Plastic Tank problems: Discussion thread, see info thread sticky for updates

[ducatiz]

Has anyone lined a Ducati fuel tank with the RelTek stuff?

-Jeff

No.  they don't sell it the same way, and i've been trying to get them to.  they sell it as an adhesive package only and as such, the price is too high.  you'd need about 500ml diluted and mixed to use in the tank.  they package it for small applications.

[Curmudgeon]

I've gone thru the declarations in support of the settlement that were filed so far.

So, from what you've seen thus far, does anyone acknowledge that ethanol attracts water and that it's a given that PA6 absorbs water? And as you said in your objection, water is a common contaminant of pump gas? How then is PA6 "fit for purpose"?

[ducatiz]

So, from what you've seen thus far, does anyone acknowledge that ethanol attracts water and that it's a given that PA6 absorbs water? And as you said in your objection, water is a common contaminant of pump gas? How then is PA6 "fit for purpose"?

They outright claim that I'm wrong about the direct ethanol > PA6 interaction.  The funny thing is that they point to the Minnesota E20 study, but I've spoken with the authors and they said they used a test regimen which required both a) 1% water to be added to the fuel and b) a relative humidity of 50%.  The authors told me they could not guarantee that the observed expansion was due to the ethanol itself and since the material absorbed water "aggressively" that it "probably" was the water instead. 

I tested this hypothesis on my own using E85 fuel in a low humidity cabinet.  Active dessicants kept the humidity below 10%.  Using the E85 in a test tank, there were no significant changes in the tank's circumference.  After 2 months of this, I added 60-70% humidity.  The tank started deforming within 1 week, and the tank circumference expanded to about 10% of its original girth (vertical around the sides).

What ethanol does is attract more water than pure gasoline or ambient humidity does alone. 

Plenty of resources on the web which indicate what I am saying:
http://www.pkkaps.dk/mat-pa6_uk.html (resistant to alcohols, not resistant to hydrolysis)

http://www.distrupol.com/images/A_Rough_Guide_to_Chemical_Resistance.pdf (polyamides resistant to all alcohols)

http://www.plastictroubleshooter.com/ThePlasticTroubleshooter/chemical_resist.htm  (good resistance to weak acids and alcohols)

and so forth..

I don't want to say their experts flat out lied about it, but there is very little to suggest that PA6 is anything but "resistant" to alcohols including ethanol (and a weak solution of it at that at 10%) and plenty to suggest that PA6 aggressively absorbs water.

When I talked to the Minnesota E20 authors, I asked about modifying the test regimen to use a humidity of near zero and a water contamination of 0% water and they said they could do it but of course, I'd have to pay to get them to do it (and publish).  If Ducati really wanted to fight this, they could have done it and demonstrated (as I did) that PA6 doesn't really react much to the ethanol ITSELF but rather the water that the ethanol is carrying.

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but how does Ducati justify using a PA6 tank which aggressively absorbs water and subsequently deforms and how is PA6 then a suitable plastic for containing fuel which is likely to contain water, whether by ethanol attraction in high humidity or as just a contaminant of fuel in the typical gas station tank?

In other words, how are they passing off PA6 as "fit for purpose" when, as a given, fuel will contain water?

[ducatiz]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but how does Ducati justify using a PA6 tank which aggressively absorbs water and subsequently deforms and how is PA6 then a suitable plastic for containing fuel which is likely to contain water, whether by ethanol attraction in high humidity or as just a contaminant of fuel in the typical gas station tank?

In other words, how are they passing off PA6 as "fit for purpose" when, as a given, fuel will contain water?

It's an approved material by EPA/NHTSA.  That's all I've got.  

My guess is that approval for car and motorcycle fuel cels is probably the same schedule without regard to stuff like this.  

I mean, who cares if your gas tank on your SUV expands some provided the sender and pump don't fall out (although the tanks leaked on Nissan Xterras for this very reason)...  but a bike is of course different.

I think PA6 would be fine if it was coated.  They went to a lot of measures to try to deny the suggestion that an epoxy coating would work, but their work shows a very shoddy approach.  They coated a tank using Caswell's without any regard to what might be an ideal sort of coating procedure (probably used the box instructions) and then subjected it to 100% ethanol with heat cycle.

I don't understand why they used 100% ethanol.  It's unrealistic.  They should have also exposed it to plutonium.

Likewise, they point out places where they claim the material separated, but from my experience there are a BUNCH of bubbles in the surface of the tank (inner) and those look exactly like those bubble artifacts covered over with Caswell's to me.  __> (tank is MY tank before I removed the bubbles)

When I coated my tank, i spent hours with an exacto knife removing those "pimples" so the caswells would bond to the surface under the bubble, not the bubble itself.

