Jump to content

Safety modifications and judging comments and questions.


edinmass
 Share

Recommended Posts

Had an interesting debate on another site about adding a dual master cylinder to replace a single master on cars equipped with only the single......and weather or not it would or should receive a deduction under judging standard according to the club rules. Currently, it is a deduction according to AACA rules and accredited judging experts. My comment was that it made absolutely no sense to deduct for a safety upgrade, especially a very minor change on the cars braking system. My response was rather aggressive that it was a deduction, and there was no logic for it not to be allowed. As the conversation continued, we covered what would cause a disqualification for judging. It appears so far (going to read my rule book again tomorrow) that the only disqualification is no fire extinguisher. As most people here know, I’m a dinosaur when it comes to modifications and improper or out of the era parts, accessories , and non authentic modern replacement parts like electronic ignition in pre war cars. Ok, that being said, I’m going to offer two real life examples of safety issues and modifications that I have seen on tour and done to my own cars. Remember.....I accept no deviations from factory condition on any car, for any reason, except safety. Here we go.

 

At Amelia this year, a very nice early Packard suffered a severe and significant fire........it was ugly. Fortunately everyone got away safely, and the car was damaged but certainly not ruined. Both of these results were more luck than anything else......it could have turned into a disaster for both people and car.

 

 

The Packard uses a pressurized gas tank to deliver fuel to the carburetor. While going down the road, the float partially sunk.....causing gas to overflow the carburetor......and something ignited it. It took a LONG time to get the fire under control. Six large fire extinguishers were used to finally get it out. The problem? The car was shut off.....but the pressure in the tank kept pushing fuel making it almost impossible for the extinguishers to get ahead of the fire. The only way to stop the pressure would to be open the gas cap......which almost any owner or restorer would be hard pressed to keep his wits about him, put down the extinguisher and bleed off the pressure before attempting to put the fire out. See the photos below.........it’s ugly.

84F7E99D-B892-48D1-988B-E64AC069F22B.png

19D05614-F886-4FDD-A1AA-4FF89274E2B7.png

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continued:

 

Back about fifteen years ago, I bought a mostly original 1914 Cadillac touring car. Fantastic car that ran great and could keep up with the big boys with its factory two speed rear end. Another interesting thing about early teens Cadillac’s is they catch fire and burn........like California last summer........I personally know of fires that took garages and in one instance the garage and house to the ground.......the Cadillac uses the same pressurized gas tank set up as the Packard. 
 

So: After getting the car home, I disconnected the number one fire problem on the car......the gasoline electric heater in the fuel bowl that heats the gasoline into a vapor to help with cold weather starts......YES, there is a electric device in the bowl of the car that actually uses a dead short resistance heating element to heat the gas........insane, isn’t it?  My cars heater was intact, connected, and working......a disaster waiting to happen. While sorting the car, I was having running problems that took a while to identify..........the car was running very rich. The problem? Over pressure of the automatic system supplying the gas tank pressure.....it was causing fuel to push past the needle and seat.........so I had a fuel leak while going down the road from the overflowing fuel.....similar to the Packard above. I decided to install two safety devices on the car. First was a mechanical pop off valve that would dump the gas tank pressure over two pounds per square inch......the car called for 1.5 pounds per square inch factory. I installed the pop off valve in line with the tanks pressure system.....cutting into an original line......something that I did not want or desire to do, but safety first..........and the valve worked properly. I no longer had an over pressure problem.......and I now had a much safer car driving down the road. The second modification I made........I installed an electric fuel valve shut off in line to the carburetor. It was a modern valve that was six volts and it would open with the ignition switch on, but close with the switch in the off position or if the battery cut off switch was disconnected. With these two modifications, the car would not burn in the event of an accident or malfunction as long as the ignition or battery disconnect switch were turned off. I contemplated a impact sensor to kill the fuel pressure in the event of an accident, but couldn’t find one that could properly be installed. I did use cloth wiring and asphalt wire loom on the electrical install. The pop off valve looked modern in appearance, but it was installed in a location that you could only find if the car was on the lift. 
 

OK, now according to judging rules, these modifications are not allowed, and would cause a mandatory deduction..........My point, safety modifications that involve fuel and fire should not be cause for deduction in judging....especially if installed in a hidden or workman like manner. 
 

Does a battery cut off switch cause a deduction? 
 

