Sorry if this appears as a double post. I got an error posting suggesting that I had already, but I did not see the post on the forum.
____________________________________________
Our first season is unfortunately windling down and while it was a wonderful experience we have as expected developed a list of enhancements/fixes that we want to address. We sail on Georgian Bay (Great Lakes Area) and will often go for extended periods away from any marina and we find the 18 gallon holding tank a bit small for four people (two adults and two kids). If we invite guests, it feels even smaller. So increasing the tank size is one of our top enhancements we want to address.
I've requested info from Catalina about getting a larger holding tank and they recommended the 30 gallon tank from Ronco (number 60170 or Ronco-B179 http://www.ronco-plastics.com/newRonco/product_details.php?prodID=72 (http://www.ronco-plastics.com/newRonco/product_details.php?prodID=72)) versus the Ronco-B212 (http://www.ronco-plastics.com/newRonco/product_details.php?prodID=104 (http://www.ronco-plastics.com/newRonco/product_details.php?prodID=104)) that we currently have. Apparently the C34 MK I's are suppose to be outfitted with the larger tank (or so I was told). I've done some preliminary measuring and noted that my thru-hull for the macerator would be in the way, plus the deeper dimension on the port most side of the tank seems to a bit tight. I am wondering if anyone else has done this upgrade to their MK II and how did it go? How did you deal with the thru-hull and did it sit properly within the available space?
I found a thread started by Hank Toby in 2003 and an even older one from 2002 with no apparent resolution. In 2007 I see Chris Martinson asks a similiar question, but for a MK I. I don't expect to many coastal sailors doing this upgrade, but anyone in freshwater might have.
The attached image shows the existing B212 tank and the thru-hull location. The new B179 would be almost as big as the storage locker's opening, thus cover the thru-hull.
Hi Frederick
I think we may have met over the summer around cedar springs? Your post is interesting to me as I also find our factory tank too small. We also cruise with two adults and two kids. My intetention was to covert our aft water tank to holding this winter to increase our holding tank size. I pulled the aft tank last year with the intention of doing the conversion this spring but ran out of time. But if the 30 gallon tank from ronco fits in the factory location I will be ordering it Monday. I will measure this weekend, if it fits through the locker opening it will be perfect. I do not have a through hull located in this locker, but I would not worry about removing it and filling the hole. Easy and cheap to fill the hole.
Thanks for the post, you may have saved me work and bought me an extra 5 days between pumpouts.
Cory
Fred...you said, "I've done some preliminary measuring and noted that my thru-hull for the macerator would be in the way,..."
You can't use a macerator pump on the Great Lakes, so there's no reason to avoid covering up the thru-hull. If the seacock etc are in the way, remove the thru-hull and have the hole glassed over. If you or an FO (future owner) ever take the boat offshore where a macerator would be useable, a new thru-hull in another location can be installed.
And as long as you're replacing the tank, now would be an excellent time to relocate the vent line OUT of the rail stanchion and into a thru-hull that will allow you to back flush it to prevent it from ever becoming blocked.
I rate the small holding tank, really the entire waste system, as the worst system on my boat. The specifications say 18 gal. It might be to the top. But due to the tank shape (narrow at the bottom) I don't think that the usable volume when sailing is 12 gal. When we are out cruising, just my wife and I, it's a pump out every 3ed day or so.
Well my rant is over.
After all that, needless to say that I'm very interested in upgrading the holding tank and will be following this thread with anticipation.
Jim
Cory: Yes, I remember seeing Mystic around Beausoleil Island. I think you gave Kathy some sailing magazines that you had already read (we're still not finished reading them... life's so busy). You mention you do not have a thru-hull in the port locker. Is Mystic not a MK II or did you have it already removed? I'd be interested in how your measuring compares to mine. I felt it still seemed a bit tight on the outboard (port most) side.
Peggy: Yes, the macerator is pointless for us. We store it in our dock-box and are only holding on to it incase we ever sell the boat in the future, which was also why I would prefer to not to remove the thru-hull... but if I have to, then I will.
With respect to the vent line, that is one part of what we need to take care of. That stantion is leaking at the deck and the water makes its way behind the electrical panel. My plan is to remove the stantion, cut off the thru-hull vent fitting off, epoxy the holes and reseat the stantion. I then plan to vent forward out the hull behind the port v-berth locker just below the deck. We'll see if I can fit in your recommended 1" or larger line.
A second part of this upgrade would be to reroute the inlet from the head to the tank. Currently it goes from the head aftwards under the sink, then loops up and forwards behind the head, past the hanging locker and nav station and down into the tank. I measured that this is approximately nine feet long. I want to redirect the flow from the head directly foward and up and then down to the tank (about five feet only), thus removing the aft loop. I actually don't understand why the plumbing was routed the way it was, unless there is a need to have the head exit horizontally before it goes up?
A couple more possible plumbing changes: 1. When you specify the tank fittings locations, put both the inlet and the vent fittings alway from the hull, toward the centerline...that will prevent waste from running back into the head discharge hose and/or spilling out the vent when the boat is heeled. 2. You'll need a vented loop in the head intake. And, it MIGHT make sense to put a loop--not necessarily vented--in the head discharge line so that gravity can assist in getting the bowl contents to the tank.
I'll be glad to brainstorm the whole installation with you if you'd like to email me.
Hi Peggie,
Thanks for the suggestions. I understand the idea of locating both vent and inlet more inboard, but I'm not sure that will work with the inlet, because of how it enters the compartment. It would need to make a fairly tight (almost 90 degree) turn (see existing inlet in image above). Hopefully a high enough loop will compensate for that, as per your second suggestion.
