BRP Spyder investigation started. What will happen?

[jcthorne]

We all experience the excessive heat, but I wonder why some of us experience the fuel boil/vapor smell/dripping gas problem and others do not. I guess what I'm REALLY wondering is if some of the machines are different than others, and more prone to the problem, ...or if the problem is entirely universal and some of us are just not riding long enough, in hot enough weather, to experience it. :dontknow:

Several variables other than the bikes themselves. Environment and the fuel are the biggies. Outside temp and humidity have a big effect on the fuel boiling. The vapor pressure or boiling point of gasoline is a wide range due to the large number of very specific blends of gasoline mandated for sale in this country. Many of the EPA non-attainment areas that have the strict ethanol rules enforced are also in some of the hottest climates. None the less, the bikes should not be belching fuel vapors even in the hottest climate with the lowest boiling point fuel used in the US. IE the design MUST take into account the lowest common denominator for EPA and DOT regulations.

 

[Magdave]

Several variables other than the bikes themselves. Environment and the fuel are the biggies. Outside temp and humidity have a big effect on the fuel boiling. The vapor pressure or boiling point of gasoline is a wide range due to the large number of very specific blends of gasoline mandated for sale in this country. Many of the EPA non-attainment areas that have the strict ethanol rules enforced are also in some of the hottest climates. None the less, the bikes should not be belching fuel vapors even in the hottest climate with the lowest boiling point fuel used in the US. IE the design MUST take into account the lowest common denominator for EPA and DOT regulations.

And another point is made are these bike even EPA compliant or are they exempt?:dontknow:

 

[robmorg]

And another point is made are these bikes even EPA compliant or are they exempt?:dontknow:

THAT'S a good question!! I'd be REALLY ticked if I found out that these machines did not require catalytic converters or fuel evaporators and BRP put them on there anyway for some misguided reason.

I can just picture the conversation between two high level design engineers at BRP while the Spyder was coming to market....

Eng #1: "I know it's not required, but should we put a catalytic converter on this machine? And what about a fuel evaporator?"

Eng #2: "There's no question about it. We have a moral obligation to protect the environment."

Eng #1: "I agree, but you know there's not much room for cooling under these cowlings. It could lead to problems if we introduce more heat - especially with the gas tank right there next to the #1 exhaust header."

Eng #2: "What do you think the odds are of a serious heat problem?"

Eng #1: "I did some quick calculations, and I figure maybe 1% could possibly catch fire and burn up, given a specific set of circumstances. That may seriously injure or even cause death to some owners."

Eng #2: "Yes, but even more could get involved in collisions while riding and die. We have no control over that. And besides, didn't you watch that movie "Inconvenient Truth" made by the American politician fellow - Al Gore, I think his name was. You know we have to do our part to prevent Global Warming."

Eng #1: "Yeah, you're right. Let's put them on."​

 

[Gray Ghost]

The EPA also regulates bikes. Even newer HD bykes have catalytic converters, etc.

 

[Magdave]

The EPA also regulates bikes. Even newer HD bykes have catalytic converters, etc.

Cats are for exhaust and EVAP systems for fuel vapors. Obviously the fuel vapor containment on these are lacking. Is that something the EPA certifies? Do Harleys have an EVAP system?:dontknow:

 

[cuznjohn]

hard call

it just amazes me that all the people that have complained and spent money to try to eliminate the problem were never really listened to, but one police bike went up in flames and now there is a investigation into the matter. i am sure this is going to cost BRP a ton of money to try and come up wit a idea and fix all the bikes.really interested in seeing what the out come will be

 

[Magdave]

I remember last year when I put a paper towel under mine trying to find the gas source and reporting drips. I was told any one who puts a diaper under their Spyder doesn't deserve to ride one. That comment really stuck with me.:shocked:

..Anyway I answered my own question on the Harley canister. Yes they do and they are treated the same as ours some remove them. They seem to be in a better location for keeping cool than ours. There are relocation kits too I imagine they look a little ugly where they sit.

http://www.harley-davidson.com/en_US/Media/downloads/Service/isheets/-J01941.pdf

 

[Magdave]

