Help me decide between Spike CF10 and SSBrewtech Unitank

[CodeSection]

ready to make the jump and have decided on Spike CF15, the main reason being I can do 5, 10, or 15 gallon batches and not lose out on any specific feature. I am leaning on the taller leg extensions with castors simply to make it easier to interact with, looks like a lot struggle with CIP so likely to skip that for now. I was wondering if there is a consensus on any accessories to skip or if there is a better option by someone else?

I'm assuming if I go with the heating pad I need to Neoprene cover as well to hold it in place.

While I have a CF10, I'm sure you will be pleased with the CF15. A few accessories that come to mind: extended bracing shelf especially if you are using extended legs; racking arm; TC-100 bundle; depending upon your process, carb stone; quick connects; sight glass; blow off cane; closed pressure transfer kit; and gas manifold bundle.

I bought the CIP and never have used it. Also, since I bought a bright tank, I no longer carb in the CF10 as I carb in the bright tank. Is the blow off cane a necessity? Probably not....

EDIT: Here is a link that if you haven't read this thread, you may find it beneficial to you...https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/spike-conical-observations-and-best-practices.645440/

 

[Bean]

While I have a CF10, I'm sure you will be pleased with the CF15. A few accessories that come to mind: extended bracing shelf especially if you are using extended legs; racking arm; TC-100 bundle; depending upon your process, carb stone; quick connects; sight glass; blow off cane; closed pressure transfer kit; and gas manifold bundle.

I bought the CIP and never have used it. Also, since I bought a bright tank, I no longer carb in the CF10 as I carb in the bright tank. Is the blow off cane a necessity? Probably not....

EDIT: Here is a link that if you haven't read this thread, you may find it beneficial to you...https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/spike-conical-observations-and-best-practices.645440/

I picked up the blowoff arm a while back to see if it would work with my old Blichmann (it does not.) The extended shelf is a must for sure. How well does the racking arm work, from what I gather, you loosen the ti-clove move it around but doesn't it leak then? I was looking to piecemeal the TC-100 bundle because I have the controller and pump from other things like keg cleaners and the such.

 

[Jag75]

Racking arm , pressure gauge and extention legs are a must imo.

 

[eric19312]

If you get legs you must get the bracing shelf. The larger bracing shelf is probably necessary if you are going with either full length legs or casters but the smaller one is enough IMO with shorty legs and no casters (that is what I have).

 

[CodeSection]

I picked up the blowoff arm a while back to see if it would work with my old Blichmann (it does not.) The extended shelf is a must for sure. How well does the racking arm work, from what I gather, you loosen the ti-clove move it around but doesn't it leak then? I was looking to piecemeal the TC-100 bundle because I have the controller and pump from other things like keg cleaners and the such.

The racking arm is a must. Yes, slightly loosen the TC clamp and rotate. I have never had one drop of beer leak....never. It is easier to rotate with this teflon gasket Tri-Clamp Gasket (Teflon) - 1.5 in. | MoreBeer.

This may be helpful....https://spikebrewing.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/35000043191-positioning-of-the-racking-arm

 

[Bean]

Trigger pulled.. now to figure out what recipe to break it in with.

 

[OakIslandBrewery]

I bought the CF10 about a year ago and like others I wish I had made the investment a lot sooner. I also bought the leg extension with the wheel kit. I find the CF10 is very unstable (top heavy) with the extension kit so I wouldn't plan on moving it around a lot. I have mine attached to a wall and I can easily detach it to move it, but I rarely do. That said I'd probably just get the leg extension as it is at the right height to get a corny keg just below the side valve. For cleaning I tried a CIP spray ball in the top 4" TC but I found it's just as easy to fill it with PBW, hot water and clean it by hand.

 

[Yesfan]

@Bean I bought mine the first part of the year. First recipe was a dry hopped amber. Last one, was an IPA. Probably do another dry hopped amber or a pale ale. I wanted to do something hoppy so I could see how racking and dumping was going to be since this is my first conical.

