LPG Discussion Forum

I'd be quite happy to take the car for a test or even have some one evaluate my work or even offer tips where things could be better.

To be honest half the trouble with DIY is there is really very little information on the internet or even guides out there to help. Let alone okay there is a huge COP11 best practice. But its a load of waffle. I'll be honest - I didn't read it.

I tended to use common sense when installing the parts.

I mean if you try to install a gas pipe with a flammable liquid its probably best not to place it by an exhaust.
Putting the filler in by where I fill the petrol seemed like a good idea. So I did that.
Making sure all holes for the tank where neatly filed down for the vent cover

I don't know a lot seemed common sense. But I didn't actually read it all.


Like I say I'd be more than happy to take it some where if it meant it was illegal to use it.
As long as I too got an unbiased opinion. Not one where a person would check it then say I'd need to spend another £50 with them to put it right.

I guess the same as an MOT.
But at the end of the day its only like installing a larger petrol tank. You could put that in a wheel well. Add it to the existing petrol tank and no harm or checks would be done.

Same as me changing my engine from a 1.6 to 1.8. I tell the DVLA and no additional checks are done.

Gilbert mate, We're agreed on all the points you chose to quote me on and reply to but you haven't replied to all my points and I wonder what your thoughts on them are...

I didn't actually know fire brigade policy but quoted my common sense point of view and it seems the fire brigade have the same common sense point of view. I nearly mentioned the free advertising point regards vehicle stickers too, I have the same views as you and will add - If more of the point of the sticker was aimed at making it clear the vehicle was LPG converted, had a gas tank fitted etc, rather than reading 'X Autogas' as the main content, such stickers would make more sense from a safety aspect.

On your last point - Granted the vehicle will go for an MOT check within 12 months of having the LPG system fitted.. I also previously added (and didn't get an answer to this point) that if MOT man was used to being in a position where he was certifying LPG installs as safe on behalf of DOT, then he would become more critical of LPG installs in future, not just while performing the initial LPG system safety check but also during following annual 'normal' MOT checks. On top of this, MOT man is expected by DOT to find an almost average number of faults of each type, i.e If he tests 100 vehicles yet fails none of them on bulbs DOT may suspect that he is passing vehicles with failed bulbs and telling people 'just get that bulb sorted mate'.. they may investigate him. The implication is that if only some MOT men start to fail new LPG installs for one point or another, the average failure for those specific failure points will rise and soon enough any MOT man who isn't noting such failure points will lag behind the average figure for those failure points and may be paid a visit, maybe by an anonymous man from VOSA posing as a customer. This VOSA (well, DVSA now) method of ensuring upkeep of standards seems pretty foolproof.. Especially in contrast to UKLPG method, or lack of, with which failures don't get recorded on UKLPG's database.

One of the points you didn't reply to, part of the same thread as points you did reply to was this

LPGC wrote:If we have 33% of all installs being checked by UKLPG then the figure for DIYers is likely to be lower than 33% - and DIY installs are most likely to be unsafe... To put this another way in an exaggerated example - UKLPG get to check 33% of what might be expected to be safe installs but get to check none of the installs which might be expected to be unsafe..

You and Rosko may also have missed my post just before DaveK's first post in recent times (last page) where I made many other points on the UKLPG / MOT discussion?

ScottyF, There is a lot to be said for common sense eh mate! To anyone with mechanical common sense, fitting an LPG system safely shouldn't be a problem with or without knowing the contents of COP11 or indeed BSEN. Anyone without mechanical common sense or who is frivolous regard doing things safely will probably make a pigs ear of the job or do it unsafely anyway. My argument for MOT man is that, while he isn't fully aware of COP11 etc, he is at least mechanically minded and has mechanical common sense of the same kind that you and I apply. There are academic people that could memorise all the facts, figures, code of practice, standards and know all the theory, yet fall short when it comes to doing the practical... My dads mate was a lecturer on mechanics at a uni and he would fit that category very well! MOT man is probably not going to be like my dads mate, he is going to be able to apply his common sense mechanical skills and have experience in doing so.

scottyf wrote:I mean if you try to install a gas pipe with a flammable liquid its probably best not to place it by an exhaust.

Who'd have know that without reading COP11 eh

scottyf wrote:Like I say I'd be more than happy to take it some where if it meant it was illegal to use it.
As long as I too got an unbiased opinion. Not one where a person would check it then say I'd need to spend another £50 with them to put it right. I guess the same as an MOT.

It currently isn't illegal for you to use it without it being checked - good job you did a good job then eh! We're thinking along the same lines, mate... Fun sarcasm mode: You don't seriously think some UKLPG members would deliberately interpret grey areas in COP11 etc to do you out of £50 or more do you?

Simon

LPGC wrote:If more of the point of the sticker was aimed at making it clear the vehicle was LPG converted, had a gas tank fitted etc, rather than reading 'X Autogas' as the main content, such stickers would make more sense from a safety aspect.

