Fuel Tank Materials

[Jackman]

An interesting article I read the other day reported that a study has shown that cattle busting rear, "farting" for those of you who aren't up with the times, is more of a pollution source than cars. We gonna have drunk cows soon?

Okay...So boats after 1983 are safe now? Which "Jim" can I email? My HIN is HATCF343G585 and was originally told it was one of the Hat's affected by this ethanol mess. I haven't changed my tank yet but I will be removing the intakes and carbs shortly to look for the black stuff everyone is talking about. I will also be opening the tank through the access to take a look inside. I want to empty and clean it if possible. I had her put on a slightly steeper angle this winter on the hard in hopes that all the junk will end up at the back of the tank where I can easily remove it.

 

[Avenger]

Here is a question that hasn't been asked ( I hope )

If adding ethanol reduces the BTU output of a fuel ( gas or diesel) how will we be able to calibrate the injection systems if we use differant mixes of fuel? We cant just push the same amount of fuel no matter the octane or cetane as that will be wasteful and would pollute. Will we need to test the fuel in the tanks each trip to adjust the injectors and fuel systems?

In the late 50's or early 60's the U.S . Army had a diesel truck engine, I think it was made by Continental, that was designed to be used as a multi-fuel engine. It had a viscosity sensor in the governor that would adjust the full load stop to compensate for the fuel it was burning. They could supposedly dump engine oil, gasoline, peanut oil, or even diesel fuel in it, and it was supposed to burn it. It was fairly crude, but it worked well enough if you weren't too concened about emissions.

In answer to your question, today it is not practical to recalibrate a fuel system for each load of fuel. I'm not even sure if it's realistic to pull pumps and recalibrate them for the reduction in BTU's that a new, common fuel on the market (i.e. ULSD) has. Calibrating injection systems is a complex, expensive and very precise business. Most shops will not deviate from manufacturer's specifications anyway due to the liability involved. The Detroit guys are stuck unless they want to change injector size, since there are no adjustments on DD injectors. Maybe with electronic controls it would be possible to measure output and set fuel delivery accordingly. Again, expensive.

Actually, in a properly set up marine application you "recalibrate" the system with the throttles in every part of your operating range except full load. So IMHO it's not worth the expense.

 

[Boatsb]

Aslo remember the lower BTU's = more fuel to burn for the same energy output. That means a 10% reduction in BTU's = 10% more fuel burned to travel the same distance. Lower ranges on our vessels and less econmical use of the fuel.

 

[UNIQUE_NAME]

as one who was bitten by the ethanol bug, i think there is one more point to take into consideration. in my mind there is another issue with with fixxing the tank yourself (removing the top and recoating) aside from doing it ABSOLUTELY perfectly or risk certain failure.
most of us do our own maintenance. we think nothing of repairing most anything that breaks, some of which would be considered very major by most people. most of us also have nothing proving we are qualified to do any of these things. we are guided by common sense, being handy and years of boating experience. how many times have you told someone of something
you did and received that incredulas look?
BUT, when we look at boats to purchase we want receipts AND proof anything major was done by someone competent.
that being said, if i'm looking to purchase a boat, i can't think of anyway someone is going to convince me they were qualified to coat their fuel tank. i'm not sure they would be able to convince an insurance company either.
if you ever sell you're boat, try to imagine convincing the buyer
the tanks are safe.
would any of the diesel folks buy a boat with rebuilds billy-bob-joe-billy
swears he did and shows you parts reciepts?


jim

 

[yachtsmanbill]

One of my dads pre retirement gigs was working for AM GENERAL testing those Continentals in the 5 ton units--wreckers and semis. As a kid, I spent a whole summer('69) riding around putting on test miles and then gradability tests on the strip mine hills near here. I got to drive one on the test hill. My old man said
"put her in first and floor it, and DO NOT BACK OFF !" All you saw was sky!
Typically they were rated at about 250HP on #2 FO and just took a de-rating for lesser fuels. About 90-100HP for "tropical oils" i.e. coconut or banana oils! You hafta remember that this was the Viet Nam era and fuel wasnt always available as petrol based. The idea that any oil would burn and was better than walking I can imagine where the ethanol / corn oil thing will go--- ws

 

[Boatsb]

I believe propper documentation by the owner or a yard has value. I take pictures of major milestones in projects for my own records and would be open to looking at them from other owners too.

The differance between a professional job and "Billy Bobs diesel service ( sorry freebird for the redneck slur) is process.

If done correctly with process anyone can do it.

Geneses has stated the DD rebuild requirements which dictates process. I have rebuilt many engines over the years and each one goes through a similar process.

If I were to be re coating the tanks I would document the teardown, The coating of the tanks ( all surfaces and how many times each was coated. Try to calculate the overlap and overcoating of the tanks to show how much extra protection will be obtained. keep material data sheets on all the materials used and make sure all manufacturers directions for mixing, thinning, and prep. If everything is completely documented I believe the insurance companies would accept it.

