Fuel Tank Overflow Hose Routing

[Tony H.]

A couple years ago I replaced the fuel tank overflow hose in my 1970 Corvette. I followed the routing shown in Dr Rebuild's catalog (pg 73) which sends the hose through the right rear bumper. At the Pittsburgh meet, it was brought to my attention that it should be routed along the support to the bumper but not into it. The AIM is a bit confusing, too. One figure seems to show the hose routed along the support to the bumper but not into it while the detailed drawing seems to show the hose going into the bumperette. Can someone clear up this routing for me? It certainly seems simpler to not route the hose into the bumper and that logic is what I would use in an assembly plant. Thanks for your input.

Tony

[Jack H.]

Re: Fuel Tank Overflow Hose Routing

Bear in mind, the Flight Judging process is subject to human frailties and you will experience errors of commission as well as errors of ommission based upon specific judges you encounter. Hence, while there's a lot of science in our hobby, there is an artform content that cannot be overlooked....

Midyear cars are well documented for the overflow hose following the curvature inside the rear bumper and being tie wrapped to the bumper support rod. In fact, AIM (Assembly Instruction Book) in that era even goes as far as defining a 'setback' for the overflow hose into the bumper and this is probably a marketing issue to preserve free flowing visual lines of the car's rear end.

Same technique is called out in the early Shark AIM books. This is how my '71 was assembled when I dropped the rear bumpers and how I put it back together (hose routed inside curvature of RR bumper and tie wrapped to support rod). I have not taken a deduction for this in the 2-3 Flight Judgings I've experienced.

About the only 'controversy' I've seen in this area is how many tie wraps are used to hold the overflow hose in place (one or two). Since pictures in AIM are generic (intended for general assembler guidance) and AIM does not define qty/per in its component (Item) lists, we probably won't know 'correct' answers to these kinds of questions. Also, it's probably true that specific count of 'as required' items like tie wraps varied with MY, shift and QA/QC inspection focus as well as accounting cost control campaigns....

[Jack H.]

Re: Fuel Tank Overflow Hose Routing

Bear in mind, the Flight Judging process is subject to human frailties and you will experience errors of commission as well as errors of ommission based upon specific judges you encounter. Hence, while there's a lot of science in our hobby, there is an artform content that cannot be overlooked....

Midyear cars are well documented for the overflow hose following the curvature inside the rear bumper and being tie wrapped to the bumper support rod. In fact, AIM (Assembly Instruction Book) in that era even goes as far as defining a 'setback' for the overflow hose into the bumper and this is probably a marketing issue to preserve free flowing visual lines of the car's rear end.

Same technique is called out in the early Shark AIM books. This is how my '71 was assembled when I dropped the rear bumpers and how I put it back together (hose routed inside curvature of RR bumper and tie wrapped to support rod). I have not taken a deduction for this in the 2-3 Flight Judgings I've experienced.

About the only 'controversy' I've seen in this area is how many tie wraps are used to hold the overflow hose in place (one or two). Since pictures in AIM are generic (intended for general assembler guidance) and AIM does not define qty/per in its component (Item) lists, we probably won't know 'correct' answers to these kinds of questions. Also, it's probably true that specific count of 'as required' items like tie wraps varied with MY, shift and QA/QC inspection focus as well as accounting cost control campaigns....

[KEITH SEIWELL]

Re: FTOHR-GO TO THE SOURCE?

This thread brings to mind a question I have had for some time now. There seems to be a number of "controversies" as to how Corvettes were assembled, painted, wired etc. If an assembly man who put together mid year Corvettes was say, 25 years old in 1965, he would only be 59 today. Surely he would remember how he assembled thousands of vehicles. Isn't there a list or way of finding out who these people were to get answers to these questions just to bring closure? This is certainly not a criticism. I would imagine that I was not the first one to think of this-you all must have talked about this before. This is a very interesting topic and I would enjoy hearing (reading) your views. Thanks much, Keith

[KEITH SEIWELL]

Re: FTOHR-GO TO THE SOURCE?

This thread brings to mind a question I have had for some time now. There seems to be a number of "controversies" as to how Corvettes were assembled, painted, wired etc. If an assembly man who put together mid year Corvettes was say, 25 years old in 1965, he would only be 59 today. Surely he would remember how he assembled thousands of vehicles. Isn't there a list or way of finding out who these people were to get answers to these questions just to bring closure? This is certainly not a criticism. I would imagine that I was not the first one to think of this-you all must have talked about this before. This is a very interesting topic and I would enjoy hearing (reading) your views. Thanks much, Keith

[Joe L.]

Re: Fuel Tank Overflow Hose Routing

Tony----

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the fuel filler boot drain hose on my original owner '69 went through the rear of the right rear bumber vertical section. It was retained to the bumper support rod by 2 black plastic ties straps. I doubt that anything changed for 1970.

[Joe L.]

Re: Fuel Tank Overflow Hose Routing

Tony----

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the fuel filler boot drain hose on my original owner '69 went through the rear of the right rear bumber vertical section. It was retained to the bumper support rod by 2 black plastic ties straps. I doubt that anything changed for 1970.

