PDA

View Full Version : Should we become the tank police?



tomdotstar
09-01-2010, 09:10 AM
With the expiration of a large number of Crown Vic and other tanks on the horizon, I want to start a discussion on our community's responsibility on the issue.

When we see cars offered for sale that are likely to have expired tanks, I wonder whether we have a duty to inform selling sites like Ebay, autotrader.com, and cars.com. My inclination is that we do have such a duty.

Obviously, we don't want anybody to get hurt. That is number one. But there is a number two as well. I don't want to be inappropriate or graphic, but the surest way to kill this industry is to kill a few people.

What do y'all think?

jenki_putnik
09-01-2010, 10:46 AM
We do not need tank police:

1. The fifteen year limit was nothing more than a educated guess at the time.

2. Part of the rationale for a limit was the number of pressurization cycles. I have seen CNG vehicles that are 15 years old with 16,000 miles (I have one). Obviously way less than the expected life of the vehicle.

3. The number of tanks that have failed due to age is zero. Tanks have failed due to mechanical failure and corrosion.

4. Inspect carefully for mechanical failure and corrosive damage.

5. There seems to be no official procedure for checking tank age-out save individual fleet managers. In California, vehicle inspections don't care what condition your vehicle is as long as it doesn't pollute. In North Carolina, CNG items are not on the safely inspectors radar.

6. Putting $thousands of dollars into tank replacement is an example of a very expensive solution to a non-problem.

Highmarker
09-01-2010, 12:19 PM
We do not need tank police:

1. The fifteen year limit was nothing more than a educated guess at the time.

2. Part of the rationale for a limit was the number of pressurization cycles. I have seen CNG vehicles that are 15 years old with 16,000 miles (I have one). Obviously way less than the expected life of the vehicle.

3. The number of tanks that have failed due to age is zero. Tanks have failed due to mechanical failure and corrosion.

4. Inspect carefully for mechanical failure and corrosive damage.

5. There seems to be no official procedure for checking tank age-out save individual fleet managers. In California, vehicle inspections don't care what condition your vehicle is as long as it doesn't pollute. In North Carolina, CNG items are not on the safely inspectors radar.

6. Putting $thousands of dollars into tank replacement is an example of a very expensive solution to a non-problem.

It seams that the only way to convince you that expired tanks need to be REMOVED OUT OF SERVICE is to have your expired tank fail on you.:rolleyes:
To rebuttle your opinions:

1. The 15 year limit is set by the tank manufacturer and the CNG industry (i.e. DOT and ANSI). Of course there is a safety margin attached to that. As long as your tank does not have significant damage, your tank WILL NOT fail within the 15 year limit GUARANTEED.

2. You are correct. The 15 year limit is set by the number of pressurization cycles. But did you know that infant car seats have 6 year service life? After six years from the DATE OF MANUFACTURE, regardless of the condition of the car seat (it could look grand new and only used once) the car seat should be condemned and thrown away. Why? Because materials degrade over time. Your tank degrades over time. Like I said before, the 15 year limit is conservative, but I wouldn't want to be around when YOUR tank finally does give up the ghost.

3. The damage due to corrosion is based on exposure to the elements which involves TIME, i.e. AGE.

4. Yes, every 3 years or 36,000 miles that is what is recommended by the DOT, NHTSA, State of California, State of Utah, every tank manufacturer, etc.

5. Yes, there is a procedure. It's called CGA C-6.4. It is referenced in DOT FMVSS 304 and in ANSI NGV2. Also, the tank manufacturers themselves have inspection guidelines.

6. I guess there is no problem UNTIL an expired tank fails. Just like there's no problem UNTIL somebody gets killed. Yeah, let's let somebody die first, then we'll solve the problem. Great thinking.

Highmarker
09-01-2010, 12:33 PM
To answer the question of the thread: Yes, we all should become tank police. We should first point it out to the vehicle owner. I don't think that ebay, autotrader, and cars.com are going to do much about it. I think they are foreign when it comes to NGVs. And besides, the responsibility lies on the vehicle owner. In Utah, I know that the UHP is on top of it; if the vehicle owner won't do anything about it, I know that UHP will.

