carnut222
OK, riddle me this. I put some of the SS brake hoses from FCP, which are DOT approved, on a mate’s car. He took it for a RWC and the guy said no good because they’re not ADR approved...is it something specific to the braided SS hoses? I wouldn’t think the standard rubber hoses would say ADR on them, so why is it different with the SS hoses?
carnut222
“Shoulda taken it to Berry Motor Group” right
@iceton1975 as they know Volvos. :)
iceton1975
My understanding is you cant see if they leaking internal, but yes its a load of crap
timbo
Dot approval is acceptable for certain components but I think they're pretty fussy with brake hoses eg:the manufacturer has to have adr certification. I think @Angus242164 would know the specifics?
carnut222
I found this:
ADR 42 - General Safety Requirements
The function of this Australian Design Rule is to specify design and construction requirements to ensure safe operation of vehicles.
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 42/04 ?
General Safety Requirements) 2005
Compilation: 1 (up to and including Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule
42/04 ? General Safety Requirements) 2005 Amendment 1)
Compilation Date: 12th October 2007
Compiled by: Vehicle Safety Standards, Department of Transport and Regional
Services
15. BRAKE TUBING AND BRAKE HOSE
Flexible hydraulic brake hoses, air or vacuum brake tubing and air and
vacuum hose, flexible and hydraulic power hose between the Brake
Power Unit 31/00 or Brake Power Unit 35/00 and the master cylinder
or its equivalent must conform to SAA, SAE, BS, JIS, DIN, ISO or ECE
Standards specified for flexible brake hoses, air brake tubing or hose or
vacuum brake tubing or hose or hydraulic power tubing or hose and be
fitted to the vehicle as to prevent chafing, kinking or other mechanical
damage under normal motion of the parts to which they are attached.
Unfortunately the Techna-fit brake hoses are DOT approved, which isn’t mentioned in the above conformance list. Hmm...shoulda put a f**king yellow shrink wrap segment on each hose before installing them.
carnut222
OK, so the ADR was amended as follows:
This amendment adds to the list of acceptable alternative hydraulic brake hose standards by including the one adopted by the United States of America; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard FMVSS 106 - Brake Hoses
Amended version includes FMVSS 106...so now I need to figure out if FMVSS 106 is the same as having US DOT approval...
BRAKE TUBING AND BRAKE HOSE
Flexible hydraulic brake hoses, air or vacuum brake tubing and air and vacuum hose, flexible and hydraulic power hose between the „Brake Power Unit 31/00‟ or „Brake Power Unit 35/00‟ and the master cylinder or its equivalent must conform to SAA, SAE, BS, JIS, DIN, ISO or ECE Standards, or FMVSS 106 Brake Hoses, specified for flexible brake hoses, air brake tubing or hose or vacuum brake tubing or hose or hydraulic power tubing or hose and be fitted to the vehicle as to prevent chafing, kinking or other mechanical damage under normal motion of the parts to which they are attached
carnut222
OK, based on the above, and this, I think DOT approved brake hoses should now be acceptable for ADR...may just need to educate the RWC tester?
Brake hoses are the most government-regulated components on a vehicle. Anyone making brake assemblies must be registered with the Department of Transportation (DOT). All aftermarket hose, fittings and complete hoses must conform to FMVSS 106 and SAE J1401. These tests are demanding and often exceed what a vehicle will see in the real world.
The DOT standard in a nutshell says brake hoses must be flexible in a wide range of temperatures while having a predictable expansion rate so the pedal feel and ABS response is the same in winter and summer. It also specifies that hoses must be able to bend and twist at certain angles without collapsing, kinking or bursting.
FMVSS 106 and SAE J1401 do not specify construction or materials. These documents outline a test procedure that completed hose must pass.
Ovlover
What makes them approved is having the braiding sealed. Issue being that dirt can get in between the braids rubbing the rubber and causing a leak if they are not.
carnut222
Ovlover;c-155357 wroteWhat makes them approved is having the braiding sealed. Issue being that dirt can get in between the braids rubbing the rubber and causing a leak if they are not.
Yep these have an outer clear sheath. I know some of the early ones (in fact the ones on my ES!) have no plastic outer sheath...been fine for 28 years so fingers crossed! I think the plastic outer sheath was added to ensure any leakage could be detected as with the braided SS only a leak could sort of be absorbed into the SS and dust and be harder to spot, whereas with the added plastic sheath it’s captured in there and becomes more obvious on inspection.
Spac
Like so many ADRs, the ideas behind them aren't always supported by evidence or experience.
I am pretty certain that the ADRs were *actually* created as a form of import tariff.
carnut222
Spac;c-155361 wroteLike so many ADRs, the ideas behind them aren't always supported by evidence or experience.
I am pretty certain that the ADRs were *actually* created as a form of import tariff.
Yeah, I thought with the demise of the local car industry they were doing away with them or going to make ECE or FMVSS standards acceptable? Guess that probably stalled in government at the moment...