On my 1917 White......I recently installed two additional lights in the rear of the car. The car did NOT have brake lights when new, and only one running light in the center rear of the car. I installed same year lamps as the car, and designed them to come on and off in just a minute. They still have an extra wiring harness, and brake light switch that are non authentic and not original to the car. They were installed using period materials across the board. So, on the show field, I can quickly and easily remove the lights. But the harness and brake light switch stay hidden in place. Is this a reason for a deduction? 

7C52B7A4-6039-4572-80ED-0087835DDE85.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continued:

 

So, here is the question? My modifications were only for safety.........not performance, not for ease of use, and not for convenience. They were done so I could safely enjoy the car on the road. I submit NONE of these should cause ANY deductions for judging. The car had a broken plate glass windshield in it. I installed modern safety glass.......WITH MARKINGS on both sides of the windshield. I didn’t want any issues with state safety inspection stickers.........so while the markings are certainly non authentic, as is the laminated safety glass, it should not be a deduction. Using the above logic, I submit that the dual master cylinder is also a reasonable and non obtrusive improvement that again goes to vehicle and passenger safety. 
 

I’m looking forward to the responses..........and yes, I clearly understand the challenges of judging rules, and trying to apply them across 110 years and countless car brands. 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed,

good question, I know from my own experience outside of the AACA when I was the National Judging Chair for a marque club, it can become a slippery slope, real fast. It just won't stop with the master cylinder 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John.....I think specific systems can be addressed. 
 

Example: Acceptable modifications to hydraulic systems for safety only, and call out the item.

 

Example: Acceptable modifications to pressurized fuel tank cars.

 

ect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I currently don’t have a stake in this fight as I don’t participate in judging events, but I had a nearly serious incident involving a 65 Mustang with a single cylinder brake master in high school, so I personally believe that one is definitely in the category of a safety modification - although my opinion is with definable prejudice...

 

 I agree with Ed that certain safety related upgrades should be allowed without points being affected so long as they are for safety only. If y’all are worried about “that slippery slope” put it in a well defined list where fuel systems does not allow any aftermarket carburetors or modification to the intake/exhaust manifolds but allows safety upgrades to the supply as noted above. Safety glass and an extinguisher are required which is good but also making allowances for safety belts, auxiliary lighting, or braking system safety improvement should be considered a no-brainer!

 

Realistically that 3” diameter (or less) kerosene or 10 candle power taillight on most cars built before 1930 is pathetic at best in today’s driving...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is an excellent discussion (I was personally unaware of the pressurized fuel tank system, and a pressure relief valve is the answer).  Some marque clubs address this pretty specifically, because it can indeed become a slippery slope.

 

I would suggest as a starting point that allowable changes are: 1) substitution of clear laminated or tempered glass for original plate glass 2) a discretely mounted (yes, subjective) pressure relief device for pressurized fuel systems  3) Dual circuit master cylinders to replace single circuit master cylinders 4) Electric directional signals if tastefully installed.  Wired through fog lights or parking lights yes.  Truck stop special lens mounted in holes in the fenders no.  5) LED bulbs in place of incandescent bulbs

 

NOT allowed without deduction:  Disc brakes if not originally a factory fitment.  Non-factory AC.

Questions for the group:

Radial tires? - are they OK, or only if OEM-available, or only if period available (remembers radials were introduced in the mid-fifties but not picked up by US OEM's for a long time).

Alternators inside generator casings?

 

There's certainly room for multiple opinions here

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im kinda like Mark, not in the judging the field yet. Although my car is modern by most standards on here, I think that common sense should take the forefront. A car should be judged to the standards, however maybe there should be an additional sheet ( I know more work!) that would outline post factory equipped safety devices. Thus no point deduction but a sided note that such things exist. One common theme I see on this thread is the willingness to actually operate these old cars, not just use them as a static display. To further penalize the owners for doing so is ridiculous.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One club judging guide I know specifically said no deduction for normal dust and dirt of operating the vehicle.  Again subjective, but encouraging use.

