Filling up

[Flo]

I put my first tank of fuel in today and what a pain that was! I had to hold the nozzle trigger just open otherwise it would auto-shutoff. I even tried rotating the nozzle to get a better angle-of-the-dangle as it were but to no avail.

Has anybody else experienced this? It was a Mobil servo..

[Andrew357]

yeah I've had that happen.

No biggie I don't think, just don't use that pump again.

[HappyCamper]

I put my first tank of fuel in today and what a pain that was! I had to hold the nozzle trigger just open otherwise it would auto-shutoff. I even tried rotating the nozzle to get a better angle-of-the-dangle as it were but to no avail.

Has anybody else experienced this? It was a Mobil servo..

I'm saying it was just the pump. I haven't had that problem.

[Kesawi]

It happens to me with every pump. What I do (insert standard legal disclaimer here) is put the nozzle all of the way in, then pull it back slightly (only a couple of millimetres) and lean the nozzle to the side. Don't pull the nose of the nozzle out of the fuel intake. This leaves a small gap around the nozzle for the fuel vapours to escape easily, otherwise the filler seals and gets too much back pressure which causes the auto shut-off to engage. The nose of the nozzle is still well within the filler, and it cuts off properly when the tank is full.

[Matty P]

Same problem here. I do something similar to Kesawi - pull it out slightly and move it around until you can get a decent flow happening.

[Glug]

After 60,000kms I have never had it happen, I've had cars in the past that were a pain to fill but the Kluger seems fine.

[Turkey Galoot]

Happens to me on some pumps and not others. Same as others have posted, I pull it out a little and change the angle. I do it without thinking. It was funny recently trying to explain to my kids who are learning to drive how to fill it! All my cars (well, at least those that have used unleaded, which has a smaller diameter inlet) have required me to do this to some extent.

Ah, I remember the days when some self-serve pumps had the trigger lock and you could leave it filling without having to squeeze the trigger.

Ken.

[Flo]

I suppose I'll try another servo when the time comes to fill up again.

It happened occasionally with my Tarago too but those times were few and far between.

Hopefully this won't be the norm as I know the cheese n kisses won't be impressed. Actually this might work out alright. If it's a pain to fill maybe she won't want to drive it!! I should be so lucky..

[Freewuns]

Happens to me on some pumps and not others. Same as others have posted, I pull it out a little and change the angle. I do it without thinking. It was funny recently trying to explain to my kids who are learning to drive how to fill it! All my cars (well, at least those that have used unleaded, which has a smaller diameter inlet) have required me to do this to some extent.

Ah, I remember the days when some self-serve pumps had the trigger lock and you could leave it filling without having to squeeze the trigger.

Ken.

There is still a trigger lock if you want to use it....your fuel cap. Trouble is in most states it is now illegal for fuel pump nozzles to have/use a lock "open" function.

[Hado]

Happens to me on some pumps and not others. Same as others have posted, I pull it out a little and change the angle. I do it without thinking. It was funny recently trying to explain to my kids who are learning to drive how to fill it! All my cars (well, at least those that have used unleaded, which has a smaller diameter inlet) have required me to do this to some extent.

Ah, I remember the days when some self-serve pumps had the trigger lock and you could leave it filling without having to squeeze the trigger.

Ken.

There is still a trigger lock if you want to use it....your fuel cap. Trouble is in most states it is now illegal for fuel pump nozzles to have/use a lock "open" function.

With the introduction of self service stations in the early 80s - the 'lock on' function was stopped to prevent possible accidental spills by customers walking away from fuel pumps and pumps falling out. Although in the much more litigious USA, this is still allowed because people sit back in their car to get out of the cold. (Which can cause a static fire when they touch the nozzle again if the conditions are right.)

The Service Station Association (SSA) in Australia is run by lawyers and troglodytes. It took me ten years to stop them making false claims mobile phones could ignite petrol fumes on the forecourt. It wasn't until the British Petroleum Institute produced a report - using the same information I gave the SSA ten years earlier - that they stopped making this false claim - but they still have the warning signs!

[whofan]

Happens to me on some pumps and not others. Same as others have posted, I pull it out a little and change the angle. I do it without thinking. It was funny recently trying to explain to my kids who are learning to drive how to fill it! All my cars (well, at least those that have used unleaded, which has a smaller diameter inlet) have required me to do this to some extent.

Ah, I remember the days when some self-serve pumps had the trigger lock and you could leave it filling without having to squeeze the trigger.

Ken.

There is still a trigger lock if you want to use it....your fuel cap. Trouble is in most states it is now illegal for fuel pump nozzles to have/use a lock "open" function.

With the introduction of self service stations in the early 80s - the 'lock on' function was stopped to prevent possible accidental spills by customers walking away from fuel pumps and pumps falling out. Although in the much more litigious USA, this is still allowed because people sit back in their car to get out of the cold. (Which can cause a static fire when they touch the nozzle again if the conditions are right.)

The Service Station Association (SSA) in Australia is run by lawyers and troglodytes. It took me ten years to stop them making false claims mobile phones could ignite petrol fumes on the forecourt. It wasn't until the British Petroleum Institute produced a report - using the same information I gave the SSA ten years earlier - that they stopped making this false claim - but they still have the warning signs!

Can you elaborate as to what you mean by "ignite petrol fumes on the forecourt"? in particular what is a forecourt? I had always believed that the warning was in relation to dropping the phone, it striking the concrete and causing a spark which would in turn ignite the fumes.

:o

[Hado]

Can you elaborate as to what you mean by "ignite petrol fumes on the forecourt"? in particular what is a forecourt? I had always believed that the warning was in relation to dropping the phone, it striking the concrete and causing a spark which would in turn ignite the fumes.