I'm not sure that I understand the need for a vented loop in the head intake. The water intake originally went directly from the thru-hull inlet to the head's pump, then from the pump via a vented loop to the bowl (which actually didn't make any sense to me). When our head had flushing issues this spring our marina tried to sell us a new head, but I went for only replacing the pump assembly (including joker valve) since the bowl was just fine and well seated and the new pump had a locking feature. At that point the head had a hose that went directly from the pump to the bowl, so I just disconnected the vented loop and left it hanging in place for now. We usually close the seacock when sailing.
I'd be glad to take you up on your offer once I'm confident that the tank will fit. I'll be going up Sunday to do some final in water prep before having the boat hauled out for the winter, so I'll recheck my measurements. We unfortunately have cut our season short because our youngest broke a leg and for now needs constant supervision.
I'm not sure that I understand the need for a vented loop in the head intake.
It's very simple. Water seeks its own level...and when the toilet is at or below the waterline, water outside the boat seeks its own level INside the boat via the toilet intake line. Priming a manual or electric toilet actually starts a siphon that needs to be broken, which is one of the functions of a vented loop. Without an anti-siphon device, sea water would just keep on coming in. The loop also puts an arch in the line that's far enough above the waterline to prevent just simple level-seeking to happen.
Now, you're gonna argue that you keep the seacock closed when underway...but humans are fallible. Can you always count on any crew or guest who needs to use the toilet while sailing to close it? Can you even count on 'em--or yourself--to ALWAYS be sure to leave the toilet in the "dry" mode? Do you religiously close ALL your seacocks when leaving the boat? What guarantee do you have that the wet/dry valve won't ever fail?
The answer to all those questions is no...you can't. A vented loop in the intake is a failsafe that protects your vessel from human fallibility. And it belongs between the pump and the bowl, NOT in the line between the thru-hull and the pump. Why?
The pump PULLS water from the thru-hull TO itself...the air valve in a vented loop opens to pull air into any line through which water is being pulled, preventing the pump from priming. But the pump PUSHES water from itself to the bowl...and siphon breaks don't interfere with water being pushed through a line. So the vented loop needs to be where it won't prevent the pump from priming, but will still break the siphon started by flushing the toilet.
Toilet mfrs just connect the pump to the bowl with a short piece of hose because vented loops are only needed in below-waterline installations, which is only about 50-60% of 'em. Your toilet is below the waterline, so you DO need the vented loop. So reconnect it, ok?
HI Fredrick
Yep that was me who gave your wife the magazines, sorry to hear about your childs injury. The rule at our house is no injuries, funerals or weddings when the boat is in the water.
Our boat is a Mk11, but it does not have the macerator through hull, the tee is in the line and the wiring is in place but no through hull. Your right about the hose being much longer then it needs to be because it loops around under the sink prior to going forward to the tank. I replaced the hose this year and it was 10.5 feet long. I thougth about haveing the hose discharge go directly forward but then I would need to drill another big hole and have an unused hole in the head. So many choices.
It's hard to tell from the drawings on the ronco site if the tank will fit. I think the only way to be sure is to make a mock tank and see if it will fit. We are in the water still for a couple more weeks but when we come out I am going to build a mock up and see if it wil fit.
Cory
Frederick,
My boat also came with the hose routed aft, then looped forward to the holding tank. Don't know why Catalina did that because it add so much unneeded hose. I changed it by drilling a hole into the hanging locker and routing the hose forward, directly to the holding tank. I believe there is an elbow at the bottom of the pump that is pointed left (aft). Just unscrew it and spin it around to face forward. You'll get an idea where to drill the hole at that point. Then install the hose by pushing it through the drilled hole from the hanging locker, mating up with the elbow. Connect the other end to the holding tank and you're done. The hose simply runs along the bottom of the hanging locker.
Roc & Frederick,
That's exactly how the Mark I boats were done, least mine is.
An alternative is to drill a 1 1/2" hole directly behind the Jabsco pump outlet and then lead the line up and through the original cutouts across the back of the hanging locker. I have done this successfully and the hose run is almost exactly 5 feet. It also allows you to create a loop in the hose as Peggie suggests before it runs down to the tank inlet fitting. And, finally, it preserves all the needed space in the hanging locker.
Peggie, the MKIIs already have a vented loop between the pump and the bowl. At least mine does.
I found a neat 3/4" fitting the other day which is 90 degrees with a stainless steel cover on the outside. If you insert it through the hull just below the stanchion presently used for venting the tank, you can use the existing vent hose without rerouting it out of the electrical panel area.
PS I also doubt that the existing tank is 18 gallons but I confess that I haven't got the courage to confirm that:)
The booklet says the tank on my 87 is 23 gallons. Not sure how you'd go about confirming that.
Of course the inlet is not in the top, so you loose about two inches of space inside that way.
So maybe it is a 23 gallon tank but you can only use 18 gallons of that space.
Ralph
Peggie, the MKIIs already have a vented loop between the pump and the bowl. At least mine does.
That means that Catalina actually installs vented loops where needed...many boat builders don't. However, you'll never find one included when you buy a new toilet, it's a fitting you have to buy if you need it.
A sailor friend put a ball valve in that spot in place of the vented loop which works OK but you still have to remember to close it.
Mike
My boat was also plumbed with a vented loop from the Catalina factory.
Quote from: Mike and Joanne Stimmler on September 19, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
A sailor friend put a ball valve in that spot in place of the vented loop which works OK but you still have to remember to close it.
