On Apr 15, 1:05*pm, "Steve W." > wrote:
> m6onz5a wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >> On 04/13/2013 06:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:41:33 -0400, "Steve W." >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>>>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits
> >>>>> their use?
> >>>>> Was having a discussion with a mechanic yesterday and the wrench was
> >>>>> saying that it was easier to use a compression fitting than double
> >>>>> flaring and he didn't have a problem using them; my position was that if
> >>>>> I needed to replace a hard line where it was easier to cut and splice in
> >>>>> the middle than rerun the whole thing that I would always use a double
> >>>>> flare and a union, because of the impossibility of the fitting blowing
> >>>>> apart under pressure save for a failure of the tubing itself. *the
> >>>>> discussion was prompted because he was looking at a repair I'd done on a
> >>>>> friend's vehicle when the rear brakes had failed; the hose to the rear
> >>>>> axle had failed and replacement required replacement of both the axle
> >>>>> lines and the back half of the rear body line due to rust, and he'd
> >>>>> noticed that the one splice that I'd done was a double flare union.
> >>>>> However when I went to research the issue I see a lot of opinions that
> >>>>> "it's illegal" to use compression fittings but no links to actual
> >>>>> references nor could I find anything in the pertinent safety inspection
> >>>>> standards (NB: I'm not a vehicle inspector nor have I ever been, so I
> >>>>> don't know if there is an "unwritten rule" that compression fittings =
> >>>>> failure.) *If anyone has any knowledge of this issue I'd appreciate your
> >>>>> input esp. if it is specific to VA, MD, or DC.
> >>>>> I also certainly hope that the mechanic was referring to a good steel
> >>>>> Swagelok fitting (which is at least rated for the pressures used in an
> >>>>> automotive brake application) and not the brass ones like you'd use to
> >>>>> hook up an icemaker!
> >>>>> nate
> >>>> Maryland inspection regarding brakes.
> >>>> Procedures: * *Reject Vehicle If:
> >>>> * *(a) Hydraulic System—Visually inspect condition of hydraulic system.
> >>>> * * *(i) Inspect wheel cylinders for leakage and operation. Do not
> >>>> remove dust covers.
> >>>> * * *(ii) Inspect hydraulic hoses and brake lines for leaks, cracks,
> >>>> chafing, flattened or restricted sections, improper support, rusting
> >>>> causing pitting, and improper material.
> >>>> * * *(iii) Inspect master cylinder for leakage and fluid level of all
> >>>> sections. (Be sure no dirt gets into reservoir when cover is removed and
> >>>> that the gasket is serviceable.)
> >>>> * * * * *(a)
> >>>> * * *(i) Wheel cylinder leaks or fails to operate.
> >>>> * * *(ii) Hoses, or brake lines are cracked, chafed, flattened,
> >>>> restricted, or are rusted and pitting is visible, are improperly
> >>>> supported, or lines have been repaired or replaced with copper tubing or
> >>>> other material not designed for hydraulic brake lines. Hoses or brake
> >>>> lines are mounted to contact wheels or body during steering or
> >>>> suspension movement.
> >>>> * * *(iii) Master cylinder leaks.
> >>>> * * *(iv) The fluid level in any section is less than 1/2 full..
> >>>> * * *(v) The gasket does not properly seal master cylinder.
> >>>> Compression fittings fall under the "material not designed for hydraulic
> >>>> brake lines"
> >>>> Connecticut:
> >>>> BRAKE LINES - Tubing must be steel and properly attached and supported
> >>>> (at least every 18")
> >>>> and hoses shall not be kinked, twisted, or frayed. Hoses must not be
> >>>> under tension during full right
> >>>> and full left-hand turn, or during full compression or full extension of
> >>>> suspension. Automotive
> >>>> stainless steel tubing and braided hoses are acceptable but compression
> >>>> fitting will not be allowed.
> >>>> In NY they are specifically called out as an automatic fail if used on
> >>>> any part of the brake system as well.
> >>> Full employment acts for shops and bureaucrats. *A sad byproduct of
> >>> nanny states.
> >> No argument here, I'm glad I don't live in MD anymore. *The inspection
> >> there is brutal; I failed once for a windshield that was "too
> >> sandblasted" I **** you not and had a friend have to replace her exhaust
> >> system because the inspector told her that he wouldn't pass it if an
> >> exhaust shop welded a dime-sized patch over a hole in her muffler. *I'm
> >> all for safe and reliable, but that's just ludicrous.
>
> >> nate
>
> >> --
> >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
> > yes inspections are brutal, but you only have to do them once.. They
> > failed my windshield on an old car I used to own for the same reason
> > ( it did need to be replaced). *Headlights & ball joints always seem
> > to fail too even when the ball joints are new.
>
> > As for the exhaust they probably figured since someone welded over a
> > rust hole that the muffler was probably full of rust. Plus that hole
> > can easily open back up. *Not all that ludicrous.
>
> You may do it once, Many states do it yearly.
>
> --
> Steve W.

Most of the yearly inspections are usually just a safety inspection
(brakes, tires wipers, exhaust etc)


as for the drain hole having a little corrosion that is all he needed
to see. I still don't know why just the muffler couldn't be replaced?
If he had issues in the past letting vehicles slide through he could
have been extra thorough. Who knows.