Education is the main thing. If current NGV owners are educated on tank safety, then they should know the consequences of not abiding by the regulations. If the potential buyer of the vehicle is educated on NGVs, then he/she would know to look at the expiration date of the tank(s) and possibly the current tank inspection report.

cngacrossusa
09-01-2010, 02:00 PM
I think a better approach would consider ourselves within CNG community to be SAFETY police as it relates to CNG. Expired tanks are just one small piece of it. MORE RISK comes from improperly installed tanks. Yet another RISK is getting proper inspection following ANY kind of accident involving a cng vehicle (ie tank may have shifted, cng fuel lines may have been damaged, etc). Big RISK also is innocent body shop repairman who doesn't know that the vehicle has cng, so it should be AIR DRIED rather than kiln dried following any kind of new paint job work. Even regular repair shop needs to be Strongly Informed that vehicle is CNG and has dangerous components that they shouldn't be fiddling with high-pressure cng fuel lines / tank if they don't know what they're doing. Every place I go (even if just for oil change), I make sure they know vehicle is CNG and they should ONLY touch the specific parts of car that they need to do their job!

Education is the key . . . and Yes, I've contacted sellers on Ebay to let them know of Risks that a vehicle might have . . . or inaccurate information that they had listed, etc.

John Mitton
09-01-2010, 05:08 PM
Great topic, I love it.
Moving this over to the Safety forum...

larrycng
09-01-2010, 08:13 PM
I would have jumped in sooner, but had problems with a new aircard

Body shops are a problem one in Mesa, AZ had one go through a brick wall, roof, and injure one of the employees (8-10 yrs ago) while removing a tank

As far as death goes the Super Shuttle incident blew our no death record.

I agree very strongly that we, ourselve, need to "police" the CNG vehicle community or we will have both state and federal 850 lb gorillias breathing down our necks--and their breath stinks

Larrycng

scamper
09-01-2010, 09:49 PM
Yes, we should inform folks that expired tanks are.... expired. We don't want any incidents like the recent Seoul, Korea bus explosion marring CNG's US safety record.

John Mitton
09-01-2010, 09:59 PM
What are some of the concrete steps that we can take? For example, in 2008 some folks in Utah kept on the UT Highway Patrol to institute mandatory tank inspections as part of the annual vehicle safety check program. One of our anonymous CNGchat members is actually a key person at UHP who put this program into place. Much of what he learned as to the NFPA-52 safety issues out there were gleaned from our forum. ^

pb4ugo
09-01-2010, 10:07 PM
For starters, the states should police it. Maybe I haven't given it enough time after the new UHP provisions cited above, but I see an awful lot of vehicles with expired tanks and current registration.

siai47
09-02-2010, 07:10 AM
No we shouldn't become the tank police. I won't make a bit of difference in safety. Most people will do the right thing and comply with inspections and the removal from service dates for expired tanks. There are others, no matter what the regulations state, that will, for whatever reason, skirt the rules. Unless you have absolute control on a global level of where every tank is, who it is registered to, and when it needs to be condemed, they will fall through the cracks and into the hands of people who will continue to use them to keep an older vehicle running, save money or make a cheap CNG conversion. These will be the tanks that fail and cause the headlines. Look at the pictures on this site of some of the installations used in "owner" conversions for examples. If CNG is to become successful on a large scale, tanks need to be developed that will last the life of the vehicle without maintenance or inspections. Until that time, education about the problems and dangers of expired or damaged tanks would be the most helpful thing we could do.

rtry9a
09-02-2010, 07:18 AM
I would support an annual tank inspection as part of current inspection requirements, but not at $75 for a 5-min glance by a second party. Personally, Id rather fire everyone involved with annual inspections altogether, gas or cng- the inspections add very little value to the overall safety of our streets and only add costs and more unneeded rules/laws that detract from personal responsibilities.

Highmarker
09-02-2010, 08:57 AM
Another comment...

CNG tanks are like tires. You use them, they wear out. Even if its not being used, exposure to the elements (i.e. the sun on tires) causes them to wear out. When your tires get worn down, there is no police forcing you to replace your tires, however, there is the guy at the safety inspection shop that fails you for having bald tires and suggests that you replace them. Now, it is your decision to replace to tires or not. Nobody can make you replace your tank. Although, just like the tires, if you continue to use them, they will fail just like tires (explode, crack and leak, etc.). And 3,600 psi has a lot more stored energy than 44 psi.