Whaaa??? A ball valve is just shutoff valve...a vented loop is an anti-siphon device that when installed correctly (and maintained) works all by itself without the need for any human intervention. So replacing a vented loop with a ball valve makes NO sense whatever!
Cory: I was up at the boat this weekend (getting it ready for haul out) and re-measured the storage locker. There are some very tight dimensions and I'm a bit concerned about the top clearance. I agree with your suggestion about making a model or mock tank. I was thinking that corrigated cardboard might be the light easy way to go about it. However I noticed that a dimension was missing... so I've emailed Ronco to see if that can fill in the missing data. I'll be up again this weekend, if you want to drop by and talk about it.
Peggie: The science is clear and makes sense. The only reason I removed te vented loop was on suggestion from the marina that sold me the replacement pump. I never completely removed the hoses, so they'll get swapped back into place. Yes, Catalina did have it right.
John: Yes, that is what I was thinking about; Loop the head output up and through the hanging lock (not under it) and down into the tank.
Styrofoam sheets are a lot easier to cut with a box knife than corrugated cardboard. And once you've put all the other sides together (another fine use for duct tape), it should be obvious what the dimensions/size of the last one is...you'll have the shape of it.
There is a type of poster-board that you can buy at art/office supply stores. The inside layer is foam, sandwitched between two (thin) pieces of heavy stock paper. It is easy to cut (cut it like drywall) and holds shape well. It would be good for making a mock-up. Oh yes, it's pretty cheap.
Quote from: Peggie Hall on September 19, 2011, 07:25:49 PM
Quote from: Mike and Joanne Stimmler on September 19, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
A sailor friend put a ball valve in that spot in place of the vented loop which works OK but you still have to remember to close it.
Whaaa??? A ball valve is just shutoff valve...a vented loop is an anti-siphon device that when installed correctly (and maintained) works all by itself without the need for any human intervention. So replacing a vented loop with a ball valve makes NO sense whatever!
It may have been an easier option for this owner, it was on a Erickson 380 and the ball valve was in the short piece of hose just behind the head and mounted on the wall. His logic was that it less obtrusive looking than a vented loop in the same location and it was convenient to turn on and off when using the head. I guess it comes down to the same old addage,"his boat, his choice"....same end result(if used properly).
Hi Fredrick
I would be happy to get together to dicuss this project. We were up at the boat for the last couple of days but a crash gybe and a serious injury to a friend cut our trip short. I may post about this when his face stops looking like he was hit a 12 foot long eighty pound aluminum tube going 60 miles an hour. All things considered he was very very lucky but he still got hit very hard and will have some nasty scars to remember his trip.
My boat is not coming out for a couple more weeks, but one way or another the factory tank is not going back in.
Are you guys at bayport?
Cory
Cory: Yes, we are at Bayport, and Dolphina should be coming out tomorrow. :( I will be up this weekend (mostly Saturday) to set up some sort of framing so that Topline can take measurements for a winter cover. Feel free to drop by anytime.
I spoke with Ronco and the missing dimension is 5-1/8" (see image). The red squares represent confirmed right angles. Also I was told the shipping would cost $113.53 US and $282.09 US for the tank.
All: Thanks all for the modelling advice... as an ex-architect I use to work with all these materials. Cory and I will talk this over since I suspect he'll want to check his locker out as well.
Well, I finally had the time to build the model tank... here it is. Planning on taking it up to the boat today and see if I can get it to fit in. I have no idea of how much fun it will be to take the existing one out. I do need to take it out carefully so it doesn't get ruined, since we don't know if the B179 will fit.
Cory: I plan to leave it up there. If you're about Sunday evening or Monday we can compare it on your boat as well. I know its Thanksgiving... we celebrated Saturday, knowing that I probably wouldn't be around. That said, I should be up next weekend as well (our winter cover should be ready by then).
I managed to get up to the boat before sunset, and the existing tank came out not too badly. I damaged one hose a bit, but I was planning on replacing them anyway. Not too much stink, since we did rinse it out a fair bit before getting hauled. Here are the photos comapring the two tanks; the existing B212 (18gal) and the B179 (30gal) model.
So the inital verdict is rather disappointing. THe tank in plan looks like it's going to fit but... The tank appears to be too high!! Arrgg!! Oh well, I guess that's why I made the model. I do have the through hull fitting below it, but I cut out a section of the model once I could accurately identify where it would impact the tank, so that was taken care of. Basically the forward dimension is to high, and when you consider that you need to e a couple inches lwer to fit the vent hose in, I figure that it's about 2" - 3" to high.
I'd love to know what years the Catalina 34 was outfitted with the Ronco-B179 30 gallon tank and how their port settee is configured. Basically wha are the differences that make it too tight on the MkII. Was the settee higher, or was it wider anthus possibly the hull slope allowed for it.
Cory: I'd love to see how the model will fit into your space, if you are interested.
We for us we need to do some thinking about options.
1) Take up the hunt again to a differen tank.
2) Consider modifing the settee to accomodate the tank. That means raising the settee.
3) Put the 18 gallon tank back in and make note of all the pump out locations that I can find on Georgian Bay.
I'm going to have to sleep on it.
Quote from: fkoehlmann on October 09, 2011, 04:53:16 PM
Arrgg!!
Frederick,
Thanks for the great pictures and detailed account. I was rooting for it fitting, but the space is very small.
I used to own a Catalina 30. The engine was to high for the settee, by an inch or two. The cushion was scooped out in the underside. It was just a bit noticeable when sitting, but not a big deal. The area involved was about a foot by a foot. Would that idea work for you?
