Concours Owners Group (COG) Forum

Concours Discussion (C10 / ZG1000 / 1000GTR) => Concours C10 / ZG1000 General Chat and Tech => Topic started by: Benjamin on December 17, 2013, 07:16:41 pm

Title: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Benjamin on December 17, 2013, 07:16:41 pm
Hey folks,

I'm asking.

Overflow tubes, petcock conversion, Pingel petcock - how come folks don't simply install an in line valve?  Does it restrict fuel flow significantly?  Anyone ever tried this?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

- Beej
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: two_wheeled on December 17, 2013, 07:23:12 pm
If the stock vacuum-operated petcock works, there is no need.
It's only when that leaks AND the carb floats leak when you get hydrolock.
Double whammy = big whammy.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Easy13 on December 17, 2013, 07:32:21 pm
There's not a lot of room between the petcock and the carbs to install what in essence is another petcock.  Vacuum petcocks, if functioning properly are the most convienient: they open and close on their own.  Manual petcocks are more "sure", i.e., there's less there to fail, but they rely upon the rider to turn them off.  The final root answer is to have drain tubes, so that if the vacuum petcock fails, or the rider forgets, the gas aint gonna flow into the cylinders.  Drain tubes should have been on these carbs from the factory.  Just my $0.02.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: DVanecekOld on December 17, 2013, 07:57:47 pm
Beej-I've been sort of wondering the same thing, and yes, I'm not sure physically how you would do it?  Related to this, since this bike is total gravity feed, a longer fuel line or even a curl in the line, shouldn't make any difference should it? Couldn't the line even go down and back up? Just wondering if that would open the door to putting a manual shut off in the line, or would it cause other problems? Would it increase the chance of vapor lock?  Justa newbie here but I made sure I took my tank off two weeks ago and unhooked the fuel line "just to be sure" I don't have a bike full of gas in the spring, happy to say not a drop is coming out of the tank. But yeah, Easy13's two cents seems to be the biggest problem, how would you mount it and still get to it easily.   

My 1982 Yamaha Vision has a manual shut off cut into the line, it is easy to do on that bike, the vacuum petcocks on these Yamaha's are worthless!  BUT if I forget, it does have overflow lines so I will just get a small puddle after several hours, no hydro lock.  SISF will get my carbs someday!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MizzouMike on December 17, 2013, 08:01:49 pm
Some of us are not smart enough to remember to turn it off....  That would be me....   And when I do remember to turn off the manual petcock on my other bike, I then get about 500 yds down the road before the bike dies and I then have to remember to turn it back on.   

I am planning on hiding my own Easter eggs next year too.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim Snyder on December 17, 2013, 08:23:01 pm
I did the Pingel fuel valve almost 4 years ago and I have myself trained to turn the gas off about 100 yards from all destinations. The valve is never "on" unless I am on the bike. Peace of mind ? You bet.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Big John on December 17, 2013, 08:33:47 pm
An inline valve still doesn't protect the engine unless you turn it off. The real fix is the overflow tubes. Terrible that Kawasaki decided to delete them. I am still not a fan of vacuum operated petcocks. In my mind, the petcock is a redundancy in case a price of trash holds open the float valve in the carburetor. If the petcock is vacuum operated then the same trash in the tank is likely to hold open the vacuum petcock, eliminating its redundancy. So now we talk about adding an additional valve that we can turn off that would be a redundancy to a redundancy.

In my mind the overflow tubes protect the engine. The petcock protects your garage floor from being covered in gas.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Hazy on December 17, 2013, 08:42:38 pm
Can't we all just agree that the only reliable, non user interaction needed solution is overflow tubes? Seems like this argument comes up every 6 months or so.  >:(

Install overflow tubes. The end.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 17, 2013, 09:13:57 pm
My family came to visit over the Thanksgiving holiday.  My Mother-In-Law about went bonkers because my wife allows her dog, Sir Pantsalot Flash P. Underfoot, to spend a LOT of time indoors.  He's on the furniture (GASP!), he's in rooms unattended (HORRORS), he gets in your face (OK Flash, Granny says you gotta go outside).  But beside the dog's continuing puppy behavior, he is relatively well-mannered (though extremely hyperactive) and he is thoroughly, trustably house broken.  He's as reliable as my Mother-In-Law.  He will tell you when he needs to go out and if he can't get out, he will hold it for days until he dies and his body relaxes.

My 06 with overflow tubes is not nearly as dependable and so she is not permitted indoors and must spend all of her days (and nights) on the back walkway away from house or garage.  She can only watch my other two Connies and mama's Magna in the shop along with the five jetskis (none of which have overflow tubes) from a distance and is only permitted indoors while actively supervised and then only for short stints.

Yes, Granny, the bike has to stay outside, but the Flash can jump all over you.  It's as it must be.  You see... I trust the puppy won't kill me in my sleep.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on December 17, 2013, 09:31:53 pm
Rev, I don't do this often, but c'mon, get real with that. 

1) fuel doesn't just catch fire on it's own, there need so be an ignition source.

2) I have seen several hydrolock situations wherein the fuel was discharging back into the airbox, and of course, down to the ground. So how that different / more susceptible to spontaneous combustion with overflow tubes?

3)Why did the OEM use them in so many other applications if the potential fire hazard is so high?

And Big John, you have it a bit backwards. The fuel valves are designed to control the fuel level, and can't really hold back the head pressure from a tank of fuel, especially when the needles are tired. The petcock is the main flow volume control, not the needles. JMO, steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 18, 2013, 01:14:00 am
Steve you have to know I have to bite my tongue all the time on this one.  I've been in two garage fires and have had to extinguish a good friend who was badly burned. My burns were quite  minor, his were disfiguring (face, neck, and arms).  Both of these fires were the result of gasoline leaks from vehicles that no one thought was going to get ignited but they did.  Mike McComas of Pampa Texas would be dead today if I hadn't put him out as he was running blind, on fire from the waist up from getting fuel on his t-shirt.  Tell me to get real when gasoline is non-flammable. 

I know that overflow tubes are the best guaranty against hydrolock. That's not exactly rocket science.  But I believe I've seen as many hydros as you have and have seen how much fuel is generally on the ground.  It just isn't that much in my experience.  I've seen bikes with a gallon in the crankcase and probably another quart in the airbox, cylinder and head, but still only have a two foot radius or smaller wet spot under them. Sure, any fuel on the floor is a hazard, but the more there is the risk is exponential.  How big would that spot be if the whole two gallons was on the floor?  Two gallons loose on the floor, heck one gallon, with a surface area of ten or maybe fifty or more square feet is going to create a highly volatile atmosphere.  ANd then you're going to have to show me a garage that doesn't have an ignition source... even if it's just you walking in and turning on the lights, or an air compressor kicking on, or the block heater on your truck parked nearby, or who knows what all.  I generally turn off my compressor, but like petcocks, I forget to do it sometimes and it may be on and cycle many times over the course of a week before I notice it.

My son came over last week and wanted to replace the fuel pump on his 1986 Brat.  I made him do it outside after he started pulling stuff apart and leaking gasoline on the shop floor.  Gasoline on the ground outside is much less likely to be ignited and then the initial flare up will be smaller and the chances of being trapped by flames is tremendously reduced.  Yeah, my 06 is outside right now.  I rode her today, but she's outside and will remain out there. You tell me to get real, but just look at how many gasoline fires take out garages, homes, and shops everyday.  THe news is full of them.  Firefighters say the reason they are so devastating is because folks don't think it'll light as easily as it will or flare as explosively as it will.

When the McComas fire happened we were in his garage working on our cars.  I didn't have heat in my shop at the time so he invited me to come use his shop to assemble a big block I was putting together.  He was swapping out the fuel from his AMX making a switch from gasoline to methanol and wound up with a gasoline spill of a little less than a gallon.  He was out from under the car looking for a fire extinguisher (because I was telling him about how strong the fumes were) when the fire went off.  Three other people were in the single car garage and pushed their way past Mike and out the door while he was spinning on fire.

 I tried to get him down, but the little sucker(probably only about 5' 5") was supercharged, adrenaline strong and I couldn't get him off his feet.  So I just stuffed him in the corner against the door and covered him up with my body. and covered his head and face as best I could with my hands, arms, and face trying to shut off the oxygen.  The smell of burning flesh and hair was putrid.  When I thought he was out and stepped back, he immediately flashed back into flames as did the front of my shirt and one arm.  I grabbed him again and this time got the fire out and got him outside without either of us re-igniting.

At that point there were shards of skin hanging off his ears and face maybe eight inches long.  I had lost my beard and eyebrows, and had some blisters, but he was really burnt badly.  I went back in and got the fire put out with several bags of floor dry and a lucky throw of it under the car.  Most of the fuel on the concrete had already burned by that time and I was able to put out the objects (broom, cardboard boxes, wood and plastic shelves) in the room that were still burning or throw them outside in the snow.  All of that took less than three minutes I suppose, but it seemed an eternity.  Rodney, Billy, and the other guy (his name escapes me) once outside, realized we didn't come out and they tried to re-enter, but I had Mike against the door and they couldn't force their way back in because of it. Rodney took him to the hospital that was only a few blocks away.  Mike's wife was in their kitchen cooking his lunch 20 feet away and never knew any of this was going on.  Had no one been there with Mike there's no telling what would have happened.  Most likely he would have perished and his house been lost over a little gasoline on the floor that he had said, "You don't really think that could light do you?"  A few minutes later he was disfigured for life.  Because we got the fire out and he received excellent medical treatment in minutes, his scars have largely faded from their earlier dark brown to an almost normal flesh tone color which makes it much less noticeable.  But that took a dozen years or better.   

Maybe because of that or because I've been in funny cars on fire or because my workplace burned to the ground once because of a fuel tank leak (I was not involved or even present when it started) or whatever, maybe because of my experience I am over-sensitive to the possibilities, but I do not think that I am being unreal at all.  I've seen what's REAL when gasoline (or alky or nitro or paints or thinners) combust.  I wouldn't intentionally put any vehicle in my shop or garage that I KNEW had a fuel leak.  So if hydrolock is not a matter of IF but WHEN, why would I put one in there that used a fuel leak as a so called "safety" measure?  That, to me, is what is unreal. 

What worries me most about overflow tubes is that a bunch of guys up north have garages under their homes in their basements which is also where their coal or oil fired furnaces are.  That scares the bejeebers out of me and I'm thousands of miles away from that situation.  I'll take a bent rod and a ruined engine to a fire any day.  That's my opinion and obviously not shared by anyone else.  That's fine.  I really do try to bite my tongue and deal with that.  But I don't think I'm being unreal. 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on December 18, 2013, 02:36:54 am
 Rev, first off, I'm sorry to hear the story of your friend catching on fire. But then, I've been alive for awhile too, and have had some experience with fires, too. Like the time I caught a field on fire and almost burned a house down when I was a kid. Or the time my bunsen burner with alcohol in it  tipped over in the basement of our 60 year old home and I tried to put it out with water (now I know alcohol floats). Or the time I  caught my arm on fire while searing meat and the oil blew up, almost catching the kitchen on fire, with the kids in the house. . Or the several times engines backfired and caught the carb, intake, wires , my hair and all on fire. Oh, and my Mom burned to death in a fire in 2007.

 So yeah, I've btdt too. I'm not beginning to suggest that fire is to be taken lightly, but I think that a 7 gallon tank of fuel, copiously venting from the tank and carbs on a constant basis is somehow exponentially more dangerous because of overflow tubes, well, that just doesn't work for me.  So on this, we'll have to agree to disagree. Heck, every time you ride your bike, you have a tank of explosive gas nestled between your n*ts with sparks, combustion and fire constantly going on under the tank. Petcocks, carbs, and fuel lines fail. sparks jump. Why do we ride these death traps at all - are we crazy  :-\  So in the end, all I can say is that if someone sees overflows as a threat, they should just not have them, but they still don't make my bike any more dangerous to me or my shop than it was already.  Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 18, 2013, 03:22:08 am
I am not out to ridicule anyone Mike.  Not you certainly not Steve... but I disagree with your assessment that you will notice gas leaking and therefore be safe.  I doubt folks all get off their overflow equipped bikes and stand there a few minutes to see if they leak anything (which most likely will not occur while you are watching) before going off to do other things.  If we were so thoughtful, we'd never forget a manual petcock and this all becomes moot in the first place.

It is unlawful to store gasoline in an unapproved container and I doubt anyone here would be so foolish as to keep fuel in something like a milk jug or a mason jar or a plastic bucket.  Why would that be?  Isn't that like asking for a fuel spill?  And that's a gallon maximum, not a 7.5 gallon tank.  I doubt, that even with overflow tubes, anyone would ever get a five gallon spill.  They COULD, but I doubt it would happen.  But I don't want a gallon on my floor.  And with the dozens of hydrolock events I have witnessed firsthand, I have never seen more than probably a half pint on the floor (likely less) with the rest of the fuel safely confined within the engine and airbox where, A. it is NOT exposed to as much surface air and thus does not create the fumes that fuel spreading over a concrete floor would create; B. where what fumes that are generated are far less likely to come into contact with an ignition source; and C. said fuel that does escape does not constitute as nearly as serious a spill as with tubes in place.  Yeah, my engine is likely to get jacked.  To me that is far and away the more satisfactory outcome.  Yeah, we don't agree.

The only persons likely to agree with me will be your fire safety professionals and they couldn't care two cents about your/our precious connecting rods.  I saw this thread start and kept my mouth shut like I do 98% of the time.  I shouldn't have let Hazy's comment push me over the edge... but I did.  I know I am alone arguing against overflow tubes (obviously no firemen or fire marshals here), and so Hazy's comment seemed a little pointed to me though I'm sure he didn't realize that or intend it that way.  I should just keep my mouth shut, but I do worry about people making what I... I said "I" as in "ME", what "I" consider bad choices.  Now before anyone over reacts to that statement let me please point out that I am probably NOT the guy folks think of as a safety Nazi most of the time or a guy who always makes good choices.  My wife would say I'm easily the biggest risk taker she has ever known and she's not too far from right I'd reckon.  Heck, look at the video in my sig line and that should be clear enough right away.  But there's a lot of crazy stuff I'll do before I mess with a potential gasoline fire unless I'm really expecting I can deal with it.  In the race car I had a fire system and fireproof gear.  I wasn't afraid of fire... at first.

Maybe I am a safety Nazi.  I think someone riding without a helmet is foolish.  I rode without boots again this afternoon (I was in dress clothes) and couldn;t help but remember the last time I did that I spent six months in a wheelchair.  I think managing risk to life, limb, and property (in that order) is important and worth serious consideration.  But I still make choices that when you think about them are clearly foolish.

 I take my jetski 20 miles offshore to fish.  I want to have ludicrous horsepower in my antique Concours.  I wheelie-ed (and will again) the turbo virtually every single time I rode it and did so at some pretty high speeds (up to 80+mph).  I rode it at triple digit speeds a lot and then often in places where it just was idiotic to do so.  My point is that if I am willing to take these kind of risks that are clearly life threatening, why am I so against a silly little thing like overflow tubes?  I guess because I've been so close to losing the fire battle already a few times and know it's one that the ONLY way I can mitigate or reduce the risk to an acceptable level is to avoid the possibilities altogether, because skill or experience or expertise haven't proven very effective for me in this area.  Call me a ninny or whatever.  I'm good with that.  I'm not arguing... I'm presenting the argument that I believe is correct.  I'm just really amazed that no one else sees the dangers as unacceptable, though they would never ever intentionally pour a gallon or more of gasoline on their floor. 

You say that it won't happen.  I say it will.   That's where we differ. You say the risk is worth the reward, I say it isn't.  That's all this amounts to, nothing more, nothing less.  I fully agree with Steve's assessment that  it's not a matter of "IF" it's a matter of "WHEN."  That's what all risk management comes down to in the end isn't it?  We all have to decide that     
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 18, 2013, 03:49:16 am
So in the end, all I can say is that if someone sees overflows as a threat, they should just not have them, but they still don't make my bike any more dangerous to me or my shop than it was already.  Steve

Well, didn't see this post before I made mine, but this is where we do agree... that someone who sees a threat in them need not have them.  I would not have them except I bought a bike with them.  They will probably remain on the bike for as long as I own it unless I have reason to pull the carbs, in which case I will remove them.  In fact, I bought this bike with the intent of removing the carbs altogether, but have since decided not to EFI an NA bike of my own (though I will likely end up doing one for someone else next year). 

 I agree that we have to learn to live together despite very different opinions on this topic.  But in order to do this we have to both be able to speak our minds on the subject, wouldn't you agree?  You still have hundreds of voices to my one so I do not see myself as a threat to you.  If anything, folks will more likely think I'm looney tunes for disagreeing in the first place.  That's fine. I fully respect you as an engine builder and "shleper" of so many things Concours. You've always been willing to put yourself out there and have brought a lot of fresh thinking to an old scoot.  Some of your innovations are absolutely brilliant IMHO (for what that's worth coming from me), I just don't see this as one of them.  Sorry.  But, you know there has to be one weirdo in every crowd, right?  ;)


Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: EBAD on December 18, 2013, 04:02:20 am
I have installed a shutoff valve ahead of my stock vacuum petcock. It is under the tank, I just reach under the tank and flip it. I'm lazy but still want to avoid hydrolock
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Nosmo on December 18, 2013, 04:25:06 am
So.....many people are against the manual petcock like the Pingel, but yet would be OK installing a secondary manual on/off valve in addition to the OEM vacuum-controlled unit.  I don't get the logic there.

I went Pingel several years ago after a couple of years with the Bergmen manual conversion.  I also have overflow tubes.  I store my bikes in the carport, never in the basement, and when I have to put the Connie in there for work, I always pull the fuel tank first, just because I am like Rev Ryder and have a tremendous fear of fire due to vented/spilled fuel.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on December 18, 2013, 11:15:21 am

 I agree that we have to learn to live together despite very different opinions on this topic.  But in order to do this we have to both be able to speak our minds on the subject, wouldn't you agree?  You still have hundreds of voices to my one so I do not see myself as a threat to you. 

 Some of your innovations are absolutely brilliant IMHO (for what that's worth coming from me), I just don't see this as one of them. 

Rev, not and never will be an issue of "threat". This isn't a competetion, never has been. We're both grown, with our own set of experiences to draw from. I know you're just speaking your mind.

 And keep in mind that overflow tubes aren't some innovation of mine (I wish they were) because kawasaki saw fit to use overflows on just about everything else other than the concours. This is keihin's innovation, not mine. My voyager had them. Heck, I just did a Brute Force 750 ATV that had overflow tubes.

   I do agree with you about the weirdo part, but not because we disagree on overflow tubes  :nananana:  ;) :rotflmao: Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on December 18, 2013, 11:23:38 am
One thing I'd like to point out is that the overflow tube setup includes a hose system to route the fuel to a single discharge. For those storing, etc, I don't see why they couldn't add another level of protection by simply putting the overflow discharge hose into gas can or other suitable covered container. That way any overflow is contained, and very little is even venting to atmosphere. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Greg on December 18, 2013, 11:42:59 am
I bought a 2000 a year ago, and installed a $7 manual petcock that I bought at a small engine shop, cutting into the fuel line just below the vacuum petcock, and secured it with tiny worm gear hose clamps. It's tight, but there is still room to get my gloved fingers in there to turn the valve. I placed a small label reading "Gas?" to my gauges to remind me to turn off the petcock after every ride.

I had to rebuild my own carburetors shortly after buying the bike because it had the dreaded stumble, and finally quit running altogether. If I had the money, I would have sent them to Steve to rebuild and install the overflows. Since I didn't, I took care of it myself after some thorough research on this forum.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: donaldj on December 18, 2013, 12:10:03 pm
Very interesting and informative conversation. Thanks for the opposing views.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: DVanecekOld on December 18, 2013, 01:18:39 pm
Greg, you seem to be the only one who has answered my question, got a picture??......my question was.........".I'm not sure physically how you would do it?  Related to this, since this bike is total gravity feed, a longer fuel line or even a curl in the line, shouldn't make any difference should it? Couldn't the line even go down and back up? Just wondering if that would open the door to putting a manual shut off in the line, or would it cause other problems? Would it increase the chance of vapor lock? " .................
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on December 18, 2013, 01:24:24 pm
So.....many people are against the manual petcock like the Pingel, but yet would be OK installing a secondary manual on/off valve in addition to the OEM vacuum-controlled unit.  I don't get the logic there.

I went Pingel several years ago after a couple of years with the Bergmen manual conversion.  I also have overflow tubes.  I store my bikes in the carport, never in the basement, and when I have to put the Connie in there for work, I always pull the fuel tank first, just because I am like Rev Ryder and have a tremendous fear of fire due to vented/spilled fuel.

A lot of us feel the manual petcock wouldn't work... for us... because we know we'd often forget to turn it off. Or on. However, A manual off in addition to the vacuum operated petcock means that when the bike is off for some time, or in the garage, we will remember to turn it off. If we forget to turn it off the vacuum petcock is still there.  It's not a perfect system, but it's a little better than just one or the other.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 18, 2013, 01:27:01 pm
One thing I'd like to point out is that the overflow tube setup includes a hose system to route the fuel to a single discharge. For those storing, etc, I don't see why they couldn't add another level of protection by simply putting the overflow discharge hose into gas can or other suitable covered container. That way any overflow is contained, and very little is even venting to atmosphere. Steve
And that would be a valid remedy that addresses ALL of my concerns and would prevent even that pint of fuel on the floor.  But alas, we're back to an "always turning off a petcock" type solution that makes the tubes desirable in the first place.   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on December 18, 2013, 01:37:54 pm
  I like the conversation. In my case a man has to know his limitations. I know I will NOT turn off a manual petcock EVERYTIME. You know, "brainf@rt syndrome"! So that leaves me with the potential gas on the floor syndrome if my oem petcock and float valve fails. Any way you cut it there can be a failure, human or mechanical. So far the mechanical parts have worked for 20 yrs. My brain has not!!  ??? 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on December 18, 2013, 01:40:15 pm
We've been 'round this topic so many times. There's at least one who installed an electric solenoid (Zorlac?) but I think he said he wouldn't recommend it or do it again. Someone suggested an electric or vacuum pump, but that would need a very low pressure regulator. Some who have tried adding a valve have had problems with getting sufficient fuel flow.

