Ford Fusion V6 Sport Forum banner
21 - 40 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 · (Edited)
I’m sure I did not mention this earlier, but I have had two major brake failures on two separate Ford vehicles while driving on the highway in my past.

The first was my 1991 Tbird SC which the ABS module decided to completely fail leaving me with a brake pedal that was at the top of its travel and felt like it was welded solid. Zero pedal movement. Luckily in that case, although my SC was an uncommon automatic trans model, it still had the parking brake lever in the console, enabling me to use downshifts, coasting, and judicious feathering of the parking brake to limp into the dealership. I phoned ahead (on my floor pedestal mounted “brick phone” LOL!) and told them to open both doors and pray for me. I made it with the rear parking brakes basically on fire but survived without any further damage. That car turned out to be a lemon, but as the third owner I had no choice but to get rid of it.

The second was my 2010 Fusion Sport which the ABS module malfunctioned and every time I barely stepped on the brakes the ABS would kick in causing the car to very abruptly decelerate. I threw on the hazard lights and still, various chuckleheads would tailgate me until I tapped the brakes and nearly got rear-ended numerous times. I jumped off the highway to secondary roads but that was a huge mistake, and made the situation even worse with multiple stops and needing to feather the braking in close traffic which was impossible.

So, I didn’t panic when I lost the brakes this time, and I was at least able to get safely home.

BTW: I find it bemusing that a bunch of folks who regularly encourage and applaud others who spend $2-3000+ on big brake kits, $1500+ on wheels, $900 carbon fiber spoilers, who-knows-how-much on infotainment upgrades, $900 steering wheel swaps, seat swaps, and on and on, would upbraid me for my indulgence of $170 worth of braided stainless steel brake lines because it’s “not necessary”. No aftermarket “upgrades” are “necessary” (using both terms loosely) as I’m sure the many owners of bone stock Sports on this forum will attest.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
I'm not being overly demanding in what I'm looking for in terms of proof. I'm looking for ANY proof. You have not provided proof. There is not one single scientifically minded person that would accept "here's an article that says steel lines are better" as proof. That article you posted is a joke. There is no proof in that article. There is no testing to show anything. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, I do that sometimes, but it is also so the sake of discovery. Every time I argue something, I learn something. The only thing I have learned from this so far is that there are a lot of people that think braided steel brake lines expand less.

However, in my search for actual testing (I feel like I'm getting closer, btw) I did come across one person that seems to claim seeing some actual testing that contradicts the common belief. I'm not going to cite it because I'm not quoting it as evidence, but it's worth noting.

"FWIW, all of the braided stainless steel brake hose I have seen tested had higher volumetric expansion than OEM brake hose reinforced with PVA filament. Braided SS hose may have more cut resistance, but that is not part of the standard."

You can continue thinking what you want to think. I am going to continue to look for actual proof, one way or another, because what you have shown me is not proof, despite what you seem to think.

I will continue digging, and I will post my findings if I do indeed find anything that isn't someone simply making a claim.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Here's another quote from the same thread I quoted previously. Again, I'm not posting this as a slam dunk "I win" because, again, it's just hearsay. It does support my mindset, though, so I feel it's worth sharing.

"The volumetric expansion of brake hose under pressure has a lot to do with the "feel" of the brake system. Lower expansion = firm brake pedal & higher expansion = soft pedal. The DOT standard for 3mm (1/8") brake hose requires a maximum volumetric expansion of 0.33 / 0.66 cc / foot @ 1,000 PSI (low expansion / high expansion hose). U.S. made OEM brake hose with PVA reinforcement typically has volumetric expansion of less than 0.10 cc / foot @ 1,000 PSI. Unless the hose maker discloses the actual volumetric expansion test data, take the claims about "improved pedal feel" as advertising hype. In God We Trust; all others bring data"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 65dustin

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
Yeah, BOT, word. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
I'm not being overly demanding in what I'm looking for in terms of proof. I'm looking for ANY proof. You have not provided proof. There is not one single scientifically minded person that would accept "here's an article that says steel lines are better" as proof. That article you posted is a joke. There is no proof in that article. There is no testing to show anything. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, I do that sometimes, but it is also so the sake of discovery. Every time I argue something, I learn something. The only thing I have learned from this so far is that there are a lot of people that think braided steel brake lines expand less.

However, in my search for actual testing (I feel like I'm getting closer, btw) I did come across one person that seems to claim seeing some actual testing that contradicts the common belief. I'm not going to cite it because I'm not quoting it as evidence, but it's worth noting.

"FWIW, all of the braided stainless steel brake hose I have seen tested had higher volumetric expansion than OEM brake hose reinforced with PVA filament. Braided SS hose may have more cut resistance, but that is not part of the standard."

You can continue thinking what you want to think. I am going to continue to look for actual proof, one way or another, because what you have shown me is not proof, despite what you seem to think.

I will continue digging, and I will post my findings if I do indeed find anything that isn't someone simply making a claim.
Hi BOT. No, no and no...lol. I have provided a search link which provides tens of thousands of links. So do not be disingenuous and claim that only one link was provided, so it is not proof. Any more than your ridiculous motorcycle related link was proof. "Slam dunk" related or not. At least the link I provided was about cars, not motorcycles...lol
Or your new admittedly, "...it's just hearsay. It does support my mindset, though, so I feel it's worth sharing" quote. Again, you miss the extreme irony of your own replies. ..lol

However, concerning what you last wrote above...Yes, please do continue your quest for the information you need, and do certainly post back with your findings.

Now, we can agree to disagree and let others read, research, and decide for themselves.

Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
I’m sure I did not mention this earlier, but I have had two major brake failures on two separate Ford vehicles while driving on the highway in my past.

