compression fittings on brake lines

On Apr 12, 3:03*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 02:50 PM, m6onz5a wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 2:30 pm, 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
>
> >> --
> >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
> > I know here in Maryland compression fittings will fail on Maryland
> > inspections. But I also have customers that use them too. *As far as I
> > know they haven't had any issues with them. I know I wouldn't want
> > them on my car. *I'll only use unions, or replace the whole line.
>
> > Chas
>
> is there a publicly available document that explicitly states that
> compression fittings should fail a safety inspection? *This is actually
> pertinent as the guy to whom I was talking is in MD but not an inspector
> and I'm sure he'd appreciate a correction if it saves him from potential
> future liability down the road.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

You can always ask the State Police

On 04/12/2013 07:48 PM, Steve W. wrote:
> Geoff Welsh wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits
>>> their use?
>>>
>>
>> will you settle for proof (almost) by contradiction?;
>>
>> http://standards.sae.org/j2879_201107/
>>
>> indicates that SAE spec J2879 "applies to 90 degree double inverted
>> flares used on common sizes of automotive hydraulic brake tubes, and
>> their associated tube nuts and mating ports"
>>
>> every test I've ever taken, had as the correct answer for brake line
>> repair, "use a double flare".
>>
>> and that's enough for me,
>> GW
>
>
> The problem is that some states don't have anything in the requirements
> other than something general like "the brakes must stop the vehicle"
> REALLY??
>
> I know a few states specifically call attention to compression fittings
> being bad juju.

Understood, but it doesn't seem like MD or VA explicitly do so...

>
> Personally by the time you get the correct compression fitting size, get
> the line clean enough to seal and cut correctly, it it faster and easier
> to spool out some line and flare it.

Agreed!

> I keep a good supply of line in steel, stainless and cunifer on hand.
> plus all the fittings and about 4 different flare tools.

Thread drift: what flaring tool do you use on 3/16" stainless tubing? I
would love to be able to fab my own stainless lines but the instructions
for my best flaring tool (K-D I think?) explicitly state that it's not
for use on stainless, presumably because it's harder than the mild steel
that seems to be the standard.

Thread drift 2: while at the parts store buying fittings for my friend's
repair, the sales guy showed me some of the new copper-nickel tubing, so
it's apparently on sale here now. Has anyone had any experience with
safety inspections on a car that has had this tubing used? We didn't
use it because his pickup is 20 years old and the tubing was very
expensive, but if I end up having to replace a line on a car I plan on
keeping a long time, this might be a good option.

nate



--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 04/12/2013 07:41 PM, 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"
>

I'd agree with that but this seems to be kind of an "inspector
discretion" thing so lacking a friend who's a certified inspector I
still don't really have any backup for my position...

> 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.


yes, that seems like a more sensible law... but that seems to also
prohibit the new copper-nickel stuff which sounds like a bad idea on the
face of it but apparently does not have the work-hardening
characteristics that one would expect from a copper alloy, and the
thought of being able to use a nice soft metal that doesn't rust is very
appealing.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Apr 12, 6:02*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 05:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/12/2013 1:59 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> >> On 04/12/2013 02:30 PM, 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
>
> >> Proof that anyone can spew advice on the interwebs
>
> >>http://www.ehow.com/how_5499634_spli...ake-lines.html
>
>
> BTW is it just me or has steel tubing gotten softer over the years? *I
> had to do three different flares to make the repair, one under the
> vehicle (which always scares me, I prefer working on the bench) and they
> weren't nearly as much of a PITA as I remembered. *I did deburr the
> lines and dress with a file before attempting to flare but I was doing
> that before as well. *Been years since I've had to break out the flaring
> tool and I can't say that I really miss it, but it is awful handy to
> have (and it just looks more professional when your lines are the exact
> right length rather than having loops in them...)
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

yes brake lines seem to be softer now. the 25ft roll we sell is much
softer than the straight pieces we sell too

Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 07:48 PM, Steve W. wrote:
>> Geoff Welsh wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits
>>>> their use?
>>>>
>>> will you settle for proof (almost) by contradiction?;
>>>
>>> http://standards.sae.org/j2879_201107/
>>>
>>> indicates that SAE spec J2879 "applies to 90 degree double inverted
>>> flares used on common sizes of automotive hydraulic brake tubes, and
>>> their associated tube nuts and mating ports"
>>>
>>> every test I've ever taken, had as the correct answer for brake line
>>> repair, "use a double flare".
>>>
>>> and that's enough for me,
>>> GW
>>
>> The problem is that some states don't have anything in the requirements
>> other than something general like "the brakes must stop the vehicle"
>> REALLY??
>>
>> I know a few states specifically call attention to compression fittings
>> being bad juju.
>
> Understood, but it doesn't seem like MD or VA explicitly do so...
>
>> Personally by the time you get the correct compression fitting size, get
>> the line clean enough to seal and cut correctly, it it faster and easier
>> to spool out some line and flare it.
>
> Agreed!
>
>> I keep a good supply of line in steel, stainless and cunifer on hand.
>> plus all the fittings and about 4 different flare tools.
>
> Thread drift: what flaring tool do you use on 3/16" stainless tubing? I
> would love to be able to fab my own stainless lines but the instructions
> for my best flaring tool (K-D I think?) explicitly state that it's not
> for use on stainless, presumably because it's harder than the mild steel
> that seems to be the standard.

Mastercool hydraulic for on car stuff, if I am at the bench a Sealey PFT07
Both make a flare that looks factory with very little effort. The only
bad flare the Sealy did was because the tubing was made wrong.

>
> Thread drift 2: while at the parts store buying fittings for my friend's
> repair, the sales guy showed me some of the new copper-nickel tubing, so
> it's apparently on sale here now. Has anyone had any experience with
> safety inspections on a car that has had this tubing used? We didn't
> use it because his pickup is 20 years old and the tubing was very
> expensive, but if I end up having to replace a line on a car I plan on
> keeping a long time, this might be a good option.
>
> nate
>

Cunifer is legal in NY. I use it on some vehicles and it polishes up
nice and doesn't corrode like steel. It's been in use on some imports
for a while. It is MUCH easier to bend and form than steel.

--
Steve W.

Steve W. wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:

>> Thread drift: what flaring tool do you use on 3/16" stainless tubing?
>> I would love to be able to fab my own stainless lines but the
>> instructions for my best flaring tool (K-D I think?) explicitly state
>> that it's not for use on stainless, presumably because it's harder
>> than the mild steel that seems to be the standard.
>
> Mastercool hydraulic for on car stuff,

I drool every time I see that set in a tool catalog, but I know the cost
to "me using it" ratio is nearly infinite, so I don't have one.

I think Kent-Moore makes/made a nice set too, or maybe it was superseded
by the Mastercool.
GW

Geoff Welsh wrote:
> Steve W. wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>> Thread drift: what flaring tool do you use on 3/16" stainless tubing?
>>> I would love to be able to fab my own stainless lines but the
>>> instructions for my best flaring tool (K-D I think?) explicitly state
>>> that it's not for use on stainless, presumably because it's harder
>>> than the mild steel that seems to be the standard.
>> Mastercool hydraulic for on car stuff,
>
> I drool every time I see that set in a tool catalog, but I know the cost
> to "me using it" ratio is nearly infinite, so I don't have one.
>
> I think Kent-Moore makes/made a nice set too, or maybe it was superseded
> by the Mastercool.
> GW

It was a "I've had it with this CHEAP POS flare tool" purchase. Took
about 2 flares and a GM fuel line and it became a "Why in the hell
didn't you buy this before" item.

It is great for making just about any flare needed. If you do one set of
lines for one car it pays for itself in flare quality very fast.
The bench unit is faster in most respects but not good under a vehicle.


--
Steve W.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:59:37 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>On 04/12/2013 02:30 PM, 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
>>
>
>Proof that anyone can spew advice on the interwebs
>
>http://www.ehow.com/how_5499634_spli...ake-lines.html
>
>Sadly, ehow doesn't seem to have a "-1" button. I'm guessing most
>intelligent people take anything posted there with a shaker of salt
>anyway, but really, this is astonishingly irresponsible.
>
>nate

Got curious and googled on this subject. Lots of opinions of course.
Looks like there really isn't any reason not to use compression
fittings as far as them coming apart, the only issue seemed to be
leaking if the compression fittings are over-compressed. People don't
like their brake fluid leaking out. And don't use brass on steel
tubing. So when all is said it looks like it can be done safely if
you pay attention to what you are doing but that still doesn't answer
the "is it legal" question. I'd guess the reason it's not legal, if
it fact it's not, is because there is an SAE spec on braking systems
requiring double flare fittings and that the SAE spec is incorporated
by reference into the safety regs.

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.

On 04/13/2013 03:01 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.
>

technically, the conical flare junction can seal better than a radial
compression junction. compression may work ok most of the time, but it
relies on surface finish quality which is not controlled and therefore
the failure rate is higher.


--
fact check required