Gauging the market on fuel sender for 22C [Archive]

Tidbart

07-06-2010, 07:48 AM

As some of you know I have been working on the calculations for a customized fuel sender for the 22 Classics from 1994-on. Specifically, the newer style 55-gallon RDS tank. What this amounts to is getting an accurate indication for the level of fuel in your tank, as we all know that just can't happen with the stock float senders we all have. These would be two-wire, plug and play, replacements for standard 33-240 ohm gauges, not electronic gauges.

see other post.... http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=62470&highlight=sender

And yes, other tanks styles can be done. I did this one because it is what I have and I need to replace my sender. I also have the drawings, thanks to George, of the earlier RDS tank, pre 1994, but haven't done any calcs yet. It this one pans out, I can expand the market.

Anyways, I am trying to gauge the market for a small production run of these. I am looking to see who would actually buy one if I had these made. I am trying to keep costs down by having several made and sold. They should end up being well under $100, hopefully under $80. I haven't got a final cost yet, as I don't know how many to have made.

Replacements for the original floats go for about $35-40, but they are still inaccurate.

Yes, this is bling. You just can't see it.:)

Let me know if this is something you are interested in seeing made. I don't care if you are not interested.:boggled:

Bob

Planetwarmer

07-06-2010, 11:47 AM

Donzi should be the people who are interested in this. They should care enough to insure their gauges read accurately.

I have an 87' model 22C.

Tidbart

07-06-2010, 12:22 PM

Donzi should be the people who are interested in this. They should care enough to insure their gauges read accurately.

I have an 87' model 22C.

Well, judging from the responses, or lack thereof, even though it has only been a few hours, maybe Donzi is right in their thinking that nobody really cares about an accurate fuel gauge.:bonk:

On another note, the other tank diagram I have was drawn in '88, so I believe you tank may be different. Don't really know.

Bob

Ranman

07-06-2010, 01:11 PM

Bob,

The Centroid sending units are the way to go. I don't know that I would put much effort into customizing a sender with electronics to get the sender to compensate for "volume" vs. "level". Not a big benefit vs. cost IMO. The concentric tube senders are more robust/reliable and less prone to failure than the float senders. This is the important part to me.

As far as volume versus level. Once you understand the concept that "fuel level" does not equal "fuel volume" as you've documented in your graphs, you can easily understand when you really need to fuel up. I know my needle stays on "full" for a long time and then slowly drops to "half" and then drops like a rock to "empty" as I use the fuel at the bottom "V" of the tank. As far as the sender goes, it's dead on with the level reading it provides.

Tidbart

07-06-2010, 02:18 PM

Bob,

The Centronics sending units are the way to go. I don't know that I would put much effort into customizing a sender with electronics to get the sender to compensate for "volume" vs. "level". Not a big benefit vs. cost IMO. The concentric tube senders are more robust/reliable and less prone to failure than the float senders. This is the important part to me.

As far as volume versus level. Once you understand the concept that "fuel level" does not equal "fuel volume" as you've documented in your graphs, you can easily understand when you really need to fuel up. I know my needle says on "full" for a long time and then slowly drops to "half" and then drops like a rock to "empty" as I use the fuel as the bottom "V" of the tank. As far as the sender goes, it's dead on with the level reading it provides.

The value of the gauge accuracy is up to individual and the cost is a consideration. Frankly, I wouldn't mind spending a few extra bucks for that accuracy. It would especially help when I fill at a pump in the fact that I might not have to monitor the gauge as much. If a new sender/gauge reads a 1/4 tank, it is helpful to know that I have 13.75 gallons in it than the 7 gallons that is probably in there.

Anyways, I see your point. If I got some interest, in these I can have them made ad a considerable savings to all as the programming cost could be spread over the number of senders ordered. For sake of argument, if I was going to spend $75 bucks on a sender, would I spend an extra $20 for a steady reading? Hell yes. Would I spend an extra $75? Questionable.

Thanks for chiming in. Good feedback on the product.

