Just found sand in the seal of my RSR250...
- Thread starter IOnceWasLegend
- Start date
I'd be curious about that as well, but also the specific kinds of failures.
I know very little about silicon and tank construction, so this is just my best guess. From my understanding/seeing debates about this on various forums, widespread delamination is more likely to be a manufacturing issue than user error. My understanding is that stresses of moving/sharp impacts/etc would be more likely to create pinhole leaks or partial gaps in the seam, rather than the rapid delamination that I (and others) have seen. Gut feeling is that seems accurate, given that impurity on the glass/improper cure time/development of surface layer on the silicone would be more uniform across the seal (which is what I've seen in multiple leaks) rather than small gaps.
Again, this is just my thoughts on the subject. I'd like to see that incident report if it were ever written, particularly if it gives similar stats for other manufacturers to draw failure rates from.
sfsuphysics
Supporting Member
Silicone is naturally going to fail, it's essentially an adhesive that is trying to stick to what is basically a very smooth surface even at the molecular level. Now while that stuff can stick any additional stresses just make it less and less likely to stick well, things like no bracing (aka making it look pretty) and overhanging the edge off stand (serious WTF was RedSea thinking with that?) will make that silicone fail that much sooner, bottom line though is even with "perfect application" every linear mm of silicone is not going to stick equally which is why you sometimes see that "gap" with failed silicone.
I agree with both main points- that it would be good to have failure rate data as opposed to anecdote only, and that Red Sea sells more rimless tanks than anyone else so seeing more of them fail doesn’t give you the info you actually need about failure rate.
Sure did
sfsuphysics
Supporting Member
While I agree with would be great, if it's a self reported statistic then it really becomes something everyone would take with a grain a salt, since there most likely would be punishment if they purposefully under reported, and more importantly no way to verify if they are in fact under reporting.
NanoCrazed
Guest
Side note on seam failures... I've read that folks who use wave boxes also have high rate of seam failures. So it you have red sea and a wavebox, be extra careful.
Qwiv
Supporting Member
This should actually be stronger. The forces on that seam are pushing out, not down. Your silicone and most silicone failures occur at the bond between the silicone and glass as an adhesion failure, vs the silicone itself ripping. The more surface area you have bonded for the seam, the better. The RedSea tanks use thinner glass on the sides then the bottom, so with the side panes, you get more surface area for adhesion bonding to the edge of the bottom pane then the edge of the side pane.
Interesting; hadn't considered that perspective. My thoughts on that would be, then, that this points more towards a manufacturing/construction defect of some kind, given that seam delamination is a consistent point of failure in spite of the extra adhesion bonding.
It's entirely possible, and anything we argue about is speculation at this point. Likely only Red Sea has the actual numbers, and—even if we were to have access to that data—it might be difficult to get an accurate picture given secondhand ownership, moving the tank, etc. That said, my gut feeling is that,
1. Given a consistent pattern of failure pointing to a manufacturing/construction/process defect of some kind, and
2. I doubt Red Sea outsells all other manufacturers at a large enough ratio for this to be proportional,
this is a Red Sea problem and not a 'tanks fail, people are targeting the tallest blade of grass' situation. I have no doubt the echo chamber of social media and PR is playing a larger role in making these failures seem more widespread than they truthfully are, but "this doesn't happen as often as it appears" and "this happens far more often than it should" are two separate arguments.
All that being said: I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect a tank from a known, established manufacturer to last over 3 or 4 years.
I agree we aren’t going to get useful statistics, and in the absence of data, the discussions here are some great examples of well known biases at play. I don’t see anything to be done with that unfortunately.
BUT I do think that tanks should be built to last basically forever as long as they aren’t abused. If a pump fails a year after the warranty expires it’s annoying but you don’t have the catastrophe of a tank seam failure. Analogy- if the AC on your car breaks it’s frustrating and potentially costly, but if you have a mechanical failure that results in a crash at 80 mph, that’s a totally different category of failure. More mature industries like cars, planes, manufacturing, etc treat failures with different outcomes as different.
I think tank manufacturers should have a similar approach, and never be ok with any seam failures. The fact that they seem unconcerned when you showed them your seam failure is shocking and really disappointing, because it implies they aren’t as concerned about safety as I want them to be, and that this is common enough that it doesn’t raise eyebrows. It should be so rare and urgent that they want to fly out their engineer to examine the tank first hand and learn from this, plus offer you a big discount on the newest safest version of the tank.
