Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

[mecklen]

I just filled up at the Jordan District pumps (1:30pm) and pulled up next to a black four-door Ford F-250. Of course I said hello and looked at his setup. He had the cng tank mounted diagonally in the bed of his truck, no visible restraining straps or anything, no protective covering. I asked who did his conversion and he said he'd gotten the tank in Phoenix and done it himself. He said the tank only had a few years left on it.

I told him the safety and emissions check stations were now looking for non-epa conversions and he might have trouble. His response was that he'd called the state agency and they didn't have any problem with it when he'd done the conversion. He even has a Clean Air plate, A127B.

I mentioned the lack of mounting hardware and he said it was mounted on plates attached to the truck bed. He even has a child's car seat in the truck. He expressed some of the same anti-epa sentiments I've heard here and I dropped the whole subject.

I quietly winced and wished him good luck.

[larrycng]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion

That is scary. I would drop a license number and desrciption to the local Fire Marsahall and maybe the local SMOG people. I hope he doesn't actually transport a child, in the vehicle.

From my prespective the EPA takes a back seat on the is one, this is a safety issue (based on NFPA 52). The EPA can have what remains.

Larrycng

[Lancer Automotive Group]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion

Actually from my meeting this week it looks like the State Highway Patrol is taking the lead on safety here in Utah so if any one gets a license number report it. We don’t want to see any fatalities due to CNG here in Utah.

[CNG MOTORS]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion

I don't like EPA just like everyone else, but that's just stupid. Could you image what that tank will do in an accident, wouldn't take much to shear the valve off and now you have a 300 lb. land torpedo

[CNG Utah]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion

I saw something just like that at the SLC airport last week. There was a nice Dodge 2500 Crew Cab filling up. He finished just as I was pulling in; I got out of the car just as he was leaving and I saw the same diagonal tank in the bed without any visible mounting hardware. He was pulling a trailer and I didn't think to look at his license plate anyways, but maybe someone else will in the future. I cringed just thinking about what would happen to that tank in an accident.

[Lancer Automotive Group]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion

Filling our EPA Certified Ford at the Questar on 200S in Salt Lake beside me was a Toyota Corolla (Bi-Fuel) owner stated he had it converted in Layton; the check engine light stays on. Toyota will not look because of the conversions. When ask how he was going to pass safety and emissions he became upset and left. Is any one ever going to crack down on these one kit fits all shops.

[John Mitton]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

We need a contact at the State Fire Marshall to report these unsafe situations. CNGLO has been looking into this, if you read this post do you have a contact for us?

[karlhafen]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

I have a couple of thoughts on this. I am a Utah state safety inspector and a cylinder inspector. I do NOT do

conversions.

Of the cars that I see that have been converted in the last year or so, the non-EPA installs out number the EPA

installs probably 20 to 1. While most of these conversions are likely illegal, the law is not 100% clear in every

case nor is it universally accepted.

I think that safety is the most important thing and we need to be proactive about it. The EPA has no control over

bungie corded cylinders. The State fire marshall probably has too small of staff to do much. I think the answer is

to make it a part of the annual state safety inspection.

I think adding the following two lines to the inspection manual would solve 99% of the safety issues.

1. Check for cylinder inspection label, reject if missing or expired, advise if expiration date is less than one year

away

2.Check high pressure lines. Reject if not firmly supported, reject if rigid lines are not constructed of seamless

steel, reject if lines are not protected from abrasion, reject if lines are too tight to allow for normal flexing of

the vehicle.

[John Mitton]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

Karl,
Some wording on cylinders must be installed using rigid brackets, etc.?

[Yroc]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

One thing you are all overlooking is that this tank could have been an end mount tank, meaning that it mounts on the ends and would not have any belly brackets visible. I have had some of these tanks installed and that is they are built to be mounted.

Meklen,
You say you mentioned the mounting and he said it was done with plates, seems to be the correct way to do it and would be up to NFPA52 standards. I think you are all jumping all over this with way too many assumptions, why not assume he's done it correctly like he told you??

[karlhafen]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

The cylinder inspection should cover mounting brackets, prd and shields.

I can also see how relying on the cylinder inspection label could create a dangerous loop hole. Extra tanks that are added after the tank inspection would slip past. I guess the answer to that (for the state safety inspector) would be to when a tank appears to have been added post conversion requiring the owner to produce the cng cylinder inspection form listing the serial numbers of the tank(s).

[larrycng]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

Hi guys;

Cylinders being installed after the initial installation, especially if they are used cylinders, are not covered in NFPA -52, but they are covered in CGA C-6.4 sect 7.2. A new inspection label is required. If the cylinder doesn't have a current inspection label it should be identified as level 2 damage. A new cylinder would be good for the first 3 years of it life. However, the installation is still in question.

I agree that cylinders with less than 1 year before inspection should be reinspected. The inspection dates would then correlate with the vehicle safety inspection and registration.

As for the mounting system Yroc described, call "neck mount" is used by some manufacturers (SCI and Dynetek are 2). I have only seen them in transit bus application on roof mounting. The only neck mounts I have seen use Type 3 cylinders. The aluminum liner is extended during the forming process and machined to accept this type of mounting system. One end of the cylinder, usually the valve end is clamped tight into the neck mount bracket. The other end is allowed to "Float" in the other bracket to compensate for thermal expansion. These cylinders are usually long cylinders. (see attached picture Dynetek).

Personally I see no reason to use a neck mount in a light duty vehicle application. Also personally, I would classify any tank mounted at each end that was not specifically designed for neck mounting is a safety hazard and therefore should be classified as level 2. NFPA 52 -6.3.6 states "the fuel supply container weight shall not be supported by outlet valves, manifolds, or other fuel connection."

I hope this helps. I've seen only one try at neck mounting on a cylinder that was not designed for it and it was pathetic.

Larrycng

[Yroc]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

Yes, there are a butt-load of Dynetek neck mount tanks here in UT. I bought 5 from a guy who had over 50 in a warehouse and these are the ones being mounted diagonally in the beds of trucks. I had mine installed by a certified tank inspector and we added PRD's to both ends as required by some newer standard. We only put them in longbed trucks as they would fit lengthwise and we also built solid covers over them...

What you should really look for if you see these tanks is if they even have 1 PRD. I saw atleast 10 installed WITHOUT PRDS!!! We had a heck of a time finding PRD's that would work, but we did, and made them safe. I think a tank without a PRD would be atleast as dangerous as an unmounted tank if not more dangerous.

[CNGLO]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

We need a contact at the State Fire Marshall to report these unsafe situations. CNGLO has been looking into this, if you read this post do you have a contact for us?

I don't have any more information than I sent you last week via email. I'll follow up on Monday.

[mecklen]

Re: Another "interesting" conversion {unsafe cylinder mount}

You say you mentioned the mounting and he said it was done with plates, seems to be the correct way to do it and would be up to NFPA52 standards. I think you are all jumping all over this with way too many assumptions, why not assume he's done it correctly like he told you??

Because it is easy to say you've done a job right, and very difficult to actually do it. This guy did not indicate any professional certification or training, and did not indicate that he had had his work inspected by a professional.

I'm an engineer (not automotive or mechanical) and I see lots of folks in my business who are simply not well trained in engineering. I know first hand how people (even smart people) claim correct implementations and are unable to deliver them.

But you're right in that I could be wrong about this person and their work. The odds seem against it, though.