The first was my 1991 Tbird SC which the ABS module decided to completely fail leaving me with a brake pedal that was at the top of its travel and felt like it was welded solid. Zero pedal movement. Luckily in that case, although my SC was an uncommon automatic trans model, it still had the parking brake lever in the console, enabling me to use downshifts, coasting, and judicious feathering of the parking brake to limp into the dealership. I phoned ahead (on my floor pedestal mounted “brick phone” LOL!) and told them to open both doors and pray for me. I made it with the rear parking brakes basically on fire but survived without any further damage. That car turned out to be a lemon, but as the third owner I had no choice but to get rid of it.

The second was my 2010 Fusion Sport which the ABS module malfunctioned and every time I barely stepped on the brakes the ABS would kick in causing the car to very abruptly decelerate. I threw on the hazard lights and still, various chuckleheads would tailgate me until I tapped the brakes and nearly got rear-ended numerous times. I jumped off the highway to secondary roads but that was a huge mistake, and made the situation even worse with multiple stops and needing to feather the braking in close traffic which was impossible.

So, I didn’t panic when I lost the brakes this time, and I was at least able to get safely home.

BTW: I find it bemusing that a bunch of folks who regularly encourage and applaud others who spend $2-3000+ on big brake kits, $1500+ on wheels, $900 carbon fiber spoilers, who-knows-how-much on infotainment upgrades, $900 steering wheel swaps, seat swaps, and on and on, would upbraid me for my indulgence of $170 worth of braided stainless steel brake lines because it’s “not necessary”. No aftermarket “upgrades” are “necessary” (using both terms loosely) as I’m sure the many owners of bone stock Sports on this forum will attest.
Hi Shawnski. Just want to make it clear that I am not saying your stainless steel brake modification is unnecessary. In fact, I made it clear there are benefits, and I respect the right of any owner to upgrade if they like.

I only made the comment that I would not do it myself, because my car is not driven hard at all. And only in the context of the contentious discussion being held.

That comment does not reflect on your decisions at all.

Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shawnski

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
I found some actual testing! It's veeeeery interesting, too. What lead to to the test data sheet was an article written by Motor Trend (who I think we can all agree is as reputable as most other places we see this type of info) and it makes a very familiar claim.

"When testing volumetric expansion, Goodridge found that standard OE-type rubber brake hose expanded by 0.136 cc/ft at 1,000 psi, 0.150 cc/ft at 1,500 psi, and 0.290 cc/ft at 2,900 psi, whereas the company's PTFE braided stainless hoses expanded by only 0.0002932 cc/ft at 4,000 psi. The close-to-zero expansion to the braided hose means the brake pedal will feel firmer and will respond more quickly to brake pedal inputs."


Well that settles it then, right? Well, I'm not so easily convinced, as I think we've established, so I went to find this test data that they are talking about.

This is the only test data I could find for the Goodridge braided steel hoses.
Rectangle Font Parallel Pattern Number


Wait, that test doesn't even show what the expansion was at 4000psi like Motor Trend said. In fact, at 2900 psi, the braided steel lines were around 2-3x WORSE than the number Motor Trend gave for the rubber lines. I don't know where the test is that shows "close-to-zero expansion" but it certainly isn't THESE braided steel brake lines.

Hi BOT. No, no and no...lol. I have provided a search link which provides tens of thousands of links. So do not be disingenuous and claim that only one link was provided, so it is not proof. Any more than your ridiculous motorcycle related link was proof. "Slam dunk" related or not. At least the link I provided was about cars, not motorcycles...lol
Or your new admittedly, "...it's just hearsay. It does support my mindset, though, so I feel it's worth sharing" quote. Again, you miss the extreme irony of your own replies. ..lol

However, concerning what you last wrote above...Yes, please do continue your quest for the information you need, and do certainly post back with your findings.

Now, we can agree to disagree and let others read, research, and decide for themselves.

Good luck.
Posting a Google search link is not in any way helpful in proving anything. It just shows a whole bunch of misleading marketing garbage, and leads me to question your understanding of the scientific process. To find actual data, you have to be a little more specific as to what you're looking for than "is this more gooder than that?" You seem to be entirely missing the point of this debate, also. I'm saying there is a lack of proof to show that braided steel brake lines expand less than rubber lines. The quotes I posted previously are not proof that they don't expand less. They are proof that there is debate on both sides, regardless of which vehicles the brake lines are attatched. If I had posted a link to a car related site with the exact same info, would you be convinced? No, you wouldn't because there is no actual factual data or proof in that article. That link from the motorcycle site simply serves to support my argument that there is a lack of concensus. Hence why I make sure to clarify my reasoning for posting it. You are trying to prove a claim by posting links to more claims. I'm trying to find out if those claims are supported by science, and so far, the ONLY test I have been able to find is in direct contradiction to those claims, which only serves to add more doubt. On top of that, the article that lead me to search for that data is a perfect example of how unreliable a Google search can be. That article from a "reputable source" shows misleading information making a claim that is WAY off what the actual test data shows. Even if there is a special type of braided steel lines with .000000000000000000001cc/ft of expansion at 10000000psi, there is also a type of braided steel lines that perform worse than some rubber hoses, which was exactly my point. The mere fact that a brake hose is made with braided steel does not mean that you will have an improved pedal feel. It doesn't mean that you won't, either.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
I feel like I should also add that while I don't believe the steel lines expand less than NEW rubber line, I don't regret putting them on my car. I'm sure they're a lot better than my 32 year old lines, and the steel, I believe, is what saved me from having to replace them already since I installed them in a way that caused them to rub the tire (thanks for not noticing that when I brought it in for an alignment, Brakes Plus). My tire rubbed the outer pvc coating clean off, but the steel was unphased. A little flex seal should fix that right up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
I found some actual testing! It's veeeeery interesting, too. What lead to to the test data sheet was an article written by Motor Trend (who I think we can all agree is as reputable as most other places we see this type of info) and it makes a very familiar claim.