It's been said on here more than once...Education is the key.

larrycng
09-02-2010, 10:07 AM
With the expiration of a large number of Crown Vic and other tanks on the horizon, I want to start a discussion on our community's responsibility on the issue.

When we see cars offered for sale that are likely to have expired tanks, I wonder whether we have a duty to inform selling sites like Ebay, autotrader.com, and cars.com. My inclination is that we do have such a duty.

Obviously, we don't want anybody to get hurt. That is number one. But there is a number two as well. I don't want to be inappropriate or graphic, but the surest way to kill this industry is to kill a few people.

What do y'all think?


I think we should make those who are operating the sale sites aware of what FMVSS 304 and NFPA 52 require. In some states such as California if the tanks are out of date or haven't been inspected the vehicle is not in compliance CAC title 13 section 934.1 which gives 304 and NFPA 52 the force of law in Calif.

If the sales sites choose to ignore the information then, I believe, they would cary some liability. The "L" word might make them take notice. It is also the owner's responsibility to not mis-represent the vehicle.

At least the CNG community has acted responsibly to protect themselves and general public from injury

For what it is worth

pb4ugo
09-02-2010, 05:36 PM
When your tires get worn down, there is no police forcing you to replace your tires, however, there is the guy at the safety inspection shop that fails you for having bald tires and suggests that you replace them. Now, it is your decision to replace to tires or not. Nobody can make you replace your tank.

Not if you want to drive a registered vehicle. Of course the police can ticket you for expired plates--so, on a secondary level, they are enforcing "no bald tires". That is what I thought would become of the tank inspection at the annual safety check as well.

Franz
09-03-2010, 05:46 AM
and dont forget that no one can make you get gas for your car, make you pay for your house, make your work for a living, make you eat when you're hungry, make you sleep when you're tired and so on.

Each of these things have a need and an effect. There have been several high profile tank failures recently which may have been prevented had there been an inspection performed, and the inspectors had real "teeth". As an inspector, I have no authority to order a client remove a tank, but as an enforcer, I would.

Last summer, someone brought me a CNG tank. There was something unusual about the PST tank when I looked at it (not an inspection, just a cursory look-see). I noticed a bump in the middle of the cylinder, and upon inspection, it was covered by some fiberglass cloth and resin, and just visible was an allen head pipe plug. the tank had been drilled and discarded by someone earlier. This person had acquired the tank and installed the pipe plug(s), then covered them with fiberglass.

He was looking for a place to get CNG. He didnt like it when I told him the "repairs" are illegal and promptly drove off.

A similar story on LPG when someone came to my office to show me his underhood conversion. I glanced in the back of the truck and saw what looked like a propane tank, but one glance also showed a large pipe plug in the end and some other items not standard. A look at the dataplate shed showed it was a Develbiss air compressor tank that had been rewelded by the owner to serve as a propane tank. We actually blocked that person from leaving and called our local police. Someone had filled the tank earlier. We almost got in a fight over that one.

Franz

siai47
09-03-2010, 07:25 AM
Most of you who are responding are talking about states that have existing vehicle inspections and a CNG presence. I have CNG vehicles registered in two different states (Florida and Michigan) that have no vehicle safety or emisssion inspections whatsoever. Neither state shows what type of fuel the car uses on the title or the registration. Therefore it is impossible to determine if a vehicle needs to be inspected by the "CNG police". Unless you single out certain vehicles for inspection, set up statewide inspection locations and train inspectors----vehicles in these (most) states cannot and will not be inspected. Try and find a qualified tank inspector in states where CNG isn't popular---it isn't easy, sometimes impossible. Try to find someone to repair a CNG vehicle in these areas---impossible. When I refuel at a self-service CNG fueling facility (few and far between) there is nobody there to see what I am doing. Inspection isn't a panacea--inspections and inspectors fail. I am sure the Korean transit buses were "inspected". When CNG becomes more popular, some of these problems will resolve themselves. Until then EDUCATION by the sellers and servicers of CNG equipment about the dangers of expired, damaged, or poorly installed tanks will be the only thing that will help keeping CNG vehicles out of the headlines in a bad way.

rtry9a
09-03-2010, 08:36 AM
Another comment...