 

This gets even trickier when discussing over-restoration.  Very few cars finished their air cleaners to the standard of their hoods.  No credit for doing so, or is it a deduction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over restoration is also too subjective. I have seen several original Model T Ford cars with huge paint sags in the paint because of the process and materials of the time... I highly doubt anyone would appreciate a car that looks like that now, and every one would be considered over restored.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in total agreement with Ed regarding the addition of safety modifications - hey the car manufacturers did this as they learned more as to what works best! Went from kerosene and gas fired lamps to electric bulbs. What Bryan states as allowable changes if neatly installed so they are not detracting from the appearance is just for safety, not for convenience. I have directional signals installed on all of my pre war cars. The 40 Buick had them since new but not the two Packards. Here on long island in the past 25 years if you use hand signals to let people know what direction you want to drive in you usually get a puzzled look and then they wave at you because they think you want to be friends. Can be slightly maddening that they don't know what a hand signal means , but if whom ever is waving at me is female and cute I usually wave back and smile. 🤩

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed, you raise very good points, especially on safety related concerns.

I’m not intimately familiar with AACA or CCCA judging guidelines or rules, but more so with ones from IAC/PFA (i.e. Ferrari) and they do address many of these.
While all of them may not be directly applicable, some could offer alternative perspectives.

E. Gilbertson is/was very much involved with creation + continued revisions of them and I assume you know his credentials/experience.

 

Edited by TTR (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am somewhat of a contrarian so ignore if you want but do have some expertise. One of the main differences is that between a show car and a touring car.

"Since 1935, AACA has had one goal: The preservation and enjoyment of automotive history of all types.", for me much of the enjoyment is in the driving. Could take any of my drivers (six) to California tomorrow and range from 10 YO to 51. Most over 30.

 

My first experiences were with race and sports cars. Have always been interested in the safety aspects (wrote some rules for the SCCA while serving as a corner worker/tech inspector).

 

My opinion is if you consider it a safety item it is. For a touring car (like mine) I also factor in reliability (my AAA is only good for 250 miles). What I recommended to people was that if something needed replacing for safety/reliability, just keep in a clear baggie and display along with the car.

 

Good example is my Judge. I did not buy it new but did buy a similar A body (70 Buick GS) with much the same equipment. Before it left the dealer's showroom it had 15x7 wheels and dog-bone Dunlop radials. My Judge has had 15x8 period snowflakes and BFGs since my stewardship started. The "correct" 14x6 wheels are in big baggies.

 

'84 Fieros all came with DA6 AC compressors. Few lasted the first year and were replaced with HR6s. Most have replacement 4 qt dipsticks instead of the "factory original" 3 quart.

 

So my opinion is that I prefer my cars (and me) not to burn. Appropriate changes are made. Fortunately all have dual master cylinders. I have experienced failures of a single port and prefer not to repeat. Bolt on item. Original in a big baggie.

 

So really its your choice, I made mine over a half century ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, edinmass said:

I’m looking forward to the responses..........and yes, I clearly understand the challenges of judging rules, and trying to apply them across 110 years and countless car brands. 

 

Interesting discussion.

 

Ed, if you have not already done so, you should seriously consider reaching out to Chuck Crane, the AACA VP of Class Judging regarding your thoughts and concerns. Better yet, if you are going to Philadelphia in April maybe you can schedule some time with him to discuss this in person. In the past I have had some very interesting, informative and productive discussions with Board Members and the VP of Class Judging at the Philadelphia meeting regarding questions, thoughts and concerns I had.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All safety items that can be changed and not point deducted need to be specifically identified and documented before any national show. That way there will be no arguments after judging. If safety items like brakes, seat belts, headlight bulbs (some in lieu of burners), turn signals and stop lights (for cars that did not have them), radial tires in lieu of bias, modifications to the fuel system (many older show cars install newer carburetors, electric fuel pumps), battery cut off switches,  etc are allowed state it wit details.

If tastefully done has been mentioned and that may be a problem since judges may not all be in agreement. I think some experienced judges should look at several modifications and decide some language that will aid in what is tastefully done. Like are the modifications using older looking supplies rather than something picked up at NAPA yesterday (eg turn signals).

Remember, this is competition and if a modified car be judged equally to a car restored to its factory specifications, so be it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, edinmass said:

The Packard uses a pressurized gas tank to deliver fuel to the carburetor. While going down the road, the float partially sunk.....causing gas to overflow the carburetor......and something ignited it. It took a LONG time to get the fire under control. Six large fire extinguishers were used to finally get it out. The problem? The car was shut off.....but the pressure in the tank kept pushing fuel making it almost impossible for the extinguishers to get ahead of the fire. The only way to stop the pressure would to be open the gas cap.....

Or shut the valve on the tank manually. Our steam cars use pressurized fuel tanks as well.

 

A couple of points:

Always have a manual fuel shut off easily accessible.