As has been mentioned a marking on the number plates is compulsory in Australia but there has been objections to that as it can make the car more susceptible to arson attacks. I wouldn't want to promote a prominent sticker or label for that reason. A few years ago, on a particularly dodgy housing estate I know of, a group of kids decided it could be fun to stuff bits of rolled up newspaper in the petrol fillers of about 6 cars and set fire to them to see what would happen. Nothing as it turns out but it could have been worse. I also know of an incident where a marine distress flare was stuffed into a petrol filler too, that one did go up. Now what would happen if there was a nice big prominent sticker to say there's a tank full of inflammable gas in the car? Admittedly, legally a trade vehicle with a gas bottle in the back should display a Hazchem sticker to warn the fire service that there is flammable gas or compressed gas in it (a friend who is into scuba diving has to display a label if he has air tanks in the boot of his car) so it does seem slightly odd that we don't have to display anything unless it is because it is known that an LPG fuelled vehicle will be fitted with a tank with a PRV so is going to vent rather than explode.

LPGC wrote:On top of this, MOT man is expected by DOT to find an almost average number of faults of each type, i.e If he tests 100 vehicles yet fails none of them on bulbs DOT may suspect that he is passing vehicles with failed bulbs and telling people 'just get that bulb sorted mate'.

or, as in the case of one tester I know, he simply fits a new bulb and charges the customer an extra couple of quid. He was questioned on why he didn't fail on blown bulbs and was told that what he was doing was fine but he should issue a fail on a blown bulb and then show a retest that passes.

LPGC wrote:The implication is that if only some MOT men start to fail new LPG installs for one point or another, the average failure for those specific failure points will rise and soon enough any MOT man who isn't noting such failure points will lag behind the average figure for those failure points and may be paid a visit

Wouldn't it be amusing if, after all your efforts and arguments, the system of a check by an MoT tester was finally implemented and nobody failed anything?

LPGC wrote:One of the points you didn't reply to, part of the same thread as points you did reply to was this

LPGC wrote:If we have 33% of all installs being checked by UKLPG then the figure for DIYers is likely to be lower than 33% - and DIY installs are most likely to be unsafe... To put this another way in an exaggerated example - UKLPG get to check 33% of what might be expected to be safe installs but get to check none of the installs which might be expected to be unsafe.

What sort of a reply did you expect? Yes, you are probably correct but I wouldn't expect a DIY installation to be any worse than a done-in-a-day installation in all honesty, in fact, I'd suggest that anyone that has the confidence in their own abilities and the skills to do an install would do a pretty good job. They'll all be inspected at an MoT within 12 months anyway so what point are you trying to make?.

LPGC wrote:There are academic people that could memorise all the facts, figures, code of practice, standards and know all the theory, yet fall short when it comes to doing the practical...

Ah, you've met our Health and Safety manager then? Paid a ridiculous amount of money to develop and implement H&S policy yet although she knows all the regulations inside out is totally impractical and also one of the most accident prone people I have ever met! Fortunately, she is also aware of her own shortcomings and wouldn't attempt anything practical (she just writes policy that tries to stop the rest of us, that do have the ability, from being able to do it either). An example is that all our company vehicles have had the spare wheel, jack and wheelbrace removed and should we get a puncture we should call the AA to get them to come out and recover the vehicle as we aren't qualified to change a wheel. The only people that have company vehicles are the engineers and there's a clue in the title. My daughter changed her first wheel at the age of 17 by reading the owners handbook FFS!

scottyf wrote:To be honest half the trouble with DIY is there is really very little information on the internet or even guides out there to help.

Things have really really changed over the last decade or so. When I first got involved there was next to nothing available - and "the trade" were highly secretive. When I was looking at converting my first vehicle (as the only way to afford to feed a V8 Disco) I did ring some of the local converters and got the same outright lies from all of them. The key ones being that :
1) It's a legal requirement to have it done my an LPGA member
2) It's illegal for me to do any of the work (such as making brackets etc)
3) It's illegal for them to supply me any parts or materials
All 3 were outright lies, and the wording (together with other misleading statements) was so similar that it's "highly unlikely" that 3 different, unconnected (other than by LPGA membership), and geographically separated, outfits would come up with them independently.

There wasn't the open supply of kits and parts over the internet either.

I found a supplier of kits to the Land Rover community and followed the supplied instructions. As it happens, it wouldn't have passed a strict check against CoP11 - but only on details that aren't safety critical - as I found out when I went on a converters course some years later.

It was that experience that led me to start my website - see sig below.
A lot of it is now largely redundant (as it's not hard to find elsewhere) but at the time it was an attempt to pass on what I'd managed to find.

LPGC wrote:Especially in contrast to UKLPG method, or lack of, with which failures don't get recorded on UKLPG's database.

What makes you think that? You have been told before.

LPGC wrote:If we have 33% of all installs being checked by UKLPG ....

But your proposal involves only checking some proportion of tanks and valves, vents and boots. Dunno how many - my guess is under 50%, possibly even your magical 33%.
It would then sign off nearly 100% of candidates as "totally safe" without ever detecting missing boots, upside down valves, calor bottles converted, soldered joints, blah.