"When testing volumetric expansion, Goodridge found that standard OE-type rubber brake hose expanded by 0.136 cc/ft at 1,000 psi, 0.150 cc/ft at 1,500 psi, and 0.290 cc/ft at 2,900 psi, whereas the company's PTFE braided stainless hoses expanded by only 0.0002932 cc/ft at 4,000 psi. The close-to-zero expansion to the braided hose means the brake pedal will feel firmer and will respond more quickly to brake pedal inputs."


Well that settles it then, right? Well, I'm not so easily convinced, as I think we've established, so I went to find this test data that they are talking about.

This is the only test data I could find for the Goodridge braided steel hoses.
View attachment 29963

Wait, that test doesn't even show what the expansion was at 4000psi like Motor Trend said. In fact, at 2900 psi, the braided steel lines were around 2-3x WORSE than the number Motor Trend gave for the rubber lines. I don't know where the test is that shows "close-to-zero expansion" but it certainly isn't THESE braided steel brake lines.


Posting a Google search link is not in any way helpful in proving anything. It just shows a whole bunch of misleading marketing garbage, and leads me to question your understand of the scientific process. To find actual data, you have to be a little more specific as to what you're looking for than "is this more gooder than that?" You seem to be entirely missing the point of this debate, also. I'm saying there is a lack of proof to show that braided steel brake lines expand less than rubber lines. The quotes I posted previously are not proof that they don't expand less. They are proof that there is debate on both sides, regardless of which vehicles the brake lines are attatched. If I had posted a link to a car related site with the exact same info, would you be convinced? No, you wouldn't because there is no actual factual data or proof in that article. That link from the motorcycle site simply serves to support my argument that there is a lack of concensus. Hence why I make sure to clarify my reasoning for posting it. You are trying to prove a claim by posting links to more claims. I'm trying to find out if those claims are supported by science, and so far, the ONLY test I have been able to find is in direct contradiction to those claims, which only serves to add more doubt. On top of that, the article that lead me to search for that data is a perfect example of how unreliable a Google search can be. That article from a "reputable source" shows misleading information making a claim that is WAY off what the actual test data shows. Even if there is a special type of braided steel lines with .000000000000000000001cc/ft of expansion at 10000000psi, there is also a type of braided steel lines that perform worse than some rubber hoses, which was exactly my point. The mere fact that a brake hose is made with braided steel does not mean that you will have an improved pedal feel. It doesn't mean that you won't, either.
Hi BOT. WOW...You will search forever, find a million sources that disprove your beliefs ("The close-to-zero expansion to the braided hose means the brake pedal will feel firmer and will respond more quickly to brake pedal inputs."), then you will grasp onto some obscure straw which allows you to hold onto your flat earth beliefs and keep arguing. How disingenuous. Functional linear thought does not simply stop at the point someone thinks they are right.

Now it is 2900psi...4,000psi...220...221...whatever it takes. LOL

You seem to attempt to tell everyone Googled results do not matter. You even attempt to use the word "Google" as a pejorative, Then you attempt to use your Google results to prove your point. In the end, virtually all the results, from all the expert or non-expert sources, state final conclusions contradicting your "beliefs". But again, that is not good enough either, because you will disbelieve their conclusions since none agree with your "beliefs". You alone know better. You alone know the scientific process. LOL

You began moving this to the personal some number of replies ago, so I now have no trouble stating that I don't think you would recognize proper "scientific process" if it (to borrow your colorful term) walked up and tried to "phuque" you. LOL

This last post of yours totally encapsulates who likes to argue incessantly and be stubborn. Or as you state about yourself..."...my mad googling skillz and lots of "free time" at work make me think I know just about everything".

Keep that in mind next time you attempt to Internet psychoanalyze others and/or state they only like to argue. LOLOLOLOL

This is a waste of time. You can post your beliefs as much as you want. We get it. You know more than the experts and professionals. You alone are not fooled by the secret conspiracy to sell braided stainless steel brake lines! We get it now.

However, I will jump in if/when you refer to anything I have stated in my replies in order to to briefly correct your inevitable factual errors, misrepresentations, misquotes etc. Despite all the attempted double talk, here is a life lesson...Attempting to baffle others with statistical BS only works when the other people do not understand stats and recognize statistical BS. LOL

So to make that clear...I am moving on, unless you refer to or quote me again. Hope you can understand that much.

Others can read, research and decide what is best for themselves.

Good luck.

PS- And make all the second hand/CYA excuses you want about using braided stainless steel brake lines yourself. And by the way, also laughingly attempting to blame someone else for not discovering your installation mistakes. Your excuses are not convincing at all. Maybe this is a recurring theme...someone else is always to blame.

That being said, it is now up to you. You can end the personal attack theme which you began, and I will too. Then we can let this thread return to the OP and his original questions/problems, and we can stop boring the "phuque" out of everyone else.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
My thoughts exactly....

The article makes a CLAIM of near-zero. It doesn't show any proof. It's a claim. The actual test results aren't making a claim. They are quite literally disproving the CLAIM of near-zero with actual scientific testing. If you can't see how citing a CLAIM is different from presenting test results with actual data, there is absolutely no hope I will ever get through to you.

The CLAIM was that there was a preposterous tiny number at 4000psi.
The DATA showed NO NUMBERS at 4000psi.

The DATA showed the braided steel lines performed WORSE than what the CLAIM said the rubber lines did at all pressures that were actually tested. How is this so hard for you grasp?