Which conical did you get and what accessories did you add? I added the shorter leg extensions, extended brace, and casters and don't regret it. I also picked up some teflon gaskets for the racking arm to make it easier to rotate when racking to kegs. Your post was the first I saw on doing a 5 gallon batch in a CF15, so curious about that.

 

[Bean]

@Bean I bought mine the first part of the year. First recipe was a dry hopped amber. Last one, was an IPA. Probably do another dry hopped amber or a pale ale. I wanted to do something hoppy so I could see how racking and dumping was going to be since this is my first conical.

Which conical did you get and what accessories did you add? I added the shorter leg extensions, extended brace, and casters and don't regret it. I also picked up some teflon gaskets for the racking arm to make it easier to rotate when racking to kegs. Your post was the first I saw on doing a 5 gallon batch in a CF15, so curious about that.

yup, I went with Spikes CF15 and also picked up the longer leg extensions, extended bracing shelf, caster kit, racking arm, carb stone, and essentially the temp control bundle. I was going to get the gas manifold but decide against because assumed a spunding valve would be more useful

I had some Teflon gaskets already so I used them on the racking arm as suggested and boy what a difference that makes. A must for anyone using the racking arm.

I'm still waiting on some accessories to arrive but so far I am more than blown away with the quality of Spike. I have a Blichman conical and there's a night and day difference. I'm not knocking them as I consider them the elders in game of making professional style equipment on the home brew scale but boy what a difference in quality and material grade.

 

[Brian allerton]

I currently have the cf15 and was looking to get a second one bbl fermenter, the points that made me pull the trigger on the Cf30 were fact that I have a removable carbstone that will work for both (I dont like leaving a carbstone in there to plug up). Cip cleaning seems to be much more effective with the full opening tc flanges on the spike. The heating and cooling seemed alot easier to setup than the jacketed fermenters at least with my current setup. I'm not a fan of the lid gasket because its proprietary but it is surprisingly easy to clean and work with, and the beautiful metalwork makes up for it.

 

[Yesfan]

I currently have the cf15 and was looking to get a second one bbl fermenter, the points that made me pull the trigger on the Cf30 were fact that I have a removable carbstone that will work for both (I dont like leaving a carbstone in there to plug up). Cip cleaning seems to be much more effective with the full opening tc flanges on the spike. The heating and cooling seemed alot easier to setup than the jacketed fermenters at least with my current setup. I'm not a fan of the lid gasket because its proprietary but it is surprisingly easy to clean and work with, and the beautiful metalwork makes up for it.

I might have been the first runs of these conicals, but I kept reading where the biggest issues with the gasket were they kept falling out. It was like they were too big for the dome.

My experience has been, for both the CF10 and Flex+, the gasket is fairly hard to remove for cleaning. Not complaining as I would rather have it that way. Either way, I agree it is easy to clean. I've thought about buying a spare to have on hand since it is proprietary.

 

[videojunkie1208]

Skip the blow off cane.
Get the pressure manifold.
Get the TC-100 setup for it.

 

[specialkayme]

Anyone have any comments on the difference in pressure ratings between the two? I noticed Spike has a max pressure rating of 15 psi, while the Unitank has a recommended operating pressure of 15 psi, a max pressure rating of 30 psi, and it's pressure tested to 60 psi.

I've heard that the Spike is an increase in quality over the Unitank overall, so just curious why Spike would be 1/4 of the pressure rating.

 

[Vale71]

I'm guessing it's because you'd run the risk of the larger Spike removable lid removing itself of its own volition with dire consequences.
SSB's 6 inch TC port can probably withstand a much higher pressure than the tank itself.

 

[NeoBrew]

Anyone have any comments on the difference in pressure ratings between the two? I noticed Spike has a max pressure rating of 15 psi, while the Unitank has a recommended operating pressure of 15 psi, a max pressure rating of 30 psi, and it's pressure tested to 60 psi.