CNG tanks are like tires. You use them, they wear out. Even if its not being used, exposure to the elements (i.e. the sun on tires) causes them to wear out. When your tires get worn down, there is no police forcing you to replace your tires, however, there is the guy at the safety inspection shop that fails you for having bald tires and suggests that you replace them. Now, it is your decision to replace to tires or not. Nobody can make you replace your tank. Although, just like the tires, if you continue to use them, they will fail just like tires (explode, crack and leak, etc.). And 3,600 psi has a lot more stored energy than 44 psi.

It's been said on here more than once...Education is the key.

Prove it.... imho, opinion not fact! I should add that my opinions are based entirely on undamaged OEM installations, not aftermarket conversions by Darwin award winners.

Highmarker
09-03-2010, 09:15 AM
Not if you want to drive a registered vehicle. Of course the police can ticket you for expired plates--so, on a secondary level, they are enforcing "no bald tires". That is what I thought would become of the tank inspection at the annual safety check as well.

It is still your decision if you want to drive the vehicle or not. That is the point I am getting at. Nobody can FORCE you do remove your tank out of your vehicle.

John Mitton
09-03-2010, 09:33 AM
I am sure the Korean transit buses were "inspected".

Correct, they were inspected and faults were found. The travesty is that nobody did anything about it.
http://cngchat.com/forum/showthread.php?6793-CNG-Powered-bus-tank-rupture-Video&p=37528#post37528

Highmarker
09-03-2010, 09:52 AM
Prove it.... imho, opinion not fact! I should add that my opinions are based entirely on undamaged OEM installations, not aftermarket conversions by Darwin award winners.

You want me to prove it...that is what I do for living. Develop, design, and test composite pressure vessels. You are an engineer, so I will talk engineer talk.

All materials fatigue. Even carbon fiber fatigues (glass fiber will actually creep to failure) Take a standard Type III COPV CNG tank (metal lined tank with composite overwarp). When designing for pressurization cycle performance, you can not look at the stresses in the metallic liner and go to a book and look at the Sn curve for that material and say that it will cycle that many times. It does not work. Cycle performance in relation to stresses in the COPV are not linear by any means. The smallest, I mean smallest, defect in a metallic liner on a CNG tank could cause a crack to initiate and propagate during the pressurization cycles. There are so many processes that go into building a composite pressure vessel. All manufactured products have some degree of defects in them. Now, we as a society want to make sure that the safety factors are such that any one of these defects do not compromise the performance of the CNG tank. The 15 year service life of a CNG tank is conservative.

If you use your CNG tank, eventually it will fail. And I think that everyone here on this forum is using their CNG tank. If you can think of a better way to provide safety to the public othere than having an expiration date, then go ahead. But I think that having a prescribed service life based on the date of manufacture is the best we got. And to say that so far there has only been one fatality because of a CNG tank (in the USA) says something about the specifications and regulations we have.

You don't know the history of your tank. Every single person who drives a NGV does not know the history of their tank. I don't know the history of my tank. I wasn't there the first time it was installed. I don't know if it was actually installed on another vehicle prior to be installed on mine. Just because it is an OEM does not mean that it is installed properly and the CNG tank is good. Chevy, Dodge, Ford, and even Honda (sorry Curtis) have had recalls.

Your CNG tank is not a gasoline tank made of plastic and some metal. It is a complex system of highly engineered materials. You need to understand that a COMPRESSED gas contained in a pressure vessel is essentially a bomb. It goes boom when it fails. Why can't we be safe. If you don't like the current regulations (CNG tank inspections, expiration dates on tanks, etc.) then stop wasting your time complaining about it, and start spending your time DOING something about it. There are committees that meet every so often to review DOT FMVSS 304 and ANSI NGV2. These specifications state that the expiration of a CNG tank is based on the date of manufacture and the service life (in years) set by tank manufacturer. CSA America is the nationally recognized agency that trains and certifies CNG fuel system inspectors. CGA publishes the pamphlet that governs how a CNG tank is to be inspected along with the tank manufacturer's inspection guidelines. Contact all of them and DO something about it, if you don't like the current rules.

