On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:34:44 +0100, guv wrote:


In my downstairs loo, we wish to replace the existng WC and do
something to cover the clay waste pipe and enable floor tiling to take
place.

We currently have a non coupled WC/Cistern, which I am assuming will
have to be the same - unless we created a false wall to hang the
cystern, or dig up and move the exisitng.

So a relatively easy question....

That is the best way to replace the loo and is there anything in
particular (ie a name) that I need to ask for? Everywhere I look, all
I ever see are WCs with waste pipes coming out to meet a wall. The
exisiting one has an upsidedown U bend to take it to the floor - with
no flexability.

I am obviously also concerned about removing this pipe - since
damagiing the exisiting clay fitting, is likely to be expense (I would
think!)

Any helpful advise appreciated.

They are called P trap and S trap bogs.

You have an S trap and all the new ones are P trap.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:05:03 GMT, EricP
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:34:44 +0100, guv wrote:


In my downstairs loo, we wish to replace the existng WC and do
something to cover the clay waste pipe and enable floor tiling to take
place.

We currently have a non coupled WC/Cistern, which I am assuming will
have to be the same - unless we created a false wall to hang the
cystern, or dig up and move the exisitng.

So a relatively easy question....

That is the best way to replace the loo and is there anything in
particular (ie a name) that I need to ask for? Everywhere I look, all
I ever see are WCs with waste pipes coming out to meet a wall. The
exisiting one has an upsidedown U bend to take it to the floor - with
no flexability.

I am obviously also concerned about removing this pipe - since
damagiing the exisiting clay fitting, is likely to be expense (I would
think!)

Any helpful advise appreciated.

They are called P trap and S trap bogs.

You have an S trap and all the new ones are P trap.

At least the shed ones are. (Before I get my knuckles rapped)

EricP wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:34:44 +0100, guv wrote:


In my downstairs loo, we wish to replace the existng WC and do
something to cover the clay waste pipe and enable floor tiling to take
place.

We currently have a non coupled WC/Cistern, which I am assuming will
have to be the same - unless we created a false wall to hang the
cystern, or dig up and move the exisitng.

So a relatively easy question....

That is the best way to replace the loo and is there anything in
particular (ie a name) that I need to ask for? Everywhere I look, all
I ever see are WCs with waste pipes coming out to meet a wall. The
exisiting one has an upsidedown U bend to take it to the floor - with
no flexability.

I am obviously also concerned about removing this pipe - since
damagiing the exisiting clay fitting, is likely to be expense (I would
think!)

Any helpful advise appreciated.

They are called P trap and S trap bogs.

You have an S trap and all the new ones are P trap.

True, but if you put a swan-neck 90 degree connector on, you end up
with one that works like an s-trap. Different toilets have the
connection at different distances from the wall. A Roca senso compact
for instance includes a swan neck connector which goes into the floor
about 150mm from the wall (to the middle of the pipe). If you get a
back-to-the-wall toilet with a concealed cistern, you can build a small
boxed in half-wall behind to take the cistern, and make it whatever
size you need to put the pipe in the right place. I use roca laura btw
toilets with grohe cisterns.

A

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:31:18 +0100, guv wrote:

On 20 Oct 2006 10:16:56 -0700, wrote:
snip

Any helpful advise appreciated.

They are called P trap and S trap bogs.

You have an S trap and all the new ones are P trap.

I thought you guys were having a laugh here by talking about P's and
S's! Ho hum! ;-)

No, it's the shape of the bends in them. down, around, up, around, and
down: S trap

Down, around, up, and straight away. P trap. )


True, but if you put a swan-neck 90 degree connector on, you end up
with one that works like an s-trap. Different toilets have the
connection at different distances from the wall. A Roca senso compact
for instance includes a swan neck connector which goes into the floor
about 150mm from the wall (to the middle of the pipe). If you get a
back-to-the-wall toilet with a concealed cistern, you can build a small
boxed in half-wall behind to take the cistern, and make it whatever
size you need to put the pipe in the right place. I use roca laura btw
toilets with grohe cisterns.

Cheers for that. I had thought about using a closed coupled loo that I
could create a false wall to accomodate. The problem with this is the
fact it is a fully tiled room and have no spares. It would look rather
odd!

