Hi,

This post is following up on my original fuel tank post on Superduke.net:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21400

As you work your way through the post you will read correspondences from various companies I have contacted plus additional information that I feel is relevant to the topic.

This is quite long winded and you may benefit by opening an additional window/tab to view the links. So to start, I'd like to cover the implied cause of PA6 nylon fuel tank reported shortcomings of swelling, deformation, softening & possibly leakage.

ETHANOL

Aero Tec Laboratories (ATL): http://www.atlltd.com

The information below was originally “ATL Technical Bulletin, E-Fuels” Word Document (no longer available)

“Most current fuels contain a quantity of Ethanol. In the main this is not an issue; while the Ethanol and Gasoline remain a homogenous solution the Ethanol content in the fuel will not cause damage or deterioration of any fuel cell components or the bladder itself. The issue comes when phase separation occurs.

As can be seen from the image below (demonstration using Shell LMS E10) the Ethanol and Gasoline can become entirely separated. The main cause of phase separation is the introduction of moisture. (Image not available)

The Water and the Ethanol have mixed, separated and settled to the base while the pure Gasoline sits on top. We now have a mix of 98% Ethanol and 2% Water in direct contact with the fuel bladder and components which will begin to attack Rubber, Aluminium and Polyester [foam], the materials most used in Motorsport fuel systems.

Given these facts ATL advise that all fuel systems are pumped out when cars are not running wherever possible.

Until now no FIA homologated fuel bladders have been manufactured from alcohol resistant materials as no FIA regulated formula use pure Alcohol as a fuel. ATL have developed an Ethanol resistant fuel bladder material [ATL-891-B] to cater for this growing E-Fuels market and are currently the only fuel cell manufacturer to offer an Ethanol resistant FIA homologated [FIA/FT3.5-1999] material. This will not however help the other components in the fuel system and ultimately the engine should the user start running on a pure Water / Ethanol blend!”

DSM: http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/dep/akulonmoisture.htm

“ETHANOL PHASE SEPARATION”

Googling the terms above will provide more information regarding phase separation that supports the above.

The material: Nylon

BASF: http://www2.basf.us//PLASTICSWEB/displa ... e18000488a

1. Processing is via injection moulding as opposed to rotomoulding but does highlight hydration influenced tensile & flexural degradation of PA6 Nylon
2. Data is appears indicative of real life reports – swelling, softening, deformation & leaking.
3. The temperature & humidity values don't correlate too well to motorcycle operating conditions but offers a valuable insight to the sensitivity & effects of Nylon as a whole in terms of hygroscopicity (tendancy to absorb water)


FUEL TANK REQUIREMENTS: http://www.polymerplace.com/articles/au ... astics.htm

Although 13 years old, this document shares my sentiments that a fuel tank:

1. must be chemically resistant
2. must be dimensionally stable
3. must not be an interference fit / loose fit
4. must not be perishable in nature

This paper is perhaps more relevant today due to the increased reactivity we're witnessing with contemporary fuel blends.

CASWELL/TANK SEALANTS

1. I received no response from Jon Whitehead @ Laguna Motorcycles nor Bernie Tiller @ KTM UK regarding Caswell tank sealer.
2. I can only assume that no OEM officially endorses this product.
3. Applying this treatment to the tank of a brand new motorcycle in my view is unreasonable if warranty is placed at risk.
4. Breakdown/poor application of treatment may block fuel filter. Particulates small enough to pass through the filter completely could affect a multitude of engine internals. Engine warranty may be affected.

MOTORCYCLE ACTION GROUP (MAG)

http://www.mag-uk.org/en/campaignsdetail/a6973
http://www.mag-uk.org/en/campaignsdetail/a7099

1. Useful information describing situation in UK.
2. Mandatory to display ethanol % only when levels reach 10%, as it stands no notice is mandatory at the pumps.
3. UK will see 5% from 2014 until 2020 when we reach 10% (pumps will then have to indicate E content).
4. In 2020 choice will be between either 5% or 10%.
5. I have invited MAG to read & assess this post for themselves.

EU Directive 2009/30/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 113:EN:PDF


FUEL SYSTEMS PLASTICS

I contacted ATL UK (Aero Tec Laboratories) in February 2013: http://www.atlltd.com

“I found your website & in particular the page regarding motorcycle fuel cells. I have a question regarding the use of a shell/tank bladder system for OEM motorcycle applications instead of metal or polyamide versions. Perhaps you're aware of the problems that are occurring with modern fuel blends & their effect on PA6 Nylon fuel tanks. Due to the high permeation rate of HDPE, government environmental standards prohibit this material for road use although this material I believe is still used for motocross/off road motorcycles.

Sadly the problem is best described as a reaction that extends to two areas:

Expansion/swelling - very common in North America and becoming more common here, in Europe - the expansion has created unforeseen dangers of tanks widening & becoming insecure on the chassis mounts and/or extending enough to interfere constantly or in full lock state of the steering controls.
Certain makes/models of motorcycle incorporate insufficient allowances for growth, which are rapidly met & exceeded which consequently applies considerable longitudinal load on the tank and it's mounting brackets.

I have also experienced personally what appears to be a severe & quite unacceptable reaction to the surface of the interior of the tank, please see photo.

Ethanol is purportedly the main culprit for the swelling but I'm not sure, other than postulating, what's causing the internal bubbling. Please note the interior layer is quite rippled also.

Sadly OEMs are only replacing like for like or possibly making minor alterations to the design of tank/components to make additional allowance for tank growth.

I don't think the current application of polymer fuel tanks will provide the resistance to the fuel blend changes that we all face now & in the future.

I've had experience working on rotary wing airframes and have been investigating a fuel bladder because I think this will be the only way to address permeation, internal chemical reaction & tank growth. There are also the excellent safety aspects that GP racers benefit from including spark suppression in the event of a crash & superior rupture resistance during impact.

The hard part is getting it all in due to the elaborate fuel tank designs now implemented using economical methods such as rotomoulding.
The economy of making a tank this way though, I feel is a false one if more and more tanks are being replaced due to the direct effects of fuel on the material. Various coatings have been tried and tested which in itself is a problem because there's a) no guarantee of coating adherence to the surface of the plastic b) manufacturers void warranties on treated tanks, which may be because c) coating may break down and either block the fuel pump or pass through completely into the combustion phase.

I would be deeply grateful if you could look at the following eBay link:

(link no longer available)

I did hope that you would kindly inform me if you think that a fuel bladder could be viable alternative in such a complicated shape, with a capacity of approximately 20 litres & produced with reasonable economy. The main material I've been looking at is nitrile, as used in aviation I believe.
I know more needs to be taken into account, particularly a high ethanol fuel percentage (10% in the not too distant future), but at this point (I've tried my best to keep things brief) I needed to outline the situation.”


ATL Reply 11th February 2013

“Thanks for your interesting enquiry.
The simple answer is Nitirile bladders will not stand up to these fuel. We have developed an all-fuel bladder but it comes at a cost... A bladder could be incorporated into a shell like this but the cost is going to be well over £800 per bladder and that would be based on a volume of 10 or more. I don't think this will be economical.

All of that said, we do rotomould from an advance plastic that is capable of pure Ethanol, Methanol and Gasolines of most blends. Again, dependant on the volumes it may be worth a look.”

DSM: http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/dep/akulon.htm

Akulon Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock (PA6)

1. Monolayer design permissible
2. Introduced 2012
3. Rotomould compatible
4. Inert curing atmosphere required

Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock press release: http://ir.aschulman.com/releasedetail.c ... eID=714344

ICO POLYMERS

I contacted ICO Polymers (A. Schulman) in August 2013 with the following email regarding Akulon Icorene 7620:

“I am enquiring about Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock and it's relative cost compared to standard PA6 nylon for motorcycle fuel tank applications. I have been fortunate by receiving your contact details.

I am in the process of rejecting via litigation, a 2011 KTM Superduke R due to the unacceptable properties and resulting issues that arise from the material specified for the fuel tanks employed by KTM.

Ducati settled in a class action lawsuit due to the same problem with tanks swelling, weakening and consequently leaking from the fuel pump flange & in the case of the Superduke – threaded inserts failing and providing an additional route for leakage.

This problem I believe stems from the introduction of ethanol in fuel in both the US and increasingly in Europe as well. As the content is set to increase, reports of tank problems will also increase & will explain why tank failure reports in Europe are catching up with reports from the US regarding the same issue.

From my research I am aware that not all PA6 nylons are “born” the same hence my enquiry.

I feel that in order to rectify the problem that is increasingly affecting more & more European motorcycles, the relative costs will be necessary to determine the grounds of further investigation in order to have these tanks manufactured to the standards consumers expect. I have argued with KTM directly that a fuel tank must remain dimensionally stable, chemically resistant and must not be perishable in nature. I'm not convinced nor happy that this inherent defect due to insufficient material specification is justified by KTM's “good will” gestures. Like Ducati, they simply replace the tank like for like when they fail. I had only completed 323 miles before I decided to reject the motorcycle – and this is with a “new” tank that had been fitted after my complaints with the original tank.

