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

[justinrhenry]

Hope?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/end-of-ethanol-subsidy-could-raise-gas-prices-for-2012/1

this isn't hope.  they don't mention or imply the end of ethanol in gas. 

[ducatiz]

Hope?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/end-of-ethanol-subsidy-could-raise-gas-prices-for-2012/1

the legislation also removes tariffs on Brazilian cane-based ethanol import.  Brazilians pay about $1/gallon for their ethanol fuel (100% ethanol cars there). 

It means more ethanol and cheaper.

the solution would be to have "mix at the pump" ethanol so the customer can select how much ethanol to add to their gasoline.  this is the standard in some places (Oz). 

[Howie]

Hope?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/end-of-ethanol-subsidy-could-raise-gas-prices-for-2012/1

Nope.  You will simply be paying more for E10 in areas where it is mandated.

[Curmudgeon]

Nope.  You will simply be paying more for E10 in areas where it is mandated.

They might not have renewed the subsidy but until they remove the % requirements for E-10 nationally which are increasing annually, we still have a problem with that cr*p.

[muskrat]

I hope they stick to their guns and don't subsidize a dime but we all know Pol............

[ducpainter]

enough about corn subsidies please.

[duccarlos]

Nice.  F#cked over the coals by believing that a company might 'do the right thing'.

I honestly didn't think anything different would result from this settlement or even the public response after posting it months ago.  I've given up thinking that Ducati is looking at anything else except for profit and gathering new, naive customers to the 'brand'.  It didn't used to be like that.  That's why I have more than one.  The older one.

Iz, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for Ducati and 'the little engine that could' I think you have to stop drinking the Kool Aid and see it differently.  I appreciate the 'small Italian company' and all that BS, but at some point you have to agree they are simply cowards on so many levels by not coming clean and admitting to a poor material spec.  That, in simple legalese is called negligence.  Nothing less.  Hiding behind a veil of a legal process tells me more about how the company treats its customers than I would have believed a year ago.

Coupled with the fact (referencable fact, via EIA.gov) that ethanol in fuels have been in North American gasolines since the early 1990s.  Ethanol's effects (and its ability to gather water into said fuel) in fuel containers should not have been a surprise to anyone by this late date.

Will I keep the bike?  Yeah, more than likely.  But this will be the last Duc for me for a number of reasons, which I won't repeat again.

Dude, I think you have made it perfectly clear where you stand on this issue and the fact that you will never buy a Duc. I think in general most people on this thread have been very understanding about your position, even when they don't share it. In the same way, Tiz and others have expressed their opinions. You call it the Ducati kool-aid, but yet ignore completely the statments that this issue is also impacting other manufacturers, if I'm not mistaken even BMW, which it seems you have a particular fondness for. Let's try to keep this thread away from degrading into something unnecessary.

[hillbillypolack]

Dude, I think you have made it perfectly clear where you stand on this issue and the fact that you will never buy a Duc. I think in general most people on this thread have been very understanding about your position, even when they don't share it. In the same way, Tiz and others have expressed their opinions. You call it the Ducati kool-aid, but yet ignore completely the statments that this issue is also impacting other manufacturers, if I'm not mistaken even BMW, which it seems you have a particular fondness for. Let's try to keep this thread away from degrading into something unnecessary.

With all due respect, this is an ongoing thread about the settlement and affected tanks.  I can't deny I've posted pretty vocally on this point.  Yet we have seen in these last few pages how people have posted here, yet not risen to write in to oppose the settlement. 

I don't think the post was degrading this thread into something unnecessary.  I respect what Iz has done (despite the outcome of the settlement) and was re-reading some earlier posts of his in Tech this afternoon.  Good stuff.

Do you agree with the finalized settlement?  Just curious about your position pro or con.  If you'd like to take the discussion offline, feel free to PM me. 

[ducpainter]

With all due respect, this is an ongoing thread about the settlement and affected tanks.  I can't deny I've posted pretty vocally on this point.  Yet we have seen in these last few pages how people have posted here, yet not risen to write in to oppose the settlement. 

I don't think the post was degrading this thread into something unnecessary.  I respect what Iz has done (despite the outcome of the settlement) and was re-reading some earlier posts of his in Tech this afternoon.  Good stuff.

Do you agree with the finalized settlement?  Just curious about your position pro or con.

Did you formally object?

How does the inaction of customers vilify the manufacturer?

I remember 6 or so years ago when the faithful were screaming for a plastic tank to avoid the classic 'Ducati Dent'.

They got that...didn't quite work the way everyone hoped...

did it?

[hillbillypolack]

Did you formally object?

How does the inaction of customers vilify the manufacturer?

I remember 6 or so years ago when the faithful were screaming for a plastic tank to avoid the classic 'Ducati Dent'.

They got that...didn't quite work the way everyone hoped...

did it?

Yes, I did formally object-to all three parties on the settlement.  With a half page of referenced fact for clarification. 

But you have a point. . . if the customers don't act, how is the manufacturer supposed to respond?  At this point I think that's the most clear question to come out of the 'settlement'.  In 5 years what will we be saying 'should have' been done?

And I did read about the requests to make a non-denting tank. . . . quite a while back but I see we got what we were asking for.

[ducpainter]

Yes, I did formally object-to all three parties on the settlement.  With a half page of referenced fact for clarification. 

But you have a point. . . if the customers don't act, how is the manufacturer supposed to respond?  At this point I think that's the most clear question to come out of the 'settlement'.  In 5 years what will we be saying 'should have' been done?

And I did read about the requests to make a non-denting tank. . . . quite a while back but I see we got what we were asking for.

My point is...

I believe Ducati was doing everything they could do for the owners...

until the lawsuit was filed and needed to be dealt with from a business 'bleeding' perspective.

Don't blame Ducati...

blame Gerard Gibbs.

He's the only winner.

[hillbillypolack]

My point is...

I believe Ducati was doing everything they could do for the owners...

until the lawsuit was filed and needed to be dealt with from a business 'bleeding' perspective.

Don't blame Ducati...

blame Gerard Gibbs.

He's the only winner.

I see what you mean.  It could very well be that once the legal machine was put in motion there was limited room to do the right thing (?)  I could imagine that behind closed doors a number of proposals were considered (cost vs. benefit vs. validation etc).  And after the time ran out and the letters were tallied this is what resulted.

[Howie]

Could Ducati still replace tanks beyond the limits of the settlement as "good will" on a customer by customer basis like manufacturers sometimes do when a vehicle is out of warranty?  I see no reason why they couldn't but I am not a lawyer.

[ducatiz]

Could Ducati still replace tanks beyond the limits of the settlement as "good will" on a customer by customer basis like manufacturers sometimes do when a vehicle is out of warranty?  I see no reason why they couldn't but I am not a lawyer.

They can do whatever they want out of good will.  Most of the tank replacements for the 05 and 06 bikes were good will replacements, especially where the owner was a 2nd or 3rd. 

I hope they do, but it might prove to be a liability if it gets out since that could be considered unfair treatment under the settlement.

[Bill in OKC]

$835,000 would have paid for a lot of replacement -possibly alloy aftermarket- tanks...

...and what happens if/when e15 is mandated and the problems *accelerate* - the Gubmint has already proven that e15 does no harm