Fuel tank leak... but where from?

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by codprawn

Just spoken to the great people at Glasplies - they say a special resin should ideally be used BUT there are plenty of people who have used just normal resin for car and motorbike tanks and they have lasted years with no probs at all.

One advantage of fibreglass is they are more flexible so they are less prone to cracking than stainless or ali.

Another good reason to only buy a CE marked boat - regular resin should never under any circumstances be used for fuel tanks - they make a special resin for a reason!

(we have just had to buy a barrel of it so I should know!).

[Erin]

So what's the difference between ordinary resin and the sort that's ok for fuel tanks?

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Cookee

Another good reason to only buy a CE marked boat - regular resin should never under any circumstances be used for fuel tanks - they make a special resin for a reason!

(we have just had to buy a barrel of it so I should know!).

From my earlier post

"Just spoken to the great people at Glasplies - they say a special resin should ideally be used BUT there are plenty of people who have used just normal resin for car and motorbike tanks and they have lasted years with no probs at all."

Obviously using the correct stuff is much preffered but I do remember Jason mentioning the name of the stuff and saying they used it so hopefully they did!!!

As CE marking is self regulated does it really provide enough protection?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Erin

So what's the difference between ordinary resin and the sort that's ok for fuel tanks?

....about £2.25/Kg.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

As CE marking is self regulated does it really provide enough protection?

Its not self regulated (it is regulated by trading standards) it is self certified - which is slightly (but importantly) different.

if you have been sold a dodgy boat with non conformant features - then if the supplier won't address the issues trading standards should investigate and take action.

[Erin]

Err....... trading standards.......Guernsey.........you'd be lucky!

I don't think I have any complaint about the fibreglass, it was just the way the take-off plate had been fitted that seemed to be causing the leak. And my boat does have a CE mark (I think from memory - must check), on a 'home made' plate stuck on the transom. Is it worth the plastic its written on? Does CE marking even have any legal standing in the Channel Islands where we are outside the EU? And what standards does a CE marked boat have to comply with?

Erin

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by Erin

So what's the difference between ordinary resin and the sort that's ok for fuel tanks?

Not being a chemist I couldn't tell you chemically, but what I do know is that it is formulated to resist diesel (that's what we use it for - haven't looked into petrol - especially with all the crap they're putting in it now) and the regular resins aren't! I wouldn't trust anything but the real thing for keeping it's structure properly, either chemically or physically.

Polwart is spot on - we had Trading Standards inspect our boat at the Southampton show last year although it was more of a paperwork thing. No CE marking is a big insurance issue - an insurance company would probably walk away from any claim that involved a non CE marked boat. Of course self certification doesn't mean you will get a fault a perfect boat, but it is allegedly better than nothing!

[codprawn]

Alledgedly being the word for it!!!

Decent companies like yours try hard to comply with it and then others just don't give a damn. Many companies use it as an advertising tool whilst others err on the side of caution. The result is a 4m boat with a B rating and a 9m with a C.

Another problem you have are the little Hitlers at trading standards - they wouldn't know a good boat if it ran over them but they enforce it - as you said all they understand are bits of paper and if they SEEM in order that's all they care about.

Many people(not us) in the computer trade had problems a few years ago. They decided to force small computer companies to apply for CE testing of computers. Now as all the computer parts you buy are CE marked anyway and all you do is assemble them why insist on it? It forced a lot of smaller companies out of business when they weren't hurting anyone.

Another stunt Trading Standards used to pull was companies selling Non Region Coded DVD players. They raided many companies and shut down some very respectable firms. When Tesco started selling them Trading Standards said "We will not be pursuing people over this any more"........

[Erin]

Right, well then, I've just had a look and there doesn't seem to be any CE marking on my boat but it does have an 'RCD' rating of C. Presumably this is better than nothing! My insurers never asked for any CE proof but then it's only for pleasure use not racing or anything.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Erin

Right, well then, I've just had a look and there doesn't seem to be any CE marking on my boat but it does have an 'RCD' rating of C. Presumably this is better than nothing! My insurers never asked for any CE proof but then it's only for pleasure use not racing or anything.

The RCD rating is what the CE mark would be "certifying". If bought/sold in the CI's then its irrelevant as you aren't part of the EU. If it was for racing then it would have been exempt anyway.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Erin

Err....... trading standards.......Guernsey.........you'd be lucky!