I've heard that the Spike is an increase in quality over the Unitank overall, so just curious why Spike would be 1/4 of the pressure rating.

It sure seems like the Spike has way more popularity in Homebrewtalk. I've not really understood why. My decision was made during the period when Spike was trying to roll out their 7 gallon version, and announced more than a year before they could actually deliver them to consumers. That left a bad taste in my mouth and I went with SS Brewtech.

I have a 7 gallon SS Unitank. I really like it a lot. I never worry about the top popping off or gasket alignment issues. I've never had to tinker with anything to get it to hold pressure. You just put it together and it works. I've never tried to pressurize it over 15 psi, but it's good peace of mind the that pressure relief valve is only half the pressure rating of the vessel.

Some people comment that the top opening is too small, but at the 7 gallon size I can easily reach down in there and clean the whole thing. It might be more of a concern with larger size fermenter.

 

[jekeane]

Anyone have any comments on the difference in pressure ratings between the two? I noticed Spike has a max pressure rating of 15 psi, while the Unitank has a recommended operating pressure of 15 psi, a max pressure rating of 30 psi, and it's pressure tested to 60 psi.

I've heard that the Spike is an increase in quality over the Unitank overall, so just curious why Spike would be 1/4 of the pressure rating.

Its the lid design.

Spike uses a large band clamp and has a fully removable top.

SS has a 6" triclamp port on top.

Tri clamps are a stronger sealing mechanism but create a smaller port. The band clamp allows for better access.

To me the benefit of the removable lid for cleaning is a better option for the homebrew scale.

 

[jekeane]

It sure seems like the Spike has way more popularity in Homebrewtalk. I've not really understood why. My decision was made during the period when Spike was trying to roll out their 7 gallon version, and announced more than a year before they could actually deliver them to consumers. That left a bad taste in my mouth and I went with SS Brewtech.

I have a 7 gallon SS Unitank. I really like it a lot. I never worry about the top popping off or gasket alignment issues. I've never had to tinker with anything to get it to hold pressure. You just put it together and it works. I've never tried to pressurize it over 15 psi, but it's good peace of mind the that pressure relief valve is only half the pressure rating of the vessel.

Some people comment that the top opening is too small, but at the 7 gallon size I can easily reach down in there and clean the whole thing. It might be more of a concern with larger size fermenter.

Spike was and is a much smaller outfit than SS. I agree that the CF series took forever to come out but thats what happens when you don't have 20 million in annual revenue SS does to tap into to get designs pushed through. This is even more the case now since SS is part of a massive conglomerate.

When you buy from Spike you often talk to the workers. When you talk to SS you get a sales rep if you get ahold of anyone. This was one of the factors that put me off with SS. If I wanted custom work done Spike does it because they can. SS on the otherhand sells everything as is and standard because thats the way it comes to them from the factory. This is why everything has to be bought together on their unitanks, because that the way the order them. If I have 5 conicals realistically I only need to buy 1 carb stone. The integrated chiller coil is a hassle for a good portion of the market that doesn't use glycol. But you still have to pay for it and the sleeve.

Full disclosure I am obviously a pretty big fan of Spike and have been using their stuff for years. I have also owned SS buckets and conicals which I liked, particularly the buckets. In the end if you are going apples to apples with fully loaded models I believe it comes down to the lid opening preference and then customer support / interaction. I prefer the bigger lid, and have had a much better support experience with Spike.

 

[eric19312]

Both are rated for maximum working pressure of 15 PSI. The spike is priced more in line with SS's chronical but compares well with their unitank.

I also like the ability to take the entire lid off for cleaning. I do CIP but but also like to visually verify I got it clean and one spot that got missed on a recent ineffective cleaning cycle was on the lid near the CIP port. Would not of been able to see that from looking down the port even the 4" port. Eventually I will get the CIP cycle down to where I have confidence in the cleaning but for now I'd say I am still developing the procedure and lid removal his a big advantage.

