Brake lines

[Mark Saunders]

should be more " experienced" rod and car builders that sign off on car builds

That is the concept behind the TAC's and with each club having a TAC rep that can hook you up with experienced people to give advise

[Mark Saunders]

I dont know how many times i have to say this ,but this is not copper ,nothing like copper ,its like saying stainless is the same as steel ,its a completely different material that is used by millions of cars all over the world ,including in australia ,so lets see what the tac says about it and take it from there

prety sure I understand what it is Monte ....... an alloy of 90% copper and 10% nickel

and I remember enough of my metalurgy studies to know broadly what properties such an alloy will exhibit

I could even do a scientific diatribe about what is and isn't steel, and what level of additives copper can have before it is no longer copper

and I could do a spirited argument that this material does comply with SAEJ2047, and isn't copper, and therefore based on science and common sense SHOULD be acceptable

..... but rego rules aren't a function of science, or even common sense
they are a function of rules written by people, and the interpretation of those rules

The "rules" situation seems to be that:

• OEM manufactureres can use any line material that meets the SAEJ2047
  Modified vehicles can only use "steel bundy line" and that copper is banned

I already have a response from one TAC, and it just so happens they had already queried the RTA on this subject and had the exact answer we need sitting on file
I will hopefully have the rest of the TAC responces in this week

[monte]

I used stainless steel on my 36 that aint steel bundy tube and im sure hundreds of other rods have used it to so where does that leave us

[LIFESTYLZ]

I used stainless steel on my 36 that aint steel bundy tube and im sure hundreds of other rods have used it to so where does that leave us

Up the creek ..

[monte]

Is that shit creek without a paddle,ill be paddling in some good company anyway

[Mark Saunders]

Well here is some basic info on copper nickel alloys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupronickel
Commonly used on coins, including our $1 and $2

Stainless steel is still steel, it's just a different alloy
Simplisticly, any alloy predominately based on Iron is considered "steel"

I have some metalurgy texts with ancient mixes for various steel's
Some of them measure the carbon content in animal carcases .... or worse

[Grazza]

I already have a response from one TAC, and it just so happens they had already queried the RTA on this subject and had the exact answer we need sitting on file
I will hopefully have the rest of the TAC responces in this week

If it is in deed the exact answer we need, then we can use this stuff to plumb the brakes on Modified cars. Afterall we are all working under the NSRG,aren't we?

[tub1935]

I fully accept some of us may have different ideas re brake pipes but im sure that a quality job is the most important thing, along with quality parts, to much china junk! and in some areas that's all the part places have ,I haven't ever had a brake or clutch pipe give trouble in 30 years,and have used copper and steel types but I was taught how to use a flaring tool properly and mount pipes ,it was a friendly hot rodder that showed the way should be more of that type of help .I think its very important for the flares to be correct ,as well as the pipe construction .while were are on the brake pipe subject what about brake hose construction looked at some on one of my cars the other day frigin hoses got cracks in them ,only been on there 14 years ,should of left the brake rods no cracks from 1935

[Mark Saunders]

I already have a response from one TAC, and it just so happens they had already queried the RTA on this subject and had the exact answer we need sitting on file
I will hopefully have the rest of the TAC responces in this week

If it is in deed the exact answer we need, then we can use this stuff to plumb the brakes on Modified cars. Afterall we are all working under the NSRG,aren't we?

I have one answer, from one TAC .....and it's not your one

I need input from all states TAC, and then depending on what those answers are we may need to discuss the next step with all state RTA

Not a quick simple process, and nor should it be
Rules about brakes aren't something to get sloppy or hasty with, as I am sure you would agree

patience grasshopper

[fc ute]

Ok I think I willl go with mild steel lines..I can see some environments where stainless would be the go but otherwise mild steel seems sensible for basic reliability and for basic beginnners like me les f^^^ up factor.
I see the Aero flow coated steel stuff apparently looks like chrome..
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/AEROFLOW-COA ... 2c70a0ee17

my previous experience has been to simply rock up at a brake joint with a damaged bit and get them to make it but really want to do it myself.

we sell this type at ARMADALE AUTO PARTS for $30 a coil, looks shiny and bends/straightens easily, i have used it on heaps of cars and havnt had a problem yet

[Mark Saunders]

technically its also a steel alloy cos it contains 1.4% steel.so tecnically its still a form of steel tubing

My recollection from when I studied metallurgy and worked at Australian Iron and Steel is that to be classed as a Steel, the primary ingrediant needs to be Iron
Those rules may have changed, it's been 30 years

Something with 88.6% copper...... is an alloy of copper ....... but nice try

Anyway, having a debate amongst ourselves is fun, but doesn't make any difference to the "rules"

We have rules that say NO COPPER LINE.
To change those rules can take a significant amount of time
NSRG V2.0 has taken ten years

So even if all TAC agree it's a change we would like to make, it could take a while to convince the Government
or it could also be really quick, if the Government or Industry initiate the change, or if it is deemed a critical safety issue

In the mean time, it sounds like people are using it anyway and the certifyers either haven't noticed, or decided on a per case basis that it was OK

However now the question has been asked by Monte, we are now discussing it at the TAC, so the process for change has started

[woody28A]

G'day Mark, just a thought, if the rules say "no copper lines" etc., do they allow the use of O.E.M brake lines from an existing vehicle?
I don't have NSRG guidelines handy.
If so, I'd imagine they could be of the cupro/nickle variety.
O.E.M. don't move away from, or introduce a new product/method without good reason and lots of vehicles are registered using the products.
I know VSB-14 sec. LG 2.4 states "Hydraulic pipes must be made from steel bundy tube complying with SAE J1047 or equivalent" .
I would imagine any O.E.M pipes conforming to SAE J1047 ( which should by now read J2047) or equivalent would have to be acceptable, including O.E.M cupro/nickle varieties.
Or does all this mean that publications like VSB -14 et all ,are simply not up to date with modern technology and standards.
Oh, and yes I know they are written by people, but I would have thought some of their responsibility was to keep them up to date. These publications are written and published by those who are setting the technical standards.

[choco]

You will all have to forgive Mark, as he is absolutely anal about the wording or "rules" and "guidelines" and their subsequent interpretation. That's not a criticism, it's just the way he is. Most of us understand the "intent" of such rules and guidelines, but for some, that's not good enough. I have argued with him often enough to know this.

I have been watching this thread, and I'm very interested in the outcome, but I'm sure that if my engineer approved the copper alloy brake lines, it would be because the engineer was happy that the "intent" of the rules have been followed. I have always made my own brake lines and done all my own flares. The cars are all still on the road and still stopping. All used steel bundy line purchased from a reputable brake supplies shop. But I just HATE the shaping and bending of the lines, I waste so much of it because I just never seem to get it perfect. I have all the expensive bending tools, but they don't help. Having something more maleable would be great!

It's also interesting to see that the Hopper's Stoppers web site supports the NSRG on its ban on straight copper lines, due to potential age fatigue issues.

[monte]

Choco ,you will love this product ,its so easy to bend and flare you just wont believe ,and it polishes up a treat ,but it will discolor in time ,id suggest polish and a clearcoat over it ,gee i hope the tac come through on this one as it is soooo much better than steel

[Mark Saunders]

OK, so here is some more info

VSB 14 seems to be the only document applicable Nationally that says NO copper

NSRG says

Rigid brake pipes must be made from tubing designed for use with automotive brake systems. Connections must be flared in a manner suitable for the chosen fittings and the tubing is to be supported with a rigid mount at intervals of no more than 300mm. Brake pipes must not be joined by welding or brazing.

So anything designed for auto use is OK, and since Copper-Nickel is used by OEM that satisfies that requirement

I have responces back from seven of the eight RTA
Two have already checked with the RTA

All those states that responded are happy with Copper-Nickel for full rego, as long as the supports are 300mm or less if the tubing manufacturer says less than 300mm ..... read the product sheet
We have one states limited rego scheme that includes a NO copper rule, so that needs further investigation

Still waiting for one state TAC to investigate and work out an answer

Seperately, we need to get one of the RTA to raise this with AMVCB to get VSB 14 updated to add Copper-Nickel to the clause in 2.4, and reword 2.7.4

All good so far