You are absolutely correct - but Codprawn imported his boat from the CI's (without knowing the terms of sale between CP and Prosport we don't know if technically Codprawn imported it or Prosport did).

If CP is the imported then legal responsibility for its CE marking lies with him. Otherwise it was Prosports responsibility. My understanding is that if Prosport were illegally bringing non CE marked boats into the UK then trading standards would be most interested.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

The result is a 4m boat with a B rating and a 9m with a C.

although I am not saying this is correct - that is actually the point of the directive - so that you have something other than size to base judgements on.

- as you said all they understand are bits of paper and if they SEEM in order that's all they care about.

thats a good start - did you ask to see Prosports design history file etc?

however there is a difference between proactive enquiries (where in my opinion it is probably enough to make enquiries and see files etc) and reactive enquiries where if there was just cause I would expect trading standards to actually seek evidence of conformance - e.g. in response to complaints / accidents etc.

[bedajim]

Many people(not us) in the computer trade had problems a few years ago. They decided to force small computer companies to apply for CE testing of computers. Now as all the computer parts you buy are CE marked anyway and all you do is assemble them why insist on it? It forced a lot of smaller companies out of business when they weren't hurting anyone.



Because CE+CE doesn't = CE in every case

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by bedajim

Many people(not us) in the computer trade had problems a few years ago. They decided to force small computer companies to apply for CE testing of computers. Now as all the computer parts you buy are CE marked anyway and all you do is assemble them why insist on it? It forced a lot of smaller companies out of business when they weren't hurting anyone.



Because CE+CE doesn't = CE in every case

Explain please? Computer components are specifically designed to be connected together......

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Polwart

You are absolutely correct - but Codprawn imported his boat from the CI's (without knowing the terms of sale between CP and Prosport we don't know if technically Codprawn imported it or Prosport did).

If CP is the imported then legal responsibility for its CE marking lies with him. Otherwise it was Prosports responsibility. My understanding is that if Prosport were illegally bringing non CE marked boats into the UK then trading standards would be most interested.

In fact the paperwork is suprisingly correct. If anything they erred on the side of caution too much - my 9m boat is rated as a Cat C - the same as my Quicksilver 3.1m - bonkers!!!

[fast fred]

i've spent the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$
for CE hulls, it meant nothing.

[Tim M]

I totally agree with codprawn; my Rib is also cat c - the same as my old quicksilver sib. Someone said earlier in this thread that the RCD system was designed partly so you have something more than just lenght to base seakeeping ability on. If that is the case why is a 7m rib rated the same as a 2.6m inflatable?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Tim M

I totally agree with codprawn; my Rib is also cat c - the same as my old quicksilver sib. Someone said earlier in this thread that the RCD system was designed partly so you have something more than just lenght to base seakeeping ability on. If that is the case why is a 7m rib rated the same as a 2.6m inflatable?

thats a question you should have been asking your vendor when you bought it - thats the point of the RCD - the vendor/manufacturer/designer tells you what HE thinks it is suitable for.

As another point though the RCD cat - also states how many people (and other load) are included in the classification. So my boat (3.9m) is RCD cat D for 6 or RCD cat C for 3. I presume the people rating is considerably higher on your 7m boat than the 2.6m boat.

Your boat builder has told you (via the cat C category) - that he didn't design your boat for use in >2m significant wave height or >F6 winds. Perhaps they don't think it is safe to use in a F8 with significant wave heights of 4m (ie cat B)?

However it is also possible that they didn't want the expense of going for a Cat B certification. As I understand it Cat A and B certifications require the use of a 3rd party body (e.g. the RYA) - ie. its not as simple as self cert C&D categories.

[codprawn]

I was told he did it to stop any legal problems should someone go out in very rough weather. For once he was actually being sensible. If there was more cost involved I expect that was a large factor.

My RIB is in a different league to my 3.1 Quicksilver in the rough......

[Erin]

That's all fine and dandy, but how would I find out if my boat is really legitimately classed as RCD C and not just a piece of plastic with inflatable bits sellotaped on where the vendor decided he'd get out his biro and mark up the transom with the letters 'RCD cat-C'?