Low flow showerheads?

[Celtic Blue]

I'm considering replacing one of the showerheads in a kids shower and figured that it might be a good opportunity to try one of the lower flow models. Right now all the ones I have are the standard 2.5 gpm flow showerheads and they work fine...except for the old one that I'm looking to replace. What have you folks tried in lower flow shower heads and what did you think of them?

I've seen some good reviews of the HighSierra FCS at 1.5 GPM HighSierra Showerheads work using the patented, FCS technology and it is at the top of my list.

The number two choice I've come across is the Oxygenics Elite 700 http://fivepercent.us/2007/12/16/oyg...r-head-review/. I'm not real sure what the actual rated flow of this one even is... The reviewer panned the Delta ultra low flow.

The HighSierra got good reviews for water dispersion, especially for kids. It uses a non-aerated design so that the water doesn't cool as much (and less mist) so it should be more energy efficient than aerated designs.

The Road Runner 1.6 GPM would be on the list, except that the trickle feature would be a problem for youngsters. This is a non-aerated head. Road Runner Shower Head Has Unique “Pause” Feature »» MetaEfficient Reviews Small kids would not be able to reach the valve to switch it to shower mode when temp is reached...but I wouldn't mind having this feature for my shower. There is an interesting PDF where the makers discuss the energy consuming effect of aerated shower heads. http://www.screamtobegreen.com/wp-co...hower-head.pdf Basically, a Texas A&M study concluded the incoming water temp for an aerated head had to be 10 F hotter to give the same spray pattern temp as for a non-aerated design.

For those who want to max out (or min out in this case) there is the Bricor B100 Ultra-max @ 0.55 GPM. (Hey, at that flow rate I could just use my sunheated camping/backpacking shower bag and nozzle.) This Bricor runs $75 though...

[patsparks]

Best shower rose I ever had was the cheapest low flow shower rose on the market here. Called a water-miser, it was made by Dorf and was only an inch and a half in diameter, it gave the best hot shower where you felt wet all over but hardly any water went down the drain. Of course you can't buy them any more. Only problem was the spray would degrade after about 10 years, when new it almost atomised the water, when older the water came out in hard needles that hurt.

[hill]

Low flow showewr heads is wear I draw the line. CFL's? LeD's? solar? tankless water heater? Front load washer? Good to go. But don't mess w/ my shower.

There's even a seinfield episode about this abomination ... bootleg high flows. woah.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by hill

Low flow showewr heads is wear I draw the line. CFL's? LeD's? solar? tankless water heater? Front load washer? Good to go. But don't mess w/ my shower.

There's even a seinfield episode about this abomination ... bootleg high flows. woah.

Try a good one once,,, there are lots of lousy low flows out there. On the other hand there are a number of really good ones out there as well. We use a 1.5 gpm and it works great. 1.5 GPM Ultra low flow efficiency showerhead

Icarus

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by icarus

Try a good one once,,, there are lots of lousy low flows out there. On the other hand there are a number of really good ones out there as well. We use a 1.5 gpm and it works great. 1.5 GPM Ultra low flow efficiency showerhead

A good one is of course the key. I'm not looking to sacrifice a decent shower for a low flow device, but if I can have both...

The Oxygenics showerhead listed above has one drawback: it's an aerated design. Rough calcs suggest that results in about 25% more water heating cost than the same flow in a non-aerated design.

I came across the following calculator (which saved me the trouble of creating my own) Shower Water and Energy Use Calculator | Pays to Live Green The value of the energy savings in going from 2.5 to 1.5 exceeds the water savings. For a single 7 min shower once/day the 1 gpm reduction is about 14.4 therms/yr and 2550 gal/yr. With a 10 F higher temp. for an aerated design the energy savings would be lower at about 9 therms/year.

I can't blame Hill for being skeptical though, I've had various standard shower heads in the 2.5 gpm range that were horrid in the past. A few years ago I bored out some orifices at the bench to get decent flow/spray patterns in one home. When I moved here I tossed two crappy showerheads (actually, I sold one for 50 cents and cut the plastic cover off the other to recover the brass core for scrap) and put in two 2.5's that have worked well. So that got me to thinking about whether or not there were other good solutions in the 1.5 gpm range.

Recent years have been improving the way spray nozzles are designed and used. Our current Energy Star dishwasher does a much better job of cleaning than the previous several dishwashers I've used, and almost all of that is attributable to better spray/pressure distribution. I've designed and modified distributor systems and sieve trays for distillation towers and reactors so I can attest to how poor/crude many older designs were.