I'd rather have a huge question mark than that cobblers. I am at least reassured that the Vehicle Inspectorate would never countenance it.

Gilbertd wrote:LPGC wrote:
If more of the point of the sticker was aimed at making it clear the vehicle was LPG converted, had a gas tank fitted etc, rather than reading 'X Autogas' as the main content, such stickers would make more sense from a safety aspect.
As has been mentioned a marking on the number plates is compulsory in Australia but there has been objections to that as it can make the car more susceptible to arson attacks. I wouldn't want to promote a prominent sticker or label for that reason

Agreed mate, plus I agree to your earlier reason(s) for not wanting stickers / signs on cars... They look @!## and are used as a means of free advertising by installers, for various reasons some customers would be put off if they had to have a sticker on their vehicle, bad for the trade.

Gilbertd wrote:LPGC wrote:
On top of this, MOT man is expected by DOT to find an almost average number of faults of each type, i.e If he tests 100 vehicles yet fails none of them on bulbs DOT may suspect that he is passing vehicles with failed bulbs and telling people 'just get that bulb sorted mate'.
or, as in the case of one tester I know, he simply fits a new bulb and charges the customer an extra couple of quid. He was questioned on why he didn't fail on blown bulbs and was told that what he was doing was fine but he should issue a fail on a blown bulb and then show a retest that passes.

Well, the DOT did notice that the tester wasn't failing enough vehicles on bulbs - they would also notice that the tester wasn't failing enough vehicles on LPG matters too, this demonstrates how the MOT system and individual testers are thoroughly overseen / audited / the system standardised... and helps prevent testers from passing what they shouldn't.

Gilbertd wrote:Wouldn't it be amusing if, after all your efforts and arguments, the system of a check by an MoT tester was finally implemented and nobody failed anything?

Yes mate - I too would have to laugh at that! On a serious note, though, your answer doesn't answer my question and I can't see that happening due to the implications of the above.

Gilbertd wrote:LPGC wrote:
One of the points you didn't reply to, part of the same thread as points you did reply to was this
LPGC wrote:
To put this another way in an exaggerated example - UKLPG get to check 33% of what might be expected to be safe installs but get to check none of the installs which might be expected to be unsafe.
What sort of a reply did you expect? Yes, you are probably correct but I wouldn't expect a DIY installation to be any worse than a done-in-a-day installation in all honesty, in fact, I'd suggest that anyone that has the confidence in their own abilities and the skills to do an install would do a pretty good job. They'll all be inspected at an MoT within 12 months anyway so what point are you trying to make?.

I'm trying not to be pushy, but you will remember recent comments about repetition and my explanation of why I sometimes feel the need to repeat myself etc... I've reminded you a couple times about the unanswered points I've made am repeating myself with reminders now. Would have expected an answer to most of those points if you were being true to form and also disagreed (I'm not saying true to form you'd disagree - note the 'and'!). You just agreed to one of my more recent points but I wonder if your agree with those points in the previous post I've again referred to? I could quote myself on the full post I refer to if you like or if you're not sure which post I refer to, then delete the re-quote when you have replied?
DIYers come with all sorts of attitudes ranging from, mostly like you say, highly positive with the skills to match / to outright 'chuck it on to run on cheap fuel' arrogant types that might, at the same time, not have the skills / knowledge, adding to the arrogance. If you were to do a DIY install I would expect it to be of the same or a higher standard than the average pro, done in 3 days install but some DIYers don't have the skills, knowledge, attitude or are willing to allocate enough time to o do a good job. I would agree with your comments on done in a day pros. It is the bad attitude / unskilled / un-knowledgeable DIYers and done in a day pros that are mostly likely to do unsafe installs and those same groups are also most unlikely to submit vehicles to UKLPG checks - we seem to agree on that.

Gilbertd wrote:LPGC wrote:
There are academic people that could memorise all the facts, figures, code of practice, standards and know all the theory, yet fall short when it comes to doing the practical...
Ah, you've met our Health and Safety manager then? Paid a ridiculous amount of money to develop and implement H&S policy yet although she knows all the regulations inside out is totally impractical and also one of the most accident prone people I have ever met! Fortunately, she is also aware of her own shortcomings and wouldn't attempt anything practical (she just writes policy that tries to stop the rest of us, that do have the ability, from being able to do it either). An example is that all our company vehicles have had the spare wheel, jack and wheelbrace removed and should we get a puncture we should call the AA to get them to come out and recover the vehicle as we aren't qualified to change a wheel. The only people that have company vehicles are the engineers and there's a clue in the title. My daughter changed her first wheel at the age of 17 by reading the owners handbook FFS!

Hehe, we agree on that, then!