Always be aware to close it in case of a fire

Never open that valve more than necessary

Install metering jets beyond a screen in the valve to limit the flow

Do not use copper fuel lines, they are illegal per the DOT. instead use cunifer or stainless braided

 

If the car has an electric system, hide an electric fuel lock underneath that operates with the ignition system on and off. He could have simply shut the car off and the fire would have been out.

 

-Ron

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I reported a few months ago on another thread, about 2005 I observed a Pierce 66 with a gasoline (carburetor) fire while underway on the annual Modoc Tour.  The owner did not have the presence of mind to simply depressurize the fuel system with the dash-mounted plunger, but another person immediately behind him did.  Several fire extinguishers were consumed after several participants pushed the huge car away from the puddle of flaming gasoline under the stopped car.  Fortunately, there was minimal damage but a repainting of the hood was necessary.

 

I frequently remind any front seat passenger in my pressurized-fuel-system 1918 Pierce how to instantly depressurize the system by turning the knob on the plunger so the arrow points to 9 o'clock--should I be incapacitated.  They are also briefed on the location of three Halon extinguishers.  My practice is to depressurize the fuel system if I'll be stopped over 30 minutes or the car will be out of my sight--whichever is more restrictive.  There is also a mechanical shut-off valve on the right hand splash apron above the runningboard, but I rarely use that.  I just use the plunger knob to depressurize.  (BTW, one quickly learns to maintain more than a half tank of fuel lest you be pushing the plunger in and out 50 times to pressurize a low tank.)  Pierce used this pressurized system from at least 1915 through 1928, except for the vacuum-tank-equipped Series 80 and 81 cars 1925-1928.  Opening a pressurized gas cap can be VERY difficult, so use the plunger that is quickly at hand from the driver's seat.

 

I find that being parked in the sun for even 30 minutes will raise pressure in the system to >4 psi vs. the normal 1.5-2 psi maintained by the pump, so on very hot days I'll depressurize even at short stops.  The fuel gauge on the instrument panel tells pressure, not quantity.

 

On other issues:

 

Pierces don't need no dual master cylinders--all cars have mechanical brakes.

 

Mark W said "10 cp" taillights--it's less than that--most are THREE candlepower, and factory dual-filament rear bulbs are usually 3/21 cp, the latter being for stop and turn.  If you want to stay with incandescent bulbs, Bob Drake (Ford repro) and Chev repro places offer dual filament bulbs at 14/50 cp in both 6v and 12V which really help.  My experience is that there are quality control issues with these bulbs causing some globes to break loose when being twisted into sockets--and occasional mis-indexing of contacts, so order twice as many bulbs as you initially intended.

 

I strongly endorse Ed's thought of establishing judging guidelines for such safety-related modifications.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The safety contingency of venting pressure from the fuel tank in the event of a fire is a bad idea. What is above the liquid in a pressurized fuel tank is fuel/air mixture - flammable gas, if vented to atmosphere and there is source of ignition - and there is, it's going to ignite. It would be luck if that's all that happened, if the fuel/air mixture is proper inside the tank, the tank is going to explode.

 

A pressurized fuel tank is essentially a bomb and it needs to be treated as such.

 

Simply shutting off/isolating the source of fuel is the best plan.

 

Ron

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Locomobile said:

The safety contingency of venting pressure from the fuel tank in the event of a fire is a bad idea. What is above the liquid in a pressurized fuel tank is fuel/air mixture - flammable gas, if vented to atmosphere and there is source of ignition - and there is, it's going to ignite. It would be luck if that's all that happened, if the fuel/air mixture is proper inside the tank, the tank is going to explode.

 

A pressurized fuel tank is essentially a bomb and it needs to be treated as such.

 

Simply shutting off/isolating the source of fuel is the best plan.

 

Ron

Ron, I can see your point if the car is on a downgrade which would permit gravity flow even if the system is depressurized.  My point is that the driver can depressurize from his seat within 5-8 seconds, whereas shutting off the valve requires another 30 seconds of getting to the valve, since with spares outside the RH (driver's) door, exiting that door is not an option.  I'd rather use those 30 seconds with the halon.

 

When you speak to the tank itself with gasoline vapor above the liquid, to me that's a low-probability-but-high-consequence situation, since the Pierce 66 I mentioned, and apparently the Packard at Amelia, had carb fires that would not threaten the tank itself unless the car parked its tank over flaming gasoline from the carb fire--which has much higher probability.

