Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The lid of the toilet

Entirely depends on the toilet lid...the one in the dorm here at school is made of flimsy plastic and I felt that I was going to put my foot in the toilet when I tried to stand on it once. The ones at home are very sturdy and are fine to sit on/stand on to change a lightbulb.
 
instaxgirl said:
The "usual amount of butt"?
Click to expand...

It depends if we are talking about inherent volume, or displaced surface area in the act of sitting. I'm included to go with surface area.

I would be inclined to treat each cheek as a simple ellipsoid and assume that no more than 62% of the surface area would conform to the seat, defining the "usual amount of butt." Of course, we must statistically control this for gender, race, age, and relative fitness. We all know that "baby got back."

Additionally, we could consider the instantaneous amount of butt, which is the amount of cheekage displaced in any given moment. This is heavily dependent upon two factors- (1) sense of urgency and (2) relative distance from cheek to seat. The maximum amount of cheekage, or MAC, should assymptotically approach 87%, all variables considered. We must also factor in seat shape, which will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
 
chrmjenkins said:
It depends if we are talking about inherent volume, or displaced surface area in the act of sitting. I'm included to go with surface area.

I would be inclined to treat each cheek as a simple ellipsoid and assume that no more than 62% of the surface area would conform to the seat, defining the "usual amount of butt." Of course, we must statistically control this for gender, race, age, and relative fitness. We all know that "baby got back."

Additionally, we could consider the instantaneous amount of butt, which is the amount of cheekage displaced in any given moment. This is heavily dependent upon two factors- (1) sense of urgency and (2) relative distance from cheek to seat. The maximum amount of cheekage, or MAC, should assymptotically approach 87%, all variables considered. We must also factor in seat shape, which will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Click to expand...


Clearly you're just making this up as you go along. If you took the time to do the math, you'd know that it was 57% and 84.5% respectively. Also, seat shape has proven to be meaningless.
 
I personally have never had the toilet lid "break" while I was sitting on it. But it has "shifted" back and fourth while I was sitting on it. :rolleyes:
 
rdowns said:
Clearly you're just making this up as you go along. If you took the time to do the math, you'd know that it was 57% and 84.5% respectively. Also, seat shape has proven to be meaningless.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Seat shape can mean the difference between successful launch and disaster due to poor conditions.

dontwalkhand said:
This will piss off some people on this forum ;) :p
Click to expand...

That's why you always wipe the disk before you start computing.
 
Customers at the toilet themed restaurant in Taipei, apparently unconcerned about the dangers of sitting on toilet seat lids...

toiletRes3.jpg
 
chrmjenkins said:
It depends if we are talking about inherent volume, or displaced surface area in the act of sitting. I'm included to go with surface area.

I would be inclined to treat each cheek as a simple ellipsoid and assume that no more than 62% of the surface area would conform to the seat, defining the "usual amount of butt." Of course, we must statistically control this for gender, race, age, and relative fitness. We all know that "baby got back."

Additionally, we could consider the instantaneous amount of butt, which is the amount of cheekage displaced in any given moment. This is heavily dependent upon two factors- (1) sense of urgency and (2) relative distance from cheek to seat. The maximum amount of cheekage, or MAC, should assymptotically approach 87%, all variables considered. We must also factor in seat shape, which will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Click to expand...

I assume your calculations are based on the Farley Enhanced Common Enclosed Seat, not the industrial-use, open-ended Merckel-Arnheim-Nedhem Standard Toilet Attendant Needs Deflector/Positionally Inverted Slot Seat Evacuation Receptacle.
 
skunk said:
If me no ifs, and butt me no butts.
Click to expand...

Cheeky, should have expected as much from an Englishman. In the future, keep your assinine comments to yourself. How's that for an American Standard?

JNB said:
I assume your calculations are based on the Farley Enhanced Common Enclosed Seat, not the industrial-use, open-ended Merckel-Arnheim-Nedhem Standard Toilet Attendant Needs Deflector/Positionally Inverted Slot Seat Evacuation Receptacle.
Click to expand...

Of course. From the bowels of what secluded pit do you accuse me of being excreted from? ureally must think I'm full of it, huh?
 
If they weren't meant for sitting on, why would toilet seats have lids to begin with?

