It isn't an argument from me or an attempt to defend anything.
I mentioned Aeroquip simply for the reason that the material used is of a different standard then automotive hose.
Second, what you are describing from my experience although on the short side of what I'd expect, IS what I would expect from automotive grade fuel line.
The fuel line that I had on the Ford dual 4 fuel rail showed cracking where it expands over the metal fuel nipples on both the carbs and fuel rail in like a 12 month to 18 month time period.
I can't speak scientifically about it, just from memory. Since I sort of expect this kind of performance from the hose, I just changed it out and there is a roll of new hose in my "hose drawer".
I understand the disappointment with the performance but if memory serves me right, the original hoses that I saw on complete swap meet assemblies were thicker, were shinny like the rubber had hardened and commonly showed similar cracking over the nipples.
The thing to do is to inquire with Marti and point this out to him. I could think of several scenarios that would tend to explain the situation, all of which are on his end and he should consider proper course of action.
At one time Scott Drake products had approached high reliability/dependability, now that has apparently gone by the waste side with repackaging inferior products under their name.
I've got two sets of Marti's spark plug wires and there are pluses and minuses. A plus is that they are nice and flexable and don't crack and pop when you bend them like the originals. The minus is that they are too much like the originals and lack the sophistication of current thick silicone wires.
You just can't have it both ways. They look nice and so far don't cross fire but I have my doubts about how they will survive with the heat of the headers?
By the same token, I have two brand new sets of Ford Racing silicone plug wires that immediately split the first time I ran them so we're just in a lack of product quality era and probably should just expect a 50% product failure.
In the '60s these parts were cheap and no one thought much about it. Now, they ain't so cheap and sometimes analyzing what the problem is, isn't that simple.
It just doesn't make sense to have a high quality expectation.
What I do on my 67 GT500 is different then what I do with the 68 GT350 with the 2x4's. On the '68 I take a "makes sense" and a durability/serviceability approach at the risk of being burned at the stake as a heretic, but so be it. There's always someone shaking their finger at me and telling me i'm going to Hell anyway? At least "I'm enjoying the ride?"
I LIKE the "Aeroquip" hose on my '68. It's the "Devil's Jewellery".
This is my latest combination with ss tubing. Given my past history, it likely will change again, but I like the fuel line up away from the throttle linkages.
Those linkages have also been worked with rod ends. So this car is for function rather then correct appearances. Lots of the T/A coupes had the linkages worked with rod ends as well.