Sanitation Hose - Trident vs Shields

[JMM]

Hi - I keep reading the replacement hose recommendations in these forums as:

Hose: Use ONLY Trident 101/102 for toilet and tank discharge lines. Use Shields or Trident #148 for sizes smaller than 1".

It also seems that Shields also makes a #101 Hose that seems to be very similar (also similar in price) -- Is there any difference between the Trident 101 and the Shields 101 sanitation hose?
Thanks, Jim

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Trident 101 has the longest track record...

It's been on the market for more than 15 years without a single reported odor permeation failure. If Shields could make that claim, I think they'd publicize it too. And I tend to put more weight on track records than mfr's claims for any product.

 

[JMM]

Peggie - I just spent a little time on both companies websites, and I could find no reference to the statement "It's been on the market for more than 15 years without a single reported odor permeation failure" -- (does not mean it's not there - just that I cannot find it). One difference I did find was (according to the websites): Trident hose has a 5 Year Warranty with an expected 10-20 year service life ( no mention of a "Odor" warranty) -- and the Shields hose has a Lifetime (defect) warranty (no mention of a "Odor" warranty).

I was looking for technical differences, or if anyone had direct experience with both brands and could give me a comparison. I have had both recommended by retailers that sell either ( but not both) -- and folks that have used them (independently - so no direct comparison).

I am also looking at PVC Sch80 as an option - not sure if I have good enough access yet.

Thanks, Jim

 

[Tim R.]

Why do you need to know a comparison?

I have used the trident on 2 boats for many years and have had no issues. Buy the Trident, it is the best. The only downside that you get from either hose is that the OD is a little larger than the single wall hose most boats have so you may have to enlarge holes that the hose runs through.

I would not use PVC. You will not be happy when it fails. Flexible hose is so much easier to work with. Boats move. Gear inside boats move. Flexible is so much more forgiving.

 

[JMM]

Well -- I am re-doing 2 heads, so perhaps I should do one with each -- and report back in 5-10 years!

 

[gettinthere]

Trident 101 was my choice after working with both of the top brands. I don't like the single layer plastic type hoses. Heating them to fit scares the stuff out of me. Heating the two layer 101 is much easier plus it fits onto the fittings easier to begin with. Then take the fact that is is highly recommended and it becomes the no brainer hose for waste.

 

[JMM]

Thanks everyone - sure seems like at least around here Trident is the one to use.
So unless someone is willing to give me the Shields hose at a serious discount for a head to head - comparison experiment , my current plan is go with Trident #101 for my project. I'll be ripping out the old heads in March sometime and assessing what I need. The PO (Original) seems to have a variety of hoses in use some look very old, some pretty new -- and at least a vented loop on the discharge ( but not vented to the outside ) - but none on the intake. I do not have Peggy's book "yet" (plan to) - but from reading through the forum and Nigel Calder's book -- I plan to replace both heads with PHII's, add a vented loop and strainer to the intake ( possibly add a tee from the sink for fresh water ), make sure the vented loop on the discharge is vented to the outside, increase the size of the holding tank vents (presently one of those tiny universal ones).

We are also considering adding a macerator/pumpout for one of the heads. My wife would also like a tank monitor -- would love to hear folks experiences with them -- access to the tank may force use one of the exterior mounted types ( will know when March when I tear apart the system if I have enough access to the tank top ).

The forward head currently has a bladder holding tank we avoid using when just the 2 of us are aboard. We may add a Lectrascan next year or two, at which time we would replace the bladder with a poly holding tank. The bladder is very new.

I am sure I will be back with more questions once I take things apart next month.

Jim

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Comments and a couple of questions...

Do NOT put a vent line on a vented loop. The only reason for a vent line is to prevent any squirting..aAn air valve that only allows air IN, nothing out is the right solution to that problem. Any hose going to the outside would be only 1/4"...so small that it would very quickly become clogged with sea water minerals...turning the loop into an UNvented loop that no longer has any ability to break a siphon. And, because that's an "out of sight, out of mind" solution, you'll never check it, much less clean it out.

However, vented loops that are missing their air valves only squirt when they're in a line through which liquid is being PUSHED--the toilet discharge line...so if your toilet flushes only into the tank, you don't need a vented loop in that line anyway. A loop, maybe, depending on the location of the tank relative to the toilet...but not a VENTED loop. You DO need a vented loop in the intake, but it does NOT belong in the line between the thru-hull and the pump...read the installation directions for your toilet for the right location.

Now for the questions:

You said, "We are also considering adding a macerator/pumpout for one of the heads."

For what purpose? If it's to dump your tank, you need to be aware that the Strait is the only place where that's legal within at least 100 miles of the Sound or anywhere in San Juans.

Or...surely you aren't thinking of putting a macerator in a toilet discharge line to "puree" direct overboard discharge? That's not only a major legal no-no, you can't even begin to imagine the problems it would cause!

