Brake lines

[monte]

Sorry Mark wasnt having a go at you ,just taking the piss out of me old mate grazza there ,i didnt realise it looked serious

[monte]

Mark ,it looks nothing like copper so you might have to go back to painting steel ones ,its more a brass color than copper ,im buggered if i can find a bit in my messy shed

[Mark Saunders]

Sorry Mark wasnt having a go at you ,just taking the piss out of me old mate grazza there ,i didnt realise it looked serious

Really........ why would anyone do that

[Grazza]

Prolly 'cause I take every bit of piss pulling as a personal attack on my good self I guess...................................

[Oldcol]

No mate

The problem was people taking a car with 50+ year old copper brake lines and changing the brake system and then attempting to do new flares on the old copper line ....... they split during flaring, because the copper had hardened over time.

The other problem, that I know of, was people finding OLD copper brake lines would leak when the fittings were removed and the reinstalled. Again the copper had hardened over time and split when the flare was tightened

The diagnosis, in the late 60's, was that copper lines hardened over time due to vibration
So use of copper line was banned on rods

So the investigation we need to do now is ......... does a 90% copper 10% alloy have the same problem

....not so sure I agree with much of that , if someone was silly enough to re-use 50 year old lines ,then change and re-flare them......wouldn't they still be silly enough to do the same thing if the lines were steel?.....plus ,Copper doesn't work harden because it's old, it's more likely that it'd be in better condition after the 50 years than the steel lines due to the steel lines being prone to rust inside from moisture contamination of fluid and outside from dirt ,dust and moisture. Copper has better sealing characteristics than steel flares and will stand much more tighten and loosen cycles ,nor will copper rust inside the fittings and twist off the end of the line when you try to loosen them. Brake Copper was in wide use until some time during the 80's , from what I could determine , the contributing factors to it's decline in use were more economic , as it was mainly the aftermarket and repair industry who were happy to pay for the better product as most manufacturers are cost driven and use the cheaper steel product. Another drama was that regular thin wall copper such as you might buy from the plumbing supply was not easily distinguishable from the purpose made brake Copper tubing ,so , short of drilling a hole in it to see how thick it was there was no easy way to tell.....so in the end ,for whatever reason,it simply disappeared from the shelves and attempts by me to find out why from suppliers and manufacturers didn't get much of a result.....apart from the commonly spoken of theories much like we're getting here at the moment , none of which I've ever seen or heard of being proven as actual fact.
As a practical demo to myself ( 'coz I'd heard all these unsubstantiated reasons, rumours,whatever for years too), when I stripped my '36 down for a fixup after 150,000 miles ( real miles,not poofy Kilo's ) done over a 20 odd year period as a daily driver , I removed all it's old but perfectly workable Copper lines and carefully inspected every inch of them for evidence of this alleged tendency to workharden ,corrode,get damaged by rocks or any other perceived issue at all.....and do you know what I found ?.....nothing..... ... if I wasn't boxing the frame and changing the place where the lines ran before ,I could have re-used them with confidence. So I figured then that since they were destined for a date with the bin anyway ,I'd twist and bend the shit out of them to see what it'd take to make them fail......and it was a tough job to fatigue them to the extent that they'd break.....I think they held up better than I did.

Happens also that I have them on my '35 Chevy,they went on when it was done in about '79/80 , along with Copper clutch and fuel lines and all still seem to be doing an admirable job today ,although it's done nothing like the mileage of the '36.....



....you can see them in this pic from late last year running around the front crossmember , properly secured by Adel clips......all we did was give everything a clean while the engine was out, polish the lines up again and off we go for another 20/30 years or so.....
I'm more than happy to run genuine brake copper and would readily use this new stuff Monte has shown us in preference to cheap steel as I've always been a bit suss about the merits of steel tubing..... ever since my old Mum burst a brake line in her FE Hold-on in the late 60's.....from dirt build up along the inside of the sills that caused a rust out of the line and total brake failure.....