Here is some more interesting reading apparently NHTSA has known all along about the canister and hoses causing fires and let BRP send out gas caps in 2012 as a fix :dontknow:



A pair of recalls for fuel vapor leaks on Can-Am Spyder roadsters has expanded to the U.S. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, one recall affects 9,600 units from model years 2008-2010 while the second, larger recall affects 33,700 from model years 2008-2012. An earlier recalls from Transport Canada affects 9400 units for the a fuel cap issue and 2,431 units for a fuel vapor canister vent hose issue.
The smaller recall (NHTSA campaign ID #12V581000) applies to Can-Am Spyder GS units from model years 2008 and 2009 as well as a limited quantity of 2010 Can-Am Spyder RS units. According to documents released by NHTSA, fuel vapors may escape from the fuel vapor canister vent hose within the engine compartment. In the presence of an ignition source, the vapors may ignite, resulting in a fire.
The larger recall (NHTSA campaign ID #12V582000) applies to Spyder GS models from model years 2008-2009, Spyder RS models from 2009-2012 and Spyder RT models from 2010-2012. According to the recall documents, the fuel cap on the affected units may not properly form a seal with the fuel tank filler neck. Fuel vapors may thus escape from the fuel cap, also creating a fire risk.
According the the recall documents, Bombardier Recreational Products received four vehicle fire claims in May 2009, all involving a 2008 GS model. Those fires occurred when the vehicle was stopped or moving at very slow speeds. BRP initiated an investigation and identified fuel vapors from the vapor canister vent hose as a potential cause but could find no pattern of causation.
BRP continued to monitor the situation and received reports of additional vehicle fires. Some of those reports also appeared to be related to the fuel vapor canister vent hose. BRP continued its investigation, expanding it to include 2009 models including the RS. Further reports continued to come in, and BRP tried to identify potential differences in fuel, electrical systems, seats, and the electrostatic charge qualities of fuel lines and connectors on fuel vapor sources.
In February 2012, BRP confirmed the fuel vapor canister vent hoses and fuel caps may be a potential source of some of the reported fires. BRP concluded its investigation on Dec. 4 and determined there was an unreasonable risk of harm and initiated the recalls. As of Dec. 11, BRP says it was aware of 12 fires linked to the fuel vapor canister vent hoses and 18 fires linked to the fuel cap.
Dealers will inspect recalled units and, where it applies, replace the fuel cap with an improved cap and install or re-route fuel vapor canister hoses.
[Source: NHTSA]

http://blog.motorcycle.com/2012/12/...spyder-fuel-vapor-leak-recalls-expands-to-us/

 

[robmorg]

I remember last year when I put a paper towel under mine trying to find the gas source and reporting drips. I was told any one who puts a diaper under their Spyder doesn't deserve to ride one. That comment really stuck with me.:shocked:

..Anyway I answered my own question on the Harley canister. Yes they do and they are treated the same as ours some remove them. They seem to be in a better location for keeping cool than ours. There are relocation kits too I imagine they look a little ugly where they sit.

http://www.harley-davidson.com/en_US/Media/downloads/Service/isheets/-J01941.pdf

That "diaper comment" isn't surprising. It's actually pretty funny, in an ironic sort of way. :sour:

Guess your research on the Harleys negates my "engineer conversation theory" a few posts back.

 

[gypsy_100]

Several variables other than the bikes themselves. Environment and the fuel are the biggies. Outside temp and humidity have a big effect on the fuel boiling. The vapor pressure or boiling point of gasoline is a wide range due to the large number of very specific blends of gasoline mandated for sale in this country. Many of the EPA non-attainment areas that have the strict ethanol rules enforced are also in some of the hottest climates. None the less, the bikes should not be belching fuel vapors even in the hottest climate with the lowest boiling point fuel used in the US. IE the design MUST take into account the lowest common denominator for EPA and DOT regulations.

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.

 

[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]

Motor Vehicle Defects and Safety Recalls:

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.:thumbup: I wonder if the MAP sensor can be part of the fume problem:dontknow:

 

[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.:thumbup: I wonder if the MAP sensor can be part of the fume problem:dontknow:

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.