 

As I recall, Locomobiles used pressurized systems at least on the 48s, through the end.  What do Loco owners recommend?

 

As a former bomb technician, I know the hazards of pressurized flammable liquid and gas(eous) tanks.  I may be missing something here, so please educate me/us, as being mentally prepared for emergencies like this is essential.

Edited by Grimy
added 2 clarifying words (see edit history)
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Locomobile said:

The safety contingency of venting pressure from the fuel tank in the event of a fire is a bad idea. What is above the liquid in a pressurized fuel tank is fuel/air mixture - flammable gas, if vented to atmosphere and there is source of ignition - and there is, it's going to ignite. It would be luck if that's all that happened, if the fuel/air mixture is proper inside the tank, the tank is going to explode.

 

A pressurized fuel tank is essentially a bomb and it needs to be treated as such.

 

Simply shutting off/isolating the source of fuel is the best plan.

 

Ron

 

I agree with your overall assessment of the dangers associated with pressurized fuel systems; however, I add the following information in the way of "picking nits":

 

The fuel/air mixture in a gasoline tank, whether empty or full, is almost always too rich to ignite.  For a flammable vapor to ignite, the vapor needs to be within a relatively narrow explosive range.  Flammable liquid vapors and gases have what is known as a a Lower Explosive Limit (LEL), below which it's too lean to ignite, and an Upper Explosive Limit (UEL),  above which it's too rich to ignite.  The vapor space (ullage) of even an "empty" gasoline tank will typically be above its UEL.  As a matter of interest, the fuel quantity gauge sending unit in many (if not most) older cars is an open-bodied rheostat, which is capable of producing sparks in the course of its normal operation; however, this ignition source operates in a vapor space that is above its UEL, hence, ignition doesn't occur.   If a gasoline tank is breached, then all bets are off, because somewhere in the vicinity of the breach, will be a fuel/air mixture within its explosive range.  The breach of a pressurized fuel tank would be potentially much more disastrous than the breach of a non pressurized fuel tank.

 

Insofar as allowing modifications in the interest of safety, I feel a bit of "risk management" analysis may be in order.  To overly simplify such an analysis, one considers both the frequency of occurrence of an event and the severity of the consequences of the occurrence of that event.  For example, if an activity has a high frequency of occurrence coupled with a high severity of consequence, then the activity should be discontinued until appropriate engineering remedies are implemented.    I have no data to support my opinion, but I would consider failure of the master cylinder to occur less frequently than the failure of a pressurized fuel system; however, I think that the failure of either would have potentially severe consequences. 

 

As pointed out in previous posts of this thread, once it is determined that an engineering solution (modification of an existing system) is required to reduce a hazard, that solution should be evaluated and approved by a judging body.  I have to point out here that my knowledge of show car judging standards is almost non existent.

 

Cheers,

Grog

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, capngrog said:

To overly simplify such an analysis, one considers both the frequency of occurrence of an event and the severity of the consequences of the occurrence of that event. 

In my case, I always factor in my historic luck:

 

"If it can happen, it will happen'' 😃

 

Ron

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When we go for a tour in an early V-16 Cadillac.......we carry FIVE fire extinguishers............hows that for a commentary on their propensity to combust? The early cars it only a question of when you're going to have a fire.......since many people don't drive their cars....it's not as important to them. Edjucation on how to properly handle a fire in a pre war car BEFORE you experiance it is what is important. Leno just did a video where his Duesenberg J was on fire......he couldn't locate the extinguisher, so he pulled into a 7-11 and tossed a twenty on the counter and put the fire out with 7 up. After it was out....he found it. They made a case for it from upholstery material that was left over from the restoration. It blended in so well.....he couldn't see it in a panic. Preparation is what will save your car. I like Halon since there is no mess......way better than powder. A minor fire put out with Purple K can cause thousands of dollars of damage. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Locomobile said:

In my case, I always factor in my historic luck:

 

"If it can happen, it will happen'' 😃

 

Ron

 

Just when we humans think, in our hubris, that we've come up with the best, safest and most magnificent means of transportation, along comes the RMS Titanic, the Yugo GV and the Hindenburg.

 

Cheers,

Grog

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my friends had a 1917_18? Maxwell touring car that had a under cowl fuel tank and the filler neck and came up through the dashboard in front of the passenger side..O.K isn't that just dandy. Thats how the made them, great!

