![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaWell, aren't you all lovely? Yesterday, I asked anyone who had the time, ability and inclination to measure their toilet seat for me. And although I was reasonably certain some of you would have the time and ability, I didn't really expect anyone to have the inclination. But several of you did.
Which means I now know an approximate average width for the hole in a toilet seat.
In centimetres, the width of reported toilet seats is:
21, 21.3, 21.5 22, 22, 22.5, 23, 23.2.
Plus![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ewx's confusingly chamfered[*] toilet seat which varies been 24cm and 22cm depending on where you measure it.
This confirms my theory that the toilet seats in my new office block are extremely weird. I've moved offices, by the way. Same company, new location.
The toilet seats look weird because the holes in them are close to circular - most toilet seat holes are in the ovoid region. Or occasionally rectangular. But not round. And then I, er, sat on one.
Bloody hell, I thought, this is uncomfortable.
And then I pondered a bit, and then I asked you all an odd question. And then I brought a tape measure to work. 27.5 cm across (and 28.5cm back to front). It is wider than a standard loo seat and those few centimetres are important.
At least, they are if you're me. Fundamentally, my bum is not big enough for this toilet. I mean, I'm not going to fall in, or anything, but whatever those bony bits of pelvis are called are just in the wrong place to sit comfortably. (People with actual knowledge of actual anatomy are encouraged to chip in here.)
Which brings me onto a few other questions. Human arse-width presumably varies quite considerably. Is the standard toilet width of 22-ish cm something calculated to be about right for the largest number of people? Or is it just a coincidence that most toilets measured were about the same? Does the average width of pelvis (and hence possibly toilet) vary by country? Are there narrow-hipped people who normally find UK toilets uncomfortable? Are there wider-hipped people who might prefer the toilets in my new office? Did the toilet-designer consider any of these facts, or just decide what looked nice and to hell with comfort?
Answers to these (or any other tangentially-related questions) welcome on the back of a sealed-down LJ comment. I have not yet asked my colleagues because (a) they're all blokes who might be presumed to sit less often in these circumstances and (b) well, it's a bit weird asking your colleagues about their toilet preferences. Wild speculation is therefore encouraged.
[*] I have no memory of having read or written the word "chamfered" before. I had to look up how to spell it. I expected more in the ph department, to be honest.
Which means I now know an approximate average width for the hole in a toilet seat.
In centimetres, the width of reported toilet seats is:
21, 21.3, 21.5 22, 22, 22.5, 23, 23.2.
Plus
ewx's confusingly chamfered[*] toilet seat which varies been 24cm and 22cm depending on where you measure it. This confirms my theory that the toilet seats in my new office block are extremely weird. I've moved offices, by the way. Same company, new location.
The toilet seats look weird because the holes in them are close to circular - most toilet seat holes are in the ovoid region. Or occasionally rectangular. But not round. And then I, er, sat on one.
Bloody hell, I thought, this is uncomfortable.
And then I pondered a bit, and then I asked you all an odd question. And then I brought a tape measure to work. 27.5 cm across (and 28.5cm back to front). It is wider than a standard loo seat and those few centimetres are important.
At least, they are if you're me. Fundamentally, my bum is not big enough for this toilet. I mean, I'm not going to fall in, or anything, but whatever those bony bits of pelvis are called are just in the wrong place to sit comfortably. (People with actual knowledge of actual anatomy are encouraged to chip in here.)
Which brings me onto a few other questions. Human arse-width presumably varies quite considerably. Is the standard toilet width of 22-ish cm something calculated to be about right for the largest number of people? Or is it just a coincidence that most toilets measured were about the same? Does the average width of pelvis (and hence possibly toilet) vary by country? Are there narrow-hipped people who normally find UK toilets uncomfortable? Are there wider-hipped people who might prefer the toilets in my new office? Did the toilet-designer consider any of these facts, or just decide what looked nice and to hell with comfort?
Answers to these (or any other tangentially-related questions) welcome on the back of a sealed-down LJ comment. I have not yet asked my colleagues because (a) they're all blokes who might be presumed to sit less often in these circumstances and (b) well, it's a bit weird asking your colleagues about their toilet preferences. Wild speculation is therefore encouraged.
[*] I have no memory of having read or written the word "chamfered" before. I had to look up how to spell it. I expected more in the ph department, to be honest.
