HP Hose Failure

[DANDM]

So... Should I stop buying my hoses from AliExpress?!

 

[iain/hsm]

So... Should I stop buying my hoses from AliExpress?!

Heck if you did that I would have nothing to complain about and would have to be nice to folk apparently

 

[iain/hsm]

Thank you for proving my point. You are probably the rudest person on SB I have seen in a long time.

Let's agree for the sake of clarity to remove "probably"

 

[iain/hsm]

Ok, so buying hoses that say "Made in USA" and also have "EN250" marked on the same hose are junk? Because I have several that have both on the same hose.
So we can't go by "made in USA" anymore I take it?
I'm just trying to understand what needs to be marked on the hose so I know it's not junk.
I looked at all my hoses, and none of them have SAE100R3 on them.
If I call somewhere and ask if their LP and HP hoses are up to SAE100R3 standards are they going to know what I'm talking about?
Just tell us!
...and please stop with the long talk and the irrelevant list of credentials, I'm sure you're very qualified and know a lot about the industry inside and out. That's great but I don't care, I just want to know about hoses and what I need to look for that's STAMPED ON THE HOSE.

No not necessarily you can under this crazy sub standard EN rule for the hose do the following:
1. Use proper SAE100R3 specification hose
2. And still print Made in America on it if it is indeed made in America and not just the hose ends added
3. But you still have to print EN250 and a working pressure of your choice.

My point is SAE is an extremely good American standard in the first place for the reasons I gave and explained earlier.

EN250 by contrast is nothing like up to the same standard. You print the working pressure on your toilet water pipe hose and the words EN250 and you're done.

And you the end user have no idea what your using or breathing from and any wonder your now told to change the hose every how many years Oh yes its now a consumable replaceable product for your safety.

 

[BRT]

I'm new to this sport. I only started in 1969 using a healthways regulator. I've been an instructor since just after the turn of the century. I've worked in shops, rebuilt more regulators than I could care to count, and have replaced more than my share of hoses. I'm sure that pales in comparison to your experience.


It's not meant to be. It's almost entirely ego driven and relies on fear mongering. They think they know better, but somehow can't be bothered to clue you in their "secret sauce". Some feel that dissing products elevates their standing in the eyes of others. Maybe some are gullible enough to think they are on to something, but there just any substance to their cries of alarm. In the end, the gear produced today is far superior than when I first started diving... even the hoses. Plan on replacing your hoses from time to time. Look for checking in the outer cover, and chuck those that show signs of deterioration. Most diving destinations have hoses available should one decide to fail on a dive. If a hose does start to fizz, check your air and call the dive. If it's a really big leak, like an o-ring failure, kink the hose if possible and call the dive. It can be quite an exciting experience, but in over 50 years of diving, I can't think of a single injury, much less death attributed to a failed hose.

And please, many leaky hoses look just like good hoses. Make a habit of cutting leakers into two pieces. Snip, snip. That will stop anyone from accidentally reusing it.

No you are not an instructor.

 

[happy-diver]

Yeah with no ability to listen quietly gleaning the required information to do further research to provide a solution

But no just the standard grasping for information that you ain't going to comprehend or do anything with anyway

Well it seems the dude has only two hands and bottles

Abusing the source along the way, due to presentation

Youse guys don't deserve the truth

Happy people having arrived at the secret scuba hose shop with enough stock to change all their reg hoses

Happy, excited as they understand listening without whining

Geez I wish there really was that ratio of girls in scuba diving!

 

[Tanks A Lot]

[...]
Now compare the same 150 psi hose maximum working pressure with that of the older SAE standard that although working at the same 150psi pressure the old specification had a maximum allowable working pressure of 1250 psi together with a burst pressure of 5000 psi. This gives a safety margin of 4:1 Four time the maximum allowable working pressure before burst. More than the full working pressure of the cylinder.
[...]

[...]
EN250 by contrast is nothing like up to the same standard. You print the working pressure on your toilet water pipe hose and the words EN250 and you're done.
[...]

I just want to point out that this is factually wrong. EN250 includes the same 4:1 safety margin as comparable SAE standards.

Under EN250 for HP-hoses:

• Unpressurized tensile force of 1000N
• Flexibility test around a 65mm (±2.5mm) cylinder
• Withstand four times working pressure (Burst test)

Under EN250 for LP-hoses:

• Unpressurized tensile force of 1000N
• Flexibility test around a 65mm (±2.5mm) cylinder
• Endure at least twice the rated pressure or 30bar, whichever is higher
• Withstand four times working pressure or 100bar, whichever is higher (Burst test)
• Resist kinking
• Axial tensile load of 250N on the connections for breathing hoses

I omitted a few other requirements for brevity.

Ian is right to point out that SAE J517, which includes the earlier-mentioned SAE 100R3 and SAE 100R8, is a bit more specific. It goes into more detail about what materials to use, but that is often done to ensure that the chosen material is compatible with hydraulic fluids. The SAE tests are a little more rigorous, but again, I’d argue that this is due to the environments they are expected to operate in. I see little reason to make a SCUBA hose endure an impulse test, for example. In a hydraulic system, on the other hand, this is most beneficial. The other tests are virtually the same or irrelevant.

