Its fun to watch as you come across challenges and find workarounds - makes one appreciate the sequence the 'full time' boat builders face or anticipate - but you have the benefit of alternatives that will work best for you - not something a manufacturer would leave out due to some extra cost etc. Also - smart to pace yourself on those back breaking jobs - don't want a back issue at this stage - it would be a huge setback! Keep up the great work - have fun and stay safe & healthy!
I feel there is a risk of contamination of the fresh water in case of a damage or just regular wear and tear, that might not be visible, when the tanks are wall-to-wall like that. I read the comments below about this and a small void in-between and the issues of that, as well as the issues with having the side-by-side configuration. But, how about a side-by-side configuration with a thin void in-between that will drain to the bilge aft or fore ot the tank sections, it would eat a small bit of water and diesel volume but be safer. And then for trimming, divide the water tank in two with a pump mechanism. I guess it's too late for this fix now, but what do you think anyway?
It's certainly not to late, we are still in the ideas phase of planning the water and diesel tanks. In fact, I have been in discussions with the team at Schionning this week to go over another possibility. I'll go into that idea in Episode 107. So, thanks for your suggestion, we consider all ideas that our viewers post.
@@SailingSVLynx Great! I guess with my idea you would get a bit larger diesel tanks and a bit smaller water tanks, but since the original plan was only one water tank it's still bigger. I also came across another idea when going to bed last night (the best ideas come with the head resting on the pillow) and that was if there is a hull structural issue with such long tanks I think it would be possible to have structural baffles, like bulkheads with holes, both in the water and the diesel tanks.
Theres been alot of good questions about the tanks and for good reason , Im not knowledgeable about built in tanks, I personally dont like the idea because of a possibility of wicking . I work in construction and have seen many wicking issues that cause undetected damage until its a major issue. Even with the polishing system i think the tanks will need to be cleaned manually at some point . probably 1/2 of the long time sailing channels have cleaned there tanks at one point. Ive had to do it it on a boat i owned, had to cut the decks and cut the tanks to get access, Then i hired a pro because of the baffles they have speacial polishing mirrors , cameras and rods. Its a big decision , love the chanel
On our subs the forward part of the reactor compartment is the diesel tank. The fuel acts as part of the shielding, so for obvious reasons that tank has to remain full even if the diesel is getting used up. What they do is pump water into the bottom of the tank while drawing fuel off the top so it is never empty.
@@scotthansen4356 Not a bladder, the fuel just floats on top. Obviously fuel leaving has to run through oil/water separator on the way to the engine. It's a tall tank, though, so maybe that makes it work better. Bladder idea is ok, but then you lose some volume even with an empty bladder.
Cool stuff on a sub! Though, obviously, this wouldn't work for our catamaran. The tanks are small, so the separation of diesel and water is going to get sloshed around continuously as we pound through rough seas.
@@SailingSVLynx totally agree, not deep enough, you would just end up with a frothy mess. The bladder idea is something, though. But in the end moves away from KISS.
On configuring the balance you will have to take into account the moment arm so that a reduction in diesel weight won't be a simple procedure of an amount of water equivalent in weight to the reduced weight of diesel being pumped into the front tanks. As well you will have to take into account the reduced weight of water in the aft tank. Perhaps a fore/aft inclinometer would be fastest and easiest way to maintain trim with possibly even a third water tank in the other hull.
Naw, we'll go much simpler than that! While at a calm anchorage during our sea trial stages, we'll fill the diesel tank to various levels and then pump water between the tanks until the waterline of the boat is level. Then we'll jot down that information. We'll soon build up a chart that tells us what water levels are good in both tanks for any given level of the diesel.
Hi Guys, you're doing a great job, just a thought/suggestion for the water and fuel tank positions and the centre gravity concerns. Instead of having the water and fuel fore and aft of each other why not have them located left and right of the hull centrelines sharing fluid type balance tubes between so as when the quantitiy of fuel or water changes the actual CofG remains the same. Cheers Dave.
Just curious - With all the effort to make the hulls the tanks - would it not be better to insert premade tanks into the compartment - be they Poly, SS, or aluminum - any worry about the future of the Pot water coatings? What coatings are used in a fuel tank? No matter how well done coatings have a lifespan....