Angus242164
I'm a roadworthy inspector in Victoria, and additionally the business I work for makes rubber and braided brake hoses using a Brakequip setup.
In the past, we interpreted the wording of the rules in the roadworthy regulations literally, as we are supposed to, and as they stated that braided hoses "must" be stamped with an ADR approval number, we failed any that didn't have such a number, even if they had international standards approval markings.
A few years ago, a bulletin was issued stating that hoses marked with international approval markings, eg: DOT, TUV etc. are now acceptable, as those standards are considered by Vicroads to be parallel to the applicable ADR for brake hoses.
Hoses with no approval marks are still grounds for failure of the roadworthy inspection.
I can try to find the bulletin at work if anybody is interested.
Our Brakequip braided hoses are an ADR approved and marked system, and the hose has a protective plastic sheath over the braid. I don't know whether hoses without a sheath can be approved under ADR or any international standards.
There is no requirement for any markings on rubber hoses.
Philia_Bear
carnut222;c-155362 wroteSpac;c-155361 wroteLike so many ADRs, the ideas behind them aren't always supported by evidence or experience.
I am pretty certain that the ADRs were *actually* created as a form of import tariff.
Yeah, I thought with the demise of the local car industry they were doing away with them or going to make ECE or FMVSS standards acceptable? Guess that probably stalled in government at the moment...
Off topic but it begs the question if aus would be better off swapping to RHD so we could have stupidly cheap cars directly from both euro mainland and America
How much could GDP be improved if we didn't waste so much money on trucks and cars and also our innovative remaining engineering capability could be more directly exported to larger markets
The existing fleet can be offloaded to a number of countries and direct importation of anything from the USA which has better minimum safety standards of equipment
carnut222
Angus242164;c-155365 wroteI'm a roadworthy inspector in Victoria, and additionally the business I work for makes rubber and braided brake hoses using a Brakequip setup.
In the past, we interpreted the wording of the rules in the roadworthy regulations literally, as we are supposed to, and as they stated that braided hoses "must" be stamped with an ADR approval number, we failed any that didn't have such a number, even if they had international standards approval markings.
A few years ago, a bulletin was issued stating that hoses marked with international approval markings, eg: DOT, TUV etc. are now acceptable, as those standards are considered by Vicroads to be parallel to the applicable ADR for brake hoses.
Hoses with no approval marks are still grounds for failure of the roadworthy inspection.
I can try to find the bulletin at work if anybody is interested.
Our Brakequip braided hoses are an ADR approved and marked system, and the hose has a protective plastic sheath over the braid. I don't know whether hoses without a sheath can be approved under ADR or any international standards.
Thanks Angus - that’s extremely helpful. The Techna-fit hoses are stamped “DOT” and “FTS” which I think is their brand name:
Angus242164
If the DOT is visible on the hoses themselves, it should be an immediate pass.
If they only say "FTS" on them that may not mean anything to a roadworthy inspector, and you would probably need to print off that page and give it to them ("supporting documentation ") as it isn't the inspector's responsibility to do that sort of research, and they aren't doing anything wrong by failing it on initial inspection.
carnut222
Angus242164;c-155368 wroteIf the DOT is visible on the hoses themselves, it should be an immediate pass.
If they only say "FTS" on them that may not mean anything to a roadworthy inspector, and you would probably need to print off that page and give it to them ("supporting documentation ") as it isn't the inspector's responsibility to do that sort of research, and they aren't doing anything wrong by failing it on initial inspection.
On one side of the black plastic moulded end it says “FTS” and the other side it says “DOT”. The text is quite small so we will point it out to the RWC inspector.
Angus242164
They should pass in that case, the only other issue will be if the inspector isn't aware of the bulletin and is still working to the old rules, hopefully not but some people aren't great with keeping up with changes to the rules.
PaddlerEd
Philia_Bear;c-155366 wrotecarnut222;c-155362 wroteSpac;c-155361 wroteLike so many ADRs, the ideas behind them aren't always supported by evidence or experience.
I am pretty certain that the ADRs were *actually* created as a form of import tariff.
Yeah, I thought with the demise of the local car industry they were doing away with them or going to make ECE or FMVSS standards acceptable? Guess that probably stalled in government at the moment...
Off topic but it begs the question if aus would be better off swapping to RHD so we could have stupidly cheap cars directly from both euro mainland and America
How much could GDP be improved if we didn't waste so much money on trucks and cars and also our innovative remaining engineering capability could be more directly exported to larger markets
The existing fleet can be offloaded to a number of countries and direct importation of anything from the USA which has better minimum safety standards of equipment
Australia is RHD...
You mean LHD.
ds245
Angus242164;c-155368 wroteIf the DOT is visible on the hoses themselves, it should be an immediate pass.
If they only say "FTS" on them that may not mean anything to a roadworthy inspector, and you would probably need to print off that page and give it to them ("supporting documentation ") as it isn't the inspector's responsibility to do that sort of research, and they aren't doing anything wrong by failing it on initial inspection.
Inspector was happy with the extra info, and brake hoses pass!