Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive > Archive through July 28, 2009

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    J M (jmaustin)      Join Date: Jun 2009       07-15-2009, 9:01 AM Reply   
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?
Old    David Bell (dabell)      Join Date: Apr 2007       07-15-2009, 9:06 AM Reply   
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.
Old    robert (robert)      Join Date: Oct 2004       07-15-2009, 9:48 AM Reply   
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
Old    J M (jmaustin)      Join Date: Jun 2009       07-15-2009, 9:49 AM Reply   
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.
Old    J M (jmaustin)      Join Date: Jun 2009       07-15-2009, 9:52 AM Reply   
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)
Old    George Aslinger (mobv)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2009, 10:01 AM Reply   
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.
Old    Patrick (jetskiprosx)      Join Date: Aug 2004       07-15-2009, 10:01 AM Reply   
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).
Old    J M (jmaustin)      Join Date: Jun 2009       07-15-2009, 10:31 AM Reply   
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?
Old    gangstar (joe_crawley)      Join Date: Jan 2007       07-15-2009, 10:36 AM Reply   
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?
Old    Rob Andrus (robandrus)      Join Date: Feb 2002       07-15-2009, 10:45 AM Reply   
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.
Old    J M (jmaustin)      Join Date: Jun 2009       07-15-2009, 10:57 AM Reply   
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.
Old    Patrick (jetskiprosx)      Join Date: Aug 2004       07-15-2009, 11:07 AM Reply   
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.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:45 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us