A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

compression fittings on brake lines



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 13th 13, 11:37 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default compression fittings on brake lines

On 04/12/2013 11:59 AM, Nate Nagel anosognosically driveled:

> Proof that anyone can spew advice on the interwebs


eh? why does the needle on my irony meter seem to be all bent up like a
watch spring???

oh, it's nate spewing "advice" on the interwebs.


--
fact check required
Ads
  #22  
Old April 14th 13, 12:45 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Nate Nagel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,686
Default compression fittings on brake lines

On 04/13/2013 05:52 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> 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.
>


But there are plenty of vehicles out there factory sold without double
flares but ISO "bubble" flares as I discovered to my chagrin when I had
to replace the first brake line on my first GTI And it took me quite
a while to find an inexpensive ISO flare tool, but this was back when
the interwebs weren't as developed as they are today.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  #23  
Old April 14th 13, 12:46 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Nate Nagel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,686
Default compression fittings on brake lines

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
  #24  
Old April 14th 13, 12:47 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Nate Nagel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,686
Default compression fittings on brake lines

On 04/13/2013 06:37 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 11:59 AM, Nate Nagel anosognosically driveled:
>
>> Proof that anyone can spew advice on the interwebs

>
> eh? why does the needle on my irony meter seem to be all bent up like a
> watch spring???
>
> oh, it's nate spewing "advice" on the interwebs.
>
>


hey, we're trying to have a serious discussion here, it was going well
until you shat on the carpet.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  #25  
Old April 15th 13, 04:16 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
m6onz5a
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 691
Default compression fittings on brake lines

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.
  #26  
Old April 15th 13, 05:43 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
Nate Nagel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,686
Default compression fittings on brake lines

On 04/15/2013 11:16 AM, 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.
>


It actually wasn't repaired, she never knew the hole was there. It was
a factory stainless system in excellent shape, it looked like one of the
drain holes in the bottom of the muffler just opened up a little bit
through corrosion. The car wasn't even noticeably louder than stock and
there weren't any leaks/holes anywhere in the exhaust other than that
one little hole in the muffler. The system could have lasted another 10
years or so with a proper repair, but the guy was a total jerk to her
and told her that she had to come back to him for reinspection by law (I
believe that to be true) and that he would fail her unless the entire
exhaust system was replaced (it was a welded assembly from the cat back,
and he insisted that no component replacements were acceptable.) Even
if welding the muffler were unacceptable I do not see why the muffler
alone could not have been replaced and the midpipe reused - like I said,
IMHO they are over the top ludicrous and cause people to spend money
that they don't have to. He also failed her for a crack in the
windshield that was at the upper left corner; technically illegal but
couldn't even be seen from the inside of the car. She ended up spending
about the value of the car just to import it into MD for those two items
alone; the car itself was in good shape as I had gone through the
suspension and brakes and replaced her clutch hydraulics for her and
hadn't noticed anything amiss either by inspection or from test driving
the car.

The car that I took through and failed for the windshield should have
failed - but for a failed brake proportioning valve that I deliberately
did not repair to give the inspector something to catch that I was going
to repair anyway. He missed that but nailed me on the windshield which
was in fine shape. However I didn't fight him as it needed to come out
anyway as it was glued in but leaking around the edges so I just had it
replaced instead of reusing the old one.

My impression of the MD safety inspection is that it must have been
enacted through heavy lobbying by car dealers to make private party car
sales damn near impossible.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  #27  
Old April 15th 13, 06:05 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
Steve W.[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default compression fittings on brake lines

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.
  #28  
Old April 15th 13, 09:00 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
m6onz5a
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 691
Default compression fittings on brake lines

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.
  #29  
Old February 11th 18, 01:18 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
RedRooster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default compression fittings on brake lines

replying to Nate Nagel, RedRooster wrote:
Hey Nate just to let you know... http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/11.14.09.05

--
for full context, visit https://www.motorsforum.com/tech/com...es-110119-.htm


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Compression Fittings On Brake Lines ? Robert11 Technology 10 April 13th 07 06:34 PM
Bleeding brake lines and replacing brake caliper and piston Jason[_1_] Ford Explorer 2 March 20th 07 02:42 AM
Getting fuel line compression fittings leak free Ed Technology 22 January 9th 07 06:50 PM
Info: Note on Ford brake-line fittings Backyard Mechanic Ford Mustang 0 April 17th 06 03:54 PM
VW Brake Lines Morgan Anderson VW air cooled 12 November 27th 05 02:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.