Oh, I get it now. I'm slightly embarrassed that it took me this long to realize I'm being trolled. Well played, sir.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
My thoughts exactly....

The article makes a CLAIM of near-zero. It doesn't show any proof. It's a claim. The actual test results aren't making a claim. They are quite literally disproving the CLAIM of near-zero with actual scientific testing. If you can't see how citing a CLAIM is different from presenting test results with actual data, there is absolutely no hope I will ever get through to you.

The CLAIM was that there was a preposterous tiny number at 4000psi.
The DATA showed NO NUMBERS at 4000psi.

The DATA showed the braided steel lines performed WORSE than what the CLAIM said the rubber lines did at all pressures that were actually tested. How is this so hard for you grasp?

Oh, I get it now. I'm slightly embarrassed that it took me this long to realize I'm being trolled. Well played, sir.
Hi BOT. My record of providing reliable information and helping others here easily displays that I am no troll. On the other hand, your behavior here is questionable.

Not like it was hard to predict (surely did not take a Nostradamus), but nice try at the "Yo' momma" defense though. LOLOLOL

Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
LOL, WOW. Mr know it all strikes again.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Hi BOT. My record of providing reliable information and helping others here easily displays that I am no troll. On the other hand, your behavior here is questionable.

Not like it was hard to predict (surely did not take a Nostradamus), but nice try at the "Yo' momma" defense though. LOLOLOL

Good luck.
Please show me where you provided reliable information. Are you saying a magazine article full of hearsay is more reliable than actual test results?

Here, I will post real, quantifiable data conducted using the well established FMVSS106 testing standard. If you cannot see the difference between test data and regurgitated marketing hearsay... I dunno... I must be making a "yo momma" argument. 🤷‍♂️

SunnyBrakeParts rubber hose expansion data:
1000psi- .15cc/ft
1500psi- .21cc/ft
2900psi- .42cc/ft
4000psi- not tested

Goodridge braided steel hose expansion data (average of all 4 hoses tested):
1000psi- .32cc/ft
1500psi- .46cc/ft
2900psi- .74cc/ft
4000psi- not tested

The souce for the Goodridge hoses is linked in an above reply.

Now compare that to the claim made by the Motor Trend article...
Rubber:
1000psi- .136cc/ft
1500psi- .15cc/ft
2900psi- .29cc/ft
4000psi- not mentioned (probably because that pressure isn't tested in the FMVSS 106 testing standards)

Steel:
1000psi- not mentioned
1500psi- not mentioned
2900psi- not mentioned
4000psi- .0002932cc/ft

All other test data shows the measurement to the nearest 100th of a cc of fluid, and you choose to believe the one that shows the data displayed to one 10 MILLIONTH of a cc of fluid. Nobody else is testing at 4000psi, not even Goodridge, but an editor at Motor Trend magazine says Goodridge not only tested at 4000psi, they tested it to within 10 millionths of a cc of accuracy, so it must be true.

Ok bud...

The spread of misinformation or disinformation on a large scale can lead to that false information being accepted as common knowledge. If a company makes a product, and says it offers some sort of significant advantage, as long as it kinda makes sense and very few people fact check it, that false information can easily be accepted as fact.

Fact checking claims is VITALLY IMPORTANT to prevent the spread of false facts. It's a lot more common than you might think, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skipe

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
Please show me where you provided reliable information. Are you saying a magazine article full of hearsay is more reliable than actual test results?

Here, I will post real, quantifiable data conducted using the well established FMVSS106 testing standard. If you cannot see the difference between test data and regurgitated marketing hearsay... I dunno... I must be making a "yo momma" argument. 🤷‍♂️

SunnyBrakeParts rubber hose expansion data:
1000psi- .15cc/ft
1500psi- .21cc/ft
2900psi- .42cc/ft
4000psi- not tested

Goodridge braided steel hose expansion data (average of all 4 hoses tested):
1000psi- .32cc/ft
1500psi- .46cc/ft
2900psi- .74cc/ft
4000psi- not tested

The souce for the Goodridge hoses is linked in an above reply.

Now compare that to the claim made by the Motor Trend article...
Rubber:
1000psi- .136cc/ft
1500psi- .15cc/ft
2900psi- .29cc/ft
4000psi- not mentioned (probably because that pressure isn't tested in the FMVSS 106 testing standards)

Steel:
1000psi- not mentioned
1500psi- not mentioned
2900psi- not mentioned
4000psi- .0002932cc/ft

All other test data shows the measurement to the nearest 100th of a cc of fluid, and you choose to believe the one that shows the data displayed to one 10 MILLIONTH of a cc of fluid. Nobody else is testing at 4000psi, not even Goodridge, but an editor at Motor Trend magazine says Goodridge not only tested at 4000psi, they tested it to within 10 millionths of a cc of accuracy, so it must be true.

Ok bud...

The spread of misinformation or disinformation on a large scale can lead to that false information being accepted as common knowledge. If a company makes a product, and says it offers some sort of significant advantage, as long as it kinda makes sense and very few people fact check it, that false information can easily be accepted as fact.

Fact checking claims is VITALLY IMPORTANT to prevent the spread of false facts. It's a lot more common than you might think, too.

Hi BOT. As previously stated, I furnished a link with tens of thousands of links to as many "articles", along with a link to one example article. Just like your "one" motorcycle article. But that was okay for you. Once again, your "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality shines through.
So no, I did not provide only "one article", no matter how many times you repeat that falsehood. Again, repeating the same provably incorrect falsehoods can only lead one to believe you are being intentionally disingenuous. Or worse.

But now that you have started it up again...Take a closer look at your "test" results. You provide a test of two brands of brake lines: A "SunnyBrakeParts rubber hose" and a "Goodridge braided steel hose".