What excites me (if that's the correct word) is that Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock was developed recently and I believe in the interests of the OEM, manufacturing tanks whilst incurring the lowest financial impact is the best way forward. In other words a monolayer tank can only be taken into consideration realistically with the view to retain the original
manufacturing tooling.

The press release I'm referring to:

http://ir.aschulman.com/releasedetail.c ... eID=714344

1. Requirements: A tank that can be rotomould manufactured with a volume of approximately 19 litres, can be painted/pigmented & assuming that post cure dimensional shrinkage won't be an issue, would you be kind enough & be prepared to disclose a guideline relative cost difference between a commercial grade PA6 and your Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock please?

2. Can this material be supplied under licence to a rotomould manufacturing facility & processed under your guidelines?

3. Total volume of material is unsubstantiated but it will fall into the realms of high volume production.

Thanks you for your time & I hope to hear from you.”

Responses to email:

(US) A. Schulman response, 13th August 2013:
“The costing for this product and others like it for rotomolding will be similar - should not be a large price difference (at least on a nylon used here in the US). $3.50-4.50 USD per pound or so is a good estimate depending on volumes. Of course the resin market is in a constant state of flux so prices can vary daily.

I hope this information useful. Good luck with your Superduke.”

(EU) ICO Polymers response, 20th August 2013:

“Concerning your 3 questions I can reply as such:

1. Requirements: A tank that can be rotomould manufactured with a volume
of approximately 19 litres, can be painted/pigmented & assuming that
post cure dimensional shrinkage won't be an issue, would you be kind
enough & be prepared to disclose a guideline relative cost difference
between a commercial grade PA6 and your Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock please?

Find enclose a rotomoulding guide line of ICORENE 7620 FUEL LOCK. The
product is available mainly in black and natural so far. it can be painted
but not pigmented so far. the product has a special rotomoulding process.
We recommend to use more than 4 mm thickness part.

2. Can this material be supplied under licence to a rotomould
manufacturing facility & processed under your guidelines?

The material can be sold through A. Schulman entities to any rotomoulder.

3. Total volume of material is unsubstantiated but it will fall into the
realms of high volume production.

The price indication is so far about 9 euros/kg EXW. The difference in
price compare to a regular PA6 is linked to the technology to design this
special PA6 which prevent permeation of ethanol.”

I emailed the ICO Polymers / A Schulman contacts again this follow up email on 16th October 2013. This enquiry is based on my further understanding of Phase Separation, Hygroscopicity of Nylon & conditioning requirements of Akulon Icorene Fuel Lock 7620:

“Thank you very much for answering my questions & providing the informative data sheets. I have one final question regarding hygroscopicity of Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock.

Taking a process called phase separation into account (whereby water separates from the fuel & becomes freely available for absorption), does Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock have a high tendency to absorb moisture/water & is Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock dependent on finely controlled conditioning to reduce this tendency? I note the inert atmospheric requirements for rotomoulding Icorene 7620 Fuel Lock, I assume to optimise consistency & performance.

I ask the question above in relation to the following link:

http://www2.basf.us//PLASTICSWEB/displa ... e18000488a “

(EU) ICO Polymers response, 17th October 2013:

“Polyamide mechanical properties are usually sensitive to level of moisture. The conditioning of a polymide tank prior use is thus important. The conditioning allows the polyamide tank to absorb the water moisture of the air and reach its standard long term characteristics. After that except if you put tank in dry environment it won't change dramatically. For the moulding of tanks we usually recommend to let them absorbing moisture of the air for at least 1 full day before shipment for thicknesses of 3 mm. In the industry it is also common use to check for all these tanks leakage by water bath immersion. In this case the absorption of water is faster and can be used after this step.”

Hope it helps you.

(US) A. Schulman response, 17th October 2013:

“All nylons in this family will absorb moisture. There is nothing that can be done about atmospheric moisture uptake in nylon parts. The nitrogen purge you asked about for FuelLock is to prevent oxidation during the relatively slow process of roto molding.
Keep in mind that while moisture uptake can decrease some properties it can increase others. Moisture can act as a plasticizer and increase impact resistance (but may reduce flexural modulus)

Good Luck.”

CELANESE/TICOMA

http://www.celanese.com/engineered-mate ... ation.aspx

Fortron & Hostaform looks like potential candidates:

http://www.celanese.com/engineered-mate ... n-POM.aspx

I emailed Celanese (Ticoma) US & Europe 18th October 2013 with the following:

“I am enquiring about Hostaform/Celcon and it's relative behaviour compared to conventional PA6 nylon for motorcycle fuel tank applications. My enquiry is based on your webpage:
http://www.celanese.com/engineered-mate ... ation.aspx
I am in the process of rejecting via litigation, a 2011 KTM Superduke R due to the unacceptable properties and resulting issues that arise from the material specified for these tanks. I had only completed 323 miles before I decided to reject the motorcycle – and this is with a “new” tank that had been fitted after my complaints with the original tank.
I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to address the following with a brief response:

1. Hostaform/Celcon EPA/EU Directive 2009/30/EC Emissions Compliance
2. Hygroscopicity – in particular, dimensional stability
3. Chemical resistance to Petroleum & Ethanol
4. Influences on tensile/modular properties
5. Conditioning requirements
6. Approximate costs per Kilogram

Thankyou for your time & I hope to hear from you.”

Celanese (Ticoma) response 18th October 2013:

“This email is to acknowledge your inquiry and inform you your request has been forwarded to the appropriate department for follow up.

Thank you for your interest in Ticona products.”

As of 4th November 2013:

No further follow up has been received from Celanese.

ELKAMET

Elkamet tanks for automotive applications: http://elkamet.com/technischebehaelter.php

1. KTM motorcycle image on website.
2. Elkamet were purported to be the new manufacturers however this has been denied directly by KTM
3. “Elkamet do not manufacture Superduke fuel tanks”

Elkamet plastic fuel tanks for gasoline: http://elkamet.com/technischebehaelter_ ... ntanks.php

1. Yamaha XT660Z Tenere uses PA6 tanks manufactured by Elkamet. This is evident on their website plus I have contacted and confirmed with a seller of a Tenere tank on ebay that “Elkamet & PA6” is indeed marked on the tank.
2. Elkamet can integrate steel reinforcements within their rotomoulded products. This may improve fuel pump flange sealing integrity but won't address the swelling issue.
3. KTM appear to have their off-road tanks made by Elkamet.
4. “CE10 Fuel (10% Ethanol) is used in the stringent EPA test”:

http://elkamet.com/epapress.php

I emailed Sales, Guenter Simon & Volker Bier @ Elkamet on 18th & 22nd October 2013 with the following:

“I am enquiring about material specifications for motorcycle fuel tank applications.
I am in the process of rejecting via litigation, a 2011 KTM Superduke R due to the unacceptable properties and resulting issues that arise from the material specified for these tanks. I had only completed 323 miles before I decided to reject the motorcycle – and this is with a “new” tank that had been fitted after my complaints with the original tank.
I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to provide a brief response addressing the following regarding tanks for automotive application:

1. EPA/EU Directive 2009/30/EC Emissions Compliance
2. Hygroscopicity – in particular, dimensional stability
3. Chemical resistance to Petroleum & Ethanol
4. Moisture influences on properties of tensile/flexural modulus
5. Conditioning requirements
6. Approximate costs per Kilogram for a suitable material specification of your recommendation

I am based in the UK, thankyou for your time & I hope to hear from you.”

As of 4th November 2013:

No acknowledgement nor response received from Elkamet.

LYONDELL BASELL: http://www.lyondellbasell.com/Products/ ... FuelTanks/

1. Lupolen is rotomould compatible.

WALBRO: http://www.walbro.com/media/36792/Tank% ... -17-12.pdf

1. Excellent for high alcohol fuels.
2. Unaffected by slosh or abrasion.

ENSINGER: http://www.ensinger-online.com/en/mater ... olyamides/

1. Informative introduction.
2. Lists details of polymers on same page.

EVAL: http://www.eval.eu/media/15438/eval%20f ... inment.pdf

1. Fuel tank barrier technology & peformance.
2. Detailed 10 page PDF.

DEFORMED FUEL TANKS: http://www.deformedfueltanks.com

I contacted the moderator of this website early 2013 but sadly I received no response and the website hasn't been updated since August 2012.

PLASTICS NEWS

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/201 ... r-the-gun#

1. Ticona quoted stating Hostaform meets tank emissions standards.

TRIUMPH

I contacted Triumph as I believed they abandoned plastic fuel tanks several years ago and I kindly requested their opinion on the matter. I received call (Private Number) from Triumph 12th July 2013.

