Length vs. width

[richw]

I'm thinking about upgrading my 230 reef.

My current tank is 72 x 24 x 30. I like the height and would like it to be wider.

Unfortunately, I can't go 96 x 30 x 30 and have to either sacrifice six inches width or 5 inches in height to get the tank that I want.

I'm leading towards width as I can put the tank on a higher stand to create the illusion of height.

Any thoughts?

 

[FuzzyZipperbaum]

I would go after more width. The depth factor of a reef TO ME is more important than the height. I also think it is healthier for the tank overall in that fish tend to want more lateral space than vertical space.... Surface area would also be greater....

 

[wetWolger]

I also agree, more width over height any day. First I would not want a taller reef tank just because it would be a ton harder to clean.

But more important, width just offers better aquascapring options, and fish seem to swim in a better variety of patterns instead of just side to side. I personally have a 2ft wide tank, and really wish I had another 6inches

 

[tom obrecht]

My last tank was 36W and 28H. If I was to do another large tank I would go 48W and 24-26H. IMO you can never have enough Width but too much height can really be a pain.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Well I originally started out with long tanks, 6 foot long to be specific, but the width on all of them was 18"... then through an unfortunate set of events I upgraded to a temporary 180g tank which was only 4 feet long but 3 feet of width, and I absolutely LOVE the width.

However, the 3 feet is a bit cumbersome, and I think I'd like a longer tank. I really see this on my anemone tank which is 80g, but it's a "cube" shape so it really feels like a small tank with not much room to do aquascaping and the like. Obviously this becomes less of an issue as you go bigger, but the underlying premise is still the same that a std. 180g tank (6x2x2) probably looks/feels bigger than 4x3x2. While the 3 feet definitely allowed me some creatively aquascaping, it almost seems like stuff "in the back" is neglected.

If I had to go REALLY big I'd rather have a thinner (maybe 2 feet wide) tank that goes all around half the room, rather than one huge rectangular monster that definitely is impressive but a little less so IMO.

I'm curious though you say length vs width but your choices of what to sacrifice is width and height. I'd sacrifice height in a heartbeat, especially given those choices, if you tank was 36" wide and it was a choice between 42" or 6" tall then it'd be a different matter.