Carryfast:
Petrol or diesel can also both make a reasonably good job of being a flammable liability in the event of an accident.
Which car in a 3 car pile up do you want to be a passenger in?
The one with a full tank of Diesel, the one with a full tank of Petrol, or the one carrying 20kg’s of pressurised LPG?
Niether but I wouldn’t differentiate on that basis. An LPG tank takes a lot more to puncture.
which car would you rather be in if the for example the cars were a 106 petrol, a Focus diesel or a Range Rover with LPG ■■? To many variables really to make such a drama laden decision as yours ■■?
Will you not allow your family on the road when Hydrogen cars appear ■■
As I understand it a nearly empty petrol tank is the worst option. Remember that for all three fuels it is the vapour that burns not the liquid. F1 cars have a fuel tank that collapses internally as the fuel gets used - this is so that it stays a liquid and, in the event of a collision stays where it is and doesn’t burn.
There’s been no major fuel tank fire at an F1 race since Berger Imola crash in 1989 and no fire related deaths since Ricardo Palletti in Canada in 1982, or in testing with Elio De Angelis in 1986. And their fuel is much more flammable than petrol.
billybigrig:
Niether but I wouldn’t differentiate on that basis. An LPG tank takes a lot more to puncture.
which car would you rather be in if the for example the cars were a 106 petrol, a Focus diesel or a Range Rover with LPG ■■? To many variables really to make such a drama laden decision as yours ■■?
Will you not allow your family on the road when Hydrogen cars appear ■■
First, let me tell you that I cannot define your decision from your answer to my question.
You are driving your family in the vehicle of your choice, you are involved in someone else’s accident & you have zero control of whether they hit you at 10mph or 100mph. You have no control over whether the impact is head on from the front or the impact is from the rear in a following vehicle.
Which vehicle would you wish for your family to be in?
You might think that an LPG tank in a Range Rover is safer than a Petrol tank in a 106, but you have no control over what hits you at whatever speed in any vehicle.
If it comes to it, what do you want your family to be travelling in?
billybigrig:
Niether but I wouldn’t differentiate on that basis. An LPG tank takes a lot more to puncture.
which car would you rather be in if the for example the cars were a 106 petrol, a Focus diesel or a Range Rover with LPG ■■? To many variables really to make such a drama laden decision as yours ■■?
Will you not allow your family on the road when Hydrogen cars appear ■■
First, let me tell you that I cannot define your decision from your answer to my question.
You are driving your family in the vehicle of your choice, you are involved in someone else’s accident & you have zero control of whether they hit you at 10mph or 100mph. You have no control over whether the impact is head on from the front or the impact is from the rear in a following vehicle.
Which vehicle would you wish for your family to be in?
You might think that an LPG tank in a Range Rover is safer than a Petrol tank in a 106, but you have no control over what hits you at whatever speed in any vehicle.
If it comes to it, what do you want your family to be travelling in?
I want my family in the vehicle I choose. The choice would not be based solely upon it’s means of propulsion That would be one of many criteria as I tried to illustrate to you with the 3 exemplars
I’d rather them, for example, be in a large solid LPG vehicle than a tin foil 1 litre petrol ecobox.
My 4.6 V8 would be a prime candidate for LPG. The reason I haven’t done it is not one of safety though, as the tank would be surrounded by a hell of a lot of solid heavy car. Unlike the petrol tank in a tinfoil euro eco box
Do you ever cross a road ■■ Do you plan your routes to avoid accident hotspots and right turns to improve your chances
You might think that an LPG tank in a Range Rover is safer than a Petrol tank in a 106, but you have no control over what hits you at whatever speed in any vehicle.
If it comes to it, what do you want your family to be travelling in?
I would travel in the Queens Limo, especially If I was Jo Phillpot, as there would be less chance of Prince Charles nicking my bird.
It’s funny that you never see the Queen and Prince Charles in the same car. Don’t they get on very well?
However. I had reason to purchase some Paraffin last week and was shocked to discover it cost £1.30 per litre I did eventually find some at 90ppl
Chas:
Which car in a 3 car pile up do you want to be a passenger in?