This overall would result in more expense for the customer, less elegant edges/lines, some compromises on size vs bracing, etc. But I think it is the tank manufacturer’s job to make safe tanks and not give us less-safe options with the idea of giving us what we want (the customer isn’t always right). Like how you aren’t given the option to buy a car without standard safety features even though they add cost and are more difficult to engineer.
BUT I do think that tanks should be built to last basically forever as long as they aren’t abused. If a pump fails a year after the warranty expires it’s annoying but you don’t have the catastrophe of a tank seam failure. Analogy- if the AC on your car breaks it’s frustrating and potentially costly, but if you have a mechanical failure that results in a crash at 80 mph, that’s a totally different category of failure. More mature industries like cars, planes, manufacturing, etc treat failures with different outcomes as different.
I think tank manufacturers should have a similar approach, and never be ok with any seam failures. The fact that they seem unconcerned when you showed them your seam failure is shocking and really disappointing, because it implies they aren’t as concerned about safety as I want them to be, and that this is common enough that it doesn’t raise eyebrows. It should be so rare and urgent that they want to fly out their engineer to examine the tank first hand and learn from this, plus offer you a big discount on the newest safest version of the tank.
This overall would result in more expense for the customer, less elegant edges/lines, some compromises on size vs bracing, etc. But I think it is the tank manufacturer’s job to make safe tanks and not give us less-safe options with the idea of giving us what we want (the customer isn’t always right). Like how you aren’t given the option to buy a car without standard safety features even though they add cost and are more difficult to engineer.
iani
Supporting Member
I do wonder if their answer would be different if you were the original owner of the tank.
Coral reefer
Past President
I wonder if second owner is different than first owner that has moved the tank before?
iani
Supporting Member
That isn't something that red sea would know though.
Most likely.
I recognize they have no legal obligation to help and this is more or less pissing in the wind.
But I liked my secondhand Red Sea tank. Even after a near-catastrophic seam failure, and letting them know I'd opted to purchase a Red Sea in spite of the number of seam failures I'd seen on social media, I was willing to give them another shot. Given the price of a tank failure, in home repairs and in livestock lost, I still think it was a reasonable request given I would've been content with even a modest (~20% or so) discount on their new and improved system.
Instead they'll get more bad press.
No matter what brand of rimless tank you’re talking about, in general they are very prone to failure and this is more so on used ones. As you know, I am the largest dealer in the Bay Area and by far have sold the most over the years. And of the 15 years I’ve been in business, I have ZERO seam failure with Red Sea tanks when setup brand new. However, I have heard of several cases of failures on used tanks.
Glass tanks in general are extremely sensitive to leveling issues. Seams on rimless tanks are also notorious for being compromised during a relocation. That is just the natural flaw of any rimless tank, not just Red Sea. In addition and too often, people think they leveled it correctly but they don’t. How I know this? Some tank manufacturers asked me to go on site and validate the leveling when a failure is reported (I no longer do that) and 9 out of 10, improper leveling was always the cause. And this is issue is even more apparent on used systems where the tank or stand itself has been compromised during improper transportation from one location to another. People just didn’t know because they didn’t check.
Also keep in mind that in the same market space as Waterbox, Cade, and other smaller brands, Red Sea owns probably over 70% of the market so it’s natural for you to notice more failures with them. But if you do the math, they are still far more reliable than any other brands on the market.
Glass tanks in general are extremely sensitive to leveling issues. Seams on rimless tanks are also notorious for being compromised during a relocation. That is just the natural flaw of any rimless tank, not just Red Sea. In addition and too often, people think they leveled it correctly but they don’t. How I know this? Some tank manufacturers asked me to go on site and validate the leveling when a failure is reported (I no longer do that) and 9 out of 10, improper leveling was always the cause. And this is issue is even more apparent on used systems where the tank or stand itself has been compromised during improper transportation from one location to another. People just didn’t know because they didn’t check.
Also keep in mind that in the same market space as Waterbox, Cade, and other smaller brands, Red Sea owns probably over 70% of the market so it’s natural for you to notice more failures with them. But if you do the math, they are still far more reliable than any other brands on the market.
Last edited:
PeetaJai
Guest
@robert4025
Hey Robert can you please provide some insight on what is consider improper leveling? My way is when tank is full and I just place a leveler on all four side of the glass try to get as close to the center as possible. I love to learn the correct way to avoid seam failure. TIA
Hey Robert can you please provide some insight on what is consider improper leveling? My way is when tank is full and I just place a leveler on all four side of the glass try to get as close to the center as possible. I love to learn the correct way to avoid seam failure. TIA