Making a hose pass a test, be it EN250 or SAE J517, and last for a couple of years is simple. Making them last decades is hard. It doesn't matter if it's a hose or another item; bad quality is bad quality. But this has nothing to do with the standard itself.

I also find it disingenuous to pound on the fact that EN250 hoses should be replaced at certain intervals. EN250 itself doesn't specify anything like that. It’s mostly the manufacturers doing so. If I recall correctly, SAE J1273 specifically outlines a 10-year lifespan for hydraulic hoses from the date of manufacture, provided they pass regular visual inspections.

Comparing SAE J517 with EN250 is like comparing apples to oranges. One is expected to withstand hydraulic oils and fluids, while the other must contain gas. SAE 100R8, for example, specifically aims at producing non-conductive hydraulic hoses. This is irrelevant to SCUBA.

That there is a certain lack of oversight and enforcement of the rules and requirements is no doubt true. No one stops a dubious character from making substandard hoses, stamping EN250 onto them, and selling them in the EU. But that doesn't mean the standard itself is flawed. Equally, the same people can sell substandard SAE 100R8 hoses.

I don't agree that EN250 hoses are all rubbish. Sure, there are bad hoses under the EN250 umbrella, but so are there under SAE J517. In my opinion, EN250-compliant hoses from a reputable manufacturer are well suited for the SCUBA market and I see little reason to suggest otherwise.

 

[iain/hsm]

I just want to point out that this is factually wrong. EN250 includes the same 4:1 safety margin as comparable SAE standards. Under EN250 for LP-hoses: Endure at least twice the rated pressure or 30bar, whichever is higher
Withstand four times working pressure or 100bar, whichever is higher (Burst test)

Heck busted LOL....No.... But now I have to point out in reply that your statement quoted above is factually misleading and convert Bar to Psi by the look of it. But your statement is still misleading and EN centric if you dont mind me saying. But they are two vastly contrasting standards.

1. Under EN 250 the LP hose is tested to 30 Bar (435 psig) and withstands 100 Bar (1450 psig)

Now contrast that to the original American Diving Hose LP standard SAE100R3 DIVERS HOSE
and please note this is not the same as SAE100R3 Hydraulic hose as you implied.

2. Under SAE100R3 Divers Hose The minimum working pressure is 86 Bar (1250 psig) and the minimum test burst pressure is 345 Barg (5000 psig)

We Agree so far? Yes.

Therefore by our agreed calculation the American SAE100R3 Divers Hose is four times that of the EU250 standard for there junk toilet water hose that was introduced into the EU market by the vested interest parties of the various committee members in order to introduce the cheap junk from China et al and the multiple recalled toilet water hose from Italy. This is when the first misleading fudge of 4:1 is introduced to the unsuspecting scuba diving market together with pretty colours matching options.

We still agree?

While the Americans scuba divers were simply sold down the river with the plethora of junk made for profit trinkets and the original American standard dumped in favour of this inferior EU junk.
Others may disagree. Feel Free. But one of them is tested to 30 bar while the other is happily working at 86 bar. And to put it another way one withstands 1450 psi while the other 5000 psi and were only starting by talking low pressure 10 bar (150psi) intermediate hose.

 

[Divin'Papaw]

Heck busted LOL....No.... But now I have to point out in reply that your statement quoted above is factually misleading and convert Bar to Psi by the look of it. But your statement is still misleading and EN centric if you dont mind me saying. But they are two vastly contrasting standards.

1. Under EN 250 the LP hose is tested to 30 Bar (435 psig) and withstands 100 Bar (1450 psig)

Now contrast that to the original American Diving Hose LP standard SAE100R3 DIVERS HOSE
and please note this is not the same as SAE100R3 Hydraulic hose as you implied.

2. Under SAE100R3 Divers Hose The minimum working pressure is 86 Bar (1250 psig) and the minimum test burst pressure is 345 Barg (5000 psig)

We Agree so far? Yes.

Therefore by our agreed calculation the American SAE100R3 Divers Hose is four times that of the EU250 standard for there junk toilet water hose that was introduced into the EU market by the vested interest parties of the various committee members in order to introduce the cheap junk from China et al and the multiple recalled toilet water hose from Italy. This is when the first misleading fudge of 4:1 is introduced to the unsuspecting scuba diving market together with pretty colours matching options.

We still agree?

While the Americans scuba divers were simply sold down the river with the plethora of junk made for profit trinkets and the original American standard dumped in favour of this inferior EU junk.
Others may disagree. Feel Free. But one of them is tested to 30 bar while the other is happily working at 86 bar. And to put it another way one withstands 1450 psi while the other 5000 psi and were only starting by talking low pressure 10 bar (150psi) intermediate hose.

So this explains why all of my junk hoses keep exploding on me after a year or two of use. Oh wait ....

 

[BoltSnap]

So this explains why all of my junk hoses keep exploding on me after a year or two of use. Oh wait ....

And the world is ending, and all hoses were hosed with the sky falling and raining hosed hoses on us.