Enough of my rant. The end.

Franz
09-03-2010, 11:13 AM
People seem to forget that in the US, these tanks are manufactured under a standard pulled from the US DOT Safety Code, FMVSS-304. Also that ANY DOT road safety inspector, if they were up on the CNG requirements CAN pull a vehicle over for an inspection and in more than one case, forbid them from driving off. Just look at any of the DOT roadside safety inspections. If a truck were found to have brakes or tires worn below their safe limits, they can impound the vehicle.

Under the same authority that any police officer can pull a vehicle over for a defective exhaust, tail lights, head lights, bald or unsafe tire, they have the authority to do the same with CNG. Lastly, CSA is not a regulatory authority, just an entity that sets standards that are adopted by a regulatory authority. Most of the states in the US have adopted these standards, some have not, for a variety of reasons.

My turn to rant. Thanks for the soap box.

Franz

rtry9a
09-03-2010, 12:18 PM
You want me to prove it...that is what I do for living. Develop, design, and test composite pressure vessels. You are an engineer, so I will talk engineer talk...

Rant all you like, that is what makes a discussion interesting. You say all materials fatigue... true enough, but relevancy really depends on the initial specifications and the safety margins built in, and the condition/history associated with the vessel. You say on one hand that these tanks fail, but on the other hand I see no rupture rates based on history anywhere, not even ad-hoc failure reports of bad tanks that were not previously damaged or misused. That pretty much invalidates your contention in the real world.

My two ('01 F150) tanks are both covered with a heavy plastic cover (no exposure to sunlight/uv radiation), and have never been physically damaged or touched as near as inspection suggests (a little rust on the mounting hardware). I seldom fill (quick pressurize) either more than once a week, generally twice a month. One truck has less than 60K miles on the clock. I have no problem whatsoever ignoring the arbitrary 15-year planned obsolescence cycle that some ignorant bureaucrat placed on hardware system they know little about. I'm far more concerned with the Compuvalve, and when it and its replacement fails, Ill convert to some other system else assuming cng remains competitive.

I could care less if it gets EPA's endorsement or not- the stupid ba$tards. They are too stupid to know that CO2 is not now, or has it ever been a pollutant nor associated with our Climate (other than helping our forests grow). They are totally political without a scientific thinker in the bunch; were they even partially competent, cng would now be our major energy source.

Highmarker
09-03-2010, 01:20 PM
You say on one hand that these tanks fail, but on the other hand I see no rupture rates based on history anywhere

We've got a pretty good track record don't we. let's not screw it up by tossing the regulations out the window.

John Mitton
09-03-2010, 03:01 PM
Friendly reminder to use ellipses (...) for brevity when using the quote feature so as to not re-quote entire previous posts. Also let's continue to steer clear of personal attacks. :)

larrycng
09-03-2010, 09:50 PM
Your second paragraph makes some sense. You may give your tanks an easy life, but there are those who quick fill 2 to 3 time per day 5 to 7 days a week for most of the year. How would propose to change the regulations to document and varify "easy use" vs the " hard life"? What would be the practical extended life?

Larrycng

rtry9a
09-04-2010, 01:41 PM
Your second paragraph makes some sense. You may give your tanks an easy life, but there are those who quick fill 2 to 3 time per day 5 to 7 days a week for most of the year. How would propose to change the regulations to document and varify "easy use" vs the " hard life"? What would be the practical extended life?

Larrycng

The point is I think, is that the record has nothing in it that suggests governmental over reactions are warranted, whether Federal nor Local. The Progressives in power want to regualte anything and everything; they have never seen a regulation or agency that they do not like. Bottom line, this all adds a huge cost and unneeded inconveniences that only discourage others (suppliers and users) from entering the cng arena.

I think a thourough inspection is a great idea... for new aftermarket installations or following any system damage.

Adrian
09-04-2010, 09:54 PM
Your second paragraph makes some sense. You may give your tanks an easy life, but there are those who quick fill 2 to 3 time per day 5 to 7 days a week for most of the year. How would propose to change the regulations to document and varify "easy use" vs the " hard life"? What would be the practical extended life?

