View Full Version : WOF - Brake lines
NZIrish
2nd May 2007, 10:47
are braided lines required by law now for brakes (rear in particular)
are braided lines required by law now for brakes (rear in particular)
No. Certainly not standard fitment on most m/cycles.
Mr. Peanut
2nd May 2007, 10:51
I wouldn't want braided on my rear anyway!
No and be careful, as some braided lines available do not comply with NZ standards.
peasea
2nd May 2007, 10:57
No and be careful, as some braided lines available do not comply with NZ standards.
Yup, got caught with this myself, even though the line I had was aircraft quality (Aeroquip). They don't carry the right transport numbers. Check before you buy.
bistard
2nd May 2007, 11:19
The main problem the new rules are trying to rid the market of is bolt together brake line fittings,they now all have to be a swage fitting & have the correct DOT approval numbers on them
vifferman
2nd May 2007, 11:26
No and be careful, as some braided lines available do not comply with NZ standards.
The very first post I posted on KiwiBiker many moons ago was on this very topic.
I'd had BSR Aerotek brake lines fitted to my FahrtSturm and was told they were illegal (no DOT numbers). So, after 4 days on the bike, they were replaced with some inferior braided lines with the appropriate squiggles on them. Would've been easier and cheaperer to have just found out what the markings were supposed to be and written 'em on with a marker pen.
The Pastor
2nd May 2007, 11:56
I think they have dropped the requirement for the right numbers now?
cowboyz
2nd May 2007, 12:07
not as of 3 months ago where I failed a warrent due to no markings on brake lines.
bugjuice
2nd May 2007, 12:35
why would you want braided on the rear, especially?!?! you a 'drift nut' or something?
anything other than the stock factory rubber ones raise eyebrows. Very few DOT approved braided lines are out there, somewhere like Cycletreads is the best bet if you want to buy some and have them fitted. If you get any from overseas, 90+% chance they'll be chucked out at the WoF time, unless you want to swap the lines every few months!
imdying
2nd May 2007, 12:38
not as of 3 months ago where I failed a warrent due to no markings on brake lines.
Sucks to be you... the law changed again about 2 months ago, March 3rd or something.
cowboyz
2nd May 2007, 12:50
that would be right! I only ended up with briaded line on the rear cause the original broke and some nice lad gave me one to get the bike running again. no fear, its someone elses problem now.
bugjuice
2nd May 2007, 12:50
really? so what's the law now?
I think they have dropped the requirement for the right numbers now?
Yes they have, search the forums for the last time this was raised. The new regulations (2 months old now) were quoted.
As far as I can recall, the new regs say that any swaged connection is allowed, numbers not relevant
bugjuice
2nd May 2007, 13:09
'kin awesome!
and i was just about to blow a coupla hundy on regular ones
so now overseas lines are ok?
Yes they have, search the forums for the last time this was raised. The new regulations (2 months old now) were quoted.
As far as I can recall, the new regs say that any swaged connection is allowed, numbers not relevant
They always did , in fact. The new regs clarify but don't change.
What the original said was that braided lines had to meet one of a range of standards. The important thing about the standards was that the lines had to be swaged.
But testers interpreted that as meaning that the lines had to have some standard marked on them. Now they have simplified the intent.
that would be right! I only ended up with briaded line on the rear cause the original broke and some nice lad gave me one to get the bike running again. no fear, its someone elses problem now.Off a Honda too :yes:
They always did , in fact. The new regs clarify but don't change.
What the original said was that braided lines had to meet one of a range of standards. The important thing about the standards was that the lines had to be swaged.
But testers interpreted that as meaning that the lines had to have some standard marked on them. Now they have simplified the intent.Which means the items that were ripped off and replaced with marked items, at a cost to me, have now magically become legal agian. The law is an ass as they say.
Linky clicky thing-
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/cer...cles-08-v3.pdf
They always did , in fact. The new regs clarify but don't change.
There are very few changes made to the WoF regs,most are wording changes like this latest one.Previously the wording said they had to meet a standard,but they only supplied the Federal standard in the VIRM,no one knew what numbers were supposed to be on there anyway.The new wording just bypasses the standards crap and gives simpler pass or fail info.