However, did you really read and think about the test you are providing, at least one line past what you thought agreed with you?

Do you have any familiarity with rigorous testing procedures? Unless your copy and paste skills are as bad as your "scientific process" skills, did you happen to question why they tested only one "Rubber hose", but tested "4 braided hoses" and "averaged" the results?
Why not test one example of each. Or 4 examples of each?
Why didn't they publish the results of all 4 braided hoses individually? Were they perhaps looking for a predetermined result (like you) and it took them 4 hoses to get it? Perhaps a defective hose? No matter the reason, it is an invalid test by any acceptable scientific standards.
If we are to trust your copy and paste skills (should we or shouldn't we?), your article/evidence now goes up in smoke.

Why the difference in testing procedures? You call that "understanding the scientific process" and proper, rigorous testing procedures? You must be joking? If you copied and pasted correctly, that test would not even pass a high school science 101 class.

And that is not even delving into the fact that there is no context as to price/quality/quality of construction/age, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps there is in the article? However, the glaring failure to follow anything resembling proper, rigorous testing procedures makes the article, test and result worthless. It could be the equivalent of a road test between a Yugo and a Fusion Sport. The testers get the result they wanted. See how easy it is to turn around your "I don't want to believe it, it's only regurgitated hearsay" argument can be turned right around?
So even if you copied and pasted incorrectly, the lack of context makes the test worthless. That is proper scientific process and fact checking.

Your "understanding of the science process" and proper, rigorous, scientific testing procedures is right down there with your psychological evaluation skills. You actually took the time to use your "mad googling skillz", cherry picked an article and test you "thought" proved your beliefs, copied and pasted it over, found a cute video to link to...and absolutely bungled the job.
So yes..."Fact checking claims is VITALLY IMPORTANT". Right "bud"? 😂

"220...221...whatever it takes". You must be kidding if you think you can slip garbage like that past people.

But again, nice try.

So yes...You "was wrong" again! So BOT...just "Be comfortable replacing your bad knowledge with better knowledge." ;)

PS- And as previously offered, I am still agreeable to setting aside the snarkiness and endless arguing, and allowing others to read, do the research and make their own decisions for their own particular situations. However, it needs to be a two way street.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Hi BOT. As previously stated, I furnished a link with tens of thousands of links to as many "articles", along with a link to one example article. Just like your "one" motorcycle article. But that was okay for you. Once again, your "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality shines through.
So no, I did not provide only "one article", no matter how many times you repeat that falsehood. Again, repeating the same provably incorrect falsehoods can only lead one to believe you are being intentionally disingenuous. Or worse.

But now that you have started it up again...Take a closer look at your "test" results. You provide a test of two brands of brake lines: A "SunnyBrakeParts rubber hose" and a "Goodridge braided steel hose".

However, did you really read and think about the test you are providing, at least one line past what you thought agreed with you?

Do you have any familiarity with rigorous testing procedures? Unless your copy and paste skills are as bad as your "scientific process" skills, did you happen to question why they tested only one "Rubber hose", but tested "4 braided hoses" and "averaged" the results?
Why not test one example of each. Or 4 examples of each?
Why didn't they publish the results of all 4 braided hoses individually? Were they perhaps looking for a predetermined result (like you) and it took them 4 hoses to get it? Perhaps a defective hose? No matter the reason, it is an invalid test by any acceptable scientific standards.
If we are to trust your copy and paste skills (should we or shouldn't we?), your article/evidence now goes up in smoke.

Why the difference in testing procedures? You call that "understanding the scientific process" and proper, rigorous testing procedures? You must be joking? If you copied and pasted correctly, that test would not even pass a high school science 101 class.

And that is not even delving into the fact that there is no context as to price/quality/quality of construction/age, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps there is in the article? However, the glaring failure to follow anything resembling proper, rigorous testing procedures makes the article, test and result worthless. It could be the equivalent of a road test between a Yugo and a Fusion Sport. The testers get the result they wanted. See how easy it is to turn around your "I don't want to believe it, it's only regurgitated hearsay" argument can be turned right around?
So even if you copied and pasted incorrectly, the lack of context makes the test worthless. That is proper scientific process and fact checking.

Your "understanding of the science process" and proper, rigorous, scientific testing procedures is right down there with your psychological evaluation skills. You actually took the time to use your "mad googling skillz", cherry picked an article and test you "thought" proved your beliefs, copied and pasted it over, found a cute video to link to...and absolutely bungled the job.
So yes..."Fact checking claims is VITALLY IMPORTANT". Right "bud"? 😂

"220...221...whatever it takes". You must be kidding if you think you can slip garbage like that past people.

But again, nice try.

So yes...You "was wrong" again! So BOT...just "Be comfortable replacing your bad knowledge with better knowledge." ;)
There's a reason I cited my sources. Goodridge sent in 4 steel hoses for testing, and if you had checked the source, the result for each is listed separately. Actually, each hose is tested 3 times at each pressure and the averaged of the 3 tests is the number given in accordance with the testing standards. It just so happens that Goodridge sent in 4 hoses to be tested. I could have pulled the results of any one of the four hoses in that test, but opted to average the results of the 4 hoses to avoid any bias. I could have easily cherry picked the worst of the 4 knowing full well you wouldn't fact check the data I presented. The numbers in the rubber hose test are from the manufacturer, one of very few that I was able to find test numbers listed. They also listed a range of values from the test, but the actual test results from the independent lab is not shown, so I can't say for certain how many hoses were tested, and took the average to avoid bias. If I can find the actual lab results from the data sheet, I will post them. Until then, I have to settle for what I can find.