Everything is going to be a compromise.

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on December 18, 2013, 01:50:47 pm
I've done an electric solenoid installation also. Another in line flow restriction, we know how that works out. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 18, 2013, 02:38:14 pm
Bob Smith has run the electric solenoid for several years, but I think he said he wouldn't do it again.  Not positive of that though.  I know Steve did flow tests on this one and it was well reduced on flow.  Bob claimed no trouble from his IIRC, but...

Bottom line is it is still a fallible piece of equipment.  It IS most likely to fail in the OFF position since it requires electricity to open.  Someone could easily adapt an NOS solenoid (plenty of flow), but that too is still a device that will fail in the off position.  There is NO SOLUTION that I can see that doesn't have SOME KIND of drawback or point of failure.  The electric solenoids failing in the off position means you just don't go anywhere at all until it's remedied.  And I would think that since they are energized the entire time one is riding that the failure rate would be/could be kinda high.  Most solenoids are not rated for a 100% duty cycle.  They also place another electric demand on Connie's none too over-endowed electric/charging system.  I think Steve brought that out a few years ago as well when hydrolock began to become more common place as the bikes aged and fuels got funkier. 

Were I to go electric I would probably try this solenoid.
http://www.jegs.com/i/NOS/741/18060/10002/-1 (http://www.jegs.com/i/NOS/741/18060/10002/-1)
I believe it would have more than adequate flow, provide little restriction, not be susceptible to fuel induced corrosion, and has a pretty low electrical demand at around 10 watts.  I have no idea how long it would last though under the strains of repeated long-term activation while touring.  But this is NOTHING like the solenoids that have been tested so far except that it is electric. 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on December 18, 2013, 02:48:57 pm
I don't know about that failure mode, Rev, I think your still looking at a spring loaded needle, similar to the vacuum petcock but with electricity. Granted, the electric means the spring could be much stronger, but if a piece of trash lands on the needle, it's still going to leak.

What we need is a manual petcock with a small gear-head motor attached. And of course you'd need some electronic logic to operate it, but I think that would be pretty simple. The motor would only run when turning the petcock on or off, and there would be a simple manual override if it failed. And there would be an LED to go on your dash that would indicate if the petcock was not closed.

Edit: I see mention of a 'Teflon piston', so I think that valve uses fuel pressure to stay closed. If it does it might not work so well.

Whatever method you use, it's a good idea to test it periodically. Even manual petcocks have been known to leak, so pull the line off now and then to check for leakage.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Hazy on December 18, 2013, 05:53:30 pm
Sweet! I set off Rev...My work here is done.  :rotflmao:

My carbs have been cleaned, SISF'd, overflow tubes installed, and petcock rebuilt. I once had a few drops come out of the hose once but nowhere near the amounts mentioned previously. I'm confident that I will not have a leak requiring the overflow tubes in the near future.

I did have a scare once when I was doing my advanced MSF course last year on Mae. We had just come back from the range and parked for a potty break. Getting back on her I saw a small gas spill about the size of a quarter. Fortunately both instructors were COGGER's (near Dayton, Ohio) and they said it was because of all the hard turns we were making, gas had sloshed around in the bowls and down the OF tubes.

To be honest Rev, I never thought about the fire hazard. I was solely focused on the hydrolock issue. For what it's worth, I check the OF tube every time I walk through the garage. So far I haven't had a drop other than what was mentioned previously. And I'm hoping with what's been done to the carbs and petcock, I'll continue to be dropless. :)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Daytona_Mike on December 18, 2013, 07:28:20 pm
We've been 'round this topic so many times. There's at least one who installed an electric solenoid (Zorlac?) but I think he said he wouldn't recommend it or do it again. Someone suggested an electric or vacuum pump, but that would need a very low pressure regulator. Some who have tried adding a valve have had problems with getting sufficient fuel flow.

Everything is going to be a compromise.
I did install an electric solenoid and I too would not recommend it due to low fuel pressure. I also tried a low pressure fuel pump and  I do not recommend that either. I also tried many various configurations of inline fuel filters  all recommended by this forum and I do not recommend ANY inline filter whatsoever due to issues one of them being vapor lock .
All of the above was to try and  address and prevent very small tiny grains of sand getting into my needle seats and causing them to leak. Daytona Bleach has very very fine grains of sand that blow around the streets like a wintery day.
This was all before we knew about adding overflow tubes. The correct solution was to fix my split air box and  add over flow tubes.
Never an issue since then.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: stevedap on December 18, 2013, 10:31:27 pm
I bought a 2000 a year ago, and installed a $7 manual petcock that I bought at a small engine shop, cutting into the fuel line just below the vacuum petcock, and secured it with tiny worm gear hose clamps. It's tight, but there is still room to get my gloved fingers in there to turn the valve. I placed a small label reading "Gas?" to my gauges to remind me to turn off the petcock after every ride.

But now if your stock petcock started leaking without you realizing it, all that's holding back fuel from the gas tank would be your manual petcock. A lot would then be riding on that $7 dollar petcock!  If it was me I'd just convert the stock petcock into a manual one by plugging the vacuum line. 
 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: 2fast on December 18, 2013, 11:40:16 pm

[/quote]
But now if your stock petcock started leaking without you realizing it, all that's holding back fuel from the gas tank would be your manual petcock. A lot would then be riding on that $7 dollar petcock!  If it was me I'd just convert the stock petcock into a manual one by plugging the vacuum line. 
[/quote]

Assuming you mean switching from Run to Prime as an on/off? That will work until it doesn't, just like all the other "fixes".  Over flow tubes are the fix, unless you blow up your garage. Man, nothing is perfect. If you want to know how much gas it will take to explode your garage, read this simple article for an easy to understand explanation. http://www.interfire.org/res_file/9213-1.asp (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/9213-1.asp)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: stevedap on December 19, 2013, 12:02:23 am
2Fast,  was just pointing out that adding a second petcock below the stock one is probably no better than simply modifying the stock one to work as a manual on/off by disconnectiing and plugging the vacuum line. Probably worse in that you're now relying on a cheap shutoff valve, likely made in China, to prevent a hydrolock event if the factory petcock ever failed.     
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on December 19, 2013, 12:47:37 am
Whatever method you use, it's a good idea to test it periodically. Even manual petcocks have been known to leak, so pull the line off now and then to check for leakage.

 :iagree:  Ma Kaw recommends inspecting your fuel system every 6,000 miles.  You are
supposed to check fuel hoses and connections every 3,000.  Basically every other oil change
you should be looking at your petcock...  making sure it's up to spec.  Manual or Vacuum Actuated.

Choose your method, and then maintain it. 

I like that idea using a catch can.  It would be pretty easy to set up a small
gas can with a funnel to throw under the o/f tube for 'extended breaks'   :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: 2fast on December 19, 2013, 01:25:34 am
2Fast,  was just pointing out that adding a second petcock below the stock one is probably no better than simply modifying the stock one to work as a manual on/off by disconnectiing and plugging the vacuum line. Probably worse in that you're now relying on a cheap shutoff valve, likely made in China, to prevent a hydrolock event if the factory petcock ever failed.     

Hey, I'm not trying to pick on you at all. You just made me consider the different types of shut off mechanisms. The stock unit relies mainly on a plunger with an oring and seat which is activated by the vac signal moving it in and out. Most inline valves are a passageway on a cylinder with fixed orings at the appropriate in/out locations. I think there is quite a bit less margin for error with that type. The problem on the practical side is that you can't move that type with vac signal, it requires a human or else a servo motor of some type. But then you either have the human or the little servo motor to allow failure. Like I was trying to say, any system CAN fail, just depends on which one you are more comfortable with.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on December 19, 2013, 10:31:08 am
"There's at least one who installed an electric solenoid (Zorlac?) but I think he said he wouldn't recommend it or do it again."

Au contraire, it's been working OK for 50K or more.
No question I'd do it again.
Not too hard to install the way I did once you pull the carbs.  :rotflmao:
I did a detailed writeup on Rick's site.  :-\
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: gPink on December 19, 2013, 10:48:52 am
"There's at least one who installed an electric solenoid (Zorlac?) but I think he said he wouldn't recommend it or do it again."

Au contraire, it's been working OK for 50K or more.
No question I'd do it again.
Not too hard to install the way I did once you pull the carbs.  :rotflmao:
I did a detailed writeup on Rick's site.  :-\
Got a link?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on December 19, 2013, 11:08:49 am
No, due to Rick's scorched earth COG divorce a few years back.  :'(
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: gPink on December 19, 2013, 11:25:12 am
Thanks a lot for something I and many others had nothing to do with.
Gary
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on December 19, 2013, 11:43:36 am
I have been running an electric solenoid valve longer than Zorlac, more than 60.000 miles, and I would not go back to using the OEM petcock if you tried to pay me. I am an old fart and, unlike me, this valve remembers to turn the fuel off every time.   

QUOTE: Bob Smith has run the electric solenoid for several years, but I think he said he wouldn't do it again.  Not positive of that though.  I know Steve did flow tests on this one and it was well reduced on flow.  Bob claimed no trouble from his IIRC, but... : QUOTE

Let me tell you how Bob Smith came to use this valve. On a recommendation from me, Gary Murphy purchased this valve for Bob to test it on his Connie. It is the same valve I am running on my Connie. The last time I talked with Bob, he was not having any issues with this valve and as far as I know he is still using it. BOB where are you? Show your self. Please 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: donaldj on December 19, 2013, 12:28:04 pm
There are a lot of views on this subject and we should respect each others, and yes, we are all entitled to our own. It is obvious we will all never agree. Rev, I respect you view and hate that you and your friend suffered thru what you did.

I'm 70 and started ridding in 1955 and have owned and rode a lot of different motorcycles. There were certain things I learned to do, look out for other vehicles, look where I wanted to go, regular maintenance, pre ride check,  put my kickstand down before I walked away from the bike and yes shut the gas off (I have a manual shutoff). I'm not trying to over simplify this, but I have trained my brain to do certain things, especially when it comes to riding a motorcycle or bicycle.

Having seen a lot of changes in my lifetime, I really believe we rely on automation too much. Not enough thinking on our part. ??? I'm not trying to start anything here, just a senior citizens point of view. ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on December 19, 2013, 01:31:17 pm
"There's at least one who installed an electric solenoid (Zorlac?) but I think he said he wouldn't recommend it or do it again."

Au contraire, it's been working OK for 50K or more.
No question I'd do it again.
Not too hard to install the way I did once you pull the carbs.  :rotflmao:
I did a detailed writeup on Rick's site.  :-\

My apologies, I stand corrected. For some reason though, I have the feeling I will make this same mistake next time this topic comes up.  :truce:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 19, 2013, 02:21:47 pm
JD and Zorlac,
I had no idea (I'm sure I should have known this somehow) that you had electric solenoid valves on your bikes.  I was only aware of Bob's.  I knew that Murph got it for him to be a sort of Beta tester, but was unaware of others.  Really can't believe I didn't know of Mark using one.  I know that Bob never had problems from his due to flow or failure... and wasn't completely sure he was still running it.  For whatever reason I had it in mind that he was sort of "take it or leave it" on the valve.  But if it works, never gave a problem, and has been completely reliable I can't see where I could have gotten that.  Oh well.  My aging brain I suppose.

I do believe this is the same, exact valve that Steve flow tested though, is it not?  I can't remember the values that he came up with, but it seemed it flowed considerably less than the stock petcock... enough so that he felt it COULD be a performance damper.  All of that information and associated write-up by Steve was bound to have ALSO been lost after the "nukular" purge of a few years ago.  Shame dat. 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on December 19, 2013, 03:23:30 pm
Rev - I spoke with JD yesterday, the valve he's using isn't the same as the one I tested, this one has a better flow rate, and also an unique mounting arrangement that may make it a good replacement for the factory petcock. I think all Q's should be drected to JDM though, it's his hard work that may be the big payoff here - steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Daytona_Mike on December 19, 2013, 03:33:42 pm
I ran the electric valve. I purchased it  and the fuel lines from Murph. I do not know what model I got but I do know I ran out of fuel with it during a WOT run so it came off.
If there is a problem I always seem to get it. Sort of like the flu!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 19, 2013, 06:55:32 pm
Rev - I spoke with JD yesterday, the valve he's using isn't the same as the one I tested, this one has a better flow rate, and also an unique mounting arrangement that may make it a good replacement for the factory petcock. I think all Q's should be drected to JDM though, it's his hard work that may be the big payoff here - steve
Interesting!!!
JD, have you any cool info/data/insight to share?  What kind of solenoid is yours.

Steve, wasn't the one you tested the same as Bob's?  I reckon memory ain't what it used to/ought to be.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on December 19, 2013, 11:21:49 pm
Rev - I spoke with JD yesterday, the valve he's using isn't the same as the one I tested, this one has a better flow rate, and also an unique mounting arrangement that may make it a good replacement for the factory petcock. I think all Q's should be drected to JDM though, it's his hard work that may be the big payoff here - steve
Interesting!!!
JD, have you any cool info/data/insight to share?  What kind of solenoid is yours.

Steve, wasn't the one you tested the same as Bob's?  I reckon memory ain't what it used to/ought to be.

Rev, I think I have come up with a design that will address all the issues we have had with the aging Connie fuel system. I have been playing with this design for a number of years gathering information, running tests on the OEM petcock, adding heat shielding to the bottom of the tank to keep the fuel at a cooler temperature, rerouting the fuel line so it does not run over the top of the hot engine, creating a low point in the fuel system so I could add a settling bowl to catch trash, and a few other things I'm still working on. I'm trying to keep these old girls out of harms way. It is a sad day when you hear where someone has had a hydrolock experience with their Connie and bent a rod. When I started looking at the Connie fuel system, if you mentioned hydrolock on this forum, some folks would call you crazy and you were in for a knock down drag out.  Over time, as the old girls got some age on them, the problem has raised its ugly head too often. As far as I am concerned, hydrolock is the ultimate destroyer of the C10 Connie. Thanks to Steve's overflow tubes, a lot of Connies haven't ended up in a bone yard. I think my design will make the Connie even better than it already is but I need one more riding season to test it. Also, I am trying to talk Steve into helping me with the final testing. In my opinion, when it comes carburetors on the C10, Steve is the man. I am just trying to get him to start at the tank and work his way down. Rev, thanks for asking. JD     
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 19, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
When I started looking at the Connie fuel system, if you mentioned hydrolock on this forum, some folks would call you crazy and you were in for a knock down drag out. 

I certainly know that.  :-\
When I reported my multiple hydrolock experiences and a bent rod, the word I was handed was "myth."  That was my first week or so on the old forum and I believe the same week I was about tar and feathered for posting up about a sale on an item from JC Whitney that could have cost a COG icon member sales.  I was nearly eaten alive and had to sort of apologize for unknowingly stepping onto "Holy Ground."  But then, slaying sacred cows is my bread and butter so I stuck around despite the momentary ugliness.   :o   

But we've all learned, grown, and benefitted tons thanks to those same folks.  Today Connie ownership is, or at least can be, better than ever thanks to folks who keep working on the problems we encounter with the ol' girl.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on December 20, 2013, 12:11:59 am
Well said Mr Rev.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Benjamin on December 20, 2013, 02:04:51 pm
OP, here.  Not to be cheeky but

(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Boy-That-Escalated-Quickly-Anchorman.gif)

But I agree, COG is magical.  If we all had the same opinion we wouldn't need a forum we could just list what to do and treat that as gospel.  But we dont.

From reading all the responses, I am going to try and keep Wilhelmina going by changing my habits and not the bike. Bump the starter slowly.  Being cognizant of the problem is really what I ought to be doing.  I'd love overflows or manual petcock but cant afford it right now.  Someone will say that that is no excuse but it is my excuse.  I have a brand new OEM petcock and I think a good examination every 3000-6000 miles is a good practice as well.  That and I don't have a garage - I supposed I wouldn't store the bike in the garage if I thought it would blow up.

Thanks a lot for the replies!

 :motonoises:

- Beej
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: smithr1 on December 20, 2013, 02:13:25 pm
Rev - I spoke with JD yesterday, the valve he's using isn't the same as the one I tested, this one has a better flow rate, and also an unique mounting arrangement that may make it a good replacement for the factory petcock. I think all Q's should be drected to JDM though, it's his hard work that may be the big payoff here - steve

Interesting!!!
JD, have you any cool info/data/insight to share?  What kind of solenoid is yours.

Steve, wasn't the one you tested the same as Bob's?  I reckon memory ain't what it used to/ought to be.


Yes JD and I have the same higher flow solenoid.  Mine is still in the bike.  I think I did a write up in the wiki.

http://forum.cog-online.org/index.php/topic,32983.0.html (http://forum.cog-online.org/index.php/topic,32983.0.html)

  It, like anything else seems to need service ever few years or it to could form a leak.  Even though mine has not ever done that it did look "used" when I serviced mine after 2 years.  No spare parts though.  You have to buy a new one.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on December 20, 2013, 03:27:08 pm
Bob, Thanks for the comeback,   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on December 20, 2013, 04:23:02 pm
"I have a brand new OEM petcock and I think a good examination every 3000-6000 miles is a good practice as well."

Dude, you're on to it!!
  ;)
I pull the hoses with a full tank and let it sit over night, no drips at all is a pass.
You can even put a little vacuum on the proper petcock port to fully verify its on/off operation.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Greg on December 20, 2013, 09:31:58 pm
Greg, you seem to be the only one who has answered my question, got a picture??......my question was.........".I'm not sure physically how you would do it?  Related to this, since this bike is total gravity feed, a longer fuel line or even a curl in the line, shouldn't make any difference should it? Couldn't the line even go down and back up? Just wondering if that would open the door to putting a manual shut off in the line, or would it cause other problems? Would it increase the chance of vapor lock? " .................

VisionDon,

Here is a photo of the $7 manual shut off valve I installed. I ride every day, and regularly take the bike into the north Georgia mountains near me and push the bike pretty hard. I have never had a fuel restriction or vapor lock issue. I used the stock fuel line, just cutting it to insert the manual fuel shutoff valve. IMHO, a manual nylon gas-resistant valve is the cheapest, most effective insurance against hydrolock.

If I had lots of disposable income, I'd definitely opt for the overflow tubes AND the manual shutoff valve. Placing a label reading "Gas?" on my gauges reminds me to turn it on and off. Believe me, you will know pretty quick if you forget to turn it ON. 

By the way, I bought my carb rebuild kit via Murph's. I was very pleased with the kit and his fast shipping.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on December 20, 2013, 10:17:46 pm
Greg, looks like you took the bull by the horns and did something to help prevent hydrolock on your Connie that works for you and is a frugal fix. Hats off to you. JD   :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Strawboss on December 20, 2013, 11:34:23 pm
You can use this too, a little more than $7, but not much. Same part number as my '82 KZ and my 2001 Concours.

http://eaglemike.com/Manual-Petcock-for-KLR650-mpcy.htm (http://eaglemike.com/Manual-Petcock-for-KLR650-mpcy.htm)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: EBAD on December 21, 2013, 06:54:25 pm
Not hooked up as the bike is winterized, but Here is my cheapo valve

(http://s125.photobucket.com/user/kdx607/media-full/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps0b9428fc.jpg.html)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Altitude on December 22, 2013, 11:50:39 am
I asked the same thing and someone replied saying the Concours had a fragile and sensitive fuel delivery system.
We love our bikes and all but $500 to fix a problem that might happen on a $2000 bike? Really?


  Btw good job on the shut off Greg..
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on December 22, 2013, 12:56:45 pm
I asked the same thing and someone replied saying the Concours had a fragile and sensitive fuel delivery system.
We love our bikes and all but $500 to fix a problem that might happen on a $2000 bike? Really?


  Btw good job on the shut off Greg..

How much is it worth to you to prevent hydrolock? 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Bill Hookman on December 22, 2013, 01:59:47 pm
Greg,
Great idea on that shut off valve.  But, isn't that valve for 1/4" fuel line?  I believe our fuel line is 5/16".  I would be worried about the restriction it's adding, even though, you have never had any issues with fuel starvation.  But, you also say most of your riding is in the mountains and I think the majority of fuel starvation issues are experienced at constant highway speeds.  With that said, there are 5/16" shut off valves similar to that one on Amazon and Ebay, but they cost a little more and are brass.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Ron_Moss_MO on December 22, 2013, 03:03:39 pm
When I work on my bikes or cars it is in a non heated garage with no ignition source. 17 years as a professional firefighter years ago
wised me up real quick. The number of gasoline fires I fought are unbelievable. Rev, I'm with you on this one.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: VTconnie on December 22, 2013, 05:08:38 pm
When I work on my bikes or cars it is in a non heated garage with no ignition source. 17 years as a professional firefighter years ago
wised me up real quick. The number of gasoline fires I fought are unbelievable. Rev, I'm with you on this one.

Thats scary,

What about people who weld things on-the-car? that can't be safe
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on December 22, 2013, 06:31:10 pm
It's not, and yet people do it everyday. Go work in an auto-body shop for a week and you'll wonder how they ever survived.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on December 23, 2013, 12:06:11 am
It's not, and yet people do it everyday. Go work in an auto-body shop for a week and you'll wonder how they ever survived.
I owned several body shops for 23 years.  I am a second career minister. I sold my shops in 2001 and have not worked in the industry seriously since 2003. But back then, tThe fire marshal who comes to inspect your place, if he/she are worth their salt, will generally help you figure it out how to stay alive and will happily shut you down until you really understand the risk.  DAMHIK 

Even then it's dangerous.  Even though my last building was over 9000 sq. ft. and welding could be well isolated from the paint area, and booths and "stations" were required for dust control or hazardous situations, as well as paint application and prep... and all flammable liquids, paint gun cleaning machines, and wastes were required to be kept in an airtight room with a TWO hour burn time and cement filled metal doors... and mine was NOT a huge operation by any measure. 

