Be careful lighting it up. Want to keep those eyebrows. 

Quote from: oldndumb on October 19, 2014, 01:29:53 PM
Be careful lighting it up. Want to keep those eyebrows. 

I'm not jonesing for clear tubing that bad, lol.

I might get more 2375 as well as the SE-200 just to confirm that the 2375 isn't suitable or that I just got a bad batch. Because both Kurvey Gurl and Motowheels are calling the *ultra* chemical resistant stuff 2375, and SE-200 is the only *ultra*.

US Plastics also lists Tygon 2375 as ultra chemical resistant, as does a scientific supply catalog at my lab.

Great thread

amazing to see the bends you are getting ...but like I said maybe I have been buying the crap stuff

gotta say with the spring externally it looks very industrial ( it is on my sons Ninja  so getting a pic will be doubtful )

I ordered stainless spring clamps for 3/8" hose if anyone needs some, minimum packs of 50 which is way too many for me to use. The plated OE clamps can be pretty cheesy. Just pay for the stamp.

When I'm not on my phone I'll try to post the technical document I referred to that ID'd the 2375 as standard "chemical resistant. There's a link right on the McMaster product page.

http://www.mcmaster.com/#8354KAC

Kurvey Girl data sheets show the 2375 as having a minimum bend radius of 3/4".
This is backed up by data at McMaster-Carr.

Kurvey Girl shows the SE-200 as having a minimum bend radius of 2", and noting that it's a 2-piece construction, having an FEP liner.

Quote from: Buck Naked on October 18, 2014, 08:17:38 PM
Another thing I discovered through Tygon themselves is that the 2375 is NOT approved for constant exposure to ethylene glycol. Only the ultra (SE-200) is. ~~~SNIP~~~

What does Ethylene Glycol resistance have to do with using it for brake fluid?

McMaster-Carr data sheet says both 2375 ans SE-200 have excellent resistance to Ethylene Glycol.
http://www.mcmaster.com/#8354kac/=u88h0g

SE-200 is 6519T, and 2375 is 5103K.

Quote from: Speeddog on October 19, 2014, 10:31:26 PM
Kurvey Girl data sheets show the 2375 as having a minimum bend radius of 3/4".
This is backed up by data at McMaster-Carr.

Kurvey Girl shows the SE-200 as having a minimum bend radius of 2", and noting that it's a 2-piece construction, having an FEP liner.


What does Ethylene Glycol resistance have to do with using it for brake fluid?

McMaster-Carr data sheet says both 2375 ans SE-200 have excellent resistance to Ethylene Glycol.
http://www.mcmaster.com/#8354kac/=u88h0g

SE-200 is 6519T, and 2375 is 5103K.

Good question. Apparently my associates degree in Chemistry from the University of Google made me just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous...I naively conflated ethylene glycol with DIethylene glycol.

Neither myself or Ute are getting "bendability" from what we've both assumed is the 2375. Duchead has a different experience. Maybe he actually has the SE-200. Or maybe Ute and I got some bunk tubing. What I have def has a liner though, and both MMC and KG only designate the SE 200 as having this.

So far I've only succeded in littering the internetz with even more confusing and potential (dis)(mis) information.

Quote from: Buck Naked on October 20, 2014, 05:31:13 AM
Apparently my associates degree in Chemistry from the University of Google made me just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous. 

I am laughing so hard it hurts.  That is my new tag line.  

Quote from: Skybarney on October 20, 2014, 11:51:52 AM
I am laughing so hard it hurts.  That is my new tag line.  

Thanks, I'll be here all week...

 

Well I didn't expect this...



It's the SE-200 that is inflexible, and the 2375 arrived in its own individually wrapped Saint-Gobain packaging as ULTRA, while the SE-200 did not have that distinction.



And as you can see, it's the 2375 that is nice and flexible.



So apparently MMC has the features of the 2 flip flopped on their website. It seems that the 2375 is the ultra chemical resistant tubing with "very flexible" and "soft" characteristics, while the SE 200 is "hard" and regular "flexible" /"(not ultra) chemical resistant". I suppose what Motowheels sent me was actually the SE200?

There's yet another formulation known as 2075/MMC #5046K13 that is also supposedly an "ultra", which is a 2 week back order @ $3.20 per ft/1 ft minimum orders but I was too impatient to wait for it.

The 2375 is $1.70 per ft/ 5 ft minimum and I'd suggest anyone interested should jump on that because I think MMC is selling it at the wrong (too low) price, with the SE200 actually being the inferior one that *should* be that price instead of $3.39/2 ft minimum order.

Bottom line, it seems that 2375 is the winner, and both MMC and Motowheels have things mixed up. I bet Motowheels bought their tubing from MMC which would explain it!

If anyone wants a foot of 2375 plus stainless spring clamps, come at me Bro. I'll beat everyone's price just to break even on this little experiment.  

Cheers

  Fail:



  Win:

Thanks for the research and leg work on this

My chemistry degrees are not from Google.   

Quote from: DucHead on October 21, 2014, 05:24:04 PM
My chemistry degrees are not from Google.   

I personally never doubted you...