It's a shit load of fun when you fail something you passed 6 mths ago,or pass something previously failed,upsetting people is just one of the perks of the job..
wilber
30th May 2007, 21:46
So what is swaged ? is that the crimp from hose to fitting,why I ask just failed wof due to [hose end fittings that can be undone with handtools ] in other words bolt together type and these are crimped onto hose ,never said anything re no dot markings.
Guy I bought them off said they are legal but vtnz say no
imdying
31st May 2007, 16:38
Post a picture of them. can't tell from your description.
wilber
31st May 2007, 23:58
They have earls active on them nothing else
imdying
1st June 2007, 09:01
If the red part is crimped to the hose, and can't be removed, then those are legal. If the red part can be removed from the hose, then they aren't.
The screw on adaptors (the blue bits) don't preclude them from getting a warrant, they're just adaptors, which aren't illegal, but you're not allowed to be able to diassemble the hose.
Without touching them and looking at them closer, they look like they're just regular female female 'universal' hoses with applicable adaptors screwed on... but it's been ages since I mucked around with Earls ones. However, they don't look crimped, so maybe you can disassemble them. Best thing to do is if you've got them off the bike, take them to the warrant guy and confirm with him... it's his call in the end anyway.
wilber
1st June 2007, 17:34
Yep red part looks crimped to hose thro quite a small crimp the blue bits bolt or screws into red parts.
Thats what he said not alloyed to be able to un bolt ,i'll check it 2morrow with them , cheers thanks for advice
kinger
1st June 2007, 18:39
This is all rather good news for me.
My container is due in on the 11th of June, and the big worry was the HEL braided hoses. As they're sealed swaged fittings with no threaded adaptors, it looks like she'll be legal when she arrives.:yes:
DEATH_INC.
3rd June 2007, 08:03
The good old LTSA....the only failure I've ever had from a brakeline was from a swage not being done properly......
imdying
8th June 2007, 10:38
I've seen everything from swage failures, hose ripped out of fitting, internal liner splitting, contamination, abrasion failures, etc... The internal liner leaking is the worst though. Get that on a braided line... you're dead. Bend a braided line incorrectly, failure is a matter of time, failure you can't see, and then one day, no brakes. Be gently, don't roll them up tight, jam them in anything, crimp them by mistake, or bend them tightly, you'll be sweet.
MrMelon
8th June 2007, 11:12
Where's a good place to get some reasonably priced legal braided lines these days?
MSTRS
8th June 2007, 12:01
If the red part is crimped to the hose, and can't be removed, then those are legal. If the red part can be removed from the hose, then they aren't.
The screw on adaptors (the blue bits) don't preclude them from getting a warrant, they're just adaptors, which aren't illegal, but you're not allowed to be able to diassemble the hose.
Without touching them and looking at them closer, they look like they're just regular female female 'universal' hoses with applicable adaptors screwed on... but it's been ages since I mucked around with Earls ones. However, they don't look crimped, so maybe you can disassemble them. Best thing to do is if you've got them off the bike, take them to the warrant guy and confirm with him... it's his call in the end anyway.
Is there some 'official' paper somewhere that confirms this? Got this type on YT's new Ninja. WOF tester told me they were not legal, showed me pics etc, commented that they weren't leaking and issued a WOF anyway.
robertydog
8th June 2007, 12:59
Is there some 'official' paper somewhere that confirms this? Got this type on YT's new Ninja. WOF tester told me they were not legal, showed me pics etc, commented that they weren't leaking and issued a WOF anyway.
Got this from the LTSA
MSTRS
8th June 2007, 13:04
g) has an end fitting that is not attached to the hose
by means of swaging, machine crimping or a
similar process (Note 6).
'End fitting' - depends on whether you consider the banjo an end fitting.
Still not clear, is it?
imdying
8th June 2007, 14:44
The banjo isn't attached to the hose though.... the end fitting is. The banjo screws into the end fitting... seems pretty clear to me.
MSTRS
8th June 2007, 14:53
These fkn govt/ltsa sponsored grey areas don't do anyone any favours, do they?
imdying
8th June 2007, 21:02
Which grey area?