Even if the lid is made of insanely cheap and flimsy plastic, you would have to apply a lot of force to break it. To be that big, you probably couldn't fit on a toilet anyway.
 
GSMiller said:
If they weren't meant for sitting on, why would toilet seats have lids to begin with?

Even if the lid is made of insanely cheap and flimsy plastic, you would have to apply a lot of force to break it. To be that big, you probably couldn't fit on a toilet anyway.
Click to expand...

Some people collect toilet seats, so I guess they just sit on them from time to time :p
 
Benguitar said:
I personally have never had the toilet lid "break" while I was sitting on it. But it has "shifted" back and fourth while I was sitting on it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is what happens to me, I have been sitting on it for years as well, to cut toenails, or putting socks on after a shower, etc, and I never have had it break, and it looks like it is designed to hold a human, due to the way the lid is shaped. It looks kind of "contoured" and "Swept back"
 
chrmjenkins said:
It depends if we are talking about inherent volume, or displaced surface area in the act of sitting. I'm included to go with surface area.

I would be inclined to treat each cheek as a simple ellipsoid and assume that no more than 62% of the surface area would conform to the seat, defining the "usual amount of butt." Of course, we must statistically control this for gender, race, age, and relative fitness. We all know that "baby got back."

Additionally, we could consider the instantaneous amount of butt, which is the amount of cheekage displaced in any given moment. This is heavily dependent upon two factors- (1) sense of urgency and (2) relative distance from cheek to seat. The maximum amount of cheekage, or MAC, should assymptotically approach 87%, all variables considered. We must also factor in seat shape, which will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Nominated for Post of the Week™ :D

But let me explain...
UAB (Usual Amount of Butt) is intended solely as the basis for judging each individual's Depth of Cheekage† (DoC) whilst they are otherwise engaged on the commode; (it should also be noted that the Depth of Cheekage is measured when one is seated on the actual seat, not the lid, which is the topic under discussion). UAB is an average of all previous Seated Toilet Uses, or STUs, for that specific individual and pertains only to the amount of one's ass that penetrates below the seat. Therefore, if it is granted that the average Depth of Cheekage is 2.774" - notwithstanding temporary excesses or recesses brought about by sickness or other causes - then one must logically make the assumption that UAB is in reference to the measure of the DoC that is gained when the presupposed failure of the toilet lid transpires.

I do hope this has cleared things up a bit.

†Depth of Cheekage (DoC) is a set of averages taken from a broad range of toilet users, regardless of race, gender, weight, etc. Whereas Usual Amount of Butt (UAB) is more of a personal average or estimate measured by eye at the time of use. UAB is a casual measurement and not intended for precise mathematical uses that is required by DoC.
 
This "usual amount of butt" discussion has amused me to no end. :D In fact, I think a "LMAO" would be appropriate here.


As for this lid thing - I keep the lid open and stand on one foot while I clip the toenails on the other over the loo, then change feet. Good balance, I haz it.
 
Melrose said:
Nominated for Post of the Week™ :D

But let me explain...
UAB (Usual Amount of Butt) is intended solely as the basis for judging each individual's Depth of Cheekage† (DoC) whilst they are otherwise engaged on the commode; (it should also be noted that the Depth of Cheekage is measured when one is seated on the actual seat, not the lid, which is the topic under discussion). UAB is an average of all previous Seated Toilet Uses, or STUs, for that specific individual and pertains only to the amount of one's ass that penetrates below the seat. Therefore, if it is granted that the average Depth of Cheekage is 2.774" - notwithstanding temporary excesses or recesses brought about by sickness or other causes - then one must logically make the assumption that UAB is in reference to the measure of the DoC that is gained when the presupposed failure of the toilet lid transpires.

I do hope this has cleared things up a bit.

†Depth of Cheekage (DoC) is a set of averages taken from a broad range of toilet users, regardless of race, gender, weight, etc. Whereas Usual Amount of Butt (UAB) is more of a personal average or estimate measured by eye at the time of use. UAB is a casual measurement and not intended for precise mathematical uses that is required by DoC.
Click to expand...

Ah, I should have guessed you would use an amorphous conformal displacement model rather than the simpler planar displacement mechanics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back