All of that and considerable luck kept us from being blown to bits and burning down though we did suffer a few fires and injuries over the years BEFORE all of the above became the norm.  Fortunately we never lost a day's work time or a building from any of those incidents.  But WillyP is spot on speaking to that being about as potentially hazardous a fire place as there is.  I still find it amazing we didn't have more or larger fires than we did.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Greg on December 26, 2013, 05:30:23 pm
Greg,
Great idea on that shut off valve.  But, isn't that valve for 1/4" fuel line?  I believe our fuel line is 5/16".  I would be worried about the restriction it's adding, even though, you have never had any issues with fuel starvation.  But, you also say most of your riding is in the mountains and I think the majority of fuel starvation issues are experienced at constant highway speeds.  With that said, there are 5/16" shut off valves similar to that one on Amazon and Ebay, but they cost a little more and are brass.

Bill, I appreciate the info and think a brass 5/16" valve would be a better solution because of it matching the fuel line size and the better durability of brass. Btw, I also commute 70 miles per day on interstate at 70 to 85 mph (shh! don't tell the State Patrol!), and have never experienced any fuel restriction issues during my commutes. I haven't done any research on where to find the brass shut off valve you mentioned. You got any suggestions?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Bill Hookman on December 26, 2013, 08:41:06 pm
I bought one here:

http://www.amazon.com/Parts-Unlimited-Fuel-Shut-Off-Valve/dp/B00230ECOK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1388093969&sr=8-2&keywords=5%2F16+shut+off+valve (http://www.amazon.com/Parts-Unlimited-Fuel-Shut-Off-Valve/dp/B00230ECOK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1388093969&sr=8-2&keywords=5%2F16+shut+off+valve)

I haven't received it yet and won't be able to try it out until spring, so I can't tell you how or if it works.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: EJ on February 04, 2015, 05:28:14 pm
I AM NEW TO COG  JUST GOT A 1994 CONCOURS IT RUNS GREAT BUT SEEMED IT SHOULD HAVE MOORE POWER THEN I CHECKED THE PIPES NUMBER 4 IS NOT HOT REPLACED PETCOCK  IT HAD A LEAK WHAT POSITION SHOULD PETCOCK BE IN WHEN NOT RIDING, AND IS THIS HYDROLOCK.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim on February 04, 2015, 05:53:21 pm
The stock petcock should be left in the ON (tab down) or RES (tab pointing toward seat) position.  The third position is PRIME (tab pointing forward).  Never leave the petcock in this position for any length of time.  It is used to bypass the vacuum actuated shutoff valve in the petcock.  You would use PRIME if you ran the bike out of gas or the bike had been sitting for a week or more.  If you use PRIME, it only takes about 30 to 45 seconds to fill the carb bowls.  Once the bike is started, move the lever back to ON or RES.
A cold exhaust pipe usually means the cylinder is not firing, not hydrolock.  You might want to start a new topic for this problem.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Pbfoot on February 04, 2015, 07:21:42 pm
I lurked on the forum for a few weeks before purchasing my 06. My first purchase was a new oem peacock. I wish I had bought a manual petcock. Turning off the fuel is hardwired in my brain as well. Just out of curiosity I have tried to find anecdotal evidence of hydrolock in other models and am unable to find much. I think the volume of fuel in the Connie (and the lack of overflow tubes) makes these bikes susceptible to hydrolock much more than other models. In the summer I normally only run with half a tank due to fumes in the garage. If I am not going to ride for a while I make sure the fuel level is low. With my twins in braces and iPhones my carbs will not be going anywhere for a while.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: gottaride on February 04, 2015, 07:56:04 pm
The peacock on my 94 leaked so I replaced it with a new OEM petcock. Three times thus far when removing the fuel line I have had a gusher of gas all over my hands and yes I did disconnect the vacuum line to the petcock first. Now whenever I disconnect the fuel line from the petcock I first remove the vacuum PLUS I take a short section  of 5/16 I.D. vinyl hose and attach it to the vacuum nipple then apply a slight amount of positive pressure to move that friggin' diaphragm. Then and only then does the fuel line come off.

This will be the forth year that I've run a 5/16 I.D. manual fuel shut off valve immediately downstream of the stock petcock. I installed overflow tubes last winter and thus don't use the manual shut off on day rides. It does however get used when done riding for the day and of course during longer periods when not riding. My C10 is in the garage below my bedroom and I sleep just fine.

My #4 carbs drips via the overflow tube and will be serviced soon. The leak is probably from not sealing the tube into it's hole properly and not from the float seal because they are quite new and not likely contaminated. My bad for leaving it. If I hadn't installed the second fuel shutoff it would leak all the time.

Question. What is the typical amount of fuel that the overflow tubes tend to drip with a hot C10 parked on it's kickstand say on a 100F day in sunshine?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on February 04, 2015, 08:02:00 pm
after riding, the vapor condenses and you'll get a couple drops from the overflow hose if you haven't done a low to  high "p trap" in the line, that seems to stop it. steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim on February 04, 2015, 08:46:45 pm
Have you tried Dan Bergmen's petcock conversion? 
http://www.bergmenengineering.com/ManualPetcockConversion.shtml (http://www.bergmenengineering.com/ManualPetcockConversion.shtml)

If I remember correctly, it gives you a real OFF, ON and RES position and bypasses the vacuum actuated path thru the petcock (one less vacuum hose to the carbs). 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on February 04, 2015, 11:07:49 pm
I AM NEW TO COG  JUST GOT A 1994 CONCOURS IT RUNS GREAT BUT SEEMED IT SHOULD HAVE MOORE POWER THEN I CHECKED THE PIPES NUMBER 4 IS NOT HOT REPLACED PETCOCK  IT HAD A LEAK WHAT POSITION SHOULD PETCOCK BE IN WHEN NOT RIDING, AND IS THIS HYDROLOCK.

If one pipe is not hot it is likely not running on that cylinder, or that cylinder is running rich. However, neither are the result of a leaking petcock.

My advice is if you want help start a new thread. And please TURN OFF THE CAPS-LOCK!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: rickm_tx on February 05, 2015, 04:35:53 pm
And please TURN OFF THE CAPS-LOCK!

amen
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Bill_Heil_NM on February 05, 2015, 04:51:10 pm
I had a manual petcock conversion on my bike and you just have to train yourself to turn the thing off everytime you stop the bike.  I cam from riding a BMW airhead and that was the drill.  stop the bike, turn the petcocks off.  simple.  I don't have overflow tubes, had the bike for ten  years and never had a problem.   And when you disconnect the hose to take the tank off, you don't have to worry about gas dripping out.  YOU CAN get in the habit of turning the petcock off.
Try riding a BMW with plastic QDs in the fuel line that will crack and spew gas all over you and the bike while riding down the road.  Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Daytona_Mike on February 06, 2015, 12:40:11 am
I had a manual petcock conversion on my bike and you just have to train yourself to turn the thing off everytime you stop the bike.  I cam from riding a BMW airhead and that was the drill.  stop the bike, turn the petcocks off.  simple.  I don't have overflow tubes, had the bike for ten  years and never had a problem.   And when you disconnect the hose to take the tank off, you don't have to worry about gas dripping out.  YOU CAN get in the habit of turning the petcock off.
Try riding a BMW with plastic QDs in the fuel line that will crack and spew gas all over you and the bike while riding down the road.  Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh.

You are not going to like my opinion but I feel you should know.  A manual petcock puts you at a much higher risk of hydrolock than an automatic vacuum operated petcock. The reason is that if an automatic petcock were to ever fail it only ever fails in a drip or small dribble mode. It will take all night to fill a cylinder.
A manual petock flows full force wide open (when it is turn on of course)  and can over fill and fill a cylinder in a few seconds... the same amount of seconds it takes to start the bike  up and or shut the bike off or stall or turn the engine off to speak to someone ..  just a few seconds.. that is all it takes.

 This is not just my opinion. We had it happen already and recently.  Just purchased and very low miles and  he had a manual petock and he blew the engine- hydrolocked it trying to start it up. Would  you turn the petcock off when your having trouble starting the bike? I think not. He didn't either.
In this case if  he had an automatic petcock he would not have hydrolocked the engine.

You more than others need overflow tubes.



Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on February 06, 2015, 12:44:50 am
  I make mistakes. That's why I have overflow tubes. With an on-off petcock if you have a bad or weak float needle and you forget to turn the petcock off you will get a cyl full of fuel. Hit the starter and you have a HYDROLOCK episode.   >:(

  PS have had 2 petcocks on my 1994 C10 for 20 yrs and they have not failed YET but at least with the overflow tubes I will know it if it does!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Daytona_Mike on February 06, 2015, 01:00:06 am
That is correct Mettler1 but you dont have to forget. With a manual you  can remember every single time and still hydrolock . That is my point and that is what has happened before.
With overflow tubes  you also know you have a leaky float valve no matter what petcock you have.
Without overflow tubes you only wonder why your gas mileage is low  or poor. There are many many bikes running around with leaky float valves and many that have been hydrolocked. Most of the time the owners are  not even aware because they do not have overflow tubes.

How many people have asked about poor fuel economy?  I know the second my float(s) leak- I can smell it and see it. In my case all I have to do is do a WOT run and the piece of trash clears.
I keep my bike well maintained which includes replacing the auto petcock before it  fails.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on February 06, 2015, 04:04:19 am
That is correct Mettler1 but you dont have to forget. With a manual you  can remember every single time and still hydrolock . That is my point and that is what has happened before.
With overflow tubes  you also know you have a leaky float valve no matter what petcock you have.
Without overflow tubes you only wonder why your gas mileage is low  or poor. There are many many bikes running around with leaky float valves and many that have been hydrolocked. Most of the time the owners are  not even aware because they do not have overflow tubes.

How many people have asked about poor fuel economy?  I know the second my float(s) leak- I can smell it and see it. In my case all I have to do is do a WOT run and the piece of trash clears.
I keep my bike well maintained which includes replacing the auto petcock before it  fails.
   Thanks for the add on. Had not thought of that one.  :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: EBAD on February 06, 2015, 12:06:14 pm
When my bike is cold and I am trying to start it, I leave the petcock off. With the petcock off, I have fuel in the carbs. Enough fuel I might add, to allow me to ride 1 mile down the road. Considering a conservative 40mpg estimate, that means about 3.2 ounces of gas. There is no need to turn the petcock on if your bike won't start - at that point, fuel delivery is not the issue.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: mattchewn on February 06, 2015, 12:10:28 pm
EBAD,
While that will definitely work for someone that rides very regularly. A bike that sits a lot or has simply sat for a longer time than normal may not have enough fuel left to get running on a cold start.
Matt
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: LessPaul on February 06, 2015, 01:37:34 pm
Is running a second on/off valve downstream from the OEM petcock an option?

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: EBAD on February 06, 2015, 02:13:42 pm
Yes, that is an option. I took that route as cheap hydrolock protection.

I start up the bike with the valve off, and BEFORE I hit the kill switch, I turn it back off. It is 2nd nature to me now, even if I ride my other bike on Saturday, I can ride the Connie on Sunday and still remember to hit the valve before each stop.

For a downside, if I let someone ride my bike, they may not remember to turn the gas off before they kill the engine. Luckily no one wants to ride my burgundy whale but me!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on February 06, 2015, 03:23:30 pm
EBAD,
While that will definitely work for someone that rides very regularly. A bike that sits a lot or has simply sat for a longer time than normal may not have enough fuel left to get running on a cold start.
Matt

My experience is that the bowls on a bike with overflow tubes will be dry as a bone in a day during a South Texas summer... about five days in winter.  Without overflow tubes that is more than tripled.  I'm amazed at how fast the fuel disappears when the bowls have flow through ventilation.  Before the tubes I almost NEVER used the PRI setting, but now it is pretty much a necessity if the bike has set more than a day or two (which for me is common any more).  Without overflow tubes I could easily go a week in summer without needing PRI to get started.  Just saying that Matt is right, and to some degree, so is EBAD (providing he does not have overflow tubes).
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: SteveJ. on February 06, 2015, 04:12:52 pm
EBAD,
While that will definitely work for someone that rides very regularly. A bike that sits a lot or has simply sat for a longer time than normal may not have enough fuel left to get running on a cold start.
Matt

My experience is that the bowls on a bike with overflow tubes will be dry as a bone in a day during a South Texas summer... about five days in winter.  Without overflow tubes that is more than tripled.  I'm amazed at how fast the fuel disappears when the bowls have flow through ventilation.  Before the tubes I almost NEVER used the PRI setting, but now it is pretty much a necessity if the bike has set more than a day or two (which for me is common any more).  Without overflow tubes I could easily go a week in summer without needing PRI to get started.  Just saying that Matt is right, and to some degree, so is EBAD (providing he does not have overflow tubes).

To follow up on this, would it be a good idea to just block off the factory bowl venting and just vent with the overflow tubes? Of course, one would not want to keep fluid in the p-trap in the drain line, just eliminating the p-trap.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on February 06, 2015, 04:23:18 pm
To follow up on this, would it be a good idea to just block off the factory bowl venting and just vent with the overflow tubes? Of course, one would not want to keep fluid in the p-trap in the drain line, just eliminating the p-trap.

  Probably, but I would run a test first. I know on a carb without overflow tubes, if you block the vent tube the bike will immediately shut off due to fuel starvation. I would test your theory by blocking the vents and seeing if the bike still even idled. If it did so, a ride, testing for indications of fuel starvation would be next in order. JMO, Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on February 06, 2015, 06:49:48 pm
To follow up on this, would it be a good idea to just block off the factory bowl venting and just vent with the overflow tubes? Of course, one would not want to keep fluid in the p-trap in the drain line, just eliminating the p-trap.

  Probably, but I would run a test first. I know on a carb without overflow tubes, if you block the vent tube the bike will immediately shut off due to fuel starvation. I would test your theory by blocking the vents and seeing if the bike still even idled. If it did so, a ride, testing for indications of fuel starvation would be next in order. JMO, Steve
Steve (and Steve),
I know I haven't tried it, but I'm betting that would work just fine.  We know the tubes let in plenty of air so the bike shouldn't know its original vents were plugged at all.  Providing , of course, that there is no blockage in the drain tubing.  I'm going to have to do this one and soon too.  Maybe on Monday when I have some time.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: SteveJ. on February 06, 2015, 08:27:40 pm
OK. I just plugged the top vents and went for an Italian tune up. Everything seems good.

It is now beer:30, I'm out.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on February 08, 2015, 12:27:35 pm
This is starting to get very interesting. It gets the old gray matter to working so keep poking at this folks. Sounds like we might be on the verge of learning something new.   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: SteveJ. on February 08, 2015, 02:57:23 pm
I went on a 200 mile ride a bout yesterday in the lovely 70* temps.  :great:  I made sure, also, that there was no carbon formation in the engine internals.  :motonoises: :motonoises: :great:

The bike runs and idles perfectly. Oh, the bike turned 214k miles also.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: gottaride on February 08, 2015, 03:48:19 pm
Up here in Alberta my parking spot faces south and gets above 80F with very low humidity. Same results as Rev for overflow bowls draining within a day or two of not starting. To start I rotate my manual petcock 90 degrees to on then activate prime for a 20 count then switch to on. The manual petcock is brass and quite small. So glad it's there.

I overlooked mentioning that on tours I get paranoid about hydrolock and use the manual valve all the time. I just don't trust that OEM petcock despite it's being new. I should probably convert it to manual and be done with it. Let's face it the stock petcock is unreliable.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Big E on February 08, 2015, 07:23:13 pm
I did the same EBAD I just put another shut off downstream of the factory shut off as a precaution. You don't have to shut it off every time you stop ..... Its going to take a while to fill a cylinder to hydrolock it. I shut it off overnight and whule in storage over the winter. Then I check the factory petcock once a monthe or so and all is well .....
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on February 08, 2015, 08:41:39 pm
...until y'all find out it's starving the carbs for fuel...  ???  Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: gottaride on February 08, 2015, 09:55:47 pm
That"s bull in my case, it's the same I.D. as the fuel line. Folks said the same thing about the Napa3006 fuel filter and that's bull too. Just sayin'. Never once had any difficulty with WOT up to 120mph fully loaded for bear touring.
Steve in this singular case you are not correct.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Thud300 on February 08, 2015, 10:15:11 pm
For a hydrolock to occur, it would only take enough fuel to fill a cylinder to just before TDC..... curious, does anyone know what that volume is?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on February 08, 2015, 10:41:10 pm
For a hydrolock to occur, it would only take enough fuel to fill a cylinder to just before TDC..... curious, does anyone know what that volume is?

1 liter.... 4 cylinders...  250 ml would be actual displacement of a cylinder from bottom to top of the stroke, which is a hair under 8.5 ounces.
I'm sure less than that is required... probably less than 1/2 that... my guess.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: mattchewn on February 08, 2015, 11:16:42 pm
McFly,
What is the compression ratio of a ZG 1000? 10 to 1? If so it would only take slightly more than 1/10th of the compressed volume of one cylinder to have a hydrolock. The cylinder only has to have more fuel than room. Depending on piston location in the stroke that could be minimal.
Matt
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Thud300 on February 08, 2015, 11:41:56 pm
By that reckoning, assuming a 10:1 ratio, the volume of a single cylinder at TDC is just under 25 cc's... so I guess 30 cc's would do it handily :o
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on February 09, 2015, 03:29:35 am
That"s bull in my case, it's the same I.D. as the fuel line. Folks said the same thing about the Napa3006 fuel filter and that's bull too. Just sayin'. Never once had any difficulty with WOT up to 120mph fully loaded for bear touring.
Steve in this singular case you are not correct.

  I'm sorry, but I'm really comfortable with the fuel starvation theory. It actually doesn't originate with the filter, it originates with the tank vent. the filter exacerbates it to the point that the carbs are running only partially filled. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on February 09, 2015, 03:56:35 am
By that reckoning, assuming a 10:1 ratio, the volume of a single cylinder at TDC is just under 25 cc's... so I guess 30 cc's would do it handily :o

Probably far less than that... remember the fuel only has to displace enough air that the stress of going past TDC is greater than the strength of the rod. If you start with 250cc of air and replace 25cc of that with liquid, that's only 10% of the cylinder, but if at TDC you only have 25cc of space, and 25cc of fuel, you still need room for the what was 225cc of air, which obviously can't be compressed to 0cc.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: mattchewn on February 11, 2015, 03:13:28 am
Willy,
Air will compress, the pressure will keep increasing but it will keep compressing. Likewise, air will leak past rings,(they do not provide a perfect seal), and valve seats much faster than a liquid. Therefore, it will take more actual liquid (fuel or antifreeze in the case of a head gasket failure), than combustion chamber volume to cause a hydrolock event.
 Matt
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on February 11, 2015, 12:32:14 pm
Sorry, wrong, air is not infinitely compressible*. At some point in compression, air becomes a liquid. No motor can handle that without damage.

However, at some point the air will become so compressed that the piston will stop. I don't know how much air this is, in relation to cylinder size or the amount of fuel, but I don't believe the fuel needs to be 100% or the combustion chamber. And also, we are assuming the piston is at BDC, if the piston were not at BDC there would be less air and therefore need more fuel.

Also keep in mind it doesn't need to be an absolute impossible blockage of movement, it only needs to be enough resistance to movement to exceed the rod's resistance to bending. In other words, there could be a situation were the strength of the rod were a factor. A stronger rod would be less likely to bend and possibly force the piston through what would be a hydrolock and bent rod with a weaker rod.

So to make a long story short, the liquid only needs to raise the compression ratio up the the point were the rod bends. If the liquid equals the combustion chamber, we have infinity to 1 compression ratio. I am sure you can see that it takes less than that to damage a motor. What that ratio is, I don't know.




*at least not by any method known to man. Any matter is compressible, even solids. But, we cannot further compress many materials, like a diamond for instance. It's not that a diamond can't be compressed, it just that we don't have the ability. Maybe someday we'll create portable black holes.

Our motors are damaged when trying to compress liquids, not because liquids can't be compressed, but because the motor isn't strong enough to do so.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on February 14, 2015, 01:26:59 am
McFly,
What is the compression ratio of a ZG 1000? 10 to 1? If so it would only take slightly more than 1/10th of the compressed volume of one cylinder to have a hydrolock. The cylinder only has to have more fuel than room. Depending on piston location in the stroke that could be minimal.
Matt

There's a lot more to it... most importantly the strength of the connecting rod, and the maximum pressure
it can exert before failing...  the compression is also an air/fuel mixture, which is more dense than just air.
Fuel is part of the compression volume.  My answer was to the volume of the cylinder at TDC, and a simple guess
as to what's actually needed.  The more I think it through the more it hurts my head...  (Metal fatigue, ring wear,
so many variables).

the liquid only needs to raise the compression ratio up the the point were the rod bends. If the liquid equals the combustion chamber, we have infinity to 1 compression ratio. I am sure you can see that it takes less than that to damage a motor. What that ratio is, I don't know.

Our motors are damaged when trying to compress liquids, not because liquids can't be compressed, but because the motor isn't strong enough to do so.

