I'm looking for more links Bowl-to-floor <= 15". We're a household of three 5ft 5in. people. We're renovating four bathrooms. Just ordered a Tushy Ottoman but we're really NOT happy that we literally cannot buy a high-quality toilet that's standard height. Here's the whole plan: 1. We're ordering the Kohler - Wellworth Classic: (14 1/2") for two of our bathrooms. 2. We have a nice Elongated Toto (17" height?!) and I'll be trying out the 7.5" Tushy Ottoman https://hellotushy.com/products/tushy-ottoman-toilet-stool with that. 3. And then... one of our bathrooms needs a corner standard-height toilet, and my current plan is to buy a separated High-tank toilet https://www.rensup.com/bathroom/high-tank-toilets and bowl separately. I may also check Etsy for toilet bowl makers. What has this world come to? What a drag. It is also annoying that everything is labeled "Right-height"... yeah, it's kind of offensive because the height change is marketed as a feature and so it's excluded from most website's filter bars! Since it's an additive-feature, you can't filter for the absence of "Right-height" or "ADA Compliant". It's like -- I feel like I've been in the specific set of meetings where someone has a brilliant, cost-savings idea of to unify on a single height. Brilliant mind (BM): "OK, get this, we can halve the number of products we have to produce that sit on the shelves!" Everyone else (EE): "Oh, how do we do it?!" BM: "We just pick one height!" EE: "*Contemplative silence* God. Yes. Brilliant... But... won't people be mad?" EE: "I mean, there are short people and kids..." BM: "No, no, no, we'll pick the accessible height and then market the change as a feature! This means we'll also get a competitive advantage over other toilet brands who aren't thinking about accessibility!" ~~~ *end scene* ~~~ My beef, TLDR: 1. Public toilets should be as accessible as possible. 2. Companies get to "win" by removing consumer choices. 3. I'm now googling for an artisan toilet bowl maker on Etsy. Good luck everyone. Looking for more links Bowl-to-floor <= 15"

Well, we decided to go with the aforementioned Gerber Viper compact-elongated WC for our bathroom reno, and since little seems to have been written about it here or elsewhere, wanted to provide my first impressions so others would have a reference point. I would have chosen a Toto Drake II (which we used elsewhere) for this room, but none of the moderately-priced Totos are available in a compact-elongated size - that is, less than 28" from the back wall. It's an impressive piece of engineering. It has a good, strong flush. It cleans the sides of the bowl well, sending a good amount of water down the sides with a slight swirl motion before quickly lowering the water level to flush quickly from a large flume from the front. A good-size area is normally under water, generally a good thing. A convenient front-mounted flush lever is an easier reach than Toto's side lever or especially the Kohler's Wellworth side lever that needs to be pressed in the back, which is unintuitive. It's reasonably quiet. Uses only 1.28 gallons per flush. The Toto Drake II double-cyclone loo we used in another room isn't that much better (although I like the forceful spray that emanates from just two large holes in the rim vs. the Gerber's conventional setup). Still, given the Gerber's lower price - we picked it up for about $245 locally, it's a good deal. I also like it's height - 16-3/8" above ground, slightly lower than most comfort-height commodes, and perfect for my 5'8" frame. Gerber themselves sells a next-model-up Avalanche compact-elongated loo that's a shade shorter front-to-back and slenderer left to right, but is 17" tall before (included soft-close) seat - a bit too tall for me, although I do like it being one-piece yet still affordable. Anyway, with all the love thrown Toto's way in these forums, I thought this Gerber warranted an excellent writeup. Significantly better overall than the similarly-priced Kohler Wellworth (w/class 5 flush) or American Standard Cadet 3, and given Toto doesn't offer a compact-elongated model, I'd highly recommend these. Overall, the flush is as good as a standard Toto Drake (not Drake II, which I've also used in several locations). The Drake is perhaps more impervious to clogs, but the Gerber cleans the bowl better, and fits in less space. 12" rough-in only for the compact models, although the standard-depth Vipers also are available in 10" or 14" rough-in. I'd strongly consider a Gerber Viper of any size if you need a good toilet in the low-$200 range. This post was edited by lee676 on Mon, Mar 25, 13 at 8:13

I would caution you to check the available water depth for any tub before purchase. In a prior home, built in the late 1980's, the tubs were cast iron, but based on where the water overflow and valve were which was midway up the end wall of the tub, you could only get about five inches of water in them which made them almost useless for bathing for anyone except a small child. While the tub you posted shows a depth of almost 12 inches, it doesn't state the water depth. I personally feel that if a tub isn't deep enough to soak in, I might as well save the money and put in a nicer shower.

If your looking for the savings on your water bill you are looking in the wrong place, the real savings is on your tax bill. In the early 1900's toilets consumed 5gpf however in those days water was plentiful and the sewage was simply discharged into a local river or estuary. In the late 40's or early 50's they began mandating sewage treatment and as the population expanded there was a big concern that many of the sewage treatment plants could not keep pace with demand. On average every man, woman and child will flush a toilet 6 times a day. At 5gpf that equated to 30gal/day per person or on the big picture, 30,000gal of waste to the treatment plant per day for every 1,000 people in your community. With the rate of population increase by the mid 60's the local sewage treatment plants were being overwhelmed until someone came up with the idea that if they cut the flush rate from 5gpf to 3.5gpf they could reduce the waste load generated by toilets by approximately 30%. The alternative was to build additional treatment plants and replace miles of sewer pipes with larger lines at a substantial cost to the taxpayers. By the mid 80's the population had expanded to the point where not only were the sewage treatment plants overwhelmed, the municipal water supply and treatment facilities were also running at peak demand. In some areas such as where I live water is plentiful so we could build additional water & sewer treatment plants at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers, while in some arid regions such as California or the Southwest, they simply do not have the water even if they were to build additional treatment plants. When we consider that toilets account for approximately 50 of the total water and sewer demand the quick solution was to reduce the toilet water and sewer consumption rate to 1.6gpf, thus reducing the load generated by toilets by approximately 50%. Now in regards to why you cannot see the savings on your water bill? As Kudzu pointed out, the national average cost for water is $6.50 per 1,000gal or $0.0065 per gallon, however, water supply is not measured in gallons but rather in cubic feet. One cubic foot of water is slightly less than 8 gallons (7.92gal/cu.ft) therefore on the national average water costs $0.051/gal, however for billing purposes most communities charge a flat monthly service rate that includes the first 5,000cu.ft, then they charge a surcharge for each additional 500cu.ft. Sewer tax is then computed at 2 or 3 times the water rate. On the individual household, in most cases changing from 3.5gpf to 1.6gpf will not change your consumption enough to show a substantial savings on your water bill, on the other hand, if the community as a whole does not make the change, they will have no alternative but to replace the sewer lines and build additional water and sewer treatment plants so in conclusion, if your looking for the savings on your water bill you looking in the wrong place. The real savings is on your tax bill.