A garage told me today that they have been told to interpret that screw-in adaptors banjos etc WOULD count as "end of the hose" and they will be failing bikes on that basis.
Anyone on whether this is happending and how individual garages are handling this?
imdying
14th June 2007, 20:55
A garage told me today that they have been told to interpret that screw-in adaptors banjos etc WOULD count as "end of the hose" and they will be failing bikes on that basis.The reason for this is because they 'Asked the question', which shows to whoever they asked it of, that they're not 100% sure of the difference. Which is totally acceptable, some of them are hard to spot (thus these threads, posted by people who actually have the hoses not on the bike even!), so how are they to know every type! As always, they've been told to err on the side of caution.
If you carry it to the logical conclusion, the bolt too is a screw on fitting attached to the hose... of course every single FWD corolla and FWD 323/Laser has them, so they know they're safe (and they're OEM).
All you need is a WOF shop that knows what they're looking at, I'm picking most bike shops should have the nouse for that.
If you find yourself getting frustrated, consider that you're in the 0.1% (random figure, but you see what I'm getting at) that runs braided lines on a street vehicle... they of course are used to dealing with the general populace, not psuedo petrolheads :scooter:
All you need is a WOF shop that knows what they're looking at, I'm picking most bike shops should have the nouse for that.
If you find yourself getting frustrated, consider that you're in the 0.1% (random figure, but you see what I'm getting at) that runs braided lines on a street vehicle... they of course are used to dealing with the general populace, not psuedo petrolheads :scooter:
It was a honda dealer that serviced my bike this week that told me this - not a car garage or a WOF-shop.
Hence my concern.
Any other thoughts on whether this might be just them or some new hard line?
Max Preload
15th June 2007, 17:37
A garage told me today that they have been told to interpret that screw-in adaptors banjos etc WOULD count as "end of the hose" and they will be failing bikes on that basis.
Go somewhere else - that's wrong. The banjo is not the hose end. The reason that a non-crimped hose end is illegal is that it can be diassembled and put back together, when they're designed to only be used once. A banjo however is a different design that can be removed and reassembled without damage.
Go somewhere else - that's wrong. The banjo is not the hose end. The reason that a non-crimped hose end is illegal is that it can be diassembled and put back together, when they're designed to only be used once. A banjo however is a different design that can be removed and reassembled without damage.
Thanks - I may have a chat with them though and see what they say.
sizzlingbadger
18th June 2007, 17:13
The hoses shown look like they have aluminum banjo's which I would be more worried about than the the fact they are screw in and are not crimped. Ali banjo's can corrode very quickly, stainless is far better.
Max Preload
18th June 2007, 17:32
The hoses shown look like they have aluminum banjo's which I would be more worried about than the the fact they are screw in and are not crimped. Ali banjo's can corrode very quickly, stainless is far better.
That is correct. See here. (http://www.alertmotorsport.com/aluminium.htm)
imdying
18th June 2007, 17:39
Alloy cylinders have been using stainless sleeves, and/or stainless pistons since ages ago. Not that I'm suggesting that HEL have something to sell... oh no..
sizzlingbadger
20th June 2007, 08:04
Alloy cylinders have been using stainless sleeves, and/or stainless pistons since ages ago.
indeed but you can't sleeve banjo bolts so it's best just to use stainless as the weight difference is not even worth considering.
imdying
20th June 2007, 09:24
Or just use alloy ones.
The stainless lines with alloy ends... the stainless and alloy would never actually be in brake fluid together anyway... the stainless never gets touched by fluid, that's what the teflon liner is for.
sizzlingbadger
21st June 2007, 19:10
nothing to do with the fluid, but it's your choice I'm not arguing about it :sunny:
kinger
4th July 2007, 19:39
imdying,
I've got HEL lines fitted, and just pulled the warranty card from my wallet. Opening statement:
"The HEL product you have just purchased is "Guaranteed Forever"!"
It also states that this warranty is transfeable to future owners.
Mate, I trust 'em, they've saved me in a high to low speed very quickly situation that the old OE lines would not have.
imdying
4th July 2007, 19:44
That's awesome for you :niceone:
kinger
4th July 2007, 19:51
Thanks.:shutup:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.