:o

'Forecourt' is the public part of a petrol station and it is specifically used to make this clear you are talking about filling vehicles - i.e. not the tanker refilling the station tanks. You just have to think about how often vehicle refuelling happens every day around the world with very few incidents - there are only about 50 fires caused by static each year in cold climates like the USA.

The concern about mobile phone use at petrol stations was based on the belief that there was a risk that the battery may become dislodged and cause a spark that may ignite fuel; although no one had any credible evidence to support this opinion.

In fact I first raised this possible risk with the oil industry when discussing the fact that a RF spark couldn't happen and they latched onto it as another reason to keep the ban running - because at that stage the unlikely battery discharge risk hadn't been fully investigated.

However, since then, two research papers have specifically considered the spark discharge risk for mobile phones (i.e. pressing buttons, disconnecting the battery, vibrator mode, accidental shorting of the battery terminals and electrostatic discharge) and have concluded that this is highly unlikely.

A 1999 report by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates in the USA concluded that “the use of a cell phone at a gasoline filling station under normal operating conditions presents a negligible hazard” and that the likelihood of such an accident under any conditions “is very remote”.

The report also stated: “Automobiles (which have numerous potential ignition sources) pose a greater ignition hazard,” and “Finally, other potential ignition sources are present, such as static discharge between a person and a vehicle.”

An analysis by the Centre for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Centre at the University of Oklahoma reached a similar conclusion in August 2001. It said research into this issue “provided virtually no evidence to suggest that cell phones pose a hazard at gas stations.”

“While it may be theoretically possible for a spark from a cell phone battery to ignite gas vapor under very precise conditions, the historical evidence does not support the need for further research.”

“Until there is evidence to the contrary, we suggest that no further action be initiated in this regard, and that no recommendations for further action are required of the wireless phone or petroleum industries.”

This research is supported by the fact that there has been no actual incident of fuel ignition at petrol stations that has been demonstrated to have been caused by mobile phone use, anywhere in the world.

[Kesawi]

'Forecourt' is the public part of a petrol station and it is specifically used to make this clear you are talking about filling vehicles - i.e. not the tanker refilling the station tanks. You just have to think about how often vehicle refuelling happens every day around the world with very few incidents - there are only about 50 fires caused by static each year in cold climates like the USA.

The concern about mobile phone use at petrol stations was based on the belief that there was a risk that the battery may become dislodged and cause a spark that may ignite fuel; although no one had any credible evidence to support this opinion.

In fact I first raised this possible risk with the oil industry when discussing the fact that a RF spark couldn't happen and they latched onto it as another reason to keep the ban running - because at that stage the unlikely battery discharge risk hadn't been fully investigated.

However, since then, two research papers have specifically considered the spark discharge risk for mobile phones (i.e. pressing buttons, disconnecting the battery, vibrator mode, accidental shorting of the battery terminals and electrostatic discharge) and have concluded that this is highly unlikely.

A 1999 report by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates in the USA concluded that “the use of a cell phone at a gasoline filling station under normal operating conditions presents a negligible hazard” and that the likelihood of such an accident under any conditions “is very remote”.

The report also stated: “Automobiles (which have numerous potential ignition sources) pose a greater ignition hazard,” and “Finally, other potential ignition sources are present, such as static discharge between a person and a vehicle.”

An analysis by the Centre for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Centre at the University of Oklahoma reached a similar conclusion in August 2001. It said research into this issue “provided virtually no evidence to suggest that cell phones pose a hazard at gas stations.”

“While it may be theoretically possible for a spark from a cell phone battery to ignite gas vapor under very precise conditions, the historical evidence does not support the need for further research.”

“Until there is evidence to the contrary, we suggest that no further action be initiated in this regard, and that no recommendations for further action are required of the wireless phone or petroleum industries.”

This research is supported by the fact that there has been no actual incident of fuel ignition at petrol stations that has been demonstrated to have been caused by mobile phone use, anywhere in the world.

Although it cannot be classed as a rigourous scientific investigation, don't forget the issue was put to the test on Mythbusters in the first season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282003_season%29#Cell_Phone_Destruction)

Edited May 12, 2010 by Kesawi

[whofan]

Wow great reply Hado, I asked for that

There is probably the same negligible risk associated with operating mobile phones on aircraft and interfering with "radio equipment", but hey I'm wandering off topic here

Edited May 19, 2010 by whofan

[Hiro]

The old addage "Better to be safe than sorry" also applies. Big woop about not being able to use mobile phones whilst you're filling up, it takes all of 5 minutes to do. A general rule of "no use of electronic equipment of any kind near flammable/volatile chemicals" is a pretty standard rule in industry.

[Hado]

The old addage "Better to be safe than sorry" also applies. Big woop about not being able to use mobile phones whilst you're filling up, it takes all of 5 minutes to do. A general rule of "no use of electronic equipment of any kind near flammable/volatile chemicals" is a pretty standard rule in industry.

Hiro

I agree - I'm not suggesting drivers start using their mobiles when refuelling - you should be concentrating on what you are doing when dealing with flammable products.

Also in industrial settings the risks are much higher.

But using misinformation in order to get the public to do something is also a very dangerous practice.

Kind regards

Hado

[Hado]

Wow great reply Hado, I asked for that

There is probably the same negligible risk associated with operating mobile phones on aircraft and interfering with "radio equipment", but hey I'm wandering off topic here

Don't start me - or I will tell you about a meeting with the head of the air stewards (Trolley Dollies) union who said after a briefing on the science which clearly showed mobiles don't interfere with shielded aircraft cabin electronics which are designed to fly through high powered radar fields when landing:

"We have got to control them [passengers] somehow!"

Edited May 13, 2010 by Hado

[Snowy68]

I have a 2008 KX-R AWD and have never had problems filling up (normally Caltex).