brake hose (update)
pjrose at frontiernet.net
Mon Nov 11 10:03:24 EST 2002
At 9:58 PM -0800 11/10/02, Bernie Benz wrote:
>Your LR pictured hose obviously had an internal pending failure problem and
>warrented replacement. But your extrapolation of similar problems resulting
>from external, enviromentally induced cracking of the abrasion resistant
>protective jacketing over the structurial cord which provides the pressure
>capabilities to the internal fluid conductor, IMO is unwarrented, i.e.
>without technical justification. So, replace your hoses as you see fit and
>for your own personal reasons, but your implied mandate to replace all hoses
>at any specific time or mileage frame, I don't buy.
Tsk, it's no surprise that _you_ don't "buy" the idea. Why spend $15
to replace a cracked (even leaking?) brake hose before the matter
becomes _really_ serious, huh? No, wait until Bernie pronounces
"technical justification"--you might get another year (or even a
few) of service and--maybe not _ever_ have that sudden, catastrophic
brake failure. And if that catastrophy does happen, why I suppose
it'd be our own fault because we didn't crawl under our vehicle
several times each month (each week?) to inspect these decade-old
pieces of rubber?
Your philosophy--which you apply even to preventive maintenance on
safety related components--is, if nothing else, consistent.
Unfortunately it _is_ often something else (IMO): short-sighted and
dangerous. So, play Russian Roulette by running your own tires,
rotors, pads and hoses down to the ragged edge for your own personal
reasons. The rest of us seem to have fewer problems with the idea of
"buying": convenience, peace of mind and an extra measure of safety
for ourselves, family and others on the road.
mailto:pjrose at frontiernet.net
More information about the 200q20v