 

[Avenger]

Sounds like you and your dad had a lot of fun. We worked on the fuel system of one of the multi-fuel Continentals once, (usually if you even see one today the vicosity compensators are locked out) never got to drive it though.

Those experiences with fuel availability are what led to the single-fuel strategy. Today everything the military uses burns jet fuel. They even have Evinrudes that run on it. I'm sure that took some effort.

 

[UNIQUE_NAME]

boatsb;

while i agree wholeheartedly that a logical process should be followed for a given task, right or wrong, proper documentation from a yard (generally) will carry more weight than owner documentation to the general boat buyer. how many selling boats ads have you seen stating "maintained by me with pictures and receipts" as opposed to "yard maintained or captain maintained".
at selling time, with regards to reglassing your fuel tanks, the general boat buyer will probably not want to hear "i did it myself and here are the pictures". i know i wouldn't, no matter how good the pictures were. i guess i'm just to distrusting.

jim

 

[yachtsmanbill]

Sounds like you and your dad had a lot of fun. We worked on the fuel system of one of the multi-fuel Continentals once, (usually if you even see one today the vicosity compensators are locked out) never got to drive it though.

Those experiences with fuel availability are what led to the single-fuel strategy. Today everything the military uses burns jet fuel. They even have Evinrudes that run on it. I'm sure that took some effort.

Yea--my old man was one of the shiniest sockets in the tool box...anything mechanical had purpose / reason for being or for failure. I like to think I inherited this, but sometimes its a curse too !
Anything I look at, I see the gears spinning even through the grease or cruddy paint; just like an old boat. Unless something is completely burned up it can be made to run again. Even if fiberglass is showing "air" you can always patch it -- just depends how much finesse grinding you want to put into it...
I would like to see an outboard with 16:1 compression tho... ws

 

[sammidog]

Uh Oh, new news from Hatteras:
"Dear Jim,

I was a little incorrect in my e-mail response. I am being told now,
and our records verify that the changes were actually made much later,
probably in 1985. I am sorry to say that our records indicate that all
of the 32SF's built, the tanks were built WITHOUT the benefit of the
ethanol resistant resin. Sorry to be the barer of bad news. If I can
help you with any other questions on the subject, please do not hesitate
to contact me. Regards,"

Be careful hatteras 32 owners.

 

[SKYCHENEY]

So no one actually knows when the change took place? It seems that they could give a better answer than that. If they started using the new material in 1985, then say so. If they don't know if all of the boats in 1985 had resistant tanks, then let us know that. If all of the 1986 and newer were okay, then say so. I don't like these vague answers. It's hard to believe that Hatteras keeps such great records of these boats, their equipment, wiring diagrams, owners, etc., but they don't really know which boat's tanks are affected? Come on, it seems that this is important enough that someone at Hatteras should do some investigating and give owners and potential owners some definative answers.

 

[Jackman]

Okay....so I have a 1985 32sf....I am at the boarderline of knowing versus not knowing...Should I assume that since mine is a 1985 vintage that it was made in 1984?

 

[Ernie Piotrowski]

Jackman: I e-mailed Hatteras with my HIN for the 1983 32 and they confirmed that it does not have the resistant resin. If the prior post re all 32's is correct, then what do you think of getting all 32 owners together and seeing if Slane would be interested in doing new tanks for all owners. I know some have already removed their tanks, but I would suspect that a lot have not. And although I'm in Indiana with so far not subject to ethanol in the marina gas, the surrounding states (Illinois & Mich) have ethanl. Perhaps if the numbrer tanks requested is high enough, Tom would be interested and the cost would be less for a bunch of tanks as opposed to each owner trying to find a source. Your thoughts/ Without some resolution to this problem, the 32's have lost a significant percentage of their value. A diesel repower is financially a losing propositon unless you intend on keeping the boat forever and tank resplacement is questionable in being able to replace with tanks of the same volume & life expectancy. Never thought would be faced with this kind of a problem with a Hatteras. Thank God for politicians!

 

[Maynard Rupp]

OK, so how do we get in contact with this "Jim" at Hatteras. Our Hull# is BS675C686, it is a 1986 36' Convertable. Are you passing on these # or how can we handle this issue? The problem with the 32' Hats might be related to the basic premise under which Hatteras built them. They tried to make the boats as cheap as possible and still maintain the Hatteras image. Did you know that the 32 was the only model to be delivered from Hatteras in gelcoat. Yup, they weren't painted from the factory.

