# Tall Tanks.........UGH!



## Cichlid Debby (Mar 21, 2014)

What's with the tall tanks that all the manufacturers seem to be going with?

Just musing, but to find a suitable tank with length and without the unnecessary height is difficult at best.

I was really looking for a 100 (5'x18"x20") What I wound up with was a 120 (5"x18"x26")
Now that extra height is a real bugger for me. It's pass the soap cause I might as well take my weekly bath when I do the water changes! 
Is it just for the look?
For "Fly By Nighters"?
All the LPS employees look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them the height is useless.
Anybody have any thoughts on this besides me?

Well I think it's time for "MeCasa" to pass the doobie.


----------



## OllieNZ (Apr 18, 2014)

I totally agree 5'x26"x18" now that would be a tank. My two tanks are square 48x18x18 and over square 25x13x16. Definitely much more aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## noddy (Nov 20, 2006)

I agree with the guys at the fish store,your crazy. I guess the extra height might be crazy depending on what type of fish you keep. 
I guess a 20" tall tank would be good for shellies or sandsifters, but you wouldn't be keeping Foai and cyps in it.
I have two of those 120s and a 29" tall 210. Your name isn't "Tattoo" is it? :wink:


----------



## Cichlid Debby (Mar 21, 2014)

noddy said:


> I agree with the guys at the fish store,your crazy. I guess the extra height might be crazy depending on what type of fish you keep.
> I guess a 20" tall tank would be good for shellies or sandsifters, but you wouldn't be keeping Foai and cyps in it.
> I have two of those 120s and a 29" tall 210. Your name isn't "Tattoo" is it? :wink:


No, It's not Tattoo 
I do understand that those tall tanks have their uses.
I guess my point was, there just doesn't seem to be the selection there once was.


----------



## areuben (Jul 17, 2003)

I disagree that 26 is a tall tank - 30+ is tall. I find a 26-27 inch height to be easy to work with and gives you a nice viewing panel while adding water volume to the same footprint of the larger tank you're working with. Personally, I find 20" OK on a 75 or so but on a 6 footer, it makes it look like a letter slot in a door - narrow. Now 30" is a pain, I've had my share of those and even for a guy like me at 6'3 with long arms they are a pain to work in and clean. I recently had a 6 foot by 30" wide tank custom made and went with a 27" height and it looks terrific and is easy to work in. I also love working with 180G tanks, the shorter version of noddy's 210. Again, at 20" or so I find that limiting for lots of fish and just don't like the reduced viewing area - if you add any large rocks like 8-10-12" height in a 20" height, I find it looks unbalanced.
I guess it's a personal thing but would disagree that 26" is high by any standard.


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

I don't care for a tank over 24". Footprint is more important than volume to me. I would take a 180 (24 x 24 x 72) over a 230 (24 x 30H x 72) any time. Looks better and is easier to work on.


----------



## MizOre (Sep 20, 2013)

I personally like a tank I can work in -- 80 inches by 20 by 20 works for me (actual tank is 1/2 inch less wide than that. I can reach the bottom of the tank to roll the driftwood over so the babies can get what grew under it.


----------



## Iggy Newcastle (May 15, 2012)




----------



## jeffkro (Feb 13, 2014)

Yup, I can just barely touch the bottom of my 24" tall. I wouldn't want anything taller for sure.


----------

