a corporal, but my own damn toilet's making my head explode.

Here 'tis. Got an Am Std one piece, low vol toilet. Remodel bathroom in '98. Had shaky flang to floor connection and when I tore up the underlayment to replace it and vinyl, the ABs flange came loose from the waste pipe. I freaked at first, then realized it was a gift. I got a new flange, put new underlayment down and proceeded glue in the flange.

It was then I discovered the huge boulder under my bathroom. The drain pipe was hitting it, so the lowest I could get the flange was on top of the underlayment. It rested flush against the underlayment. I dry fit the toilet and checked the distance 'tween the toilet and the flange. Had enough for a 1/2 to 1 inch of wax, so figured I was OK. I laid the vinyl and installed the flange.

Put it all back together and everything worked fine. In fact, I had to push down pretty hard, as I remember to get the toilet flush against the floor - the ring was a big thick sucker with a plastic insert. Lotsa wax

A few months ago started getting some seepage. I finally got to it this AM. Figured I find a bad ring. It wasn't that bad of a leak. It would take a week or ten days to see any significant leakage. It wouldn't be a puddle as much as it'd get wet , then evaporate you'd see the 'stain' on the white vinyl.

I have been tryin gto figure out WHEN it leaked, it was more like use the toilet and later you might see the effect. Caught it wet very few times.

Was more concerned about the flooring and underlayment, so I tore it up instead of troubleshooting any longer. In almost 40 years of doing this stuff, I've never had my own toilet go bad, so I was feeling some guilt and anxiety about waiting too long. Usually by the time I got to other people's it was underlayment & even sub-floor. But it's hard to ask people how long they waited without them thinking you're saying, "hey fool, why'd you wait so long?"

Anyway, I was surprised to see the wax ring was in pretty good shape. The wax was well seated to the floor. It could have only been seeping above the ring, between the wax and the porcelein. But it didn't really show it. So I'm stumped.

Is the evidence of seepage above the ring subtle? What would I have seen? I'm gonna put it back together and wait to silicone it to the vinyl to make sure it's not seeping again.

One of the things about this toilet is it struggles flushing. It's like the first turn of the toilet is too sharp. So I have plunged the thing a lot, but usually all I have to do is give it a short quick up pull and away it goes. It's not really thrashing on it like I've seen done by others.

Is plunging too much really a way to mess up a ring? I read that and had never heard it before.

Anyone have imnput about the toilet, it's elf being flaky as far as not flushing correctly. This toilet was in the house when I bought it. DOn't know when it was put it. he woman I bought the house from was an organic gardener, and into conservation, etc so her being a quick accepter of low volume toilets wouldn't be surprising. Was there problems with the early Am Std toilets? This always seemed like a 'small' toilet to me.

I read a few minutes ago that some plumbers will use a second ring to add more wax. But as I remember I had a heck of a time getting it down far enough.

Any ideas, clues, hints or suggestions from those that have done more of these than me. All of the toilets I've installed have been new/remodel construction, I haven't done the leaky toilet, no damage work that would let a person see the subtle indications.


Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you.


George

Try a single wax ring without the plastic horn...

Check the toilet very carefully for defects. Maybe even test it on a milk crate.
I'd be lying if I said Am. Std. Never produced a defective toilet...
An abundance of them are!

toilet

Maybe shortening those boards all those years has affected you.
1. The flange is supposed to set on top of the finished floor.
2. NEVER use a ring with the plastic insert.
3. Where are you going to silicone?
4. Maybe the leak is not under the toilet in the first place.
5. Maybe you need a plumber, even an old one, instead of an old carpenter.

Other possible sources of leaks or accumulations of water: condensation, leaky fill valve to tank, weeping hose connection (and, if it was a two-piece, the tank to bowl gasket and the tank hold-down bolts).

So, it could be a defective toilet, a bad wax job, or other leaks.

hj,

probably the fumes...

1. hmm.. quite possible I'm wrong, but I thought that, ideally, the flange was supposed to sit on the sub floor with the underlayment 'next' to it. (I should put all of this in perspective. I have 'retired' early due to a disability and haven't put a toolbelt on for pay since early '03 so. Combine that with trying to recall the remodel I did ten years, some of this might just be my memory.) The point being, I guess I did it right then and only thought I wasn't!

2. (this one will either start some arguments or PO hj) If you should never use them, why do they make them? LOL

3. finishing the toilet - vinyl margin. No purpose other than easing cleaning, not related to the toilet otherwise. But, like many other things, things never leak or fail until you do that last finishing touch. I like to be obstinate and wait to do the finishing touch - daring things to leak or fail.

4. no, it is/was coming right out from under the te'rlet. As fate would have it, I'll be springing for a new stool, after all. I took it out to hose it off after my wife finished cleaning it and I discovered some cracks when it got in a brighter light.

The cracks don't show any evidence of leakage. They are on the bottom side in the recess where the seat bolt comes through. It looks like casting defects, but it not be. The 'boss' decided I should go ahead and replace it, so knowing full well whose paycheck keeps me from needing one of my own, I agreed. Besides I haven't seen the guy at the plumbing supply in a while.

Hopefully a newer stool will make the flush problem go away, as well.

5. You know what you get when you put an old plumber and an old carpenter together, don't you?

-----------

Thanks for the input.

Jim,

I can confidently rule out the leak sources you suggest: One piece toilet and good supply fits. Due to the 'huge' boulder under the floor, the bathroom's always a 'bit cold', so not much condensation.