I had a thought… about putting another web between the water tank and fuel tank to give you an inspection area between the tanks in case of a leak? That way you could work with a leak without having contaminated water and fuel.
We considered it, but that would create a narrow place for water to collect, requiring yet another bilge pump (4 additional ones if there are three tanks per side of the boat, with divisions between forward and rear water tanks and diesel between). Instead, we are just going to reinforce all the tanks so that they aren't going to leak, likely with layers of basalt for added strength.
Hi Guys - great work as usual! So fun to see the progress and small (and not so small) changes along the way. Just curious, could the diesel tanks not have been directly fwd of the engine bay, close to the c of g, to have less effect on trim? A bit surprising that Schionning would arrange a trim sensitive cat with fuel tanks way fwd? Maybe there is a reason - I'm just curious!
There area couple of issues with that. The first is that our boat is already slightly off balance to the stern. Moving any weight back would worsen that issue. Secondly, the space you are talking about is not the center of the boat, so as you burn away diesel the balance will still change. The only place you could put the diesel tanks and not affect the balance is at the center of balance of the boat, and there is no room there for the tanks.
Well... we agreed with your idea so much that I took a second look to see if there was any way to center the diesel tanks. I found that if I put them in two web compartments to the inboard side, while leaving the outboard side of the web compartments for plumbing, I could get the diesel near the balance point. I've pushed this concept over to the engineers at Schionning and await their analysis. I'll share the results in Episode 107. :)
Hello! Great episode! Watching just remind me one thing. I've been experienced with sagging (foam core laminated sheet deflection) typically space between the bulkheads and due to really high weather temperatures like +40C Especially if exposed along weeks. That caused curvatures along the whole hull. Have you seen anything like that in yours? Thank you.
@@SailingSVLynx Good on ya. I think you can avoid sheet sagging if glue and tape deck straight away. Not like me left for a week under sun and heat :-(. Also thick sheets are more stable. My 18mm vs your 25mm.
have you thought about some form of normal epoxy applicator (paint gun) style or is that not a thing? also the tanks cleaning issue can be alleviated a bit by having the water constantly moving in the tank, this way gunge cant build up, you would need ONLY a small pump for each tank, aquarium pumps are good for that
There isn't a paint gun, but there are mixers that can squirt out epoxy. We considered one, but decided against it due to cost and maintenance. Our water should be moving quite regularly due to the motion of the boat plus us pumping water from tank to tank as we keep the boat balanced bow to stern and side to side, but thanks for the suggestion!
I have a question and maybe it's too late but why not instead of the two tanks being fore an aft why not side by side with the bulkhead acting as a baffle. In fact you could then add aditional baffling which I think you'd need anyway. Then you don't need the complication of that third tank?
Exactly but if they built the diesel tank and the water tank side by side vs fore and aft then the weight of the diesel or water doesn’t shift the CG with changes in their load. The only thing that would be required is additional baffling to prevent fore and aft sloshing.
Are they fitting tanks into those spaces between the bulkheads or are the spaces going to be the tanks themselves. If they are fitting tanks, which would be the “normal” way of doing it, and best I believe, then that would shoot down I think what on the face of it, sounds like a good idea. To fit long tanks “through” the bulkhead you would need to cut out too much of the bulkhead and compromise its strength. Assuming I’m following you…
Actually side by side does change the CG as diesel is burned. Think of a teeter totter. Put weight on one end and two buckets on the other and then balance the weight by filling one bucket with water and the other with diesel. Now, if you take away diesel from one bucket the balance is upset and it doesn't matter if those buckets are side by side or front to back.
you adding ballasts inside your tanks? Also why are you pumping water from rear tank to forward tank? I would leave the rear tank with water and and then fill front tank. Then as you are using water rear tank it can be filled or left to keep getting lower. Also when guests are there bow cabins will have there stuff in it. I do like the extra water tanks. when going to anchor around other boats you can have both tanks on each side full so you wont have to make water next to a boat dumping poo next to you. Will be interesting either way to see how well this design works.
We're not adding other ballast inside the tanks, the water is the ballast. We pump water from the rear tank to the forward tank as diesel is burned, which makes the bow get lighter. Moving some of the water forward offsets the weight loss of the diesel.