B

gcarter

07-06-2010, 06:59 PM

BUIZILLA

07-06-2010, 07:16 PM

Dakota Digital

Tidbart

07-07-2010, 06:32 AM

While we're just BS'img. What I'de like to see is a digital gauge that tells me how many gallons are left........I'd really like that.
I'd pay for it too. It might be worth $150-$200 for it.
Would that be hard to do?
I like to run longer distances and remaining fuel is really important.
Also it completely takes the mental picture of the shape of the V bottom tank out of the equation.

The Dakota, Jim spoke of, has a preset for 240/33. I am sure they set that at the factory. This should work with the Centroid sender, would need to ask. $95. You would have to paint the bezel yourself as red is not available.:boggled:

Also, the programmable sender should remove the tank picture as it will not care about the tank shape. So an analog gauge will be highly accurate.

Bob

Ranman

07-07-2010, 09:17 AM

The value of the gauge accuracy is up to individual and the cost is a consideration. Frankly, I wouldn't mind spending a few extra bucks for that accuracy. It would especially help when I fill at a pump in the fact that I might not have to monitor the gauge as much. If a new sender/gauge reads a 1/4 tank, it is helpful to know that I have 13.75 gallons in it than the 7 gallons that is probably in there.

Anyways, I see your point. If I got some interest, in these I can have them made ad a considerable savings to all as the programming cost could be spread over the number of senders ordered. For sake of argument, if I was going to spend $75 bucks on a sender, would I spend an extra $20 for a steady reading? Hell yes. Would I spend an extra $75? Questionable.

Thanks for chiming in. Good feedback on the product.

B

I see what you're getting at. If it was a small, incremental charge like $20 I would agree too. I wonder if there's a way to split the difference between the 55Gal (22C) tanks and the 40Gal (18C) tanks since they hav similar profiles to still get a good needle read and double your potential "market"?

Tidbart

07-07-2010, 11:16 AM

I see what you're getting at. If it was a small, incremental charge like $20 I would agree too. I wonder if there's a way to split the difference between the 55Gal (22C) tanks and the 40Gal (18C) tanks since they hav similar profiles to still get a good needle read and double your potential "market"?

I am currently integrating the other 55 gallon tank from '88-'94 to see the differences between the two. Currently, they are the only two drawings I have. If the differences are minor, I would consider programming one sender to cover both tanks. Time will tell on that.
I would look at other tanks if I had the drawings, or all the dimensions to see if they would be compatible also.

Bob

BUIZILLA

07-07-2010, 12:28 PM

this is a very worthwhile effort on Bob's part, especially if the 18 hull is incorporated.... I hope everyone takes advantage of this... not sure what I need for the Critter being 30 years old... all I know is when mine says 5/8, it's really 1/2... :nilly:

gcarter

07-07-2010, 12:38 PM

I'll try to find the 40 gal. dwg. It's on here somewhere.
Wes talked about doing this but didn't.
Bob stepped up and I also appreciate it.

Cuda

07-07-2010, 01:08 PM

Wouldn't a fuel usage sender be more accurate?

I had the fuel float go bad years ago in my fishboat. I couldn't get the right one, so I bought one that was shorter. That way if I though I was out of gas, I had about three inches of gas left.

Tidbart

07-07-2010, 01:30 PM

I am going to take the liberty of redirecting the other post I started to this one.

I did some more work. I integrated the Older 22 tank and compared it to the Newer 22 tank. I've attached a graph to show the comparison. They are amazingly similar.:yes: This is good news.

Tidbart

07-07-2010, 01:49 PM

So I took it a step further and looked at the averages and variances in the two tanks and came up with another chart showing what could be setting for the programming of a sensor that would consolidate both tanks. If you look at the table below the graph, I listed the variances from what would be the proposed new sender to both tanks. Yes, those are OUNCES. All the levels were from 0-3%, except the0-1" level which is off by about 7%.

I have to go back and check all the math again. The first tank I did on paper, the second on spread sheet. I want to make sure I am correct on all this data.:yes:

If I can make this happen, it would mean 22 Classics with the 55 gallon tanks from about 1988 through about 1999, and maybe more as I don't know the dimensions of the newer tanks or older ones, could use this sender and have a very accurate idea as to how much fuel they have (providing the gauge is OK).

