BRP Spyder investigation started. What will happen?

[Woody]

NHTSA does not just look at the per cent occurrence. They also consider severity of injury and risk. The fact that the Spyder scenario includes potential death or severe injury means that the priority will increase, even with low per cent occurrence.

[Jeriatric]

If I pay for needed repairs before a recall is ordered, am I entitled to reimbursement?

Yes, under certain conditions. Manufacturers are required to provide reimbursement for certain costs incurred by owners to remedy safety defect conditions prior to a recall. Vehicle manufacturers are required to reimburse owners for costs incurred to remedy a defect based on either (1) the date NHTSA opens its Engineering Analysis, or (2) one year prior to the manufacturer’s notification of a defect to NHTSA, whichever is earlier. The closing date of eligibility for reimbursement of repair of a motor vehicle is 10 days after the manufacturer mails the last of the owner notices informing owners of a safety defect recall and cost-free remedy. For replacement of equipment, the closing date is either the same as for motor vehicles or 30 days after the manufacturer’s closing of its efforts to provide public notice of the existence of a defect, whichever is later. Documentation of the costs is required for reimbursement. While the current reimbursement policy is a relatively new requirement, manufacturers have in the past often voluntarily agreed to absorb such costs, provided customers could prove the pre-recall repairs remedied the defect in question.


http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/recallprocess.cfm

[robmorg]

I agree with all your points. However, in addition to that short-term variation, I experienced long-term variation as explained in my post above. Not a single tank of gas or two. Subjective evaluations are something I put little faith in and I would not draw any conclusions from one tank of gas. The first time around when the fuel smell started showing up on our Natchez ride, it was consistent all the way down to MS and back to PA. And it stayed there even in cool PA fall temperatures. That's when I took it in and finally had the parts replaced, to no effect. Now with the most recent development, the fuel smell has stayed there from PA to ME and back. Cool weather and warm. I really think there is a case for bike-to-bike variation. Just my opinion.

From your experience, and what others have reported, that seems to be the case. But still, it's hard to accept from a practical point of view. How could two machines, with the exact same parts, react so differently in similar environmental circumstances, and over a wide degree of environmental circumstances. It can't be just a difference in fuel that is the variable here. Riding style? - maybe, that still seems a stretch. Mileage as a variable? - that would indicate part wear, but what part?

I doubt if this will ever be done, but it would be interesting if BRP or someone could do a study of two exact models, made at about the same time with the same parts, but one exhibiting the problems and the other not. Then they could subject them to controlled variables and perhaps get to the root of the problem.

[jcthorne]

From your experience, and what others have reported, that seems to be the case. But still, it's hard to accept from a practical point of view. How could two machines, with the exact same parts, react so differently in similar environmental circumstances, and over a wide degree of environmental circumstances. It can't be just a difference in fuel that is the variable here. Riding style? - maybe, that still seems a stretch.

I doubt if this will ever be done, but it would be interesting if BRP or someone could do a study of two exact models, made at about the same time with the same parts, but one exhibiting the problems and the other not. Then they could subject them to controlled variables and perhaps get to the root of the problem. UNLESS there is indeed no significant bike-to-bike variation in reality.

My theory is oxygen sensor calibrations or drifting of calibration over time/use.

[Magdave]

I agree with all your points. However, in addition to that short-term variation, I experienced long-term variation as explained in my post above. Not a single tank of gas or two. Subjective evaluations are something I put little faith in and I would not draw any conclusions from one tank of gas. The first time around when the fuel smell started showing up on our Natchez ride, it was consistent all the way down to MS and back to PA. And it stayed there even in cool PA fall temperatures. That's when I took it in and finally had the parts replaced, to no effect. Now with the most recent development, the fuel smell has stayed there from PA to ME and back. Cool weather and warm. I really think there is a case for bike-to-bike variation. Just my opinion.

Have you had your purge valve and lines checked/replaced? Even new parts can be bad out of the box.

[gypsy_100]

My theory is oxygen sensor calibrations or drifting of calibration over time/use.

Have you had your purge valve and lines checked/replaced? Even new parts can be bad out of the box.

For JC, I agree that could well have been the problem the first time around as I put on miles and eventually threw the P0174 code. After that was "fixed" by replacing the MAP sensor tubing (and that may have been legitimate -- the tech said he did find a small vacuum leak on the #2 hose where it connects), it was OK for a couple thousand miles then threw the code again. This time around the only thing that was replaced were the O2 sensors and with that, the fumes got significantly worse. So that would suggest rather than drifting, the sensors are different calibration right out of the box. For such a critical high-tech component, I would hope not. But that would help to explain the variation in behavior people are experiencing. All I can say for sure is that's what happened to me.

