Conshelf XIV HP hose

[2airishuman]

If you are implying the hoses I sell to my customers are of poor quality I'd like to see your proof. If not I'd suggest a correction to your statement is in order.

Brian,

Most HP hoses, including the ones you sell, are stamped with a date code on the crimp on the SPG end, beginning with the letter D, and followed by a two digit month and a two digit year. I have one such hose, purchased from you sometime in summer 2016, that bears a date code of D1012, that is, October 2012, indicating that it was nearly four years old at the time I received it. Based on DAN recommendations, I am replacing all my hoses once they're five years old. It will therefore have to be replaced this winter.

It was my presumption that these are specialty vintage hoses and that slow stock turnover is an inherent problem due to the quantities involved. Therefore I did not return the hose or contact you about it. Hoses that I have purchased from DGX, Pirhana, and others typically arrive with a manufacturing date sometime in the preceding year.

If your intention is to ship fresh stock and the older hose I received was a mistake, let's work this out between us and I'll post the outcome here.

To be clear, I have no quarrel with you or your products on the whole and have referred people to you dozens of times both on Scubaboard and elsewhere.

 

[Bryan@Vintage Double Hose]

So you didn't say about it when you received it in 2016 but now you want me to do something?
How about we just cut through all the BS nonsense.
I'll refund the price of the hose and send you a prepaid shipping by label for its return.
Send me the order number and I'll have it taken care of immediately.

 

[2airishuman]

So you didn't say about it when you received it in 2016 but now you want me to do something?
How about we just cut through all the BS nonsense.
I'll refund the price of the hose and send you a prepaid shipping by label for its return.
Send me the order number and I'll have it taken care of immediately.

Brian,

Please, let's take this easy. Someone asked a question, I answered as best I could, from the standpoint of a satisfied VDH customer trying to explain the pros and cons of a particular product as I see them. You asked for facts, I provided facts. If you want to replace the hose with a newer one, based on those facts, that's up to you. I don't expect it and am not asking for it. I'm not asking for a refund. I don't need a return shipping label even if you do decide to replace it. OK?

 

[Bryan@Vintage Double Hose]

Brian,

Please, let's take this easy. Someone asked a question, I answered as best I could, from the standpoint of a satisfied VDH customer trying to explain the pros and cons of a particular product as I see them. You asked for facts, I provided facts. If you want to replace the hose with a newer one, based on those facts, that's up to you. I don't expect it and am not asking for it. I'm not asking for a refund. I don't need a return shipping label even if you do decide to replace it. OK?

The intent of you post was VERY clear to me and anyone else that read it. You are letting everyone know that what I sell is no good according to a DAN article. Here is how we solve the problem...Pretty simple but I'll lay it out for you again.

How about we just cut through all the BS nonsense.
I'll refund the price of the hose and send you a prepaid shipping by label for its return.
Send me the order number and I'll have it taken care of immediately.

Going forward and as an FYI....Randy and I order hoses from the same place so when he comes over tomorrow I'll bring this to his attention and we will figure out what to do from there. On the other hand I'll check all my stock for "dangerous" hoses and return them to the manufacturer for FRESH ones or I'll cut them into pieces and toss them out.

 

[tridacna]

OK. I never meant to start a war. I'm going to buy a new hose from Brian for my "new" Conshelf. Frankly I don't really care about the stamp; unless Brian stores them outside and inflates them secretly on a daily basis, I doubt that the rubber has degraded in any significant way since manufacture.

 

[george_austin]

Hm. I didn't know hose fittings have a date code stamped on them. Now I'll check all my hoses. I recently bought some flex hoses that failed quickly

The things that keep me up at night

 

[herman]

Not sure how a 5 year life on hoses was determined but I have issues with it. I have very few hoses that are less than 10 yo with most over 15. To date I have never had a hose that caused me to abort a dive, a few that started leaking and were replaced but never a catastrophic failure. Likely its the same reason that annual service is "necessary" for regs to be safe, CYA. Those of us who service our own regs quickly realize that some magical time is not how we should determine a service interval. Inspection and maintenance determine when parts need to be replaced.
Does anyone replace the brake line hoses on their car every 5 years? They are basically the same type hoses and under a lot worse service than the worst treated scuba hose.....and IMO failure of them is a lot worse.