CHACHI

07-07-2010, 04:13 PM

If I can make this happen, it would mean 22 Classics with the 55 gallon tanks from about 1988 through about 1999, and maybe more as I don't know the dimensions of the newer tanks or older ones, could use this sender and have a very accurate idea as to how much fuel they have (providing the gauge is OK).Bob, I have a '99 22 with what I am sure is a plastic tank. Capacity is quoted at 60 gallons.

Ken

Tidbart

07-07-2010, 04:57 PM

Bob, I have a '99 22 with what I am sure is a plastic tank. Capacity is quoted at 60 gallons.

Ken

Ken,

Maybe it is through 98, that still had the Alum. tanks. Not exactly sure of when they did the swap.

Also, I don't know if you are interested in a sender or not but, unfortunately, nobody seems to have or know the dimension of the plastic tanks in order for me do a comparison to what I have planned to buy. Doesn't mean that they can't be checked in the future.

Bob

gcarter

07-07-2010, 06:07 PM

IMHO, since the space for the later PE tanks is the same, and the shape of the std aluminum tank is so simple, I would assume the sizes are similar. I don't think the PE tanks are/were foamed in since it really wasn't neccessary. That fact is probably where the extra capacity comes from.
Maybe we'll find out some day.
But as far as this programmable sender is concerned, I don't think I would hesitate to use it.
It'd have to be better than the V-bottom fiasco.

42 Gallon RDS tank.....

Here's the complete history of RDS and the 42 gallon tank drawing.....
courtesy of Forrest and myself.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=35909

CHACHI

07-07-2010, 06:24 PM

IMHO, since the space for the later PE tanks is the same, and the shape of the std aluminum tank is so simple, I wsould assume the sizes are similar. I don't think the PE tanks are/were foamed in since it really wasn't neccessary. Thatr fact is probably where the extra capacity comes from.
Maybe we'll find out some day.

George, I will crawl under the deck and find the answers to these questions, but I think the tank is foamed in.

Bob, Iam interested in the sender and as a matter of fact, when I purchased new gauges for my boat years ago, Autometer tossed in a new sender. It has been so long since I looked at it, I can't remember if it had a float on it or not. This question will also be answered this weekend.

Ken

HOWARD O

07-07-2010, 06:36 PM

This has been accurate to less than a gallon for me. Also shows GPH in real time and has a tripmeter to boot. I think I paid around $120 for it and it installs in about 20 minutes. I had a Navman brand on my last boat and it was just great.

http://www.standardhorizon.com/ProductImages/FF41_thumb.jpg

Tidbart

07-07-2010, 07:41 PM

Tidbart

07-07-2010, 07:50 PM

IMHO, since the space for the later PE tanks is the same, and the shape of the std aluminum tank is so simple, I wsould assume the sizes are similar. I don't think the PE tanks are/were foamed in since it really wasn't neccessary. Thatr fact is probably where the extra capacity comes from.
Maybe we'll find out some day.
But as far as this programmable sender is concerned, I don't think I would hesitate to use it.
It'd have to be better than the V-bottom fiasco.

42 Gallon RDS tank.....

Here's the complete history of RDS and the 42 gallon tank drawing.....
courtesy of Forrest and myself.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=35909

Thanks George. I will take a look at it as soon as I get a few moments and do some calcs. I did notice the tank is 5/8" taller. Can you say 'reserve'?:wink:

gcarter

07-07-2010, 08:01 PM

Keep in mind that the sender I am looking to get is 33/240 ohm unit. It will not work with every gauge.

Howard, if that gauge is that accurate you must either, not have a tapered tank or not have a float sender if you do have a tapered tank. Just my guess, because the gauge can only be as good as the sender it is attached to.

Bob

Bob, the gauge Howard posted is a flow meter. It doesn't measure the tank level, only the amount of fuel you've consumed.
I had one on the Minx, but I never could get it to work.

