90g better than a 120g? probably for most of us...

[fishypapas]

using the dimensions of 6x12, a dual megflow takes aprox 15 gallons.

ahah!

why is this relavent. well after doing multiple drawings and calculations, trying to figure out which tank to get (keep wanting bigger :0), i noticed that going to a larger tank with overflows is not a major improvement compared to a smaller tank without.

for example.

a 120g tank is 48x24x24, nice depth, but it is disturbed by two megaflows which take up aprox 24x12x24 (about 15 gallons), essentially reducing it to a 105g tank (with another 15g being squeezed between megaflows). a 90g without overflows is a nice and empty 48x18x24 and a true 90g of area.

so, a 90g can actually be a very good substitution for a 120g. without the overflows in the 90g it has quite a few benefits over the 120g with, without losing much realestate.

90g (drilled) over 120g (rr) benefits
1. smaller, while retaining much of the usable area
2. lighter, "
3. cheaper, "
4. clean unobstructed space, those megaflows arent pretty
5. only 15g less area, and the other 15g is somewhat useless due to being relegated to slivers on each side of an overflow (or at the least very difficult to work with compared to open space).

in conclusion, a 90g without overflows has 85% of the viable area (not taken by megaflows), only 75% of the wieght (water filled only), at nearly only 50% of the cost.

thus a 120g(rr) may not be such a leap forward or "larger" than a rrless 90g.

so for many of us a 90g can be a much better "fit", hehe, than a 120g.

this is especially important to the non-wealthy reefer, and the wieght conscious apt dweller.

hope i gave some of you food for thought.

fp

so it looks like im either going drilled 75g or 90g straight from oceanic and wont be too upset that

[mntl]

I see where you are coming from but I think "viable" area needs to be "visable", a 120 still has 33% more water volume than the 90, which is a big difference. it may not be visable but the extra volume is more stable and can handle a higher bi-load, even though the viewable are is similiar. But depending on what you want to do, a 90 could be the better option.

--John

[Jer_H]

Why not just get a 120g, and get it custom drilled, or get a drilled external overflow, then you won't lose any space, best of both worlds.

[Anemonebuff]

Why not go RR less on a 120?

I don't get it?

[kbmdale]

Why is the over flow 24x12x24... Thats one big overflow. I have never seen one that big on a factory built tank.

[King-Kong]

overflows are filled w/ water. About 3/4 filled. They are not dry areas. Durso's will raise the height of water in an overflow quite a bit.

Your theory is flawed.

[fishypapas]

kbmdale: the 6x24x24 is the combined area that 2 overflows would take up in a 120g. thats 15 gallons of "lost" space.

king-kong: what aspect of my theory is "flawed"? i never said you lost water, i said you loose the visable, and thus "useful" (aquascaping) space. which is suppose to be the bonus of going to a bigger, deeper, tank. but if half of that bonus is lost, there isnt a major improvement.

so, what is flawed?

anemonebuff: going reefless on a 120 is a good option, but two negatives. the size and weight may be too much for apts, and the cost is still way more than a 90g.

jer_h: i agree with you, but the issue remains with wieght,size,and cost.

mntl: i see your point about the extra water. however, the water itself doesnt help with bioload, but rather the rock and the like in the water that take care of it, at least in any major way. so the 15-30g here of water could be found with an extra sump. but then this would add to size,wieght,cost - which was one of the things i was trying to keep low.

remember, of course if we can all have a bigger tank we would. but all things are not equal and things like wieght, size, and cost are major considerations.

so, yes the 120 does have more water and a few more inches of "usable" aquascaping area, but the focus here was a cost/benefit analysis, along with the issues of wieght for those with apt cosiderations.

so, the conclusion, "for the majority" of us, could be that a 90g reefless can be a much better option than the 120g rr. so we (including myself) shouldnt feel anxiety about trying to get the bigger tank. (besides exesive drooling can lead to dehydration).

so the new dilema, i am debating getting a custom done 90g of 36x24x24. now thats the best of both worlds. its just may cost as much as a 120grr to do it :0/.

fp

[integlikewhoa]

This is a easy one. If you cant handle the cost of a 120, dont have the room to fit a 120, or if a 120 is just to heavy for you then you go by a 90.