Tank monitor...there aren't any that work in a bladder. And if the bladder is in a bad location, this might not be the best time to increase the size of the tank vent either..'cuz relocating the tank will prob'ly require relocating the vent thru-hull.

Since your long term plan seems to be rip everything out and replace it somewhat piecemeal...I wonder if a total "rip out" now, replacing it with a self contained "MSD" portapotty might be a good short term solution. A 5-6 gallon model holds 50-60 flushes...you'd need at least a 30 gallon tank to hold that many from any manual marine toilet...no plumbing except a pumpout line and vent line...no maintenance. Total cost less than $200. Buys time to get some of the more urgent stuff done and save for a complete toilet/hose/tank/gauge/ElectroScan system all at once.

Think about it.

 

[JMM]

Peggy - WRT to the vent - I guess I misunderstood -- what you say makes sense.

The current installation has a vented loop between the toilet discharge and a Y-Valve -- that selects between either the tank or though-hull discharge -- (the holding tank is above the toilet) -- is this correct or or should the vented loop be between the y valve and through -hull? Could I go strait from the y-valve up to the tank?

For the forward head-- that has the (relatively new) bladder but also a lot of old hoses and an old toilet -- it may make sense to do what you suggest in the interim with a portable MSD ( have to sell the wife on that ) -- and wait to do bigger job all at once. Be easier and (minimally) not waste a lot of expensive hose that likely will all be the wrong size for the bigger project.

Tank Monitor -- presently this is still just for the aft head tank ( not a bladder ) -- when I rip everything out next month I will know what access I have for options.

re: Macerator -- this would be for the rare occasion where it would be legal to dump the holding tank. We may not be in that situation much for the next few years, but will be ( at least thats the plan) after that. Cruising north into Canada it seems it is both legal and common for folks to go directly overboard in many areas.

Thanks for all the great advice - I am sure I will have many more questions.

 

[sandpiper10471]

In the Great Lakes, in order to be legal, Porta-potties must be secured and fitted with a pumpout. Peggy mentions a small P-P can handle many more flushes than a reasonably sized regular holding tank. If that is the case, then why don't we all just have really big porta-potties and reduce the number of pumpouts required each season?

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

The current installation has a vented loop between the toilet discharge and a Y-Valve -- that selects between either the tank or though-hull discharge -- (the holding tank is above the toilet) -- is this correct or or should the vented loop be between the y valve and through -hull? Could I go strait from the y-valve up to the tank?

Put the y-valve after the vented loop.

re: Macerator -- this would be for the rare occasion where it would be legal to dump the holding tank. We may not be in that situation much for the next few years, but will be ( at least thats the plan) after that. Cruising north into Canada it seems it is both legal and common for folks to go directly overboard in many areas.

As little as you expect to use it, I'd go with either an manual or electric diaphragm pump. When macerator pumps spend a lot of time sitting, the impellers tend to get stuck...and a vane breaks when you fire 'em up again. Diaphragm pumps can also run dry without harm...impeller pumps can't.

Sandpiper, it's only in Canadian waters that portable toilets aren't allowed. They're allowed on boats on the Great Lakes in US waters. And that seems to be enforced only on Canadian flagged boats. In the 25 years I've been doing this, I've yet to hear of a US flagged boat that was cited or turned back from docking or crossing on a trailer because it has a portable portapotty.

As for why we don't just all have portapotties...well, it has to do with ego needs (small boat owner wants same stuff as large yacht)...and creature comfort...people today don't even want a "MARINE" toilet...they want a toilet "like the one at home."

The BEST solution is an onboard treatment device....PuraSan or ElectroScan. Raritan Waste Treatment The discharge is cleaner than the discharge from any sewage treatment plant, which is where most holding tank contents end up...that is, the tanks that are actually pumped out. More tanks are illegally dumped than are pumped out.

 

[JMM]

Peggy - I like the idea of a manual pump for the occasional pumpout.

I know where I got confused on the adding a vent line to vented loop -- it is a recommendation in Nigel Calder's book - but I agree with you, when working properly it should only suck air in.

What do you find are the best vented loop's to use on the discharge side?

 

[jeff winter]

Re: Trident 101 has the longest track record...

Hi Peggy,

I have a question about Trident 101 in an application where there is a long run between the head and holding tank. The system also requires a lift to the entry of the holding tank, as it is designed. This means that the longest section of hose is lower than both the head and the tank inlet, so there is no practical way to have a self draining system. Given the length of the run, it will require an entire 50' length to accomplish the replacement of the permeated white hose currently in place from the head to tank, and forward to the pump-out fitting, including the Y-valve to the macerator and discharge. The quantity required makes cost a significant consideration. We live aboard full-time, so it is desirable to do the best possible job to keep odor in check. If it makes a significant difference over other products, then it will be worth the extra expense. Is Trident 101 expected to perform well under these less than ideal conditions? The other product I have considered is Shields 101 premium EDPM rubber hose.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Hoo boy...We need to talk, not type...