For Magdave, the above applies, too. The purge valve replacement was the first time around many thousands of miles ago. As for how it works, I personally can only vouch for the fact that it does "work" by hot-wiring it and listening for the click. The first one worked, too, that I paid to replace. The tech is supposed to have gone thru everything thoroughly which would include the BUDS test to see if the ECM is telling the valve to close. I can't remember off-hand if there is also a vacuum test to see if the valve is tightly closed. In any event, the same valve and tubing and canister before and after the O2 change are yielding different results in fumes.

I appreciate your thoughts and ideas. I've got all the panels off now for other reasons so you've motivated me to check things over again. Don't want to take this thread too far off topic. All I was trying to do was suggest that IMO there could be bike-to-bike differences.

[Magdave]

For JC, I agree that could well have been the problem the first time around as I put on miles and eventually threw the P0174 code. After that was "fixed" by replacing the MAP sensor tubing (and that may have been legitimate -- the tech said he did find a small vacuum leak on the #2 hose where it connects), it was OK for a couple thousand miles then threw the code again. This time around the only thing that was replaced were the O2 sensors and with that, the fumes got significantly worse. So that would suggest rather than drifting, the sensors are different calibration right out of the box. For such a critical high-tech component, I would hope not. But that would help to explain the variation in behavior people are experiencing. All I can say for sure is that's what happened to me.

For Magdave, the above applies, too. The purge valve replacement was the first time around many thousands of miles ago. As for how it works, I personally can only vouch for the fact that it does "work" by hot-wiring it and listening for the click. The first one worked, too, that I paid to replace. The tech is supposed to have gone thru everything thoroughly which would include the BUDS test to see if the ECM is telling the valve to close. I can't remember off-hand if there is also a vacuum test to see if the valve is tightly closed. In any event, the same valve and tubing and canister before and after the O2 change are yielding different results in fumes.

I appreciate your thoughts and ideas. I've got all the panels off now for other reasons so you've motivated me to check things over again. Don't want to take this thread too far off topic. All I was trying to do was suggest that IMO there could be bike-to-bike differences.

Get some silicone MAP lines instead of BRP rubber they are problematic. I wonder if the MAP sensor can be part of the fume problem

[scarecrow]

Ok Drew where did you go? I would like to hear more about your fix. Please.

[jcthorne]

Ok Drew where did you go? I would like to hear more about your fix. Please.

He installed an aftermarket fuel controller and enriched his mixture. While it may help, BRP already did this with the most recent updates (except California?). Also, checking my plugs, the latest tune from BRP is running on average pretty darn good now, not lean like it was.

This is why he claims everyone told him it would not work. It does work....some. but its not the be all end all answer to this problem. Not in hot climates, hot exhaust, un-insulated tanks and near zero engine compartment air flow. AND it has a much higher risk of trouble with BRP in the future.

[gypsy_100]

Get some silicone MAP lines instead of BRP rubber they are problematic. I wonder if the MAP sensor can be part of the fume problem

I may do that next time around. I put two new factory tubes on as they are of "calibrated length" and the manual warns not to use any other tubes. Since they are almost brand new, I don't think they are the problem. I changed them a few thousand miles ago and things were OK after that (with exhaust wrap). Now with the O2 sensor change, the problem starts up.

But next time I may go with silicone and just cut them as close as I can to the length of the OEM tubes.

[PMK]

Several calculated improvements can bring an excellent outcome.

I would suggest that you all work and band together, accepting that all the machines have the same problems, and as a team resolve the problems.

I will agree before it's posted, BRP should be taking this to the top of the list and making all the machines safe at their expense.

The tradeoff is, if you wait for BRP, ensure the risk is acceptable. If not, step up and unfortunately, spend some money.

Had we bought a 13 last year, I would be pissed, but would resolve the problems myself and know it's correct and not some dog and pony show band aid.

FWIW, yes I deal with similar stuff on occasion. Sadly for these operators, if costs are not covered the bill has a lot of 0's and the price of non compliance can be far greater. I don't get worked up over it. And yes there are owners similar to here that have no problems in their eyes. Unfortunately for them, they sure go crazy when the problem arrives for them.

All the best with it everyone.

PK

[robmorg]

He installed an aftermarket fuel controller and enriched his mixture. While it may help, BRP already did this with the most recent updates (except California?). Also, checking my plugs, the latest tune from BRP is running on average pretty darn good now, not lean like it was.

This is why he claims everyone told him it would not work. It does work....some. but its not the be all end all answer to this problem. Not in hot climates, hot exhaust, un-insulated tanks and near zero engine compartment air flow. AND it has a much higher risk of trouble with BRP in the future.

Thanks for posting that JC. Your post answers two questions for me. First what Drew was talking about (but seemed reluctant to explain), but more importantly, what the Warranty Bulletin 2013-9 ECM update did. I could not find that information anywhere.