 :iagree: 

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on February 14, 2015, 03:21:06 am
I'm not getting into the fray on whether or not a compressible gas can cause a rod to bend , but I can say that then entire volume of fuel needed is less than one ounce to fully overfill the combustion chamber volume and prevent the piston from reaching TDC. HTH,  IIRC, the combustion chamber volume is 17cc, then add in the head gasket volume, maybe 2.5 cc or so. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Snowdog on February 14, 2015, 08:11:41 pm
there are inline vacuum shut off vales that work great,except they cost $150.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim Snyder on February 14, 2015, 10:15:17 pm
I solved this issue years ago by installing a Pingel fuel valve. Then two years ago I got Steve's overflow tubes installed just as extra insurance.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on February 15, 2015, 12:41:14 am
   Bought my bike 20yrs ago. Only on my 2nd oem valve. Really don't use it much so it gets little wear.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: BlueTroll on February 15, 2015, 03:12:50 am
Well if it's any consolation, I agree with you Rev Ryder.

I've always thought overflow tubes were a tad bit risky and is probably the reason they're not installed by the manufacturer.  Nothing like pouring gasonline on hot exhaust to ruin your life.   :beerchug:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: SteveJ. on February 15, 2015, 12:38:10 pm
Well if it's any consolation, I agree with you Rev Ryder.

I've always thought overflow tubes were a tad bit risky and is probably the reason they're not installed by the manufacturer.  Nothing like pouring gasonline on hot exhaust to ruin your life.   :beerchug:
Ummm, they do come with a drain tube so that any overflow can be directed.

This is opposed to no overflows where the gas usually, sometimes, or frequently comes out of the airbox. Not much direction of flow there.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on February 15, 2015, 01:19:13 pm
Well if it's any consolation, I agree with you Rev Ryder.

I've always thought overflow tubes were a tad bit risky and is probably the reason they're not installed by the manufacturer.  Nothing like pouring gasonline on hot exhaust to ruin your life.   :beerchug:

  the kawasaki voyager was made the same years as the c-10. The voyagers all had drain tubes and a drain line. If it was oo "risky" none of the models would have had them. JMO, Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on February 15, 2015, 02:17:41 pm
Personally, I would much rather have control over where bowl overflow gas goes, rather
than let it go where it wants, because we KNOW where it goes, hence this discussion.

Fact is, most people I know in this group are fairly pro-active, and stay on top of maintenance
issues, so I'm thinkin' a very small percentage will actually see them do there job, which is a
good thing.  Anyone using the overflow tubes as an overflow indicator is totally missing the point, eh?

It's like using your car's air bag system as a brake failure warning system....   ???


Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: LessPaul on February 15, 2015, 07:05:30 pm
Just curious....how many here have had SISF's overflow tubes installed and at some point come out to the garage to discover a pool of gas beneath the bike....

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Big E on February 15, 2015, 09:03:40 pm
Just seems that installing a 5/16" ID fuel shut off just downstream of the factory unit is good cheap insurance and in no way at all effects the flow to the carbs.  :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on February 15, 2015, 11:51:52 pm
Just seems that installing a 5/16" ID fuel shut off just downstream of the factory unit is good cheap insurance and in no way at all effects the flow to the carbs.  :great:

IF you remember to shut it off EVERY TIME.  It's the same as installing a Pingel (on/off petcock).
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim Snyder on February 16, 2015, 11:48:27 am
Just curious....how many here have had SISF's overflow tubes installed and at some point come out to the garage to discover a pool of gas beneath the bike....

I have Steve's overflow tubes and I have never had as much as one drop of fuel on the shop floor.
Of course that is mainly due to my Pingel fuel valve being in the "OFF" position when the bike is not running.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on February 16, 2015, 12:05:14 pm
Just curious....how many here have had SISF's overflow tubes installed and at some point come out to the garage to discover a pool of gas beneath the bike....

I have Steve's overflow tubes and I have never had as much as one drop of fuel on the shop floor.
Of course that is mainly due to my Pingel fuel valve being in the "OFF" position when the bike is not running.

    OK, I'm in. I use the OEM fuel valve!! On my second one on my C10 that I have owned for 20 yrs. I retired the first one after 14 yrs.. Never had a drop of fuel from my bike on the garage floor. So there!!   ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: SteveJ. on February 16, 2015, 03:10:03 pm
No leakage, on my third petcock in 214k miles, carbbies serviced from time to time by Shoodaben Engineering.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: LessPaul on February 16, 2015, 07:26:11 pm
When I asked about post-SISF carb work gas leaks, I was kinda playing devil's advocate.

Those with SISF's overflow tubes know that hydrolock can't happen to them.  But the petcock can still fail.  And the carbs can still get gummed up. The difference of course is that if those two conditions occur at the same time (with tubes), the gas ends up on the garage floor, not filling the cylinders or airbox.

Overflow tubes don't prevent a petcock from going bad, or carbs from getting gummed up anew.

Sooo....if you have SISF's overflow tubes, you have precisely the same likelihood of generating the factors needed for hydrolock as those without. You're protected, of course, from the effects. But the likelihood is no different than for those without.

If nobody ever gets gas on their garage floor (with the overflow tubes), the same percentage would never have experienced it without the tubes.

Perhaps the risk of hydrolock isn't quite as high as many might think?  I can't really answer that. I know the stakes are high, which makes overflow tubes worth the price of admission. But hydrolock is presented as the big, bad boogeyman of Concours ownership here. We're a bit fixated on it.

BUT.....
I can't believe I wouldn't notice a strong gas smell in my garage (or in a parking lot). I can't believe I wouldn't notice a gas leak under my bike. Of course, it might not always mean gas on the floor, but the odor would be way obvious. If someone doesn't KNOW about hydrolock, they might probably just try to start up as normal....and CLUNK. But if you DO know about the potential for hydrolock, how could you NOT notice?

As McFly noted, I would think that if one takes preventative maintenance seriously (as most of us do), it'd be really hard not to notice a strong gas smell, or puddle of gas under the bike.

Just sayin'.....

I've always parked my bikes over clean sheet of cardboard. If I get a leak of any kind, I notice it right away.

BTW....I plan on getting overflow tubes with SISF's spa treatment at some point. I might be tempting fate by waiting until my carbs feel like they need service (no complaints so far), but I think my regular pre-ride due diligence will greatly reduce the chances of experiencing a hydrolock event. The tubes make it 100%. I'm okay with 95% in the meantime.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on February 16, 2015, 07:47:16 pm
   I don't know if this has been addressed BUT overflow tube allows the gas to go on the ground (floor) instead of the carbs and cyl.  If you don't have overflow tubes the gas will fill the cyl's then over flow into the air box and onto the ground (floor).  Same result, just a different way of getting there.
    So don't sweat the over flow tubes getting gas on the floor. Either way the gas WILL find a way out when the petcock AND the float needle fail. Over flow tubes just prevent the gas getting into the cyls thus hydrolock if you try to start the engine!!  That's the less expensive results!! ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: SteveJ. on February 16, 2015, 08:35:59 pm
Then there could be the scenario where it's a small/slow leak at the float valve/petcock and the cylinder it is happening to just happens to have the intake valve open. In this aligning of the planets it may be possible to have enough gas leak into the cylinder to bend the rod but not necessarily give an odor off.

Thoughts?

Oh, and donate often to OTP.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: LessPaul on February 16, 2015, 09:19:46 pm
I think it's all too easy to overestimate the frequency, simply because the results can be so catastrophic. Forums like this one attract owners with problems, so I think we hear about hydrolock far more often than it exists in the real world. I also suspect there are a ton of Connies out there, marginally maintained (if at all), that have survived all the way to the landfill, without an incidence of hydrolock.

There are no doubt many different ways to get to the same hydrolock situation, but I think we are looking at a pretty small likelihood overall. Granted, overflow tubes are pretty good insurance, at a pretty reasonable price. But in the big picture, I also suspect we might be a bit obsessed with "separating the fly-chit from the pepper."

We all insure our homes against fire because it's a very real possibility. But nearly all of us will go thru life without burning our houses down....with or without insurance. Yeah, it happens. But not very often, despite how really easy it is to accidentally torch a home.

I seriously can't bring myself to get all worked up over preventing hydrolock. My bike stands a far greater risk of getting totaled in an accident. So, I'll do my due diligence (maintenance), keep my eyes (and nose) open, and hope for the best.



Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JPavlis_CA on February 16, 2015, 09:39:45 pm
I think it's all too easy to overestimate the frequency, simply because the results can be so catastrophic. Forums like this one attract owners with problems, so I think we hear about hydrolock far more often than it exists in the real world. I also suspect there are a ton of Connies out there, marginally maintained (if at all), that have survived all the way to the landfill, without an incidence of hydrolock.
.....
I seriously can't bring myself to get all worked up over preventing hydrolock. My bike stands a far greater risk of getting totaled in an accident. So, I'll do my due diligence (maintenance), keep my eyes (and nose) open, and hope for the best.

 :a102: Oh man, Tim - now you've done it. Better hope Steve doesn't read this.   :D :rotflmao:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on February 16, 2015, 09:59:36 pm

 :a102: Oh man, Tim - now you've done it. Better hope Steve doesn't read this.   :D :rotflmao:

  I have read it, and Jim, Of course you know my position on this, and IMO, and I'm basing this on bikes I've personally worked on, not forum stuff, and the guys who call me ALL THE TIME  with hydrolocks, like the email I JUST ANSWERED 5 minutes ago, or the one I answered saturday that never shows up here on the forum, I'm going to say it like this:

  You're a grown man, it's your choice to ignore reality. It's your choice to ignore the best advise you're going to get. It's your choice to lose whatever monetary value you have in your bike. It's your choice to make a foolish decision, as long as you're willing to live with the consequences.

  Think I'm kidding... look at the recent thread by Mike in Texas - he emailed me before ever starting the thread, and he started the email with "I never thought it would happen to me"... So at some point, maybe it's going to be Lesspaul writing those same words.

  And no, this isn't my attempt at scare tactic doom and gloom, I believe at some point, with nothing to prevent a hydrolock , every c-10 will experience a hydrolock event if it lives long enough. JMO,. but based on seeing and hearing about lots of wrecked engines - steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: DC Concours on February 16, 2015, 10:40:35 pm
In retrospect I am glad I bought my bike with clogged idle jets. Else I doubt I would have ever come to this site and discovered all this talk about hydrolocks (and TWC3 oil)!

I would have just ridden my bike for a year, or 5, till one day I would come here and my opening line would have been...I never thought it would happen to me but I just f****** my bike up.

For me it was a simple choice of needing my carbs working right, and while doing that why not get the protection put on it.

Now, had I not had clogged carbs and still discovered this site, I would have likely read less, and generally much less fastidious on all matters hydrolocks.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: DoerOfThings on February 16, 2015, 10:51:54 pm
*shrugs* in 2012, the day after I brought my '92 home, I went out to take it for a ride and noticed that it had a puddle of gas under it that was dripping off of the air box.  :-\ I only knew it's significance  because the day I bought it I started digging through the forum here learning as much as I could about my new toy.

I don't know what to say about the frequency it happens, but I can say is that it happened to me. If it were't for the articles here talking about it, I would have hit the starter button that morning, and likely bent a rod.








Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Nosmo on February 17, 2015, 02:45:32 am
LessPaul:

I read your post about always parking on cardboard, and being sure you'd smell any leaking fuel, etc.  I don't disagree and I understand your feelings, however, as I'm sure you know, hydro-lock can occur in the time you're parked at a restaurant having dinner or going into the hardware store to buy something.  You can't be sure when or where it will happen.  Cardboard or other clean surfaces aren't always available.  I have a Pingel manual petcock and overflow tubes and I still always look at the ground before I hit the starter button.

The first problem I ever had with my Connie (which I bought used with 7,600 miles on it) was the #2 carb float valve stopped sealing while I was riding, and it started running so rich that cylinder ceased combustion.  I had to abort my trip and head home on three cylinders (about 15 miles).  I did not know about hydro-lock on these bikes then, and had I stopped long enough to make a phone call or use the restroom at a gas station, I could have experienced it on the next start-up.

Since then I installed the over-flow tubes and Steve's 2-minute mod and the confidence I feel in leaving the bike unattended (even with the Pingel fully OFF) is worth the price and effort.

Good luck to you.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: LessPaul on February 17, 2015, 10:48:37 am
I don't doubt that hydrolock occurs on a more-or-less regular basis. And when I get my carbs serviced next, I'll get the overflow tubes. Like I said, it's pretty good, cheap insurance. But during the course of my winter fix-ups, I'll end up checking the petcock. My carbs seem to be functioning just fine. If I start having problems, I'll get them serviced. If I get any indication of problems, I'll do what needs doing.

But it takes 2 to tango. If I notice that one of the partners starting to move to the beat, I'll pull both of their dance cards.

But I'm not going to preemptively yank the carbs, send them to Steve, and have the overflow tubes installed without any prior indication of trouble. I suppose if I had spent $4,000 on a bike, I might. But I paid $1,500 for my '86 a year ago. It has survived 28 years without overflow tubes. I'm willing to take my chances until such time that I get some indication of trouble. Again, it takes 2 to tango. If it were only one, I'd be there....like, yesterday.

And FWIW, I'm really happy SiSF plays such a central role here. And very happy there are so many here willing to share their hard-won knowledge. But life is a calculated risk. I'm okay living with this one. But that's me. YMMV.




Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: The Wizard on February 17, 2015, 11:11:37 am
I am only a comment-or, but but both of my project bikes are due to hydrolock,something in Washington where they both are from.I had two others here in California to buy and three in Nevada. All with this horrible calamity which befalls our Connies. It may be that I'm watching for it,but I keep finding it also.   The Wizard
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim Snyder on February 17, 2015, 04:17:26 pm
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is fuel quality. Everyone knows by now that todays gas with 10% or 15% ethanol in it is very hard on parts especially rubber parts. Things that used to take 10 years to deteriorate are now being dry rotted in two or three years thanks to our overlord government. I have never had a hydro lock issue in my entire motorcycle career which covers 45 years of riding and working as a dealership mechanic. And even after installing my Pingel fuel valve I still had Steve install the overflow tubes just in case I ever forgot to turn the Pingel to off. Spending a little money on overflow tubes is alot easier than pulling a motor out of the frame to overhaul or replace it. Steve invented a way to give us some extra peace of mind. So lets just be thankful we have someone who foresaw this train wreck called hydolock and did something to help us avoid it.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on February 17, 2015, 10:04:34 pm
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is fuel quality. Everyone knows by now that todays gas with 10% or 15% ethanol in it is very hard on parts especially rubber parts. Things that used to take 10 years to deteriorate are now being dry rotted in two or three years thats to our overlord government. I have never had a hydro lock issue in my entire motorcycle career which covers 45 years of riding and working as a dealership mechanic. And even after installing my Pingel fuel valve I still had Steve install the overflow tubes just in case I ever forgot to turn the Pingel to off. Spending a little money on overflow tubes is alot easier than pulling a motor out of the frame to overhaul or replace it. Steve invented a way to give us some extra peace of mind. So lets just be thankful we have someone who foresaw this train wreck called hydolock and did something to help us avoid it.

Well Said Jim
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: SteveJ. on February 17, 2015, 10:40:06 pm
All this talk of overflow kind of obliterates the fact that with the 2 min mod, a part of SiSF's service,  the bike runs a helluva lot better. Especially in the lower and mid range.

Not to mention the frugally priced cam sprocket, or better yet, re-engineered cams.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on February 18, 2015, 01:21:40 am
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is fuel quality. Everyone knows by now that todays gas with 10% or 15% ethanol in it is very hard on parts especially rubber parts. Things that used to take 10 years to deteriorate are now being dry rotted in two or three years thanks to our overlord government. I have never had a hydro lock issue in my entire motorcycle career which covers 45 years of riding and working as a dealership mechanic. And even after installing my Pingel fuel valve I still had Steve install the overflow tubes just in case I ever forgot to turn the Pingel to off. Spending a little money on overflow tubes is alot easier than pulling a motor out of the frame to overhaul or replace it. Steve invented a way to give us some extra peace of mind. So lets just be thankful we have someone who foresaw this train wreck called hydolock and did something to help us avoid it.

 :iagree:       :beerchug:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on February 18, 2015, 10:58:12 pm
All this talk of overflow kind of obliterates the fact that with the 2 min mod, a part of SiSF's service,  the bike runs a helluva lot better. Especially in the lower and mid range.

Not to mention the frugally priced cam sprocket, or better yet, re-engineered cams.

Not really obliterates it, but I think the better the bike runs the more motivated you will be to take care of it and takes steps to insure you don't get a hydrolock.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: delling3 on February 18, 2015, 11:21:42 pm
IMHO, the goal is this:   NEVER HAVE A FAILURE OF THE PETCOCK AND A FLOAT VALVE.  Assuming this is the case, Hydrolock does not occur, and everything else is just conjecture. 

How do we assure that this doesn't happen?  We can't.  You can replace your petcock every 3 weeks, and replace your float valves every month.  No guarantee that both won't fail tomorrow.  I will agree that the likelihood is very slight (non-existent depending on your philosophical bent), but bottom line is this:  ONLY OVERFLOW TUBES CAN PROTECT YOU FROM HYDROLOCK.  You can also make the argument that you can install overflows and drain tubes, but if the drains get clogged you can still get hydrolock!

If you are comfortable that your maintenance will prevent hydroclock,  good for you.  If you feel that the risk of having them exceeds the risk of not having gas on the floor under your bike, I won't argue with you. 

I think one of the roles of forums such as this are to ensure that people understand the risks of their action (either way) and enables folks to may their own (hopefully) educated decisions. 

So now I will step down from my soap-box. 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Thud300 on February 18, 2015, 11:37:45 pm
Since coming onto this forum and reading its learnings, I've begun using Startron and TCW3 marine oil to counteract the effects of alcohol in the fuel. Hopefully by stabilizing and lubricating/wetting the fuel, they will help maintain the operation and preservation of *critical* fuel system components like needle valves and vacuum petcocks.

I've also discontinued using seafoam, as I've become convinced that it's a great cleaner but a poor maintainer.

Not to claim that these things will prevent a fuel lock. Only diligence and/or passive systems will prevent them. For now, my fuel line is disconnected until this damn winter goes away.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Coyote Chris on May 04, 2015, 02:36:57 pm
Wow...never knew this thread was here.  But I have certainly known about the SiSF fix for many years.....my intent was to send my carbs off to him at the first sign of carb issues (and I still will I am sure) but I took the bike out of storage two winters ago and as I rode it the first time, something wasn't right.  I rode back to my driveway and fuel was running out of the air cleaner housing.  I took the carb bank off and  unstuck a needle, put the bank back (no fun with weak hands even with new rubber air box boots) and the bike ran perfectly. 
As a pilot and aircraft mechanic, I am well aware of what happens to a radial engine with hydro lock.   I decided to put in an inline manual petcock downstream of the vacuum operated one (and upstream of my Ford V-8 fuel filter) and when necessary, have Steve modify my carb bank. 

Question.  If after doing all of the above and having SiSF modify my carbs, if I DID see or smell gas one day under the Connie before riding, could I assume I had a stuck needle?  With the vac. and the manual petcock closed, there would still be a small bit of fuel pressure and fuel in the lines that could leak out through the needle and through the vent line to the floor.  It appears that some owners have fuel piles as a matter of course with the SiSF mod or am I misreading that?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on May 04, 2015, 03:15:53 pm
if it's not an event from overflowing carbs, the occasional drip  on the floor after a warm ride is the result of condensing the ethanol gasses in the overflow fuel line. if you smell and feel the drips you can tell it''s not gasoline. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: alan on May 04, 2015, 10:31:54 pm
I installed a manual petcock kit from Murph's.  I have been turning off the petcock(s) since about 1963 and the kit comes with a bright yellow decal that says "Fuel Valve" which I have put near my ignition switch.  I also owned a '00 Honda Valkyrie and when they hydrolock the starter is strong enough to just tear up some hard, expensive to replace gearing.  Turn it off, run it a bit and works for me.  Even if I had those little pipes I would want a manual valve. My $.10 worth, adjusted for inflation and the US/Cdn exchange rate.
 Remember the 5 P's both Pre and Post flight = Proper Procedures Prevent Piss Poor Performance
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Coyote Chris on May 05, 2015, 02:23:00 am
I agree and it is what is right for me here in this case.  Even with the SiSF mod, I will keep my two petcocks....
5P's! 
I installed a manual petcock kit from Murph's.  I have been turning off the petcock(s) since about 1963 and the kit comes with a bright yellow decal that says "Fuel Valve" which I have put near my ignition switch.  I also owned a '00 Honda Valkyrie and when they hydrolock the starter is strong enough to just tear up some hard, expensive to replace gearing.  Turn it off, run it a bit and works for me.  Even if I had those little pipes I would want a manual valve. My $.10 worth, adjusted for inflation and the US/Cdn exchange rate.
 Remember the 5 P's both Pre and Post flight = Proper Procedures Prevent Piss Poor Performance
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Coyote Chris on May 05, 2015, 02:26:05 am
if it's not an event from overflowing carbs, the occasional drip  on the floor after a warm ride is the result of condensing the ethanol gasses in the overflow fuel line. if you smell and feel the drips you can tell it''s not gasoline. Steve
OK, good to know.  I try very hard to NOT buy E10 but sometimes on tour that is all that is available. Thanks!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on May 05, 2015, 03:47:04 am
Probably a little too big, but iffin you're paranoid about the flow rate it's only a $32 experiment. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2-Brass-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-VDC-Water-Air-Fuels-Gas-VITON-SEAL-B21V-/300714222574?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4603f6e3ee)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on May 05, 2015, 11:42:20 am
Probably a little too big, but iffin you're paranoid about the flow rate it's only a $32 experiment. ([url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2-Brass-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-VDC-Water-Air-Fuels-Gas-VITON-SEAL-B21V-/300714222574?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4603f6e3ee[/url])



Respectfully this would be a better choice, the same valve in 1/4" NTP size.    http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-8-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-Volt-DC-FKM-VITON-Air-Water-Gas-Fuel-B20V/291260556269?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D30251%26meid%3Ddc93a9b2cebf4b2c877cdd5a62d7b888%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D300714222574&rt=nc (http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-8-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-Volt-DC-FKM-VITON-Air-Water-Gas-Fuel-B20V/291260556269?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D30251%26meid%3Ddc93a9b2cebf4b2c877cdd5a62d7b888%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D300714222574&rt=nc)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: stevedap on May 05, 2015, 01:17:54 pm

Respectfully this would be a better choice, the same valve in 1/4" NTP size.    [url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-8-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-Volt-DC-FKM-VITON-Air-Water-Gas-Fuel-B20V/291260556269?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D30251%26meid%3Ddc93a9b2cebf4b2c877cdd5a62d7b888%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D300714222574&rt=nc[/url] ([url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-8-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-Volt-DC-FKM-VITON-Air-Water-Gas-Fuel-B20V/291260556269?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D30251%26meid%3Ddc93a9b2cebf4b2c877cdd5a62d7b888%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D300714222574&rt=nc[/url])


Cool however at the bottom of the page in the Technical Specifications under 01 Overview it says:

"Note: Not suitable for GRAVITY FEED applications"

But why?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on May 05, 2015, 02:43:14 pm

Respectfully this would be a better choice, the same valve in 1/4" NTP size.    [url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-8-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-Volt-DC-FKM-VITON-Air-Water-Gas-Fuel-B20V/291260556269?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D30251%26meid%3Ddc93a9b2cebf4b2c877cdd5a62d7b888%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D300714222574&rt=nc[/url] ([url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-8-Electric-Solenoid-Valve-12-Volt-DC-FKM-VITON-Air-Water-Gas-Fuel-B20V/291260556269?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D30251%26meid%3Ddc93a9b2cebf4b2c877cdd5a62d7b888%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D300714222574&rt=nc[/url])


Cool however at the bottom of the page in the Technical Specifications under 01 Overview it says:

"Note: Not suitable for GRAVITY FEED applications"

But why?