So send me an email (NOT a private message, please!) and I'll give you a phone number.

 

[Head Master18695]

Re: Hoo boy...We need to talk, not type...

Yikes, Jeff's going to have a real plumber's nightmare on his hands! And if a manual toilet will be used, he'll wind up having one arm looking like Popeye's. VERY SERIOUS consideration should be given to laying it out some other way, with MUCH SHORTER hose or piping runs. That kind of distance is just asking for problems!

 

[jeff winter]

Peggie, it was a complete pleasure speaking with you earlier - thanks for the suggestion to put an alternative system in place. When I returned to the marina, the Dockmaster stopped by with my mail, and I mentioned that we spoke, as he was the individual who told me of you in the first place. Well the conversation went to the topic of refurbishing the entire system, and I mentioned your suggestion to put the Electro-scan in, with shorter runs, etc.

The next thing he told me was that a fellow boater on the dock just posted a completely functioning, clean Electro-scan unit on our community bulletin board for sale at a price too good to resist, just an hour or so before we spoke. He will bring it here tomorrow, and if it looks good, then I'll buy it, and it will be the next step in improving our sanitation system.

It looks like the install will be pretty straightforward, as there is ample room within two feet of the toilet, and it will not require much more than a weekend's work.

I am so looking forward to removing the old permeated hoses, and upgrading the system.

Thanks a million for the time and the insights.

BTW, lucky for us - our toilet is electric.

 

[JMM]

Peggy -- I have some other planning questions regarding my future Electro-Scan installation.

I have been reading through previous forums on the subject -- in this thread :
http://forums.oday.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=117492 , describing a system where the head either goes to the ES or a holding tank, and than the output of both go to a y-valve .. which goes to a macerator ( or manual pump) -- then the thru-hull ( with appropriate vented loop at this stage).
Q1:
However - wouldn't you put the macerator (or manual pump ) between the holding tank output and y-valve? Seems having it after the last Y-Valve would actually get in the way of normal ES operation - where the toilet pumping pushes the treated effluent out of the ES.

Q2:Since I need a new holding tank in the front -- I may look into constructing my own Hold-n-Treat setup as well ( I know I do not have room for the drop in version). I need to compare the pros/cons of this - seems it may overly complicate everything.

Thanks for your great advice so far.
Jim

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Peggy -- I have some other planning questions regarding my future Electro-Scan installation.

Q1:
However - wouldn't you put the macerator (or manual pump ) between the holding tank output and y-valve? Seems having it after the last Y-Valve would actually get in the way of normal ES operation - where the toilet pumping pushes the treated effluent out of the ES.

No...the discharge pump has only one function--to dump the tank. So why you install a y-valve AFTER the pump? If you do, the pumpout would have to try to pull out tank contents through the pump. Put it ahead of the pump, so that one side is open to the deck pumpout when it needs to be...and the other side is open to the discharge pump when it needs to be...and nothing is between the pumpout fitting and the tank or the discharge pump and the tank when they're in use.

Q2:Since I need a new holding tank in the front -- I may look into constructing my own Hold-n-Treat setup as well ( I know I do not have room for the drop in version). I need to compare the pros/cons of this - seems it may overly complicate everything.

The Hold 'n' Treat Controls can be retrofitted to any existing tank and ELECTRIC discharge pump...And when you consider the complexity of the timers and relays required to use it without burning out the motors in the ES, cobbling up your own version isn't something I'd recommend doing unless you're electrical engineer. Even if you are, there's something known as the "law of diminishing return" at work in cobbling up your own.

 

[JMM]

Peggy -- I understand your logic regarding the tank discharge and only wanting the pump between the discharge line and the thru hull - so the deck pumpout does not have to "pull" through the pump. My question is actually similar -- it relates to the pump AND the ES output -- you would not want the ES output to go through the pump either -- it is designed to get pushed out by the head pumping action .. so you would not want to "push" it through a pump to the thru hull. So sounds like yet another Y Valve is needed, or a separate out put from the tank for the deck pump out. Since I will have a another head that I can "dump" the tank shen need (if legal), and only need the forward tank when in a NDZ -- I think I will simplify and not bother with allowing for a tank to thru hole pump out.

Q2: I actually happen to be an electrical engineer .. it's this sanitation %$#% that scares me .. but after looking closer at the complexity I agree it is not worth my time going the self configured Hold-n-treat route.

Jim

 

[sandpiper10471]

Peggy - overboard discharge is forbidden in all of the great lakes. I know of noone who has been given a fine or warning for using a portapotty without the pumpout fitting. However, it remains that the regulations say they must. Just doesn't get enforced much. I know of sailors who also pump overboard and haven't been nailed.
But the question is still there. If I can get far more flushes per gallon of storage using a portapotty, why not have a big holding tank, like the one I have, use the pp system, and get a huge number of flushes before pumpout? Save on marina visits and dock costs.