DamnDonzi22

07-07-2010, 09:34 PM

Just put a new sender in '87 22c. Gauge read 1/2 tank. Fueled up and it took 25 gallons. Am I correct in thinking the 87's have a 33 gallon capacity?

gcarter

07-07-2010, 09:46 PM

Just put a new sender in '87 22c. Gauge read 1/2 tank. Fueled up and it took 25 gallons. Am I correct in thinking the 87's have a 33 gallon capacity?

If you look at the drawings, you'll see they're 55 gallons.

Tony

07-07-2010, 09:59 PM

Keep in mind that the sender I am looking to get is 33/240 ohm unit. It will not work with every gauge.
Bob

How do we know if it will work with our specific gauge?
If it does I am interested...

:yes:

Tidbart

07-08-2010, 06:53 AM

How do we know if it will work with our specific gauge?
If it does I am interested...
:yes:

It will work with most gauges like livorsi, gaffrig, vdo, stewart-warner, teleflex, etc. You will have to check your gauge model and make sure that it is the 33/240 ohm type.

Don't get me wrong, other impedance senders are available. My intention here is to design one gauge that will fit most 22's and be accurate. The company that makes these will design almost any sender you need, but the programming, design, setup costs are what make it pricey. Once I have a final design for this particular tank(s), the subsequent senders won't include all the costs of the first one. That is why I am trying to get some interest as I can spread that cost over several senders.
If the design is changed, then all the initial costs are then back in play and we start at the beginning again.

Bob

Tidbart

07-08-2010, 06:57 AM

Bob, the gauge Howard posted is a flow meter. It doesn't measure the tank level, only the amount of fuel you've consumed.
I had one on the Minx, but I never could get it to work.

My bad. That is the gauge Cuda was referring to. Quick aside, how is the flow monitored on these type of gauges. Would be relatively easy with an MPI, but not a carbed motor. Flow is great info, but if you don't know exactly how much is in the tank, it is pretty much useless info, correct?

Bob

Tidbart

07-08-2010, 07:01 AM

Just put a new sender in '87 22c. Gauge read 1/2 tank. Fueled up and it took 25 gallons. Am I correct in thinking the 87's have a 33 gallon capacity?

Damn,
If you could some time, pull the inspection plate over the tank, should be under the cooler cover, and read the tank tag. See if you can get the manufacture and capacity off it, and any other info it might have. You will need a flashlight and a rag.:wink: This would be good info to have.

Bob

BUIZILLA

07-08-2010, 07:03 AM

I want one for the Critter.... i'll see if I can see the foil tag and get back to you

gcarter

07-08-2010, 08:27 AM

My bad. That is the gauge Cuda was referring to. Quick aside, how is the flow monitored on these type of gauges. Would be relatively easy with an MPI, but not a carbed motor. Flow is great info, but if you don't know exactly how much is in the tank, it is pretty much useless info, correct?

Bob

You're able to dial in the capacity of the tank.....like when you fill up.
Then it counts down. It all depends on how accurate it is.
They are a great product for the price. The drawback is the transducer is 3/8" diameter molded plastic and the inside diameter is only about 1/4", so it's a serious bottleneck for higher performance engines.
Also, they won't work w/FI for a number of reasons.

Cuda

07-08-2010, 09:57 AM

Keep in mind that the sender I am looking to get is 33/240 ohm unit. It will not work with every gauge.

Howard, if that gauge is that accurate you must either, not have a tapered tank or not have a float sender if you do have a tapered tank. Just my guess, because the gauge can only be as good as the sender it is attached to.

Bob
It's a brand new tank from Perry, Fl that is exactly like the original. I had it installed when the deck was off. Strengthened some spot while I had the deck off.

I think Howard's guage reads how many gallons per hour it burns or the total burned, I don't see how the shape of the tank would effect that.

Cuda

07-08-2010, 10:00 AM

Cuda

07-08-2010, 10:02 AM

Just put a new sender in '87 22c. Gauge read 1/2 tank. Fueled up and it took 25 gallons. Am I correct in thinking the 87's have a 33 gallon capacity?
It has to be level to hold the capacity.