GOOD CATCH, I didn't see that. Probably has a small orifice. The valve I have that ran for several years is 1/4" NTP connection with a 1/4" orifice diameter.  Thanks for the heads up JD
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim Snyder on May 05, 2015, 08:15:06 pm
I have the ultimate setup to prevent hydrolock. Pingel manual fuel valve and Steve's overflow tubes. No runs no drips no errors.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on May 05, 2015, 11:02:46 pm
I have the ultimate setup to prevent hydrolock. Pingel manual fuel valve and Steve's overflow tubes. No runs no drips no errors.

Jim. I am running half of what you are running. I am to old for a manual valve so I have an electrical manual valve, I think. I better go check. YAP. The manual part of this valve requires me to turn off the key...... ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Nosmo on May 06, 2015, 02:01:39 am
I have the ultimate setup to prevent hydrolock. Pingel manual fuel valve and Steve's overflow tubes. No runs no drips no errors.

+1.  Plus the Pingel is chrome-plated and looks really cool when the bike is laying on it's right side with the petcock up.

Ask me how I know................ :(
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on May 06, 2015, 08:48:51 pm
I have the ultimate setup to prevent hydrolock. Pingel manual fuel valve and Steve's overflow tubes. No runs no drips no errors.

+1.  Plus the Pingel is chrome-plated and looks really cool when the bike is laying on it's right side with the petcock up.

Ask me how I know................ :(

What I want to know is, did you forget to turn the gas off when the bike was laying on it's right side with the petcock up?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on May 06, 2015, 10:52:59 pm
What I want to know is, did you forget to turn the gas off when the bike was laying on it's right side with the petcock up?
Prolly less likely for gas to head into the open intake valve when she's on her side though.  :rotflmao:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on May 07, 2015, 12:08:20 am
Nosmo & Jim, I would be running a manual petcock on my Connie before I would run the OEM petcock; that's for sure. But, I have chosen to run a solenoid valve instead as I am old and forgetful. Knowing what I know about Connie fuel system, I would not run any of the 3 valves without overflow tubes. At least, with the manual petcock you control your on destiny but with the OEM petcock it is a crap shoot 'cause you never know when it will fail. And as a minimum, Steve's overflow tubes go along way toward preventing future hydrolock events along with opening up the tank vents.  Respectfully to each his own.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Nosmo on May 07, 2015, 12:11:22 am
It was already "OFF", bike in the basement for maintenance.  See below. The Pingel is circled in yellow:

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: DoerOfThings on May 07, 2015, 12:15:43 am
that's quite the effective, albeit unorthodox windshield removal system ya got there.

 :-\
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Nosmo on May 07, 2015, 12:18:47 am
that's quite the effective, albeit unorthodox windshield removal system ya got there.

 :-\

Yep, sheared that baby right off. What the heck, it needed polishing anyway.  Got the right side mirror, too.  :(
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on May 08, 2015, 04:06:02 pm
Hope you got the bottom of the left muffler while you were at it... No point in wasting an opportunity!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mad Dog on June 18, 2015, 03:44:01 pm
Is there a part number or size for the Pingel petcock? I'm thinking this would be the best place to start, then intstall the overflow tubes in the float bowls and do the other carb upgrades at the end of the riding season.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Nosmo on June 19, 2015, 05:40:16 am
Is there a part number or size for the Pingel petcock? I'm thinking this would be the best place to start, then intstall the overflow tubes in the float bowls and do the other carb upgrades at the end of the riding season.


Here's the link to their spec page.  This spec page link is shown in their "Fuel valves" page also.  Note that in addition to the valve, you need their adapter plate to attach it to the tank.  Try not to faint when you see their prices.  I can't find my receipt with the P/N that I got.  I got one that is not in their recommended list as I wanted a slightly different angle on the outlet nipple.  Doesn’t really matter.  Go with what they list based on how you want it to fit with your fuel line routing, etc.  They have several options.  Click on the valve P/N's in the chart and it will link you to a photo and description so you can choose.  Their spec page only shows "Concors"  2004, but as you know, we are all the same.

They have both straight manual valves and also vacuum valves, but I don’t know anything about their vacuum units.  Call and talk to them if need be, I did, and they are good to talk with.

You still need overflow tubes to prevent hydrolock, if YOU don’t shut it off.

NOTE that the adapter plate bolts onto the tank in the standard holes, and then the valve body screws onto it.  When you install it, be sure you clock it so you can get the mounting bolts out for when you need to pull it off to drain your tank, etc.

http://www.pingelonline.com/prodcat/fuel-valves.asp (http://www.pingelonline.com/prodcat/fuel-valves.asp)

http://www.pingelonline.com/images/Pingel_Powerflo_Fuel%20_Valve_Application_Chart.pdf (http://www.pingelonline.com/images/Pingel_Powerflo_Fuel%20_Valve_Application_Chart.pdf)

Pic below of mine installed:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mad Dog on June 19, 2015, 11:10:30 am
Thanks Nosmo!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mad Dog on July 05, 2015, 06:48:25 pm
I did the Pingel upgrade today. Pretty straight forward. I did have to use a step drill to widen the hole where the Pingel tube goes into the tank. Rigged up a shop vac to suck up most of the shavings while I was doing it. The SS screen on the Pingel will keep out any other missed bits out of the fuel system. Word of caution, take your side covers off. I managed to put a nice gouge in the right side when I was fumbling with the tank to get the wires from the sending unit disconnected. I got most of it buffed out, and it's probably only visible to me, but I did have a good Irish stomping fit when it happened. Live and learn. Now I've got the piece of mind that the fuel is shut off when I'm not riding. At the end of the season I'll send the carbs to SiSF for his upgrades.

Pingel 44mm Fuel Valve Adapter A1702C
Pingel Power-Flow Petcock 6211-AH
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Nosmo on July 05, 2015, 09:08:28 pm
Sorry, should have mentioned that you need to enlarge the hole slightly.  A long stick magnet can help also to get shavings out.

I have a small dent in the left front of my tank from trying to take it off the first time without pulling the glove box covers.  They are always the first thing I take off now when stripping the Tupperware for maintenance.

Just don't forget to TURN IT OFF!!!!!

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mad Dog on July 05, 2015, 10:44:45 pm
And I'm guessing that the smaller secondary hose attached to the backside of the original petcock and leading to a port on the #2 carburetor is the vacuum actuator. I blocked this off with a small tube with a bolt. Yeah, I know this isn't the best way to do it, but I siliconed the bejezus out of the bolt and made sure there was a solid seal before installing. A guy can only make so many trips to the automotive/hardware store... the weather's good. I wanted to ride!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on July 08, 2015, 12:46:14 am
Nothing wrong with using a bolt as long as the smooth shank portion of the bolt goes into the vacuum line, and is a tight fit.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Bob_C_CT on July 08, 2015, 11:58:39 am
Agree on hose and bolt over cheaply made block off caps.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Stealth Connie on July 30, 2017, 11:39:13 pm
I have the ultimate setup to prevent hydrolock. Pingel manual fuel valve and Steve's overflow tubes. No runs no drips no errors.

Jim. I am running half of what you are running. I am to old for a manual valve so I have an electrical manual valve, I think. I better go check. YAP. The manual part of this valve requires me to turn off the key...... ;)

I know it's an old post, but 2 years later, how is the electric valve working, and which one did you go with?

I am a Controls Tech for Toyo Tires Manufacturing (high tech maintenance man lol). We have quite a bit of electric solenoids in some very critical applications.

I would wire it up to power on when key is in run position, but also having an inline switch to turn it off to run the line/carbs dry would be a nice feature..(or just pull the fuse from aux block). 

I'm thinking this would be perfect.
 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GL478RG/ref=asc_df_B01GL478RG5100238/?tag=hyprod-20&creative=395033&creativeASIN=B01GL478RG&linkCode=df0&hvadid=167117508216&hvpos=1o4&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8940232582372818662&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010866&hvtargid=pla-311239116445 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GL478RG/ref=asc_df_B01GL478RG5100238/?tag=hyprod-20&creative=395033&creativeASIN=B01GL478RG&linkCode=df0&hvadid=167117508216&hvpos=1o4&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8940232582372818662&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010866&hvtargid=pla-311239116445)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on July 31, 2017, 12:04:38 am
I'm wondering too. How did the solenoid work out?

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Derick on July 31, 2017, 12:08:57 am
I have one on my 2006. I had Steve work up his magic on the 2002 but still have a valve for it. Costs like 8 bucks, works just fine.

I really don't want to monkey with the carbs again so I'm sticking with the valve.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on July 31, 2017, 12:17:41 am
I have one on my 2006. I had Steve work up his magic on the 2002 but still have a valve for it. Costs like 8 bucks, works just fine.

I really don't want to monkey with the carbs again so I'm sticking with the valve.

OK, so when you have flatness from fuel starvation don't email me until you've removed the valve. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Derick on July 31, 2017, 12:22:05 am
Really? I've been running the manual valve on the 06 for 4 years now with no major issue.... Why would your service make a difference? Is it taking in more fuel? Don't care honestly, I'll remove it in a heartbeat but just curious of the science from the man who would know.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on July 31, 2017, 09:01:51 am
Really? I've been running the manual valve on the 06 for 4 years now with no major issue.... Why would your service make a difference? Is it taking in more fuel? Don't care honestly, I'll remove it in a heartbeat but just curious of the science from the man who would know.

  I guess I misunderstood, I thought you had the solenoid valve. Either way, the issue with the inline valves, like inline filters, is restricted fuel flow volume. It causes the carbs to not be able to fill fully, fuel levels drop and the performance goes flat, or you get the running out of fuel feeling. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Bob H on July 31, 2017, 12:05:48 pm
Just for fun, I did an estimate on fuel flow required but don't necessarily trust my numbers!  Treat this as a trigger to start discussion.

The calculations to determine the fuel flow necessary to keep the carbs full are fairly straightforward, but the values to use are a bit fuzzy. 

Using 200 Hp (at the crankshaft) as a conservative power output for a C10, I come up with about .76 Oz/sec. required fuel flow.  If your fuel flow is this or greater, there should be no issue with fuel starvation.  Since the numbers are strictly estimates, if your  fuel flow is anywhere close to this, you need to pay attention to make sure you are getting enough fuel to the carbs.

My assumptions:
Max power output:     200 Hp               Very conservative for a C10!
BSFC:                       .65 Lb/Hr/HP       Conservative number for an IC engine. 
Fuel density:              6.074 Lb/Gal      "Typical" pump gas.


Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on July 31, 2017, 12:34:11 pm
Just for fun, I did an estimate on fuel flow required but don't necessarily trust my numbers!  Treat this as a trigger to start discussion.

The calculations to determine the fuel flow necessary to keep the carbs full are fairly straightforward, but the values to use are a bit fuzzy. 

Using 200 Hp (at the crankshaft) as a conservative power output for a C10, I come up with about .76 Oz/sec. required fuel flow.  If your fuel flow is this or greater, there should be no issue with fuel starvation.  Since the numbers are strictly estimates, if your  fuel flow is anywhere close to this, you need to pay attention to make sure you are getting enough fuel to the carbs.

My assumptions:
Max power output:     200 Hp               Very conservative for a C10!
BSFC:                       .65 Lb/Hr/HP       Conservative number for an IC engine. 
Fuel density:              6.074 Lb/Gal      "Typical" pump gas.

  All correct from the engineering standpoint, BUT the issue with the c-10 is the tank venting is minimal, and any inline restriction shows up in terms if insufficient flow. So yes, the issue really isn't the flow rate of the valve as long as it's sufficient, it's the coupling of old components (tank vent) and inline restrictions that causes the problems, not to mention that the flow rate changes based on head pressure from the tank. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on July 31, 2017, 12:47:30 pm
Really? I've been running the manual valve on the 06 for 4 years now with no major issue.... Why would your service make a difference? Is it taking in more fuel? Don't care honestly, I'll remove it in a heartbeat but just curious of the science from the man who would know.


  I guess I misunderstood, I thought you had the solenoid valve. Either way, the issue with the inline valves, like inline filters, is restricted fuel flow volume. It causes the carbs to not be able to fill fully, fuel levels drop and the performance goes flat, or you get the running out of fuel feeling. Steve


Steve, I respectfully disagree with you on this. I have been running a solenoid on my Connie for about 15 years. As a matter of fact, I run a valve and a filter. It is my opinion that before you draw conclusions you need to take a longer look at this. I am quite certain that most of the starvation problems are not caused by the plumbing on the bottom of the tank. It is the venting valves on the filler cap top of the tank. There is a bench test you can do on your Connie. Take the tank off and elevate it to the approximate height you have above the carbs, drain the tank, and install whatever you are going to run in the fuel line. Then add one gallon of fuel back into the tank, open your fuel valve and see if you get a full stream of fuel coming out the end of the fuel line. If not, remove the vent valves in the fuel tank filler cap and repeat the process to see if you get a full stream of fuel. If not, call me a SOB and go on about your merry way. What I have done is installed my 3/8"npt solenoid valve directly to the bottom of the tank, removing the old petcock completely. I made about a 2" stand pipe out of copper tubing that sticks up into the tank. Then I installed the old oem filter off the petcock over the stand pipe. This keeps most of the trash out of the fuel system (BUT NOT ALL). I have a street ell in the outlet of the solenoid valve the has a hose barb 3/8"x5/16". This is important - I only use HELIX fuel line 7/16"OD x 5/16"ID. This is the best fuel line I have found for the Connie....and I run it across to the right side of the engine to a Seadoo filter. I made a bracket out of a piece of aluminum plate, that bolts to one of the valve cover bolts,  so it is accessable on the right side of the bike. This makes it very easy to check for trash from time to time, and believe me, you need to check from time to time. From there, I run the fuel to the tee at the inlet of the carbs and secure it with a spring clamp. No worm clamps are used on the fuel system on my Connie - only constant effort clamps. Between the petcock and the filter, I insulate the fuel line to keep it as cool as possible. That is my way to get around vapor lock. I had a incident runing across Nebraska 100+degree heat one time where the bike vapor locked, by insulating the fuel line between the petcock and the filter where it runs over the top of the carb intakes I have not experienced this again runing in 100+ heat. This system has worked many trouble free years. By installing the solenoid valve on the bottom of the tank, I now have no reserve. The way I get around that is a very simple fix. Just empty your fuel tank and add back the number of gallons of gas that you want for reserve. Let your fuel gage settle down. I used a bit of yellow nail polish on the glass where the needle settled. I use two gallons in the tank as my reserve. Funny how that works just like my car. You can forget to turn your valve off as much as you want to. And that is just how it is..... PS my 02 Connie has gone to my son in Denver, as I am too old and with a broken left ankle it is just too top heavy for me to hold up. I will try and have Dan to take a few photos of what I have as it is so much more simple to install than it sounds.   
The total cost for this modification (a whole new fuel system) should cost somewhere between $75 & $100. Try it, you will like it. If you want more info about this mod just PM me. HTH JD 

SEADOO FILTER # Manufacturer Part#
275500088 LINK.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Sea-Doo-PWC-Fuel-Filter-275500088-/142274795826 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Sea-Doo-PWC-Fuel-Filter-275500088-/142274795826)
HELIX fuel line #20018-516-7167   http://helixracingproducts.com/index.php/products-html/tubing-hose/fuel-line/5-16-fuel-line/solid-fuel-lines.html (http://helixracingproducts.com/index.php/products-html/tubing-hose/fuel-line/5-16-fuel-line/solid-fuel-lines.html) 

Link to valve #2w-040-10    https://www.amazon.com/Woljay-Solenoid-Normally-Closed-Replacement/dp/B06XVG9K6P/ref=sr_1_11?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501511586&sr=1-11&keywords=12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8 (https://www.amazon.com/Woljay-Solenoid-Normally-Closed-Replacement/dp/B06XVG9K6P/ref=sr_1_11?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501511586&sr=1-11&keywords=12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8) 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on July 31, 2017, 01:28:23 pm
Steve I agree with you 100% that it is tank vent problem and not a flow problem. The solenoid valve is not the problem, and if you use a Seadoo filter you have a place to catch the trash before it ever gets to your carbs.  HTH JD 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on July 31, 2017, 02:45:45 pm
JDH: I see that you removed the petcock, installed the solenoid directly to the bottom of the tank, used a 3/8" NPT Solenoid, a good fuel line, and filter.

Removing the petcock removed one of the restrictions that others had.
    Orifice size in a stock petcock is tiny. Perhaps 1/8"..
    Most installed the solenoid valve in the hose after a petcock.
Installing a 3/8" NPT (liquid use) Solenoid is also better than {what I recall} others used.
   I think they used 1/4" NPT or 5/16" NPT (possibly air type) solenoids.
   ie; I suspect the orifice sizes in your solenoid are bigger than other solenoids.
I also see you considered vapor lock, hose size, filter size, and routing.

Bottom Line:  I think you built a better mousetrap. (ie; better solenoid installation than others tried)
                    It's possible that your system can flow more fuel than a stock petcock.
                        If so, the restriction of the tank vent would have less negative effect on your system.

But, I agree with Mike. The only thing that will assure no Hydrolock is overflow pipes in the carbs.
                       
Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Daytona_Mike on July 31, 2017, 04:53:11 pm
I did all what you folks have already done. Way back then all these electric solenoid valves and additional filters and manual petcocks= then bigger  fuel lines and bigger solenoids  and  all recommendations  by this forum and I can tell you this from personnel experience .

The electric solenoid DID NOT work!  I ran out of fuel and nothing that I was told to do to fix it worked. You can run all the numbers you want- I still ran out of fuel.

The manual petcock setup- Great if you have over flow tubes- Way way more dangerous than OEM if you dont have overflow tubes.  There have been several on this forum that have ruined their engines BECAUSE they installed a manual petcock and hydro-locked their engines shortly after. I know of 3 at least. I have explained  over and over and over again  as to why the manual petcock is far more dangerous to have than the automatic petcock. I am tired of explaining.

Extra inline fuel filter- another bad idea and why do that? The screen that is already on your petcock in your tank  is the same micron filter as the inline filter so all the inline does is well-- nothing at all besides lowering fuel flow and a place for air to collect and create a vapor lock.

I dont need to hear from all those who say : I never had a problem or it works for me. It did not work at all for me and others telling me it works did not help at all. Same as - I smoked all my life and never got cancer so it must be good for everyone else. NO- its not.

So what does work:   OEM petcock and overflow tubes.We know this works. Just maintain your OEM petcock  like you should and you will have no issues.
Sorry for my rant but we have over this so many times it is ridiculous  that we still go down these tangents when we know what already works. Simple and easy- get over flow tubes and and OEM petcock and be done with it. If you already have over flow tubes then by all means go ahead and get a manual petcock BUT do not think you are better off with a manual petcock and No over flow tubes. You are NOT. You are far more likely to ruin your engine.

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on July 31, 2017, 05:10:44 pm
 
    I AGREE!! :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: RWulf on July 31, 2017, 07:17:58 pm
I could not have said it better. Thank you Daytona Mike.
I know there those out there who think simple is just not
good enough. I let them do what they want, as they will
anyway.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Bob H on July 31, 2017, 11:56:12 pm
The flow rate is definitely affected by the tank vent, fuel line size, petcock, any added filters, solenoids etc.

That's the reason for the calculation.  If your system can't make the flow rate required to keep the engine happy at full power, it's inadequate and won't work reliably.  Do whatever you need to do to lower the resistance and increase the flow. 

This is easy to test by measuring the time required to fill a reasonably big volume to make sure you can meet long term steady state flow, not just a few seconds.

Going back to stock with vent tubes seems like the simplest solution at least to me.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Derick on August 01, 2017, 12:04:58 am
Soooo, is the pingel petcock just voodoo then?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on August 01, 2017, 02:11:57 am
Soooo, is the pingel petcock just voodoo then?