As for the link to a thousand links you presented, thousands of those links will demonstrate my exact point. There will be hundreds of links that all contradict one another. It still boggles my mind that you think posting a link to the Google home page has any sort of evidentiary value. That's akin to telling me the earth is flat, and the proof is over there in that library. Unless the link you provided is a link to a website that tests brake lines, it's useless. I posted links to tests. You posted a link to a search engine. How do you see that as proof? I'm legitimately dumbfounded. I really have to be done debating with you because it's becoming an echo chamber. I present more hard evidence, and you keep referring back to a search engine result with thousands of links that tell thousands of different stories.

The fact that you don't understand the point of the video is just another nail in the coffin, sealing away any hope of getting any bit of actual fact into your noggin.

I really have to be done here.

I'm speechless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
There's a reason I cited my sources. Goodridge sent in 4 steel hoses for testing, and if you had checked the source, the result for each is listed separately. Actually, each hose is tested 3 times at each pressure and the averaged of the 3 tests is the number given in accordance with the testing standards. It just so happens that Goodridge sent in 4 hoses to be tested. I could have pulled the results of any one of the four hoses in that test, but opted to average the results of the 4 hoses to avoid any bias. I could have easily cherry picked the worst of the 4 knowing full well you wouldn't fact check the data I presented. The numbers in the rubber hose test are from the manufacturer, one of very few that I was able to find test numbers listed. They also listed a range of values from the test, but the actual test results from the independent lab is not shown, so I can't say for certain how many hoses were tested, and took the average to avoid bias. If I can find the actual lab results from the data sheet, I will post them. Until then, I have to settle for what I can find.

As for the link to a thousand links you presented, thousands of those links will demonstrate my exact point. There will be hundreds of links that all contradict one another. It still boggles my mind that you think posting a link to the Google home page has any sort of evidentiary value. That's akin to telling me the earth is flat, and the proof is over there in that library. Unless the link you provided is a link to a website that tests brake lines, it's useless. I posted links to tests. You posted a link to a search engine. How do you see that as proof? I'm legitimately dumbfounded. I really have to be done debating with you because it's becoming an echo chamber. I present more hard evidence, and you keep referring back to a search engine result with thousands of links that tell thousands of different stories.

The fact that you don't understand the point of the video is just another nail in the coffin, sealing away any hope of getting any bit of actual fact into your noggin.

I really have to be done here.

I'm speechless.
Hi Bott. Well look who likes to keep on arguing, despite your earlier projection of that personal tendency onto others. And despite offers to stop arguing and agree to disagree, as long as it is a two way street. But we will get back to that.

Funny, despite your constant moving of the goal posts, I have addressed each of your points over the course of this entire exercise in futility, including the severe lack of validity of your "test" and your easy to see coming copy and pasting excuses. You are a very disingenuous individual.
And for your information, the video was good and simply states do our own research and don't automatically believe what we hear. But once the research is done, believe in something. You are an eternal doubt caster. You don't get the important message contained in the video, because as you stated previously (but attempted to project), you like being the Devils Advocate, and convince yourself you believe something even if you don't, just to argue. Newsflash...that is not an admirable trait.

Plus, you are one of those individuals who believe only you know the truth. No matter the information avalanche against you. You will simply say the information proving you wrong does not matter. And anyone else who does the research and believes the experts is blind. You don't look for the full information, then accuse others of doing what you do. Classic projection. Only you know the truth, which is being being hidden from us poor blind folks.
Only your spurious link matters. Only your pretzel logic matters.

For example, this classic of yours..."I was saying that I had never said that I said I googled it. My statement was that I googled it." That little nugget that escaped your "noggin" still makes me laugh..."bud".

Despite your obvious projection tendencies and poor attempts at monkey see-monkey do analogies, you are the flat-earther, my friend. Which was pointed out to you some time ago. You agree that you "believe" braided brake lines provide some sort of benefits, no matter how small. Then you then refute it. Then you state again they do. Then you refute it again. Make up your mind whether braided brake lines have some benefits, no mater how small. Oh wait, you can't admit it and stick to it, because it proves you wrong. But it does not matter, the rest of us already know.

You make statements about how you Googled, then you "didn't Google", then you "didn't say you Googled", then you "did say you Googled". I am not even sure you are one individual with one personality. In the end, it is all here for others to read. So don't expect others to jump through your hoops. And don't project your confusion and research paralysis onto others.

No one needs to prove the earth is round to you.. When you are done twisting figures, show us a few experts who agree with you and state that braided stainless steel brake lines provide no benefits. Show us the written conclusions of tests. Don't think you can throw numbers at the wall and hope others don't understand them. We already burst that little balloon of yours. Statistical BS only works when the other side doesn't understand statistics. Sorry, wrong audience for that.
You hide from written conclusions (and behind juggled stats that you hope confuse others) because written conclusions make a statement which can't be clouded by the casting of vague doubts.

Like your sophomoric understanding of the "scientific process", "hard evidence", rigorous scientific testing procedures (not ones that that only mean something when they are your links) and psychology.

And you keep it up with the "I know you are but what am I" projection on others. LOL

And yes, it is obvious you "...can't say for certain how many hoses were tested, and took the average to avoid bias.". Lack of information and corroboration mean nothing to you. So to repeat, you have no idea what the scientific process is, or what rigorous, verifiable testing entails. And your reply proves it.

You once again do not even acknowledge the offer to agree to disagree and move on. Instead, you try to make a laughable tantrum exit with a cute little door slam for effect. Which verifies that you are only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Another trait you attempted to project some time back.

There will be no childish attempt at a door slam here. Because I will address every bit of misinformation, misdirection, and outright falsehoods you attempt to post back with. You are like a game of whack-a-mole.

And yes, you are certainly boggled and dumbfounded.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Hi Bott. Well look who likes to keep on arguing, despite your earlier projection of that personal tendency onto others. And despite offers to stop arguing and agree to disagree, as long as it is a two way street. But we will get back to that.

