Fuel filling behind the RHS taillight

[Innuendo]

Why are they being so vigilant?

Well a mobile phone is enough to start an explosion at a petrol station, this has been seen fairly recently in Sydney (a Caltex I think), you dont have to see the spark, the petrol vapour finds it! Same with lead acid batteries, mobile phones are proven ignition sources for explosion.

As far as I know a mobile phone has never been the cause for a fuel fire at any service station. The cause just about always comes back to static electricity. The TV show Mythbusters delved deeply into this on one episode. That's not to say it can't happen, just they couldn't make it happen and couldn't find any proof ever that a mobile phone had been the cause of an ignition.

Here is some reading:
http://www.amta.org.au/pages/Exploding.petrol.stations
http://www.amta.org.au/articles/amta....station.fires
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cellgas.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...-gas-fires.htm

There would be a way of venting the tank well away from the fill point. You could very easily cut all power to the taillight via an automated switch as soon as the taillight is opened.
It is very do-able and if it is your want, you can find a way to do safely. It is a good point about the Number Plate light and the fill point on HQ-WB sedans and Toranas. So the issue cannot be that big a problem.

[wbute]

Nearly all new cars have remote opening fuel doors. They don't seal the doors up though. I suppose you don't want any chance of vapour build up from the fuel cap leaking vapour.

[Big Rob]

I'm with the fuel vapour issue as per Chrisp, wbute and Innuendo on this one.

(I note the comments about the Ford Pinto, - I think the iconic book there came from Ralph Nadar - 'unsafe at any speed'? Anyway, he was the dude that exposed that Ford (US) made the calculation on recall and repair of the Pinto versus likely damages from litigation due to deaths, and Ford chose the latter, as it seemed to look cheaper. Ford didn't fare so well after it all came out... U.S. Supreme Court from memory.)

By the way, this thread mentions the Pinto but it forgets the venerable old Mini. The Mini sedans had an odd fuel filler cap , it stuck out from the body about 4 inches, in a roll over accident, it had a tendency to shear, the fuel could flow out, right into the brake light area, if the tail lamps or indicator were on.... and it did happen, all occupants burned. Ford Pinto city. (Not a joke and none intended).

Practically, however, I would offer this;
Whilst I believe that it may, I say may, be possible, given sound engineering design, to do such a thing safely...., hmmn maybe... you still have to convince the person operating any petrol pump at any station you fill up at to confidently turn on the gas without calling you in for a yarn. Which is a fraction boring if it happens all the time!!

Given that for instance, a BP service station near me wont let me fill up even if I'm wearing a beanie, and they know me! Company policy I'm told, I have to approach the window, take my beanie off, throw it in the car and then fill up, - in winter in Canberra!

And this summer, at the same servo, I watched an attendant slow down a line of about four cars in 38C plus because one dude was wearing a cap and didn't get why the pump wouldn't start... yeah everyone just waiting for fuel, to pay the money, and get outa there all pissed off with one dude in the heat because he got annoyed he had to take his cap off. Fair enough, I think it was ridiculous and (like others there, had a little growl at the service station operator), however, it didn't change their policy, petrol filling safety requirements are likely to become more stringent in the future, too, I cant change that don't blame me !!! But, considering that;

Why are they being so vigilant?

Well a mobile phone is enough to start an explosion at a petrol station, this has been seen fairly recently in Sydney (a Caltex I think), you dont have to see the spark, the petrol vapour finds it! Same with lead acid batteries, mobile phones are proven ignition sources for explosion.

So a 12v 15A source, ie petrol into an H series brake light housing.. Hmmn, I'd want very good engineering if it was my car, bearing also that the cap will get old, and may vent in hot weather at any time!

And whilst I agree, a 12v DC motor/servo is probably worse than an (off) or even an (on) lamp due to the arc at the brushes - and there's also the possibility of someone touching the switch whilst you are filling - regardless of that - fuel vapour can hang around for a bit - it may still there with a lamp that's burning, or may be about to be when the driver gets in and switches on the headlamps, and operates brake or indicator. Fuel vapour ignites really well, really easily, and it might not the first, second, third or tenth time, but the awh I dunno 133rd? I wouldn't wanna be the passenger.

Sorta cool, sorta, but I just dont see the point. Especially if the fuel station filler refuses to switch on the pump for you half the time.

It doesn't take much to ignite fuel vapour - that's what keeps us all motoring after all!

Torana had em behind the number plate, maybe that's one reason why they fail Torana on a craked rear number plate light lens? OK probably not, ... they fail Toranas all the time.. lol.

I dunno, I don't usually can stuff outright, but geese, with all respect, and politely, I really don't see the point in this one.

I'm more than a bit perplexed......

Why did you have to remove a beanie, or the other guy remove his hat when filling up?

