Is 6” worth the $$$

[jman930]

Currently have an in wall peninsula that is 96x30x25. I’m in a situation where I may be replacing the tank (nothing wrong with it just circumstances are allowing for the upgrade). I have been contemplating going with the same dimensions but a little taller (30” vs 25”) or going wider (36” vs 30”). I like the 96” length fine and it fits the space well.

Would the taller or wide dimensions be worth the upgrade? Mostly thinking about the width of the tank.

 

[york1]

I would go wider.

 

[ptreef]

Wider. I’ve had 36” tall and now 30” tall which I enjoy but it makes maintenance a bit harder. Wider allows more room for rock work/corals

 

[civics14]

Definitely wider for more real estate

 

[jman930]

What about 96x36x30? Would the width and height be impossible to work with? I’m not the tallest at 5’9 so I’ll probably be snorkeling haha

 

[scuba steve]

Go wider, larger footprint, more usable space for both corals and fish. Plus anything I've 30" tall starts to get to be a pain to reach anything for maintenance.

 

[siege]

Gotta jump on the wider bandwagon here... or even increase depth.

Anything that gets you more square inches of bottom space - less height just means less power required to achieve decent PAR on the bottom. Most of your fish aren't going to care about height, and especially things like tangs are going to want all the length they can get, and that's just more real estate to create more habitat in.

Go wider, larger footprint, more usable space for both corals and fish. Plus anything I've 30" tall starts to get to be a pain to reach anything for maintenance.

uNF. Good point, and something to consider when I go to spec out the stand for my 220g - it shouldn't be so tall that I can't still easily and safely reach the bottom, at least from a step-stool or so, given it's 24" deep.

 

[enderg60]

Depends on your arm length and access. My tank is 30x30 and I can just barely reach the whole tank from the front, I wouldnt go any bigger for that reason. My old tank was 28x36 and worked great because I could get in from both long sides. Current tank is only accessible from the front long side and if it was 36 wide I wouldnt be able to reach half the tank.

Visually I would go with 30" tall for a 8 foot tank. It gets you closer to the golden ratio. But wider gives you TOOONS of options for scaping.

 

[jman930]

I really do want a taller tank I think. The in wall 25” height never looked right but just accepted it. I think the 30” height on a 36” stand would look good sitting or standing in front of the tank.

 

[NAS]

I have a 30” tall tank. At first I was hesitant because I hate getting my arm wet and having a tall tank seemed daunting but I quickly got used to it. I use grabbers quite a bit for minor adjustments to corals but it’s not bad getting to the bottom rock work once you are used to it. From an esthetic standpoint I love the look of a taller tank.

 

[mumra]

I would go wider.

That's what she said!

 

[ichthyoid]

+1 for wider.
You, and your fish, will typically get a lot more out of the increase in area/useable real estate.

Exceptions to this would include having Batfish or something similar, that might gain dimensional advantages from a deeper rank.

Besides that, anyone with a tank deeper than 24 inches automatically qualifies for a ‘soggy pits’ T-shirt!

 

[mumra]

Oh yeah, I forgot. I vote wider as well.

 

[siege]

+1 for wider.
You, and your fish, will typically get a lot more out of the increase in area/useable real estate.

Exceptions to this would include having Batfish or something similar, that might gain dimensional advantages from a deeper rank.

Besides that, anyone with a tank deeper than 24 inches automatically qualifies for a ‘soggy pits’ T-shirt!

Yeah, owing to this thread I actually measured the length of my arm as 29" from the tip of my middle finger to my armpit, and made me glad that 220 I have isn't any deeper than it is!