PS, please excuse the earlier spelling stuff ups ,now fixed ( I hope ).....got a load of visitors and I was in a hurry to get the post all finished and didn't get a chance to proof read it.....ciao.

[santa28a]

those tests mean nothing Col.............
........because you do not have any letters after your name or a certificate hanging on your office wall and I have never seen you wearing a white dust coat or carrying a clipboard

[Oldcol]

...well...I've got a clipboard and a certificate somewhere .....dust coat....no....letters yes,but not necessarily the ones you mean....

[Mark Saunders]

Thanks for the input Col

Talked to a couple of the older TAC guys today, and too Peter Koning

The work hardening issue with copper was due to vibration, particularly long sections of line that aren't restrained adequately, or in situations where the line goes from a body mounted component accross to the chassis (eg firewall mounted MC). It wasn't a common thing. but made doing flares a hit and miss affair, and sometimes issues occured on removing and refitting fittings.

As mentioned above, part of the problem for the TAC is, as you experienced, it is impossible to tell if it has an issue from a visual inspection.
So the TAC just put in a "no copper" rule, and rules on distance between mounting points

Anyway, not much point in having a debate about why a decision was made decades ago. Water under the bridge
Lets concentrate on the question Monte raised

Peter has done some research on the copper-nickel alloy brake line
It meets the usual standards, and is proven in OEM environments

Next step is to email all the TAC chairpersons and ask if they have any issues, or can see any inspection issues.

More later

[Oldcol]

....fair enough ,but the vibration issue would be the same,maybe even more of an issue with steel tube. Any material subjected to continual vibration would be affected .....still think the whole copper thing was based on a faulty premise , but as you say....it's a done deal. Just don't ask me to change mine......

[Mark Saunders]

Just don't ask me to change mine......

I was asked to change the copper fuel lines installed in my old 30 A Roadster ........ household copper and compression fittings
A copper capilliary tube for the oil sender/guage was similar, and it burst showering hot oil over my legs one night
But both had been in the car 30+ years
It was a top show car when it was built

I have seen some dodgey shit over the years, but the stories brake guys have told me make them pale into insignificance

[Mark Saunders]

I think Cols experience says it all..so lets go with that..interestingly the chinese four wheel drives coming here had leaky brake lines from new so it appears elcheapo steel still has issues from factory..Im going with the fact the best seals are with copper even if it is an alloy.

Go for it ....... but

The National Code of Practice on Modified Vehicles covers brakes in this document
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... an2011.pdf

Section 2.4 says

2.4 COMPONENT STANDARDS
All components and devices in the Brake System must meet or exceed at least one appropriate
recognised international, national or association standard, where such standards exist, or the
relevant parts thereof. (Recognised can be taken as meaning AS, SAA, SAE, BS, JIS, ISO or
DIN standards).
Hydraulic pipes must be made from steel bundy tube complying with SAE J1047 or equivalent.
All hydraulic pipes must be double flared in accordance with SAE J5336 or equivalent and
appropriate flare connections must be used.
Hydraulic pipes must not be welded, brazed or silver soldered.
Hydraulic brake hoses must comply with SAE J1401 or equivalent. Flexible hoses complying
with ADR 7/... or ADR 42/ 04, including braided brake hoses, are also acceptable.

and section 2.7.4 says

Copper tubing must not be used for hydraulic brakes.
Hydraulic brake pipes must not be joined by brazing or silver soldering. They must be joined by
appropriate flaring of the tube and associated fittings.
Section LG Brakes
Version 2.0 – 1 January 2011 Page 10/LG23
Threaded bosses used for braking component mounting must have full depth thread
engagement of at least the bolt diameter.

