Fuel Tanks

Post by **dasein668** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:34 am

Anyone know of any good sources for stock-type diesel tanks other than Tempo? I grabbed their catalog off the web and was disappointed to see a very limited selection of stock tank sizes. I was hoping for a selection more akin to the Ronco plastics catalog which has literally hundreds of different tanks.

I have a quote out for a custom tank, but I fear the cost will be prohibitive...

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:26 pm

Hey Nathan,

Have you found a better source yet?
Was that custom tank quote even worth entertaining?

Enquiring minds....

Post by **dasein668** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:47 am

Nope. Still waiting to hear back from the two companies I asked for quotes, too. Might have to *gasp* call them! Eech!

<rant>Why on earth would you have an online form to request a quote if you weren't going to respond to it???</rant>

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:32 pm

Nathan,
Last year, I interested a friend in rebuilding his fishing boat that was all rotted out. When he went looking for a tank, he ran into the ridiculous quote as well. He had a friend who runs a scrap metal business, and ended up getting a brand new tank from the guy, turns out that a boatbuilder in seattle had stopped manufacturing a particular type of boat, so they sold about a dozen of these tanks (never used, brand new) to the scrap yard. Considering the boating industry around y'all in maine, I'd check out the local scrap yards, you might find something.

Post by **dasein668** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:05 pm

Interesting idea, Tony. Never would have thought of that, but its a possibility. Thanks!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:48 am

You might check:

Florida Marine Tanks, Inc. Hialeah FL 305-620-9030

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:28 am

Where exactly are you thinking of placing the tank? What about the tank Tim chose? I will be moving my tank at some point but I have more pressing needs at the moment.

Have you thought about putting the tank in the deep aft part of the keel? It was suggested to me but I haven't checked to see if the fuel pump would have problems pulling the fuel that far up. Plus I will be looking to increase my water storage and I also need to consider putting water there.

-Britton

Post by **dasein668** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:20 am

I'm looking to fill the space beneath the main cabin sole, forward of the really deep part of the bilge. I don't like the idea of sitting my fuel tank way down there where it has the chance of being wet... despite my best efforts, I do not have a dusty bigle like Tim.

But that space beneath the cabin sole is pretty much wasted space really. Access is not exceptional, and there are not that many things that would use the space very well.

This likely won't happen this year, as the old tank won't come out till I demo the galley, and since I'm now doing both the hull and deck this year...

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:23 am

The forward area of my bilge houses the two most critical items on the boat.... A bottle of Mt. Gay and a bottle of Ommegang!

Post by **dasein668** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:31 pm

Well, the Mt. Gay and Jose Cuervo live beneath the starboard settee on Dasein, so I'm safe there...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:50 pm

Wow! I never thought about where I am going to store the refreshments. Thanks for the reminders.

My cabin sole is pretty rough and one of these days the aft access board is going to break through when I come dropping down onto it. I was thinking when I get around to replacing it I would combine the two forward boards (shorter than the two combined but longer than either one) so I can lay spare anchor chain and maybe a fisherman type anchor (broken down) over the ballast and then have a good solid section to run a table stand through between the two remaining boards. Would a damp bilge be a problem if you could find a non-corrosive (plastic) tank? Another possible problem with using the deep aft section of the keel (early Tritons eat your heart out) is the amount of weight in the aft section. Filling that cavity with fuel or water could pose a problem. I really need to get my boat in the water before I make too many more decisions.

-Britton

Post by **Tim** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:26 pm

BTW, a very worthwhile upgrade to the Triton storage areas can be had by removing those ridiculous, space-wasting drawers beneath the settees and converting to top-opening lockers instead. The amount of additional space realized is immense.

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:55 pm

Yeah, but isn't it a pain to hafta mess with the cushions every time you need something?

I keep my "most often used" items in those drawers. Hammer, A4 manual, quarts of oil, winch handles, etc.

I suppose you have all of those storage bins above the setees for stuff like that, though.

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:10 pm

Already submitted to the planning board (removing those silly drawers, I mean). I am thinking tool/spare parts storage and other items I don't need to get to every day. And like Mike said, use the lockers on the settee backs for the often used items.

-Britton

Post by **Tim** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:39 pm

Well, there's nothing on top of the cushions that makes them hard to move. And the cushions are pretty small. It's a minor inconvenience at worst, completely insignificant at best. I can easily flip up the cushions for access. I never found the drawers to be too handy either.