1. I was informed during the phone conversation that Triumph do employ plastic tanks on their Trophy model.
2. I was informed that Triumph have their plastic tanks manufactured to a compatibility equivalent of E25.
3. Once I learned of the Trophy fuel tank material, I asked if due to the physical volume of the plastic Trophy tanks (25 litre tank), would steel be undesirably expensive to tool & manufacture? Discussion briefly covered the pros & cons of tooling costs of steel vs plastic tanks.
4. Fuel additives were discussed regarding reaction & expansion witnessed by myself and that these should be considered.
5. I'm intrigued to know the manufacturer of Trophy fuel tanks and the material/process(es) employed.
6. Aesthetics are playing an increasingly influencial role in polymer fuel tank design so I have to assume that at some point, Triumph will employ polymer tanks across the range - not just for the largest displacement fuel tank as Speed/Street/Daytona models currently employ steel fuel tanks.
7. Triumph fuel tanks: Polyamide vs Steel. Is this is decision based on cost effectiveness of tooling & production by virtue of tank size?
8. Intricacy of design isn't completely limited in stamped steel/aluminium but retaining aesthetic appeal although vital, complicates tank design/manufacturing process further.
9. It's reassuring that Triumph have adopted the approach to tackle & address a minimum compliance to E25 but unfortunately Triumph appear to have been experiencing some teething issues. I began to harbour concerns of misdirection over what Triumph had disclosed during the phone call & immediately after the conversation I looked into this and it did not take long to discover that Triumph are having issues with the Trophy's fuel tank construction in North America. At this time & as stated, I'm not implying that this could be anything other than a manufacturing defect!

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/2013- ... 60753.html

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchVehicles - Use “2013” “Triumph” “Trophy” search terms

DUCATI

Currently, aluminium tanks are possible but limited in options:

http://www.ducatiuk.com/accessories/sup ... 1/index.do

Even if these tanks could be mass produced the cost of material/manufacturing will remain an obstacle although bear in mind that these tanks serve both functional & aesthetic roles.

Price (with hardware) £1,372.73

I believe Ducati supply aluminium fuel tanks on their flagship 1199 Panigale model & this raises more than just weight saving questions.

Alternative approach:

http://www.sandbarcomposites.co.uk/disp ... gory_id=44

1. California Cycleworks.
2. Made from cross linked polyethylene.
3. Price £746.65.

I think the reasoning behind the choice of cross linked polyethylene is completely sound.

http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index ... ic=43639.0

1. “Ducati NA are actively looking into the problem” - Based on the Girard Gibbs settlement (Section 10) Ducati have addressed the allegations with X-ring fuel pump seals, modified tank mounts & modified seat units (retooling? Cost?), reduced steering lock & complete tank replacements. The material itself doesn't appear to have been addressed. Have the alternative polyamides mentioned above been tested by Ducati et al?

GIRARD GIBBS

Girard Gibbs settlement document PDF: http://www.girardgibbs.com/docs/cases/6 ... notice.PDF

1. Although observations of the symptoms of the defect are important I believe the inadequacy of the current material's properties are the cause. I've examined as best I can the material specification & I've acquired alternative material/compound information (& some costs) to encourage re-evaluation of the existing material specification.
2. I have contacted Amy Zeman from Girard Gibbs, inviting her to read this post, make an assessment & if warranted, to be brought to the attention of an automotive engineer.
3. Post by russ russ, April 18th 2011 10:22PM, correspondence with Girard Gibbs: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16061&start=25

ACERBIS

The fuel tank manufacturer of Superduke fuel tanks (and others) should be demonstrating the expertise we expect from a company in their respective field. It's fair to expect them to understand the industry they specialise in and what materials/compounds perform to the best standards. They should exercise responsibility & adapt accordingly to the evolution of fuel blends in respect to the countries the tanks will operate in. The documented ill effects are highly undesirable and are well known.

Fuel composition is beyond the control of us all so “keeping up with the times” by improving material specification in accordance with altering fuel composition doesn't necessarily imply liability but not much appears to have been done to address the problem at foundation level & this I feel is inexcusable. We should also appreciate that the manufacturers are more than aware of the problem and I believe that they share accountability.

KTM

KTM COMPOSITE TANKS: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8461

I challenged KTM Austria & KTM UK with dossier (sent 19th February 2013) including the BASF data sheet, polymerplace fuel tank expectations (links at top) plus some of my own observations. I highlighted the class action lawsuit filed against Ducati & the probable link. I also raised concerns that stiffening the tank with integral steel reinforcements & thicker walls would only allow greater expansion pressures to transfer to weaker areas of the tank. The following responses are based on my accusations of defective material specification & I requested the report from KTM after the motorcycle was rejected. The report I received from KTM is as follows:

1. “Ducati have no relevance at all on this case or connection with KTM”

“With regard to the fuel tanks fitted to the KTM Super Duke R, the documentation states that when tested for :-”

1. “Mechanical strength – The type of tank fitted to your motorcycle has been test for 'leakproofness' and for rigidity of shape, the conclusion was the tank was not leaking or seriously deformed”
2. Resistance to fuel test – The test results didn't show any inadmissable negative influence to the tank material”
3. “Resistance to high temperature – The tank was not leaking or seriously deformed”
4. “Resistance to corrosion – the ground material of the tank and also the materials of the accessory parts are to be judged as suffficient corrosion resistant to the filling medium (UK pump fuel Super Unleaded ROZ 95, RON 95 PON 91) and also outside environmental influences.”

Regarding 'leakproofness' – as mentioned in correspondence from ICO Polymers, the 'leakproofness' may just involve leak testing by immersing the tank in water. In real world operation the scenario is quite different.

Regarding “resistance to corrosion” UK petroleum, premium unleaded is typically RON 95, Super Unleaded is typically RON 97/98 or higher still depending on vendor. The sticker on the side of Superduke fuel tanks state: “RON 95 Unleaded” - confusion is raised by KTM's statement in describing UK petroleum Super Unleaded RON.

Regarding “Mechanical Strength – rigidity of shape & tank was not seriously deformed” - this does not address nor answer the issue of compressive forces applied to the tank when in situ & exposed to fuel/heat cycling under normal operating conditions.

I judge this report/documentation to be a recital of an obsolete certificate of conformity. Both tanks had expanded well beyond their design limits, internal degredation was apparent thus I wasn't convinced at all by this report.

1st tank, total 264 miles covered: Discovery of tank expansion (taken July 2012):



Uploaded with

Laguna Motorcycles (whom I purchased the bike from) suggested the expansion could be the result of the breather circuit being blocked. If the integral breather circuit had collapsed/broken/blocked/gummed it would in all likelihood be due to material degredation:

http://apriliarsv.com/aprilia-rsvr/5629 ... aking.html

I tested both the rear exiting breather circuit & front exiting cap recess overflow routes for continuity – they were certainly not blocked.

1st tank, taken prior to collection for tank replacement: front bolt not fitted, note R/H rear mount separation (taken August 2012)



Uploaded with

2nd “new” tank, total 280 miles covered approx: Taken 4th August 2012 immediately after collection journey from AMS Motorcycles. Bike was collected again to have front bolt installed correctly by AMS Motorcycles.



Uploaded with

2nd tank, total 323 miles covered: Interior degredation, bubbling/swelling/rippling (taken 20th December 2012)



Uploaded with


Motorcycle was rejected November 2012 via solicitor. Although I requested, no opportunity was offered by Black Horse Finance to have the motorcycle inspected on my premises thus I instructed Black Horse that if the motorcycle was to be removed for inspection by KTM I would not be accepting it back because:

1. I do not confide in KTM.
2. I was concerned the tank would be changed/rear mounts modified/dehydrated to annul my rejection.

Black Horse insisted the motorcycle was taken away to have the 2nd tank inspected, again, by KTM.

Letter received from Black Horse Finance containing a copy of an email from Bernie Tiller KTM UK, sent to Black Horse 23rd January 2013:

“AMS have inspected the bike in depth, they have reported that there are no issues with the fuel tank at all, that tank is exactly the same as all 990 Super Dukes of this kind and perfectly serviceable.

The original fault and customer complaint was corrected by AMS some time ago and concerned the front tank mounting; it looked as though someone had removed the tank with the engine hot, when the tank was re-fitted the front mounting bolt was cross threadedmeaning the tank was not quite square on its front mounting and the rear mounting was out of line slightly.

If the tank had been like this as PDI it would undoubtedly have been noticed and this case not officially have been warranty, however as the bike was so new and the customer upset we agreed to correct the problem and fit a new tank free of charge as a goodwill gesture to the customer, AMS ordered up and fitted a brand new tank that appears to be the one still fitted. We still have the original tank retained at KTM UK should anyone wish to inspect it.

We should point out that this problem would not have caused any fuel leak or safety related issues!

The inspection carried out by AMS was very thorough and they have confirmed via email that there is no issue at all with Mr Hastings' bike.

To this end we would ask Mr Hastings to arrange collection of the bike at his first opportunity to avoid any storage costs from AMS Motorcycles.”

The above invitation to inspect the 1st tank came 5.5 months after it was replaced. I have to assume the tank is not fitted so any inspection is irrelevant and the tank has had ample time to dehydrate. This is the same tank that was replaced, as stated on the invoice because of rear mount separation.

Tank dehydration:

http://www.ducati.ms/forums/42-monster/ ... -back.html

For legal purposes the motorcycle is currently due for an independent inspection of the 2nd tank at AMS Motorcycles, Tewkesbury. The bike, currently fitted with the 2nd tank has been in the possession of AMS Motorcycles since January 2013 – 9.5 months to date (4th November 2013).

MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (MCI)

The following link is from KTM's website (Dealer & Service, Buy with Confidence)

http://www.ktm.com/gb/dealer-service/bu ... dence.html

In short I'm going through the motions as stated on the page but I remain dissatisfied with the result. Litigation is the only means I have to enforce rejection. A forum member (who has been of great assistance during this process) is struggling to have his tank replaced even after contacting the MD. KTM assured him it would be replaced but I'm not sure if he has yet been successful.

I have invited Motorcycle Industry Association to read & assess this post for themselves.

MCN

I contacted Chris Dabbs from MCN in July 2012, his initial response was discouraging. I have invited Chris to read and assess this post for himself.

KEVIN ASH

Kevin began pursuing the ethanol problem himself but I would like to see a conscientious interest expressed made by MCN.

http://www.ashonbikes.com/forum/ducati- ... n-problems


RIDE MAGAZINE

I have invited Ride Magazine to read & assess this post for themselves.

VOSA

1. I completed a Vehicle Defect Form with VOSA in August 2012, their investigation process basically involves retrieving the manufacturer's opinion.
2. The representative I have been in contact with is Martyn Ryder. If you decide to make an enquiry you will be sent a Vehicle Defect Form to complete. The defect I believe is in the material itself – the cause. The symptoms are the effect(s):

[email protected] (FAO Martin Ryder)

You'll land on page 2 of the discussion but both Martin Ryder & MCN are mentioned in the following post:

http://www.ducati.org/forums/multistrad ... nks-2.html

1. In this post, MCN appear to be interested in the problem (posted by Buell1203 March 22nd 2013 07:41 AM)
2. Member suggesting analysis/testing (posted by Buell1203 March 31st 2013, 10:58AM) Intuitively, analysing & establishing the petroleum/ethanol/water content contained within the PA6 of a tank exhibiting signs of expansion/structural degradation could very well identify the exact influence each element has on tank behaviour – in particular, water.
3. I have invited Martin to read & assess this post for himself.


BBC

I have invited BBC's Watchdog to read & assess this post regarding the fuel tank safety issues I harbour. I contacted them in relation to the BMW Mini power steering failure featured in September 2013:

I was driving my father's 2006 Audi A4 Quattro 2.0 TDI when a fault with the piezoelectric injectors triggered the ECU to shut down completely – no limp mode. The engine cut out & the power assisted steering became instantly redundant as a result. I have first hand experience of what happens when a system that's critical to safety is instantly rendered innoperable. With virtually no control of the steering, my only option was to “aim” for the kerb but thankfully I was travelling at no more than 20 mph at the time, with my old man on board. It was an eye opener & no doubt catylised my dim view of the safety and durability issues I have with the ongoing PA6 fuel tank situation.

Watchdog didn't appear to be very impressed with VOSA's intervention with BMW. I am loosely connected to the kit car scene and am aware of how strictly VOSA's I.V.A approval test (for low volume/kit cars) is governed. When a major manufacturer is challenged regarding safety/durabilty issues, little reassurance is on offer as I feel VOSA have only served as a communications go between which is frustrating.

NHTSA

I've read that the NHTSA won't get involved until a tank develops a leak but I have invited them to read & assess this post for themselves regardless.


SUMMARY:

A reasonable description of the PA6 issue from what I'm aware of bear strong similarities in comparing steel to steel or aluminium to aluminium. Large variations exist between differing alloys & I believe the same applies to Nylon to an extent. Specialist Nylon/polyamide companies have developed their compounds to suit the specific requirements for fuel tanks & these offer some insight. I've tried to the best of my abilities to tap into this and acquire information & costs to establish a wider perspective. As I have learned the issues of fuel permeation, chemical resistance and water absorption (hygroscopicity - hence dimensional stability) must be closely controlled. The plasticizing effect raises concerns also – I don't confide in water improving impact resistance of polyamides if the possiblity of deformation, leakage or insert failure is raised.

Naturally occuring atmospheric humidity is a factor – I witnessed this with the original tank of the 2011 Superduke R: I had removed the front bolt to investigate tank misalignment only to find the tank relaxed excessively. I gauged the gap between the front eyelet & the steering bearing dust cap as it would grow/shrink by the thickness of a piece of paper from one day to the next before the bike was collected & the tank consequently replaced. I know a fraction of a millimeter is trivial but approximate total growth was 5mm – this expansion is expected to be contained within the confines of the mounting system thus applying unnecessary longitudinal stress to the tank & the mounts themselves. I'm aware of the Motohooligan mounts but these don't put my mind at ease given what I've seen on the inside of the tank(s) and images of other tanks online. Ducati's settlement combats both longitudinal & transverse expansion.

Fuel stabilisers have been mentioned frequently but I'd prefer to avoid using these if possible because I used to add both lead replacement additive to my Mini(s) & two stroke premix oil to my road registered 1998 Honda CR125. I'm not keen to take up old habbits, I don't have access to Ethanol free fuel & I don't agree to buying fuel additive for an £11,000 brand new motorcycle.

The political debate is difficult to address because of the sheer mass. I'm not fan of ethanol but I'd prefer to avoid placing blame on either governments or oil companies at this time. EPA & EU Directive 2009/30/EC stipulating permeation limits is beyond our control. Fuel additives may play a part but should be accounted for by default. Chemical resistance & dimensional stability have been compromised vs adherence to increasingly stringent fuel permeation limitations and I feel that this equation must be balanced in the interests of both safety & the environment. If ethanol biofuels are here to stay, adaptation appears to be the only measure and a suitable material specification/tank construction must be identified.

As the problem is well established in North America and is becoming more commonplace here in Europe, accounting for the future will certainly prove to be problematic if/when ethanol content in fuel is increased. As a consequence, future proofing this problem is going to be a challenge. A motorcycle's fuel tank should be expected to remain chemically & dimensionally stable for the life of the motorcycle and must not be perishable in nature.

As demonstrated, various compounds exist that have been developed with the rotomoulding technique in mind, yet the inadequacies of the compound currently employed, whatever the reason may be, results in questionable fuel tank quality & raises safety concerns. Other ramifications include damage during servicing & influence on depreciation as the problem becomes common knowledge.

Although at this time there's no guarantee, if a new compound can be specified that is suitable by fulfulling our expectations & costs are controlled, we require a tank solution that:

1. Requires a single (mono)layer construction. Tank capacity would also benefit without the need for an inner layer.
2. No barrier application (fluorination adds cost, impacts the environment & may have compliance issues with slosh/abrasion tests.) The premature reactions I've witnessed may be the breakdown of the fluorination treatment (if applicable).
3. Can accept either integrated captive inserts (present during moulding) or captive inserts that are welded sonically (installed after moulding).
4. Retention of the original rotomould tooling*.
5. EPA/ EU Directive 2009/30/EC compliant.
6. Recyclable.


Requirements of a newly specified material:

1. Provide sufficient chemical resistance and dimensional stability ideally for the life of the motorcycle.
2. Cured dimensional compliance with use of original tooling.
3. Thermal resistance to engine heat & direct sunlight.
4. Can be painted as desired.
5. Most not soften sufficiently to compromise the purchase on sonically welded threaded inserts.
6. Most not soften sufficiently to compromise the sealing quality & interface between the dissimilar materials of the fuel pump and tank mating flanges.
7. Minimum “E” (ethanol) compatibility rating of fuel tank clearly marked and/or material compound stated on tank for traceability.
8. * Tooling modified for point 7.
9. Real World testing.

As a result of separation and the water that's present thereafter, a derivative of Nylon may be viable but will ultimately depend on the compound itself & who will supply the material. Depending on whether a suitable compound of PA6 can be identified, if moisture absorption/chemical resistance can't be sufficiently controlled; in my opinion, PA6 is fundamentally flawed.

Sanctions should be in place to ensure that long term chemical, thermal resistance & dimensional stability are established with a newly specified compound which could at least provide some assurance that new tanks are fully capable of performing the role that they are intended to serve. Type Approval is meant to serve this purpose but I'm perplexed as to how this process has failed completely in this regard.

The total surface area of motorcycles' fuel tanks compared to cars creates concerns that motorcycling has gained an additional risk factor for the sake of emissions. Sadly, I see this as a beaurocratic solution to an engineering problem especially if polyethylene tanks provide satisfactory performance. Walbro also specialise in multilayer tanks but these will no doubt cost more to produce.

Japanese manufacturers continue to use steel tanks by themselves or cosmetic covered steel tanks on motorcycles with tank capacities significantly larger than off road machinery. 2013 CBR600RR, CBR1000RR Fireblade, CB1000R, R1, R6, GSXR1000 fuel tanks are all made from steel. Sports bikes either have their tanks partially or fully covered with a dummy tank cover.