Defective toilet a possibility, but I feel like I would be grasping at straws to decide that - I don't have the experience to say it.

How do you tell if it's a bad 'wax job' by looking at it after you take up the toilet?

As I said, I've never pulled one up where it wasn't obvious it had leaked somewhere since you could stick a screw driver or finger through the floor (or you can see the ground under the house!).

It hasn't matter with the others I've taken up 'cause the toilet was coming up for other reasons - remodel, flooring, etc.

Thanks.

As for the wax ring with the horn " If you should never use them, why do they make them?"

Because people will look at them and think they work better even though they don't... Kind of a build it and they'll buy it...

Wax rings when they have been leaking for a long time will be discolored. A combination of milky white and black discoloration.

a-hah

The wax looks a little milky but not distorted, maybe didn't stick to the toilet surface?


mine was looking a bit whitish, but no black, but then it hadn't been long. So it seems the wax ring lost it's adhesion to the porcelain on the bottom of my te'rlet and started leaking.

Thanks

Sounds like the ring didn't crush...
A sure indicator the flange is not mounted on the finished floor surface..

The ring was crushed. It was a perfect reverse of the bottom of the stool. You could easily look at it and tell. But, isn't the fact it I could lift the toilet off of the wax ring and the wax wasn't stuck to the bottom of the toilet an indication it was leaking between the wax and the porcelain?

I had a heck of time getting the toilet all the way to the floor when I installed it. I remember when I installed it thinking the ring seemed awful thick. But I figured any excess would be 'squished away'.

"A sure indicator the flange is not mounted on the finished floor surface.."

not sure what you mean. The flange is solidly down against the floor and is held there by four large brass screws. If it was up floating around it would be obvious and I could see how it would fail - it wouldn't have lasted over ten years.

I'm as much curious why it started leaking after this long, when nothing happen. I'm beginning to think it is due to the plunging. It's about the only thing that makes sense from what I've read elsewhere and what's been posted on here.

Thanks for the info

You misunderstood...the proper location of the toilet flange is on TOP of the finished floor, and anchored well through it into the subfloor. A standard wax ring will crush significantly when installing a toilet. Depending on how cold and old it is, even a little compression will be hard and not create a good seal nor bond it to the toilet and flange. A wax ring that has been sitting around for awhile can get hard like candle wax, and be nearly impossible to compress, but even if it does, won't make a good seal.

I understood that the flange should be on top of the finished floor. I ttired to explain that when I installed teh flange and toilet originally, I was thinking it needing to mount on the subfloor so it ended up just a bit below the finished floor surface. I couldn't get it that low, so settled for on top of the vinyl. Even though I was wrong, I also had in mind a range for the finished height of the flange that was up to 1/4" above the finished floor height. In spite of having the concept wrong when I installed it, I did end up installing correctly with the flange on top of the vinyl.

So when Redwood wrote:
"Sounds like the ring didn't crush...
A sure indicator the flange is not mounted on the finished floor surface.."

I responded to his first line: 'the ring was crushed. I could look at it after I took the stool up & see that it conformed to the contour of the bottom of the stool.'

I then quoted the 2nd line: "A sure indicator the flange is not mounted on the finished floor surface.."
and replied 'not sure what you mean' in reference to THAT.

I wrote further 'the flange is solidly down against the floor, etc, etc' I thought he meant NOT SCREWED DOWN and responded that way, but even though I misunderstood him, (I think), I did re-iterate that the flange is installed correctly.

I think we have it thoroughly thrashed that I was incorrect in my thinking in '98, but ended up installing it correctly, anyway. I have my thinking correctly now and I'm not changing the flange.

NOW the wax ring: it did crush well as I said in my last post. I realized after I wrote the comment about it still showing 'the contour of the toilet bottom' that it should NOT be showing that contour if it had stayed adhered to the toilet bottom as it should have. I realized I had overlooked that aspect. I don't remember EVER taking a toilet up where the ring stayed on the floor and showed a perfect reverse of the contour of the toilet bottom. (I didn't communicate that revelation)

THAT is where it was leaking: between the top of the wax ring and the bottom of the toilet.

It was a brand new seal when I installed it. It was plenty warm and it was still a struggle to get the toilet completely down to the floor. SO, I know it crushed well from that perspective.

In my original post I checked the distance of the flange from the floor and compared that against the distance from the floor to the bottom of the toilet. (if you recall, in '98, I was worried the flange might be too high). I compared the two measurements and determined the ring would crush AND there would be, (what I figured would be), enough wax that it would maintain a seal.

So, the ring did crush but, for some reason, in the last few months the seal between the toilet and the wax ring failed. THAT'S the mystery I'm left with.

I am curious if it was the routine plunging, but I've lived in other places where the toilet didn't flush well, had to be regularly plunged and didn't develop a leak.

It all becomes moot since I'm buying a new ter'let in the morning that damn well better flush everytime I flush the thing.

I'm also curious if there was defects in the early Am Std one-piece, low volume stools. If there was design defects, why didn't Am Std take them back in a recall? That's what other industries have to do when they sell a poorly designed product.

Thanks for the help. I would be curious to hear if anyone has any idea why a wax ring might fail after 10 years of working fine.

I'd also like to hear if anyone else knows if there have been defective toilets of ANY brand and what was done by the company(s) to rectify the sale of defective toilets.

Thanks again. I look forward to hearing from any and all.

George