My 1991, hull 1150, had a B-179. The macerator was mounted at the aft end of the settee compartment where the battery switches are on the newer boats. It couldn't have been a millimeter taller, the vent line elbow was hitting the settee cover. The settee covers weren't integrated into the cushions lie the newer boats.
Craig
Fredrick,
Thanks for sharing your work. I know that when cruising some legs and stops are dictated by pumpout availability, bummer. Catalina really should have rethought that downgrade to the MKll's. One thought that I've had is to add a second tank, perhaps aft of the head, port side under the berth. My thoughts are a selector Y-valve at the head, a separate vent and pumpout fitting, and electronic tank monitors. But then, I've not measured anything.
I wish you luck, rooting for you. And, please, continue to share.
Jim
Hi Fredrick
Don't be too disapointed the tank does not fit, the only easy thing when making improvments is spending money, everything else is a pain in the butt. I still have not pulled my tank out yet, we are still in the water untill the 29th. I would be interested in trying your model to see if it fits, but it's not a big deal if it does not. A custom tank is not much more the the ronco tank, once you pay shipping. Like I posted before, once my tank comes out it is not going back in. I will be putting in either a cutom tank or modifying my aft water tank to a holdng tank.
I hope to get up to the boat one day this weekend, but I am not sure yet. My personal email is mainprize@bell.blackberry.net
feel free to message me anytime, maybe we can figure it out together.
Hi Cory,
You mention a custom tank is not much more in cost. Where were you looking, also with Ronco? What sort of costs were you quoted?
Cheers, Fred.
I'm not sure how different the MK II boats are from the Mk I, but there is probaby room to add another 10-15 gals to the tank if you cut out the center of the seat, remove the plywood tank end and extend the tank all the way forward. Once installed, glass/epoxy the piece you cut out back in to support the seat cushions. Not sure what the extra tankage would do to the boats balance.
Quote from: fkoehlmann on October 11, 2011, 07:36:58 PM
Hi Cory,
You mention a custom tank is not much more in cost. Where were you looking, also with Ronco? What sort of costs were you quoted?
Fred & Cory, from everything I've read from Peggie Hall, Ronco will do almost anything as far as custom tanks go. Not sure why you'd be looking anywhere else.
Ken's idea is very good. That's what I'd do if it was my boat. If you are contemplating using the aft water tank, consider some things associated with it:
--- material: is it right for a holding tank
--- reduced water capacity
--- distance from the head for pumping the head to the tank: this is a very real issue, since head pumps usually can only pump 6 feet
Stu,
The very reasons you mention (excluding reduced water capacity) are why I have not changed the aft water tank to a holding tank already. I removed the aft tank last season with the intent on converting it, but no one can confirm if the plastic is suitable for a holding tank. But the bigger factor is the distance and height of the aft tank. The head to tank hose length on a mk11 is about 10.5 feet and the head is almost the same height as the top of the tank. If I make the switch to the aft tank the hose length increases to about 15 feet and the top of the aft tank is 2.5 feet above the head. I estimate the head would need to pump up about 4-5 feet then I could slope the hose downhill from there. I do not think I am going to use the aft tank, besides I really like having all the extra storage space for fold up chairs and fishing rods.
I would suggest that if someone is going to have a tank made, they should go with someone you can bring a mock up too including the inlet, discharge, and vent locations. This way you are ensured it will fit. I am not opposed to ronco, but they are 1000 miles further then the guy down the road who does great work.
If I was ronco I would just adjust the size of the tank to fit the C34, they would probably sell about 300 of them in the first week.
from everything I've read from Peggie Hall, Ronco will do almost anything as far as custom tanks go.
Not QUITE true, nor is that what I've said. Ronco DOES have more than 400 shapes and sizes in their catalog, in addition to all the proprietary molds for a number of boat builders including Catalina for whom they've made water and waste tanks for at least a couple of decades...and they WILL install fittings in any locations and sizes specified by the customer....BUT--
Ronco only makes rotomolded tanks...so if you want it for a reasonable price, it has to be one for which the mold already exists. You CAN get a custom one-off tank from Ronco, but if the mold doesn't already exist, you'll have pay through the nose--way more than a custom welded tank would cost....UNLESS you can present 'em with a minimum initial order of at least 20 identical tanks, all from that new mold, all paid in advance.
So if there really is a demand for at least 20 of a particular specific shape/size for which y'all can furnish a drawing, talk to 'em...
Fred,
Have you considered a bit of wood work to accommodate your tank model?
You can raise your seat cushions with a 1-3/8'' to 1-1/2" frame that goes over the top of the full length of your settee. I don't see the "keepers" in your photos that keep the cushions on the settee, but this would take their place, create a space to accomodate your 1'' shortfall, raise the seating surface not more that 1- 1/2'' It also would have the rabbeted openings for the access panels. Just a quick thought! Only down side is congruity through out your salon.
Yes, I have... that was my option #2. It would involve some 2X material so tht it would be raised 1-1/2" with a plywood top supporting the cushions. At least then there would be room for a 1" vent line. However before I pull out all the power tools, I'd like to know for sure that I have no other tank options. Raising the settee becomes only the start, because then the cushions are higher and the back cushions and their anchor snaps. Currently the seats are also the perfect height for our legs when we sit.
Cheers, Fred.
Fwiw, it is possible that we could find a better location for a tank, and I'll be glad to help your hunt for one....but you're not gonna find any better TANK option than a tank from Ronco...in fact, it would be hard to find one that's anywhere near the same quality.
Has anyone thought of this one:
Rather than using the aft water tank...
Move the fuel tank to the aft water tank location.
