![]() |
Looks to me like the clamp bolt in the stem on the right may not be original. Almost looks like a hex-head bolt for hex key/allen wrench.
But that's beside the point. |
Originally Posted by rhm
(Post 18112307)
Without disagreeing with any of the above, I see mainly a chronological difference. The stem on the right is an earlier design.
Note also the stem on the right has a steel bolt with a steel nut, while the other has a steel bolt that threads into a threads tapped into a blind hole in the stem. That hole is a potential weak spot. It is also possible to strip the threads. Ben |
Did not see an example. The second and third picture are of the same stem, Modolo, that looks like the inverse design of an XA not the one on the left from the OP.
|
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
(Post 18457104)
If you visit Hazardous bicycle handlebar stems you can see examples of failures of stems similar to the left hand one. Rather chilling. I haven't heard of Cinellis failing that way, but that may be just because they are relatively recent and made very well. Could be a different story when those become as old (and treasured) as some of the IAs (similar to the right hand model).
Ben https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V...2/IMG_8250.JPG |
|
Originally Posted by crank_addict
(Post 18457234)
Correct, approx. 1 cm fore - aft. Cinetica also offered the same less integrated bar.
|
Originally Posted by SJX426
(Post 18112261)
The total length for circumferential deformation is greater for the stem on the left.
I would guess that in practice it depends on the thickness and width of the clamping area, and the quality of the metal used. And the details of whatever forging technique was used. That's just a techie-sounding way to say either one could probably made to work just fine, or to fail if made wrong. So it probably boils down to aesthetics. |
Originally Posted by jimmuller
(Post 18458477)
I would guess that in practice it depends on the thickness and width of the clamping area, and the quality of the metal used. And the details of whatever forging technique was used. That's just a techie-sounding way to say either one could probably made to work just fine, or to fail if made wrong. So it probably boils down to aesthetics.
|
Originally Posted by jimmuller
(Post 18458477)
That was my first observation. In theory this means less deformation on any given section of the clamp, which should mean less likelihood of failure.
I would guess that in practice it depends on the thickness and width of the clamping area, and the quality of the metal used. And the details of whatever forging technique was used. That's just a techie-sounding way to say either one could probably made to work just fine, or to fail if made wrong. So it probably boils down to aesthetics. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.