Tidbart

07-08-2010, 10:19 AM

I think Howard's guage reads how many gallons per hour it burns or the total burned, I don't see how the shape of the tank would effect that.

I have no doubt that a flow meter, installed and calibrated properly, would work and the shape of the tank would not matter.
The intention of this post is not to compare fuel metering devices. It is to help find a way of getting more accurate info to existing gauges. I have no plan to replace my perfectly-working analog gauge nor do I want to add another gauge. All I want to do is replace the sender.

Bob

PS. Just trying to keep this thread on track and not off on a tangent subject, as so many of our threads do. Another thread on flow meters vs gauges might be in order.

Tidbart

07-08-2010, 10:23 AM

I'm pretty sure I had a 50 gallon tank, though my memory ain't what it used to be.

Cuda,
George was just getting the drawings for the 18s tank for me to do an analysis on. That is why the 42 gallon post was there.

Bob

Tidbart

07-08-2010, 03:28 PM

Just checked out the 18 tank (41g, 2000, RDS) and compared it to the other two 22 tanks. Check it out. Yes, there are three lines in the graph.
I am amazed.:kingme:

Know what this means?

Bob

BUIZILLA

07-08-2010, 03:44 PM

I'm purty sure the Minx tank is the same as the 18 tank...

gcarter

07-08-2010, 06:28 PM

I'm purty sure the Minx tank is the same as the 18 tank...

Yep, it is.
If you look at the drawing, it says "Donzi 18-20'

And the major difference in the tanks is the two 22 tanks are 72'' long and the 18-Minx tank is 60" long, so it makes sense that the percent of volume runs along similar lines.

Well done Bob.

Cuda, my Minx tank was about 46 gallons because I had it built 1" higher. I had an extra 4+ gallons as a result.

Tidbart

07-09-2010, 07:56 AM

My calcs showed the following capacities:

Old 22 - 55 gallon, 54.5 gallons calculated
New 22 - 55 gallon, 56.4 gallons calculated
18 - 41 gallon, 42.3 gallons calculated

Manufacturing is not an exact science.

B

CHACHI

07-09-2010, 08:45 AM

Bob, I will try to see what info I can get off my poly tank in my 22 this weekend.

Ken

Tidbart

07-09-2010, 09:20 AM

Bob, I will try to see what info I can get off my poly tank in my 22 this weekend.

Ken

That would be great.

Bob

Tidbart

07-09-2010, 09:35 AM

Hopefully, I should have enough data together to finalize a design by the end of next week. Then I will get a price together, confirm with you that you will still want one, and then place an order.
Just so you know, it will take a couple of weeks to have them manufactured and shipped. Once the initial design is done, ordering in the future will be a snap.
Also, I am not making any money off this, in case anyone was wondering. The more that get ordered the cheaper they will be.

Bob

BUIZILLA

07-09-2010, 09:56 AM

once I confirm the ohms of my gauge, i'm in..

Tidbart

07-09-2010, 09:56 AM

Note on these senders:

The sender tube sits 1/2" off the bottom of the tank. The 55 g. tanks are 9.5" deep, so the the sender will be 9" long. The 41 g. tank is 10.125" deep, so the sender will actually be 1.125" off the bottom.
What this means is that when your fuel level goes below the tube, the gauge will indicate an empty tank but, you will still have some fuel in the tank. In the case of the 55g tanks, it will be about 1.3 gallons. In the 41g tank, it will be about 1.5 gallons.
So, as you can see, even though we have two different depth tanks using the same length sender, there is an insignificant difference between the two.

Oh, did I mention that these detect water in the tanks? If the sender detects water, the gauge will deflect to full regardless of the fuel level.

B

Kirbyvv

07-09-2010, 10:26 AM

here's another tank for some of us that have older 18's. it's the 25 gallon tank I just put in my X-18. Sender tube length should work, but don't know of the accuracy.