SimonHobson wrote:<above post

I had the same experience when I first started out.. all seemingly cloak and dagger. Suppliers didn't want to supply to me directly... if LPGA found out they might have kicked said suppliers out of LPGA, plus suppliers didn't want to give tech support to DIYers (we're all classed as DIYers on our first few installs). What happened was, supplier passed me onto one of their staff, who sold the parts to me at a price including the staff member's markup, the staff member gave all the usual tech support supposedly in their own time but this included much of their work time. The idea, looking back, seemed to be so supplier could distance themselves from me when I was first starting up. The situation was a world away from what we have now, you couldn't buy parts even off the internet unless you were an LPGA member, suppliers and installers alike super hyped LPGA, it was open season for some (most) installers to charge ridiculously high prices and for some suppliers to do the same. This was effectively a 'closed shop' situation - law didn't make for the situation, the trade body, it's members and general sheep-like attitudes did.

Simon

rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:
Especially in contrast to UKLPG method, or lack of, with which failures don't get recorded on UKLPG's database.
What makes you think that? You have been told before.

I remember something being said but in all honesty don't remember what and haven't been able to find the point, can you find it or remember mate? Nevertheless, I don't think UKLPG do checks on members who don't seem to be failing enough vehicles for specific reasons. Building on that, going on Mike from UKLPG's figures (I can't remember the specifics and don't feel the need to go back and recheck but it was something like 70% of all UKLPG checks are done on UKLPG member converted vehicles - by the same person who fitted the system) - If so many UKLPG checks are done on vehicles that have been converted by the same person who installed the system, then we wouldn't expect many failures for specific points that might seem dangerous really would we? Any failure statistics would be meaningless - because not many installers would log the fact that they forgot to bolt the tank in on their trade body's database? Instead, they might file the odd 'could happen to anyone' failure to 'bring the figures up', like 'Fitted an LPG system today, then checked it against COP11, was found to be completely (of course)to COP11 spec but nevertheless when I tried the system I initially found a very small leak to one bank of injectors which I immediately isolated and repaired then did the full complete test all over again'.

rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:
If we have 33% of all installs being checked by UKLPG ....

But your proposal involves only checking some proportion of tanks and valves, vents and boots. Dunno how many - my guess is under 50%, possibly even your magical 33%.
It would then sign off nearly 100% of candidates as "totally safe" without ever detecting missing boots, upside down valves, calor bottles converted, soldered joints, blah.

I'd rather have a huge question mark than that cobblers. I am at least reassured that the Vehicle Inspectorate would never countenance it

It might miss upside down valves, which would be bad, but would mean liquid gas would vent from PRVs in an overfull / over-pressure situation, which would hopefully prompt a none reckless owner to put right immediately. Soldered joints are OK until they leak and then I would expect them to be put right. MOT man would recognise a calor bottle and fail it. I can see your point but the huge question mark you are talking about must consider that most of those 33% of installs are going to be the installs that are safe, the ones that the trade and DIYers confidently present to UKLPG members for inspection, knowing that they might spend £100 on the test to save less than £100 on insurance in year one... Quite a gamble if you are not confident of a successful outcome OR a meaningless statistic where the portions of the 33% are done over the phone. The remaining 67% are the vehicles that are not checked at all. Included in this 67% will be the vehicles that would most likely fail a COP11 safety check, done by bad DIYers and shoddy installers. Since this 67% currently have no checks done at all, yet we have had no LPG incidents, LPG conversions must be inherently safe, maybe even with boots missing etc... Leaving probably only the outrageous installs, which UKLPG members would probably never see, being completely unsafe but which MOT man should pick up on even with a standard MOT.,. And MOT man might, I would expect, pick up on a lot more if he were formally involved in passing LPG installs as safe for DOT, not just at the initial LPG system checking MOT but also at consecutive MOT's - As described above, I expect DOT's methods of ensuring MOT man tows the line would ensure that MOT man got better and better at checking LPG installs.

What are the implications of, take one of your examples, a missing rubber boot... I take it you mean a filler boot.. In the unlikely simultaneous events that the filler was fitted to a panel facing the interior of the vehicle, the filler leaked an extraordinary amount of gas into the vehicle (either via a filler seal leak or normal wastage when the fill gun was fitted / removed), or a leak on the fill pipe, the driver didn't notice the strong smell of gas and decided to light a fag - there might be an explosion. That's never happened. Or, an explosion might occur if the driver takes his vehicle to the Sahara dessert, parks up with the suns rays beating down on the tank and lights a fag at the same time as the PRV opens... That's never happened. Nothing has happened... But it's probably much more likely that at some point in the future a dodgy DIYer wouldn't bother to secure the tank at all (he thinks - I never used to bother fastening the spare wheel in anyway), has a crash and the tank smacks him at the back of the head. My son following his recent crash 'Do you think the tank will still be OK dad'... Me 'Yes but since you ask, you must be thinking the G forces involved were strong enough to damage the tank - I bet you're glad, now, that I insisted you use those big washers rather than the 1" washers you might have used when bolting the tank in'... 'Yes dad'. During this typical scenario, rubber boots, PRV's, pipe routing and security, engine emissions, injector security, all paled into insignificance compared to that one point. Almost parallel scenario - MOT man sees a battery unsecured and fails the vehicle, or sees a battery secured with a piece of string and thinks 'not good enough' and fails the vehicle. Mechanical common sense tells MOT man that 8mm bolts with 1/2" washers are not going to hold the 50kg tank in the event of a crash - he fails the vehicle. A controversial point I'm sure - In rare circumstances, MOT man cannot see any of the bolts holding the tank in and, as we know, he isn't allowed to dismantle anything holding to check how the tank is held in. MOT man asks Mr DIYer 'How is the tank held in'. 'Mr DIYer replies 'with 4x10mm bolts and 4" spreader plates on each'. MOT man feels assured... Seems Mr DIYer does have a bit of mechanical sense and/or knowledge and, armed with that, probably wants to make sure his tank is safe. And if he's lying he's reckless and will probably drive out of here, overtake someone on the outside of a band and end up dying that way. If Mr DIYers says 'superglue' MOT man fails it.

