• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

How come we don't all install in-line fuel valves to block hydolock?

benserve88@gmail.com

benserve88@gmail.com

Street Cruiser
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.  :mad:

Install overflow tubes. The end.
 
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.
 
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
 
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. 
 
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
 
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   
 
Steve in Sunny Fla said:
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
Click to expand...

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?  ;)


 
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
 
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.
 
Rev Ryder said:
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. 
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
 
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? " .................
 
Nosmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Steve in Sunny Fla said:
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
Click to expand...
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.   
 
  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!!  ??? 
 
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.

 
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
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. 
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
WillyP said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Greg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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]
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
 
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.     
 
WillyP said:
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.
Click to expand...

: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:
 
stevedap said:
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.   
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.  :-\
 
Zorlac said:
"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.  :-\
Click to expand...
Got a link?
 
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 
 
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. ;)
 
Zorlac said:
"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.  :-\
Click to expand...

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:
 
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. 
 
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
 
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!
 
Steve in Sunny Fla said:
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
Click to expand...
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 Ryder said:
Steve in Sunny Fla said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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   
 
JDM said:
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. 
Click to expand...

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.  :eek:   

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.
 
OP, here.  Not to be cheeky but

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
 
Rev Ryder said:
Steve in Sunny Fla said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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

  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.
 
"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.
 
VisionDon Nebr said:
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? " .................
Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

  • 2000 Concours manual fuel shutoff.jpg
    2000 Concours manual fuel shutoff.jpg
    235.7 KB · Views: 175
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:
 
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..
 
Altitude said:
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..
Click to expand...

How much is it worth to you to prevent hydrolock? 
 
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.
 
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.
 
Ron_Moss_MO said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats scary,

What about people who weld things on-the-car? that can't be safe
 
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.
 
WillyP said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bill Hookman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
EJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
Bill_Heil_NM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.



 
  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.  :mad:

  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!
 
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.
 
Daytona_Mike said:
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.
Click to expand...
  Thanks for the add on. Had not thought of that one.  :great:
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
mattchewn said:
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
Click to expand...

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).
 
Rev Ryder said:
mattchewn said:
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
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
SteveJ. said:
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.
Click to expand...

  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 in Sunny Fla said:
SteveJ. said:
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.
Click to expand...

  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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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. 
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 .....
 
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.
 
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?
 
Thud300 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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 :eek:
 
gottaride said:
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.
Click to expand...

  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
 
Thud300 said:
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 :eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top