 

[eric19312]

SS on the otherhand sells everything as is and standard because thats the way it comes to them from the factory. This is why everything has to be bought together on their unitanks, because that the way the order them. If I have 5 conicals realistically I only need to buy 1 carb stone. The integrated chiller coil is a hassle for a good portion of the market that doesn't use glycol. But you still have to pay for it and the sleeve.

This was a major factor in my decision to go with Spike. I did not want the chiller coil or the neoprene jacket or the blow off cane. I've got tons of accessories with my CF15 but only the ones I wanted.

 

[Yesfan]

It sure seems like the Spike has way more popularity in Homebrewtalk. I've not really understood why. My decision was made during the period when Spike was trying to roll out their 7 gallon version, and announced more than a year before they could actually deliver them to consumers. That left a bad taste in my mouth and I went with SS Brewtech.

I have a 7 gallon SS Unitank. I really like it a lot. I never worry about the top popping off or gasket alignment issues. I've never had to tinker with anything to get it to hold pressure. You just put it together and it works. I've never tried to pressurize it over 15 psi, but it's good peace of mind the that pressure relief valve is only half the pressure rating of the vessel.

Some people comment that the top opening is too small, but at the 7 gallon size I can easily reach down in there and clean the whole thing. It might be more of a concern with larger size fermenter.

I'm a Spike "fanboy", so take my reply with a grain of salt.

I think I would be just as happy with the SS for a conical, but I liked the the ability of getting a bare bones conical and outfit it the way I want. It was much cheaper option than going all in with the SS unitank which I couldn't afford at the time, nor wanted to splurge on either. Pay as I go is pretty cool.

That and, as mentioned earlier, the customer service. SS Brewtech is pretty big company and it's owned by a much bigger corporation (Middleby?), so what am I going to get when i need to talk to someone about an issue? I've always gotten a reply when I had to contact Spike (knock!, knock!) and I'm thankful for that. Popping the top off my conical is better than I was expecting, so no worries there. It's easier to clean and inspect and I've not had any gasket issues. I think mine may fit tighter than some of the ones that complained about them being a little loose, plus I saved some money knowing I don't need a CIP attachment. I can reach every nook and cranny with a removable top. Like you mentioned, the larger SS Unitanks maybe a bit of a problem, so that was another reason that pushed me to Spike.

In a nutshell, for me at least, it was staying with what worked. "keep the customer happy, and they'll come back", right? Well, I've been happy as have many others (love my kettles), so maybe that's the reason for all the fanfare here. I hated that it took them so long to roll out their conicals, but it was worth the wait for me in the end.

 

[specialkayme]

Both are rated for maximum working pressure of 15 PSI.

SS's Recommended Operating Pressure is 15 PSI, but their Max Pressure Rating is 30 PSI (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0239/5187/files/Chonical_comp_table.pdf?14881482127177431273).

I can find an earlier version of the chart that states SS pressure tests their Unitanks to 60 PSI (conical comparison spike ss brewtech - Google Search) but I can't seem to find it on their site now.

 

[specialkayme]

In a nutshell, for me at least, it was staying with what worked. "keep the customer happy, and they'll come back", right? Well, I've been happy as have many others (love my kettles), so maybe that's the reason for all the fanfare here. I hated that it took them so long to roll out their conicals, but it was worth the wait for me in the end.

I have a really hard time accepting the Spike design of the band. I don't know why, but the proprietary design, the lack of ability to buy parts on the open market, and the decreased pressure rating that results from the design are making it hard for me to swallow. I get that it's necessary in order to have it opened up to clean, but at the 7 gallon level you can reach in and clean it without needing to crack it open, at the 30 gallon level you're probably doing CIP anyway, so it's an entire design built around the 10-15 gallon size. Seems odd to me. So in that regard, point goes to SS.

I really don't like SS's "buy it all or nothing" mentality. I don't need more than one of some of those accessories if I have more than one conical. I also don't want a chilling coil. I like the ability to buy a baseline product and upgrade it how I would like it. So in that regard, point goes to Spike.