Tidbart

07-09-2010, 10:44 AM

here's another tank for some of us that have older 18's. it's the 25 gallon tank I just put in my X-18. Sender tube length should work, but don't know of the accuracy.

Cool, more work.:bonk::wink:
Will get a look at this next week along with 60 gallon from FMT.

Bob

Greg Guimond

07-09-2010, 11:35 AM

Tidbart,
How would it work with a "stepped" tank like the 68" model shown?

Tidbart

07-09-2010, 12:02 PM

Greg,

Wow, that's different. It would take some time, a little more than usual to analyze the tank. It looks like it has a tapered bottom, correct. My guess is that, with this sensor programmed for the tanks I am currently looking at, your gauge would be off on the high end and more accurate on the low end.

Tough to say, not really having done too much of this stuff until last week.:boggled:

I could not compare it to the proposed programming without a measured drawing.

Regardless, if it was not compatible, they can still make one specific to your tank. Unfortunately, a one off will be more $$ due to design and programming fees.

Bob

Tony

07-11-2010, 10:14 PM

Tidbart

07-12-2010, 06:35 AM

Tidbart,

First off, thanks for all the time and effort you are putting into this.

Secondly, how do I determine the ohms of my sender?
The sender is a KYSOR with the following numbers stamped onto the top: 10475-01 49 95
The sender has two green wires attached to one of the (five) bolts, one red wire on the center post, and a black wire clipped to a fitting soldered to the top of the sender.

For the record, my tank is an RDS model, with the following data on the tag:
Part #: 54413 0480038
Manufactured: 2-17-96
Material: AL 5052-H32
Serial: 199555D2.02
Capacity: 55
Thickness: .125

:shark:

Tony,

My guess is the that the Black and red go to the sender and the green is a ground. One way to check, pull the sender, put an ohmmeter across the red and black and move the float from full to empty and see what the range is. The other, easier way would be to check the make and model of the gauge and check online to see what the resistance of the gauge is.
I know in '96, they were using VDO gauges and believe these were the 240/33 ohm gauges. You may or may not have these gauges.

Bob

CHACHI

07-12-2010, 07:57 AM

Tidbart

07-12-2010, 08:06 AM

Bob, info on the tank in mt '99-22.

Only tag I found was a bar code tag that read 07-27-98-2-1-080
Second line read part # PT 5208

No other tags found. Tank is foamed in, and if I had to change my sender, I think the deck would have to come off.

Ken

Wow, no manufacturer? Must be proud of their product??:bonk:

Are you saying that the inspection plate isn't over the sender? That sucks.

B

CHACHI

07-12-2010, 09:20 AM

Wow, no manufacturer? Must be proud of their product??:bonk:

Are you saying that the inspection plate isn't over the sender? That sucks.

B
Couldn't find the manufacturer's plate.

Inspection plate right over the sender? No. Can I see the sender? Yes

Could I remove the screws holding into the tank, hopefully. Could I pull the sender out?
Depends on how much I can lay it over to pull it toward the inspection hole.

Ken

CHACHI

07-12-2010, 10:15 AM

Changed the part number from a "P" to an "F" per Donzi.

Ken

gcarter

07-12-2010, 11:12 AM

Ken, can you cut a larger hole for a larger inspection cover so that the sender is covered, (or not covered)?

Cuda

07-12-2010, 11:26 AM

Tidbart,

First off, thanks for all the time and effort you are putting into this.

Secondly, how do I determine the ohms of my sender?
The sender is a KYSOR with the following numbers stamped onto the top: 10475-01 49 95
The sender has two green wires attached to one of the (five) bolts, one red wire on the center post, and a black wire clipped to a fitting soldered to the top of the sender.

For the record, my tank is an RDS model, with the following data on the tag:
Part #: 54413 0480038
Manufactured: 2-17-96
Material: AL 5052-H32
Serial: 199555D2.02
Capacity: 55
Thickness: .125

:shark:
The green wires operate a rheostat, the red wire supplies the power, and the black wire is to ground the sending unit. And electrical is NOT my forte, but I know that much. Bob knows a lot more about electrical than I do. He does it for a living in Orlando.

