Well, one reason was that they are not DOT approved, supposedly some are
now.
Second, some people say that the braiding keeps you from inspecting the
rubber.
Third, there were some handwaving arguments about them being designed for
race applications where they don;t see many miles of use and less movement
because of less wheel travel.
I use them on my car, but really don't think that they feel that much
different than NEW rubber ones. Compared to old soft rubber ones, they
are a huge improvement (as are the rubber ones).
Ulix
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, J. Adrian Barnes wrote:
> Every mechanic and parts person I have talked to while trying to figure out
>what
> to do about my brakes advised against getting flexible steel lines. I got the
> rubber ones. I can't remember offhand the reasons they cited. Anyone have
>any
> ideas?
>
> adrian
>
> Lancer7676@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 12/9/98 11:20:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ajhsys@aol.com
> > writes:
> >
> > <<
> > >>
> >
> > Allen--At the risk of being corrected by someone who knows more than I do
> > about it, everything I have read leads me to steel brake lines, for the
>simple
> > advantage of strength. I don't know anything about copper/nickel alloy.
>That
> > may be just as good, but I am replacing mine and going to steel. Also--I
> > would suggest you get the stainless steel clad flexible lines rather than
>the
> > rubber ones. Less expansion means more braking power and longer life.
> >
> > --David
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> J. Adrian Barnes
> adrian@icx.net
>
> http://user.icx.net/~adrian/midget
> http://www.ravineware.com
> -----------------------------------
>
>
Ulix __/__,__
.......................................................... (_o____o_)....
'67 Sprite
|