I don't really like the design of SS's carb stone and sample valve. I don't know why I would ferment the entire batch with the carb stone in it. Seems problematic. So in that regard, point goes to Spike.

So I guess it comes down to quality of the product and customer service. To that end, I'm still a little torn. I have a 15g custom kettle from Spike that works great. The welds are fantastic, and I like buying from welds done in the states. But 18 months after I bought it, small cracks are showing in the rim, and rust is starting to appear. Spike said to hit it with some BKF, as it happens sometimes, and it makes it the rust go away but not the cracks, but I'm still a little concerned long term. Two weeks ago my kettle lost passivation after I ran a sample on water with a new heating unit (the inside looked like a pure rainbow), and it took quite a bit of scrubbing with BKF to get it to go away. Not what I expected from stainless steel (even though I know it's from China).

Plus, I gotta say I felt a little burned when I bought my kettle. Spike said they never do Black Friday sales, so I said screw it, and tried to order before the black friday rush (Ordered 10/30). Low and behold, they ran a black friday special on custom kettles. When I told them I specifically ordered early because they said the year before that they don't do BF sales, and asked if they'd apply the sale to the previous order, even if in store credit, they said no dice. Then a month later they rolled out with the V4 of the kettle. In the end, minor bickering of course, but I feel like Spike wasn't completely straightforward with me when I ordered, either about the potential sale release, or the release of a new line of kettles. I would have waited for the sale, and I would have waited for a rolled lid/rivetless handles.

The two issues somewhat has me questioning Spike.

So it's one point SS, two points Spike, and one maybe negative point Spike (?). Seems like I need a referee here . . . lol

 

[NeoBrew]

The two issues somewhat has me questioning Spike.

So it's one point SS, two points Spike, and one maybe negative point Spike (?). Seems like I need a referee here . . . lol

Since we are telling stories. Another thing that weighed into my decision to go SS was the Homebrew Con Spike contest in Minneapolis a couple years ago. They were giving away a CF5 at their booth. When I inquired about how to enter they explained their rather unusual process. They were giving away free t-shirts. The way to win was to wear the t-shirt and sometime during the show they were going to pick someone wearing a shirt as the winner. I did wear my shirt the next day. I didn't win, which is of course not surprising, but then I thought it was odd that they never announced the winner. I even tried to find it on their website or in some kind of press release. I started thinking about it and a contest based on picking out someone in person would be pretty easy to skew to someone you know.

Petty, sure. Am I bitter about not winning? No, any drawing like that is low odds to win. It did seem a little bit fishy though.

 

[videojunkie1208]

When I was making the decision between the CF5 and the Brewmaster Chronical, it came down to a few things:

1. Price: fully loaded, both the CF5, and the SS Brewmaster with temperature control, and similar accessories, the Spike was just a hair less expensive (~$50)
2. Pressure rating: The higher pressure rating of the CF series was attractive, primarily because I make meads, and wanted the stronger vessel for vacuum de-gassing.
3. Cooling Coil: I like the Spike's removable cooling coil vs the Brewmaster built in ones. The main decider here was the weldless fittings that would periodically need to be removed and sanitized.
4. Accessories: The impressive list of accessories that all TC fittings provide also helped tilt the decision towards the Spike. The manifold is fantastic, and being able to decide when to use the cooling coil on a brew by brew basis is really nice.

I ultimately went with the CF10, as the final price was about $100 more for twice the brewing volume, and I have used it a few times to make some 8 and 9 gallon batches that would be impossible in either the CF5 or the 7.5 gallon Chronical.