You will be aware that I sell DIY kits, I know you do too.. We both give tech support with the kits we sell. You offer a UKLPG check following the DIYers install, I'm not sure what else you include but you might include calibration etc and fault solving etc the same as me. I also offer checks and I have gone on to put some (totally safe install0 on UKLPG's database. I find that most of these DIYers do a good job and do things in accordance with advice, but a minority don't. You and I will both refuse to give the customer any sort of cert unless they do at least a safe job... I find that in a small minority of cases, some DIYers go completely against advice and do silly things that will mean they are not going to get a cert. Out of these, a majority will go away and put things right or task me with putting them right, but there is still a minority that will leave it as is, against advice and never bother putting it right. Neither of us can force such people to put it right, either directly or indirectly. The MOT scheme would force such people to put the most dangerous examples right.

Simon

Blimey Simon, you must be getting desperate to now start replying to your own posts.....

LPGC wrote:And MOT man might, I would expect, pick up on a lot more if he were formally involved in passing LPG installs as safe for DOT

But, as Mike Chapman has already told you, that is unlikely to ever happen.

LPGC wrote:the driver didn't notice the strong smell of gas and decided to light a fag - there might be an explosion. That's never happened.

Yes it has and has been mentioned on here before. That exact scenario did happen and it blew the roof off the car (and no, it wasn't a convertible...).

Gilbertd wrote:Blimey Simon, you must be getting desperate to now start replying to your own posts.....

Have I? Not so much answering my own posts - pointing out the points where others (ahem including you mate ) haven't answered... Others must be getting desperate if they resort to thread confusing and padding tactics instead of answering points directly?

Gilbertd wrote:LPGC wrote:
And MOT man might, I would expect, pick up on a lot more if he were formally involved in passing LPG installs as safe for DOT
But, as Mike Chapman has already told you, that is unlikely to ever happen.

Your answer here doesn't tell us much about your thoughts on the point I made, though. Mike suggested to DOT that the MOT scheme is used to check new LPG installs instead of UKLPG members, but Mike's suggestion might have involved a heavily modified MOT which prompted DOT to decline... The points I mention above (those that haven't been answered ) show how a standard MOT would still be better than UKLPG checks given the numbers of vehicles involved...

Gilbertd wrote:LPGC wrote:
the driver didn't notice the strong smell of gas and decided to light a fag - there might be an explosion. That's never happened.
Yes it has and has been mentioned on here before. That exact scenario did happen and it blew the roof off the car (and no, it wasn't a convertible...).

Ahh yes - wasn't that install done by a dodgy DIYer, who didn't go for a UKLPG check etc? Involved a leak that MOT man would have picked up on?

Simon

For heavens sake, what is going on here.

We have announcements that CoP11 is waffle; he knows this because he hasn't read it. A professional installer praises simply not bothering to check good practice.

And here we go, back to smear campaign - repeating a nice paranoid fantasy about secret orchestrations should do nicely. That'll really advance the so-called debate.

Black/white, yes/no "Facts" - just make em up to suit. If caught out, bluster about forgetting, not bothering, not important. Enough text will cover it up.

And the cherry on the cake; a lecture about safety. When that in itself explodes, wriggle and blame someone else. Absolute f--g gall of it. Missed the point. And the man will take offence when I repeat of him - glad you are nowhere near any actual safety scheme.


Of course accidents are unlikely, we all want and expect that.
The Titanic meeting an iceberg in the vastness of the ocean was really, REALLY unlikely. But in case anyone has forgetten, it still happened.
The point is that it was an avoidable accident by elementary precautions - heed a warning, slow down.
The consequences could have been minimal with elementary precautions - more lifeboats.
Respected, competent men with good intentions made those mistakes.
And lets not forget "common sense" all round, which said the ruddy ship was unsinkable.


What a miserable shambles. Thank god that change for better can happen despite you guys "help". What a shower.

To be honest even though I did it all myself. Which i believe to a good standard by DIY. Probably okay by pro.
I am still going to the supplier of the kit to get it all checked over.