The one with a full tank of Diesel, the one with a full tank of Petrol, or the one carrying 20kg’s of pressurised LPG?
LPG every time.
LPG tanks are made of very thick steel, petrol/diesel tanks these days are made of plastic. LPG tanks are more often than not also in a relatively well protected place, whereas petrol/diesel tanks are hanging underneath in a vulnerable place.
billybigrig:
Niether but I wouldn’t differentiate on that basis. An LPG tank takes a lot more to puncture.
which car would you rather be in if the for example the cars were a 106 petrol, a Focus diesel or a Range Rover with LPG ■■? To many variables really to make such a drama laden decision as yours ■■?
Will you not allow your family on the road when Hydrogen cars appear ■■
First, let me tell you that I cannot define your decision from your answer to my question.
You are driving your family in the vehicle of your choice, you are involved in someone else’s accident & you have zero control of whether they hit you at 10mph or 100mph. You have no control over whether the impact is head on from the front or the impact is from the rear in a following vehicle.
Which vehicle would you wish for your family to be in?
You might think that an LPG tank in a Range Rover is safer than a Petrol tank in a 106, but you have no control over what hits you at whatever speed in any vehicle.
If it comes to it, what do you want your family to be travelling in?
I think it’s a similar argument to the flawed one which said that Sherman tanks caught fire so easily because most of them were petrol powered not diesel until you realise that every German tank facing them was also petrol powered.In general I think I’d prefer to be in a petrol,diesel or LPG powered Range Rover or Merc S Class compared to the Focus or 106 regardless of what they’re fuelled by in just the same way that I’d have felt a lot safer sitting in a petrol powered Centurion tank than a diesel powered Russian T55 during those Arab Israeli wars.But the only obvious drawback in the case of LPG is the pressurization which won’t exactly have not been taken into account during the design stages concerning minimizing the implications of that in the event of an accident.
My Brother in Law runs a Suzuki Vitaro with a LPG conversion and as Repton said the tank weighs a ton! Very thick walled and well protected which on a truck could be a weight penalty? However, as another poster said, if it becomes more popular then unfortunately the price will rise. I recall LPG being used a few years ago by various companies like the Gas and Electric boards but it ‘died a death’ for various reasons.
LNG/CNG is in plentiful supply all over the world, it will probably be the next fuel…but it will not be any cheaper than petrol or diesel, supply and demand, coupled with the money grabbing tax man will see to that
I’ve driven (tested) both LNC and CNG trucks, they were a bit revvy, compared to a normal diesel, but electronics have moved on significantly, so maybe that will no longer be the case, they’re a quieter running engine and the ones I played around with went better than their diesel fuelled equivalents
In fact, one dual fuel conversion on a 385 Renault Premium that used diesel as the pilot ignition source and introduced LNG into the cylinders via fumigation was the fastest lorry I’ve ever driven, the settings were a little boss eyed in favour of the LNG, it wasn’t going to save any money at all (even with LNG being very cheap at the time) as it burned a lot of gas, but boy did that thing fly, couldn’t change gear quick enough in it, when it hit the limiter it sent me forward in the seat, it was like I’d hit the brakes, such was its rate of acceleration
Santa:
As I understand it a nearly empty petrol tank is the worst option. Remember that for all three fuels it is the vapour that burns not the liquid. F1 cars have a fuel tank that collapses internally as the fuel gets used - this is so that it stays a liquid and, in the event of a collision stays where it is and doesn’t burn.
There’s been no major fuel tank fire at an F1 race since Berger Imola crash in 1989 and no fire related deaths since Ricardo Palletti in Canada in 1982, or in testing with Elio De Angelis in 1986. And their fuel is much more flammable than petrol.
Neither Paletti or De Angelis died from burns either; Palettis’ chest was crushed from ramming Pironis’ stalled Ferrari (Palettis’ car blew up while they were rescuing him). De Angelis crashed during a private test and suffocated because his oxygen ran out.
Google Roger Williamson crash or Lorenzo Bandini and see how safety has improved…
Santa:
As I understand it a nearly empty petrol tank is the worst option. Remember that for all three fuels it is the vapour that burns not the liquid. F1 cars have a fuel tank that collapses internally as the fuel gets used - this is so that it stays a liquid and, in the event of a collision stays where it is and doesn’t burn.