Great untill during a fuel up one morning a gawker talking to us flick a lit butt ,(that we didn't see in his hand by his side ),that went to the car ,while my friend was hanging up the gas nozzle.

 

And woosh! the filler neck ignited like a rocket engine...The car shuttered , shaked and roared with flames.

It was a sight...

At that time( 1988ish) that station still put out several buckets of sand on the islands..

The fire was going less then a minute..till we killed it the sand.

 

Short story ,nobody got burned and the car suffered paint damage from the dash/cowl to the hood and radiator,the windscreen  glass exploded the frames melted and both the forge windshield stantions drooped over into fish hooks from the heat in less then a minute.

Car was repaired in one season..

 

That car now has a fuel tank in the back of the car and a vacuum fuel pump  .

My friends still has a few Maxwells of that type.

 When asked "why he didn't modify the other cars too"

He replied " they never caught fire"

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Larry Schramm said:

 

Congrats,  I see you made 9,200 post milestone today.


To be honest......I had no clue.....I don’t keep track of my posting. Last week, I was busy and not posting, and a few people called and emailed me to see if I was the guy who got tossed..........go figure. Little old me, making a  controversial statement? Who would have thought?

 

Thanks for the positive comment.......

 

 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, capngrog said:

a matter of interest, the fuel quantity gauge sending unit in many (if not most) older cars is an open-bodied rheostat, which is capable of producing sparks in the course of its normal operation; however, this ignition source operates in a vapor space that is above its UEL, hence, ignition doesn't occur.

 

And most every car made since the 80s has an electric motor with sparking brushes driving the in tank fuel pump.  😉  Never heard of issues with explosions. Way above the explosive range. BTW, you can be standing in an area so rich in gas (typically Methane or Natural) and still breathe just fine. Just don’t let the guy near the change over to explosive area light a cigarette!😳

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Frank DuVal said:

 

And most every car made since the 80s has an electric motor with sparking brushes driving the in tank fuel pump.  😉  Never heard of issues with explosions. Way above the explosive range. BTW, you can be standing in an area so rich in gas (typically Methane or Natural) and still breathe just fine. Just don’t let the guy near the change over to explosive area light a cigarette!😳

That's a good point, the difference here is we're injecting air into the tank. Most likely what I wrote above does not apply once I seen the pressure was in the 2 psi range, that is barely over atmospheric. Some of our steam car fuel tanks run as high as 160 psi, so it is quite a bit different situation and different contingency.

 

After wrestling many different steam car burners on gasoline, kerosene and white fuel, flammability range is narrow.

 

For my own practice with the fuel systems I work with, I will continue to adhere to what I wrote above.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, edinmass said:

 

When we go for a tour in an early V-16 Cadillac.......we carry FIVE fire extinguishers............hows that for a commentary on their propensity to combust? The early cars it only a question of when you're going to have a fire.......since many people don't drive their cars....it's not as important to them. Edjucation on how to properly handle a fire in a pre war car BEFORE you experiance it is what is important. Leno just did a video where his Duesenberg J was on fire......he couldn't locate the extinguisher, so he pulled into a 7-11 and tossed a twenty on the counter and put the fire out with 7 up. After it was out....he found it. They made a case for it from upholstery material that was left over from the restoration. It blended in so well.....he couldn't see it in a panic. Preparation is what will save your car. I like Halon since there is no mess......way better than powder. A minor fire put out with Purple K can cause thousands of dollars of damage. 

I thought you cant get Halon anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, deaddds said:

I thought you cant get Halon anymore?


They don’t make it, but you can buy it, there is also a similar but different agent also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2021 at 11:09 PM, edinmass said:

Continued:

 

Back about fifteen years ago, I bought a mostly original 1914 Cadillac touring car. 

 

I contemplated a impact sensor to kill the fuel pressure in the event of an accident, but couldn’t find one that could properly be installed.

 

Would an inertia switch from a mid-eighties Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz work?  They appear compact enough in size to be discretely hidden, but in a conveniently accessible location to be able to reset it should it become necessary.

 

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethylene glycol is very unlikely to be the initial fuel of a fire, but can burn if ignited by an external source. 

 

To be pedantic, that means it's inflammable (the opposite of non-flammable).  "Flammable" is like "gage" for "gauge," but is the labeling term. The labeling requirements have to do with flash point and ease of burning rather than whether it can burn under some condition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...