If none of those 3 factors affect you then you go buy a nice 120 gallon tank like i did.

[integlikewhoa]

Ohh and my clear for life tank only has 1 overflow just to the left of the middle that does not nearly take up as much space as your talking about.

[techigirl78]

Your comparing apples to oranges. Why not compare a 90 RR to 120 RR? That would make a difference. Get the 120 without the megaflow and drill it.

Seriously, though, I have a 90 and have seen 120s setup. Get the 120 now while you can. Most equipment used for a 120 can be used for a 90 and if the footprint space isn't an issue it would be better.

[Sindjin]

I like the 120 because its 24" deep. I went with HOB overflows. They're less cumbersome in my opinion.

[fishypapas]

i dont think many of you are getting my point.

this was for those that want a 120g rr, but due to cost and wieght need to consider another option. hence the thread topic "90g may be better choice for many".

a few people may have the space, can support the wieght, and can handle the cost. remember, its not just the tank that costs twice as much, but the stand as well.

so, again, this was to help those realize that "settling" on a 90g isnt such a "down grade" from a 120g.

why?

1. cheaper
2. lighter
3. no major improvement on footprint, as half of it is lost to the megaflows, and the left over is placed between them making the space akward to deal with (relatively speaking).

so, if you like your 120g rr, can afford it, can hold it up (the floor that is), this was not aimed at you.

this was aimed for those debating tank sizes and getting the MOST out of their buck and space.

the 120g is "better", but does not provide the expected foot print that most desire and may think they get. hmm 30 more gallons, 33% more space, nope.

90g fp = 864 sq" (reefless, again cost and space saving)
120grr = 1152 sq" - 144 sq" = 1008 sq" (due to overflows)

the difference = 144 sq"

cost
90g = $800
120g rr = $1500

is a 15% increase in footprint worth a 50% increase in cost? not even considering that the extra space is placed between overflows and not that useful.

so if you have a 120g rr and are happy with it, dont get insecure and feel a need to explain your purchase. if i had the space, means, and my apt could hold it, id buy it too, especially since the plumbing will be nicely tucked away.

but you have to admit, that the cost, for just a slight increase in foot print, is hard to swallow. that is. for those that cant go into their yards and pick a few hundred dollar bills off a tree or bush (if they havent fell to the ground already :0).

hence, a 90g (-rr) can be just as good, or better giving particular circumstances, as a 120g rr.

give it some thought

fp

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by fishypapas


cost
90g = $800
120g rr = $1500

is a 15% increase in footprint worth a 50% increase in cost?

Yes but you are sorta comparing apples to oranges. You need to ether look at 90RR vs 120RR or 90 vs 120.....your throwing in another variable and because of that you can't analize it stright like that.

[fishypapas]

lets get this apples to oranges stuff out of the way.

1. when you buy the tank (rr or not) you gotta buy the stand, which again is a big jump in price.

90g/75g stand $400
120g stand $700

2. 90g reefless $350 90g rr $390
120g reefless $600 120g rr $800

ok, so, again, yes the 120g is "better", but reef ready or not the benefit, for those yadda yadda ..., may not be worth twice the price.

i hope that was enough apples and oranges to feed everyone.

fp

[doodoobrown]

so, if you like your 120g rr, can afford it, can hold it up (the floor that is), this was not aimed at you.

this was aimed for those debating tank sizes and getting the MOST out of their buck and space.

the 120g is "better", but does not provide the expected foot print that most desire and may think they get. hmm 30 more gallons, 33% more space, nope.


this doesnt make a whole lotta sense to me. you do get the 33% more space if you get a regular 120 non rr. plus if you are getting a reef ready tank then you will have your skimmer, heaters pumps everything in your sump. if you get a non reef ready tank all that stuff has to go in your tank and take up your space anyway. so there goes that 864sq". then you have just as much or more unsuble space. i would even say that space is even more useless than the area between the overflows in a 120

[fishypapas]

um, you missed the "drilled" aspect of the post.

no one said the 120g isnt "better", hello.

i said it wasnt worth, for those that are cost conscious, double the price (or close to it).

and for some its not truly an option due to the size and wieght of the 120g.