I agree completely with what you just said and my experience confirms it as well. After the ECM update (which I just did a couple of weeks ago), my Spyder is running smoother and no longer stalls at idle like it had been doing at times. If the update was mainly to enrichen the mixture, that also explains BRP's vague description in the WB itself, which stated only that "the update may slightly improve rider's discomfort from heat in some riding conditions". If Drew was saying BRP should have done that all along, I'd say he's probably right about that.

But as for significantly making the bike cooler, I dunno. Enriching the mixture will lower the EGT proportionately, and this may help with overall temperature a little bit while idling or riding in slow city traffic. But once you give it any significant throttle the overall effect can only be minimal. So as you said, enriching the mixture alone is a far cry from resolving the entire problem. I am hopeful that doing the ECM update, PLUS wrapping the headers, PLUS using lots of heat reflective tape in strategic locations (especially under the seat and around the gas tank), has alleviated much of the overall problem for me. I do know that it made the heat around the seat quite tolerable, which was my main goal going in.

As others have said in this thread, there are lots of other things that can also help to alleviate the overheating fuel problem as well. That's why it will be so interesting to see what BRP will do after this current investigation is complete.

[Magdave]

Thanks for posting that JC. Your post answers two questions for me. First what Drew was talking about (but seemed reluctant to explain), but more importantly, what the Warranty Bulletin 2013-9 ECM update did. I could not find that information anywhere.

I agree completely with what you just said and my experience confirms it as well. After the ECM update (which I just did a couple of weeks ago), my Spyder is running smoother and no longer stalls at idle like it had been doing at times. If the update was mainly to enrichen the mixture, that also explains BRP's vague description in the WB itself, which stated only that "the update may slightly improve rider's discomfort from heat in some riding conditions". If Drew was saying BRP should have done that all along, I'd say he's probably right about that.

But as for significantly making the bike cooler, I dunno. Enriching the mixture will lower the EGT proportionately, and this may help with overall temperature a little bit while idling or riding in slow city traffic. But once you give it any significant throttle the overall effect can only be minimal. So as you said, enriching the mixture alone is a far cry from resolving the entire problem. I am hopeful that doing the ECM update, PLUS wrapping the headers, PLUS using lots of heat reflective tape in strategic locations (especially under the seat and around the gas tank), has alleviated much of the overall problem for me. I do know that it made the heat around the seat quite tolerable, which was my main goal going in.

As others have said in this thread, there are lots of other things that can also help to alleviate the overheating fuel problem as well. That's why it will be so interesting to see what BRP will do after this current investigation is complete.

From earlier reading wrapping the header still allows them to get very hot and hold the heat, Jet Hot treatment is what is needed IMHO and BRP should be doing it for us instead of handing us a couple of pieces of tinfoil.

[robmorg]

From earlier reading wrapping the header still allows them to get very hot and hold the heat, Jet Hot treatment is what is needed IMHO and BRP should be doing it for us instead of handing us a couple of pieces of tinfoil.

Dave,

While you are right about wrapped headers still getting hot and retaining some heat, I can tell you that the wrap DOES make a significant difference. I did NOT put any reflective tape on the backside of the rear side panels. I only lined the upper side panels and the smaller transverse panels under the seat. However, BOTH rear side panels are much cooler to the touch now after a ride in hot weather. I could hardly touch them before without burning my fingers. Now they are a little warm but comfortable to touch. The left side panel is right next to that long front exhaust header. I would still recommend it to those wanting to do something NOW, instead of waiting for for what BRP ultimately comes up with.

[Magdave]

Dave,

While you are right about wrapped headers still getting hot and retaining some heat, I can tell you that the wrap DOES make a significant difference. I did NOT put any reflective tape on the backside of the rear side panels. I only lined the upper side panels and the smaller transverse panels under the seat. However, BOTH rear side panels are much cooler to the touch now after a ride in hot weather. I could hardly touch them before without burning my fingers. Now they are a little warm but comfortable to touch. The left side panel is right next to that long front exhaust header. I would still recommend it to those wanting to do something NOW, instead of waiting for for what BRP ultimately comes up with.

wrapping is cooler than 1000deg but it is still too hot with no ventilation. I agree wrapping may help Dat guy's bike showed the wrap as the only recognizable thing left. Look at the charts on the following link

http://www.powdercoater.com/jethot/

I sure hope BRP is reading this stuff and is willing to spend a little $ to do it right this time instead of trying to come up with the cheapest quickest fix.

[robmorg]

Dave,

We don't know what else Dat Guy may have had going on under there that he may not have even been aware of. BUT....

You're right. Point taken.

That said, I also agree with PK's earlier post. I would not want to discourage 2013 owners from taking whatever action they can now to reduce the heat. I, for one, do not feel comfortable just sitting around waiting for BRP to act.