  I wouldn't say it's voodoo. BUT I'm on my second oem petcock in 23 yrs and it works fine at 120 mph!! No problem with fuel flow. If you do have a problem look elsewhere.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on August 01, 2017, 12:12:06 pm
Soooo, is the pingel petcock just voodoo then?

The pingle petcock isn't voodoo or bad, it just puts 100% of hydrolock protection on the rider.
It also doesn't protect the engine from hydrolock in the time the fuel is turned on, to the time
the motorcycle is started...  So iffin' you turn the fuel on, then say forgot to strap your helmet
so you do so before you start the engine, that time might be spent filling the cylinder with gas...

Pingle petcocks will work 100%, as long the rider is 100% efficient in its operation.

My overflow tubes started pouring gas when I was on 'prime' after the bike sat for a week or so.
They 'let loose' several seconds after I turned the petcock to prime.  So there's little margin for
operator error with a manual petcock, and no way of knowing IF there's a needle valve issue.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: RWulf on August 01, 2017, 01:35:55 pm
So to be absolutely safe your saying I should get suited up completely first.
Then start cranking the engine over while turning on the Pingle petcock.
That way if I have a stuck float it will just flood the engine and hydro-lock
it while it is running.
This is all too much, I feel Steve's overflow tubes are enough.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 01, 2017, 02:24:20 pm
first post here... picked a good one i see.  :D

I've had my 01 for a few mos, but my (ex) father in law had one for years and i worked on it a few times, 2x for the hydro-locking issue. also, i am VERY into vintage bikes, and having had more than a few kawi triples in my life, i've seen vacuum petcocks seep, hydro lock, blow crank seals out, bend rods, etc. one of the FIRST things i did to the bike was fit a manual inline petcock. its a 1/4" fuel shutoff valve at a 90 degree angle, i think it was 12 bucks. good quality, zero issues, and in plain sight.  my thought is, if i can remember to turn the fuel on and off, anybody can. no different than putting the side-stand up.

i still have the vacuum petcock on the tank and it works awesome. there's usually no warning when it will fail, so why risk it?

(http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g348/rooskie3/99%20CONCOURS/concours-petcock_1_zps5ryrabsx.jpg)

(http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g348/rooskie3/99%20CONCOURS/concours-petcock_2_zpsqduc2ygo.jpg)

(http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g348/rooskie3/99%20CONCOURS/concours-petcock_3_zpssr3v2bj6.jpg)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on August 01, 2017, 04:15:15 pm
  This is why we have overflow tubes on our carbs. If the fuel system fails and they have you could very well have a hydrolock episode and destroy the engine.

   Watch video.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W6k3pTdAXw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W6k3pTdAXw)

   And welcome to the forum! :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 01, 2017, 05:31:18 pm
oh i know, im aware of that, i'll add some myself eventually. nothing like backup plans over backup plans. i firmly believe in redundancy. i have a professional machining and mechanic background, but am am m.e. for a living, so i'l do the bowls myself... this was the quickest fix while i was shaking down the 'new to me' bike .

one time about 8 yrs ago we had a hung fuel injector that hydro-locked a 300z  thats was fun.   :o  i do plan on adding the over flows eventually.  :great: just posted this as an alternate suggestion
thanks for the welcome  :beerchug:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Locomotiveman on August 01, 2017, 06:04:42 pm
So to be absolutely safe your saying I should get suited up completely first.
Then start cranking the engine over while turning on the Pingle petcock.
That way if I have a stuck float it will just flood the engine and hydro-lock
it while it is running.
This is all too much, I feel Steve's overflow tubes are enough.
Yes, you are correct on the first point. But re-think WHAT a true shut-off does. It physically blocks fuel from moving thru a line with 100% certainty. Moving a 'PINGEL' from ON to OFF keeps tank fuel in the tank and not into the engine and then perhaps to the garage floor. Yes, it involves a modicum of human effort instead of vacuum hoses, springs and whatnot. Personally, I've not seen a Gasoline Tanker going down the highway without one. Nor a tanker of Jet A on the ramp. Just sayin'......
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 01, 2017, 07:13:12 pm
Let's look at this another way..
Several things have to occur before you can have a hydrolock..
     1; The petcock has to allow gas flow to the carbs.
     2; The float needles have to allow the gas level to rise excessively.
     3: An intake valve has to open to allow enough gas to accumulate in a cylinder.
     4; Someone has to crank the bike.

I agree, overflow pipes will absolutely prevent hydrolock, and an inline valve will not "absolutely" prevent hydrolock.
But, the 2 together will absolutely prevent hydrolock, "and" can prevent gas from reaching the carbs/cylinder/floor.

In my case, my bike is stored in my garage. {There is also a gas water heater in that garage}.
If the petcock fails and the carbs leak (with or without overflows) the gas could reach the ground.
If that happens, I have the potential for a fire.
NOTE: My garage has an elevated water heater to reduce the possibility.

Whenever this discussion reappears, I follow it.
Because preventing the gas flow would make my garage safer.
I agree that redundancy (valve and overflow) would do that, and prevent hydrolock.. 
My concern is; the extra valve could restrict flow.

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Steve in Sunny Fla on August 01, 2017, 07:28:26 pm
Let's look at this another way..
Several things have to occur before you can have a hydrolock..
     1; The petcock has to allow gas flow to the carbs.
     2; The float needles have to allow the gas level to rise excessively.
     3: An intake valve has to open to allow enough gas to accumulate in a cylinder.
     4; Someone has to crank the bike.

I agree, overflow pipes will absolutely prevent hydrolock, and an inline valve will not "absolutely" prevent hydrolock.
But, the 2 together will absolutely prevent hydrolock, "and" can prevent gas from reaching the carbs/cylinder/floor.

In my case, my bike is stored in my garage. {There is also a gas water heater in that garage}.
If the petcock fails and the carbs leak (with or without overflows) the gas could reach the ground.
If that happens, I have the potential for a fire.
NOTE: My garage has an elevated water heater to reduce the possibility.

Whenever this discussion reappears, I follow it.
Because preventing the gas flow would make my garage safer.
I agree that redundancy (valve and overflow) would do that, and prevent hydrolock.. 
My concern is; the extra valve could restrict flow.

Ride safe, Ted

  I've seen hidden hydrolocks (when you don't know the cylinder is filled ) and also hydrolocks that spilled out into the airbox and onto the ground. Overflow tubes are no more dangerous to exploding your garage than a hydrolock can be. Steve
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 01, 2017, 10:41:01 pm
I totally agree with Steve...
 
That's why I sed; If the petcock fails and the carbs leak (with or without overflows) the gas could reach the ground.

ie: If the petcock fails, gas can spill to the ground without overflows as easily as it can with them.

The point of my reply was; we have more and more petcock failures.
Maybe an inline valve {of some type} would be a good option.

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: RWulf on August 02, 2017, 12:10:59 am
Well I am out of here. I did Steve's over flow tubes and
sleep very well.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on August 02, 2017, 01:28:30 am
Well I am out of here. I did Steve's over flow tubes and
sleep very well.

    Me too. :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 02, 2017, 02:56:25 am
Maybe an inline valve {of some type} would be a good option.
You can't say that Ted, that's the whole point of this thread, they don't work period so don't even try one. Unless of course they magically happen to work in some physics defying one two in a million installation.  ::)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on August 02, 2017, 03:23:34 am
  LET's get real!! when and if the gas flows the float needle does NOT close when the float bowl is full the raw fuel will run into the cyl and ---- are you ready?? --you hit the starter button with gas in that cyl THAT does not COMPRESS you get BANG!! A bent rod!!!  >:( >:(

   that is why you need float bowl over flow tubes!! Better the excess gas leaves the float bowl than filling a cyl with raw fuel. :-[
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 02, 2017, 03:36:59 am
I'm not the bad guy. I'm just stirring the discussion.   >:D

I want to point this out;
       We already "all" have inline valves on our bikes.
          That inline valve is called a "petcock".
             Unfortunately too many are failing.

I agree, we have an absolute way to prevent hydrolock.
  That fix is an overflow tube. {thank you Steve}.

The idea was presented to add a better valve, or add a secondary valve.
 At the start of the original discussion, it was viewed as a way to prevent hydrolock.
    It can't absolutely do that.
          ie; It can lessen the possibility of hydrolock, but it can not "absolutely" prevent it..

Lets discuss the valve idea as a way to stop gas flow if a petcock leaks.
  It needs to be simple to install, and not restrict flow when the valve is open.

Thoughts??   :)

Ride safe, Ted

PS: In all cases, {if a valve is installed or not}, overflow tubes MUST be installed to prevent hydrolock. Period!!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Harry Martin on August 02, 2017, 03:53:03 am
I'm not the bad guy. I'm just stirring the discussion.   >:D

I want to point this out;
       We already "all" have inline valves on our bikes.
          That inline valve is called a "petcock".
             Unfortunately too many are failing.

I agree, we have an absolute way to prevent hydrolock.
  That fix is an overflow tube. {thank you Steve}.

The idea was presented to add a better valve, or add a secondary valve.
 At the start of the original discussion, it was viewed as a way to prevent hydrolock.
    It can't absolutely do that.
          It can lessen the possibility of hydrolock, but it can not "absolutely" prevent it..

Lets discuss the valve idea as a way to stop gas flow if a petcock leaks.
  It needs to be simple to install, and not restrict flow when the valve is open.

Thoughts??   :)

Ride safe, Ted

Actually...you is a trouble maker, but that is another problem.  :(

As for leaking petcock, I just installed Murph's kit where you flip the lever upside down and cut off the lever to install the new lever 180 out.
It's an old kit, but it stops the leak. Just put it on my 86 and will install it on my other C10 when I get around to it. No longer depends on vacuum to turn ON/OFF the gas.  I used a MUCH stiffer spring to push the diaphragm hard into place and applied liquid gasket to the drip port to stop it up forever. Problem solved. Flip new lever forward, gas off. Down, PRI, to rear, RESERVE.

The only problem left now is how to get rid of troublemakers.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 02, 2017, 02:12:45 pm
Let's look at this another way..
Several things have to occur before you can have a hydrolock..
     1; The petcock has to allow gas flow to the carbs.
     2; The float needles have to allow the gas level to rise excessively.
     3: An intake valve has to open to allow enough gas to accumulate in a cylinder.
     4; Someone has to crank the bike.

I agree, overflow pipes will absolutely prevent hydrolock, and an inline valve will not "absolutely" prevent hydrolock.
But, the 2 together will absolutely prevent hydrolock, "and" can prevent gas from reaching the carbs/cylinder/floor.

In my case, my bike is stored in my garage. {There is also a gas water heater in that garage}.
If the petcock fails and the carbs leak (with or without overflows) the gas could reach the ground.
If that happens, I have the potential for a fire.
NOTE: My garage has an elevated water heater to reduce the possibility.

Whenever this discussion reappears, I follow it.
Because preventing the gas flow would make my garage safer.
I agree that redundancy (valve and overflow) would do that, and prevent hydrolock.. 
My concern is; the extra valve could restrict flow.

Ride safe, Ted

I'm not the bad guy. I'm just stirring the discussion.   >:D

I want to point this out;
       We already "all" have inline valves on our bikes.
          That inline valve is called a "petcock".
             Unfortunately too many are failing.

I agree, we have an absolute way to prevent hydrolock.
  That fix is an overflow tube. {thank you Steve}.

The idea was presented to add a better valve, or add a secondary valve.
 At the start of the original discussion, it was viewed as a way to prevent hydrolock.
    It can't absolutely do that.
          It can lessen the possibility of hydrolock, but it can not "absolutely" prevent it..

Lets discuss the valve idea as a way to stop gas flow if a petcock leaks.
  It needs to be simple to install, and not restrict flow when the valve is open.

Thoughts??   :)

Ride safe, Ted

Hey everyone, pick your feet up, it's going to get thick. Ted, you have some good points here. I agree with you 100% on what it takes to hydrolock a Connie.

Logic should dictate what you do with your fuel system. The points I want to make are just my use of logic. In order to have a hydrolock event, a few things have to happen. The petcock has to fail open along with the float needles as well. If you look at how the OEM petcock seats to shut off fuel flow, you will see it seats against the head pressure and not with with the head pressure in the fuel tank (the OEM petcock uses a spring to overcome head pressure to seat). If the tank vent valves are not working, you can build up pressure in the tank. If enough pressure builds up, it will unseat the petcock and start it to leak. I don't know at what pressure this can happen, but I do know that if enough pressure builds up, the petcock fails open and then there is enough pressure to unseat the float needles. This sets you up for hydrolock.

I posted the way you can disable the tank vents and showed how the petcock works. Maybe you all can do a search in the forum if you are interested. I would like to point out that the only thing here that can fail closed is the thing you would want to fail open, the tank vent. It is very hard for me not to defend the solenoid valve when it's only logical to use it. 

OK. Now let's take a look at the restrictions in the fuel system for the Connie. (1) The screen in the tank has a bit (who knows how much), (2) the orifice in the petcock and the amount the valve unseats (how far it opens, that depends on how strong the seating spring is or how much it has been stretched), (3) the ID of the fuel line, the length of it and how smooth it is on the inside, (4) the cracking pressure for the float needles, and I am sure there are some that I have not thought of. Any thoughts? 

Let's take a look at the Solenoid valve I linked to.  NOTE the Part NO you need to look at is 2w16-0-10 and NOT 2w04-0-10 https://www.amazon.com/Woljay-Solenoid-Normally-Closed-Replacement/dp/B06XVG9K6P/ref=sr_1_11?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501511586&sr=1-11&keywords=12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8. (https://www.amazon.com/Woljay-Solenoid-Normally-Closed-Replacement/dp/B06XVG9K6P/ref=sr_1_11?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501511586&sr=1-11&keywords=12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8.)
 If you look at the specs for this valve, you will see that it fails closed (stops gas flowing). That takes away one of the causes for hydrolock. This valve uses the head pressure in the tank to help it seat (this takes away the problem when or if the OEM vent valve fails closed). That's two hydrolock opportunities taken away. If you look at the solenoid valve spec, you will see that the orifice size for this valve is 16mm. If you do the math, you will see that the fuel line ID is only 8MM and it builds up pressure along its length. The solenoid valve is a lot less restrictive compared to the OEM petcock. The ID and length of fuel line is what it is. You got to go from point A to point B. Now comes the Helix fuel line. It has very good flow characteristics (the best I've found) as it is very smooth on the inside. The Seadoo settling bowl catches water and trash before it can get into your carbs and this will save you a lot of future carb problems.

In summary, the OEM petcock fails open, the float needles fail open. (If you use a manual valve it will work as long as you don't cause it to fail open. A manual valve is my second choice along with overflow tubes.) I am not sure what the duty cycles are for this solenoid valve is but my guess is it is good for around 100,000 +/- cycles and that is a lot more than anything else you will get for $17.63 shipped. If it were me, I would get two for that price - a spare that I carry with me. After all, it fails closed and stops the fuel flow. A spare will get you back on the road. I hope this helps someone from getting hydrolock.

I no longer have a Connie so you can take it or leave it, as I no longer have dog in this fight one might say. Be safe. 

P.S. Please get Steve's overflow tubes installed if you can. I believe in them as the Connie is the only bike I can remember not having overflows. Many years ago (15-16), I started "preaching" about hydrolock and caught hell over it. In those days, hydrolock didn't happen often because the bikes were a lot newer, but I could see from the way the Connie fuel system was designed that there was going to be trouble with hydrolock.

I called Gary Murphy back when he was starting his business and told him I might have a new product for him and made a deal that if he would buy me a solenoid valve I would test it. I gave Gary the valve information and in just a few days the the valve showed up. Later on Gary gave me 2 tank adapters that would allow me to bolt the solenoid valve to the bottom of the tank and eliminate the OEM petcock. That was just what I needed to get me further down the road. (If you decide to install the solenoid valve in the tank, you will need to talk to Gary for these adapters.) As it turned out, the valve I selected was too small for some Connies. On my Connie, it worked fine. At that time I was using 3/8" fuel line run as short as possible and only the OEM petcock as a restriction.

Not to long after I got the Murphy valve, Zorlac started using it on his Connie without any trouble and I think he is still using it. I posted how I installed the Murphy valve on my Connie and Gary started sending out a few valves.

I remember Gary asking me to run the Connie as fast as it would go to see if the valve would show any flow problems and I remember telling Gary, if he wanted to do that, go ahead. I didn't have enough balls for it, and there is no straight road around here. If I had made that run, I am sure it would have shown the valve to be too small. I am sorry I did not make that run. Some folks started having problems with this valve so I went back to the drawing board. Not in the 15-16 years have I found a better quality Murphy valve than the original, but, I did find some bigger valves and started doing tests on my Connie. I also was gathering information from folks on the forum. Some of it was very good and, just like now, some not worth a dam. In the meantime, a fellow from Florida named Bubba (Steve) came up overflow tubes. Steve put a hole in the bucket but didn't do much for stopping the leak. I am sure of this, the overflow tubes have done more good at stopping hydrolock than all the other BS put together. Steve installed the mod on my Connie. I should have been the first one to send my carbs to him, I knew the overflow tubes would work. It should be one of the first things you do to your Connie. All the rest of this is gravy, or BS. You be the judge. But, remember, I will give you an Oklahoma guarantee.   

HTH, JD   P.S. you might want to go back and relook at my post on page 7

Here is another valve source. https://www.amazon.com/RELIAN-Electric-Replacement-Pipelines-Applications/dp/B01FU3Y4VW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501720153&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=2w16010+12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8 (https://www.amazon.com/RELIAN-Electric-Replacement-Pipelines-Applications/dp/B01FU3Y4VW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501720153&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=2w16010+12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8) 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 02, 2017, 02:46:04 pm
Hope I stirred some good discussions.
 Leaving town for a few days.
   Ya'll, play nice!

Ride safe, Ted

PS: The reason this idea is of particular interest to me is simple;
        My Buddies garage/and part of his house burnt. "Because of a leaking carb" on a riding lawnmower.
           (He didn't turn off the gas when he finished mowing. Carb overflowed, Gas fumes reached his water heater. Boom.)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 02, 2017, 02:50:31 pm
Zorlac started using it on his Connie without any trouble and I think he is still using it.
Yep, 100K mi and still working.  :motonoises:
At 151K mi my clutch slip impedes rapid forward motion way more than fuel flow.  :rotflmao:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 02, 2017, 03:37:50 pm
Hope I stirred some good discussions.
 Leaving town for a few days.
   Ya'll, play nice!

Ride safe, Ted

PS: The reason this idea is of particular interest to me is simple;
        My Buddies garage/and part of his house burnt. "Because of a leaking carb" on a riding lawnmower.
           (He didn't turn off the gas when he finished mowing. Carb overflowed, Gas fumes reached his water heater. Boom.)

Ted, you just keep on keeping on you are doing good.  All i can say is to thy on self be true. 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 02, 2017, 09:41:03 pm
JDM
Please supply us a link, to the actual manufacturers spec, detailing that the "flow orifice" is 16mm.

I see the "chart", but is without actual manufactrer verification... which is what I go on.

I cannot see it from the link you provided in post 194, nor do I believe for 1 second, that is correct.
I have speced solenoids, and designed hydraulic circuits for decades, and inlet/outlet thread sized valves of this nature NEVER have an orifice that size.
I would say it is closer to .160" diameter, finding a solenoid with a 1/4" orifice thru, is difficult even, and I base this on my job, and the fact I researched this all a lonnnnnnnnng time ago, when Gary was looking for a valve to use. I could not find a single 12v small, 3/8-1/4" npt valve with an orifice over 3/16", and that one was expensive, high buck one.  Even on 1" npt valves, you would be hard pressed to find an orifice 3/8" or roughly 10 mm.

I made my conclusions based on specific product literature from the manufacturers of the valves, with specific attention to "delta P" pressure drops, at atmospheric pressures.  I found none I was excited about, if I had, Murph would be selling them, I guarantee...
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on August 02, 2017, 10:49:58 pm
It seems to me that petcock FAILURE can be a root cause of a hydrolock, but my petcock was
in perfect working order when my overflow tubes "saved" my bike.  I just turned my
petcock to prime and a failing petcock was NOT a specific cause to my carb flooding to the
point the overflow tube bypassed gas to the floor.

The wording Ted used is the most accurate:    :great:

Several things have to occur before you can have a hydrolock..
     1; The petcock has to allow gas flow to the carbs.
     2; The float needles have to allow the gas level to rise excessively.
     3: An intake valve has to open to allow enough gas to accumulate in a cylinder.
     4; Someone has to crank the bike.

If we're informing people, we should be making sure that we're saying it properly.
Soooo,  by adding a secondary fuel valve and trying to prime your motorcycle after an
extended sit will not do a darned thing, because the rider will have opened the secondary
valve, letting gas flow to an open needle valve, etc... etc... etc..  CLUNK!

So, put 5 shut off valves in, and as long as the needle valve is open, and an intake valve is open
you're going to be right in line for a possible Oh $H!+ moment when fuel starts flowing.  Seeing as there's
no easy way to see if these two conditions exist, it's best off to have a little gas on the floor,
or in an oil catch pan, which I NOW put under my bike when it goes away, and when I prime it.
(This is my argument for using a Pingle as a stop gap for hydrolock, because for day to day operation,
the OEM petcock does a better job than the owner/operator)

Just sayin'!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 02, 2017, 11:15:08 pm
JDM
Please supply us a link, to the actual manufacturers spec, detailing that the "flow orifice" is 16mm.

I see the "chart", but is without actual manufactrer verification... which is what I go on.

I cannot see it from the link you provided in post 194, nor do I believe for 1 second, that is correct.
I have speced solenoids, and designed hydraulic circuits for decades, and inlet/outlet thread sized valves of this nature NEVER have an orifice that size.
I would say it is closer to .160" diameter, finding a solenoid with a 1/4" orifice thru, is difficult even, and I base this on my job, and the fact I researched this all a lonnnnnnnnng time ago, when Gary was looking for a valve to use. I could not find a single 12v small, 3/8-1/4" npt valve with an orifice over 3/16", and that one was expensive, high buck one.  Even on 1" npt valves, you would be hard pressed to find an orifice 3/8" or roughly 10 mm.