I keep two large toolboxes on the starboard side, along with small stuff (line), rigging parts, the PB Blaster/WD40, spare winch handles, and the like. The port side is our largest food and drink locker--hard liquor, soda cans, and dry goods like pastas, baking goods, and that sort of thing.

Everything's a compromise, I guess. There are ups and downs to each method, but if maximizing storage is in the cards, these lockers can be a good option. I have found them to be invaluable. I have worked hard to maximize and optimize storage space on board, at least for how I use stuff. Things have gradually morphed to the current configuration, after a few trial periods with things in different places.

(For what it's worth, the lockers behind the settees hold some foodstuffs in one of the five, and two of the remaining four are clothes storage when cruising. The final two hold various other things, including overflow books, spare linens, and the like.)

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:42 pm

Any more thoughts about your fuel tank Nathan?

I have learned my fuel system is pretty gunked up from just sitting around partly full for so long and I am thinking of just upgrading the whole system before I launch this spring. A fresh, clean fuel system would go far towards putting my mind at ease. That would mean sailing without a galley this summer but I guess I could live that way a little while longer.

I am now leaning towards a tank under the cockpit like some of the older Tritons apparently had. I would lose some size but I think I can manage on 15-18 gallons as opposed to the 23 I now have and keep a plastic jerry can around if I needed it.

I just got back from a month in Dallas and four days in Bermuda. These single digit temperatures are killing me. Anyone feel sorry for me?...

-Britton

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:49 pm

BTW, I just checked out your newest updates. Looks like you have been pretty busy. I wouldn't have thought about adding a layer of glass over the decks. Was that to stiffen them up as well or was it just an easier way to provide a smoother surface? A little off topic I know... Looks good anyway.

-Britton

Post by **Tim** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:25 pm

Britton!

Welcome back.

bcooke wrote:I just got back from a month in Dallas and four days in Bermuda. These single digit temperatures are killing me. Anyone feel sorry for me?...

[Chortle!] Yeah, right. As if!

Hope you had a good time. I wish I could go somewhere warm. Well, the shop's warm, but you know what I mean...

bcooke wrote:I have learned my fuel system is pretty gunked up from just sitting around partly full for so long and I am thinking of just upgrading the whole system before I launch this spring. A fresh, clean fuel system would go far towards putting my mind at ease.

Agreed. Nothing is more annoying than a bad fuel supply, and probably nothing causes more engine-related problems.

bcooke wrote:I am now leaning towards a tank under the cockpit like some of the older Tritons apparently had.

Even though the published Triton drawings show a tank under the cockpit, I've not seen an original east coast Triton with that arrangement. Some or all of the west coasters have a tank there, though. Pearson probably ignored the designed location, cheaped out and slapped that thing in the locker instead--one of my favorite bonehead "solutions" found in the Triton.

I'll leave the questions about the glass on Nathan's decks for him, even though as I write this he's out in the shop grinding said fiberglass in preparation for fairing compound.

Post by **dasein668** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:19 pm

bcooke wrote:Any more thoughts about your fuel tank Nathan?

No. The new tank is on hold until next season.

Post by **dasein668** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:23 pm

Tim wrote:I'll leave the questions about the glass on Nathan's decks for him, even though as I write this he's out in the shop grinding said fiberglass in preparation for fairing compound.

Geez, what a swell guy!

Hey Britton, welcome back. I feel soooo sorry for you. Yeah, that's it. Sorry.

The goal of laying the new glass is to encapsulate the old severly cracked and chipping gelcoat and to provide a nice new surface for paint. There is nothing structural about the new glass. I used a single layer of 10oz fabric.

If you had been back a week ago, you could have enjoyed the process first hand. Tim and I lamented the fact that you had dropped off the face of the earth while we were doing the job!

Many thanks to Tim for an extra set of hands with that job. Would have been a real bear to do single-handed.

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:21 am

Hi folks,

This is not on the original topic, but since the thread is, ultimately, about stowage - and the under-cushion stowage was being debated - I'll throw in a comment.

The boat I lived on over the last couple of years had stowage under the main settee cusions - just like Tim's photograph shows. It was only a hassle to access if the settee was full of stuff, which we (of course) tried to discourage.