Put a custom waste holding tank in the Fuel tank location.
Use the macerator to fill the extra holding tank when the settee tank starts filling up.
You will have two waste pump out fittings on port side.
Getting the 1'' hose back there may be a challenge, it would have to follow the one from the head and then it certainly would have waste inside at the level of the sette tank all the time. But if you use that non permeable hose, maybe it'll be ok. The one inch hose should be as large an ID as possible due to pumping resistance and clogging issues.
Looking at the picture, it occurred to me that possibly cutting the top opening (of the locker) would allow the tank to be moved inboard and aft. Both directions, due to the curve of the hull, would give you more height. Once the tank is in, the opening could be repaired, or a larger cover. In other words looks like there may be enough room once the tank is in place, but the opening is restricting installing the tank. May be you could check that out by cutting a corner from the mock-up tank.
Jim
Quote from: Indian Falls on October 15, 2011, 06:33:37 AM
Has anyone thought of this one: Rather than using the aft water tank...Move the fuel tank to the aft water tank location. Put a custom waste holding tank in the Fuel tank location.
Use the macerator to fill the extra holding tank when the settee tank starts filling up.
You will have two waste pump out fittings on port side....
:rolling :appl It's certainly creative...I'll give it that much!
I pulled my holding tank this weekend to measure and install the new tank. I measured the tank capacity when I had it out just for curiosity and it holds 15 gallons. Not sure how ronco does their math but the real capacity is a less the they say. Like Fredrick posted earlier the 30 gallon ronco tank is a little big so I am having a custom tank made. It should hold around 27 gallons. This will be enough for us to make it at least 7-10 days with between pumpouts. The cost of a custom made 1/2 inch thick welded poly tank is around $900.00, about double the cost of a ronco tank with delivery. Seems like a lot but, but it will drop right in, and requires no mods. I am still considering a stainless tank made locally as well, many of friends use them and have no issues. A local builder has made lots of them and has a great reputation for quality work. I will get a quote from them and decide. I believe a properly constructed and welded stainless tank is bulletproof (small caliber only) setup. Once I get the price I will know what way to go.
Re tank size: I posted on this topic a while back. I measured 14.2 US gal, or about 12 canadian gal. I asked Ronco why they published 18 gal as the capacity and they said: we got that from Catalina. Yes folks, the same people that brought you the 12,550lb boat that actually weighs 16,000 lbs plus. Best to check all other specifications carefully if these 2 are so far off the mark...Has anyone discovered others?
Despite knowing that the capacity is wrong, the brochure and the selling specs for both Catalina and Ronco have never been updated/corrected.
Re stainless: I think that Peggy has previously warned against it as not suitable for waste tanks. Too prone to corrosion from urine.
Tony
FYI... 18 gallons US = 14.9 gallons UK (or Canadian)
So Catalina wasn't too far off on this. That said, I think they included the thickness of the walls (taking the dimensions form the outside for the volume instead of the inside).
I just looked at the C355 specs. The holding tank is 27 gallons. It may be worthwhile to contact CY and find out where they put it, and how.
Frederik: Actually the conversion is 14.9881, or 15 imperial gallons . The actual capacity is 12 gallons. This is 20% less than advertised. By most standards that is pretty far off. Why would they include the thickness of the walls? That would make no sense.
Stu: on the 355 they put the holding tank in some of the space where the fuel tank is on the C34, and opened up the whole depth of that area as a cockpit locker. It is a vertical tank with a narrow vertical transparent section so you can see how full it is with no need for a sensor kit. Made me wonder where they put the fuel tank though.
Tony
So I finally got back up to the boat, with a load of cardboard and built in place a potential custom tank model. It is basically as long as the B212 tank, but wider, taking in the space where the macerator and through hull fitting would be. (I still need to remove the through hull). The depth is less than the B179 but more than the B212. For the moment I can take the tank out without cutting the opening larger, but once the hose fittings are in place I suspect that I will need to cut the overhang at the forward portion of the locker somewhat.
Does anyone know what clearance is needed if I want to have the input hose right-angle into the tank from the top. The 1-1/2" i/s dia. hose has an o/s dia. of 2". Currently I have allowed 3" at the aft section and 2" towards the forward section (for the vent hose - hopefully a 1" i/s dia. hose). The existing input hose entered from the aft side, which means that as the tank filled to the top the hose would as well.
Here's the tank on top and inside the locker space:
Here are the comparisions between the three tanks...
B179 on the left, B212 in the middle, and the custom build on the right.
...and the other two sides:
Pictures are a great help. I still think if I were to go to the expense of having a custom tank made I would extend it farther forward and fill the entire area under the seat.
Great pictures. :clap
Have you calculated the capacity of the mock-up?
Tony
No not yet. I've started to disect the geometry to do the math, but my evenings are usually spent coaxing the kids to do their homework ;-). I hope to finish it this week.
Actually I'm really interested in finding out what sort of room (clearance) I need for the right angle fixture for the input hose (1-1/2" i/s dia.) and the vent hose (1" i/s dia.). The existing T-fixture for the pumpout hose was 4", but I'm hoping that was because its a T-fitting. Currently I've only allowed for 3" thinking that it should be enough. So far, I can't find anything online, but i think I must be searching incorrectly.
On the original B212 tank the input was into the aft upper side (towards outboard) of the tank and the outlet was in the aft lower side (towards inboard). The outlet hose will always have the s!*t sitting in it, but the inlet doesn't have to if it comes in from the top. I'm planning on having the vent at the forward end of the top side (towards the inboard edge). I'd vent it forward and out beind the port storage locker. I'm through with leaks in behind the electrical.
