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.