Cuda

07-12-2010, 11:28 AM

Cuda

07-12-2010, 11:29 AM

Couldn't find the manufacturer's plate.

Inspection plate right over the sender? No. Can I see the sender? Yes

Could I remove the screws holding into the tank, hopefully. Could I pull the sender out?
Depends on how much I can lay it over to pull it toward the inspection hole.

Ken
Yes.

Tidbart

07-12-2010, 12:36 PM

Changed the part number from a "P" to an "F" per Donzi.

Ken

Ken,

Your tank is by Moeller, 52 gallon. I am trying to have them send me a measured drawing of it.

Bob

Tidbart

07-12-2010, 12:39 PM

Tidbart,

For the record, my tank is an RDS model, with the following data on the tag:
Part #: 54413 0480038
Manufactured: 2-17-96
Material: AL 5052-H32
Serial: 199555D2.02
Capacity: 55
Thickness: .125

:shark:

Tony,

I have already looked at your tank, same as mine, thank god.:)

Bob

Tidbart

07-12-2010, 02:48 PM

Bob, info on the tank in mt '99-22.

Only tag I found was a bar code tag that read 07-27-98-2-1-080
Second line read part # FT 5208

No other tags found. Tank is foamed in, and if I had to change my sender, I think the deck would have to come off.

Ken

Got the drawings on this one. Graphed it and it is just like the Alum 55 gallon tanks and the 41 gallon tank as far as drain rates are concerned.

This means it will be added to the list of tanks compatible with proposed sender.:yes:

I'll post an updated graph tomorrow.

Bob

yeller

07-12-2010, 11:21 PM

Ken,

Your tank is by Moeller, 52 gallon. I am trying to have them send me a measured drawing of it.

BobMy 04 is a Moeller, so I assume exactly like Ken's......except not foamed in. In the pic you can see the 'tag' next to the sender. Because of where it is, you don't see it when you pull the inspection cover. If you still want the info on this tank I can try and get a mirror in there to read it. Let me know if you want the info.

Tidbart

07-13-2010, 06:26 AM

My 04 is a Moeller, so I assume exactly like Ken's......except not foamed in. In the pic you can see the 'tag' next to the sender. Because of where it is, you don't see it when you pull the inspection cover. If you still want the info on this tank I can try and get a mirror in there to read it. Let me know if you want the info.

Yeller,

If you can get a look, it wouldn't hurt. It is good info to know what years each tanks was used. If it has the FT5208 part number, go no further. I cannot see Donzi redesigning the tank from year to year, so I would guess it is the exact same tank as Ken's. Funny, that the tank is foamed one year and not another for the same boat and tank material.

Just out of curiosity, why did you have you deck off? Your boat is not that old.

Bob

gcarter

07-13-2010, 08:33 AM

Just out of curiosity, why did you have you deck off? Your boat is not that old.

Bob

Bob, Yeller is pretty busy these days, so I'll post this link;

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56726

Tidbart

07-13-2010, 09:03 AM

Bob, Yeller is pretty busy these days, so I'll post this link;

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56726

Forgot all about this.:bonk:

Thanks, George.

Tidbart

07-13-2010, 02:09 PM

Here is where I am:

Finished looking at 6 tanks. Looking at several graphs and lots of data, I have decided a way to go. Take a look at the following attached info....

The graph is normalized on the New 22 tank data. The most likely of settings to use, mainly because almost all the tanks have a curve above it, especially where it counts, which is toward the bottom of the tank.

There are two tanks that are "off".
The 25 gal from a 16. : This proposed sender should not be used in this boat. As you can see it's curve is below the Zero line throughout the entire range. This means that the gauge reading will be high and you will have less gas in the tank than you think. This would defeat the purpose of the programmed sender.
The other is the 60 gal from a Hornet.: This is the opposite of the 25 gal tank. It's curve is above the zero line, so it will have more gas than indicated on the gauge by the percentages listed in the table. The percentage differences are actually very small, kind of deceiving when you look at a graph with a small scale. Anyways, this sender will offer an added small cushion when used in the 60 gal.