[Joe L.]

Re: FTOHR-GO TO THE SOURCE?

Keith----

Some fascinating insights from folks who actually worked at St. Louis used to be available at the Bloomington Gold Restoration Workshops. There used to be a class given on an annual basis called "Once Upon A Time At the Corvette Factory". Instructors were Phil Hawkins who worked at St. Louis from 1954 until its closing in 1981 and George Barlos who also worked at the plant for many years in the 60s and 70s. Phil passed away about 2 years ago, but George is still very much alive and kicking. I talk to him every year at Bloomington. For the time being, the class has been discontinued.

[Joe L.]

Re: FTOHR-GO TO THE SOURCE?

Keith----

Some fascinating insights from folks who actually worked at St. Louis used to be available at the Bloomington Gold Restoration Workshops. There used to be a class given on an annual basis called "Once Upon A Time At the Corvette Factory". Instructors were Phil Hawkins who worked at St. Louis from 1954 until its closing in 1981 and George Barlos who also worked at the plant for many years in the 60s and 70s. Phil passed away about 2 years ago, but George is still very much alive and kicking. I talk to him every year at Bloomington. For the time being, the class has been discontinued.

[Tony H.]

Re: Fuel Tank Overflow Hose Routing--Thanks

Thanks for your responses. Mine is currently routed through the bumper with two ties and that's how it will remain. I just wanted to have some confirmation. I think a lost a point or two on that routing. Oh well, I'll just have to bring my AIM to the next event. No big deal.

[Tony H.]

Re: Fuel Tank Overflow Hose Routing--Thanks

Thanks for your responses. Mine is currently routed through the bumper with two ties and that's how it will remain. I just wanted to have some confirmation. I think a lost a point or two on that routing. Oh well, I'll just have to bring my AIM to the next event. No big deal.

[Jack H.]

Re: FTOHR-GO TO THE SOURCE?

Such sources (line workers) are sought and consulted by various research activities. The results are quite often insightful and, at times, these queries add to the variance of our understanding instead of detract from it. Example: assy techniques sometimes varied with shift as well as crew foreman and the current QA/QC focus. It's possible to get 'sworn testimony' from multiple sources that disagree. It's also possible for individuals to remember things that weren't....

I heard the story of a retired GM worker who saw an NCRS Meet in progress, stopped and hobbled up on his walker asking what all the old Corvettes were there for. When told the purpose of the meet, he revealed his GM background and experience on the St. Louis assy line, asked if he could observe and was given permission to watch the judges work.

He watched as a Chassis team worked a mid-year and made comments on the correctness of the inspector's marks on the steering gear assy. His patience failed him and he interrupted asking, "What are all those yellow marks marks you guys are talking about?"

The judges explained they were validating the originality of steering gear unit's inspector's marks and there was a difference of opinion as to placement and marking font. The visitor began to laugh and some were afraid he might loose his walker support when he wiped his eyes, paused and said, "If all these cars have that funny 'L' mark on 'em, you guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves. That's the exception, not the rule. It means 'LEAKER'. Heck, you're makin' it look like every car we built was junk!"

Interesting story. Perhaps true. But, what do you do with one fellow's 'recollection' when what we think is a reasonable sampling of known original cars from the era share the same markings?

That's part of the art of this hobby. If all were known, we could simply turn the judging task over to robots and relax. But, that would also kill a lot of the fun and commroderie....

[Jack H.]

Re: FTOHR-GO TO THE SOURCE?

Such sources (line workers) are sought and consulted by various research activities. The results are quite often insightful and, at times, these queries add to the variance of our understanding instead of detract from it. Example: assy techniques sometimes varied with shift as well as crew foreman and the current QA/QC focus. It's possible to get 'sworn testimony' from multiple sources that disagree. It's also possible for individuals to remember things that weren't....

I heard the story of a retired GM worker who saw an NCRS Meet in progress, stopped and hobbled up on his walker asking what all the old Corvettes were there for. When told the purpose of the meet, he revealed his GM background and experience on the St. Louis assy line, asked if he could observe and was given permission to watch the judges work.

He watched as a Chassis team worked a mid-year and made comments on the correctness of the inspector's marks on the steering gear assy. His patience failed him and he interrupted asking, "What are all those yellow marks marks you guys are talking about?"

The judges explained they were validating the originality of steering gear unit's inspector's marks and there was a difference of opinion as to placement and marking font. The visitor began to laugh and some were afraid he might loose his walker support when he wiped his eyes, paused and said, "If all these cars have that funny 'L' mark on 'em, you guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves. That's the exception, not the rule. It means 'LEAKER'. Heck, you're makin' it look like every car we built was junk!"

Interesting story. Perhaps true. But, what do you do with one fellow's 'recollection' when what we think is a reasonable sampling of known original cars from the era share the same markings?

That's part of the art of this hobby. If all were known, we could simply turn the judging task over to robots and relax. But, that would also kill a lot of the fun and commroderie....