$.02, YMMV

 

[eric19312]

When I was making the decision between the CF5 and the Brewmaster Chronical, it came down to a few things:

1. Price: fully loaded, both the CF5, and the SS Brewmaster with temperature control, and similar accessories, the Spike was just a hair less expensive (~$50)
2. Pressure rating: The higher pressure rating of the CF series was attractive, primarily because I make meads, and wanted the stronger vessel for vacuum de-gassing.
3. Cooling Coil: I like the Spike's removable cooling coil vs the Brewmaster built in ones. The main decider here was the weldless fittings that would periodically need to be removed and sanitized.
4. Accessories: The impressive list of accessories that all TC fittings provide also helped tilt the decision towards the Spike. The manifold is fantastic, and being able to decide when to use the cooling coil on a brew by brew basis is really nice.

I ultimately went with the CF10, as the final price was about $100 more for twice the brewing volume, and I have used it a few times to make some 8 and 9 gallon batches that would be impossible in either the CF5 or the 7.5 gallon Chronical.

$.02, YMMV

you hit the nail on the head. spike is priced in line with the ss chronical bme not the ss unitank. but spike CF series offers just about everything the unitank offers except for unusable additional pressure rating. (or maybe I don't understand how that pressure rating above max working pressure is supposed to be of use)

 

[Vale71]

(or maybe I don't understand how that pressure rating above max working pressure is supposed to be of use)

I took it to mean "venture beyond this point at your own risk".

 

[eric19312]

I took it to mean "venture beyond this point at your own risk".

And without the 15 psi PRV? I could see 30 PSI working pressure having some value. You could carbonate beer at room temperature and actually spund ales to full carbonation. Maybe that is what it is designed for and their lawyers put the kibosh on that idea.

 

[NeoBrew]

When I was making the decision between the CF5 and the Brewmaster Chronical, it came down to a few things:

1. Price: fully loaded, both the CF5, and the SS Brewmaster with temperature control, and similar accessories, the Spike was just a hair less expensive (~$50)
2. Pressure rating: The higher pressure rating of the CF series was attractive, primarily because I make meads, and wanted the stronger vessel for vacuum de-gassing.
3. Cooling Coil: I like the Spike's removable cooling coil vs the Brewmaster built in ones. The main decider here was the weldless fittings that would periodically need to be removed and sanitized.
4. Accessories: The impressive list of accessories that all TC fittings provide also helped tilt the decision towards the Spike. The manifold is fantastic, and being able to decide when to use the cooling coil on a brew by brew basis is really nice.

I ultimately went with the CF10, as the final price was about $100 more for twice the brewing volume, and I have used it a few times to make some 8 and 9 gallon batches that would be impossible in either the CF5 or the 7.5 gallon Chronical.

$.02, YMMV

I haven't looked lately, but when I bought a little over a year ago the price of the CF5 and the SS Unitank were within $50. Not the Brewmaster. The Unitank also has fully welded and all tricover fittings.

 

[videojunkie1208]

I bought my CF10 before the Unitank was a thing.

 

[Vale71]

And without the 15 psi PRV? I could see 30 PSI working pressure having some value. You could carbonate beer at room temperature and actually spund ales to full carbonation. Maybe that is what it is designed for and their lawyers put the kibosh on that idea.

PRVs can be easily replaced, especially with a standard attachment like the TC. Even if the vessel is clearly structurally capable of withstanding much higher pressures the potentail for bodily harm still increases with increasing pressure which raises questions of potential product liability. Unfortunately accidents do happen even to professionals who are trained in their job, when any Joe Sixpack can have your product sitting in their living room it might be prudent to limit the exposure regardless of technical capabilities. I can't think of any other explanation why the Unitank was suddenly derated to 15 PSI (I still have the original PRV set to 18 PSI) without any apparent changes to the tank itself.

 

[specialkayme]

but spike CF series offers just about everything the unitank offers except for unusable additional pressure rating. (or maybe I don't understand how that pressure rating above max working pressure is supposed to be of use)

I can't think of any other explanation why the Unitank was suddenly derated to 15 PSI (I still have the original PRV set to 18 PSI) without any apparent changes to the tank itself.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, neither the Unitank or the CF is "rated" to any psi.