I am sure they can give me handy hints on what I can do a little better or if any of the items are wrong.
Also getting them to calibrate it. But I also have a lead and software for this.

They too can pass it for UKLPG.
But to be honest as its not illegal not too I will not be paying the extra few quid to do so.

I will be telling the DVLA (well if I can get a tenner off my tax why not)
And informing my insurance.

From what I gather that's about all I need to do.
Then MOT is in about 6 months time.

I suppose even if the install was hideous I could always remove the tank and leave pipe work and jsut get it passed that way and install it again. Like many people do for MOT's including Headlights etc...

But I am not that dishonest. Besides if it was super dangerous I'd want someone to tell me.
Mainly not for my safety but for others around me.

rossko wrote:We have announcements that CoP11 is waffle; he knows this because he hasn't read it. A professional installer praises simply not bothering to check good practice.

I didn't say 'waffle', Soctty did.. What he said was he started reading it, it only seemed to contain common sense points, he implied didn't feel the need to read it any further. I agreed it was common sense.

rossko wrote:And here we go, back to smear campaign - repeating a nice paranoid fantasy about secret orchestrations should do nicely. That'll really advance the so-called debate.

You must be talking about the situation a few years ago, where many suppliers were worried about supplying to none LPGA members and prices were much higher than they are now... That's stating fact, if you think it might smear LPGA and make intentions look bad I might agree.

rossko wrote:Black/white, yes/no "Facts" - just make em up to suit. If caught out, bluster about forgetting, not bothering, not important. Enough text will cover it up.

On that point I did forget exactly what was said but did say I remember a point of that type being made, I asked you politely if you could find the point on the thread or just re-word it again for us here but you seem to have chosen not to do that and have accused me of blustering about forgetting.. Many times on this thread you have forgotten things that were said and blustered 'show me, when, where was it said'.

rossko wrote:And the cherry on the cake; a lecture about safety. When that in itself explodes, wriggle and blame someone else. Absolute f--g gall of it. Missed the point. And the man will take offence when I repeat of him - glad you are nowhere near any actual safety scheme.

My lecture on safety is about common sense, I wouldn't expect to need to drive home the point that even a superb safety scheme in theory isn't quite so superb if it only applies to a small fraction of the subjects that could be tested. I don't take offence being repeated / quoted but it seems a bit rich being accused of repeating myself when I have had to repeat myself because others have ignored or side-stepped points I have made and then they have gone on to discuss similar points that my original point should have answered.

Going with your Titanic example - I take your point that accidents happen but a safety scheme that didn't apply to Titanic wouldn't have affected the outcome - If we're to form an analogy with our trade situation, Titanic might have been one of the majority of ships that was put together by amateurs, received no safety check at all and didn't last long enough to make it to it's first professional inspection. If you or I were around back then, even without current knowledge of what was about to happen, our common sense might have told us to advise ship designers to build ships with enough lifeboats for everyone, that nothing is infallible. I expect some of the lower class passengers, being most likely to be the ones without a lifeboat seat if the worst came to the worst, might have had the same thoughts but their views went unnoticed by those making decisions.

rossko wrote:What a miserable shambles. Thank god that change for better can happen despite you guys "help". What a shower

Has that happened in our industry yet, then? Or how will it happen?

Simon

Just to state I did read the COP11. mainly because I wanted to see if it told me anything I wouldn't think about myself.
I read many DIY installers guides across the net.

I spoke to three professionals that offered me their time for nothing.
I read up on what the parts do and how they work.
I read ESGI's guide to installing a kit
I read how gas fittings work and how gas tanks are manufactured and what pressures they can take


Did I read the COP11 word for word and take an exam. No.
Did I complete a course. No.

Did I do homework over the last year regarding it. Yes.
But I did jump in at the deep end and buy a kit knowing hopefully a lot of the things would be in the kit and hopefully be easy to install.
Especially till I learn't everything and the parts. How to tune and how to install parts.


I've worked on my own cars / motorbikes / boats and push bikes to understand most mechanical parts and how they work.
When I did that I got a bit bored and made an Electric bicycle because I didn't know much about electronics.
Which was amazing and there are plenty of loop holes. But Lithium polymer is quite a dangerous substance. Comes into contact with oxygen and well it explodes.

So working with gas is kind of a bit easier in some ways.

As with anything I think research is paramount.

I guess if you are gonig to have tests then an MOT test would be the correct way to go about it. But is there enough LPG car's about to warrant all the training etc for each MOT tester to go through.

I don't know the actual figures or anything like that. Maybe its just not a feasible exercise in the view of government and as cars that have been converted haven't exploded in balls of flames killing people I guess nothing will be.

[/quote]
Ahh yes - wasn't that install done by a dodgy DIYer, who didn't go for a UKLPG check etc? Involved a leak that MOT man would have picked up on?

Simon[/quote]

No. It was a car purchased pre converted, and the leak was by the sound of it only detectable on filling so unless he tried to fill it as part of his test i doubt he would detect it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lodes.html

You will note he had it checked over twice as well. Still didn't occur to him that lighting up when you can smell gas wasn't a good idea but its not like that was the only ignition source....

