Tank issues thread

Message

falcomunky · #16 Post by **falcomunky** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:00 pm

Must say that this is all news to me (yeah, I don't get out much)! Also, I have heard whispers of other Falco, Tuono and Mille tanks becoming warped but I figured this was down to age?
Personally (touching wood) I've never had this problem and hopefully never will!

DavShill · #17 Post by **DavShill** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:20 pm

You'll notice it first when you lift the tank and realise there's little (if any) clearance between the top yoke and the brackets that guide the bolts securing the front of the tank. Some have had to file/dremmel some additional clearance.

D-Rider · #18 Post by **D-Rider** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:24 pm

DavShill wrote:You'll notice it first when you lift the tank and realise there's little (if any) clearance between the top yoke and the brackets that guide the bolts securing the front of the tank. Some have had to file/dremmel some additional clearance.

...... and some of us have run out of options for further adjustment .......

browny · #19 Post by **browny** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:25 pm

Just lifted the tank on the falco to sort air filter ..propped up for a while when I came to put back down would not fit ended up levering back into position but took some effort...not impressed!!!

blinkey501 · #20 Post by **blinkey501** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:28 pm

Welcome

wayno · #21 Post by **wayno** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:50 pm

browny wrote:Just lifted the tank on the falco to sort air filter ..propped up for a while when I came to put back down would not fit ended up levering back into position but took some effort...not impressed!!!

The tanks on these do swell. I find it easier to remove all the rear mounting screws and do up the front first

struv · #22 Post by **struv** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:13 am

apparently the higher octane fuels Tesco 99ron shell super ect contain less ethanol so should minimise this problem .iv also heard if you drain the tank while its laid up over the winter months it will shrink back a little.oh and welcome from another north eastener

D-Rider · #23 Post by **D-Rider** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:38 am

Yes I've been avoiding supermarket fuels and paying for premium 99 octane stuff for a while now. Not lifted the tank since but hoping it's shrunk back a bit.

That said we shouldn't be having to pay more due to them having added an additive that causes damage .............

Tonyunn · #24 Post by **Tonyunn** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:00 am

where abouts are you in the city Browny?

Check out the thread for a northern meet in June, Belingham is looking favourite, there is also some talk of a visit to Ribblehead.

lazarus · #25 Post by **lazarus** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:49 pm

D-Rider wrote:
lazarus wrote:I would have thought it an obligation on the bike manufacturer to provide a tank that will safely hold any fuel the bike might be expected to use. Why should there be special fuel provisions for just Aprilia, Ducati and a few Triumphs?
..... and most classic vehicles - the water separation properties lead to steel tanks rotting, it kills hoses, seals and gaskets in the fuel system ....... it's hardly something for just a few bikes.

Steel tanks have always rotted - all fuel comes with some degree of water contamination plus part full tanks suffer from condensation. If you have any interest in classic cars or bikes you'll know that happens and that suppliers flog internal sealants for tanks. Many diesel engines have water traps in the fuel line .

D-Rider wrote:The introduction of this questionable additive to fuels should not have been permitted if it were likely to cause damage to so many vehicles on the road.

You could have used that argument when unleaded first came on the scene. Or when low sulphur diesel caused so many problems. Things change and the obligation is on the manufacturer of the vehicle to adapt quickly to that change. From what I read Triumph did so but not the Italian bike makers.

One thing is for sure - you arent going to get any joy or a new tank out of the UK govt and the EU. Surely Aprilia have suitable tanks by now.

#26 Post by **mangocrazy** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:10 pm

lazarus wrote:
D-Rider wrote:
lazarus wrote:I would have thought it an obligation on the bike manufacturer to provide a tank that will safely hold any fuel the bike might be expected to use. Why should there be special fuel provisions for just Aprilia, Ducati and a few Triumphs?
..... and most classic vehicles - the water separation properties lead to steel tanks rotting, it kills hoses, seals and gaskets in the fuel system ....... it's hardly something for just a few bikes.
Steel tanks have always rotted - all fuel comes with some degree of water contamination plus part full tanks suffer from condensation. If you have any interest in classic cars or bikes you'll know that happens and that suppliers flog internal sealants for tanks. Many diesel engines have water traps in the fuel line .