It's conceivable that most other makes/models can have either a steel/aluminium tank retrofitted as per the above paragraph but the expense will be higher than a polyamide tank. I certainly have little confidence in the long term durability of KTM/Acerbis branded nylon fuel tanks so to build upon the idea I conveyed to ATL regarding a retrofit internal solution (although this idea will inevitably cause a loss of tank capacity which is always undesirable), an alternative to this idea would be to incorporate a conventional steel fuel tank integrally moulded with a plastic “skin” via rotomoulding. In principal, a steel tank would be assembled in rotomould tooling & coated:

1. Steel tanks, manufactured as per status quo but in addition chemically/mechanically etched externally & coated/plated internally.
2. For the tank to be rotomoulded in plastic, tank design would obviously require strategic undersizing to permit accomodation in rotomould & the rotomould itself will require adaptation. It's likely this is entering the realms of low pressure injection moulding & may sound overly complicated but depending on the flow characteristics of the coating polymer, no separate dummy tank cover tooling required as per steel tank/panel method & in addition would provide some spark resistance also.
3. The goal (as per ATL bladder solution) is to eliminate the polymer/fuel interface thus the polymer need not be fuel sensitive. Potentially a reasonable/good tank capacity is possible.
4. Steel mating faces (mounts, fuel pump flange) are permissible, dimensional stability is inherent, aesthetics & permeation are fully compliant although recyclability is compromised.
5. Provisions made for sonically welded captive inserts intended for low load panel/fairing support etc.

The rotomould tool effectively becomes static. Integrating a water cooling phase – with tank's inside coated, could accelerate cooling rates. Rotomoulding process can be viewed on YouTube. Other than cannibalising a suitable alternative tank, then cutting/modifying and using the original tank as a cover, this is best I can provide you all with.

Next step

I kindly request that the forum moderators consider raising awareness of this post via a bulk PM if possible & to set up a registrant page. Basic information should be kept minimal but to include the following:

1. Motorcycle make/model/year
2. Brief details i.e., tank failure/receipt of new tank(s) etc.
3. Your location (nation/county – nothing too specific).

In additional to the above, Facebook/social media etc could be useful to contact fellow riders who may benefit from reading this post & to get involved.

I hope that we're in the position now to not only ask the right questions to the right people but to expect comprehensive answers as well. It boils down to three basic points of view:

1. You're happy with your polymide fuel tank as it is.
2. You would prefer action to be taken to explore alternative polyamides, multilayer construction (Walbro) or internal bladder (ATL Laboratories).
3. You would prefer action to be taken to have a metallic based alternative made available for your make & model.

Content distribution list:

apriliaforum.com
ducatiforum.org
ducati.ms
ducatimonsterforum.org
KTM Forums
Superduke.net
MCN Forum

MY CIRCUMSTANCES

I'm a time served (MOD Indentured) Rotary Wing Airframe Technician and have a keen interest in engineering in general, particularly automotive & racing. The principal driving forces of this post have been viability & cost. I've felt compelled in the last 15 months to understand the situation & research accordingly to the best of my ability.

On top of 100s of hours invested in research, in the interests of pursuing a refund to the sum of £3,000 from Black Horse Finance by rejecting said 2011 Superduke R at the earliest opportunity (323 miles covered + two tanks), my legal costs are now in the region of £24,000. This rejection is now hurting, badly, however I would be doing myself and others an injustice to give up now. Costs incurred only exacerbate my complete dissatisfaction with both KTM & their affiliates because they fail to acknowledge the problem exists and for KTM's failure to address it accordingly.

I am more than content with the quality of my 1998 Honda CB600 Hornet and its dependable, durable & safe steel fuel tank. If it happened to be a brand new motorcycle I wouldn't be obliged by contract to have the tank forced into place after compulsory servicing schedules that require the tank to be lifted. In general use, I'm happy to take my chances with a tank that sparks in the event of a crash as opposed to tank that may be responsible for causing a crash in the first place. I can trust the structural integrity & sealing ability of steel.

I hope the forum moderators will be willing to assist, their input at this stage would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to thank all who have put their concerns forward about this. Thanks to the Superduke.net forum, to Frank, Weeksy, Paul, Bic & everyone else for your cooperation, input and assistance.

This experience has been woeful. Buying into KTM was meant to enhance life – instead it's ruining it. Regretably this is the first & certainly the last time I buy into KTM's brand.

Thanks for your time,

Jim

[email protected]

FURTHER READING

Post alleging issues in Germany (post by Faltenhals, January 8th 2013 8:38PM ).

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20763

Superduke Tank reports

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20052&p=241682&hilit=tank+leak#p241682 (Gas strut mount leak)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=13754&p=257755&hilit=fuel+gas+tank#p257755 (Leak at rear mounts)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21323 (Fuel pump flange)
viewtopic.php?t=10626&highlight=tank+bolt+leak (Shrouds/fairing)
viewtopic.php?t=8706&highlight=tank+leak+bolt (Shrouds/fairing)
viewtopic.php?t=7366&highlight=tank+leak+bolt (Shrouds/fairing)
viewtopic.php?t=5772&highlight=tank+leak+bolt (post by geezer August 18th 2008 5:54PM)


Superduke fuel tank installation methods

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15245&p=177576&hilit=ratchet+straps#p177576 (Ratchet straps: last post on page)
http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.p ... 02&page=14 (Pry bar)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17310&p=201130&hilit=tank#p201130 (Front collar modofication)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8236 (Push over stud conversion)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10961&p=124208&hilit=install+fuel+gas+tank#p124208 (Rear mount milling) which is similar to Motohooligan solution:
http://www.motohooliganperformance.com/ ... duct_id=60

Harley Davidson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egslC4_p ... r_embedded

Consumer advice (at this point in time I find the following bemusing):

http://www.wragge.com/published_articles_8212.asp
The above link is co written by my current opposition: David Bowden
Given the hassle I've received from Black Horse/SCM Solicitors, from my experience so far, the article is hypocritical.

Extra vehicle rejection links:

http://www.bermans.co.uk/plug/content/c ... ontent.550
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/3 ... r-used-car – no response received from Jon Morgan

General consumer advice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_expectations_test
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... ion/5/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Google index key words:

KTM Superduke SMT Ducati Monster 1198 Panigale Aprilia RSV RSV4 Moto Guzzi MV Agusta Harley Davidson deformed swollen leaking leak PA6 nylon fuel gas petrol tank tanks mumps

I admire your passion. .. however in my field something this long and detailed requires an executive summary or at least s conclusion.

What is your position on it all?

Hi Jim,

I can only take my hat off to you for the work and persistence that you have dedicated to this issue.

Without getting into specifics all materials have drawbacks. Metals dent, spark when crashed, corrode etc. Plastics crack and deform for all sorts of reasons and anything else will have +/- as well. The art of manufacturing engineering is to chose a compromise that gives the most + with the least - whilst meeting minimum standards for whatever it is you are making at an affordable price.

My basic point is this - Life (including yours) is short and full of challenges. A sub optimal fuel tank which gets swapped out when / if it becomes obviously problematic is not one of the bigger issues any of us will face. Are you sure that spending 24K and all that time is a sensible use of your resources?? At best you will force a design re think at worst you are depriving yourself of all the other positive things you might be able to do / achieve with the time and resources.

I can only hope you eventually get satisfaction. If it were me at this stage I would swallow hard, take back and sell the bike, settle the bills and return to whatever gives me most satisfaction never giving plastic fuel tanks another thought.

Whatever you decide to do I wish you luck!!!

He's got a point. I feel the same when I get ripped off and all they do is put a plaster on the wooden leg. (sic)
In a way we have the greenies to blame for this and as a matter of fact they made things worse. In the old days we had lead in petrol which was not too good agreed. But (now it comes) it saved a lot of hassle and when it came out of the exhaust pipe it fel to the ground and ended up where it came from. Not very good but also not the worst.
Now we have heaps (do some research) of nasty chemicals in our fuel to replace the baddy (read lead). Your trusty cat will absorb them and all is good...NOT. Cats work only when hot and after a good good sprint down the road. This made impossible due to speed = kills, works only if we're lucky in 30% of our normal riding in cars, as for the other 70% we sit idle at the lights, traffic jams, intersections and so on.
A study in the 90s found that there was a 80% increase in nose and throat cancers from people living near traffic lights and intersections (not all were smokers) this due to the nasty chemicals found in petrol (gas to you 'mericans) being expelled by vehicles sitting idle at the lights. Now we need alcohol in the fuel. Why I don't know ... unless you live in Brazil and have heaps of it growing where the rainforest used to be.
Same with palm oil. Been to Borneo recently? I have. Not a square mile of rainforest left in most parts. You can drive from Kota Kinabalu to Lahu Datu and all you see is palm trees. Very sad indeed.

Anyway, unless we don't buy in to it, the plastic tanks are here to stay and so is the ethanol so hopefully we complain enough so something gets done about the issue.

Thank you all very much for your constructive input & encouragement to date. Here's an update if you're interested:

VOSA

Email sent November 5th 2013:

“Dear Martin,

I've posted the findings of my research I've been performing since we were in touch last regarding the ongoing PA6 nylon fuel tank troubles.
I have placed everything that I have acquired in the following post:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22369
There is simply too much information to cover in this email. You're kindly invited to read the thread for yourself but it's quite long.
Content has also been posted on the following list:
1. apriliaforum.com
2. ducatiforum.co.uk
3. ducati.ms
4. ducatimonsterforum.org
5. KTM Forums
6. Superduke.net
7. MCN Forum

I hope I have supplied enough useful information to bring to light that the material specification is questionable. I have encouraged the forum moderators to coordinate the actions of everyone who feels the same about this situation, the aim being to maximise the efficiency of communication.
I hope that everything is clear and well presented. Hopefully I will hear from you soon.”