LPGC wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:Blimey Simon, you must be getting desperate to now start replying to your own posts.....

:shock: Have I? :lol: Not so much answering my own posts - pointing out the points where others (ahem including you mate :lol: ) haven't answered.

Posting two replies one after another that both seem to say the same thing (much the same as all of your posts for the last couple of years) appears to me to be talking to yourself.....

The difficulty I have is that the points you make are the same just worded slightly differently. Why should I post a reply to one comment and then waste my time posting the same reply to another, virtually identical but slightly reworded, point?

LPGC wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:

LPGC wrote:the driver didn't notice the strong smell of gas and decided to light a fag - there might be an explosion. That's never happened.

Yes it has and has been mentioned on here before. That exact scenario did happen and it blew the roof off the car (and no, it wasn't a convertible...).

Ahh yes - wasn't that install done by a dodgy DIYer, who didn't go for a UKLPG check etc? Involved a leak that MOT man would have picked up on? :wink:

Thank you Brian. I didn't think it had anything to do with a dodgy DIY install but in all honesty couldn't be bothered to search for it. Much like Simon can't be bothered to go back through his rambling posts to find something that he's previously said. There was an incident somewhere in Europe where someone bodged a filler so they could fill an LPG tank from a CNG pump not realising that the 50+ bar pressure that CNG is at would burst an LPG tank intended to be used at 10 bar.

scottyf wrote:Maybe its just not a feasible exercise in the view of government and as cars that have been converted haven't exploded in balls of flames killing people I guess nothing will be.

Precisely. Simon's one man crusade against UKLPG seems to bother him far more than anyone else and has come up with an alternative scheme to their inspection and Register. That fact that it isn't workable without a completely new process being created and millions spent on training doesn't seem to be relevant . The fact that UKLPG themselves have already suggested the same scheme and it has been rejected certainly seems to prove that nobody considers it important enough to spend time and money on. Nobody except Simon it seems......

Simon, just drop it. You've tried and despite distorting facts or making them up, you still haven't convinced anyone. The phrase flogging a dead horse comes to mind.

I can't believe this is still going on !!!!!

Gilbertd wrote:There was an incident somewhere in Europe where someone bodged a filler so they could fill an LPG tank from a CNG pump not realising that the 50+ bar pressure that CNG is at would burst an LPG tank intended to be used at 10 bar.

viewtopic.php?t=7629
http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=4739

Took my car to be checked out and calibrated a bit more. They took me over the software and how to fine tune.
Happy with the installation etc all seems to be okay.

A few hints and tips taken which I'll make adjustments to but they said as it's my first install I'd done a good job.
I should just start tidying up the wires so they are shorter and that I should also buy some straps for the tank as there isn't that much thread on the bolts that hold it in to be extra safe.

They quite liked my use of filler and strengthing I used to keep it there. I said I'm getting the same bracket made up in metal but for now it's doing the job. I used a marine plywood to strengthen it until I get it made properly.

Saying that it's still not uklpg registered but I will do if everyone thinks I should.

scottyf wrote:I guess if you are gonig to have tests then an MOT test would be the correct way to go about it. But is there enough LPG car's about to warrant all the training etc for each MOT tester to go through.

I don't know the actual figures or anything like that. Maybe its just not a feasible exercise in the view of government and as cars that have been converted haven't exploded in balls of flames killing people I guess nothing will be.

I would think MOTs would be the best way to go too mate. The argument I am making concerns how much MOT man training would need to be done before a mandatory 100% newly LPG converted test becomes at least equally as good/effective as UKLPGs scheme (which is a very specific LPG test that applies only to 33% of newly converted vehicles) - Gilbert sees my point on that and agrees with this concept.

Given this agreement, I went on to ask (several times now), what he thinks would need to changed in the MOT before the MOT test, checking 100% of newly converted vehicles (because it is a mandatory test), became at least as equally as effective as a voluntary scheme which checks only 33% of converted vehicles... especially when Gilbert also agrees that this 33% includes the vehicles that are most likely to be safe (most of this 33% are converted by UKLPG members anyway - leaving 67% of converted vehicles, the 67% which are most likely to be unsafe not being checked). Granted an MOT following a new LPG install would need to become compulsory, but I have asked what changes would need to be incorporated into the actual MOT test itself - I have had no answer to this question, instead Gilbert has repeated himself by saying 'it isn't going to happen, Mike (from UKLPG) has told you', 'the MOT scheme would need to be changed too much and DOT are not prepared to put the money in', You are repeating yourself Simon'. The reason I have repeated myself is because I have not had an answer to the specific question. The reason I rephrased the question, said the same thing in different words, was because this is a more tactful and none confrontational approach than saying 'Oy! You blatantly avoided answering my specific question'.