They also specifically did not mention nor reply to the link and attachment from RelTek which makes epoxies SPECIFICALLY for polyamide polymers.  --> http://www.reltekllc.com/adhesives-for-nylon.html

The correct epoxy will bond, permanently.  They have customers with their epoxy adhesive coating on polyamide parts which are submerged in all kind of crap and the coating remains flexible, resisting water, fuels, alcohols,etc.

[SSCR]

no take it to your dealer.  you may get a new tank without much hassle based on your description.  do it fast.

Wanted to update on my status with my tank, if anyone is intrested...
Just got back from my dealer, chilly 30 minute ride each way. They wanted to just do the bracket/ seat replacement fix on it. They said because of the lawsuit they are no longer replacing tanks. I explained that I wanted a new one and planned to only use nonethnol fuel. In all fairness the head of service was cool and would see what he could do about replacing the tank. I feel that I will not be getting a replacement tank.

[ducatiz]

Wanted to update on my status with my tank, if anyone is intrested...
Just got back from my dealer, chilly 30 minute ride each way. They wanted to just do the bracket/ seat replacement fix on it. They said because of the lawsuit they are no longer replacing tanks. I explained that I wanted a new one and planned to only use nonethnol fuel. In all fairness the head of service was cool and would see what he could do about replacing the tank. I feel that I will not be getting a replacement tank.

it's interesting they say that given it's not even finalized.  ask them who their attorney is.  your bike would qualify for a replacement tank under the terms of the extended warranty in the settlement anyway.

[SSCR]

it's interesting they say that given it's not even finalized.  ask them who their attorney is.  your bike would qualify for a replacement tank under the terms of the extended warranty in the settlement anyway.

Ask who the attorney for the dealership is? Any statements I can give the dealership to prove that I would qualify for the tank replacement? Sorry for being a PIA on this, I was just hoping to get a tank thats not bloated on it before summer. I already planned on purchasing a 14 gallon tank to fill with ethanol free fuel so not to have to have this happen again.

I would think installing the bracket, the new bumpers and a new seat would cost more than replacing the tank..... but I guess they would not have to worry about dealing with this in the future. The service guy told me that my tank was expanded as much as it would get and that it would not expand anymore. Is this true? Even if this is true and the brackets and seat work, I'm still not happy about the  divits on each side of the tank where my bars hit before I turned the stoppers down.

[junior varsity]

tiz,


re: approved material - along the same lines for suv's and the like, since its hidden, cosmetic deformations are no concern - it can expand and contract to heart's/humidity's content and is placed in appropriate mounts to allow for such movement.   So it can be approved but should only be approved for something where the installation is in no way like that of a motorcycles at issue.

i think what i may have missed here is, why the sole focus on coating?  So they proved that pure ethanol can harm a single particular type of coating.  its unrealistic and thus a poor representation for their argument, but 'big deal' - even if correct, they only proved that a single type of coating was insufficient to fix the problem, they did not prove all coatings would be ineffective nor did they offer any other solution. 

after checking with the bike we picked up recently, which is in shambles in the garage, vin shows its not within the affected years. i don't have the tank actually (got frame/swingarm/motor only), but if the VIN was within correct year range, I would have otherwise filed an objection based on the VIN to show objection to the proposed settlement. Since i could not object as a member of the class, I did write a letter to the attorneys involved expressing my general disapproval of the settlement and pointing out the lack of meaningful solution.  i tried the spaghetti solution (toss stuff at the wall until something sticks), I also briefly pointed out the ethical responsibility of zealously advocating for their client, which includes providing a solution that benefits the client.   as it stands, the proposed remedy does not provide the clients with appropriate redress.

i currently do not have the time to investigate how this proposed settlement, if/when approved, would affect future claims stemming from breach of warranty, tort claims for strict product liability, or breach of warranty of suitability/fitness for a particular purpose.  But I suspect an affected-customer (sufficiently upset) could find another avenue to bring a claim.  Some of these claims, if available, could potentially be brought at the dealer-to-consumer transaction level ("i came in, i told you i wanted to ride a bike on public roads, under your guidance I purchased X model, and it turns out to not be suitable for such use because the gas tank cannot be filled with gasoline. you advised me incorrectly, dealer and thus breached this warranty").  This might really put a thorn between dealers and Ducati North America, because dealers would be stuck with a bill that the factory should-have/could-have resolved at this juncture.

