Cricket Head Update?

[Rick D]

I will be replacing my Jabsco sometime, now that I've had to replace the pump for the fourth time in less years (the only thing original is the bowl). Anyhow, Sam Lust was unhappy with his Cricket experience and replaced it with a PH ll. However, the Cricket still appears to be a smart design. I'm wondering if any of the rest of you now have a couple of seasons on yours and would offer an update? Rick D.

 

[Ricky]

Crush the Cricket

I put a cricket on my boat before a long trip last spring. By the time we returned, my 90 pound sister broke the thin plastic elbow that holds the pumper handle, the wet-dry switch just fell out, causing water to free flow into the head (it had to be wet caulked back in place with loss of function), and throughout the trip it wouldn't flush worth a darn. As soon as we got back I tore it out. Get a PHII instead. It is infinitely better than the cricket. I was so happy with the PHII that I took a picture of it and emailed it to every one of our guests from that trip to let them know that the cricket was gone and it was safe to come on the boat again. Once the muscles in their pumping arm had recovered.

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMistress]

A little marginal for a 40' boat IMO, Rick

I'd upgrade to an electric toilet on a boat that size, especially if you do much entertaining on it...more landlubber friendly. But if you're determined to stick with a manual toilet the PH II is a better choice. That's not to say that the Cricket isn't an excellent toilet...it is. I just happen to think the PH II-- with the larger "highboy" bowl, btw--is more in keeping with with a boat the size of yours.

 

[Bryce Grefe]

Cricket

Rick,I'm on my third season with two crickets on my 410. I got the standard size bowl and have had no problems with them. Bryce S/V Spellbinder

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMistress]

Ricky's experience is not typical

The kind of catostrophic failures he describes just don't happen to ANY toilet unless the toilet is abused--overloaded and severely "man-handled." Any time a "90 lb weakling" breaks anything on any toilet, it almost always means that someone a lot bigger and stronger actually did the breaking earlier...all the 90 pounder had to do was touch it. It also takes a considerable amount of man-handling to break a dry/flush valve on any toilet. In Ricky's defense, he prob'ly told his guests how the toilet worked and expected 'em to treat it with at least a little more kindness than the average stevedore treats barstools in a fight...and even to ask for help if they had problems. But he wasn't in the head to watch how they treated it, how much toilet paper--or what else--they tried to force it swallow...he gave his guests credit for having some sense. That the muscles in their pumping arms had to recover is a good indication that they didn't, 'cuz one of the advantages of the Cricket is that it's so easy to pump that even children can do so without help. However, it would be only natural that Ricky would blame the toilet, not them....he hadn't had it long enough to have enough experience with it to think otherwise.But--if it was indeed a new toilet, and if he didn't complain to Raritan, but only ripped it out and replaced it with a PH II, it's likely that he at least suspected that the toilet wasn't entirely to blame...'cuz few people are willing to just kiss off $200 instead of making a warranty claim. Fwiw, Ricky, the PH II IS a somewhat sturdier toilet than the Cricket...but NO toilet is 100% bullet-proof. It'll only take longer for any abuse to take its toll.

 

[Ricky]

All supposition Peggie

First, my small 90 pound sister would be offended by insinuations of being a "weakling". Second, she came on to the boat a week after the cricket was installed, and I can assure you that neither my mate nor I abused the cricket in any way during this time. Before the cricket was even installed, my mate looked at the thin plastic elbow that attached the handle to the punp and pronounced it suspiciously thin for the job. And she was obviously right. Similar reports of the early failure of this part have been made on the Cruising World bulletin board. This is not a solitary incident. Third, the dry/flush valve did not break. It simply fell out of the lower housing. It appeared that the screw in the center of the lever had unscrewed from whatever fitting inside the housing to which it was supposed to be secured. Upon removal from the boat, something loose could be heard inside the housing. Design flaw or improper assembly? I don't know. Fourth, my comment about our guests' sore pumping arm muscles was a JOKE, that I'm sure just about everybody else got as such. Fifth, the manufacturer was contacted and they exchanged the cricket for the PHII, after acknowledging that they had been experiencing significant problems on a small number of the crickets. So although it may not be a "typical" experience, it does appear that this head has much room for improvement.