I'm really interested in finding out what sort of room (clearance) I need for the right angle fixture for the input hose (1-1/2" i/s dia.) and the vent hose (1" i/s dia.). The existing T-fixture for the pumpout hose was 4", but I'm hoping that was because its a T-fitting. Currently I've only allowed for 3" thinking that it should be enough.
That's not enough. A 1.5" 90 degree fitting needs at least 5" clearance above the tank. 3" is barely enough for 1".
I'd eliminate any tee or y-valve in the tank discharge by putting TWO discharge fittings in the tank...one directly to the deck pumpout fitting, one directly to the overboard discharge pump.
If you'd like to discuss your options in more detail, I'll be glad to help you.
Ouch Peggie! 5" clearance! That's an additional two inches or over 6 gallons (US) less volume in the tank. I guess that is why the B212 tank has the inlet on the side near the top. The existing tank had only about 2" - 3" clearance. Of course the 3/4" i/s dia. vent hose was connected to an elbow that was patly recessed into the tank.
I will be eliminating the T-fitting, but will replace it with a single elbow. We will be sailing Dolphina on the Great Lakes (specifically Georgian Bay) and don't have any plans to take her into a salt environment. (If we ever do, we'd probalby rent.) It is the removal of the macerator and other stuff that is giving us the extra tank space.
Sure, I'd love to discuss any options. I'd like to cover all my possible bases before I commit to the final design. I was planning on having HMP (Holland Marine Products) build the tank. They will do the work for about $945.00 CAN. The tank would be made from 1/2" high density poly, weled construction. They say that they've never had a leak, but are will to test it to 3 PSI and test with soapy water for another $90. I've already checked with Ronco and their tests are also to 3 PSI.
It has been some time but I finally got around to look at the dimension more of the three tanks (existing B212, potential but non-fitting B179, and the custom). I thought I had allowed for adequate space for the fixtures/fittings, but Peggy note has rearrange my sense of reality. I've had to consider dimensional changes to allow for the fixtures. I came up with what I figured to be my idea fixture layout, and then the "practical" layout. In the end we opted to not perform any heavy or overtly visual modifications, and keep the tank in the existing storage locker area. I was going to attach the PDF with the info included, but it seems too big for the site... so I have posted it to a public folder on my SkyDrive (https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=03c397d808384593&resid=3C397D808384593!154&parid=3C397D808384593!152 (https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=03c397d808384593&resid=3C397D808384593!154&parid=3C397D808384593!152)).
I am hoping to talk with HMP this weekend at the Boat Show about it getting it made this coming February. I am still curious about construction material however. Cory has been investigating a stainless tank for considerably less cost than the welded poly tank. I also figure that the difference in material thickness could gain you about 3 US gallons in capacity. However I've been told that what makes stainless rust resistant in an oxygen environment, does not in an oxygen deprived environment. Which apparently is why there is corrosion of the stainless lifelines under the white vinyl covers and why the shrouds weaken at points where the stainless wire/rod get embedded into other fixtures. How much a concern this is I do not know. Our marina apparently does produce stainless tanks for clients as well. While we plan to pump out basically after every weekend, there is always something that remains on the bottom, and I do not fancy the idea of having the tank bottom weaken (probably at the welds) to the point that some wavy storm sail causes the slug stress the tank to fail an spill into the bilge. Does any one have any thoughts about this?
Much thanks, Fred.
Fred,
Ken made a good suggestion a few replies earlier. Have you considered using the storage area forward of the existing area of the holding tank? There is a bulkhead between the two areas, but that area would be ideal to use as part of your increased tank capacity. You would need to confirm with Gerry Douglas about any structural issues if you cut part or all of that section between the two compartments away.
I think that plywood is just the front wall to support the holding tank. But it perhaps does keep the seat from sagging. Since the tank must be have room at the top for fittings, perhaps leaving the top part of the plywood in place would suffice.
Should be an easy answer for the engineering department.
Yes Ken,
Kathy and I discussed it. We were torn between loosing easily accessible storage, versus a few (maybe 6 US) more gallons. Remember that the storage area starts to get narrower in the forward area and thus the cross-section is much smaller. Had the electrical switches not been at the aft end of the locker, I would have gone all the way aft. That definitely would have given more volume, but I wasn't ready to re-due the electrical at this point. Definitely both options would work for someone else that is looking at it differently.
Heck, in many ways I wish the tank was under the aft section of the head. Then the run would be really short and we'd have tons of storeage in the settee. But that area is not as accessible for a simple tank replacement job (IMO) or maintenance (hose replacement).
OK...Maybe I missed a thread somewhere...but why not move the holding tank to the vast area under the head sink? In my 1998, there is a ton of unused space there. Could put a large holding tank there, shorten the distance the waste has to go from head to tank, etc. Then, you get storage space back under the port settee...one would have to reroute the macerator...at least on my boat. But would get a much larger holding tank and get storage space back. Maybe there would be a "listing" issue...but that would probably be a lot of crap...so to speak. :D
A stainless or aluminum tank is ok for water or fuel, but you do not want a metal waste tank because urine is so corrosive that it typically eats through a weld in seam or fitting in about 2 years and turns the tank into a colander in an average of 10 years. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the tank is pumped and rinsed every day that it's used or only pumped when it's full and rarely rinsed at all, the average time span is the same. You only want to do this once, so go with plastic!