 

[sammidog]

The thing that makes little sense to me is these boats were made up to Sept of 1987 yet Ron says none of the 32's were made with the "good" resin. They must have made (or ordered) a bunch of tanks early on then used them on an as needed basis. Boat building is a funny business. The Egg Harbor I own is a 1990 model year but has 1984 engines. Not a repower either. The original owners manual has those serial numbers written in the book.
I really like those boats and still would consider buying one knowing the tank has to come out. Having built a 39 ft motorsailer from scratch out of fiberglass I am no stranger to the techniques but i just don't see a way to cut up the deck and glass it back in without it being obvious. Also the tank is T shaped? Big $ to reproduce in aluminum. Recoating the inside is fine for you but a potential buyer will never assume you did it right. Where these tanks built in house? Mold still available for a company that will guarantee the tank to reproduce it? Seems to me a rubber bladder tank inside may be the best fix.
Maynard, I am "Jim" I just copied the email and pasted it into the forum. Ron Lamm is who I have been in contact with at Hatteras. He is the director of customer service. I have not spoken to him but have emailed a few times because I am(was) interested in buying a 32. He has probably been emailing me with clenched teeth but seems very helpful and always answers my questions within 2 or 3 days. Go to the Hatteras website and there is a link to customer service.

 

[Jackman]

I still to this day don't understand how ethanol can dissolve a heavily crosslinked polymer. And as said before I'm a chemist by trade. Somebody explain it to me so I can be edubucated. All I can see is that maybe some resin mixture from a poorly made tank...meaning a bad resin to accelorator/curer ratio in spots throughout the tank could be dissolved. If the resin was never fully cured and never formed the polymer as expected maybe the ethanol could dissolve it but once a polymer I think all bets are off. Someone needs to explain this. Simply saying ethanol dissolved it is hogwash from a chemical standpoint. Chemically crosslinked polymers just don't do this...unless they were never polyners to begin with. Somebody with more knowledge than me needs to explain this to me ...not that it takes too much knowledge to have more than me!
Another thing....how many people actually have leaky tanks from ethanol and not from a poorly made tank? My tanks after 1.5yrs of ethanol show no signs of leaking or failing....I do have what all the other outboard boaters have and others have....the crap from mixing e-10 and mtbe, which does kinda make chemical sense. Also have some sludge in the filters from time to time. No gas smell and no tank failure. The tank seems to be getting cleaned but no signs of polymers degrading....I have fume sensors just in case and will empty and inspect the tanks over christmas break from work if there is time. I have seen the pictures of the tanks that were thought to have degraded because of ethanol...where are the before pictures? How do we know the inside of the tanks were not like this when new? No manufacturing process is perfect.


If need be...I talked with Mr Slane a few months back. He said if we had a number of people interested he may be able to do something. I will recontact him if many people show interest.

 

[sammidog]

I think if I owned a Hatteras I would take some 5200 and make a "pool" on the top of the tank. After it cured I would pour a 20% solution of grain alcohol and isopropyl alcohol into the "pool". Every once in a while I would sop it up and feel the tank for stickiness to see if the alcohol is attacking it. Even a rag soaked in alcohol left on the tank awhile would probably confirm it.(keep hatches open!) I think that would confirm it is the alcohol. One year of organic chemistry 20 years ago at penn state was not enough for me to understand the chemical bonds and such but if i see it, I believe it. Too many people smarter than me have confirmed it is the alcohol so I think it is wishful thinking to think it is something else.

 

[Jackman]

Its not wishful thinking. If you followed what I said...Ethanol may dissolve resin because of its chemical makeup...But what should be in the tank material is not resin if cured properly. It should be a crosslinked polymer which shouldn't degrade. Resin is a starting material in the polymeric reaction. What happens when you mix it with a small amount of activator is an irreversible reaction that forms a polymer that should not degrade in the presence of ethanol. There are more agrressive solvents in gasoline than ethanol to worry about.

Anyhow, if the tank has pockets of unreacted resin within its walls because it wasn't laid out properly (activator was not present in large enough quantities to allow for a cure or the fiberglass mesh had a void because it wasn't contacting the subsequent layer properly) the ethanol may dissolve this resin, which could lead to a soft spot in the tank. This would be a random problem, in non specific locations in the tank because of the nature of laying up fiberglass. That would explain why not everyone else is seeing it. I've only heard of older models showing this...have not heard of 32's near my vintage with the problem, just a lot of people nervous about it. Wouldn't you think multitudes of 32 Hat owners would be lining up to replace tanks if ethanol undoubtably dissolved the tanks? People have been using ethanol laced gas for a significant amount of time now...long enough to see mass failures imho.

 

[sammidog]

Jackman, I agree with what you are saying. Why isn't every tank leaching? The whole story is yet to be solved. I would like to know how many tanks have had a problem. The problem is the consequences are enormous. Bad enough to have to replace $25,000 in engines but worse yet to die in an explosion because of gasoline fumes.
My 10 year old Cadillac had a recall for a fuel rail needing replaced due to the potential for fire. I thought that was pretty nice of GM to replace something on a 10 year old car. If they gave me a notice that said we recommend YOU replace it I would have been OK with that given the age of the car. I suspect it was an attorney at GM said better to replace them all than risk a lawsuit. Any of us attorneys here? Do you think there is a potential for a lawsuit if someone is killed because of an explosion?

 

[SKYCHENEY]

This potential for lawsuit is exactly the reason why we don't have any more answers than we do. No one really wants to talk about this issue for fear of what the potential liability might be. I would bet that if we lived in a less litigious society, we would know alot more about which boats were actually affected.