I will probably just get the thing replaced with like for like. So I
should be asking for an S trap loo?

Yep.


SInce I will also be tiling the floor, is the raising of the floor by
a cm or so, going to cause any problem with the connection to the
waste by being raised slightly?

Not with an S trap. The outlet should go down to the floor to base
level, and if not, every shed has an adapter for about £5. (White
thing like a drainpipe joint with rubber fins inside it.)

guv wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:47:16 GMT, EricP
wrote:

snip

You have an S trap and all the new ones are P trap.
I thought you guys were having a laugh here by talking about P's and
S's! Ho hum! ;-)
No, it's the shape of the bends in them. down, around, up, around, and
down: S trap

Down, around, up, and straight away. P trap. )

Yeh, I realised there was a logic in it. But I was thinking of a
different type of reference! :-) I wont go any further! ;-)

snip.

SInce I will also be tiling the floor, is the raising of the floor by
a cm or so, going to cause any problem with the connection to the
waste by being raised slightly?
Not with an S trap. The outlet should go down to the floor to base
level, and if not, every shed has an adapter for about £5. (White
thing like a drainpipe joint with rubber fins inside it.)

Excellent. I was hoping that would be the case.

Many thanks for your help....

Juts remember to full the fins with silicone, cos otherwise it will get
full of ****e..

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:59:07 +0100, guv wrote:

Juts remember to full the fins with silicone, cos otherwise it will
get full of ****e..

grin I'm sure that is very good advice! ;-)

It's point but you'd never get the thing out again, at least not in one
peice and you'd have to clean up the inside of the pipe before refiting.
On the whole I'd rather deal with a bit of easyly removed ****e.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:59:07 +0100, guv wrote:

Juts remember to full the fins with silicone, cos otherwise it will
get full of ****e..

grin I'm sure that is very good advice! ;-)

It's point but you'd never get the thing out again, at least not in one
peice and you'd have to clean up the inside of the pipe before refiting.
On the whole I'd rather deal with a bit of easyly removed ****e.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

And it shouldn't get full of anything - the fins are between the
connctor and the pipe, and should be compressed when the connector is
inserted. The lowest fin forms a seal, so there should be no way for
anything to get back up between the fins.

A

On 21 Oct 2006 09:47:25 -0700, wrote:

The lowest fin forms a seal, so there should be no way for anything to
get back up between the fins.

"should" being the operative word. If one fin is good enough why are
there four or so? It doesn't take a very big gap for muck to get through
and build up over the years.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 21 Oct 2006 09:47:25 -0700, wrote:

The lowest fin forms a seal, so there should be no way for anything to
get back up between the fins.

"should" being the operative word. If one fin is good enough why are
there four or so? It doesn't take a very big gap for muck to get through
and build up over the years.

'cos one wouldn't be very stable or allow for much adjustmaent - with
four you get 2 inches of insertion plus a seal top and bottom, and the
appropriate amount of resistance to movement. The seal if fitted
properly is airtight - installations should be pressure tested - so I
don't think much else will get through. The only times I've seen
problems are when the connector is fitted in the wrong diameter pipe -
for instance going directly into the socket of a bend rather than into
a piece of pipe.

A

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:59:07 +0100, guv wrote:

Juts remember to full the fins with silicone, cos otherwise it will
get full of ****e..
grin I'm sure that is very good advice! ;-)

It's point but you'd never get the thing out again, at least not in one
peice and you'd have to clean up the inside of the pipe before refiting.
On the whole I'd rather deal with a bit of easyly removed ****e.

Not if it leaks out. I have found those seals are NOT really that good.
Some at least.

wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:59:07 +0100, guv wrote:

Juts remember to full the fins with silicone, cos otherwise it will
get full of ****e..
grin I'm sure that is very good advice! ;-)
It's point but you'd never get the thing out again, at least not in one
peice and you'd have to clean up the inside of the pipe before refiting.
On the whole I'd rather deal with a bit of easyly removed ****e.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

And it shouldn't get full of anything - the fins are between the
connctor and the pipe, and should be compressed when the connector is
inserted. The lowest fin forms a seal, so there should be no way for
anything to get back up between the fins.

A

SHOULD being the operative word...IME its not the same as WILL or DOES...