GRP tanks for road machines?

There have been recent discussion on here regarding 2 producers in the US who are manufacturing GRP fuel tanks for use on road going machines.

However I wonder would GRP tanks be ok to use on road going machines in the US, as there seems to be some issue over them not being DOT approved? If GRP is not DOT approved, then would producers product liability insurance cover them if anything should happen to a tank being used on a road going machine?

Ducati Multistradas (original type, i haven't been up close to the new ones) and others have non metal tanks ex factory, although not GRP in the traditional sense. I don't know the DOT rules but it seems that being non metal is not necessarily a problem.

I asked Jake at http://www.grandprixspeedworks.com if he would be interested in making Roadster, Interstate and Fastback tanks. I didn't notice that he lists his tanks for flat track racing. It may be that they cannot be DOT approved and he may not be interested in getting into that bag of worms, although he seemed interested if I would supply him with a model tank and initial order, but I am not interested being a dealer or merchandiser.

I didn't approach the other fella in Florida. I noticed his tanks are lined and I am not interested in getting into lined tanks, but they may work just fine. He does offer a verbal guarantee, but only for replacement. If I got a tank and it failed because of corn, I would not want another.

So far I have not heard back from Jake if he is interested in marketing the Commando tanks. I notice his tanks are in the $300 range which would be very competitive with any others. I think he would sell quite a few at that price point, or even $400 if he would guarantee them and get past the DOT. Personally I'm not worried about the DOT since I have a F/G tank now anyhow. How about all the boat and airplane people? They use plastic tanks.

Dave
69S

My 1999 Buell Cyclone has a "fiberglass" gas tank, (I think) and for that matter, a "plastic" oil tank as well. (the plastic oil tank is thinner though, and more like the material of a plastic gas can.) Though not sure if the gas tank is the "GRP" or not, it is like a big, thick, "fiberglass" type of gas tank. I have had NO problems with either gas or oil tank. I thought I read somewhere where Buell early ones had some paint bubbles, so that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. Were these tanks made with ethanol in mind, to be resistant to it ? Don't know. I would "maybe" be interested in a gas tank from him; so please keep us updated Dave. Cheers !

nortriubuell said:

My 1999 Buell Cyclone has a "fiberglass" gas tank, (I think) and for that matter, a "plastic" oil tank as well. (the plastic oil tank is thinner though, and more like the material of a plastic gas can.) Though not sure if the gas tank is the "GRP" or not, it is like a big, thick, "fiberglass" type of gas tank. I have had NO problems with either gas or oil tank. I thought I read somewhere where Buell early ones had some paint bubbles, so that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. Were these tanks made with ethanol in mind, to be resistant to it ? Don't know. I would "maybe" be interested in a gas tank from him; so please keep us updated Dave. Cheers !

Click to expand...

The tank cover maybe fiberglass but the actual fuel cell is something more like polypropylene.

ntst8 said:

Ducati Multistradas (original type, i haven't been up close to the new ones) and others have non metal tanks ex factory, although not GRP in the traditional sense. I don't know the DOT rules but it seems that being non metal is not necessarily a problem.

Click to expand...

Most fuel tanks today are HDPE plastic, so I cant see that plastic is a problem with DOT, but not sure on GRP? The web site of the guy who is selling UL approved lined fuel tanks suggests his tanks are not DOT approved though: http://legendary-motorcycles.com/caferacertanks.html

I guess the issue here is likely to be legal issues if an accident results from the use of a part which is not DOT approved for road use, so sellers are not going to be offering guarantees, which would obviously have to stipulate competition use only?

Alternatively DOT may require parts such as tanks to be tested before they are approved for road use, and the cost of this might mean its not commercially viable to have these tests carried out?

Parts like this are typically sold with a disclaimer "for offroad use only" or "not DOT approved", which is designed to transfer legal liability to the purchaser in the unlikely event of the unapproved part being noticed in a police inspection. Actually submitting the part for DOT approval would cost too much for the small market size.