So if you run copper, be prepared to discuss it with your certifying engineer and VICROADS

I'm not sure the TAC can even decide to accept Copper-Nickel, given the above sections in VSB-14
I THINK it would need to go to AMVCB as an amendment, or at least be issued as a VSI by each state RTA
I will investigate .....as soon as I find my lab coat and clipboard

[Mark Saunders]

I would say thats equivelant ....

My reading of the words is that the "equivalent" word relates to just the referenced standard, not the whole sentence.
So steel bundy tubing that meets the ISO, DIN or BS equivalents to SAEJ107 would be OK,
I don't THINK it is intended to mean alternate materials too steel bundy tubing

However the no copper clause in 2.7.4 kind of ends it anyway

We will investigate, but this makes it more complex

[Oldcol]

Just don't ask me to change mine......

I was asked to change the copper fuel lines installed in my old 30 A Roadster ........ household copper and compression fittings
A copper capilliary tube for the oil sender/guage was similar, and it burst showering hot oil over my legs one night
But both had been in the car 30+ years
It was a top show car when it was built

I have seen some dodgey shit over the years, but the stories brake guys have told me make them pale into insignificance

...me too.....and that's part of the risk you take when you buy someone else's homebuilt old car , you make a mighty big assumption that the original builder knew what he was doing and that he wasn't a career tightarse that used bodgy parts. Difference in my case is I built the car and bought the best quality parts I could source . I'm not and wasn't suggesting to 4x2 that he uses Copper ,Steel,Plastic or anything else , just relating my personal experience and how it stacked up against what "they" said of the product ( "they" being the overabundant experts that seem to know all about everything in life and motorcars and are all too willing to point out how much more they know than yourself ).....what I'm really interested in is finding out about the new stuff that Monte has shown us , 'coz I still think steel brake lines are second rate , but there's been little choice until now it seems......and this appears to be a decent alternative. Hope it can be proven to be acceptable.

As an aside ( sounds a bit like Frank here ).......your quote about not cutting and welding,joining,etc.......I had a finished car delivered for repairs a while back ,it was a previously fully rego'd car from interstate and had come straight from an engineers inspection with a bit of a list of dodgy shit to heal up.....but what the engineer didn't spot and I dunno how.....was all the brake lines were made up from short sections of maybe 2ft long , and slid together and either brazed or silver soldered together to form long lengths . I've also seen that more recently on a US import , but nothing out of there surprises me too much anymore.

[Oldcol]

I would say thats equivelant ....

My reading of the words is that the "equivalent" word relates to just the referenced standard, not the whole sentence.
So steel bundy tubing that meets the ISO, DIN or BS equivalents to SAEJ107 would be OK,
I don't THINK it is intended to mean alternate materials too steel bundy tubing

However the no copper clause in 2.7.4 kind of ends it anyway

We will investigate, but this makes it more complex

.....at the risk of prolonging all this......how often do you get a spec. sheet with the tubing when you purchase it, even from a reputable brake shop?.....and does anyone ever ask for one or of proof of compliance to a spec.?......seems all that ever has happened is the engineer or roadworthy guy might give it a quick visual scan and see that it's steel tube and not copper , and that's the end of it. Who's to know if it's not the worst POS low end product out of China....last few times I've bought any it's come in a plain cardboard box without even a retailer or distributors name on it. So if it did crap itself , you have no way of proving what it was or even if it was the same stuff you had an invoice for. Retailer could just say "nup,didn't get it off us , so eff off Sonny Jim". or the more usual response of "no-one else has ever complained, it must be something you've done". Got that one last week when a battery failed after a week and one day , but that's getting a little off subject here , although it does seem a popular rejoinder these days

[monte]

I would say thats equivelant ....

My reading of the words is that the "equivalent" word relates to just the referenced standard, not the whole sentence.
So steel bundy tubing that meets the ISO, DIN or BS equivalents to SAEJ107 would be OK,
I don't THINK it is intended to mean alternate materials too steel bundy tubing

However the no copper clause in 2.7.4 kind of ends it anyway

We will investigate, but this makes it more complex

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