I'm curious about your issue with getting the soles past the temporary bulkheads... did you guys do something out of order, or did Schoening not anticipate the problem with their assembly plan? As for your double-tanks solution, at first I didn't love it thinking that it added too much complexity, but I then realized that you will be balancing your consumption from port and starboard tanks. Balancing the use from 4 tanks is really not much different that balancing from 2, and it does allow for improving the trim. Good solution.
This is hull #1 of my Solitaire 1520, so there were some teething issues with the kit, these temporary bulkheads were one such issue. It's just something to solve, so no big deal.
What about running the 2 tanks side by side bridging the two compartments, it will mean penetrations through the floor grid cross frame but they would be minimal and the grid would act as a baffle, the fore aft balance wont be affected regardless of which tank is being drawn from?
Sorry to intervene, but I think the point of the suggestion was missed here: what if you have two parallel tanks, inward tank for say diesel and outward tank for water. Both parallel tank need to span across 2 compartments, which would mean four half-tanks per hull. But it would solve the balance issue completely.
@@kaikekaisti2448 I agree, I can't see an issue with this configuration, regardless of the tank levels the fore and aft balance will not change, the added advantages are that there is no extra under sole storage used and no cost for additional piping and pumps as well as ongoing maintenance, also the need for constant monitoring the balance will be gone. I wonder if Phill misunderstood what I was saying?
@@kaikekaisti2448 Actually, that wouldn't do it. When both of your parallel diesel tanks were empty, the boat would still be too light at the bow. Only by moving the weight of water forward can you offset that loss of diesel weight.
@@SailingSVLynx Hi Phill, I'm not sure you understand what I meant, with my scenario there would still be 1 diesel tank and 1 water tank, they would sit side by side and span two grid bays each fore to aft, IE: one tank would be from the centre line of the hull to the outboard side and the other from the centre line to the inboard side of the hull, the two tanks would still occupy the same areas as originally planned. no water or fuel shifting would be needed.
If we are speaking about balancing problems, what about the people who are more heavier than 320kg, and sometimes are sleeping in the front cabins of the boat, sometimes everybody in the galley. Is it not a problem?
Couldn't you just stage the floor up on the bridge deck, use a temporary floor and wiat until the temporary bulkheads are ready to pull out entirely? Saves you from having to reworking the temporary bulkheads.
Unfortunately, no. The temporary bulkheads hold up the decks. They have to stay until the sole goes in and then the walls. Only after the walls are supporting the deck can the temporary bulkheads be completely removed.
@@maxprea3745 No, it doesn't. The weight issue is a fore to aft problem, not a side to side of the boat. Burning diesel in your parallel tanks will still cause the bow to become lighter since the tanks are in front of the centerline of the boat.
@@SailingSVLynx If the fuel were centred around LCB there wouldn't be a trim change on varying loads. I must say though, I would have chosen to split the fuel tankage - that way fuel could be bunkered into an empty section, and then polished into the second - and WHEN you get diesel bug you would have the option to polish from tank to tank. Each to their own though:)
Now I understand why catamarans are so expensive! The scale of this project makes my head hurt. You guys are doing great.
There is a lot to it, no doubt.
Its fun to watch as you come across challenges and find workarounds - makes one appreciate the sequence the 'full time' boat builders face or anticipate - but you have the benefit of alternatives that will work best for you - not something a manufacturer would leave out due to some extra cost etc.
Also - smart to pace yourself on those back breaking jobs - don't want a back issue at this stage - it would be a huge setback! Keep up the great work - have fun and stay safe & healthy!
Thanks! We'll try to do that!
I feel there is a risk of contamination of the fresh water in case of a damage or just regular wear and tear, that might not be visible, when the tanks are wall-to-wall like that. I read the comments below about this and a small void in-between and the issues of that, as well as the issues with having the side-by-side configuration. But, how about a side-by-side configuration with a thin void in-between that will drain to the bilge aft or fore ot the tank sections, it would eat a small bit of water and diesel volume but be safer. And then for trimming, divide the water tank in two with a pump mechanism. I guess it's too late for this fix now, but what do you think anyway?
It's certainly not to late, we are still in the ideas phase of planning the water and diesel tanks. In fact, I have been in discussions with the team at Schionning this week to go over another possibility. I'll go into that idea in Episode 107. So, thanks for your suggestion, we consider all ideas that our viewers post.