Funny, despite your constant moving of the goal posts, I have addressed each of your points over the course of this entire exercise in futility, including the severe lack of validity of your "test" and your easy to see coming copy and pasting excuses. You are a very disingenuous individual.
And for your information, the video was good and simply states do our own research and don't automatically believe what we hear. But once the research is done, believe in something. You are an eternal doubt caster. You don't get the important message contained in the video, because as you stated previously (but attempted to project), you like being the Devils Advocate, and convince yourself you believe something even if you don't, just to argue. Newsflash...that is not an admirable trait.

Plus, you are one of those individuals who believe only you know the truth. No matter the information avalanche against you. You will simply say the information proving you wrong does not matter. And anyone else who does the research and believes the experts is blind. You don't look for the full information, then accuse others of doing what you do. Classic projection. Only you know the truth, which is being being hidden from us poor blind folks.
Only your spurious link matters. Only your pretzel logic matters.

For example, this classic of yours..."I was saying that I had never said that I said I googled it. My statement was that I googled it." That little nugget that escaped your "noggin" still makes me laugh..."bud".

Despite your obvious projection tendencies and poor attempts at monkey see-monkey do analogies, you are the flat-earther, my friend. Which was pointed out to you some time ago. You agree that you "believe" braided brake lines provide some sort of benefits, no matter how small. Then you then refute it. Then you state again they do. Then you refute it again. Make up your mind whether braided brake lines have some benefits, no mater how small. Oh wait, you can't admit it and stick to it, because it proves you wrong. But it does not matter, the rest of us already know.

You make statements about how you Googled, then you "didn't Google", then you "didn't say you Googled", then you "did say you Googled". I am not even sure you are one individual with one personality. In the end, it is all here for others to read. So don't expect others to jump through your hoops. And don't project your confusion and research paralysis onto others.

No one needs to prove the earth is round to you.. When you are done twisting figures, show us a few experts who agree with you and state that braided stainless steel brake lines provide no benefits. Show us the written conclusions of tests. Don't think you can throw numbers at the wall and hope others don't understand them. We already burst that little balloon of yours. Statistical BS only works when the other side doesn't understand statistics. Sorry, wrong audience for that.
You hide from written conclusions (and behind juggled stats that you hope confuse others) because written conclusions make a statement which can't be clouded by the casting of vague doubts.

Like your sophomoric understanding of the "scientific process", "hard evidence", rigorous scientific testing procedures (not ones that that only mean something when they are your links) and psychology.

And you keep it up with the "I know you are but what am I" projection on others. LOL

And yes, it is obvious you "...can't say for certain how many hoses were tested, and took the average to avoid bias.". Lack of information and corroboration mean nothing to you. So to repeat, you have no idea what the scientific process is, or what rigorous, verifiable testing entails. And your reply proves it.

You once again do not even acknowledge the offer to agree to disagree and move on. Instead, you try to make a laughable tantrum exit with a cute little door slam for effect. Which verifies that you are only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Another trait you attempted to project some time back.

There will be no childish attempt at a door slam here. Because I will address every bit of misinformation, misdirection, and outright falsehoods you attempt to post back with. You are like a game of whack-a-mole.

And yes, you are certainly boggled and dumbfounded.
The fact remains that I have presented actual test data to the best of my ability with what I can find while the only thing you presented is search engine results to the effect of "do your own research" which I am attempting to do. Then when I find additional FACTUAL information, you say I'm moving the goal post. You have not presented anything other that unbacked claims many many posts ago, have offered ZERO additional evidence because you seem to think search engine results are evidence of something, and have made several attempts to discredit what little actual data I have been able to find. You aren't even disputing the data, though. You are trying to discredit the data based on how it was presented, which is hilarious since your entire argument is built on search engine results.

Show me proof, not claims. If you don't have test data to support your claims, don't post.

Edit: also, just because YOU don't understand the test data I presented doesn't mean others here don't either. I f I need to explain what the numbers mean so you can understand them, I'm perfectly happy to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
I enjoyed reading this debate, but would like to point out something that may not be obvious to most… the reason that two people “doing their own research” and googling stuff can lead to arguments like this is that google keeps us all in our own respective bubbles. Since google has learned everyone’s preferences, when you google something, google gives you results it thinks you want to see. Two people googling the exact same thing at the exact same time will get completely different results based on your personal browsing history. If google knows you lean in a certain direction or can ascertain that in your search query, it’s going to immediately confirm your biases, leading to logical fallacies. It knows you won’t use it if it shows you things you don’t agree with or don’t support, so it will stay within pockets of the internet which feature answers that confirm your reason for googling in the first place.

if you need proof, use private browsing mode to anonymize yourself and try the same searches. You’ll get wildly different results.

I’m not saying that y’all were victims of google this time, just saying that telling someone to google it themselves will likely end up with someone cementing a completely different viewpoint than what you might have been going for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
The fact remains that I have presented actual test data to the best of my ability with what I can find while the only thing you presented is search engine results to the effect of "do your own research" which I am attempting to do. Then when I find additional FACTUAL information, you say I'm moving the goal post. You have not presented anything other that unbacked claims many many posts ago, have offered ZERO additional evidence because you seem to think search engine results are evidence of something, and have made several attempts to discredit what little actual data I have been able to find. You aren't even disputing the data, though. You are trying to discredit the data based on how it was presented, which is hilarious since your entire argument is built on search engine results.

Show me proof, not claims. If you don't have test data to support your claims, don't post.

Edit: also, just because YOU don't understand the test data I presented doesn't mean others here don't either. I f I need to explain what the numbers mean so you can understand them, I'm perfectly happy to do so.