I argue that without further training of MOT men, they already check components are securely mounted, already check for leaks, already checks emissions, they are used to the concept that certain components must be marked with E numbers (so telling em LPG components must be marked with E67 would be an easy update). I argue that the MOT as it stands would check by far the most serious LPG safety concerns. Other COP11 concerns such as fuel lines must be plastic coated and fixed to the vehicle at specific intervals are insignificant by comparison, Gilbert must agree to this fuel line point too, because he agrees that it is much better that a gas pipe corrodes through or falls off than a brake pipe (I think we would all agree with that?), yet he has no concerns about none plastic coated copper break pipes corroding through or brake pipes not being fixed to the vehicle at specific intervals, and on his own vehicles has tie wrapped petrol pipes etc on. No criticism there for the brake / fuel pipe attitude Gilbert, just putting some COP11 points into context - Not all COP11 points are entirely necessary, the greatest points effecting safety are already covered by the MOT. Granted at the moment MOT man pays little attention to some of these points regards LPG installs - I suggest he would pay more attention if he was tasked by DOT to 'commission' LPG installs and that over time he would be forced to pay more attention to these points regards LPG install when VOSA's scheme of checking MOT man vehicle failure statistics were applied.

Now let's examine Brian's post, I'm not sure if he was clearing info up or making a point here...

Brian_H wrote:

Lpgc wrote: Ahh yes - wasn't that install done by a dodgy DIYer, who didn't go for a UKLPG check etc? Involved a leak that MOT man would have picked up on?

Simon

No. It was a car purchased pre converted, and the leak was by the sound of it only detectable on filling so unless he tried to fill it as part of his test i doubt he would detect it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lodes.html

You will note he had it checked over twice as well. Still didn't occur to him that lighting up when you can smell gas wasn't a good idea but its not like that was the only ignition source....

No specifics mentioned here... Indeed we don't know whether the car was on UKLPGs database or not? We don't know whether the 2 garages he visited were UKLPG members either? UKLPG members don't all have facility to refuel vehicles at their premises, which of us believes that those that do not have facility all take vehicles to a garage to refuel when a customer brings an already converted vehicle for a check? Granted a UKLPG check ensures boots and vent pipes are fitted but the check doesn't stipulate specific ways of ensuring the vent pipe cannot come off at either end... A good tug on many vent pipes will pull a vent pipe off of a boot, including those that pass UKLPG checks, and a good tug might simply imply luggage moving in the boot against a vent pipe. Neither a UKLPG check or an MOT check would ensure this unfortunate bloke's accident couldn't happen, it could meet spec on the day of the test (therefore not leak gas into the car even with a leak) and the next day could come off and not meet spec (so gas could come into the car with a leak) - the bloke didn't apply much common sense when he lit the fag or indeed when he continued to drive the vehicle with the smell of gas. Who's going to argue about this?

Gilbertd wrote:scottyf wrote:
Maybe its just not a feasible exercise in the view of government and as cars that have been converted haven't exploded in balls of flames killing people I guess nothing will be.
Precisely. Simon's one man crusade against UKLPG seems to bother him far more than anyone else and has come up with an alternative scheme to their inspection and Register. That fact that it isn't workable without a completely new process being created and millions spent on training doesn't seem to be relevant . The fact that UKLPG themselves have already suggested the same scheme and it has been rejected certainly seems to prove that nobody considers it important enough to spend time and money on. Nobody except Simon it seems......

Simon, just drop it. You've tried and despite distorting facts or making them up, you still haven't convinced anyone. The phrase flogging a dead horse comes to mind.

I've answered ScottyF's 'not a feasible exercise' point above in this post. And to the 'cars that have been converted haven't exploded in balls of flames killing people' point I agree.. So why do UKLPG members say 'if you need it done safely you need to have us convert your vehicle or it might not be safe'? UKLPG did not suggest what I have suggested above - As I have suggested now several times in different ways, different wording etc... an unchanged or slightly changed (checking for E67 marks would be a slight change) MOT on 100% of vehicles would be better than a thorough test on 33%, especially when the remaining 67% is likely to include all the vehicles that are most likely to have what we might consider dangerous installs... and I know Gilbert sees my point.

What facts do you reckon I have distorted / made up? Whom do you think has moved their initial position and point of view in the discussion the most since discussion started? Not my own and not UKLPG's Mike Chapman - Quote from Mike Chapman 'I agree with most of your points Simon'. The people who's stance in this argument has move the most since beginning of discussion are UKLPG members and probably some of the public's.

Flogging a dead horse does come to mind, because members of UKLPG and some of those that can register any vehicle they want on UKLPGs database (of which I am one I will point out) are happy to go along with the current situation because they enjoy the apparent marketing advantage of exaggerated and half truth claims / because none members are prepared to stay quiet and put up with the situation (probably because speaking out against a scheme which makes so many 'safety' claims might make them look unsafe) / because when it seems my points in this discussion are showing there is an alternative, a viable system that would fail more vehicles with real safety concerns than the current situation... people in the discussion start to whitewash over the discussion and would rather criticise my writing style than admit agreement with my points or the implications which can be drawn from agreement with my points.

Simon