VOSA response November 6th 2013:

“Dear Mr Hastings

Thank you for your email dated 5 November 2013.

The Vehicle Safety Branch of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
investigates reports within the terms of the Code of practice on Vehicle
Safety Defects (the Code) (copy attached).

(See attached file: 2381 Code of Practice.pdf)

A safety related defect, within the terms of the Code, is a failure due to
design or construction, which is likely to affect the safe operation of the
product without prior warning to the user and may pose a significant risk
to the driver, occupants and others. This defect will be common to a
number of products that have been sold for use in the United Kingdom.

The information you have supplied and the evidence that this office holds
does not suggest a defect as defined within the terms of the Code.

Yours sincerely

Martin Ryder”

Reply to VOSA email sent 6th November 2013:

“Hello Martin,

Thanks for your reply, I would be very grateful if you could shed some light on the following:

http://www.ducati.org/forums/multistrad ... nks-2.html

Thanks

Jim”

VOSA response November 8th 2013:

“Dear Mr Hastings,

Thank you for your email dated 7 November 2013.

The information that you have sent in is not recent. At the time I received
a very small number of reports of tank concerns on Ducati. The reasons for
failure were not proven to be a result of either design or construction and
therefore not within the terms of the Code of Practice on Vehicle Safety
Defects.

Safety Defect - A safety related defect is a failure due to design and/or
construction, which is likely to affect the safe operation of the product
without prior warning to the user and may pose a significant risk to the
driver, occupants and others. This defect will be common to a number of
products that have been sold for use in the United Kingdom.

(See attached file: 2517 Consumer guide to vehicle safety defects Nov
13.pdf)

If you would like to discuss your concerns further please feel free to
call.

Yours sincerely

Martin Ryder”

NHTSA

I contacted NHTSA early November 2013 with the same message as that sent to VOSA:

NHTSA response November 5th 2013:

“Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Vehicle Safety Hotline Information Center.

The U.S. Department of Transportation provides you assistance and information regarding vehicle safety, recalls or defects of motor vehicle equipment. We have received your request, but need further clarification on your issue.

Please provide us with additional information so that we can better assist you.

If you need additional information on our services please feel free to contact us at 1-888-327-4236.

Thank you,

NHTSA.dot.gov Response Team”

I have not phoned either the NHTSA nor VOSA as I desire written responses only. The responses above have not surprised me in the least. Martin's answer in my opinion is incomplete & he has clearly failed to acknowledge the ethanol/nylon relationship. I fail to understand how much more information NHTSA require – other than perhaps a death certificate in order to warrant further action.

GIRARD GIBBS

Email sent November 5th 2013:

“Dear Amy,

My name is Jim Hastings and I am based in the UK.
I am contacting you in regard to the research I've been performing since July 2012 concerning the ongoing PA6 nylon fuel tank troubles. I have rejected a 2011 KTM Superduke R under Sales of Goods Act, here in the UK on the grounds that the fuel tanks are not fit for purpose.
To cut a very long story short I'm aware from the following post that you have been contacted concerning KTM fuel tanks:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16061&start=25
I have placed everything that I have acquired in the following post:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22369
There is simply too much information to cover in this email. You're kindly invited to read the thread for yourself but it's quite long.
Content has also been posted on the following list:
1. apriliaforum.com
2. ducatiforum.co.uk
3. ducati.ms
4. ducatimonsterforum.org
5. KTM Forums
6. Superduke.net
7. MCN Forum

I hope I have supplied enough useful information to bring to light that the material specification is questionable. I have encouraged the forum moderators to coordinate the actions of everyone who feels the same about this situation, the aim being to maximise the efficiency of communication.
I hope that everything is clear and well presented. Hopefully I will hear from you soon.”


Follow up email sent November 8th 2013

“Dear Amy,

Apologies in advance for being a nuisance, did you receive my email sent November 5th?

Regarding the link to my post, do you feel that this can be taken into consideration? I've been informed that Ducati may now be using steel for their 1200 Monster fuel tanks and this troubles me.

It would be great if the situation is rectified - I'm not out to cause trouble but for those who are affected, it would be great to resolve this problem with a solution that could be considered permanent & would no doubt restore faith in manufacturers that both myself and many others have placed their trust in.”


Amy Zeman response November 8th 2013:

“Hi Jim,

Thank you for your emails. I did receive your email on Monday, and I am working through your extensive forum post and discussing the situation with colleagues. I hope to be in touch soon with more information.”

I will email Amy again to raise awareness of this particular update.

MCN

I have contacted Chris Dabbs twice now with no success in receiving a response.

I've been in discussion with a member of the MCN forum:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/commu ... -id=445230

The discussion covers preparation of nylon for epoxy coating & pitfalls of fluorination. Although now I feel I should have previously covered this in more detail, the discussion covers this topic more than adequately. Please also refer to the QinetiQ link supplied by James.


CONDEMNATION OF PA6 NYLON:

1. Etching & plating/epoxy & fluorination treatment: etching/keying nylon prior to epoxy, whether chemically or mechanically is not a process I am familiar with. Fluorination is dubious, I don't trust this process & won't entertain the notion that fluorination is acceptable, period. Steel on the other hand may be electroplated, it can also be chemically or mechanically etched prior to epoxy coating. In short steel can be treated in two guises and no doubt executed reliably. Dimensional stability of steel would undoubtedly produce more reliable results with epoxy than nylon but I don't think this process is necessary whereby electroplating would probably perform to a higher standard in the long term. I doubt Ducati's Monster & Panigale (both steel & aluminium) tanks are epoxy coated. Mixed results have occurred with epoxy coated nylon & although some specialists have achieved good results this is a process that falls to the responsibility of the individual and will annul mechanical warranty in the event of epoxy failure.
2. Emissions: zero permeation with steel tanks & will always outperform nylon & high density polyethylene in this respect.
3. Tank volume: this will always be higher with steel, contributing to both increased tank range & convenience.
4. Dents/damage: A low cost/easy to replace plastic cover will perform a sacrificial & cosmetic role by absorbing impact & protecting the steel tank from dents. This is not possible with raw nylon.
5. Spark suppression: this will be reduced with a plastic cover/skin but falls at the bottom of my list of priorities. The reason being is that in the event of a crash, rider & motorcycle will in all likelihood separate. A fire won't be as catastophic compared to a crash induced fuel tank rupture in a passenger car.
6. Ducati Monster 1200/899 Panigale tanks – this represents the final nail in the coffin for PA6 nylon. The tanks themselves are not as large as tourer tank (Triumph Trophy for example) thus cost saving issues fail to come into the equation. I believe that this undeniably represents Ducati's lost faith in nylon tanks. Although unconfirmed, by studying photos of the Monster tank I have identified a strong similarity of the lower seam of these tanks with all other steel tanks I have owned/observed in the past.
7. I'm confident you've reach the same conclusion that I have regarding moisture content issues detailed in correspondences with the plastics companies I have contacted. I have no faith that any grade of nylon, irrespective of material supplier with fulfil our requirements & expectations.
8. Weight saving: see below.

An interesting article regarding Ducati's 899 Panigale:

http://www.visordown.com/features/7-thi ... 23694.html

The page states that the 899 Panigale steel tank is actually lighter than the plastic tank on the 848 Evo. I stated previously that the 1199 Panigale uses an aluminium tank & I'm pleasantly surprised to see another new Ducati model with a metallic fuel tank. If there is no plastic cover involved, the intricate contours of the 899 imply that a Superduke version is almost certainly feasible in steel only (no cover panel).

At some point I will endeavour to investigate & make enquiries with tank manufacturers to establish the viability & costs of steel Superduke fuel tanks but I don't expect to progress very far. If the complexity of the Superduke tank shape can be reproduced in steel, theoretically all other make/model tanks can be reproduced in steel & treated accordingly with considerable ease. I've not mentioned aluminium simply due to the comparable material cost of aluminium vs steel.

Reference to shadowman's post, thanks for your input but I am far too committed to retract my rejection by betraying both my conviction & my principles. I agree that a design compromise is always present but hopefully I have fully justified why the steel vs nylon debate is a no brainer. Given the choice what would you all prefer?

PLASTIC/POLYMER

1. Like for like tank (No, not from experience).
2. Alternative PA6 compound tank (No confidence).
3. High Density Polyethylene HDPE tank (Excessive permeation & weakens legal argument).
4. Multilayer Walbro style tank (Not convinced especially if construction is similar to Triumph Trophy).

STEEL (Permeation fully addressed)

5. Fully formed tank (maximum capacity but low spark resistance).
6. Part formed & covered tank (improved spark resistance but additional costs of cover tooling & cover itself. Less capacity than 5 but possibly more than plastic by comparison).
7. Coated, part formed tank (Possible reduction in tooling costs compared to 6 but only with retention of rotomould tooling. Less capacity than 5 & no cost effective sacrificial panel but improved spark resistance. Unlikely option.)