AGAIN, this is for those considering both, but realistically cant have the 120g (because of the aforementioned reasons). and SIMPLY states, thats a 90g, with EVERYTHING considered, is not that much of a DOWNGRADE.

especially for those yearning for a 120g reef ready. to all others, this does not concern you.

ok, im hoping this one clears up any final misconceptions.

if not, here is a proportionaly correct (taken directly from aga's website, of the two tank foot prints overlayed to show):

a. how much room the overflows really take.
b. that a 90/75 is a very good "poor mans choice".
c. lotta acreage for the buck



fp

last try, maybe this can explain the essence of the post:

an m5 is an incredible automobile. but the m3 is no slouch and gives you a lot more for the $$$, especially at 50% of the price.

[wetWolger]

yea, but the blue aint RR

[integlikewhoa]

LOL... What's going on here?

Originally posted by fishypapas
this was for those that want a 120g rr, but due to cost and weight need to consider another option.

So to recap and simplify things you are posting this thread to tell people if they cant afford a 120, don't have the room to fit a 120, or if a 120 is just to heavy for you then maybe they should buy a smaller tank...... And a good tank that's just a little smaller is a 90 gallon because its a bit cheaper, smaller and lighter.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[doodoobrown]

delete

[dascharisma]

Originally posted by fishypapas

90g/75g stand $400
120g stand $700

2. 90g reefless $350 90g rr $390
120g reefless $600 120g rr $800

If you want to save money, you should find a better place to buy your tank and stand. Why is it $40 for a 90 overflow but $100 for a 120 overflow? I paid $175 for my brand new rr 90. Stands can be had for just over $100.

Brad

[fishypapas]

2 things,

1. iteg: thats my point, not to feel bad about "settling for a 90g" (comes from discussions with a few buds that are setting up tanks but want to wait for a 120g) so, be happy, a 90 is nice :0)

2. das: we are talking oceanic only. if you can get me a 90g rr for $175, ill give you $100 for the trouble! and an oceanic stand for a $100? i know a chick (or guy) that will be more than happy to thank you personally for me! >:0)

the prices are pretty standard for oceanic stuff (at least here in the northeast). they are damn pricey.

if you can find a better place, all kidding aside, i would greatly appreciate it!!

in the end, i realized i couldnt get a 120g and realized that it wasnt that "big" a loss (but a $savings), and wanted to share it with fellow soon to be reefers that may be feeling the same "i want a big tank cuz its so much better" anxiety.

fp

[Entropy]

You are missing the most important part of the 120g. 24 inches front to back. The depth makes a huge difference when aquascaping. Beleive me, I lived with a 90g for almost three years. Get a 120g, or a 150g (5x2x2). If you are set on a 48"x18" just get a 75g. Same foot print as the 90g but cheaper, easier to light, and better porportions. I firmly believe your tank should be at least as deep front to back as it is tall (if not deeper front to back).

[fishypapas]

nevermind /

lol

fp

[MiddletonMark]

Wow, your tank/stand prices are EXPENSIVE.

I got my future 120's stand for $350 ... a 90's stand [here] is maybe $50-75 cheaper. Tanks similarly ... given a 120 RR [last checked] was under $400 ... at least in these parts, it's only about 20% more for a 120 RR vs. 90 RR.

Personally, I prefer a drilled tank, and having drilled one and made my own overflow ... prefer it done by someone else

That 24" front to back, if just in part ... is a HUGE draw. For the visual look, it does make a difference, as for using my lighting well. My MH covers a 2 x 2' area ... I might waste a little going down the overflow ... but am happy for the additional horizontal space vs. an 18" wide tank.

If 120RR is too expensive ... I'd really suggest something smaller than a 90, like my 58RR. That way, you can skip the center brace - and won't need the large equipment, flow, pumps, etc you would want on a 4' tank

But I've had an 18" front to back tank for long enough that I'd take a compromise for 24" front to back. Has me considering a custom tank, so I can go 30" to be honest.

[Sindjin]

I understand the point you're making.

Thats why I,

a.) did the hob overflows....to maximize space inside the tank.
b.) built my own stand and canopy.