[Taily]

I'm more than a bit perplexed......

Why did you have to remove a beanie, or the other guy remove his hat when filling up?

You don't have to. If this is happening then it is the console operator being a dick because his/her boss is getting sick of not being able to identify cretins who drive-off without paying for fuel. There is no law about wearing a beanie or any other hat for that matter but it isn't a huge stretch to see the connection between a balaclava and a beanie.

There is a law about using a helmet or a mask to conceal identity but that only applies once a person physically enters a shop or a bank. Some console operators will try and tell you that by pulling up to a bowser you have entered their "shop". This is bollocks as the driveway/bowser area is deemed a public thoroughfare.

Call the police, the servo owner/console operator will get the message quick enough.

[Flamenco_not_Flamingo]

I'm more than a bit perplexed......

Why did you have to remove a beanie, or the other guy remove his hat when filling up?

Aw come on mate, never heard of a dress code? lol

[SLR_dave]

But following the idea, if you did go LPG, then you could pretty easy have a fold out rear bumper maybe?

[damienengland]

Thanks SLR Dave.

More good food for thought. Ultimately i have to get this beast licensed so perhaps that is the check and balance for this idea. I could run it past an engineer with my other mods and get an official go/no go on the idea.

Also, the rear tank idea probably wont work, as i'm dropping in a full custom boot that will take up all of this area under the body. Not sure if i sound vague, i've just landed in Glasgow for work and got the usual jet lag issue.

Cheers

[adam perth]

what about doing a flip down number plate like in the HQ HZ statesmans and LH LX toranas? and using a stato / torana tank?

[wbute]

You can't move the venting. You have to open the cap which vents the tank completely.
Speaking of static. Fuel hose has to be to standards to avoid this. I replaced the fuel hose on one of my overhead diesel tanks. The new hose was rated correctly with writing all over it. After a couple of years of use it started to crackle as the diesel ran through it! I had heard of it happening but thought it was a load of crap. But... It isn't. The crackling is static build up in the hose from the fuel running through it.

[SLR_dave]

You can't move the venting. You have to open the cap which vents the tank completely.

Regarding venting, I think I was considering a different idea than Innuendo and wb, I was actually thinking about the potential for creating a vapour trap between an assumed filler cap mounted inside the rear 1/4 -upper tailight section and the back of the lamp unit, depending on how that is managed. Thus you could get the cap venting into a space, and a vapour trap very close to the rear of where the lamps are. I was musing ... maybe... that space could be vented with a channel downwards inside the rear 1/4 out to under the side wall below the floor. (Dunno bout mud water etc flying up into it from the road/wheel though).

As far as I know a mobile phone has never been the cause for a fuel fire at any service station.

Regarding petrol stations and mobile phones (just quickly)... lol, the majority of the stuff on the net about this seems to me to be opinion pushed by people (including some journalists) who feel that their freedoms/convenience are hampered by not being able to use a mobile at a servo. Agreed there is a heap of stuff out there saying its safe to use mobiles at petrol stations becuase there has never been a proven incident, however, almost all of these articles are quoting each other quoting the original source, which was an ATSB report published in 2005, which looked at 243 fires in petrol stations world wide between 1993 and 2004.

The one in Sydney was after this (about 2007-8) and was (as far as I am aware) confirmed ignited by mobile phone not static.

Here is youtube video in Aug 2006 (the date is on the surveilance tape), a year after the ATSB report was published, which appears to show a fire igniting at a service station after a person on a phone touched a car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gct1BmKNvU0

Politely, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Agency (AMTA) referred to in links earlier on in this post imaginably has an interest in gaining as much access for phone users as possible, they do seem to be on a bit of a campaign about this. For example; Here is another of their reports where they question an airlines practice regarding protecting its air flight systems!... and then goes on to discuss petrol and automotive fires.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/arti...omobiles_amta/

Now I dunno how many airworthyness engineers work at the AMTA.... but in the meantime heres how some others look at it;

http://engworks.ca/Whitepapers/Cellp...sLocations.pdf
(see conclusion, page 10.)

The MD of Caltex Australia;
http://www.caltex.com.au/LatestNews/....aspx?ID=13151

The RACQ reckons (a while back) that in 10 percent of petrol station fires examined, the source was not determined but that mobiles could not be ruled out.
http://www.racq.com.au/motoring/cars...and_fuel_fires

and the current MSDS for shell premium 95 unleaded (See section 7) also advises to keep mobile phones away.
http://s03.static-shell.com/content/...lpremium95.pdf

But still, I agree there is still some uncertainty about it yes, but less uncertainty than there was in 2005, and the majority of search engines on the internet atm tend to bring up articles which play to a popular idea, but are becomming years out of date.