Over filling LP tanks, what's the real deal?

[tomfcrist]

I call B.S.

I will repeat for the umteenth time that the overseas tanks are a different steel alloy than the 3AA cylinders sold in the U.S.!

So correct me if im wrong, but Fabers are made in europe, so they have a thicker wall than us made steel tanks....so buy fabers and pump em to 4000 all day.

 

[Leadking]

Just because Faber make cylinders sold in Europe does not mean it's the same cylinder. It's NOT. I have documented many times the tensile strength difference in previous posts. Wall thickness also come in play.

Research my old posts, I'm tired of doing it for you!!!!

 

[scubafanatic]

Just because Faber make cylinders sold in Europe does not mean it's the same cylinder. It's NOT. I have documented many times the tensile strength difference in previous posts. Wall thickness also come in play.

Research my old posts, I'm tired of doing it for you!!!!

...I'm just amazed, given the already small size of the scuba tank market, that it can possibly make any economic sense for Faber to have TWO separate/different 'tensile strength' alloys, and fool with making both 'full strength' European tanks and a 'weakened/lowered' standard tank for the US market ! The cost difference between the 2 different alloys has got to be microscopic relative to the cost of the extra cost/logistics/complexity of manufacturing two separate 'standards' ...... kinda like why car manufacturers in the US just go ahead and make everything 'meet' California emissions standards...it's way simplier to meet one highest standard than produce multiple versions...including dumbed-down versions.

 

[adm3745]

Scuba tanks are quite simple to design.

 

[Leadking]

...I'm just amazed, given the already small size of the scuba tank market, that it can possibly make any economic sense for Faber to have TWO separate/different 'tensile strength' alloys, and fool with making both 'full strength' European tanks and a 'weakened/lowered' standard tank for the US market ! The cost difference between the 2 different alloys has got to be microscopic relative to the cost of the extra cost/logistics/complexity of manufacturing two separate 'standards' ...... kinda like why car manufacturers in the US just go ahead and make everything 'meet' California emissions standards...it's way simplier to meet one highest standard than produce multiple versions...including dumbed-down versions.

Any moron can go to Faber's website and get a password and look at the prints. While they won't list alloy and tensile strength it will list dimensions and weights. Any one with first grade math capabilities will be able to figure it out.

by the way a California emission standard means nothing in Europe!

 

[scubafanatic]

Any moron can go to Faber's website and get a password and look at the prints. While they won't list alloy and tensile strength it will list dimensions and weights. Any one with first grade math capabilities will be able to figure it out.

by the way a California emission standard means nothing in Europe!

......dude, there is no 'moron factor' here...wasn't disputing your information at all...that apparently there ARE 2 separate standards......just pointing out it seems completely stupid to me from a business/cost viewpoint to manufacture to two standards, especially when the end user cannot possibly tell the difference...two standards only make sense when you can use the higher standard as a consumer selling point, to justify a higher selling price for 'higher quality'...and not some arcane/arbitrary goverment agency standard.

......and about California, once again you completely missed the analogy....I was illustrating the concept that when you have competing government/regulatory standards, it is often simplier/cheaper to just manufacture your product to meet whatever standard is the highest, knowing then you can sell your product in all relevant markets......make sense yet ?

 

[Gombessa]

just pointing out it seems completely stupid to me from a business/cost viewpoint to manufacture to two standards, especially when the end user cannot possibly tell the difference...two standards only make sense when you can use the higher standard as a consumer selling point, to justify a higher selling price for 'higher quality'...and not some arcane/arbitrary goverment agency standard.

I don't know much at all about tanks/metallurgy/raw metals market, but it appears to me a key assumption you're making is that there isn't much difference in price/availability between the US and European-spec alloys? Has this been established?

 

[Leadking]

......dude, there is no 'moron factor' here...wasn't disputing your information at all...that apparently there ARE 2 separate standards......just pointing out it seems completely stupid to me from a business/cost viewpoint to manufacture to two standards, especially when the end user cannot possibly tell the difference...two standards only make sense when you can use the higher standard as a consumer selling point, to justify a higher selling price for 'higher quality'...and not some arcane/arbitrary government agency standard.

......and about California, once again you completely missed the analogy....I was illustrating the concept that when you have competing government/regulatory standards, it is often simpler/cheaper to just manufacture your product to meet whatever standard is the highest, knowing then you can sell your product in all relevant markets......make sense yet ?

Sorry! I guess I've become sensitive to these issues.

There is a move afoot for a UN standard so that cylinders made to that spec. can be universally used around the world. But I would caution "Don't hold your breath"

 

[captain]

......dude, there is no 'moron factor' here...wasn't disputing your information at all...that apparently there ARE 2 separate standards......just pointing out it seems completely stupid to me from a business/cost viewpoint to manufacture to two standards, especially when the end user cannot possibly tell the difference...two standards only make sense when you can use the higher standard as a consumer selling point, to justify a higher selling price for 'higher quality'...and not some arcane/arbitrary goverment agency standard.

......and about California, once again you completely missed the analogy....I was illustrating the concept that when you have competing government/regulatory standards, it is often simplier/cheaper to just manufacture your product to meet whatever standard is the highest, knowing then you can sell your product in all relevant markets......make sense yet ?

But if the higher standard increases the selling price in the area with the lower standard and the competition builds to the lower standard then the company using the higher standard is less competive.
Not all items in sold in the US meet CA standards and most companies offer both. This is quite common in the automotive performance parts market.

 

[Luis H]

......dude, there is no 'moron factor' here...wasn't disputing your information at all...that apparently there ARE 2 separate standards......just pointing out it seems completely stupid to me from a business/cost viewpoint to manufacture to two standards, especially when the end user cannot possibly tell the difference...two standards only make sense when you can use the higher standard as a consumer selling point, to justify a higher selling price for 'higher quality'...and not some arcane/arbitrary goverment agency standard.

......and about California, once again you completely missed the analogy....I was illustrating the concept that when you have competing government/regulatory standards, it is often simplier/cheaper to just manufacture your product to meet whatever standard is the highest, knowing then you can sell your product in all relevant markets......make sense yet ?

Using different standards doesn’t necessarily mean that one is always higher than the other.

In most engineering designs one has to evaluate one requirement against another.

For example, if you want a higher strength steel alloy, you often have to sacrifice some ductility. Meaning the separation between yield strength and tensile strength gets closer, the alloy may be stronger, but it is more brittle. This is just a very simplified example.

What I am trying to say is that in general you don’t get anything without giving up something and it is often not just more money.

I am not familiar with the European specifications, but it is very possible that they accept a slightly less ductile material property for higher strength.

BTW, notice I said material property. It is even possible that they could be using the same alloy with different heat treatment. After all the ASTM 4130 that most 3AA steel tanks are made out of is highly heat treatable to obtain different properties.


Note, I am not a metallurgist or materials engineer, but I have a couple of other engineering degrees and have working knowledge of many materials used in many structural and pressure vessel cylinder applications.