motor bike on stage

[Paul TC]

I am working from memory here - so forgive me, but I understand the fire service who were consulted determined that a full tank of petrol was unacceptable. I can only assume that the vapour risk was considered less risky than the full tank.

 

I'm not certain that the suggestion to keep the fuel tank almost empty is the 'official' one - at least, not based on the example I was involved in.

 

Very much down to local conditions and advice, and a thorough assessment of the individual circumstances.

 

Many years ago when I was with a Police Force we used to keep a never used fully sprayed up and badged BMW tank which was swapped for the "operational" tank when a motorbike was required for display in enclosed shopping centres and the like. Cars just had the fuel tanks removed.

[Seano]

I'd just forgotten when originally posting that the 'engineers' added a minuscule tank (I think designed for a model aircraft) to the fuel line for precisely that reason.

 

Just curious - was that on a fuel injected or a carbureted bike? If carbureted, was there not rather less fuel in the tiny tank than in the float chambers of the carbs anyway?

[Roderick]

To doubly reinforce what Cedd says and flag a warning about what RobinD writes as extremely dangerous.

 

Petrol vapour and air is more explosive than TNT and inordinately easier to ignite. DO NOT use a tank with just a smidgeon of petrol in it. You would be far, far safer using one full to the brim, not that I am recommending anything but a fully purged system in a non-professional environment.

 

Here's one they made earlier. Watch through to the end bearing in mind it is only two litres of fuel and that just about anything emulsified can explode. The US Youtube nutters seem to have peculiar fetish for custard powder fireballs.

To reinforce what Kerry said so correctly, a full fuel tank has a much lower fire risk than a near empty tank.

The NSW Fire Brigade insisted that all cars on display at the Sydney Motorshow were either completely full or completely empty and purged.

Liquid petrol is inert, the vapours are the high risk. Reduce the vapours and you reduce the risk of an explosion.

[Robin D]

I'd just forgotten when originally posting that the 'engineers' added a minuscule tank (I think designed for a model aircraft) to the fuel line for precisely that reason.

 

Just curious - was that on a fuel injected or a carbureted bike? If carbureted, was there not rather less fuel in the tiny tank than in the float chambers of the carbs anyway?

They were a 60's Lambretta and a Vespa, so carb's. The point about the float chamber is well made.

[top-cat]

Out of interest, why are we all assuming that having fuel in the tank is totally not allowed?

 

Surely, dependent on the risk assessment - if you take into account the size of the stage / room, the necessary ventilation, the people using the bike (are they riders or actors?), etc etc there will be many instances where actually there is no problem with riding a fully fuelled bike around the stage nevermind having some fuel in it.

 

Just wondering why everyone is so quick to assume.

[paulears]

Looking at the HSE advice on the issue of petrol vapour it would seem the risk in draining tanks and spilling fuel are far greater than keeping the fuel in the properly designed original vehicle tank. Refilling a small tank and the work in installing it seem a higher risk. It seems one commonly discussed reason for keeping the tank full is to prevent condensation. Interesting this!

[Brian]

Out of interest, why are we all assuming that having fuel in the tank is totally not allowed?

 

Indeed. I worked on a show a couple of Xmases ago where a real live police motorbike was driven on stage, so obviously the engine was running, in a real live proper venue. OK, so the rider was very experienced, being the police trainer who trains the trainers in that force group, but many of the hazards were the same as any other similar situation.

[benwillcox]

Out of interest, why are we all assuming that having fuel in the tank is totally not allowed?

 

Following this thread and some of the comments I was wondering exactly the same thing. Fuel systems in vehicles are specifically designed not to leak fluid or vapour and to withstand certain impact damage as far as is reasonable, so not sure why people think that putting one on a stage is going to immediately cause it to explode into a fireball.

Regarding the issue of a partially filled tank containing more vapour, I'm not sure why this would be more dangerous providing sufficient precautions are taken (i.e. perhaps not removing the filler cap indoors), after all we're all driving around with partially filled tanks on our cars and don't consider it to be any more risk than immediately after filling the tank do we?

