If you start getting into the 40gal - 60gal range equipment takes a huge toll on your budget. Hell my 60 gal has over $2500 in equipment alone. Personally i want to keep it around the $500-600 for everything

Yeah, that's true as well... Maybe a max of 30g? of course, then term "nano" has never had any real definition but over 25g falls in to the "normal" tank range. jmo. Mind you, I don't think anyone in their right mind would attempt to win the contest with a tank any bigger than 20-30g. the equipment alone would cost too much after that; then you have to figure out how to make a reduced budget for livestock cover even more space in the tank... sort of a double whammy. One must be very strategic when picking out a volume depending on the given budget, whether or not a max volume is given.

I just mean that everyone keeps saying that "20g" is the set in stone limit on what a nano is. Its just bad wording, and 20g isn't the be all end all of it. I'm just saying I wish people would stop saying that this and that (regardless of what we're talking about) is the set in stone final word. Specify what you mean, but when people start saying that their opinion is the final word, it kills the fun. Nobody knows it all, nobody can know it all, and I think being careful in our wording is a better solution for it all.

P.S. Thank you to the extra classy person who sent me that lovely PM. You know who you are, and really and opinon is an opinion, everyone has one, everyone is entitled to one, and nobody's is more important or more valid then another's.

As for a total volume I would say that we'll all probably hit 40-50g once to account for sumps, water volume in skimmers, etc. Although I know we said we wouldn't be counting those things.

When I agreed in the last page I meant I agree to no limit to volume, within reason... If everyone agreed(won't happen) that 30 gallons (example only) was the limit for a nano. Then an unlimited and limited budget category would work great. Just can't go past that volume. Not to chap anyones bum by no means but I personally don't think of nano when I hear of tanks hitting the 40+ mark.

Wasn't me :lol:

Everyone needs to remember this is a discussion thread and nothing should be taken as final until the person running the contest decides to. State your ideas and opinions and even back them up with reasoning but remember to stay friends at the end :mrgreen:

From most the literature I've seen a nano seems to be 20 gallons or less. Once you start getting bigger than that it starts to turn into a tank contest as appose to a nano contest. Also most nanos don't usually run sumps so the way I see it if you run a sump you have to still keep total volume below 20 gallons to remain in the nano category.

What I was thinking is that the display be a max of 20 and whatever size was chosen they could double their water volume. Either that or max watervolume total (disregarding skimmers/external overflows as long as they aren't crazy) would be 40 gallons.

i think the most important thing is the budget to be set in stone. as far as volume goes i agree with a having a sump equal or less to the display size. also if building costum i think the cost of glass and wood should be part of the budget in order to keep things fair for those who arnt as handy dandy as others. therfore they may not have as nice of a stand/ canopy , but they may have extra budget for things like uv filters etc.

christy you should just write up the rules on the starting day, and who is interested will be in the contest

lol i am just looking for a reason to start up my 20 again

Sorry if you felt that we were trying to impose our wills on this. I think everybody was just putting forth their opinions for this next contest. In the end somebody will have to decide on the final criteria (I assume Christy, if she is going to run the competition, will do that) and then we can all work within those guidelines.

so do I, but I guess this is just another contest I won't be entering as once again it will be for people who want to set up disposable tanks.

Steve