Another nail in the coffin

What an absolute non-article with a complete shortage of any detail or pertinent fact.

I don't see how this can be a problem specifically for 4x4 owners. The gas conversion is given as the reason for establishing a safety preimeter, but is not stated as being the cause of the fire.

A`lot of cars are being converted to LPG use. It may be cause for a tightening of regulation for dual fuel conversions, though.

Vauxhall supply some models dual fuel from the factory.

Quite, as more and more LPG powered vehicles appear this sort of incident will no doubt become more common. But I wonder which is more dangerous an ordinary petrol tank with a gallon of fuel in it or an LPG tank.

Gas cylinders do go BANG rather dramatically in building fires but that is a slightly different situation to a vehicle fire. Will a vehicle fire burn hot enough for long enough to overwhelm the pressure safety vent on a vehicle LPG tank?

From what I've seen, LPG tanks are very strong, much more so than petrol tanks, but that's done because LPG is inherently more dangerous than petrol as the entire fuel load will leak as an explosive vapour in the event of a breach. One person's strong tank is another person's pressurised vessel, deciding which one is safest is probably a mug's game! There seems to be about as many arguments for and against on each side. One person's safety vent is another person's

50ft flame thrower ;-)

ROFL.

The article had nothing *but* pertinent facts of the incident.

1) Time/Date of incident 2) Location 3) An impartial, dry and boring description of the incident without innuendo or 'barrow pushing'

What else did you want? The reg no of the vehicle? What colour it was painted? The phone number of the owner?

Depends ...

In message , John Williamson writes

Oh no (Groan)

It is automatically assumed that the fire was due to the LPG on board. Highly unlikely when moving as any leaking LPG would be blown away.

Why is it that for any incident in this country the answer is more and more regulation?

Shit happens live with it.

Brake fluid will outdo them both

I can't recall any case of an autogas tank exploding in a fire - I'm sure someone will now enlighten me!

LPG tanks are stronger in order to maintain the pressure necessary to keep the propane in liquid state. Every tank has to meet EU wide design requirements and part of the approval process includes testing to destruction. A tank is certified for a lifetime of 10 years when it should be retested or replaced. (I've just replaced mine on my 90)

The LPG tank is less likely to be ruptured in an accident than a petrol tank. The mounting points must be able to withstand a prescribed g force (I can't remember exactly what it was and I can't be bothered to look it up). There are also restrictions on ground clearance for underslung tanks. All the installation requirements are covered by C&U Regs

I would propose that a controlled ventilation, even if ignited is better ( or less worse) than an uncontrolled fireball.

I don't know if things have improved but when I was involved in conversions fire crews had had no training or education at all about autogas installations.

I would've thought Lee would be our authority on the subject?

*I* know that, *you* know that... Now try and tell the "man on the Clapham Omnibus" that.

I read the story as telling us that a vehicle, which just happened to be a Land Rover, caught fire for unspecified reasons, and because it had LPG on board, the fire brigade laid down a safety perimeter just in case. I was that interested, I didn't even look to see if it had been mentioned anywhere else.

Because, if you're the Government, you've got to be seen to "do something", or you won't get elected next time.

I do.

Now to go and find out why the dynamo's not charging the battery.....

So what regulation is being proposed as the result of this incident?

Petrol burns, fuel vapour explodes, cars erupt into uncontrolled fireballs in movies but considering the number of car accidents, exploding petrol tanks just doesn't really seem to be a reality. Even the old Fort Pinto IIRC that had a repuation for catching fire in accidents due to the petrol tank location and design used to burn rather than explode. Petrol fires rather than big explosions seem to be what happens. I don't see either system having much of an advantage over the other in an accident although I'm always less comfortable with a pressurised container in a fire!

A hypothetical one similar to many others that have recently been introduced for no apparently good reason.

On or around Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:04:50 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

Most petrol tanks are plastic, too.

LPG tanks if they conform to the regulations should have an (over) pressure relief valve, aka PRV. This is specifically so that in the event of a fire, the tank blows off in a controlled manner rather than emulating a bomb.

There are also a multitude of shut-off solenoids, which are spring-shut, on the tank, in the gas line and on the vapouriser. Compare with a petrol system which can, if you're unlucky, piss petrol everywhere from a minor damage.

So you're having a moan about legislation that hasn't been proposed? Talk about getting it in early!

That "apparently" is fairly significant too.

Not sure the fire/police service agrees, they seem to get a bit jumpy around fires involving pressurised containers and pressurised gas fuel! I reckon there's good reasons for that.

What a good slogan for the next election - we're the do nothing party - got my vote