Larrycng

A very simple solution has been mentioned in other threads here multiple times: Set a total fill cycle limit for safety and have the electronic little gizmo attached to the tank, with an internal memory. If the tank is moved, the total cycles are still there. At the very least for OEMs integrate this counter into the computer and base the tank life limit on total cycles, not some overly conservative unrealistic calculation. I personally don't know anybody that fills their tank multiple times a day. Oil change intervals have a recommended "normal" or "severe" use with different numbers. I don't think 99% of people should throw their tanks away at 15 years to account for those that have a "severe" tank use regimen. Even re-doing the calcs and regs assuming 1 fill per day would be an improvement; then offer a tank life based on "normal" or "severe" use. Like any engineering calculation, if the margin of safety is too large when you design, you eventually will go out of business. It's usually also an indication someone doesn't know what they're doing. Whenever I find an engineering limit that is set several times below the calculated limit, it tells me the one who set it is not confident in their work. This is no different. It needs to be safe, but also realistic.

John Mitton
09-05-2010, 06:27 PM
Hmmm... that is an interesting idea Adrean. Tank valves are getting increasingly sophisticated with electronic solenoid valves coupled with manual shut-off devices and PRDs, etc. An electronic valve could potentially have this feature. If the maximum number of fills occurred it would allow discharge but no more fills. You would need some way to alert an inspector if another valve had been installed, or otherwise some way to marry the valve to the tank without possibility of replacement.

younkin
09-05-2010, 10:24 PM
I agree with rtry9a, we don't need any more agencies looking over our shoulders, and who gives us the right to be the CNG safety police anyway. I have read lots of advice about CNG installs on this site and others and much of it was personal opinion and not fact. As a professional mechanic for 32 years i am more afraid of gasoline spills and tanks than a thick steel CNG tank, just my opinion, Jim

cnghal
09-06-2010, 11:33 AM
Yes Jim, but we aren't only talking about Type I or II steel tanks.

younkin
09-06-2010, 01:06 PM
You may have a point, have a good weekend.....

cngacrossusa
09-07-2010, 08:40 AM
So if we're worried about these older Type 3 and Type 4 tanks, are we combining our resources and knowledge to get cost effective safe solution in place?? Are we supporting local American suppliers of tanks (like say Lincoln Composites in Nebraska - - such an anomoly in corn/ethanal state . . .but anyway) by advocating use of their tanks if they'll provide reasonably priced ready-made solution for mid to late 90's bi-fuel Ford pickups or Civic GX's?? Or are we just letting the Argentina and Chinese tanks slip into the USA with their own risk of failure??

I heard that PST (Pressed Steel Tank) shut down tank production years ago and all their machines & know-how was shipped overseas . . . . where was our outrage then, if proven safe provider of cng tanks was allowed to jump countries??

Until the USA gets SERIOUS about kicking the crude oil habit (aka Big Oil, Big Refiners, Big Auto, etc with status quo greed as only driver) and USA implements cng vehicles in the MILLIONS, all our cngchat squabbling is like rustling of leaves in a forest - - - no one's going to hear it.

rtry9a
09-07-2010, 11:48 AM
So if we're worried about these older Type 3 and Type 4 tanks, are we combining our resources and knowledge to get cost effective safe solution in place?? Are we supporting local American suppliers of tanks (like say Lincoln Composites in Nebraska - - such an anomoly in corn/ethanal state . . .but anyway) by advocating use of their tanks if they'll provide reasonably priced ready-made solution for mid to late 90's bi-fuel Ford pickups or Civic GX's?? Or are we just letting the Argentina and Chinese tanks slip into the USA with their own risk of failure??

I heard that PST (Pressed Steel Tank) shut down tank production years ago and all their machines & know-how was shipped overseas . . . . where was our outrage then, if proven safe provider of cng tanks was allowed to jump countries??

Until the USA gets SERIOUS about kicking the crude oil habit (aka Big Oil, Big Refiners, Big Auto, etc with status quo greed as only driver) and USA implements cng vehicles in the MILLIONS, all our cngchat squabbling is like rustling of leaves in a forest - - - no one's going to hear it.

