Originally Posted by Alleycatdad
If you're talking about the rotopax, mine have proven to be plenty tough as far as abrasion goes, at least as hardy as the aftermarket main tank on my WR250F.. Given the options, I find this to be a fine spot to mount extra gas. 2-1 with an adv tank would be better protected, but that's a bunch of $ that I don't want to spend, and pretty permanent for the majority of days when I ride and don't want to pick up the extra weight. Mine are somewhat protected by the projection of the utility cases behind them, which is weird, but when it's gone down, the larger case and (once) the mount seem to take a bigger hit than the gas container.
If this bothers you, stay away from the "extra fuel" threads, where the leading method of choice seems to be coffee bags...bungeed on...now THOSE give me the heebie jeebies.
Um...you mean this one?
Interestingly, they reference my recommendation for the TEMPORARY use of such a(mylar) bladder, in emergencies, here:
...although I don't at all recommend bungee-ing it on to any part of the bike...it fits nicely in a backpack and personally, I see that as motivation to ride _really_ carefully while you ferry fuel to whoever is out and stranded. Obviously not DOT approved, as if that means anything these days...
The RotoPax might be tough but on a wet-pavement lowside(or highside) at any sort of velocity, and expecially on shipsealed pavement like we have a lot of in the Southwest, they abrade right through in about, Oh, say 50-175 feet of slide. Combine that with those nice steel crashbars you have sparking their way along with the footpegs as they put some grooves in the tarmac, and you've got a big fire on your hands under just about any conditions even before you and the bike come to a hault.
JMO, though, to each his own...the stock tanks on the Adventures of all years are amazingly tough and literally have inches of plastic(in multi-layers and replaceable panels) in the contact/slide zones(low hanging parts right near the lowest mount) to avoid abrading through in a similar event, so it's clear that KTM addressed the issue as best they could but the RotoPax ones are...well...pretty thin...and the way you have them mounted there they are very vulnerable IMO. JMO, though. The Adventures are literally the ONLY motorcycle I have ever seen made to carry fuel in a tank(s) where it is so vulnerable as such.
Originally Posted by Helios
Yes I have thought about that, in fact that is why I chose the Kolpins vs the Rotopax.. the Kolpins have a much thicker wall and are super tough.. you can stand on one empty with the lid off and it will not even flex
But you do have me re-evaluating it again...(thanks...LOL!) Maybe I will add some sacrificial panels to the sides of them like the fuel tanks up front have...
As I denote in my comments above, the stock Adventure tanks of later than ~2006(I think...or so...) have sacrificial panels outside of the stock(thick, but softer plastic) tanks that I personally have proven to work quite effectively when I foolishly mounted a fresh front Dunlop 606 the night before and left on the following cold morning and promptly lowsided like a beginner on a roadrace track. Either engineer the mounts so that the tanks themselves break away and don't ever see the weight of the bike or apply sacrificial panels as you mentioned.