@@SailingSVLynx Great! I guess with my idea you would get a bit larger diesel tanks and a bit smaller water tanks, but since the original plan was only one water tank it's still bigger. I also came across another idea when going to bed last night (the best ideas come with the head resting on the pillow) and that was if there is a hull structural issue with such long tanks I think it would be possible to have structural baffles, like bulkheads with holes, both in the water and the diesel tanks.
7:16 mark the hull where the grid sets on a dry fit. This way you know exactly where to reinstall.
We did that after leveling. 😉
Theres been alot of good questions about the tanks and for good reason , Im not knowledgeable about built in tanks, I personally dont like the idea because of a possibility of wicking . I work in construction and have seen many wicking issues that cause undetected damage until its a major issue. Even with the polishing system i think the tanks will need to be cleaned manually at some point . probably 1/2 of the long time sailing channels have cleaned there tanks at one point. Ive had to do it it on a boat i owned, had to cut the decks and cut the tanks to get access, Then i hired a pro because of the baffles they have speacial polishing mirrors , cameras and rods. Its a big decision , love the chanel
The tanks are being designed with access ports to allow manual cleaning without cutting into the tanks.
@@SailingSVLynx Great
On our subs the forward part of the reactor compartment is the diesel tank. The fuel acts as part of the shielding, so for obvious reasons that tank has to remain full even if the diesel is getting used up. What they do is pump water into the bottom of the tank while drawing fuel off the top so it is never empty.
I'm guessing the water is in a bladder. That's a good idea
@@scotthansen4356 Not a bladder, the fuel just floats on top. Obviously fuel leaving has to run through oil/water separator on the way to the engine. It's a tall tank, though, so maybe that makes it work better. Bladder idea is ok, but then you lose some volume even with an empty bladder.
Cool stuff on a sub! Though, obviously, this wouldn't work for our catamaran. The tanks are small, so the separation of diesel and water is going to get sloshed around continuously as we pound through rough seas.
@@SailingSVLynx totally agree, not deep enough, you would just end up with a frothy mess. The bladder idea is something, though. But in the end moves away from KISS.
On configuring the balance you will have to take into account the moment arm so that a reduction in diesel weight won't be a simple procedure of an amount of water equivalent in weight to the reduced weight of diesel being pumped into the front tanks. As well you will have to take into account the reduced weight of water in the aft tank. Perhaps a fore/aft inclinometer would be fastest and easiest way to maintain trim with possibly even a third water tank in the other hull.
Naw, we'll go much simpler than that! While at a calm anchorage during our sea trial stages, we'll fill the diesel tank to various levels and then pump water between the tanks until the waterline of the boat is level. Then we'll jot down that information. We'll soon build up a chart that tells us what water levels are good in both tanks for any given level of the diesel.
Hi Guys, you're doing a great job, just a thought/suggestion for the water and fuel tank positions and the centre gravity concerns. Instead of having the water and fuel fore and aft of each other why not have them located left and right of the hull centrelines sharing fluid type balance tubes between so as when the quantitiy of fuel or water changes the actual CofG remains the same. Cheers Dave.
The balance of the boat is changed as diesel weight becomes less, no matter if the tanks are side by side or forward and back.
Just curious - With all the effort to make the hulls the tanks - would it not be better to insert premade tanks into the compartment - be they Poly, SS, or aluminum - any worry about the future of the Pot water coatings? What coatings are used in a fuel tank? No matter how well done coatings have a lifespan....
There are issues with all types of tanks, from weight to corrosion to fume leakage, so we just prefer making built in tanks.
I had a thought… about putting another web between the water tank and fuel tank to give you an inspection area between the tanks in case of a leak? That way you could work with a leak without having contaminated water and fuel.
We considered it, but that would create a narrow place for water to collect, requiring yet another bilge pump (4 additional ones if there are three tanks per side of the boat, with divisions between forward and rear water tanks and diesel between). Instead, we are just going to reinforce all the tanks so that they aren't going to leak, likely with layers of basalt for added strength.
Hi Guys - great work as usual! So fun to see the progress and small (and not so small) changes along the way. Just curious, could the diesel tanks not have been directly fwd of the engine bay, close to the c of g, to have less effect on trim? A bit surprising that Schionning would arrange a trim sensitive cat with fuel tanks way fwd? Maybe there is a reason - I'm just curious!