I made my conclusions based on specific product literature from the manufacturers of the valves, with specific attention to "delta P" pressure drops, at atmospheric pressures.  I found none I was excited about, if I had, Murph would be selling them, I guarantee...

Not going to happen.  i am done. Sorry for being short with you MOB but i am out of the business. jd
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 03, 2017, 02:59:49 am
 :truce:
Ok,
I only asked because both Relian and Woljay, come up goose eggs when I search for them as a valve manufacturer...
Sorry to have discomforted ya, but I tend to be a bit aprehensive when mixing fuel, motorcycles, and electrical things, without a bonifide company name to.go to in the event of... some scenario if there is a failure.

Ride safe.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 03, 2017, 12:29:55 pm
:truce:
Ok,
I only asked because both Relian and Woljay, come up goose eggs when I search for them as a valve manufacturer...
Sorry to have discomforted ya, but I tend to be a bit aprehensive when mixing fuel, motorcycles, and electrical things, without a bonifide company name to.go to in the event of... some scenario if there is a failure.

Ride safe.


:truce:
Ok,
I only asked because both Relian and Woljay, come up goose eggs when I search for them as a valve manufacturer...
Sorry to have discomforted ya, but I tend to be a bit aprehensive when mixing fuel, motorcycles, and electrical things, without a bonifide company name to.go to in the event of... some scenario if there is a failure.

Ride safe.

Richard, you have been around here for about as long as I have, and just about as big a pain in the a** as me. Why don't you turn this project into a plug and play for the C10. I am finished with this, but I will give you all the help I can, and all the info I have. The reason I am willing to help you with this is I know how well it works, and I also know the C10 needs this mod. I  hoped I made it very clear that there are several other benefits you can get from this mod. If you look at the way these solenoid valves are designed, you will see that the electronic components have been sealed in a metal can and are sealed very well. I am not sure this valve is advertised as a non-arking device, but they sure look like it to me. You find these all over in gas plants and refineries. If you purchase this valve from Amazon and find it does not meet the spec. as stated in the ad, Amazon will give your money back in the form of a refund along with any shipping costs.     
  https://www.amazon.com/RELIAN-Electric-Replacement-Pipelines-Applications/dp/B01FU3Y4VW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501720153&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=2w16010+12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8 (https://www.amazon.com/RELIAN-Electric-Replacement-Pipelines-Applications/dp/B01FU3Y4VW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1501720153&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=2w16010+12v+solenoid+valve+3%2F8) 

Rich, the part # on this valve tell you that it is 2 watts with a 16mm orifice, and 10mm pipe threads (thus 2w16010). And if you don't get that, they sent you the wrong valve. Solenoid valves are a bit like car batteries, there are only a few manufactures. But, if you were willing to buy enough batteries, I bet you could get your name put on one, and if you buy enough solenoid valves you can have your name on one as well. You might want to call it SPARKEY. If that gives you some concern, get a valve that is ANSI approved. It's a bit overkill in this case, but to each his own. https://www.google.com/search?q=ANSI+approved+solenoid+valve&rlz=1CAACAG_enUS704US712&oq=ANSI+&aqs=chrome.2.69i59j69i57j69i59j0l3.8423j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=ANSI+approved+solenoid+valve&rlz=1CAACAG_enUS704US712&oq=ANSI+&aqs=chrome.2.69i59j69i57j69i59j0l3.8423j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)     

Rich, were you not the one that used to make curb finders for the Connie? This project would be a lot more fun and you could get to know another A-HOLE. Hell, you might even take a liking to me. I am just saying.....
JD

   

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 03, 2017, 01:11:21 pm
all one would have to do is a controlled timed flow test between the stock petcock and the lifting valve. i'm not seeing any Cv or gpm ratings mentioned, but this is also what i do for a living now (actuation/valving/automation)  that's the sure-fire way to know if it flows enough. ;) as long as the flow is equal or greater than the petcock, will be ok. has anybody actually flow tested these things? also, it can be located under the seat, doesnt matter, as long as its below the fuel level in the tank. that being the case, you can run a bigger valve to get the orifice you need for ideal flow and just neck up and down for the lines. my .02
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on August 03, 2017, 02:37:34 pm
  Let's see!!

   OEM petcock ( on my second one in 23 yrs), clean fuel system and overflow tubes. The real clunker is the float needle that gets stuck open. IF you don't have overflow tubes you may not know if a float needle is open and fuel is filling your cyl. Hit the starter button with raw gas in the cyl. and "BANG" !!! A BENT ROD! DESTROYED ENGINE!! :'(

  Get some overflow tubes to at least warn you of the problem. May bum you out to see gas on the ground but at least you know you have a problem!!

   Let's not get too complicated trying to fix a simple thing. My fuel system has never failed  ::) but IF I see fuel on the floor or ground I KNOW I have an open float needle and a bad petcock. "DON'T TOUCH THE DAMN STARTER BUTTON!!!!
 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 03, 2017, 03:17:34 pm
i think the consensus is yes, over flow tubes will remove the riskl, thats been established. however, there are other and additional options, trying to be open minded here to other options.

 personally, i like the manual valve, i'm used to them. i'll add tubes later. but i never assume the vacuum petcock will work properly all the time. ive had too many bikes have them fail on me. plan for the crash, not the ride. i mean, in 25 years of riding i crashed once. but i planned for it every ride by putting a helmet on. and, it saved my life. a tiny flake of rust on the o-ring on the diaphragm plunger is all it takes to crash the system. and, fwiw, i have seen bikes with vent tubes still hydrolock. the h1 i was referring to filled the LH cyl on the sidestand and blew the crankseal out.  super rare, but happens. 

from an engineering point of view, i like the electro-petcock.. my 74 moto-morini actually  had one from the factory.

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 03, 2017, 05:06:52 pm
If you look at the way these solenoid valves are designed, you will see that the electronic components have been sealed in a metal can and are sealed very well. I am not sure this valve is advertised as a non-arkcing device, but they sure look like it to me.
The 12v goes through a coil of wire to create a magnetic field that acts on a moveable ferrous slug. There is no make or break contact that could cause a spark.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Bud on August 03, 2017, 05:34:23 pm
Looks like Yamaha had them a long time ago.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 03, 2017, 05:36:52 pm
IF you don't have overflow tubes you may not know if a float needle is open and fuel is filling your cyl. Hit the starter button with raw gas in the cyl. and "BANG" !!! A BENT ROD! DESTROYED ENGINE!! :'((


I rolled em quite a bit over the last 100K with the solenoid valve and no tubes, so far so good. :nananana:

(http://www.use.com/images/s_1/9ccde5567d5db58036af.jpg) (http://www.use.com/MlJAK)
(http://www.use.com/images/s_1/4f8812ef672d4135d115.jpg) (http://www.use.com/MlJBI)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 03, 2017, 06:04:05 pm
I really want to back out of this nicely, without p/o ing anyone else off, because of the time I spent trying to find an industry rated and certified for use with gasoline, solenoid, with an orifice larger than 1/4"... to which after a hundred or so hours, I could not do, well, unless I wanted a valve the size of a brick, that had 1"+ threads, that cost a couple hundred....like $400+ dollars.
When I say rated, I mean API, UL, CE, and ANSI.
An un rated valve, manufactured in the USA (not China), and holding ratings and sold as such isn't an option for me. And a foriegn valve, with no ratings?
I wouldn't use it if it were free.

Now, I fully understand how this solenoid works... I also understand the coil that operates it. I also know that while the valve is "open" there is always a current draw on the coil, its inherent to its operation, and is actually the most common complaint about 2 way solenoids in systems... they always eat powernwhennoperating. Not a lot of power, but just the same... and that generates "heat", no getting around it... and mind you, the thermal rise may be minimal, and not a concern.. which it isn't...
The concern is, the two stranded wire leads that enter the canister, and attache to the fine coil wires which are wound on the bobbin...
Without a rating, you have no idea, unless you take it apart, how they are attached...
I've seen them soldered and covered in shrink tube, crimped together with ferrules, equipped with quick disconnect plugs and sockets, all sorts of means of wire bonding. The best quality products actuall bod these wires and "re-dip" in the potting compound, to prevent wire fractures at the joint.
The el cheapo ones, the $25 ones, commonly are the crimp and shrink tube ones, with the wires unsupported...
I can't count the number of this type I have replaced on machinery in the places I've worked, when they were subject to constant vibration and jolting slams, generated by the machines, punch press gripper circuits, clamping devices, location devices on agressive machinery..mostly all were 2way units, at 24-120vdc,
And most of those were only pneumatic air valves...

I won't spend any money on buying one for "evaluation", even tho the ad says "ok for fuel" because that's Amazon speaking...and they won't disclose the manufacturer..  I can believe its rated for air, and water, but when they get to the "gas" statement, it needs specifications, true manufacturers tell you "what gasses" whether they are "inert", like helium, carbon dioxide, etc... then the rating changes, "natural gas, and LP gas" are different, and require certs.. then you get to "oil".. again,... "light oils" refer to low risk,nlike some hydraulic fluids, and mineral oils.... no big deal,   but jump to "fuel oil" and its a high.standard to meet, price on a rated valve is well over $100, and climbs rapidly... "gasoline" is a whole new ballgame... do a.search, a real search, and find manufacturers with "gasoline rated valves", not amazon rated valves...
Start with the industry standards like ASCO /Emmerson

Sorry for the rating thing,. Its just been a part of my employment necessity, as a los of life or property, in a product I designed, was not an acceptable option.

To this day,.I.still feel bad for the engineer that said. "Don't launch that space shuttle.... those rings weren't rated for that low temperature..."
Who finally ended up taking his own life, because of the gult he had when his "higher ups" forced him to back off. Sad.


Sorry, I had to correct that, I thought he killed himself, he didn't...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 03, 2017, 06:08:50 pm
IF you don't have overflow tubes you may not know if a float needle is open and fuel is filling your cyl. Hit the starter button with raw gas in the cyl. and "BANG" !!! A BENT ROD! DESTROYED ENGINE!! :'((


I rolled em quite a bit over the last 100K with the solenoid valve and no tubes, so far so good. :nananana:

([url]http://www.use.com/images/s_1/9ccde5567d5db58036af.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.use.com/MlJAK[/url])
([url]http://www.use.com/images/s_1/4f8812ef672d4135d115.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.use.com/MlJBI[/url])


So, when you get a chance,nwould you go look at the valve, write down the manufacturers name and p/n, and also what ratings are notednon the top of the coil housing, by ratings, I ask for regulatory ratings, like UL, API etc...
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Harry Martin on August 03, 2017, 06:35:03 pm
I really want to back out of this nicely, without p/o ing anyone else off, because of the time I spent trying to find an industry rated and certified for use with gasoline, solenoid, with an orifice larger than 1/4"... to which after a hundred or so hours, I could not do, well, unless I wanted a valve the size of a brick, that had 1"+ threads, that cost a couple hundred....like $400+ dollars.

and this...

Quote
Great idea on that shut off valve.  But, isn't that valve for 1/4" fuel line?  I believe our fuel line is 5/16".  I would be worried about the restriction it's adding, even though, you have never had any issues with fuel starvation.  But, you also say most of your riding is in the mountains and I think the majority of fuel starvation issues are experienced at constant highway speeds.  With that said, there are 5/16" shut off valves similar to that one on Amazon and Ebay, but they cost a little more and are brass.

Well, I just pulled out one of my failed petcocks for inspection and using a digital vernier caliper from Harbor Freight, I measured the inside diameter of the tubes feeding fuel from the gas tank, and I can say with certainty that they are in fact exactly 1/4" (or 0.2500" +/-0.0015"), so I can see where a 1/4" solenoid should be a good match.

I may try the solenoid just for fun in addition to adding my own overflow tubes when the snows arrive again next month.  ;D

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/trib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/51/3517daa2-8db7-545d-a4e6-f6cc124d9702/4df2c8e02834f.image.jpg)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 03, 2017, 06:48:47 pm
rated for fuel and enough flow, looks like viton or fkm seats, both fine for fuel, and in the review states it certified ISO 9001-2000. no way is the concourse going to outflow this:

http://www.electricsolenoidvalves.com/3-8-12v-dc-electric-brass-solenoid-valve/ (http://www.electricsolenoidvalves.com/3-8-12v-dc-electric-brass-solenoid-valve/)


fwiw.. MOST valves are foreign these days. we (my company) are the guys that sell to the distributors, as an fyi.  and no, this isnt one of my products, we don't typically do lifting valves..

just for consideration.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 03, 2017, 07:01:11 pm
So, when you get a chance,nwould you go look at the valve, write down the manufacturers name and p/n, and also what ratings are notednon the top of the coil housing, by ratings, I ask for regulatory ratings, like UL, API etc...
Rich, it's the one Murph sold for a short while back in the day. I have it mounted right down where the fuel rail feeds the 4 bowls and it's not really visible without pulling the carbs. Sorry.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Jim on August 03, 2017, 07:06:35 pm
FYI:  ISO 9001 is a quality "MANAGEMENT" standard.  It has nothing to do with the product.  To get ISO 9001 certified you must prove to independent auditors that you have documented all of your processes and you follow released procedures for such processes.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 03, 2017, 07:14:09 pm
im well aware of that, but it shows a process exists and is being followed. beats nothing on the label. a ce or nema rating is not nec cheap, and may not be needed to whoever they sell to. but iso shows consistency in manufacturing to (whatever) standard is.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 03, 2017, 07:17:30 pm
rated for fuel and enough flow, looks like viton or fkm seats, both fine for fuel, and in the review states it certified ISO 9001-2000. no way is the concourse going to outflow this:

[url]http://www.electricsolenoidvalves.com/3-8-12v-dc-electric-brass-solenoid-valve/[/url] ([url]http://www.electricsolenoidvalves.com/3-8-12v-dc-electric-brass-solenoid-valve/[/url])


fwiw.. MOST valves are foreign these days. we (my company) are the guys that sell to the distributors, as an fyi.  and no, this isnt one of my products, we don't typically do lifting valves..

just for consideration.


Mark, you are dead on, look at it's part No.  2W-160-10-12V. Maybe you need to develop this into a plug and play system. I will make you the same offer as I did for MOB.  You would be helping to keep the old girls on the road for a long time, and that is a good thing.   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 03, 2017, 07:23:24 pm
I really want to back out of this nicely, without p/o ing anyone else off, because of the time I spent trying to find an industry rated and certified for use with gasoline, solenoid, with an orifice larger than 1/4"... to which after a hundred or so hours, I could not do, well, unless I wanted a valve the size of a brick, that had 1"+ threads, that cost a couple hundred....like $400+ dollars.
When I say rated, I mean API, UL, CE, and ANSI.
An un rated valve, manufactured in the USA (not China), and holding ratings and sold as such isn't an option for me. And a foriegn valve, with no ratings?
I wouldn't use it if it were free.

Now, I fully understand how this solenoid works... I also understand the coil that operates it. I also know that while the valve is "open" there is always a current draw on the coil, its inherent to its operation, and is actually the most common complaint about 2 way solenoids in systems... they always eat powernwhennoperating. Not a lot of power, but just the same... and that generates "heat", no getting around it... and mind you, the thermal rise may be minimal, and not a concern.. which it isn't...
The concern is, the two stranded wire leads that enter the canister, and attache to the fine coil wires which are wound on the bobbin...
Without a rating, you have no idea, unless you take it apart, how they are attached...
I've seen them soldered and covered in shrink tube, crimped together with ferrules, equipped with quick disconnect plugs and sockets, all sorts of means of wire bonding. The best quality products actuall bod these wires and "re-dip" in the potting compound, to prevent wire fractures at the joint.
The el cheapo ones, the $25 ones, commonly are the crimp and shrink tube ones, with the wires unsupported...
I can't count the number of this type I have replaced on machinery in the places I've worked, when they were subject to constant vibration and jolting slams, generated by the machines, punch press gripper circuits, clamping devices, location devices on agressive machinery..mostly all were 2way units, at 24-120vdc,
And most of those were only pneumatic air valves...

I won't spend any money on buying one for "evaluation", even tho the ad says "ok for fuel" because that's Amazon speaking...and they won't disclose the manufacturer..  I can believe its rated for air, and water, but when they get to the "gas" statement, it needs specifications, true manufacturers tell you "what gasses" whether they are "inert", like helium, carbon dioxide, etc... then the rating changes, "natural gas, and LP gas" are different, and require certs.. then you get to "oil".. again,... "light oils" refer to low risk,nlike some hydraulic fluids, and mineral oils.... no big deal,   but jump to "fuel oil" and its a high.standard to meet, price on a rated valve is well over $100, and climbs rapidly... "gasoline" is a whole new ballgame... do a.search, a real search, and find manufacturers with "gasoline rated valves", not amazon rated valves...
Start with the industry standards like ASCO /Emmerson

Sorry for the rating thing,. Its just been a part of my employment necessity, as a los of life or property, in a product I designed, was not an acceptable option.

To this day,.I.still feel bad for the engineer that said. "Don't launch that space shuttle.... those rings weren't rated for that low temperature..."
Who finally ended up taking his own life, because of the gult he had when his "higher ups" forced him to back off. Sad.


Sorry, I had to correct that, I thought he killed himself, he didn't...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly

OH WELL that is how it goes on them big jobs. :deadhorse: Mob, just so you know I have been beating a  :deadhorse: for 15 + years, Now that what you call a hard head.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 03, 2017, 07:32:39 pm
So, when you get a chance,nwould you go look at the valve, write down the manufacturers name and p/n, and also what ratings are notednon the top of the coil housing, by ratings, I ask for regulatory ratings, like UL, API etc...
Rich, it's the one Murph sold for a short while back in the day. I have it mounted right down where the fuel rail feeds the 4 bowls and it's not really visible without pulling the carbs. Sorry.

Mark, Thanks for telling it like it is. You have made me feel a lot better about all of this, and I think I am leaving it in a good place so I can move on down the road. Again thanks JD   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 03, 2017, 07:44:46 pm


Mark, you are dead on, look at it's part No.  2W-160-10-12V. Maybe you need to develop this into a plug and play system. I will make you the same offer as I did for MOB.  You would be helping to keep the old girls on the road for a long time, and that is a good thing.   

OH CRAP its the same valve. lol. :) i didnt even realize it at first, prob come out of the same factory. :)  i know, for a FACT, we get solenoid valve coils (spool valves) made at the exact same factory as the ones that have the ce and ul listing, we order both. cost is different but they roll right. off. the. same. line. Im not saying this is exactly the case with this, but i certainly wound not be surprised.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 03, 2017, 07:59:08 pm


Mark, you are dead on, look at it's part No.  2W-160-10-12V. Maybe you need to develop this into a plug and play system. I will make you the same offer as I did for MOB.  You would be helping to keep the old girls on the road for a long time, and that is a good thing.   

OH CRAP its the same valve. lol. :) i didnt even realize it at first, prob come out of the same factory. :)  i know, for a FACT, we get solenoid valve coils (spool valves) made at the exact same factory as the ones that have the ce and ul listing, we order both. cost is different but they roll right. off. the. same. line. Im not saying this is exactly the case with this, but i certainly wound not be surprised.

Mark, we are talking about a whole new fuel system for the Connie. I think you should take to where I could not. I will help.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 03, 2017, 08:03:21 pm
i'll look into it for sure around the end of the summer. i have some road trips planned for my new bike first. TBH, i actually have a line on a tiny rotary actuator/ball valve that could be used with a 1/4" full port brass or stainless unit.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 03, 2017, 08:11:40 pm
im well aware of that, but it shows a process exists and is being followed. beats nothing on the label. a ce or nema rating is not nec cheap, and may not be needed to whoever they sell to. but iso shows consistency in manufacturing to (whatever) standard is.
See, this is why I am so critical, what you just said, is completely incorrect.
Having been in charge of my engineerings ISO programs, and after time and MUCH expense, we found it didn't mean squat as far as wht we manufactured or sold as a finished product... it was merely a "look at us, were ISO certified..." labeling, which has zero to do with "product quality or compliance"...

All it means is that books and files are created, and kept, waiting for anyone that wishes to take the time, may be perused and compared to the components utilized in the manufacture of that final product.. simplified, its lists of people you buy parts from, keep the name, address, dontact, and part number, along with a description however brief you want to make it, on each person you buy crap from... it is NOT a certification of quality, correct form fit or function, reliability, or responsibility of failure of a component based on anything other than it is a list of parts and vendors.
It also allow companies to keep "approved vendor and alternate parts interchange" at their whim...case in point, you buy 6 different valves, form, fit, and function typical.... 5 of those valves are UL/API/CE...ASPCA :rotflmao: certified, and cost $200 each... one valve is totally junk, costs $3.25, and has the same dimensions and characteristics....   you start out with great intentions, because you flagship product, that originally used the $200 item worked perfectly.. then, cost cutting comes along, and you swap them for the el cheapo valves... all fine and dandy... ISO could care less, its your liability... the auditors have little or no clue as to what exists in your manufactured product, just what the paperwork says, and maybe what items are on your inventory shelf...maybe.
But, if your PRODUCT was UL, CE, NEMA, or API certified, and you were granted rights to apply those certs to your product label (which is what we in industry pay big $$$$$$ to get done, because those DO mean something, and its found you swapped parts.... your company gets severly flogged, and whomever was responsible gets fired... AND you loose your certifications...$$$$$$$$$$ ..... I know this, I have submitted and had litterally a hundred products go thru various UL, ETL, CE, NEMA testing, in order for them to meet the certs, and wear the branding iron of same.