However, Columbus got THREE boats across the Atlantic with less agonizing over where to install water tanks than you're investing in just ONE waste tank! I'm starting to think that the best possible solution for you would be a self contained system...iow, an "MSD" (designed to be permanently installed, fitted for pumpout . A 6 gallon model holds 50-60 flushes...you'd need a 30-35 gallon tank to hold that many from a manual or electric toilet. A pumpout line and a vent line are the only plumbing needed, unless you want to add a y-valve and overboard discharge pump...you wouldn't have to give up ANY storage...no moving parts, so -0- maintenance...clog proof...easy to rinse out...and all at a cost of less than $200. Thetford even makes an "electric" one that runs on AA batteries!
Check out the Thetford 365MSD and 465 MSD.
A well built 316 stainless tank also welded with 316 rod (wire) will last much longer than two years. Many of our club members have them and have not had issues in 10 plus years. The killer of stainlesss tanks is chlorine. It reacts with the chromium and self destructs. Either from head products or people trying to clean them. If you think stainless rots because of urine exposure, ask for a tour of your local water treatment plant and check out the tanks they have and the plumbing they use to transfer waste. Hint, it will be metalic and shiny.
I am sure poorly built tanks rot much faster, but it will be a stainless tank in my boat.
If it leaks, I will be the first one to let the board members know, and say peggy was right. I may even expoxy coat the inside of the tank prior to welding on the top, but I will see what the tank builder (stainless outfitters) thinks about it first.
My rough math works out to around 25-26 gallons using the available space in the original location.
I forgot to add, check out the toilets in the jail cells next time you happen to be in one. They are also shiny and metalic (read stainless). I wonder if they replace them every two years because they turn into colanders?
No argument from me that plastic tanks are great, but they are not the ony way to go. Do your reasearch, no one has all the anwsers.
Quote from: cmainprize on January 22, 2012, 06:57:16 AM
I forgot to add, check out the toilets in the jail cells next time you happen to be in one. They are also shiny and metalic (read stainless). I wonder if they replace them every two years because they turn into colanders?
You might be mixing apples and oranges here on this one. The heads in jails are there because porcelain will get destroyed in one day. They are there to avoid breakage. Agreed that the siphon contains water all the time. Having designed a series of new jails in the mid-80's I apologize that I do not have the specs for the units handy anymore, but I am sure that they did not have seams and welds on the corners, which appears to be the issue with using metal tanks for holding tanks. Please also note that Peggie notes that urine is the killer. Urine is rarely found sitting in the bottom of water closets, 'cuz they have these things called flushes, right? Clear water is not hardly as corrosive as urine, which I believe is her point.
"Do your research, no one has all the answers." One of the nice things about having registrants that have WRITTEN books on specific subjects is that the research has already been done for you. At least in this regard. If you don't think she has "all the answers" on this subject, please find me someone who has better experience. Other than your dockmates...
Somehow, it seems to me that the "expert" on boat systems in this regard should receive credit for knowing her subject. If Peggie says don't do it, I wouldn't, not in my boat.
Your boat, your choice.
Do the chemistry and then store human waste in plastic. Whether 2 or 3 or 5 years, ss holding tanks will eventually leak. Again, its the chemistry. We watched a custom built ss holding tank being removed and replaced this past summer from an Island Packet. The owner had the tank for 4 years, built at one of the better ss shops, x-rayed welds, etc. in Florida. Interestingly, the ss fabricator had warned him not to go ss for this application, but as everything else on his boat was ss, he decided to give it a try. Go plastic.
Stu, he'll just say "anyone can write a book, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about." And he'd be right...half the boat maintenance books out there are full of bad information, especially when it comes to sanitation systems. He's also right that no one has ALL the answers, and I don't pretend to. But after 25+ years in the marine sanitation biz, I do know quite a few of 'em and I also know where to find the answers I don't know...Way over half my reference files are saved replies from various experts. And the consensus in the marine industry is that metal is a bad choice for waste holding. When it first became necessary to install holding tanks, almost all the major production builders went with aluminum or steel because it cost 'em less and they considered it to superior to plastic...but by 1990--only 10 years later--there are few if any builders left who use metal for waste holding tank.
Grand Banks and Kadey-Krogan have always installed fiberglass tanks...but with stainless steel inspection port covers in which stainless fittings were installed, including stainless pick-up tubes on the discharge fittings. After about 5 years, owners start trying to find out why their tanks seem to fill up almost immediately after pumping out...and learn that the pumpout isn't able to pull anything out because the pickup tubes have either turned into colanders or actually corroded through completely and fallen off...they're all replacing the metal plates, fittings and tubes with PVC.
Catalina has never used metal...Ronco Plastics has supplied their water and waste tanks for at least a couple of decades. Doncha think that they'd be using metal tanks if metal were a good choice???
But, Cory m'dear...it's YOUR boat...and it's ok with me if you want to put a cardboard box on it for a holding tank. If you do, please let us know how it works out. :party
Fred
Why couldn't you recess the pipes ie; have cut outs made into the aft end of the new tank? This way you don't lose as much storage.
OK it would mean a bit more fabricating. What I suggest is say a 100x100x100mm (4"x4"x4") cube cut out of the top/aft/stbd corner of your new size tank for the inlet pipe and say the same at the bottom for the exit pipe. This would only lessen the tank by 2 litres or 1/2 gal approx. Of course these sizes could be adjusted to suit your installation.
cheers
Tony
PS could the SS issue change with the different SS grades 316 & 304 (and there are higher grades). Here in oz most of our public urinals are SS and not all looked after that well but seem to last forever
Mrs. Hall,
Your right on several of your comments. Many published authors are fools and their work should never have been published. This does not apply to you.
Yes, Plastic is the best material for a holding tank!