Deliberately missing the point, I think. This isn't a small case of water contamination - the additive (ethanol) itself is hygroscopic (attracts water) and is also susceptible to phase separation; i.e. the ethanol and petrol can separate after a comparatively short period. This can lead to different strata of ethanol, water and petrol in the fuel tank. The ethanol is particularly aggressive; prior to mixing with petrol it has to be transported in stainless steel tanks. The problems it causes is of another order of magnitude compared to 'a degree of water contamination'. Perhaps you should do some further reading before pouring scorn on legitimate concerns.

lazarus wrote:
D-Rider wrote:The introduction of this questionable additive to fuels should not have been permitted if it were likely to cause damage to so many vehicles on the road.
You could have used that argument when unleaded first came on the scene. Or when low sulphur diesel caused so many problems. Things change and the obligation is on the manufacturer of the vehicle to adapt quickly to that change. From what I read Triumph did so but not the Italian bike makers.

One thing is for sure - you arent going to get any joy or a new tank out of the UK govt and the EU. Surely Aprilia have suitable tanks by now.

In case you hadn't noticed, Ethanol in petrol has only occurred since production of Falcos stopped. And unlike unleaded petrol, which was removal of a previously beneficial ingredient (for engines, at least), this is the addition of a particularly aggressive component to pump fuel, purely to meet some 'green' targets the previous government unwisely signed up to. And the obligation is mainly on the government to ensure continuity of supply and a reasonable period between announcing a change and implementing it. It should also have undergone due diligence, which has clearly not been the case here.

blinkey501 · #27 Post by **blinkey501** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:27 pm

D-Rider wrote:Yes I've been avoiding supermarket fuels and paying for premium 99 octane stuff for a while now. Not lifted the tank since but hoping it's shrunk back a bit.

I would'nt think so andy.. The panels that have been painted white had a second hand tank which had not had any petrol in for 12 months.
When i fitted it to the bike it was tighter than origional due to the oversize issue.

D-Rider · #28 Post by **D-Rider** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:31 pm

lazarus wrote:
D-Rider wrote:The introduction of this questionable additive to fuels should not have been permitted if it were likely to cause damage to so many vehicles on the road.
You could have used that argument when unleaded first came on the scene.

There are significant differences.
Lead in fuel was worth removing for health reasons whereas adding ethanol to fuel has no benefits (unless you are a farmer)
The primary concern about removing lead was that some older vehicles might have issues with burning the valve seats - which could be overcome by additives or using LRP.
Adding Ethanol can cause damage to many more older vehicles, cannot be "fixed" with additives and although the problem could be avoided by using fuel without ethanol, our fuel is not labelled and we have no reliable way of knowing what fuel has ethanol in it and what doesn't (unlike those with lead issues being able to select the LRP pump)

Then there is the safety issue - removal of lead (for which there were countermeasures available) could lead to increased engine wear ..... the damage Ethanol fuels can do to fuel lines and distorting of tanks (particularly around the fuel pump seal) could easily lead to fuel pissing out all over a hot engine or exhaust. The potential consequences are much more worrying.

lazarus wrote:
One thing is for sure - you arent going to get any joy or a new tank out of the UK govt and the EU.

I don't recall asking them to.

All that's needed is a requirement to label all pumps to show the ethanol content of what they dispense and a requirement that all filling stations have at least one active pump that dispenses ethanol-free fuel (without price premium).

I don't think that's much to ask.

Aladinsaneuk · #29 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:45 pm

Reminds me, I must go get some more four star tomorrow.....

blinkey501 · #30 Post by **blinkey501** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:39 am

Somebody from RSVR.NET told me to put a petrol tank off an aprilia into a green house on a hot day. His argument was there was water vapour in the fuel which caused the swelling of the tanks.... This would make the water evaporate. I have not posted before because i feel a bit synical

Is it worth a try maybe