Subject: | [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC) |
---|---|
From: | peter at nosimport.com (Peter Caldwell) |
Date: | Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:31:32 -0500 |
References: | <664967C0-5C33-4F08-9A3A-907DF9F9DFEE@comcast.net> <1438062406.55372.1303223025086.JavaMail.root@cl02-host03.dlls.pa.frontiernet.net> <201104190748652.SM01424@TOSHIBA-USER3.nosimport.com> <BANLkTikOLX1swsXVjhb-MO3aoxoNrKM4-g@mail.gmail.com> |
Ooo... I like that better, but why did BMC give it up, and Triumph keep at it until the 70s? Peter C == At 10:19 AM 4/19/2011, David Lieb wrote: >The idea, as I understand it, was that the vacuum level fluctuates, so >there is movement of the vapor in the pipe. Since it is connected to >the carb, there is a possibility of fuel in the vapor. Over time, the >fuel could condense and collect in the vacuum diaphragm, since that is >usually the low point in the pipe. The bulb is positioned so that any >condensing should happen there and run back to the carb rather than >down to the dissy. Eventually they realized that they were protecting >us from a theoretical tragedy that simply wasn't materializing... >David L |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC), Peter Caldwell |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [Spridgets] FW: [Healeys] bugeye bonnet, Macy Larry |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC), Peter Caldwell |
Next by Thread: | Re: [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC), Bob Van Kirk |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |