compression fittings on brake lines

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

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

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

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 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

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

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
>
>
> 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
>

I don't know.

A quick web search shows this discussion in multiple venues
with several comments such as 'will probably be OK' without
direct experience and also 'will fail inspection' but no
statute cited. Of course it may be an administrative policy
rather than a statute. Or not.

Frankly I don't see any problem with a normal flared line
which logically seems matched to a 'high stakes risk when it
breaks' application. Flares and flaring tools are cheap,
well supported, ubiquitous and not complex.

If any of my cars had dual-diagonal braking systems and if I
were away from civilization (new brake line and/or a flaring
tool), I _might_ think about a compression fitting. But they
don't and so I don't.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> I don't know.
>
> A quick web search shows this discussion in multiple venues with several
> comments such as 'will probably be OK' without direct experience and
> also 'will fail inspection' but no statute cited. Of course it may be
> an administrative policy rather than a statute. Or not.
>
> Frankly I don't see any problem with a normal flared line which
> logically seems matched to a 'high stakes risk when it breaks'
> application. Flares and flaring tools are cheap, well supported,
> ubiquitous and not complex.
>
> If any of my cars had dual-diagonal braking systems and if I were away
> from civilization (new brake line and/or a flaring tool), I _might_
> think about a compression fitting. But they don't and so I don't.

I agree 100% with your position, problem is that I'm advocating your
position but I can't find any official backup to it (at least in MD or
VA; I have found explicit references for other farther away states)
therefore I'll never change the guy's mind as to what is and isn't a
proper repair as I don't really have any backup.

For my own part I will continue to flare...

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

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

On 2013-04-12, AMuzi > wrote:


> A quick web search shows this discussion in multiple venues
> with several comments such as 'will probably be OK' without
> direct experience and also 'will fail inspection' but no
> statute cited. Of course it may be an administrative policy
> rather than a statute. Or not.
>
> Frankly I don't see any problem with a normal flared line
> which logically seems matched to a 'high stakes risk when it
> breaks' application. Flares and flaring tools are cheap,
> well supported, ubiquitous and not complex.

Some folks even argue that adding the additional flare fittings
in the line is too dangerous. I disagreed with this as I have
found that flare fittings once they aren't leaking they'll never
leak until someone attempts to take them apart and the line breaks
because the fittings are rusted together.

> If any of my cars had dual-diagonal braking systems and if I
> were away from civilization (new brake line and/or a flaring
> tool), I _might_ think about a compression fitting. But they
> don't and so I don't.

In a pinch to get home yeah... just about anything goes under such
conditions. If I had no flare tool and all I could get a hold of was
plumbing materials... ok... that's desparation mode to hobble carefully
home or to the nearest place where the proper materials could be
purchased. For an actual long-term repair? no.

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.