 

[Luis H]

I have perfectly good hoses that are over 40 years old and I don't see any reason to replace them. I inspect them on a regular basis, but would not replace them unless I see or feel some kind of defect or wear.

I am planning on looking more into this new 5 year arbitrary recommendation, but I also think is a total CYA recommendation based on the issues that have been found on the new double braided hoses. The inside tube material of the new double braid hoses seem to be an issue, but I don't know the details, just what I have been reading.

On the mean time I was going to ask that if anyone is compelled on replacing perfectly good hoses, please don't throw them away to end up on a land fill. I will take your perfectly good hoses and put them to good use. I am serious, IMHO, throwing away perfectly good hose is another environmental issue.

Just like Herman's example, there are many industrial applications were similar pressure hoses are used in much more hostile environment and no one changes them on a 5 year cycle.

 

[iain/hsm]

For the benefit of the average reader a certain amount of clarity needs to be offered.

Namely, both Luis, Herman and OWIC647 are referring to a hose specification HP or LP made to an industrial hose standard of SAE 100 R6, (Also known as EN 845 in Europe) using a NBR compound and a textile braid reinforcement. The hose was made up of three (3) parts.

1. The textile aspect or braid was normally Rayon up to and including Kevlar and was for purely retaining pressure.

2. The outer cover was as a “scratch or scuff skin” and does not retain any pressure, the material compound is chosen also with regard to any required scuff resistance, hydraulic oil resistance (diving in an oil slick, in aircraft recovery for example)

3. The inner tube material is for gas retention only, up to and including “helium proofing” depending on the compound. NBR Nitrile or Buna N are the common materials and the compounds are specified depending on application.

The combination of which made up the hose with the design engineer making the decision regarding the allowable elongation, and deflection, bend radius and hose restriction as the critical aspects of the design. Working pressure to minimum burst pressure was 4:1 up to 10:1 was again depending on application and life expectancy.

For scuba 20 years was the required expected working life in a military application. With storage considerations for the Royal Navy for example of cold storage from the Arctic Norway down to heat and humidity in the like of Belize.

For recreation sports for America for example Gates Rubber provide a Compound 33HB used in LP and HP hose -40°F to +120°F (-40°C to +49°C) continuous service.
...........................................................................................................................................................

By contrast the LP hose the OP is referring to and in the article written by my college Francois Burman for the DAN Article with the specified 5 year life was the life expectancy at which the particular thermoplastic polymorphic crystallisation of the inner polymer starts to break down, This material is well known to have a short life expectancy and the numerous articles in forums show the concerns including mine in the use of this material in modern scuba hose. Brands such as Miflex and the like incidentally in addition all have with the outer scuff skin removed in order to sell in pretty colours and market the flexibility to the unsuspecting sports diver.

20 years life minimum, or a bendable and pretty colour (color) with a five year life is your call. Knowing the difference is key. But a huge gulf is fixed between the rinky dink modern scuba standard of EN250 (DEMA 105) against the might of industrial military design guides in standards such as SAE 100R6 (EN 845) just better if we don’t confuse the difference and in either option stear well away from chemicals, compounds, polymers and finished hose originating in the PRC China or Tiawan and for that matter a toilet bowl and bathroom sink hose manufaturer based in Italy . I trust this makes it clear. Iain Middlebrook.

 

[Luis H]

Thanks Iain.
I am still planning on doing more research, but it helps that you pointed to some actual spec numbers. Professionally (design engineer) I never had to get too involve in any hose design details.

My wife liked her Miflex hose, but she just tried a more conventional hose with a swivel at the 2nd stage and she is very happy with it (and so am I).