We ended up keeping more-used stuff under our "main" port settee (cans, beverages, jars of food); and less-often-used stuff (lumber, spare electronics, batteries, fasteners, saws, etc.) under the forward part of the less-popular starboard settee - which was the most likely to have junk sitting on it.

In the end I didn't feet it was much trouble at all. I mean, it sure beat gettting at stuff under the V-berth, or (horrors) dismantling the quarter berth :-) In fact, we even removed some space-wasting drawers (under the nav bench) and were happy with the results. One set of drawers (put in by the original builder) was very efficiently-sized, and wasted almost no space, and those we kept - and loved. But the set we removed had been put in by a later owner and they were real space-wasters.

I did have one huge pet-peeve about the under-saloon-settee-seat stowage which was that the cushions were made in one big, heavy, floppy six-and-a-half-foot-long piece. THAT made it a hassle because you had to pretty much clear off the whole settee to get to one locker (there were two lockers under each settee). The cushions were high-quality, and dense, so it wasn't that easy to just bend them back, and if you did, they'd constantly try to flop back in your face while you groped for supplies with one hand, and tried to fend of the cushion with the other.

Since there were two under-settee lockers, I would have preferred it if the cushions had been in two pieces. Then, if there were items on the settee, you'd only have to move them over to the other half that you weren't going to be lifting, and you'd have less cushion to deal with.

Oh, one more comment: If you split the lower cushions exactly in half, the joint will be right under your ... posterior, while you sleep. Okay if the cushions are really well trapped into position - as they usually are on a boat - but otherwise they tend to creep apart. If you split them anywhere but exactly in half, you don't have that problem.

--- Rachel

PS It's true! There will come a time when lumber and clamps and fasteners will be "less-used," and food will be "more-used." ;-)

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:29 am

Tim and I lamented the fact that you had dropped off the face of the earth while we were doing the job!

It is nice to know someone is thinking about me... I think...

I am not sure if I was lucky or missed a great opportunity. I should be pretty flexible for the next couple of months so let me know if something else comes up. Until the temperatures come up a bit the work on my boat will go slowly (yeah, I am a wimp and I am not going to change).

-Britton

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:18 pm

I figured out why Alberg's drawings show a fuel tank under the cockpit but Pearson opted for the cockpit locker arrangement. It didn't dawn on me last fall or over the winter because I had the cockpit sole all torn up and ... the A4 shift linkage removed. I hooked the linkage back up the other day and Voila, no more space for a tank unless the tank is about 3 inches tall (not). I don't imagine C. Alberg specified the A4 in his plans and didn't factor in the installation details. I have spent all winter certain about that tank installation and all for nought. Oh well, I don't really need that starboard locker. I think the current tank looks pretty good where it is. A little cleaning and as good as new (and one less thing to re-design... until next winter). Oh yes, I could change the transmission linkage but the current system is just so unique, quirky and Triton-esque that I just couldn't change it.

-Britton

Post by **Tim** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:15 am

It's been so long since that brutal A4 shifter was in my boat that I completely forgot about all the space it took up underneath. It looks like one more element of good design (the under-cockpit fuel tank) fell victim to a builder's desire to cut costs and increase production speed (read: cut costs again).

I have heard many stories about how many differences there ended up being between the as-built boat and Alberg's original design. Trouble is, these same sorts of things still go on today in more modern production boats. It must be frustrating for designers, and is also short-sighted of the builders. The power of the all-mighty dollar...

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:17 pm

Nathan,

I could remove, clean, and reinstall my old fuel tank or just order a new one which would take about five days and $300-400. I was measuring for a tank in the bilge and was wondering what you had for ideas. I was thinking a 30 inch tank positioned over the slanting portion of the ballast section but was dissapointed to find that I could only get about 18 gallons there, maybe 20 if I tweak the dimensions a bit. I had assumed I could get a bit more . Do you come up with the same figures? Or are you knee deep in fiberglass dust and fuel tanks are the farthest things from you mind?

And speaking of variations between Alberg's drawings and the Pearson produced boat, does anyone know a source for the orginal drawings? Just curious. There isn't a publication of Alberg designs is there?

-Britton

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:18 pm

Oh yeah, you answered that question in January... I should have scrolled up a bit. I guess I will pioneer this one then.

-Britton

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:33 pm

Here is an interesting calculation I just came up with.