I think from a practical & cosmetic point of view, option 6 is best suited as an overall compromise, i.e., a common Japanese arrangement - however Ducati now appear to employ option 5 on the 1200 Monster, possibly the same on the 899 Panigale so I think we all have good grounds for argument. The lower flanks of the Superduke tank provide the complication and I think this will be the deciding factor.

My only prerogative now is to force a redesign & this is the only option as far as I'm concerned. Whether KTM commission this themselves or a third party manufacturer get involved independently is of no consequence as KTM must be held liable & finance the metallic alternative that I hope will be implemented via litigation.

Ktmguy has hit the nail on the head, all of this could go to waste if no action is taken on your part & I've taken this as close to logical conclusion as humanly possible. It's your choice to make yourselves heard, I can't do this for you. After all that I have submitted, as demonstrated, NHTSA & VOSA have no interest in pursuing this problem. Martin stated that the information is not recent – If he's refering to the Ducati link I supplied (dated March 2013), I would argue that this is very recent. As it stands, further discrimination of my findings in terms of age is plainly ignorant on behalf of Martin & VOSA.

I've refrained from mentioning this until now but only a class action lawsuit will circumvent the issues with PA6 nylon in order to produce a permanent solution. A similar outcome to Ducati's settlement would be wholely unwelcomed by, I assume, all of us. Remember, this problem won't go away & will in all likelihood deteriorate. Ducati were sued due the symptoms, I want KTM sued because of the defective nature of the material itself. To that effect, Ducati may be liable to be sued for the second time.

As it stands & to put it bluntly, KTM need to be sued sooner rather than later and forced to remanufacture all nylon tanks in KTM's range. The manufacturer/supplier question is answered with Ducati's or Triumph's metallic tank manufacturer or by a similar outfit.

As far as my circumstances are concerned, I am currently waiting for a date to be finalised to have the independent inspection conducted. Although I sense Black Horse will try their best to obstruct my attendance – as I am defendant in this case I will exercise my rights to be present during the inspection. AMS Motorcycles have denied any issues with the tank and I will not accept an inspection in my absense whilst under biased supervision.

I will update you all once litigation has been concluded & I will provide a detailed explanation of the process and outcome from the trial. Any possibility of a settlement materialising, I envisage will only occur on the trial date and at this point it's extremely unlikely that I'll agree to any proposal made by Black Horse. I have worked extremely hard to argue my position & to prepare for trial; I want my costs returned, I want compensation and I want those implicated to be held accountable. My costs have spiralled out of control (now £26k and counting), a 1 day trial will cost between £25,000-£30,000 plus VAT & Laguna Motorcycles have been indemnified by Black Horse thus are liable for all costs. I wont accept defeat & the total costs could irreparably damage both Laguna Motorcycles' finances & reputation (remember, MCN awarded Laguna Motorcycles for the second year running, dealership of the year “2013”):

http://www.laguna.co.uk/pages/laguna-ne ... r-2013.htm

To reiterate points made previously, the comment in the link above made by Jim Montgomery (Laguna's in house “KTM expert”) - other than making me feel nauseous, is the same Jim Montgomery who provided the now familiar “check breather for blockage” diagnostic spiel & who ultimately hung me out to dry.

Again, I also have my reservations as to whether AMS Motorcycles have already changed the 2nd tank. The pending inspection would be a pointless exercise that further adds to costs. No issues were reported, contrary to the photos I have submitted previously so there will be dire consequences if attempted deception is realised – irrespective of tank dehydration, rear mount modification/motohooligan mounts or complete tank substitution.

The trust & faith I placed in KTM, Black Horse Finance, Laguna & AMS Motorcycles has irrefutably & irreversibly evolved into the purest of resentment.

I think that's it for the time being,

Thanks for reading,

Jim

Thanks for keeping us updated.

As for Laguna being dealership of the year... they must have had a big change around as do a search on this site and I'm sure you'll find that the place hasn't the best reputation on this site... I've never been so cannot comment on that matter though.

Tell them your filing a claim through the state AG's office,,as this is an "emmisions issue" and "unsafe" , possibly explosive,,

Good luck Jim.
Had the tanks off my adventure for a couple of weeks, those things changed shape so badly, There's no way I can get the lower fixing points in, they are about an inch out!

Email to Girard Gibbs sent 6th December 2013:

“Hello Amy,
I have updated the post with a few more pieces of information that I hope will be of use. The first part was intended to create awareness & understanding of PA6 nylon plus alternatives, the second part I hope demonstrates what everyone's thinking including bikes that are both within & out of warranty.
There aren't as many links to click this time but the two links for MCN & Ducati strongly support the argument itself, helping to put everything into perspective.
I'll leave it with you.”

Reply from Girard Gibbs 9th December 2013:

“Jim, thank you for your email.
We have determined that we are unable to pursue this matter on your behalf.
Please keep in mind that our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the merit of any legal claims you may have.
Please be advised that should you wish to pursue any claims you may have in this matter, it is important that you consult another attorney promptly, as the passage of time affects your rights.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your case.”

I think now I should have emphasised to Amy that the purpose of the post is in the interest of class action litigation i.e., FOR YOU GUYS! – & not in direct concern of my personal circumstances as I have a solicitor. But it's not all doom & gloom even though the email above categorically severs any further action I can take on your behalf.

We know that contacting NHTSA or VOSA is a waste of time & my proposal to create a plaintiff page has gone completely overlooked. I could have done this myself but I had hoped to receive the support of the forum moderators. As it stands, it doesn't seem to be the best method compared to that described below.

My solicitor who has been handling my case for the last 7 months is David Kirwan of Kirwan's Solicitors, he's no doubt in the best position in the UK to spearhead a UK based class action & I have a great deal of confidence in him. Obviously, Girard Gibbs are up to speed.

If you are in the UK please email [email protected]
If you are in the USA please email [email protected]

I would title any email sent with something akin to:
“(Make/Model) PA6 nylon fuel/gas tank class action lawsuit re: Superduke.net post.”

Feel free to provide you own description of issues along with photos. I would also suggest which “option” you would like to see implemented. (Please see post dated Thursday December 5th 2013 for options list).

The following link is referenced to Ducati News & it appears that only 300 people or so initiated Ducati's lawsuit.

http://www.bellperformance.com/blog/bid ... thanol-Gas

Take it easy & get that email sent!

Jim

This may or may not prove to be positive for current 990 owners but I've quoted from the following thread:

http://www.ducati.ms/forums/138-streetf ... e-r-9.html

“I spoke with KTM reps at the Cycle Show and they swear the plastic tank on the 1290 is different material than the tanks on the Duke 990's that experienced ethanol swelling, so good news there if true. Looks great and as noted the price seems fair.”

With nearly 18 months spent contesting the extolled virtues of Superduke tanks I find the US KTM representatives have expressed recognition of my grievances in what we already know. This u-turn continues to add suspicious payload to KTM's dishonesty.

KTM's aspirations continue to grow as they're pushing into the Asian markets (India namely) & I doubt they will complain about quality & customer service as much as the West does. I just don't think KTM give a damn about it's Western customer base.

Is it likely that all Adventure, RC8 & Superduke model tanks will be reissued in this new grade polymer? I wouldn't hold your breath however it wouldn't be unreasonable to email KTM to confirm this for yourselves.

I'm fairly convinced this is why NHTSA, VOSA & Girard Gibbs have expressed little interest. Perhaps KTM's intention was to address the problem by letting it fly under the radar without anyone knowing - their excuse no doubt will be due to increased permeation adherence thus permitting the continuation of their denial but this won't scan courtesy of the Ducati thread.

I don't think this minor revelation will do my defence any harm – it can't get any worse.

As you now know a reasonable spectrum of polymers are available & I was optimistic at first but the feeling rapidly waned with further research along with the communications presented previously. Has Ducati (allegedly) taken the correct action by going back to metallic tanks? Will this new polymer grade work? AMS are asking £13,995 for their 1290 SD & a price tag this high says it has to. Only time will tell but I think all this has been a waste of time & I've failed the community.

KTM: A “family” of deceit.

This is a damn fine piece of work you have done, Jim.

I have had 3 fuel tanks for the 990 Superduke. One carbon fiber, which was unsafe and cracked while driving, sending fuel down onto the hot engine, and two "plastic" tanks. One was completely new, the other used

Both plastic tanks where a pain in the ass to mount.

I feel the same way about KTM.

Hello Anders,

Thanks for the encouragement & thanks to others who have expressed the same sentiment. Coincidentally I was reading your post again the other day just before I stumbled on the Ducati thread posted above.

I came across this just now:

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-new ... 23845.html

“A brand new steel fuel tank with 9,5l capacity (including 1,5l reserve) has been developed for the RC, perfectly matching the supersport style and vehicle design, together with rider ergonomics. Thanks to the economic engine the RC achieves impressive efficiency even when ridden hard for a considerable distance.”

Confirmed by KTM themselves:

http://www.ktm.com/supersport/rc-390/highlights.html

Click on the “ergonomics” tab, scroll down to the “fuel tank” section for confirmation from KTM. I've never expected the need for the press to highlight the use of steel fuel tanks unless there is an incentive to inspire confidence i.e., exisiting polymer tanks are flawed.