Also, at the bottom of the table you will see reserve fuel. This is due to 2 things, 1) the sender is going to be 9" long. It will be made to be 1/2" off the bottom of the tank, per manufacturer's spec. (the 22 tanks are 9.5" deep) 2) Some of the other tanks are deeper and this will provide an even greater gap to the bottom of the tank. For instance, the 60 g. is 11 inches deep. This leaves a 2 inch gap below the sender. This will mean that there is 4.6 gallons, 7.6% (approx), left in the tank when the gauge reads empty.
As you can see the 60 is the deepest tank, hence the large reserve. Conversely, you are screwed with the 16.http://www.donzi.org/forum/images/smilies/hmm3grin2orange.gif
Just an update, will keep you posted as things move along.

Bob

Greg Guimond

07-13-2010, 05:30 PM

Very complete thought process. Unfortunately, Surface Tension is out !

Tidbart

07-13-2010, 05:50 PM

Very complete thought process. Unfortunately, Surface Tension is out !

Greg,

Not sure what you mean.

Bob

Greg Guimond

07-13-2010, 08:22 PM

Bob, check out the thread titled "Building Surface Tension".
The project is a 16 ....... so .......:bonk:

Tidbart

07-14-2010, 02:53 PM

Found a slight error in last graphs. Actually, I have compared 7 tanks. I got confused between the 18-25g and the 16-25g. This spreadsheet, calcs, and drawings are making me dizzy.:nilly:

Anyways, the outcome has not changed. The two tanks, the 18-25g and the 16-25g don't make the grade for this project. The rest do.

Bob

Tidbart

07-14-2010, 03:03 PM

Bob, check out the thread titled "Building Surface Tension".
The project is a 16 ....... so .......:bonk:

Greg,

You are not out yet. From what I saw in your post, you will be looking for a tank similar in size to the 18-41g. (yellow line). The other 18 and the 16 that are way below the zero line are older 25 gallon tanks. Their design is much different than the larger tanks.
Your tank depth and bottom contour will determine if this sender is compatible.

Bob

Tidbart

07-21-2010, 07:58 PM

Announcement coming tomorrow.....:yes:

Tidbart

07-22-2010, 08:02 AM

Finished the design and the order is being placed this morning. Will be a couple weeks to get the senders. Price came out to be $70. So the shipped price will be $80.
See the link below for the posting in the Parts for Sale section for all the details I could think of.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?p=572261#post572261

There will be only 5 available for sale on this order. When they sell, I will order more. Email or call, 321-436-5704
Thanks to everyone who supplied input, drawings, dimensions, and support.:yes:

Bob

gcarter

07-29-2010, 02:38 PM

Well, I made the order through my company so Bob could order from the mfgr. I think Bob said all these are spoken for and we'll make another order soon.
The first order came in this afternoon, and here's some pictures;

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57605&stc=1&d=1280432128

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57606&stc=1&d=1280432128

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57607&stc=1&d=1280432128

Be sure and notice the "Tidbart1" model # !! :wink:

yeller

07-29-2010, 11:42 PM

Missed the update. I'll take one if you order more.

Tidbart

07-30-2010, 06:23 AM

Yeller,
What year is your boat and what make is your gauge?

Bob

Tidbart

07-30-2010, 06:44 AM

All who want one, will get one, I have no limit as to how many of these I can have made.

Notes: See PAYMENT info here: http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=62690

Also, I added an options for hardware and neoprene gaskets. Sender comes with a cork gasket and no screw/washers. Price is $2 for hardware and $3 for the gasket. No additional shipping for these.

Please let me know: Year and type of boat and the type of gauge. Hardware, gasket, yes or no.

Order example: Sender $70, Hardware $2, gasket $3, shipping $10, Total $85. Check or paypal per other post.

I am picking up the first order today and making a second order, so send along a payment and will get these to you promptly.

Oh, and thanks to everyone for your interest and support in this endeavor.:yes:

Bob