Spike only indicates "15psi working pressure" (CF5 Spike Conical Unitank | Spike Brewing). They don't indicate or suggest how high you can go. "Working" pressure is not a "max" pressure though. There is no indication of a "max" pressure.
SS indicates "Recommended Operating Pressure - 15psi; Manufacturer's Indicated Max Pressure - 30psi" (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0239/5187/files/Chonical_comp_table.pdf?14881482127177431273). They recommend only going to 15psi, but you can go to 30psi. You should be able to go higher than 30psi without failure, but who knows where, as the manufacturer indicates that it shouldn't go above 30psi (and the manufacturer's indicated max pressure is always lower than what the manfuacturer believes the fail rate is, from my understanding sometimes 1/2 or more below that rate).

SS has their Unitanks individually tested for pressure by SGS. At one point they indicated they test at 60 psi, but they removed that information from their website, so I don't know what they are testing it to at this point. I can't find any information of what Spike is testing theirs to, or if they are testing at all.

How I interpret this information, is Spike suggests you use it up to 15psi. It will fail somewhere above that pressure, but the aren't making any suggestion at what level. Could be 16psi, could be 100psi. I would assume not 16psi (as there is always some give to any PRV), but who knows, and I would assume not 100psi, but who knows. SS suggests you use it up to 15psi, but they believe it will fail somewhere above 30psi. Could be 31psi, could be 100psi.

The difference could be legitimate, in that Spike really can't go above 15psi without a substantial increased likelihood of injury or damage, and Spike knows it. Or it could be that Spike just doesn't know what pressure the CF series needs to present a substantial increased likelihood of injury or damage, but they know it can go up to 15psi so they leave it at that. Or it could be that Spike believes it could go to 30psi "safely", but their lawyers or insurance agents believe anything above 15psi presents a liability risk, so they only suggest a "15psi working pressure" and leave it at that.

Only Spike really knows though.

 

[Vale71]

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, neither the Unitank or the CF is "rated" to any psi.

That is indeed the case but the SSB Unitank comes with its own PRV that won't let you go above 15 PSI. To go above that you'll have to replace it with a non-SSB supplied part and if anything were to happen to the tank or those standing around it I'm guessing it will be quite difficult to claim product liability for a product that you modified yourself. But of course I hope never to have to test this in court...

 

[specialkayme]

That is indeed the case but the SSB Unitank comes with its own PRV that won't let you go above 15 PSI. To go above that you'll have to replace it with a non-SSB supplied part and if anything were to happen to the tank or those standing around it I'm guessing it will be quite difficult to claim product liability for a product that you modified yourself. But of course I hope never to have to test this in court...

I get your point, but I think it would be incredibly difficult for SS to claim I "modified" their product by switching out a TC port. It is, by nature, intended to be removed and/or replaced with other products. Unless of course the giant booklet that comes with the thing indicates that operating above 15psi, or removing the factory provided PRV voids the warranty or otherwise limits the liability. But I don't think you can eliminate product liability for design flaws you know, or should have known, a consumer was likely to come into contact, and SS knows or should know by putting the PRV valve on a TC port that consumers are likely to replace it with something else (hence the TC port). Plus, by indicating "Manufacturer's Indicated Max Pressure - 30psi" I think they left the door wedged open on product liability concerns, as you openly represented to the consumer that it has a Max Pressure rating of 30psi (unless of course the replaced PRV fails to release pressure above 30 psi, which might be another issue).

 

[CodeSection]

..... But I don't think you can eliminate product liability for design flaws you know, or should have known, a consumer was likely to come into contact, and SS knows or should know by putting the PRV valve on a TC port that consumers are likely to replace it with something else (hence the TC port). Plus, by indicating "Manufacturer's Indicated Max Pressure - 30psi" I think they left the door wedged open on product liability concerns, as you openly represented to the consumer that it has a Max Pressure rating of 30psi (unless of course the replaced PRV fails to release pressure above 30 psi, which might be another issue).