I'm thinking I'll try the HighSierra downstairs. With its relatively low price it should payback in about a year.

p.s. As far as efficiency improvements the same is true of toilets...the early 1990's 1.6 gpf toilets were pretty bad. There are several in this home. They didn't originally redesign the bowl system, just restricted water use by the tank. As a result I've had to modify a troublesome one into a 2.7 gpf toilet so it works much better. Eventually I will replace it, might even try a 1.25 gpf toilet, but that's a later topic.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

A good one is of course the key. I'm not looking to sacrifice a decent shower for a low flow device, but if I can have both...

The Oxygenics showerhead listed above has one drawback: it's an aerated design. Rough calcs suggest that results in about 25% more water heating cost than the same flow in a non-aerated design.

I came across the following calculator (which saved me the trouble of creating my own) Shower Water and Energy Use Calculator | Pays to Live Green The value of the energy savings in going from 2.5 to 1.5 exceeds the water savings. For a single 7 min shower once/day the 1 gpm reduction is about 14.4 therms/yr and 2550 gal/yr. With a 10 F higher temp. for an aerated design the energy savings would be lower at about 9 therms/year.

I can't blame Hill for being skeptical though, I've had various standard shower heads in the 2.5 gpm range that were horrid in the past. A few years ago I bored out some orifices at the bench to get decent flow/spray patterns in one home. When I moved here I tossed two crappy showerheads (actually, I sold one for 50 cents and cut the plastic cover off the other to recover the brass core for scrap) and put in two 2.5's that have worked well. So that got me to thinking about whether or not there were other good solutions in the 1.5 gpm range.

Recent years have been improving the way spray nozzles are designed and used. Our current Energy Star dishwasher does a much better job of cleaning than the previous several dishwashers I've used, and almost all of that is attributable to better spray/pressure distribution. I've designed and modified distributor systems and sieve trays for distillation towers and reactors so I can attest to how poor/crude many older designs were.

I'm thinking I'll try the HighSierra downstairs. With its relatively low price it should payback in about a year.

p.s. As far as efficiency improvements the same is true of toilets...the early 1990's 1.6 gpf toilets were pretty bad. There are several in this home. They didn't originally redesign the bowl system, just restricted water use by the tank. As a result I've had to modify a troublesome one into a 2.7 gpf toilet so it works much better. Eventually I will replace it, might even try a 1.25 gpf toilet, but that's a later topic.

The reduction from 2.5 gpm to 1.5 gpm is a 40% reduction,,, if you spend 25% more on the energy PER GALLON you are still a better use of both water and energy if my feeble mind does the calcs right.

Icarus

PS Your right about toilets. We just bought a simple off the shelf American Standard 1.6. It works great,, and even though it isn't sold as such, it has a simple two stage flush. Flick the handle and it floods the trap enough for number 1. Hold it down and it empties the full q.6 for more if needed.

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by icarus

The reduction from 2.5 gpm to 1.5 gpm is a 40% reduction,,, if you spend 25% more on the energy PER GALLON you are still a better use of both water and energy if my feeble mind does the calcs right.

Yes, it is still better than standard flow, but you are giving up a portion of one of the bigger savings by using an aerated head. If it is necessary to get an adequate comfort shower then it is an understandable compromise. What I'm hoping is that it is not necessary to compromise, at least at this flow level. Of course, in your case with a high (?) percentage of that being solar water heating, the energy benefit may be inconsequential.

I've taken a look at the 1.5 vs. 2.5 GPM cases for all our showers, 4 people/day. It would be a large reduction in our water heating gas consumption, subtracting nearly 58 ccF/year. My current estimate is that showers are between 67 and 75% of our water heating energy use, and that is based on a pretty good balance/estimate with some cross checks. I've cut losses by about 23 ccF/yr by insulating the tank and the accessible piping runs, and another 14 ccF with the front loading washer. Add it all together and it would be 95 ccF reduction, about 40% of my original water heating baseline last year...that's not too far from what I might have hoped to save originally with a solar water heater in this climate.

[tripp]

We have a $12 Delta 1.6 gpm low flow and really like it. It's not aerated. It was a bit different to the standard 2.5 gpm that we had previously, but we got used to the different feel of it quickly and are very happy with it. Between it and the R11 blanket on the water heater we are saving roughly 1-2 therms/mo on our gas bill.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Maybe the CIA has some used waterboarding dispensers available on the cheap. Might really motivate you to save lots water. (I couldn't help posting this. Sorry.)

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by tripp

We have a $12 Delta 1.6 gpm low flow and really like it. It's not aerated. It was a bit different to the standard 2.5 gpm that we had previously, but we got used to the different feel of it quickly and are very happy with it. Between it and the R11 blanket on the water heater we are saving roughly 1-2 therms/mo on our gas bill.

The reviewers mentioned the Delta but the comments I read complained of it being too stinging with its spray. Of course, that's a subjective thing so what one might find objectionable others might prefer. If it works for you and you are saving water and energy, then it is a great deal.

How many users do you have of this particular shower? I would expect even more savings from the showerhead than you list above, assuming that you have more than one user.