Yes, Stainless will eventually leak!
What I am saying is a well built tank, constructed with the proper materials, and only subjected to human waste will last a long time. I am aware of SS tanks that have failed very early, I can only speculate why. I do not agree that SS tanks are not an option. I would refer board members back to their local water treatment plant for a tour. Miles of stainless everywhere.
My first choice would be a plastic tank, but I can't seem to find one, production made or custom made that will give me the increased capcity I need.
Disagreement, does not equal disrespect, just a different opinion.
Very nicely put, Cory. Re the sewage treatment plants, I designed a laboratory hood for one plant in our area here, but that was years and years ago, in the mid-80s. I do recall, however, that the materials needed for the hood exhaust ductwork had to be "special" stainless steel. As you are undoubtedly already aware, there are a variety of different stainless materials, and we had to be very specific in the specifications for all of the hood materials, ductwork and fan, as well as the electrical and plumbing materials. Have you selected the ss you will use?
After many dicussions, prototypes, and more prototypes Fred and I finaly got our new tanks made. We went with a 3/8 inch welded poly tank made by MAS plastics in Whitby. Cost was $700. I meassured the capacity of the old and new tank twice just to be sure. The old tank holds 15.3 US gallons. The new tank holds 27.7 US gallons, or a 81% increase. The opening for the locker needs to be increased slightly to get the new tank in. I will add some pictures when I get in installed. We found our family of four could go around 4-5 days on the old tank, the new tank will allow us to make it a week prior to needing a pumpout. The vent fiting was moved to the forward end of the tank and will exit into the locker forward of the tank and be routed to a thru hull mounted just below the rail. The fiting size was increased to 1 inch but I suspect I will need to reduce it to 3/4 to get the thru hull to fit above the above the forward hanging locker. I will never recover the cost of the tank due to reduced pumpouts, but I won't need to plan for pumpouts quite so often and get to enjoy more time enjoying ourselves, so to me it's worth it. Pictures attached.
Nice, thats what Catalina should have done. One question. Why no inspection/cleanout port on top?
Jim
I was going to add this sensor (pic attached) it comes with the flange and the ring and would work as a cleanout/inspection port at the same time.
Cory,
Why not use the tank gage system advertised here:
http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,2682.0.html
This has no parts that go into the tank that can get fouled up. I have the original Accu-gage, which was the precursor to this. It works great.
Quote from: Roc on March 26, 2012, 04:15:43 AM
Cory,
Why not use the tank gage system advertised here:
http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,2682.0.html
This has no parts that go into the tank that can get fouled up. I have the original Accu-gage, which was the precursor to this. It works great.
That's the one I'd recommend. Dennis provides the best customer service on the planet, too.
Cory--I recommend extreme caution in installing that new tank on your boat. Perhaps you need a test boat, like, well, mine. :D Nice tank. :clap
I ordered this sensor today from Ferriello sales. Looks like a good product and the company is fantastic to deal with. $150.00 shipped to canada, shipping was $25.00. Shipping is free to the US. I will include the install pics when I put the tank in.
Hope that you have better luck than I did. I installed the product on my holding tank, as well as on my water tanks. Works fine on the water tanks (OK, it's intermittent on one of them), but I could not get it to provide a reliable reading for the holding tank: gave a "full" reading when it was still half empty. Despite Dennis's best support efforts (and he gave me a lot), we could not get it to work. In the end it was conceded that in my case a different kind of sensor might be best. See http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,5123.0.html. Uses the same display, but measures the level much more reliably.
I am following your project with interest. If it works I will do something similar.
Tony
Have you actually fitted a larger tank over the winter? I found out how little the 34 Mk II tank is in a very messy way Have yo considered using your macerator as an emergency bilge pump - much higher capacity that many standard pumps?
My new tank is still in my garage, I have been away for two weeks but plan to get the tank in next week. My boat does not have a macerator, it never did have one installed or have the through hull in the starboard locker with the tank like many of the mk11's did. I will post the pic's of the installed tank, new hoses, vent, and tank monitor when it done including any other info I think members might need if they are considering something like this.
Whoops. I meant to say port locker/under settee where the holding tank is.
So the new tank is finally in and hooked up. My original plan to was to not modify the opening but I went for a little more tank capacity and had to increase the length of the opening about 4 inches. I made the cut in one shot and intend to put the piece back in by screwing a piece of 1/4 aluminum plate to the seat under the cut out piece, then screw the cut out piece to the plate. I will fill the gap will silicone so I can get the piece out if I need to. I don't think the tank could have been any bigger in any direction and still been able to get the fittings on.
I ran the vent line to the original location into the stanchion. I may change this later but we go into the water next week and I wanted to get this project wrapped up. We also added a tank monitor. I will fill the tank with clean water tommorrow via the vent. let it sit for a week and check for leaks. I think I mentioned in a earlier post the new tank holds 28 gallons, the old tank held 15 gallons. I measured each tank twice using a bucket. Originally the VHF cable, wind transducer cable and one other wire were run across the bottom of this locker as well. I moved all the wires up under the lip to get them out of the way. The tank sits very well against the hull and seems to be well supported. The tank does have some movement fore and aft but I will add some blocks to eliminate that.
More pics
Tank sensor
Cory,
Looks good! I'll be heading up shortly today, with my tank, but whon't be getting in today. Today is for removing the winter cover and having Shane review the spots that need some repairs. It's still too cold to do the fiberglassing, but I might think about cutting out the through-hull for the macerator. We'll see hoe the day goes. Maybe I'll see you up there.
Cheers, Fred.