I mentioned that Ducati allegedly are reverting back to steel & KTM have done so already to a degree. Looking at Triumph again: steel for smaller tanks, cheaper polymer for larger tanks and the 25 litre Triumph Trophy tanks were recalled due to failure. The polymer tank trend sadly, is being applied to more expensive equipment i.e., larger tank volumes expected from bikes like the Triumph Trophy & the £14k 1290 SD.

I got the impression from Amy @ Girard Gibbs that class action is viable but requires people (hence class) to get in touch and count yourselves in. I will be contacting the Gilbert Law Group shortly to find out if they will “host” a class action against KTM nonetheless and will update Amy with this thread's progress. I know this won't appease most if not all forum users but based on today's developments, how can you deny the facts?

Slightly off topic but my application to open a business bank account was rejected yesterday because Black Horse Ltd have placed a default status on my credit report. I did not default, I rejected the motorcycle under Sales of Goods Act as not fit for purpose & until this dispute is settled legally, Black Horse Ltd have no right to perform such actions.

This is turning into a full blown David & Goliath battle; the more my opponents infuriate me, the more determined I am to beat them. It's extremely difficult now not to imply hatred & it's not my intention but that's just the way it is – they're liars.

And so the plight continues... How do you feel about suing for steel fuel tanks now? You'll gain more capacity, less weight & peace of mind.

I'm American and as the World knows, We're all for a good lawsuit. Hell, we even call them a class action. Jim, you got class for taking action. Talk about insult to injury, fuckinwith a man's wallet after you've robbed him of his ride.
It seems that there may be a light down at the end of this tunnel and it is certainly too late to turn around now.

I think it's a good thing to sue - not only for the people that own the bikes now, but also for future owners. And most of all, to get KTM to acknowledge that there is a problem!
I can't be in the "class" because I don't own the bike any more. I wish the best of luck.

I have emailed/contacted the following group to refer to this thread:

[email protected]
Heygood, Orr & Pearson
Farah & Farah
Keefe Bartels
Gilman Law LLP

“This email has been sent in direct reference to & is supported by the following threads:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21400
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22369

I would like to know the cost requirements to bring forward a class action lawsuit against KTM Motorcycles based on the defective issues with Acerbis fuel tanks. Affected KTM motorcycles include Adventure, RC8, Superduke & Supermoto models. Various other manufacturers that employ Acerbis fuel tanks including Aprilia, Ducati & MV Agusta are also affected.

I would like to draw your attention to the following thread that implies KTM are aware of the defective nature of the material used for the models mentioned above (re. post submitted 8th December 2013):

http://www.ducati.ms/forums/138-streetf ... e-r-9.html

The alleged comment totally contradicts the statement that I have in writing from KTM that “all 990 Superduke fuel tanks are the same & are perfectly serviceable”. This strongly suggests that KTM have revised the polymer composition for their recently launched 1290 Superduke.

Please refer to the following link from KTM themselves highlighting that they are using steel fuel tanks for their 2014 RC390 motorcycle (click on “ergonomics” below the front wheel & scroll down):

http://www.ktm.com/supersport/rc-390/highlights.html
This information is also duplicated here:
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-new ... 23845.html

The comment I received from KTM in regard to their PA6 Nylon fuel tank expansion issue is as follows: “it appears as though the fuel tank was removed when the engine was still hot” which I consider to be defamatory & condescending. Nylon is hygroscopic, will always have the tendency to absorb moisture – this moisture will act as a plasticiser & irrespective of improved impact resistance, the softening of the base material will result. No justification was provided for the harsh chemical reaction & deformation that occurred internally (please refer to both threads for photos). I believe that the ever increasing ethanol content in comtemporary fuel blends have both direct & indirect negative impacts of PA6 nylon, all of which are covered in my thread.

I'm deeply concerned that the class action brought against Ducati was a farce and was handled with incompetence. If any particular party profitted from this lawsuit, it certainly wasn't the Ducati fraternity. Comments posted on various Ducati forums share my sentiment that replacing tanks of exact material composition is unintelligible & irresponsible.

Ducati manufactured replacement seat units & allegedly smaller tanks to allow for the excessive expansion and this only adds insult to injury.

It appears that Ducati are reverting back to metallic tanks in reaction to the lawsuit filed against them by Girard Gibbs. Models include the Panigali & quite possibly the 1200 Monster model too.

Sadly Girard Gibbs have no interest in pursuing this class action although I quote: “Please keep in mind that our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the merit of any legal claims you may have.”

Firstly, executing a subpoena/freedom of information request on KTM to determine if the polymer specification and/or manufacturer has changed would provide the transparency that KTM refuse to disclose.

If the current owners* of 1290 Superduke tanks report no issues then I believe all exisiting tanks should at least be replaced with new ones that employ the new compound. If the consensus proves to be negative then KTM should be forced to manufacture steel tanks by the same manufacturer who supply their RC390 steel fuel tanks. Extended warranties can no longer be entertained – I've been on the receiving end of KTM's “good will gesture” and am still thoroughly disgusted by it.

*The problem, although readily apparent now in the EU is more severe in the USA and I would suggest North American owners are consulted.

Ironically KTM choose a polymer for the construction of a £14,000 motorcycle's fuel tank but use steel for a considerably more cost effective £5,000 motorcycle. Cutting costs is what this is all about but this should come as no surprise. I believe that KTM need to learn the hard way to invest in their product quality & reward those who have endeared themselves to their brand rather than in their own vanity with their self indulgent & nauseous promotional activities.

I am under the impression that both the UK & the USA are democracies so I put forward the notion that plaintiffs decide the course of action to be taken: KTM's alleged “new” 1290 Superduke polymer or steel fuel tanks. Although I'd be very surprised if at least 99.9% of owners would prefer any alternative other than a steel replacement for absolute peace of mind.

The time & effort I have invested in this problem I hope will at least support intent to bring class action against KTM to motivate & ultimately have steel fuel tanks manufactured to replace those that are clearly defective with respect to the models affected.

Please spare my disillusion that only the attorneys benefitted from Ducati's class action as the problem was not rectified, it was merely concealed.

I am currently £35,000 out of pocket - £32,000 of this is represented in legal fees. My credit rating has been unlawfully impaired as a result of Black Horse Finance Ltd because I dared to challenge the obvious quality & safety issues with one of KTM's premium products.

It remains to be seen which protagonist has definitively failed the consumer: KTM & their inherent deceit, Acerbis' gross negligence, vehicle safety institutions or the judicial system itself.

Bajaj Automotive, I believe have a 47% stake in KTM. Pierer Industries/Cross Industries retain the majority of outstanding ownership so I believe that the finances exist to remanufacture & I don't see why this course of action can't be subsidised by the majority stakeholders of KTM.

With an ever increasing number of reported failures of plastic tanks on both cars & motorcycles, I will never purchase another motorcycle with a plastic fuel tank, least of all a KTM.

I look forward to receiving a response that I sincerely hope is positive.

Yours,

Jim Hastings”

To date:

I have received a further interim bill of £9,300 from my solicitor.

The humiliation I feel is only suprassed by the sense of responsibity I feel in that I am now instrumental in the demise of my own family.

The SJE (Single Joint Expert) inspection report has to be submitted by the end of February. Believe it or not, I'm NOT permitted to attend this inspection. In other words, AMS Motorcycles are able to have their say but my voice is silenced. SCM Solicitors have worked very hard to obstruct me in every way they possibly can. Basically they're sh*tting themselves now but my reservations remain that I'm a victim of a conspiracy to defraud.

I will be allowed to inspect the bike once the SJE has conducted his inspection though. AMS Motorcycles have already lied about not finding any issues with the 2nd tank with the motorcycle, with it having to be returned due to a botched installation attempt due to expansion & I've documented the grim interior degredation/rippling that resulted shortly after. If I detect any foul play, James will have me to contend with. If you have ever been unfortunate enough to feel like you really, really want to hurt someone – then you'll be empathising with how I feel at this exact moment.

I've suffered chronic & at times quite severe depression for the last 20 years but I'll keep the less palatable details to myself. It would be wise not to disclose what I will do in the event of judicial failure but I'm sure you get the idea.

If you want your say, I suggest you do it now. Anyone prepared to attend & demonstrate solidarity in court on my behalf would be greatly appreciated but I can't afford to compensate you for your time.

If anyone finds any other motorcycle defect/liability lawyers they think could help, please direct them to this thread.

Mate whatever the outcome of your case don't do whatever it is you were referring to above.

Life is short, precious and unlikely to be offered again. Some wars you win, some you lose but either way the sun comes up on a whole new day.

I wish you every success with all this tank stuff but also I urge you to understand that bigger and better stuff lies in the future regardless of the outcome. This isn't what defines you, seek out something else that will make you smile rather than frown.

Good luck.

No offence intended but please refrain from posting philosophical, pseudo religious & subservient comments in this thread please. Constructive comments only S'il vous plait.

Yes, very interested in the answer to this one as well....could be the difference in a 1290/TV4R vs S1R purchase. The BMW has an aluminium tank.