Hi Bott. First, I will return your snarkiness. Once again, your sophomoric understanding of the English language "boggles" the mind. I do understand the study and it's data. That is the point. It is a faulty study of such a tiny group (two representatives) performed in an uncontrolled and non-scientific way, that it is moot. Such a representative limited/handicapped study is a faulty study and is not applicable to anything other than those two representatives, if even that.
Remember your preaching about the "scientific process". Try actually following it. You don't like that fact, but it is a fact, whether you understand it or not.

It is like a poll of 2 people being put forward as representative of the opinion of the entire population. It is far too sample and not representative of anything other than those two samples, in that particular moment in time, if even that. Just like your laughable attempt just now of making your opinions and "beliefs" representative of what "others here" think. My and your opinions/beliefs are representative only of what we think, no one else. And filtered through the biases of our individual experience and research. And that is where accuracy comes into play. The only truth is that others will read, hopefully do the research, listen to verifiable expert opinions and decide for themselves. Don't be afraid of expert opinions. Embrace them like you do "data"....lol
Which takes us back full circle back to the lack of scientific process and accurate testing foundation of your example. In other words...lack of "Scientific process".

Again, studies show data and come to a written conclusion. You don't seem to like written conclusions due to the fact they will expose your ""I was saying that I had never said that I said I googled it. My statement was that I googled it." tortured pretzel logic.

Try actually committing to a stance. You have stated you "believe" stainless steel brake lines have benefits. Then you try to qualify those benefits to only include "old brake lines", "worn brake lines" and/or other random criteria you have decided matter. Well, a benefit is a benefit.
Should owners who drive their cars hard or simply want maximum performance wait until their brake lines are "old" and/or "worn" to change them?
What is your criteria for "old"?
What is your criteria for "worn"?
Where's the data concerning when a brake line is "old" or "worn"?
Do you need to find another study, including statistical data, titled "Determining when brake lines are old and/or worn", before you commit to making an actual declarative statement about your stance on the actual subject?

Or should we all suffer along with your "Analysis paralysis"?

What is your final decision? The world awaits. Maybe even "others" await.

Do quality, stainless steel brake lines offer benefits, even if only over "old" brake lines"?
How do you recommend owners determine when their brake lines are old and worn enough to merit replacement.
When they leak? No, even you would have to admit that would be on the late side. At least I hope so.
You changed the brake lines in one of your vehicles to stainless steel braided (for whatever the reasons, old, worn, leaking, changing them anyway, etc.), when would you recommend others do the same? Or should they not, since in your opinion, there are minimal benefits?
And if you now believe they offer no benefits at all, how do you reconcile that belief with the fact that even some of your own supplied links and research state that they do?

Please, stop hiding behind "data", make a decision, take a stance and let me and "others" know what it is.

Now, I will make another attempt at politely ending this:
As for my stance: Through experience and research, I have come to the same conclusion that virtually all automotive experts/professional agreed upon:
1) Quality stainless steel brake lines offer definitive performance, longevity/wear and other advantages. Even if only limited to a somewhat murky criteria of...they only offer worthwhile benefits for "old" and/or "worn" factory rubber brake lines.
2) Most vehicle owners have no need to change their factory brake lines over to braided stainless steel.

That expert/professional advice leads me to my opinions and beliefs, which are:
1) Neither you or I are experts.
2) I would not change over to braided stainless steel myself, for the reason explained in #2 above. Again, this is a decision arrived at through experience and researching the subject.
3) #2 above is my conclusion, valid for my situation only. Yet I can respect the decision of other owners to change their brake lines over to suit their own driving environment and situation. And to get the benefits those brake lines offer, no matter how minor one may "believe" they are.

So instead of the (paraphrased) "Yeah, I believe they offer benefits but I need more data" replies, make a declarative statement so "others" know where you really stand. It is a very simple thing to do.

Do stainless steel brake lines offer any benefits? And if yes, what are they? Only for old and worn brake lines? Other situations but you are still not sure? Not worth the trouble? Worth the trouble?

Then, you've actually utilized your research to declare a solid and clear stance on the subject. And we can both stop the hoop jumping, stop arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and move on in peace.

I realize you will need to reply in a tit-for-tat snarky manner first. Just as I did. But then how about answering the questions, taking a stance and we can move on.

Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
I enjoyed reading this debate, but would like to point out something that may not be obvious to most… the reason that two people “doing their own research” and googling stuff can lead to arguments like this is that google keeps us all in our own respective bubbles. Since google has learned everyone’s preferences, when you google something, google gives you results it thinks you want to see. Two people googling the exact same thing at the exact same time will get completely different results based on your personal browsing history. If google knows you lean in a certain direction or can ascertain that in your search query, it’s going to immediately confirm your biases, leading to logical fallacies. It knows you won’t use it if it shows you things you don’t agree with or don’t support, so it will stay within pockets of the internet which feature answers that confirm your reason for googling in the first place.

if you need proof, use private browsing mode to anonymize yourself and try the same searches. You’ll get wildly different results.

I’m not saying that y’all were victims of google this time, just saying that telling someone to google it themselves will likely end up with someone cementing a completely different viewpoint than what you might have been going for.
Hi 65Dustin. Thanks for your very polite and informative take on things, and you are certainly correct.

I will only state, in a brief and completely non-confrontational manner to anyone else, that I always try to research both/all sides of a subject. And I ensure that I not only look for information/data which confirms my stance, but also for information and data which may contradict my stance. It is the proper way to research, grow and learn.
That is not a judgment of anyone else, only an explanation of my personal beliefs.

However, what I just stated does not change the fact that your analysis was 100% correct.

Thanks and good luck. ;)
 
21 - 40 of 73 Posts
Top