Previously I owned a Royal Enfield Bullet, and the importer did a brisk business selling aftermarket replacements for the ugly OEM turn signals, taillight, mirrors, etc. EVERY part came with the disclaimer "not DOT approved". :roll:

For US users,

"FMVSS 301 states that anyone who alters a vehicle must meet or exceed the structural integrity and performance of the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) fuel system. A fuel system includes anything associated with fuel systems such as the fillneck, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, emission canister and fasteners. In other words, if an alterer adds an auxiliary system to a vehicle thereby reducing the performance of the fuel system, he or she has violated FMVSS 301 standards. An example of performance reduction could be if fuel from the original system leaked because the auxiliary system was gravity feeding into the original tank. This creates a real concern as it not only violates FMVSS 301 regulations, but is also a hazardous waste problem."

I would think it would be up to the state or feds to determine that you have not meet the OEM requirements of a fuel tank. I don't think DOT would even get into the issue, however, I'm sure any manufacturer of replacement tanks will disclaim any fault or certification beforehand. For us OEM fiberglass tank users, it looks like a moot point. Who could prove it met or exceeded OEM especially if the OEM was worn out?

Dave
69S

Carbonfibre said:

There have been recent discussion on here regarding 2 producers in the US who are manufacturing GRP fuel tanks for use on road going machines.

However I wonder would GRP tanks be ok to use on road going machines in the US, as there seems to be some issue over them not being DOT approved? If GRP is not DOT approved, then would producers product liability insurance cover them if anything should happen to a tank being used on a road going machine?

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how things work over here. :roll:

There are a lot of things we aren't suppose to do. We still do them. :mrgreen:

DOT certification is not unlike USCG certification in the boating industry. It doesn't mean the product has been run through extensive testing in a lab somewhere or that it will perform the function for which it is sold better than an uncertified product. It means that somebody spent the time and money to absorb enough of the FCRs so that they could manufacture the product within those guidelines. Ever read the FCRs? They are a puzzle within an enigma with paragraphs to refer back to each other and form complicated loops of "logic". Small manufacturers rarely have the ability to deal with this not because they can't conform, they usually don't have the legal team to prove it.

I once had to haul explosives to a remote mine site by boat and in order to do it had to meet USCG regulations. This is a good idea as you really don't want to blow yourself up. But after hours of pouring through the FCRs and asking "what does this really mean" it was determined that the inspector would allow the transport to happen if we took a normal shipping container and placed 5/8" plywood against the walls before loading it. The inspector wouldn't tell us this prior, we had to suggest it, then he had to run the idea through his mill before we got an answer. The sad fact is that had we suggested 1/2 plywood it might have come back with a no answer and we might not have been brilliant enough to then suggest 5/8. We may have gone back to engineering and solved the problem by spending a small forturne on it.

Russ

Oh, and regarding the liablity insurance absorbing the loss. The answer is "NO". You would never get an insurance company to write that policy.

There is little to no control in the US as to what parts are used on vehicles. All that the police care about is that you have working lights and a current registration. When I got pulled over on my XS, he didn't eaven look at my bike. Lot alone notice the non DOT turn signals, headlight, exhaust and other things. It is up to the user to determine safety, after all it's their ass using the parts.

bwolfie said:

There is little to no control in the US as to what parts are used on vehicles. All that the police care about is that you have working lights and a current registration. When I got pulled over on my XS, he didn't eaven look at my bike. Lot alone notice the non DOT turn signals, headlight, exhaust and other things. It is up to the user to determine safety, after all it's their ass using the parts.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on the state, to an extent, and how conservative their DOT is. In PA the cycle inspection is fairly strict including things like how far apart the turn signals are, whether you have a designated hand hold for a passenger, etc. in addition to all the obvious like tire tread, pad thickness, lights, etc. However, they don't mention anything about fuel tank composition - only that there can be no leaks. Seems to me that the fiberglass prody tank I ran on my 850 for awhile was a much larger safety issue than whether my turn signals were the correct distance apart. (Especially after the corn started seeping out.)

In a traffic stop, however, I agree; I can't imagine any cop actually worrying about what a bike's gas tank is made of especially since the regs didn't fail the tank anyway, safety issue or not.

