Boonen's stem

Time carbon.

"peter gager" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone know what type of stem broke on Boonen?

On 20 Jul 2004 11:41:50 -0700, [email hidden] (peter gager)

Quoted message said:

Anyone know what type of stem broke on Boonen?

Ritchey WCS would be my guess as that is who they are sponsored by

Russ said:

On 20 Jul 2004 11:41:50 -0700, [email hidden] (peter gager)

Quoted message said:

Anyone know what type of stem broke on Boonen?

Ritchey WCS would be my guess as that is who they are sponsored by

Whoops.. couple days late, but that's wrong... I was thinking of
Hasselbacher's bars....

QSD rides Time

If anyone is still interested, it was definitely Ritchey. Tom Ritchey
made a disclaimer statement quoted on VeloNews. com to the effect that
the service and crash history of Boonen's stem was unknown, it would
be investigated, he had full faith in his product line, etc.

Lou D'Amelio

Lou D'Amelio said:

If anyone is still interested, it was definitely Ritchey. Tom Ritchey
made a disclaimer statement quoted on VeloNews. com to the effect that
the service and crash history of Boonen's stem was unknown, it would
be investigated, he had full faith in his product line, etc.

I didn't think so, so I looked up the article in VeloNews. <
http://www.velonews.com/tour2004/tech/articles/6642.0.html >

The article talks about Haselbacher's broken Ritchey WCS alloy bars, not
Boonen's stem, which from other reports is supposedly carbon and made by
Time.

What do you think about this excerpt from Zinn's article?

"While it is easy, and often warranted, to point the finger for equipment
failures at the manufacturer, there are always other factors involved. How
the part was installed, how long it has been used and under what conditions,
if it has been crashed before, and if it is being used for a purpose for
which it was not designed all play a role. In this case, for instance, the
cobbles on the way to Wasquehal on the third stage may have done damage to
the bar that went undetected, and then the stresses of the sprint may have
been the straw that broke the camel's back. With superlight stuff, frequent
replacement and inspection, as well as careful installation to the proper
torque setting is critical. Just because you paid a lot for something does
not mean it will last longer; in fact, it is often the opposite."

I agree with the "if it has been crashed before" defense for parts failure.
I know it is only Zinn's wild guess and not a manufacturer's argument, but
no one is designing bars that should be replaced after one cobblestone ride.
That would be be an ultimate definition of "stupid light". Who's to say
that something like that won't break under a heavier rider (i.e. Chalo or
even "crank breaking" Jobst) before one ride is over? What if a lighter
rider hits a deep pothole unexpectedly hard? Plus, I don't see pro team
mechanics wanting to deal with 9 bar changes after each rough stage.

I don't think the difference in weight between a bar or stem that can last
indefinitely assuming no crashes (lifetime or say 200,000+ miles) and one
that has yearly replacement intervals should be very great with a good
design (maybe 50g?). It's not like you need to double the weight to to
double the life of a part (or even close to that). I would be suspicious of
any structural part like that that has a recommended regular replacement
interval. Similarly, with the UCI weight limit, I don't know why people
want to mess around with carbon rim braking surfaces on mountain stages...

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:42:39 -0800, "Andrew Lee"

whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom said:

What do you think about this excerpt from Zinn's article?

"While it is easy, and often warranted, to point the finger for equipment
failures at the manufacturer, there are always other factors involved. How
the part was installed, how long it has been used and under what conditions,
if it has been crashed before, and if it is being used for a purpose for
which it was not designed all play a role. In this case, for instance, the
cobbles on the way to Wasquehal on the third stage may have done damage to
the bar that went undetected, and then the stresses of the sprint may have
been the straw that broke the camel's back. With superlight stuff, frequent
replacement and inspection, as well as careful installation to the proper
torque setting is critical. Just because you paid a lot for something does
not mean it will last longer; in fact, it is often the opposite."

I agree with the "if it has been crashed before" defense for parts failure.
I know it is only Zinn's wild guess and not a manufacturer's argument, but
no one is designing bars that should be replaced after one cobblestone ride.
That would be be an ultimate definition of "stupid light".

Yeah, that would be insane. If stuff is crashed it should be checked,
but if a road can be ridden it shouldn't be considered so rough as to
require rechecking the bars that day.

JT