The orginal 23 gallon tank, when full, should weigh around 138 pounds. Now if one estimates its position about 20 feet aft of the Center of Gravity (very rough estimates here) then the downward force on the stern is 2760 pounds. (Weight x Arm = Moment) An 18 gallon tank would weigh around 108 pounds and if you guesstimate it sits about 10 feet behind the CG then the downward force is 1080 pounds. By my cockamamied calculations moving a smaller tank into the bilge should make the stern quite a bit more bouyant. Or am I totally confused... Don't answer that.

-Britton

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:50 pm

The Triton is only 28 feet long, and the static center of bouyancy is somewhere in the neighborhood of station 6 (Guessing. I don't have my drawings handy). 20 feet aft of the center of bouyancy puts the tank in the dinghy towed behind. The as-built location is about 10 feet behind the center.

To throw another monkeywrench in your math.... You're discussing the effect of weight upon bouyancy, expressed through moments. The problem with this is that the hull isn't the same shape fore and aft. The fuller sections aft give this part of the boat greater waterplane, i.e. greater bouyancy. This means that the "center of bouyancy" is really a moving target that changes as the immersion of the hull changes.

We can do math on this one all day long. Really the best way to evaluate the effect of your planned tank relocation would be for one of us (who's first to launch this year?) to load some weight into the cockpt, take a photo from abeam, then move that weight down into the companionway and take a second photo for comparison.
In principle, of course, your proposed location is an improvement... weight low and centralized is better than high and dispersed. However, should you use that new lazarette space to stow your spare anchor and 30 feet of chain, you've just replaced the weight of a 1/2 full tank of fuel.

Everything aboard is part of a system... it's all connected. For every push, there is a pull.

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:38 pm

Which just goes to prove that I really don't know what I am talking about :-)

You have drawings that show the designed center of bouancy? Station 6? Does that put the ballast in front of the CB?

-Britton

Post by **Tim** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:27 pm

This is why it's more fun to just go sailing! hehe

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:52 pm

Tim wrote:This is why it's more fun to just go sailing! hehe

True. True.
But then there are freaks like me, who cannot help but constantly re-head-calculate the free body diagram that is a boat under sail. Dozens of vectors, constantly changing with each puff of breeze or lift of wave, a change in one triggers corresponding changes in all others...... all part of the beauty.
Sometimes I'm just one enormous nerd.

No, actually I don't have a drawing of the Triton with a bouyancy curve. I thought I had a lines plan in that roll, but no, just profiles and layouts.
Alberg didn't reinvent the wheel, though. Most CCA hullforms are similar enough to serve as a reference.
(opening my treasured copy of Olin Stephens' Lines)
For near references, I see the Pilot (of Hinckley fame) and the Loki. Both are larger than the Triton, but the proportions and hullforms are very very close. On both of these designs, the bouyancy curve peaks just ahead of station 6. This curve, of course, is calculated for the bouyancy at the designed waterline. As the hull settles deeper into the water, the buttock lines grow fuller (more bouyancy) in the stern sections, which would bring the peak of the bouyancy curve farther aft...
You get the drift.

We're well beyond the topic of "Fuel tanks" now, of course. I simply can't help myself.

Post by **dasein668** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:46 pm

bcooke wrote:I was thinking a 30 inch tank positioned over the slanting portion of the ballast section but was dissapointed to find that I could only get about 18 gallons there, maybe 20 if I tweak the dimensions a bit. I had assumed I could get a bit more . Do you come up with the same figures? Or are you knee deep in fiberglass dust and fuel tanks are the farthest things from you mind?

Yes, and yes. I came up with about 18 gallons, which is the same as my current tank. More would be nice, but I don't really need it, so I was OK with that size.

But, of course, I'm not looking at that till next year now. So I'll be interested in what you end up with.

Post by **Tim** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:54 am

Figment wrote:For near references, I see the Pilot (of Hinckley fame) and the Loki. Both are larger than the Triton, but the proportions and hullforms are very very close. On both of these designs, the bouyancy curve peaks just ahead of station 6. This curve, of course, is calculated for the bouyancy at the designed waterline. As the hull settles deeper into the water, the buttock lines grow fuller (more bouyancy) in the stern sections, which would bring the peak of the bouyancy curve farther aft...

