UCHQ, or for that matter anyone who can answer this question;
The main reason I didn't decide to purchase the Undercurrent unit was due to my reluctance to marry myself to uniseals.
When I built my own system, I used 1" bulkheads. Although I'm aware they come in many sizes, the 1" seemed a good compromise between performance and cost. The ones I use are from N-G-W, because the CAP equivalents are of poor quality. I have had very few problems with them. In fact, the only leaks I've found come from where the 1" plastic tubing I use to connect all the sites together slides over the barbed end of the bulkheads. This is a quick fix, since it has meant that the hose was kinked or pulled in some way. Straighten it out, and no more leak. If I ever encounter a more serious leak from this spot, I can always install a ziptie or even a hoseclamp. I've certainly never encountered any cracking issues, and I don't expect to since the bulkhead squeezes onto the container's surface and actually helps to strengthen the opening.
Now, I have a lot of respect for the UC machine, and so it's led me to ask why it is that the designers went with uniseals? Cost per unit? I don't see that much difference between bulkheads and uniseals. It has led to perhaps the largest perceived quality issue with the product- leakage and cracking around the uniseals. There had to be some good reasons why that choice was made, and whether that decision is being revisited for future versions?
Any insight would be most helpful.
On a similar note, I have built several RDWC systems now, all with tailbuckets. This is where I add nutrients and can look to see what's floating around in my system at a glance. It's also handy since I can place the return pumnp in the water and leave its filter in place, reducing the chances of some small foreign object like hydroton blocking flow. This is a very useful component, and I'm not sure why the UC designers didn't include it on their design?