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMistress]

Oh for pete's sake...

I didn't call your sister is a 90 lb weakling...YOU noted that she only weighs 90s lbs...implying that it didn't take much weight or strength to break the fitting...I used the term "90 lb weakling the same way you referred to your guests' "sore pumping arms"--which I took to mean they found the toilet hard to pump...it shouldn't be.The Cricket is a very nice child/landlubber-friendly, almost maintenance-free toilet, but it's not a "heavy duty" take-a-beating toilet. Still, it's very durable and your experience with it is anything BUT typical. If it were, a LOT more people who have chimed in with similar stories and you'd have seen a lot more complaints elsewhere. Sam Lust seems to be only other person here who wasn't happy with it, and his complaints about it were about totally different issues. Did you demand an exchange under warranty? If not, you should have...because Raritan stands behind their products and would not only have exchanged it for a PH II if that's what you wanted, but would have paid for the return shipping so they could see what caused your failures and correct any design or production flaws. That's one of the things that sets 'em apart from large conglomerate mass-producers and why their products are so highly rated--and why I'm so high on 'em: they're a family-owned company to whom the quality and reputation of their products means more than adding a few more pennies a unit to the bottom line on a balance sheet.

 

[Mark Burrows]

Not my area of expertise

Never having had a marine head that you couldn't pick up, empty, and put in your car (not that I did that), I'm curious about these descriptions of how users use these two heads. What is considered light-use, moderate-use, and heavy-duty-use (no pun intended)?Markdb

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMistress]

Light, moderate and heavy duty

A portapotty is a "light use" toilet...owners mostly day sail, occasionally overnight, but don't need a lot of capacity or want a system to maintain. Manual toilets may all work pretty much the same way, but most anything under $500 would be considered a "moderate use" toilet, durable enough for the average "weekend warrior" and even the typical coastal liveaboard...but not designed to withstand very much of the kind of stresses that users would subject it to in a week-long blow and/or weeks of 10' seas in open ocean. Price, parts availability and user-friendliness are the prime considerations in design and construction--with more emphasis by some mfrs on one of those things than on others. There's also a wide range in just how much occasional stress and owner neglect these toilets can handle...among US made toilets, the PH II is considered the pick of this litter. "Heavy duty" toilets are built to last for decades, even longer...and their prices reflect it. The Wilcox Skipper is a $1,000 bronze "throne" that will last at least 100 years and survive any conditions--including some the boat may be able to--with minmal maintenance. I've seen a few of 'em that were past 50 and a lot more over 25 years old. The Groco model K is another one in that class, though a bit more temperamental than the Skipper. The British "Baby Blake" (not available in the US) is another.All electric toilets are "moderate use" toilets...they only exist because of the demand for "push button convenience" and user friendliness from the increasing numbers of weekend warriors and coastal liveaboards who want a lifestyle aboard that's as close to a land lifestyle as possible. They're not made to withstand much blue water "abuse" either.The above are defintely broad-stroke generalities! There are exceptions in every "class"...which is why one of the longest chapters in my book is the "The Best Toilet for My Boat." 'Cuz there is no single "best toilet," only the best one for a particular boat and the people who will use it.

 

[Ed Schenck]

Semi-satisfied owner.

As a Cricket owner starting the third season I would install a PH-II. I am very conservative and would never use my batteries where a few pumps will do.I have had no problems with my Cricket. Friends that are over 6'6" and 250# and grandchildren less than 40# use it. Our procedure has always been just a few strokes to clear the bowl. Then I flush clean in the evening with freshwater and some KO.One warning. Take the template from the website and make sure it fits. The bolt pattern along with the rear facing outlet cause me to build an oak platform to move it forward about one inch. And my H37C head is fairly large.

 

[Rick D]

Cricket Comments

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your comments. It looks like the PHII is the way to go, but I'll consider an electric too since we have a second head as a back up. BTW, I actually am satisfied with the Jabsco in terms of operation and installation. The plastic castings simply lack adequate beef and I have had too many failures over many years. Their service has been good and they replaced two items without charge even though far out of warranty. We have heavy use since we spend 25% of our time aboard. Rick D.