So, I kinda laugh about this ISO thing,
Its kinda like people I interviewed for positions in engineering, that right off the bat tell me they have an MBA.....  :rotflmao: :rotflmao:  my retort to that statement is usually, "oh, I'm really sorry about that..." ;) :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 03, 2017, 08:30:51 pm
like anything, it depends on what you do with your certification. insult me all you want, but i'm well aware of the fact its a documentation process and never did i say it had anything to do with quality, just consistency  . laugh all you want.  this comment sums it up:
shows consistency in manufacturing to (whatever) standard is. the part of procurment would also refer to the testing we did as it was part of the procurement process.  when i was running a division of Desoutter (Atlas Copco company) a few years ago, and we were audited repeatedly year after year after year, we , in our iso documents, showed suppliers items were sourced from, method (at least show we had documentation) of procurement , etc. so, if there was ever a question at hand we could show line of responsibility of fault.  IF you aren't willing to have this, you're probably running a shady operation. they will typically ask for the documents papertrail all the way back though. we always did, and never even got flagged, not once. no manufacturer has any gain in supplying failing items, and those valves, in question, are all over the place. i seriously doubt they are all junk. look at the reviews on the link i posted.

ps.. show me the certs on an oem petcock please.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: TimR on August 03, 2017, 10:09:53 pm
Lets get back on topic gents.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 03, 2017, 10:31:11 pm
Lets get back on topic gents.

No problem.
The topic, and some of this commentary are somewhat relevant, when suggestions are made, to utilize a part, that by everything I have seen places the liability and outcome upon the user.

I'm done with it.
Ride safe.

 :s_bye2: :deadhorse: :103: :051bye: :a012:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Wizeguy on August 04, 2017, 02:12:37 pm
????   Wow, I just don't get the push-back.  Keep the discussion going, I am one that is following with great interest!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on August 04, 2017, 02:49:33 pm
  I'm really happy with my fuel system and it works. But give credit to those that want build a "better" widget. If their widget doesn't work they fail they lose but gain knowledge but IF they succeed we win.  Have at it guys!!  :great:
 
    I might add that if they fail to turn off the fuel valve and they DON"T have over flow tubes on the carbs and a float valve is stuck open(or left open) the gas can continue to flow into a cyl. Hit the starter and hydrolock  the cyl resulting in a bent rod!! The engine is toast! >:( At the very least get overflow tubes on the carbs!!
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 04, 2017, 03:15:13 pm
as a follow up to my manual 90 degree valve, took it to Charlotte last night, all highway doing 85 most of the way. on the way back hit a back road, took it up to over 100m/h for 2 miles plus on hwy 21..... no fuel starving issues.  e-bay link here:  http://r.ebay.com/ksxMvn (http://r.ebay.com/ksxMvn)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Harry Martin on August 04, 2017, 05:17:15 pm
as a follow up to my manual 90 degree valve, took it to Charlotte last night, all highway doing 85 most of the way. on the way back hit a back road, took it up to over 100m/h for 2 miles plus on hwy 21..... no fuel starving issues.  e-bay link here:  [url]http://r.ebay.com/ksxMvn[/url] ([url]http://r.ebay.com/ksxMvn[/url])


I would think there would not be any fuel starvation.
Our current C10 Petcocks have 1/4" internal diameter plumbing.  ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 04, 2017, 05:53:17 pm
as a follow up to my manual 90 degree valve, took it to Charlotte last night, all highway doing 85 most of the way. on the way back hit a back road, took it up to over 100m/h for 2 miles plus on hwy 21..... no fuel starving issues.  e-bay link here:  [url]http://r.ebay.com/ksxMvn[/url] ([url]http://r.ebay.com/ksxMvn[/url])


I would think there would not be any fuel starvation.
Our current C10 Petcocks have 1/4" internal diameter plumbing.  ;)


true. however not all aftermarket valves do.. that one i linked does. :)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 05, 2017, 01:38:10 am
    I might add that if they fail to turn off the fuel valve and they DON"T have over flow tubes on the carbs and a float valve is stuck open(or left open) the gas can continue to flow into a cyl. Hit the starter and hydrolock  the cyl resulting in a bent rod!! The engine is toast! >:( At the very least get overflow tubes on the carbs!!
What if I wired the fuel solenoid to the ignition power?  ::)
You might want to reiterate that in case someone was sleeping in the back.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 05, 2017, 10:22:09 am
    I might add that if they fail to turn off the fuel valve and they DON"T have over flow tubes on the carbs and a float valve is stuck open(or left open) the gas can continue to flow into a cyl. Hit the starter and hydrolock  the cyl resulting in a bent rod!! The engine is toast! >:( At the very least get overflow tubes on the carbs!!
What if I wired the fuel solenoid to the ignition power?  ::)
You might want to reiterate that in case someone was sleeping in the back.

The hot wire to the coil would be good. That way all you would need to do is turn off the key, and not pull the battery.
   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 05, 2017, 02:58:22 pm
All, I got back from my trip this morning.
See you've been doing a lot of discussing.
  Some got a little heated, but at least you were discussing idea's.

  Everyone keep an open mind.
   Why don't we agree to disagree, and keep discussing.
   Remember; Crazy idea's have become some of the best fixes for the C-10.
     (For instance, restricting airflow to make the bike run better)

I'm VERY comfortable that Overflow tubes Steve installed will prevent hydrolock.  :great:

In my case, all I want to do is assure that the petcock can't leak gas when I store the bike in the garage.
An inline valve would do what I want, but a inline Solenoid valve would make it Au-to-ma-tic... (Cool).
In both cases, fuel flow is my main concern.

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 05, 2017, 03:19:54 pm
Sorry, can't help myself. Want to add a little..

Heck, (ya'll will all agree) when someone tells us,, "that can't work",,,
          It makes us "more" determined to make it work.

Steve gave us a absolute way to save the bikes from Hydrolock. (THANK YOU,, Steve)
Let's keep discussing a way to prevent fuel leakage to the carbs.

M in SC. I need a clarification.
 Harry said that the C-19 Petcock "internal" piping is 1/4". (It has 5/16" O.D. nipples I think).
 Your 1/4 Nippled valve can't have a 1/4" O.D. hole thru the (1/4" O.D.) nipples. {EZ boys}
 Please measure the I.D. size of the hole.

NOTE: A simple way to check for too much restriction in the C-10 is simple.
You don't have to do 100 mph runs to check the flow.
{Safer way} Open the valve only a little and see if you can make the bike starve for gas during a quick WOT accell.
If it doesn't cause a problem, close it a little and repeat.
When it becomes a problem, go home and do a flow test.
The number you get would be a baseline...

M.O.B. you made a point that the solenoid isn't properly certified.
I agree with you, but we've been modifying and installing parts on the C-10 for years that were not made for it.
ie; If it works,  (we don't need no stinkin' certification)
You have more engineering back ground than most of us, help us find a simple solution.

JDM/others, on the Solenoid valve, is there any way to check flow?
If m in SC comes up with a base number, we could use it for a comparison,.

Ride safe, Ted

PS: Lets go back to the Tank venting discussion from Steve/JDM.
      Many bikes are running with valves or filters in the lines and are not having flow issues.
      Others bikes won't accept any (valve/filter) restriction.
       Maybe; The tanks vents (which are as old as the petcocks) will end up being the Root Cause of the flow problems, "and" petcock failure's..
                      :confuse:   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 05, 2017, 04:14:36 pm
I just saw this on another discussion.
  I'm posting it here because it sums up my thoughts exactly.
     Mucho thanks to the writer's...

1) Question everything.
Everything is a learning opportunity.
If someone tells you something in a subject you're knowledgeable about, they should be able to be scrutinized to see if they're onto something or not.
We can all learn from each other, too, but we should stay in our own lanes when it comes to giving advise.
And as far as someone who thinks out of the box, well it shouldn't be arbitrarily or summarily dismissed as illogical ramblings, because discovery starts with questioning everything and thinking outside the box.

2) I always encourage experimentation tho, and if its free... do it, and see what results..

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Daytona_Mike on August 05, 2017, 04:43:14 pm
Just a couple of things to add.
 Fuel flow testing  to see if the additional valves and filters  has any affect   has to be done with an almost empty tank because a full tank has higher pressure.
If you drive down the road under WOT at over a hundred  with half a tank of fuel you are not testing properly. Do you testing with  near or low fuel in the tank
Mine ran out of fuel even faster when I tried an electric valve   because my engine  is highly  modified and dyno's  over 100hp so it eats fuel much faster than a stock engine.
Another thing to ponder:  OEM petcocks fail with a drip or maybe at most a slight dribble so you have to wait a long time for a failed OEM petcock and a leaky float valve to fill a cylinder and cause hydrolock.
A manual petcock flows full force wide open  from the second it is turned on and with a leaky float valve takes 3 seconds to fill a cylinder and cause hydrolock.

This is why a manual petcock is far more dangerous than a failed OEM when you dont have OverFLow tubes.

Just get overflow tubes- then you will know if you have a leaky float valve. It wont matter if you have extra filters or electric valves or a manual petcock.
 Those things cannot tell you your float valves are leaking.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on August 05, 2017, 09:27:53 pm
Another thing to consider is that the electric solenoid valve and the stock vacuum petcock use basically the same mechanism to stop fuel from flowing when turned off. That is, a rubber needle pressed against a seat by a spring. And so any bit of rust or trash holding open the vacuum petcock is just as likely to hold open an electric solenoid valve. So maybe it's a stronger spring in the electric version, but is it strong enough to crush a rust flake?

Most aftermarket manual petcocks (well, every one I've seen), by contrast generally operate as a ball or barrel valve. You turn a cylinder inside another cylinder, and when the holes line up, fuel flows. and any rust that would get lodged in it is forced into the barrel, or the bore it turns in, and causes scoring or wear. Eventually this could lead to a leaking valve.

The only true solution is overflow tubes, good maintenance of whatever fuel shutoff device you choose, and keeping the tank as clean as possible.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Harry Martin on August 05, 2017, 11:19:45 pm
Another thing to consider is that the electric solenoid valve and the stock vacuum petcock use basically the same mechanism to stop fuel from flowing when turned off. That is, a rubber needle pressed against a seat by a spring. And so any bit of rust or trash holding open the vacuum petcock is just as likely to hold open an electric solenoid valve. So maybe it's a stronger spring in the electric version, but is it strong enough to crush a rust flake?

Most aftermarket manual petcocks (well, every one I've seen), by contrast generally operate as a ball or barrel valve. You turn a cylinder inside another cylinder, and when the holes line up, fuel flows. and any rust that would get lodged in it is forced into the barrel, or the bore it turns in, and causes scoring or wear. Eventually this could lead to a leaking valve.

The only true solution is overflow tubes, good maintenance of whatever fuel shutoff device you choose, and keeping the tank as clean as possible.


Your logic extends to the vacuum shut off valve. Same possible failure mode.
There's just no winning, is there? At some point, you have to do maintenance and install overflow tubes.

(http://thewallentinianempire.yolasite.com/resources/hqdefault%20%282%29.jpg)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 06, 2017, 12:03:07 am
Maybe we need to start a new thread on just the solenoid valve itself and all posts that mention "overflow tubes" get deleted?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on August 06, 2017, 01:31:31 am
Just install EFI and be done. Nothing leaks on the floor. Nothing leaks in the engine.  The only leak is the money from your bank account.   ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: WillyP on August 06, 2017, 11:04:48 am
Don't forget the turbo. Did you ever solve the issue with the rubber intake bootie thingies?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on August 07, 2017, 02:16:17 am
Don't forget the turbo. Did you ever solve the issue with the rubber intake bootie thingies?
Yes I did with some silicone turbo hose adapters.  But that bike hasn't been ridden in a long time.  It's sitting amongst company in the store room.  The current bike is a totally different setup using O-rings and aluminum plate.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on August 07, 2017, 09:42:36 pm
Just install EFI and be done. Nothing leaks on the floor. Nothing leaks in the engine.  The only leak is the money from your bank account.   ;)

That's a big leak...   ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on August 07, 2017, 11:44:00 pm
9yrs & still ticking.
The valve, two wires, and you're good to go.
The paper filter didn't work out so that's not there anymore but I am running a NAPA 3006 up near the tank.


Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on August 08, 2017, 04:36:24 am
Just install EFI and be done. Nothing leaks on the floor. Nothing leaks in the engine.  The only leak is the money from your bank account.   ;)

That's a big leak...   ;)
Yeah, but I had a small balance so it drained quickly.   :nananana:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: JDM on August 08, 2017, 11:53:47 am
9yrs & still ticking.
The valve, two wires, and you're good to go.
The paper filter didn't work out so that's not there anymore but I am running a NAPA 3006 up near the tank.

Zorlac, has it only been 9 yrs that you have been running the solenoid valve? If that is the case, I have only been screwing with the valves for about 10 yrs. Maybe I am not as hard headed as I thought. I was thinking I had been farting with the solenoid valve for about 15yrs. It is hell getting old and set in your ways. OH WELL what were we talking about?
JD   
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 08, 2017, 05:18:41 pm
Quote
M in SC. I need a clarification.
 Harry said that the C-19 Petcock "internal" piping is 1/4". (It has 5/16" O.D. nipples I think).
 Your 1/4 Nippled valve can't have a 1/4" O.D. hole thru the (1/4" O.D.) nipples. {EZ boys}
 Please measure the I.D. size of the hole.

true. however full port doesn't nec mean 1/4" id. it means the size for the id is maintained all the way thru the valve, doesn't reduce at the ball. the id is 0.19.. yields a flow area of 0.0284 sq in .

the requirement for the motor, assuming there are 2.5mm id needle seats is 2.5 mm ( .0984" sq in area is .0076 x 4 = .0304 total max flow area). That's assuming the motor is using all the flow thru the needle seat. and that's some huge main jets to do this..!! so unless the motor is running at over 90% of what all 4 needle seats will flow at the same time..... which isn't the case.... it wont starve with that valve.  mine sure doesn't.

Like said, its a low tech cheap easy-to-do fix and alternative. 
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 08, 2017, 06:44:20 pm
Sooooo,
Assuming the actual fitting has barbs on the inlet/outlet of 1/4" for the hose, and the wall thickness thru that barbed section is let's use .045", even tho it looks pretty thick...in the photo. The THAT resulting I.D. is now the restriction.. both on inlet, and outlet...
And that resulting area works out to be, with a .160" diameter, or .080" radius.... .0201 sq in....
Which if used with your estimate on the needle valve seats areas total... seems to be a flow of about 66%.

Whatever works tho. We can toss facts and figures around, and as long as it works for someone, its fine. :great:

I'm all confused now, I can't remember what the fuel line I.d. really is... :rotflmao:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 08, 2017, 07:00:13 pm
the id is 0.19" , i did actually measure it. yes, it works. i already did the math worst case situation above. The reality of the max requirement is  = or > than the flow capacity of ( the main and pilot jets per carb, which will be less than the float needle seat per carb) x4. That's just the way it works on a gravity feed system. even if it had a one inch feed pipe ahead of it.  :rotflmao:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on August 08, 2017, 07:14:06 pm
m in sc, I kinda question your statement?

The reality of the max requirement is  = or > than the flow capacity of ( the main and pilot jets per carb, which will be less than the float needle seat per carb) x4. That's just the way it works on a gravity feed system.

I agree that flow thru the float needle seat per carb is gravity feed. But the Jetts have a vacuum on the back side of the jett.
 I would think that makes that flow thru the main jets, a pressure feed? (approx. 14.7 psi)

MOB: I think the fuel line ID is about 5/16".
         But the size of the fuel line is not the fuel restriction.
         The limiting diameter is inside the petcock, or (if smaller) inside an add-on valve.

Harry sed the port size in the stock petcock is 1/4".
 That surprise's me a little.
I thought the orifice size in the petcock (at the selector valve itself) was smaller than that.
  Guess I'll have to open my spare petcock and check Harry's dimensions..

The point is; These guys have successfully used various valves to stop fuel flow for multiple years..
                    So, we can't say their idea's didn't work.
                      I guess it's possible that they haven't rode long and hard e'nuff for fuel restriction to be a problem?
                      But, I suspect they've thrashed their bike's {at some point} to check things out.

Again; I'm not interested in using a {additional} valve for preventing hydrolock.
          That's already solved with the overflow tubes.
I'm only looking for a way to stop petcock leakage while stored.

I'll add that if you stop petcock leakage, hydrolock is far less likely.

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on August 08, 2017, 07:41:57 pm
Yeah Ted... that's why I implied, jokingly, about the fuel line size... because its 5/16"..... and kinda throws off the 1/4" barbed fitting theory in my mind.
I just figured "let it flow.." and didn't say anything. :rotflmao: :)

Liquids flowing via gravity, thru a circuit, reduce in flow and increase in pressure when the encounter a reduction in cross section.
The opposite occurs when a smaller diameter turns into a larger diameter, flow increases and pressure reduces.
When this occurs in multiples in the same circuit, large to small to large to small to large again, the effect, especially if ocurring in a fairly short length of circuit, wreaks havoc on calculations.  Just mentioning that.

I do agree that "if it works for someone, its fine".... for the person its working for. :great:

Edit...darned spell check changes words to other words... but never corrects my poor spelling...heheheh
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: m in sc on August 08, 2017, 07:45:29 pm
basically, yes, you are right... i didn't want to get too deep into it, but.... i have to size this stuff with my 2-strokes all the time.  its not pressure feed, but pulled through by a pressure drop. still... the point being is it will never exceed the the ability of the needle seats to flow in a gravity situation. which is being pushed by a column of fluid above it. (there is no pressure increase here.. column height is column height) the main jets can not exceed this. If they do, you need to upsize the needles and seats, have had to do this on some very high hp setups on the old stuff. (up to 3mm). this is why i didn't bother with giving diameters of the jets, which is usually in stock applications about 45-50% of the flow provided by the needle and seat at max. (keihin and mikuni follow this general rule of thumb when sizing).   

please, keep in mind, this is NOT an argument against vent over flows or the electric solenoid.

Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Zorlac on September 18, 2017, 12:30:40 pm
I have to question all the flow rate theories, at least on my C10.

This morning on the way to work traffic dictated a brief "well over the Ton" stint.  >:D
I had forgotten that that I needed gas, less that 5mi later I filled the tank with 6.7G that's less than a gallon left and I didn't feel any fuel starvation during my rapid forward progress.  :nananana:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on September 18, 2017, 04:43:03 pm
I have to question all the flow rate theories, at least on my C10.

This morning on the way to work traffic dictated a brief "well over the Ton" stint.  >:D
I had forgotten that that I needed gas, less that 5mi later I filled the tank with 6.7G that's less than a gallon left and I didn't feel any fuel starvation during my rapid forward progress.  :nananana:

   AAAAH!! Just TOO much fun!! :great: :great:
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on September 18, 2017, 11:07:23 pm
I have to question all the flow rate theories, at least on my C10.

This morning on the way to work traffic dictated a brief "well over the Ton" stint.  >:D
I had forgotten that that I needed gas, less that 5mi later I filled the tank with 6.7G that's less than a gallon left and I didn't feel any fuel starvation during my rapid forward progress.  :nananana:

And the question is???   ;D
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on September 19, 2017, 02:07:09 am
I have to question all the flow rate theories, at least on my C10.

This morning on the way to work traffic dictated a brief "well over the Ton" stint.  >:D
I had forgotten that that I needed gas, less that 5mi later I filled the tank with 6.7G that's less than a gallon left and I didn't feel any fuel starvation during my rapid forward progress.  :nananana:


And the question is???   ;D

It's really quite simple....

(http://thehumancircus.hookgrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/einstein.jpg)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on September 19, 2017, 09:57:33 pm
Look carefully. I see a mistake in the first part of his equation.
 First big box, right side, on the 3rd row.

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: rick on September 23, 2017, 09:17:24 pm
Rev - where did you get that picture of me?  My Mom?
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on September 24, 2017, 03:17:24 am
Look carefully. I see a mistake in the first part of his equation.
 First big box, right side, on the 3rd row.

Rode safe, Ted

   Ted, you are either a genius or "full of it"!   :) :)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on September 24, 2017, 04:33:28 pm
Naw, it's neither of the 2 options you mentioned.
It's option #3;   "I lie"!!

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mettler1 on September 24, 2017, 08:32:32 pm
Naw, it's neither of the 2 options you mentioned.
It's option #3;   "I lie"!!

Ride safe, Ted

   I'll buy that!! >:D
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on September 25, 2017, 01:18:21 am
Naw, it's neither of the 2 options you mentioned.
It's option #3;   "I lie"!!

Ride safe, Ted

   I'll buy that!! >:D

Geez, I really thought he forgot to carry the 1...   ;)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on September 25, 2017, 02:30:02 pm
Shhhhh, He did forget to carry the 1.   :67:

But, don't tell Mettler.
    He thinks I lied..   
Bekuz, I lied, when I sed,, "I lied"..  <sneaky grin>  :19:

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Mcfly on September 28, 2017, 12:26:56 am
Shhhhh, He did forget to carry the 1.   :67:

But, don't tell Mettler.
    He thinks I lied..   
Bekuz, I lied, when I sed,, "I lied"..  <sneaky grin>  :19:

Ride safe, Ted

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Misc/i-76JNPkm/0/75e2f747/Ti/81740i5F4F89FD590FE6AD-Ti.gif)
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on October 04, 2017, 02:26:37 am
Look carefully. I see a mistake in the first part of his equation.
 First big box, right side, on the 3rd row.

Rode safe, Ted

   Ted, you are either a genius or "full of it"!   :) :)

Surely the latter and not the former.
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: connie_rider on October 04, 2017, 03:09:14 pm
Yupp, I'm full of it.  {Wizdom}  ;)

Ride safe, Ted
Title: Re: How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?
Post by: Rev Ryder on October 06, 2017, 12:23:16 am
 :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[