Guest Roy Hamilton Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Hi Has anybody thought of a method of draining this from a swivel toilet. I just got drenched when I pulled the wee rubber plug from the tank. When I had a bench type there was a tube that you could direct into a bottle or something. The fluid runs everywhere. Who designed this? They never tried to drain it that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roy Hamilton Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 P.S. I did have a bowl under it but was not expecting such a rush and it's impossible to get the plug the plug back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Powell Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Pump it all into the cassette via the flush, then empty the cassette, then you know everything is nice and clean for the winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Powell Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Pump it all into the cassette via the flush, and empty the cassette, then you know everything is nice and clean for the winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nick Miller Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 No help Roy,just consolation.I was covered in Pink fluid from belt to shoes. I wonder if David is logical or has been trapped previously? I shall operate the stirrup pump next time. Sensible idea. N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roy Hamilton Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Sorry Nick to hear that you suffered but glad that I'm not the only one. David's idea seems a reasonable one but I was afraid of burning out the little pump. I suppose if you do a little at a time it would be OK. Still think the designer needs a drenching or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roy Hamilton Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Addedum: Maybe this so far invisible winterising supplement we subscribers are still waiting for will have some tip or another to this effect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Powell Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Hi everybody...I don't have a problem with the electric pump motor burning out. By choice I have the hand operated flush, much better control over the force and quantity of the flush, and if the battery is low, no problem. +Less to go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Clive Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Perhaps someone can explain to me the advantage of the Thetford swivel system over the conventional bench arrangement? The more modern swivel seems to me to have a smaller tank capacity, more bits to leak or go wrong and is not so simple to service. So why are they used? What point am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Powell Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Hi Clive...The smaller cassette is lighter and easier to handle, and the bowl swivels back out of the way leaving more space in the wash-room, and the flushing water tank is up the wall so the whole thing takes up less room. It will also take your PONGO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek Uzzell Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 As I see it, the main advantage of Thetford's swivel-bowl design is that the cassette goes in from the back. Bench models have the cassette entering either from the left or right side and, consequently, there need to be left- or right-handed versions. With the swivel-bowl left- or right-handedness is irrelevant. This may seem a small thing, but back-loading the cassette means a swivel-bowl only requires a single vertical surface - the one behind it - whereas a bench toilet (at least in coachbuilt motorhomes) needs two - one behind and one to the side. This 'one wall only' requirement provides a converter with enhanced flexibility when designing living-area layouts. In fact it's probably true to say that many current popular layouts (the longways rear double bed with bathroom/separate shower alongside is the classic example) are only viable because of the swivel-bowl toilet. The swivel-bowl's cassette design also simplifies fitting an external ventilation kit, making hermetic sealing of the cassette locker from the motorhome's living-area less critical. (Though it would be nice if converters who don't bother to seal lockers actually fitted ventilation kits - Hobby please note!) Personally, I'd prefer the bench model's larger 20 litre capacity cassette but, as David points out, the 17 litre one is lighter and more easily handled. In fact I'm ambivalent about the swivel-bowl toilet. Although it has permitted motorhome designers to introduce layouts impossible to achieve with a bench-toilet, it's also allowed them to get away with murder when it comes to practicality, with ultra-narrow bathrooms with Weight Watchers entrance doors that can't be closed when you sit on the bog. My Hobby is 2.29m wide (ie. not narrow) and if its bathroom were any wider than it is you wouldn't get a double bed alongside. Entering the bathroom is OK due to a sliding tambour door, but I still find it easier to use the toilet in seated mode by swinging the bowl round and putting my feet in the shower compartment. Some bathrooms I've seen are incredibly constrictive and I can't imagine how people use the toilet in them - perhaps they don't! What always perplexes me is why so many 'autonomous' Thetford toilets are installed in motorhomes with large, above-floor fresh-water tanks. If there's a water supply to a washbasin/shower nearby (and there usually is), why not exploit that supply rather than have the complication of a separate flush reservoir. I've some sympathy for bench-toilets in this respect as the design lends itself to a large (15 litres) reservoir, but not for swivels with their tiny 7 to 8 litre tanks. I can appreciate the need for a toilet with an in-built flush reservoir for caravans with no fresh-water tanks and its possible advantages for motorhomes with small/external tanks, but I just don't understand, if your van's got 100+ litres of fresh water available and a pump to move it, why there has to be another little tank and another pump for the toilet, plus another filling point. Perhaps someone can explain this to me, please? (But don't give me the Pink Rinse argument - if ever there were a way to make easy money Thetford discovered it with that product.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Powell Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Hello Derek, To answer your question refering to "why does anyone need and extra little tank to flush the loo when we have 100+ litres in the main tank". My excuse is I have a 2litre petrol engine, good BHP, so quite fast on the level, but lacks torque, so pathetic up steep hills. So I travel as light as possible in other things as well as an empty water tank. So when we stop for lunch/tea break etc: between night stop-overs we have a flushable loo. I quite understand your curiosity, if I had loads of torque I would no doubt run with a full tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek Uzzell Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Fair enough, so let's move the goal-posts and expand my original statement to "What always perplexes me is why so many 'autonomous' Thetford toilets are installed in motorhomes with large, above-floor fresh-water tanks, big powerful diesel motors and plenty of useful payload". Anyone like to comment on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Powell Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Perhaps it is time that designers and converters spent some time reading MMM Forum posts, and asked some questions on here before they introduced their latest models. Between us all we could produce what the average motor homer is looking for. Design by committee of users, rather than boardroom conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek Uzzell Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Might be a good idea if designers don't read my last couple of responses though, as I've just realised I've being talking claptrap. Although UK converters still seem perversely keen on Thetford C200 swivel-bowl toilets with integrated water reservoirs, I'm sure (as Bill Ord observes in the Thetford-related thread of 2/12/2005) that most C200s nowadays get their flush-water direct from the motorhome's main tank. I had been assuming that any C200 model with a 'back-moulding' behind the toilet pedestal had an integrated water tank. This is not the case - only C200s with the high back-moulding have the tank and photos in test reports reveal these are in the minority. Woe is me, I thought I was omniscient! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest trigrem Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 One more comment to Dereks arguments, If you have a 100 ltr tank o/k, but if your tank is only 60-70 litres then I prefer a seperate flush tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.