[PMK]

From earlier reading wrapping the header still allows them to get very hot and hold the heat, Jet Hot treatment is what is needed IMHO and BRP should be doing it for us instead of handing us a couple of pieces of tinfoil.

Wrap does help, but Jet Hot is superior.

http://www.jet-hot.com/

Do some reading, get a call in to Jet Hot. See if the 1300 will be acceptable. Not sure what peak EGT runs on a cruising Spyder. The 2000 could be used but remember it has a rough texture. 1300 is smooth.

The tubes should be able to be coated inside and outside.

Colors are available.

Even the cats exterior could be coated with 2000.

Read close in the applications and you'll see they also coat fuel tanks.

Proper fuel mixtures, so richen them up and heat management should be a welcome addition.

If you guys are lucky, BRP is setting up a swap program where they accomplish a TSB where the machine is brought into a dealer, and your pipes and such a changed as rotables.

This could reduce their expense, maybe solve a problem, and get you guys on a comfy machine. Yes this is a hint to them.

BTW, coated pipes do offer a performance advantage since the exhaust gas velocity is not cooled in the pipe, therefore the exhaust wave slows less and creates less backpressure.

Two locations, NC and OK

No I don't work for them in any way.

Good luck guys.

PK

[PMK]

So did anyone step up and see about the Jet Hot coatings?

What about an alternate means to richen things up?

Lot of people talking but doesn't seem action is happening.

Consider the next fire could be your Spyder.

PK

[DrewNJ]

So did anyone step up and see about the Jet Hot coatings?

What about an alternate means to richen things up?

Lot of people talking but doesn't seem action is happening.

Consider the next fire could be your Spyder.

PK

[emoji85][emoji86][emoji87]

[DrewNJ]

[PMK]

Not deaf, dumb nor blind...Like you, it is so often frustrating on internet forums to endure the "mine is fine and has no problem...I spent the money they need to fix it right now...or the discredit to some very smart people and I do not claim to be one of them...or the classic, the engineers designed it and know what's best for my machine"

My position is leaning towards a do it right or don't bitch about it. Assume the worst and build the best.

Fire is nothing to mess with, at what point will it be when someone is hurt badly, or worse yet a stock oem or dog and pony show modded machine has a fuel tank explode while riders are on board, even if just during a simple restart. Just like on TV, turn the key to on, hit the starter and spectactular happens. Maybe wrong or possibly not that far from the truth. I hope it never happens.

Have fun boys, hopefully the fix is quick to arrive and effective when installed. The previous record for this is poor and unsuccessful. What's another two or three more attempts. Just more bandwidth to burn up.

Sometimes reality is not fun or cheap.

PK

[Bfromla]

I just hope all goes well &things stay simple so I can enjoy my ride,(naive i know)

[Magdave]

So did anyone step up and see about the Jet Hot coatings?

What about an alternate means to richen things up?

Lot of people talking but doesn't seem action is happening.

Consider the next fire could be your Spyder.

PK

PC 5 is the only thing out there to change the fuel delivery and is pricey. Some have used them I believe Drew did. I have read some have had the coating done also but no follow up reports. It is OK if mine catches on fire if BRP does not fix it. I have done all I am going to do so as to avoid being blamed for when (and if) it does.

[jcthorne]

wrapping is cooler than 1000deg but it is still too hot with no ventilation. I agree wrapping may help Dat guy's bike showed the wrap as the only recognizable thing left. Look at the charts on the following linkhttp://www.powdercoater.com/jethot/I sure hope BRP is reading this stuff and is willing to spend a little $ to do it right this time instead of trying to come up with the cheapest quickest fix.

I would really like to see a real test comparison of JetHot coated steel vs bare steel vs a properly applied exhaust wrap over bare steel. Surface temps are NOT a measure of heat transfer, they very with air flow and ambient temperatures. It is the quantity of heat transferred to the engine bay that matters, not the surface temp as some static air condition and temp.

Also remember that our headers are not simple steel tubes, they are already double wall insulated with an air gap. Just not enough insulation to do the job. Now if only our tanks were double wall....

[jcthorne]

Wrap does help, but Jet Hot is superior.

http://www.jet-hot.com/

Do some reading,


PK

I have done lots of reading, and even used the product. BUT, while its an excellent protective coating, my experience has shown it does not reduce heat transfer through the header nearly as well as a properly applied exhaust wrap insulation. There is also no information on their web site with regard to thermal transfer performance. Only durability and finish. I really wish they would provide that information. YES, I have asked and they 'do not have that information available'

I can tell you that in industrial settings, high heat piping is often insulated with materials similar to what is provided by exhaust wrap, ceramic based coatings like JetHot are only used for protection, not insulation.