Dumb question: Display only or Display+Sump when you talk about the size of your setup.

[anthonymckay]

I was thinking about this today...
My new setup is a waterbox 230.6. As such, when I'm talking to people I refer to it as my "new 230gal" reef tank. But in reality, that's the total volume of display+sump. The display itself is 167gal. Perhaps I'm being a bit misleading when I call it 230gal. Maybe I should start referring to it as my "(about) 170 gal reef tank"

Do you describe your tank by display tank volume or total volume?

 

[Rp8]

Depends on who I am talking to. Joe smoe, I say total water volume. To another reefer I’ll separate them just to be more specific

 

[shakacuz]

personally i ever only go with what the display size is. i have a 40B, with roughly 45-47g of water volume if i’m factoring in water displacement and sump space.

in your case, although you have a 230g “total water volume”, realistically it’s more like 130-150g after factoring sand or rock work(probably less)

 

[larryl]

I usually only go with my display size.

 

[rtparty]

Totally depends on the context and audience

 

[KStatefan]

I go with total water volume

 

[JayM]

DT capacity unless the discussion involves some sort of dosing - then it's total capacity.

 

[Lbrdsoxfan]

Display only, can care less about the sump stuff. If you have multiple tanks plumbed together give up total display volume info.

 

[MarsReefer]

It depends on the discussion. For dosing, nutrient levels, water change percentages, etc I go total water volume.

For fish stocking I talk about tank dimensions and display volume.

 

[billyocean]

Technically, If you plumbed your tank to the ocean..people would be quite confused about your total water volume. Preferably just the size of your tank IMO.

 

[edd59]

tanks are measured by outside dimentions so its less volume than they claim.
my 120 48x24x24 is actually about 100 gal. and a sump is only filled halfway so with my 40 breeder sump its about 120 gal total