 

Ben

[ImagineerTom]

Out of interest, why are we all assuming that having fuel in the tank is totally not allowed?

Because the OP said this was for an am-dram production which means they will almost certainly have to work within the confines of the existing building/performance insurance and unless they have an incredibly unusual policy I'm confident in saying that the default insurance wording will require that the vehicle have all fluids removed from it if it is to be stored/used/""performed"" inside the building.

They can do the extra RA paperwork, they can get insurance amended, they can modify the bike to make it more practical to use; but in THIS INSTANCE where it's an am-dram event (so low money) and where they clear;y haven't already researched the solutions it's unlikely they will have the time/resources available to get the changes made.

[sleah]

Looking at the HSE advice on the issue of petrol vapour it would seem the risk in draining tanks and spilling fuel are far greater than keeping the fuel in the properly designed original vehicle tank. Refilling a small tank and the work in installing it seem a higher risk. It seems one commonly discussed reason for keeping the tank full is to prevent condensation. Interesting this!

 

As someone who is a bit of a petrolhead, and owns a couple of small scale generators, and is strictly speaking an amateur in the context of the topic, to me what Paul has said hits the nail on the head.

 

In amateur land, I would suggest that doing ANYTHING beyond simply using the bike and taking it in and out of the venue presents a significantly higher risk. The location of the risk may shift, such as in someone's shed tinkering with fuel lines or tanks but the overall risk to life and risk of fire is MASSIVE compared to not doing anything. Anyone who has tinkered with the fuel system on an engine or even just filled a site generator with a jerry can will agree. No matter how well you 'think' you've drained a fuel tank, you WILL end up with petrol escaping plus the vapour of course.

 

You need to balance the risk and consequence's of simply taking the bike on to the stage (regardless of how full the tank is!) against the risk and consequence of trying to drain fuel, swap tanks etc.

So, what's the chance of fire starting and what would be the consequence of that fire? (arguably outdoor it can be contained with a small risk compared to indoor with serious risk).

 

Regulations may dictate draining tanks etc, in which case I would suggest you would need to look seriously at an alternative to a real internal combustion engine if the fuel can't be removed with very low risk.

 

Just to reinforce - I'm talking about amateur land who may not have access to professionals with suitable locations, tools, safety gear and fire protection to mess with fuel systems.

[kerry davies]

While this thread is running cop fer this; The Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations 2014 will come into effect on 1st October and "simplifies" things with regard to DSEAR, The Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. It does however mean that there is something new for EHOs, insurance companies and Fire Officer types to interpret.

 

Just to reiterate, anything is possible if risk is managed. I spent over 30 years messing with fire in some extremely sensitive environments and they not only allowed me, my local fire fighters joined in. Very little is "banned" by regulation in the UK, it is all about Risk Management.

[Jivemaster]

Look at the other side too!

The owner may or may not allow amateurs to take his bike apart to remove the fuel tank etc, if it's a special bike then the owner may be very concerned about damage and surface abrasion.

 

Likely you are borrowing the bike so you need to satisfy the owner and the risk management. BUT if you need to use something vintage (American Indian etc) Then an owner may have one for exhibition certified fuel free BUT the paint job will have cost thousands with custom logos etc. Yes I know someone who restored American Indian motorcycles, and BSA Bantams.

[Bobbsy]

While debating the best way to safely provide a small amount of fuel to a motor bike engine, it's worth noting the OP actually said "not engine running of course".

 

Let's assume the whole fuel system will be drained.

 

I'd say a more valid discussion would be about how to manoeuvre/control the bike so it doesn't land on somebody's leg.

[Albatross]

Fuel & other vehicle liquid issues aside, have you looked at the rating of the stage surface to ensure that it can handle the weight of a motorbike? An average bike is around 200 Kilograms. Then there's the addition of a person pushing it, adding anywhere from around 80 plus Kilograms again.

[Andrew C]

have you looked at the rating of the stage surface to ensure that it can handle the weight of a motorbike?

Unless you are thinking of a "Full Dress" Harley, or a Rocket3, I'd think that most permanent stages that will take 20 twirleys dancing will be OK for a bike. But do at least think about it!