Partially correct imho. I personally think the problem is the government and the EPA short-sighted rules, with their unintended consequences, in particular. There are great and affordable cng vehicles made by most OEM's that are NOT available in the USA. There is only one reason why they are not...

larrycng
09-07-2010, 09:03 PM
If they are made of the same specified materials and to the same technical specifications as those approved for sale in the U.S. Also someone ought to run a comparison between ISO 11439 and NGV 2 and FMVSS 304 to see if the european standard matches up with the U.S. standards. Some competition amoung "apples" might bring the price down

Larrycng

rtry9a
09-08-2010, 08:47 AM
IMHO the industry is already dieing a slow death... replacement parts no longer available, OEMs no longer producing vehicles that the public wants, EPA banning new entries, innovation, and retrofits, vested interests boosting prices and pushing unneeded rules and regulations. Its a wonder it has lasted this long given the extra hassles cng places on the public.

I see little future upside at this point, at least until something opens up our market like the rest of the civilized world has.

And btw, there is no way to control the darwin award winners in our midst... there will always be someone who will manage to blow themselves up through their own stupidity. Why penalize the majority who act responsibly with all these unneeded rules.

larrycng
09-08-2010, 09:57 AM
IMHO the industry is already dieing a slow death... replacement parts no longer available, OEMs no longer producing vehicles that the public wants, EPA banning new entries, innovation, and retrofits, vested interests boosting prices and pushing unneeded rules and regulations. Its a wonder it has lasted this long given the extra hassles cng places on the public.

I see little future upside at this point, at least until something opens up our market like the rest of the civilized world has.

And btw, there is no way to control the darwin award winners in our midst... there will always be someone who will manage to blow themselves up through their own stupidity. Why penalize the majority who act responsibly with all these unneeded rules.

I definately agree with your last paragraph. We have always had a problem with those who think they can do anything either because they overrate themselves or are "cheap" Just look at the safety thread. I also have pictures of conversions that were "in the process" and I'll lay odds that with one exception, they still are.

I think you also realize that America is a bit on the conservative side partly because of the number of laywers who will persue "frivalous" law suits based on a persons stupidity, not taking responsibility for their actions or overrated opinion of themselves.

With what we have available in the industry that meets sound engineering criteria and with proper installation, setup, and tuning to meet reasonable emission standards, America could do well with NGVs and profit.

A little common sense and study of the subject go a long way -- and we're short on that.

Larrycng

Highmarker
09-09-2010, 08:47 AM
IMHO the industry is already dieing a slow death... replacement parts no longer available, OEMs no longer producing vehicles that the public wants, EPA banning new entries, innovation, and retrofits, vested interests boosting prices and pushing unneeded rules and regulations. Its a wonder it has lasted this long given the extra hassles cng places on the public.

I see little future upside at this point, at least until something opens up our market like the rest of the civilized world has.

And btw, there is no way to control the darwin award winners in our midst... there will always be someone who will manage to blow themselves up through their own stupidity. Why penalize the majority who act responsibly with all these unneeded rules.

I too agree with his last paragraph, but I have to disagree with the first two paragraphs. How can CNG be dying a slow death? GM has scheduled to build NGV begining in 2012. The EPA has a proposal out to streamline the CNG conversion process to be more economical and more efficient. People are talking about having cleaner air more than ever. If anything is dying a slow death, it is the E85 technology. The big 3 (GM, Dodge, and Ford) jumped on that bandwagon years ago and it hurt the NGV industry, but now that E85 is not spelling out what it was all talked up to be, CNG is coming back stronger than ever. More fueling stations are being built and more cars are being converted. How is this industry dying?

Back to the tank police...

The only way to get rid of the Darwin award winners, is to have proper education and enforce the law.

rtry9a
09-09-2010, 11:24 AM
Unless I missed something, the new offerings from Ford and GM are all big fleet trucks and cargo vans. Not exactly manna for the masses.;) The inertia is all electric, at least it was until Govt motors dropped the ball. IMHO, the future of electric vehicles is tied to fuel cells, not batteries.

To grow our industry, we will need something economical and mainstream along the lines of a corolla/accord, something sporty and turbocharged to take advantage of cng's high octane rating, a bifuel pickup/suv for towing and hauling loads, and a luxury bi-fuel sedan (or suv) suitable for longer trips. Personally, I prefer any of the last three, or at least some way to economically convert them to cng. I have no interest whatsoever in another small econbox /subcompact from Japan.