[scduc]

With the lastest email I received about the settlement, it pretty much looks like we owners are screwed. I am to blame, as I did not object the Ducati's proposal. My feeling was that there were only 400 or so complaints and who knows how many bikes sold over the period of question and reality is with those few numbers, the courts really have no option but to decide in favor of Ducati. Looks like the Caswell option will be a must. Unless someone manufactures an aftermarket tank that looks like stock. Very doubtful at best. Can only hope that the new bikes do not end up with this issue.

[Curmudgeon]

i currently do not have the time to investigate how this proposed settlement, if/when approved, would affect future claims stemming from breach of warranty, tort claims for strict product liability, or breach of warranty of suitability/fitness for a particular purpose.  But I suspect an affected-customer (sufficiently upset) could find another avenue to bring a claim.  Some of these claims, if available, could potentially be brought at the dealer-to-consumer transaction level ("i came in, i told you i wanted to ride a bike on public roads, under your guidance I purchased X model, and it turns out to not be suitable for such use because the gas tank cannot be filled with gasoline. you advised me incorrectly, dealer and thus breached this warranty").  This might really put a thorn between dealers and Ducati North America, because dealers would be stuck with a bill that the factory should-have/could-have resolved at this juncture.

You might be onto something here as you are describing my visit to the dealer, demo ride, etc. In fact, I made a point of asking the question about tanks on the new bikes. The dealer, whom I trust, (takes one to know one ), told me that DNA had told him that the tank issue was resolved. Apparently not.

Dealers represent a product, they don't make them. If you sue the dealer, he will in turn sue Ducati and Ducati's lawyers will defend the suit locally; at least that's the way it works in the car biz. At State level Ducati would settle or lose this one IMO. Unfortunately, this costs $$$ and it doesn't get the bikes fixed unless a large group of people all over the country start to file similar suits. THEN you'd see some serious action. If a few settle, they get some money and damages but then have no Ducati. No fun there...

This whole thing leaves me scratching my head. The USA represents a huge chunk of Ducati's annual sales. This is very poor PR. The last vehicle brand I sold switched to plastic tanks in 1990 and retroactively replaced all metal tanks in previously sold vehicles. No idea what plastic that was, but we had no tank issues afterwards with the sole exception of a new vehicle launch in 2003. In that case, some tanks could "burp" during fill-up because of defective manufacture (internal emissions line pinched). Less than 10% were affected but ALL those tanks were replaced by the manufacturer, T.I. Engineering. Who needs THAT kind of press?!

I'd be curious to know what Nissan did about their PA6 problem.

[Frisco]

Wanted to update on my status with my tank, if anyone is intrested...
Just got back from my dealer, chilly 30 minute ride each way. They wanted to just do the bracket/ seat replacement fix on it. They said because of the lawsuit they are no longer replacing tanks. I explained that I wanted a new one and planned to only use nonethnol fuel. In all fairness the head of service was cool and would see what he could do about replacing the tank. I feel that I will not be getting a replacement tank.

Call John Berstein or Bersen (something like that) at DNA and tell him -as of 3 weeks ago they were covering them - tell him the dealers name - might want to call the dealer first and tell them you are calling DNA too - they might rethink their position.

[ducatiz]

Call John Berstein or Bersen (something like that) at DNA and tell him -as of 3 weeks ago they were covering them - tell him the dealers name - might want to call the dealer first and tell them you are calling DNA too - they might rethink their position.

Jon Berntsen.  he's a CSR

[muskrat]

if they screw owners I'll be done with Ducati once I'm tired of the S4R.  What a pitty because I love the brand.

[ducatiz]

The sum of it is this:

Ducati will continue to offer coverage for the longer of 6 years from purchase OR 18 months after the settlement is final. 

Depending on the model of your bike you will either get:

1.  A tank replacement in situations where the aesthetics of the bike are affected with a smaller tank.
2.  Modifications to the tank mount to permit expansion where aesthetics are not affected but tank mounting is.
3.  Where your bars hit the tank, your turning stops will be adjusted.
4.  Where your seat presses against the tank, you'll get a shorter seat.


If you get a replacement tank, that tank will be warranted for an additional 6 months.

That's the summary of it.  Details are spelt out in the notices mailed.

I see this as Ducati doing what it's done already:  offering to modify mount if the tank isn't too badly expanded, and replacing tanks where it is.  The main differences are the smaller tank and the shorter seat. 

If anyone is curious as to the testing done by Ducati and Acerbis as to the coatings, I can email you the PDF of the declarations with the procedure.  You can judge for yourselves if it's a valid test or not.  I've already already emailed with some fuel testing folks and will be talking to them later this week, but from the description I sent them of the Acerbis test method, it doesn't sound like it would pass muster in a bona fide testing lab.

Some of the docs are pretty big, I might find a place to upload them.