Video of old filler hose. What did this?

[Keyboardman]

Pulled this out of my 1990 sterndrive boat. Was wondering if this is supposed to be alcohol resistant fuel hose, what caused this to just disintegrate like it did? How many other older boats could have this dangerous problem?

 

[MTboatguy]

If that is the original hose from 1990, then no it is not alcohol resistant, between that and being 28 years old, it just finally fell apart, you should never run a fuel hose for 28 years, I replace mine every 5 years and they have showed deterioration after 5 years. It is what I consider part of the typical maintenance that needs to be done.

 

[dingbat]

Old age.......

Alcohol resistant fuel hoses have been in use since the mid 1980's.

The real question is how old is too old. Fuel hose manufacturers recommend changing the hose out every 8-10 years

28 years is long over due

 

[MTboatguy]

Old age.......

Alcohol resistant fuel hoses have been in use since the mid 1980's.

The real question is how old is too old. Fuel hose manufacturers recommend changing the hose out every 8-10 years

28 years is long over due

Yes, they have been around since the 80's but they were not common in the 80's a lot of manufactures still used the less expensive material for a long time after they were released.
.
But as I said, the hose is to old and has simply deteriorated and fell apart.

 

[dingbat]

Yes, they have been around since the 80's but they were not common in the 80's a lot of manufactures still used the less expensive material for a long time after they were released

Then they where in violation ABYC H24.6.1

24.6.1 - Non-metallic hose must comply with the requirements of the UL Standard 1114, or with the requirements of SAE Jl527 DEC85

SAE J1527: Marine Fuel Hoses- approved December 1985, and revised November 1987.
CFR Section(s): 33 CFR 183.540(a)

16.1 - Fuel Resistance and Rate of Fuel Permeation—Two classes of hoses have been established with respect to fuel resistance and rate of fuel permeation.

Class 1 hose is intended for applications such as for fuel feed lines where liquid fuel is normally continuously in the hose.

Class 2 hose is recommended for applications such as for fuel tank vent and fill hoses, where liquid fuel is not normally continuously in contact with the hose.

Separate samples from each class of hose are required to be tested as stated as follows within the following test fuels: 100% ASTM Fuel C; and 85% ASTM Fuel C and 15% methanol by volume.

 

[MTboatguy]

Then they where in violation ABYC H24.6.1

24.6.1 - Non-metallic hose must comply with the requirements of the UL Standard 1114, or with the requirements of SAE Jl527 DEC85

SAE J1527: Marine Fuel Hoses- approved December 1985, and revised November 1987.
CFR Section(s): 33 CFR 183.540(a)

16.1 - Fuel Resistance and Rate of Fuel Permeation—Two classes of hoses have been established with respect to fuel resistance and rate of fuel permeation.

Class 1 hose is intended for applications such as for fuel feed lines where liquid fuel is normally continuously in the hose.

Class 2 hose is recommended for applications such as for fuel tank vent and fill hoses, where liquid fuel is not normally continuously in contact with the hose.

Separate samples from each class of hose are required to be tested as stated as follows within the following test fuels: 100% ASTM Fuel C; and 85% ASTM Fuel C and 15% methanol by volume.

I have no problem with that, but I also know for a fact that certain companies did not comply, they used up their existing stock of fuel line materials before they went into compliance. Then take into account that if you didn't buy the boat new, you have no idea of what the PO did before you got the boat. Rules and compliance are all well and good, but I know about that time we were having a very difficult time getting fuel components that actually complied with the current regulations in the Army, our .mil spec regulations changed all the time to be in compliance with the regulations, but it didn't mean we could actually get the stuff.

There are just to many variables involved, the hose it old, it fell apart, it needs to be replaced, the reason is not the most important issue in this, nobody has an exact way to know what that hose has been through in the last 28 years.

It is really not an argument, but the hose needs to be replaced and I suspect age is the major culprit the created the situation.

Another thing people seem to forget, when new compliance rules come into being, normally there are grace periods to allow you to use up existing stock before you order new stock, companies are not going to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars away because a compliance rule was changed.