I'm not much on the numbers thing, but my eye and experience on the boat certainly would tend to confirm what the drawings and mind-calculations are saying about the buoyancy and hull form. It's easier to understand a theoretical calculation or figure when you're standing under the boat and can actually see the hull form for real. Then, these seemingly random numbers start making sense. You can move things around in the cabin without affecting trim, but stand on the poop deck and the bow starts to point to the heavens (at least in my case...hehe)

No matter what the actual case, it's always best to try and centralize significant weights on any boat. Racers, in a little-known ritual, actually give up their firstborns in order to save a few pounds at the ends of their boats. Moving the fuel tank (there, we're back on topic) closer to the theoretical center of the boat will be beneficial, even if it doesn't vastly increase the buoyancy of the stern area.

Tritons are quite sensitive to trim and weight distribution. Therefore, if you "push" (to draw on an earlier post) in one place, it's easy enough to do a similar "pull" elsewhere and re-balance everything as required. More weight in the stern means you can carry anchors on the bow, or vise versa. A full watertank forward will definitely tend to trim the normally stern-heavy Triton to a more level state. Moving the fuel tank into the deep bilge of many of the internally-ballasted Triton could only be beneficial from an overall standpoint. I wouldn't expect miracle differences in trim or performance, but it certainly wouldn't have an adverse effect either.

It took me pretty much two entire seasons to properly balance the gear I carry and keep the boat level. I moved gear all over the place in an attempt to level and balance the boat. I finally figured it out, at least for my particular boat. The fact that the original waterline bore no resemblance to the actual floating position of the boat didn't help, but once I realized that the waterline was off, not the boat, it became much easier to balance. With a straightened and repositioned waterline, weight distribution is now a piece of cake.

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:49 am

So not only is the height of the scribed waterline a fantasy but the relationship to the fore and aft level position is off too. Let it float where it looks good and paint the waterline to match then. Not that I am really concerned, I just thought moving the tank towards the center was a good thing. The math is way off since I am thinking moments and not bouyancy, but the new (smaller) tank position would be half the distance from the CB which does reduce the impact of the tank. Again not that important in the big scheme of things but it is nice to think that my changes are for the better.

Great, I am freeing up a cockpit locker. Now why would anyone design a locker where anything that goes in immediately rolls down and jams into the drive shaft or if you are lucky escapes past into the deepest and darkest part of the bilge? Wait!.... don't answer that. Why does improving one thing always expose a weakness somewhere else? Wait!... don't answer that. The deep secret is that the Triton is designed so that you are never finished . Like hunting gophers. Close one hole and they pop up somewhere else. A lifetime of entertainment.

-Britton

Post by **dasein668** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:28 am

bcooke wrote:The deep secret is that the Triton is designed so that you are never finished . Like hunting gophers. Close one hole and they pop up somewhere else. A lifetime of entertainment.

You must be having a good week?that's an awfully positive outlook!

Post by **Tim** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:01 pm

dasein668 wrote:You must be having a good week?that's an awfully positive outlook!

...he says enviously, perhaps? hehe

The gopher holes are slowly being filled in for good. Those buggers are tough, but they can be beaten.

Post by **dasein668** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:13 pm

Tim wrote: ...he says enviously, perhaps? hehe

Mmm. Just a bit perhaps... I've decided that being in business would be great if it weren't for the clients.... hehe

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:50 pm

When I am working as an employee I am often grumbling about how badly things are managed and how I would do it better if I were working for myself. When I work for myself I grumble about the clients and wish for a simple steady paycheck.

The best job is Tim's. He just plays on the toys he loves all day with no one to bother him. Once a year or so he will need to sell a finished boat but some occasional social interaction isn't such a bad thing. :-)

Actually, speaking of employment options, I went over my finances with the tax lady last week and I am getting a bit worried. I really want to sail this summer (like in ALL summer) but I am already over budget and just getting going on the spring shopping fiesta. If I could learn to say no to my boat that would be a good thing but we all know THAT will never happen. She is a hungry vessel she is and will adorn herself only in the best...

Oops! there I go straying again. Fuel tanks... yes... with the tank moved into the bilge do you think the A4 mechanical fuel pump will have any problem drawing the fuel up to the carburetor? I have the motor in peices right now (I just can't help myself) and now would be a good time to switch to a stronger pump...

-Britton

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:52 pm

You must be having a good week

Yeah, I made it to the boat without getting the four wheel drive stuck and lifted a corner of the tarp for a good look around and project planning session. That always makes for a good week!