Not trying to be arguementative here. You have now redefined the limitation to a "design flaw". That is like I increase one of my vehicle's rpm to exceed 6000 plus and when the engine freezes or damages itself, I call it a "design flaw". I guess one could try to claim a "design flaw" after putting their hand on a running and spinning chainsaw. It doesn't work that way. But, if one has money to spend on an attorney or IF an PI attorney is hungry enough, anyone one can pursue ridiculous claims....

If a consumer wants to go beyond the recommendations or warnings from the manufacture on any product, it is at their peril.

 

[eric19312]

Found it...
For safety, always leave the fixed-pressure PRV included with the vessel in place, never exceed the maximum rated working pressure of the vessel at any time during operation.

https://ssbrewtech.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018124552-How-do-I-use-a-Sspunding-Valve-

 

[specialkayme]

Found it...
For safety, always leave the fixed-pressure PRV included with the vessel in place, never exceed the maximum rated working pressure of the vessel at any time during operation.

https://ssbrewtech.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018124552-How-do-I-use-a-Sspunding-Valve-

So what's the difference between a "maximum rated working pressure" a "recommended operating pressure" and a "manufacturer's indicated max pressure"?

SS uses three terms. I have to presume its intentional.

 

[specialkayme]

Not trying to be arguementative here. You have now redefined the limitation to a "design flaw".

I don't think I did.

If the manufacturer indicates it has a max pressure of 30 psi, the tank should be able to maintain pressure of 30 psi. If you put a removable 15 psi PRV on the tank, you don't get to claim that the tank is no longer intended to be operated up to the max pressure. The PRV doesn't modify the max pressure given for the tank. The tank still should hold 30 psi, regardless of the PRV. Now, if you put the PRV on a removable TC port AND you know, or should know, that customers are likely to remove the PRV and put something else there, and a customer adds pressure to the vessel in excess of 15 psi but less than 30 psi, and the product fails, and doing so is likely to cause physical injury or property damage, AND there is an alternative, safer design possible, that's the definition of a defect leading to product liability.

Its an affirmative defense to a product liability claim that the damages were caused by an alteration or modification of the product that was not reasonably foreseeable. But keep in mind, removing the PRV didn't cause any damage, provided you filled the tank below 30 psi. The failure of the tank at a pressure below the manufacturer's indicated max pressure caused the injury. The removal of the PRV was the removal of an accessory to the device which, according to the specs, wasn't necessary to maintain a safe operation of the item, as the max pressure is twice the setting of the PRV. Someone could remove the PRV and install one for higher (45 psi, for example), or remove it entirely, and as long as the pressure never exceeded 30 psi, the modification wasn't the cause of the failure. Beyond the fact that it's a defense, so someone can still claim product liability even if they did modify something, the question arises in this instance whether trading out a PRV for, say, a 45 psi PRV, is an alteration or modification of the product (which who knows, but I would indicate it isn't, since it's on a removable TC port), and whether it was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer that someone would do it (which who knows, but I would indicate that it was reasonably foreseeable, in part because you put it on a TC port, but also in part because the manufacturer stated the vessel can maintain 2x the pressure of what the PRV is set at, so one would assume a consumer would fill the vessel with pressure more than the PRV setting but less than the max pressure).

 

[CodeSection]

^^^^^ This argument of redefining "limitations" as "design flaws" is sorta pointless and academic. Changing circumstances and "what ifs" scenarios are too.

 

[specialkayme]

^^^^^ This argument of redefining "limitations" as "design flaws" is sorta pointless and academic. Changing circumstances and "what ifs" scenarios is too.

Lol, you're the one that started the "argument".

 

[CodeSection]

Lol, you're the one that started the "argument".

LOL, no argument on my part. Since you seem to misinterpret my term "argument" when I responded above, to make it easier just substitute the word "position" in place of "argument" so that it reads "This position of redefining "limitations" as "design flaws" is sorta pointless and academic...."

I refer you to your post #233 where you started to redefine meanings. Now this is becoming silly.....