If you see a product that is DOT approved it will be referring to the federal regulations unless it specifies the states specifically.

Most often commercial carriers are under more scrutiny than private vehicles.

Russ

Lack of DOT approval is not a problem at all then................Seems that those US 2 manufacturers of GRP tanks need to take a good look at making them for Norton, as I would think they would be pretty good sellers!

VintAge said:

bwolfie said:

There is little to no control in the US as to what parts are used on vehicles. All that the police care about is that you have working lights and a current registration. When I got pulled over on my XS, he didn't eaven look at my bike. Lot alone notice the non DOT turn signals, headlight, exhaust and other things. It is up to the user to determine safety, after all it's their ass using the parts.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on the state, to an extent, and how conservative their DOT is. In PA the cycle inspection is fairly strict including things like how far apart the turn signals are, whether you have a designated hand hold for a passenger, etc. in addition to all the obvious like tire tread, pad thickness, lights, etc. However, they don't mention anything about fuel tank composition - only that there can be no leaks. Seems to me that the fiberglass prody tank I ran on my 850 for awhile was a much larger safety issue than whether my turn signals were the correct distance apart. (Especially after the corn started seeping out.)

In a traffic stop, however, I agree; I can't imagine any cop actually worrying about what a bike's gas tank is made of especially since the regs didn't fail the tank anyway, safety issue or not.

Click to expand...

Vehicle inspection vary hugely from state to state. For example there is no regular inspections at all in Oregon. Were as some states are extremely rigorous.

Which points out to our cousins in the kingdom, this is still a union of states, with varying rules and legislations.

Carbonfibre said:

Lack of DOT approval is not a problem at all then................Seems that those US 2 manufacturers of GRP tanks need to take a good look at making them for Norton, as I would think they would be pretty good sellers!

Click to expand...

That's what I suggested to Grandprixspeedworks. It's up to him. He may be doing enough he doesn't want any more work. I pointed him to the price of tanks in the UK and Old Britts.

Dave
69S

Carbonfibre said:

Lack of DOT approval is not a problem at all then................Seems that those US 2 manufacturers of GRP tanks need to take a good look at making them for Norton, as I would think they would be pretty good sellers!

Click to expand...

If I were going to produce these for a commercial enterprise I would probably have a talk with my lawyer and my insurance company about how to reduce my liability, rather than tke the word of a bunch of people in a forum.

In theory any motorcycle produced before 1973(?) could be equipped with a composite tank, in the same way some bikes are not required to have left hand shift, mirrors or turn indicators but any bike produced after the date that the applicable law was passed couldn't have one no matter what. If you live in a state without vehicle inspections then this is not a big issue. If you live in one that requires an inspection then you are hoping that the inspector misses it.

Russ

That's probably why these guys say their products are only for off road use. If you want to put it on a street bike that's your and your state's issue. I know here in VA, we have to have all the safety items, brakes, lights, mirror, horn, but the turn signals are grandfathered in if it wasn't OEM. I have an antique plate, so I get away with no inspection, but that's not to say a state cop can't give me a ticket for not having the right/useable equipment. Anyhow, I make it so it would pass inspection so I don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone would question a fuel tank unless it were leaking and who would want to go there?

It would be nice if these guys would produce Norton tanks, but I'm not holding my breath. They have to think or be convinced they can make money on the deal.

Dave
69S

Greetings,
When "Nortriubuell" pointed out that his Buell tank was just a skin over the real tank I remembered the Buell Blast that I used to own was the same. It had a polypropylene (gas can material) fuel tank with an ABS plastic skin over it. Seems that it would be easy to create a proper shaped Norton tank skin out of fiberglass or ABS to cover a steel or aluminum tank that need only be utilitarian shaped. I suppose instead of a cover the metal tank could be molded right into the glass or plastic. It would seem using the skins would be cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to replace should they become damaged (actually claimed as a benefit by Buell), and the metal tanks would be uneffected by the ethanol or DOT scrutiny.

GB