There’s been no major fuel tank fire at an F1 race since Berger Imola crash in 1989 and no fire related deaths since Ricardo Palletti in Canada in 1982, or in testing with Elio De Angelis in 1986. And their fuel is much more flammable than petrol.
Neither Paletti or De Angelis died from burns either; Palettis’ chest was crushed from ramming Pironis’ stalled Ferrari (Palettis’ car blew up while they were rescuing him). De Angelis crashed during a private test and suffocated because his oxygen ran out.
Google Roger Williamson crash or Lorenzo Bandini and see how safety has improved…
That tribute to Sid Watkins the other week was fascinating whilst a little tragic. Amazing to see how what is a minor bump these days was a killer back then Some of the survivable ones of late have been quite unbelievable. Nico over CarthaMiniCab driver the other week for instance and GrosJunk’s idiocy at Spa too
Seems almost unbelievable these days when we lose a man
Santa:
As I understand it a nearly empty petrol tank is the worst option. Remember that for all three fuels it is the vapour that burns not the liquid. F1 cars have a fuel tank that collapses internally as the fuel gets used - this is so that it stays a liquid and, in the event of a collision stays where it is and doesn’t burn.
There’s been no major fuel tank fire at an F1 race since Berger Imola crash in 1989 and no fire related deaths since Ricardo Palletti in Canada in 1982, or in testing with Elio De Angelis in 1986. And their fuel is much more flammable than petrol.
Neither Paletti or De Angelis died from burns either; Palettis’ chest was crushed from ramming Pironis’ stalled Ferrari (Palettis’ car blew up while they were rescuing him). De Angelis crashed during a private test and suffocated because his oxygen ran out.
Google Roger Williamson crash or Lorenzo Bandini and see how safety has improved…
That tribute to Sid Watkins the other week was fascinating whilst a little tragic. Amazing to see how what is a minor bump these days was a killer back then Some of the survivable ones of late have been quite unbelievable. Nico over CarthaMiniCab driver the other week for instance and GrosJunk’s idiocy at Spa too
Seems almost unbelievable these days when we lose a man
LMP cars built like tanks and make miracles happen.
billybigrig:
An LPG tank takes a lot more to puncture.
44 tonne should do it
If a 44ton truck hit you hard enough to rupture an LPG tank then the tank exploding would be the least of your worries. In fact it might be a blessing in disguise as at least you would go nice and quickly…
repton:
If a 44ton truck hit you hard enough to rupture an LPG tank then the tank exploding would be the least of your worries. In fact it might be a blessing in disguise as at least you would go nice and quickly…
Paul
^ this… there is a video on You Tube some where but I cant find it now, of a car being crushed with full LPG tanks on board but filled with a coloured inert gas, when the gas finally escapes and is seen the crushing is stopped… the little of what is left of the car is certainly not survivable… something hits you hard enough to cause the LPG tanks to blow - your already dead
I am from a time when they experimented with gas turbines in trucks shell ran two tankers and Leyland used to run a 8 legger up and down the m6. A chap i know who worked on the development of these told me tha torque and fuel consumption were not a problem and because they ran on what was basicly parafin from a cost point of veiw they were pretty efficient. The main problems were; Gearboxes because the engines ran at a constant speed which was ok on pick up being semi auto but no good on slow down because the engine provided no breaking power so you had to relyon other means. And exhaust the heat was the main problem the silencers were lined with ceramic tiles and the cost of these was excessive. Bear in mind this was the 60s i would have thought tecnology now could over come most of these problems. On a nother note i also remember a London company running a Ford truck with 2 engines side by side,it ran on one engine when empty and both loaded!
It quotes a lower operating cost but that is because LPG is cheaper than diesel, not more economical. And given that it is only a 10% reduction even though the price is 50% lower, its not going to be because it has a higher MPG is it?
And it is Australia which is hardly reknown for being hilly.
I did eventually find some at 90ppl
Some of the survivable ones of late have been quite unbelievable. Nico over CarthaMiniCab driver the other week for instance and GrosJunk’s idiocy at Spa too 