Why not switch to hard ballast tanks? Log Out | Topics | Search | Register | Edit Profile | User List
Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Moderators | Help/Instructions
WakeWorld Discussion Board » >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive » Archive through July 28, 2009 » Why not switch to hard ballast tanks? « Previous Next »
By J McKee (jmaustin) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 8:01 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I have a Mobius LSV and right now I'm doing the old fill each sac one at a time untill I get the time to install a full system. I'm trying to decide why I shouldn't use hard removable tanks in the back. Any negatives anyone can think of?
 
By David B. (dabell) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 8:06 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
They take up space that could be used when you are not loaded up with water ballast. You can't recover that space.

However, there are many benefits to them but space is the primary concern with hard tanks.

 
By robert (robert) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 8:48 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I have always wounder why someone has not come up with larger hard tanks to replace the smaller original tanks and or additional hard tanks that would fit on top of the stock tanks with bayonet fittings for easy removal if not needed
 
By J McKee (jmaustin) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 8:49 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Agreed on the space. However, my trips are usually either for riding or not. Hardly ever both on the same trip. So, I would either have them in or out depending on the trip type. When we do stay out all day for riding and other, since everything has to be taken out when the tanks are filled, why not leave it out?
Just seems like the positives out-weigh the negatives, but wondering why everyone still uses the bags.

 
By J McKee (jmaustin) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 8:52 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Robert, agreed. Seems like it would be much better to maximize the ballast space/weight in the lockers/engine compartment with hard tanks than having to throw extra sacs in the walking areas.

(Message edited by jmaustin on July 15, 2009)

 
By George Aslinger (mobv) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 9:01 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I've had 2 boats with hard tanks that I removed to replace with flyhigh sacs. Hard tank size limited to be able to get it in and out and to work around for plumbing and engine maintenance. Plus as others said they limit storage when not being used.
 
By Patrick (jetskiprosx) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 9:01 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Why go through the effort of adding additional hard tanks when you could just pull the original tanks and put in larger sacks? If you don't fill them up you still have all the storage space. They are easier to remove and clean underneath then sacks, easier to work on the engine cause they remove in seconds (if you use quick disconnects), and they can be bought for cheaper.

When we got our Sanger v230 the first thing I did was remove the hard tanks in the rear and replace them with fly high 750's. I rarely ever fill the rear sacks for wakeboarding as I don't need a huge wake, but we like the extra ballast for surfing. When we surf all of the gear goes in the locker opposite to the side we are surfing on. When we go on camping trips we can fit TONS of stuff in the rear lockers with the ballast empty and keep it off the floor of the boat. IMO sacks are much better then hard tanks in a v-drive. In a direct drive that may be totally different (say a hard tank under the rear seat).

 
By J McKee (jmaustin) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 9:31 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Not sure what everyone else is packn in their boats that this extra space is needed so badly. I usually have plenty of other places in the boat for anchor, jackets, bumpers, shoes, towels, clothes, etc.
Are we hauln kegs and margarita machines?

 
By gangstar (joe_crawley) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 9:36 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I've always been confused by the draw to hardtanks, and I ripped them out of my boat.

Is there a single benefit to a hardtank?

 
By Rob (robandrus) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 9:45 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I debated on this with my SAN, I actually had large bags for the rear but decided to keep the hard tanks.

The best part is that I can load crap on top of them (jackets etc) and still fill the tanks. I also added bags that fill from the overflow of the tanks. I have a decent amount of storage but I don't need to move everything out before filling. I agree that they are a pain when it comes to engine maintenance.

 
By J McKee (jmaustin) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 9:57 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I haven't laid it out yet, and am definitely not an expert, but it just seems that if you have the room a fixed system is easier and would hold up better with less problems than a system that could move around.

Seems that the problems with ballast systems I see coming up on the boards (leaks, air pockets, problems with emptying bags) could be greatly reduced with a fixed system.

Or, maybe they are all just user error.

 
By Patrick (jetskiprosx) on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 10:07 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Since the tow vehicle is usually full, we put wakeboards, wakeskate, skis, tubes (if we have to) and all sorts of other stuff in the rear lockers. I used to be able to fit my old surfboard in there even! No way could I have done that with hard tanks. There is no right or wrong answer to hard tanks vs. sacks. It's all about what you as the boat owner want.
 

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions Administration
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
WakeSpace is owned by eWake, Inc.
Copyright © 1996 - 2010, All Rights Reserved.
WakeSpace@WakeWorld.com