There area couple of issues with that. The first is that our boat is already slightly off balance to the stern. Moving any weight back would worsen that issue. Secondly, the space you are talking about is not the center of the boat, so as you burn away diesel the balance will still change. The only place you could put the diesel tanks and not affect the balance is at the center of balance of the boat, and there is no room there for the tanks.
@@SailingSVLynx thanks for the explanation!
Well... we agreed with your idea so much that I took a second look to see if there was any way to center the diesel tanks. I found that if I put them in two web compartments to the inboard side, while leaving the outboard side of the web compartments for plumbing, I could get the diesel near the balance point. I've pushed this concept over to the engineers at Schionning and await their analysis. I'll share the results in Episode 107. :)
@@SailingSVLynx that's great! I hope it can simplify the system a bit for you.
hi - nice idea on the ballest - are you putting any additional baffels in the tanks for slosh - or no need?
Yes, there will be baffles.
Hello! Great episode! Watching just remind me one thing. I've been experienced with sagging (foam core laminated sheet deflection) typically space between the bulkheads and due to really high weather temperatures like +40C Especially if exposed along weeks. That caused curvatures along the whole hull. Have you seen anything like that in yours? Thank you.
No, but we have only recently added the first deck.
@@SailingSVLynx Good on ya. I think you can avoid sheet sagging if glue and tape deck straight away. Not like me left for a week under sun and heat :-(. Also thick sheets are more stable. My 18mm vs your 25mm.
have you thought about some form of normal epoxy applicator (paint gun) style or is that not a thing? also the tanks cleaning issue can be alleviated a bit by having the water constantly moving in the tank, this way gunge cant build up, you would need ONLY a small pump for each tank, aquarium pumps are good for that
There isn't a paint gun, but there are mixers that can squirt out epoxy. We considered one, but decided against it due to cost and maintenance. Our water should be moving quite regularly due to the motion of the boat plus us pumping water from tank to tank as we keep the boat balanced bow to stern and side to side, but thanks for the suggestion!
I have a question and maybe it's too late but why not instead of the two tanks being fore an aft why not side by side with the bulkhead acting as a baffle. In fact you could then add aditional baffling which I think you'd need anyway. Then you don't need the complication of that third tank?
Side by side wasn't the weight issue - it was forward and back evening out due to fuel changes.
Exactly but if they built the diesel tank and the water tank side by side vs fore and aft then the weight of the diesel or water doesn’t shift the CG with changes in their load. The only thing that would be required is additional baffling to prevent fore and aft sloshing.
Are they fitting tanks into those spaces between the bulkheads or are the spaces going to be the tanks themselves. If they are fitting tanks, which would be the “normal” way of doing it, and best I believe, then that would shoot down I think what on the face of it, sounds like a good idea. To fit long tanks “through” the bulkhead you would need to cut out too much of the bulkhead and compromise its strength. Assuming I’m following you…
I think the plan was to build them out of the frames like they are doing on the durecel
Actually side by side does change the CG as diesel is burned. Think of a teeter totter. Put weight on one end and two buckets on the other and then balance the weight by filling one bucket with water and the other with diesel. Now, if you take away diesel from one bucket the balance is upset and it doesn't matter if those buckets are side by side or front to back.
Do you think it may be worth while double walling between diesel and drinking water to lessen the risk of contamination.
Sort of... we are adding additional layers of glass, so that achieves the same thing.
you adding ballasts inside your tanks? Also why are you pumping water from rear tank to forward tank? I would leave the rear tank with water and and then fill front tank. Then as you are using water rear tank it can be filled or left to keep getting lower. Also when guests are there bow cabins will have there stuff in it. I do like the extra water tanks. when going to anchor around other boats you can have both tanks on each side full so you wont have to make water next to a boat dumping poo next to you. Will be interesting either way to see how well this design works.
We're not adding other ballast inside the tanks, the water is the ballast. We pump water from the rear tank to the forward tank as diesel is burned, which makes the bow get lighter. Moving some of the water forward offsets the weight loss of the diesel.
I meant Baffles lol. I see someone else answered that. Regardless you are making this boat even better. Is it done yet lmao.
Damn, I wish! We're working on it!
I'm curious about your issue with getting the soles past the temporary bulkheads... did you guys do something out of order, or did Schoening not anticipate the problem with their assembly plan?