-Britton

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:42 pm

I think you'll find the A4 to be a happier beast with an electric fuel pump, regardless of the tank location.
NAPA sells a fine 2psi pump, and I think it's even self-priming. I'm certain that the model number can be found on the Triton MIR site. It's a fairly common modification.

Jeff on Kaynee is really the resident A4 authority. Perhaps he'll drop in on the topic.

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:22 pm

Yeah, I heard that the very late A4's were coming out with the electric pumps. I just never heard why. Are they better or cheaper?... I was leaning towards the electric (I like new parts and mounting on a bulkhead where I have easier access would be a plus) but decided that changing stuff that wasn't broke isn't practical or affordable.

Moyer Marine suggests the 2-3 psi Facet pump (found at any NAPA store)for most use and for one particular installation recomended a 3-4 psi model. I have the question in their forum as well (I try to cover my bases)

I haven't read much from Jeff lately. Is it me or does this forum community change over time. There are a lot of people that used to post here that apparently have finished their projects and are rarely heard from again. Hopefully they still lurk. It would be a shame to lose all the aquired experience.

-Britton

Post by **Tim** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:31 am

bcooke wrote:...now would be a good time to switch to a stronger pump...

I think you'd be happy with the electric fuel pump. Might as well install it now.

bcooke wrote:The best job is Tim's. He just plays on the toys he loves all day with no one to bother him.

Yes, I suppose the height of my weekly social outlet is chatting with one or another of the delivery drivers...

Maybe that's why I come in so often and blather on endlessly here on this forum.

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:24 pm

Maybe that's why I come in so often and blather on endlessly here on this forum.

Nah, that's my excuse.

-Britton

Post by **dasein668** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:28 pm

Tim wrote:Yes, I suppose the height of my weekly social outlet is chatting with one or another of the delivery drivers...

"Ouch, baby. Very ouch."

Post by **Tim** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:44 am

..notwithstanding the rather amusing shop conversations when Nathan happens to be there at the same time, of course! Perhaps I was derelict in failing to mention this.

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:28 pm

Okay, stainless or aluminum. I have seen preferences for both but can't remember what the reasoning was. I would have thought SS was the better alternative but I seem to remember someone on this site favoring aluminum for fuel tanks. I am just too lazy to search through all the old posts right now.

-Britton

Post by **Tim** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:47 pm

Most metal fuel tanks are aluminum. ABYC standards call for stainless gasoline tanks to be cylindrical in shape and under 20 gallons in capacity, which is one reason you don't see many installed. (I don't know why this standard is in place, but it is what it is.)

Aluminum (usually 5052 alloy) works very well, but the tank should be installed with the bottom slightly free of the space to ensure drainage and air circulation; otherwise there could be corrosion problems. That said, tanks are routinely installed deep in the bilge and directly on the hull, but this isn't the best way.

A properly installed aluminum tank will last effectively forever.

bcooke · Post by **bcooke** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:19 pm

I may be getting lazy here. Slap me if you think that is the case.

I pulled out the fuel tank today. It is in pretty good shape other than a dark yellow color to the fuel, turning black as the remnants drained out as well as various unidentified chunks in suspension... oh... and an awful ungasoline-like smell that lingers forever. As the tank passed out under where the starboard galley used to be, I noticed that the tank really fits nice under the old galley; almost like it was made for it and then pushed aft. Since the sink and drain will probably go back in its original location, access under the counter is limited anyway so what about just moving the tank forward into the galley? It would sit perhaps six inches further out to starboard and about 3 feet forward. Not knowing how Tritons trim out, what would you guys and girls think of this?

It is the lazy way out I agree but the idea has merits (mostly because it is easy). My concerns would be gasoline fumes that close to a working stove and how the boat trims out. The deep bilge area won't go wasted as I would probably add fresh water tankage there.

Any thoughts?

-Britton

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:52 am

Have you seen this photo series of moving the existing tank forward on "Thalassa," #577? I think this is what you're considering. I thought it looked pretty nifty.

Here's the link:

http://tritonclass.org/mir/577fueltank.html

Post by **dasein668** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:19 am

bcooke wrote:I may be getting lazy here. Slap me if you think that is the case.

S L A P !

Ok, ok.... it really isn't lazy. I was just hoping you were going to do the foot work for me re: the deep bilge tank!

So I guess, it's ME who's being lazy!

Plastic Classic Forum

Fuel Tanks

Fuel Tanks

Stowage under cushions comment

Moving fuel tank forward.