View Full Version : Float on Toto Drake II
09-07-2011, 07:46 AM
Hi. My plumber just installed my new Toto DrakeII. Is it OK to take off the weight to get more water into the flush instead of having to hold the handle down? I live in Kohler Country, so I don't think he had ever installed a Toto. He seemed impressed with the toilet, but suggested that we take the weight off. I know the whole idea is to conserve water, but we have a well, so as unpopular as it sounds, I'm not concerned with the extra water it would use. I was going to purchase the Drake I, but it didn't come with sanagloss.
09-07-2011, 09:17 AM
No, it's not OK. You do not need more water in the flush and you should stop holding the handle down to drain the tank. Use the toilet like it was designed to be used.
09-07-2011, 09:58 AM
You can take the weight off, but nobody really does that.
If you leave it as it is, you have an excellent bowl that flushes most anything in it's way.
If you flush a bowl five times, four of those times will be liquid only.
Once in a blue moon, you might consider ever bothering to hold a handle down. I haven't seen one for a while.
It's a great bowl for a home on a well.
09-07-2011, 11:40 AM
It's a real revelation to see a good low-flush toilet perform for the first time...they really do work with that lower flow. Even if you aren't paying for water, you're still paying for the electricity to pump it up, and putting extra water into either your septic field or sewer system. And, if you ever get into drought conditions, every extra gallon needed is precious.
09-07-2011, 01:25 PM
Thanks Guys. We haven't had time to put it to the test yet, but will see how it goes!
09-07-2011, 02:44 PM
I have installed 2 Drakes (1’s) a little over a month ago. One was the 1.6 gal tank (10” rough) and the other was is a 1.28 gal tank (12” rough) . They both work VERY WELL and can’t tell any difference between flushing the two. Actually the 1.28g/12” rough seems to be a more aggressive flush. Perhaps this is because of the rough in or possibly the flange on the 10" rough in is an oval offset, possibly causing some restriction.
Now today for grins I timed the tank refill time on both toilets. After a standard flush, BOTH refilled in 19.4 or 19.5 seconds. SEE PICTURE BELOW from iPhone stop watch. . Both tank water levels are about 3/8” below overflow tube. This leads me to believe that they both use the same amount of water. What am I missing?
09-07-2011, 11:07 PM
This is my assumption.
The millisecond difference is that much more water flowing through the pipes or .32 (1.6-1.28=.32 difference).
Approximately just about a third of a gallon more water flowed to the thank of for the 1.6 GPF toilet.
Another possible variable is the "height" of the water it has to travel to the toilet tank i.e. basement vs. first floor vs. upstairs...pressure drops the higher water has to flow.
Time is not a good way to measure "volume".
The precise way to measure water volume would be to use a water meter or flow meter.
09-08-2011, 10:12 AM
You might try this. Shut the supply valve off. Mark inside the tank where full is, then flush the toilet. Now fill the tank back to the full mark with a measuring cup. Be careful to note the exact amount of water it takes to restore the tank to full. A water meter or flow meter would likely work, but would be expensive to buy and a PITA to install.
09-08-2011, 10:50 AM
The water fills to the same height, it's how much water drops out of the bottom that counts.
The 1.28 are tuned to finish filling the bowl at the same time the tank is filled.
Some of the older toilets used to overfill the bowl a few times.
I have video of a A/S Cadet 3.5 with Fluidmaster 400A that refills the bowl a few times over. It's maybe two gallons that go down the drain after the initial flush and bowl fill.