As for your double-tanks solution, at first I didn't love it thinking that it added too much complexity, but I then realized that you will be balancing your consumption from port and starboard tanks. Balancing the use from 4 tanks is really not much different that balancing from 2, and it does allow for improving the trim. Good solution.
This is hull #1 of my Solitaire 1520, so there were some teething issues with the kit, these temporary bulkheads were one such issue. It's just something to solve, so no big deal.
What about running the 2 tanks side by side bridging the two compartments, it will mean penetrations through the floor grid cross frame but they would be minimal and the grid would act as a baffle, the fore aft balance wont be affected regardless of which tank is being drawn from?
But the whole point of the two tanks is to adjust weight forward or backward to offset the use of diesel.
Sorry to intervene, but I think the point of the suggestion was missed here: what if you have two parallel tanks, inward tank for say diesel and outward tank for water. Both parallel tank need to span across 2 compartments, which would mean four half-tanks per hull. But it would solve the balance issue completely.
@@kaikekaisti2448 I agree, I can't see an issue with this configuration, regardless of the tank levels the fore and aft balance will not change, the added advantages are that there is no extra under sole storage used and no cost for additional piping and pumps as well as ongoing maintenance, also the need for constant monitoring the balance will be gone. I wonder if Phill misunderstood what I was saying?
@@kaikekaisti2448 Actually, that wouldn't do it. When both of your parallel diesel tanks were empty, the boat would still be too light at the bow. Only by moving the weight of water forward can you offset that loss of diesel weight.
@@SailingSVLynx Hi Phill, I'm not sure you understand what I meant, with my scenario there would still be 1 diesel tank and 1 water tank, they would sit side by side and span two grid bays each fore to aft, IE: one tank would be from the centre line of the hull to the outboard side and the other from the centre line to the inboard side of the hull, the two tanks would still occupy the same areas as originally planned. no water or fuel shifting would be needed.
If we are speaking about balancing problems, what about the people who are more heavier than 320kg, and sometimes are sleeping in the front cabins of the boat, sometimes everybody in the galley. Is it not a problem?
Not a problem that can be solved. Some things just are.
Half empty diesel tank will equal condensation which equals diesel bug and rust if metal is involved
No metal is involved and we will have a fuel polishing system.
Couldn't you just stage the floor up on the bridge deck, use a temporary floor and wiat until the temporary bulkheads are ready to pull out entirely? Saves you from having to reworking the temporary bulkheads.
Unfortunately, no. The temporary bulkheads hold up the decks. They have to stay until the sole goes in and then the walls. Only after the walls are supporting the deck can the temporary bulkheads be completely removed.
Бак с водой не должен иметь общую стенку с дизельным баком. Их надо разделить. Удачи!
Резервуар для воды не будет иметь общей стенки с баком для дизельного топлива. Посмотрите серию 110. Спасибо за комментарий.
How about having the tanks parallell not in serie.
What do you think the advantages of that are?
@@SailingSVLynx the weight ends up in the middle regardless of the amount of liquid
@@maxprea3745 No, it doesn't. The weight issue is a fore to aft problem, not a side to side of the boat. Burning diesel in your parallel tanks will still cause the bow to become lighter since the tanks are in front of the centerline of the boat.
if your boat out of balans from your diesel tanks 350 kg than you have a big problem
And what problem is that? This is a performance boat and will be affected by weight balance. This comes from the Schionning Designers of the boat.
@@SailingSVLynx If the fuel were centred around LCB there wouldn't be a trim change on varying loads. I must say though, I would have chosen to split the fuel tankage - that way fuel could be bunkered into an empty section, and then polished into the second - and WHEN you get diesel bug you would have the option to polish from tank to tank. Each to their own though:)
@@faraway5828 There is nowhere to put it at the center point. The fuel tanks are split into two for polishing.
We may have found a way to get the diesel tanks centered, more on that in upcoming videos!
Good idea with the temporary sole floor boards, watching you tight-rope on those floor webs was cringe worthy. Thanks for posting.
Compared to the rock climbing I've done... that was easy :)
Also, the temporary flooring can just be inverted for use on the other hull. One solution fulfills two purposes 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@@davidantill6949Indeed. :)
You have hight in your shower ,step up into the shower tray ???
There will be a short wall between the head and shower to keep shower water inside.