Canberradude: The polyethylene bottles become extremely plastic-tasting after a while. Makes them useless for more than a few rides. I prefer PET for this reason, like the PUMP type - very squeezable and reusable.

I just had a quick look at one of those objectionable bottles and it's got your BOA logo underneath.

I think it's more of a style issue than anything else... mountain bikers hit more jolts and bumps that can knock regular water bottles out of their cages so camelbacks are very practical. Road cycling style these days is based on the racing scene, where due to whatever reason they generally don't use camelbacks (weight? With water stations maybe they don't need to carry that much water with them?). Look at all the recreational bikers out there in full kit vs. plain jerseys, etc... people are just following the style of the day.

I say if you want to use a camelback, use a camelback... you might not win OCP points but who cares. At least you will be well hydrated and won't have to worry about finding a decent water bottle that doesn't leak.

Hey JUR,

with out trying to put you off, you should definately NOT be re using PET bottles. They are not designed for re use and actually have poisonous carcinogens in the plastic. PET is designed to break down eventually and if you keep re using them the carcinogens will enter your blood stream, not pretty! If you want to not have LPDE become plastic tasting you need to make sure you regularly wash them in the dish washer on the top shelf. Most people neglect this.

OK, I will try washing the one bottle that I have left. I have tried washing before with zero success, but not in the dish washer. Unfortunately I have retired almost all those ones I had to chain washing duty.

Can you back up the PET re-use issue with some sources? And with plastic-tasting poly-eth, what about those plastic molecules entering my gastric system?

The same Nalgene bottle caused me to crash and break my elbow last week. That cap was tight and I needed took both hands off to open it, lost my balance, and came down on my elbow cap.

I'm sure my lack of balance played a bigger role in the crash, but hey, why not blame the bottle :D

I will have a look at work tommorow, Im sure I would have some info somewhere on PET. Polyeth, be it high density (hard) or Low density(soft) doesn't break down like PET so molecules wont enter your blood. Im not trying to turn you off it I'm just saying that if you wanna use PET bottles to replace them on a regular basis, weekly if you can. The majority of people arent aware of the dangers, I wan't either until I worked in the industry.
You'll notice that PET gets softer the longer you have it, thats because it's breaking down and needs to be thrown away, which is the use it's intended for.

Hey Jur, here is some info for you. It's kind of long so sorry about that but hopefully this will help you.
Cheers
Jason
> > Something to consider for your health and safety from the Qld Dept of
> > Natural Resources and Mines.
> >
> > "Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some
> of
> > you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable
mineral
> > water bottles (eg.Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain,Vita, etc), keeping them
in
> > your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic
> (called
> > polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a
> > potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine
or
> > DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep
> them
> > longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep
> > them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the
> > plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical
> agents)
> > can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in
> > water
> > bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something
we
> > should be scrimping on.
> >
> > Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for
> their
> > children's sake."
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Graham Bauer
> > Workplace Health and Safety Officer
> > Department of Natural Resources and Mines
> > Level 4 Mineral House
> > 41 George St
> > GPO Box 2454
> > Brisbane Q 4001
> >
> > Phone: (07) 32247829
> > Fax: 32248607
> > Email: graham.bauer@nrm.qld.gov.au
> >
> > Abstract of Meeting Paper
> > Society for Risk Analysis 2001 Annual Meeting
> > Environmental Engineering Program. D. Lilya, University of Idaho
> >
> > This study identified and quantified migration compounds from reused
> PET
> > bottles and evaluated both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks.
> A
> > preliminary survey of the university community found that 88% of the
> > participants reused polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles
> > used for bottled water, some for as long as six months. These bottles
> are
> > not made or regulated for reuse and may not possess the physical
> > characteristics necessary to be safely reused. Bottles are only
> approved
> > for a single use and the long-term safety of bottle reuse has not
been
> > investigated. For this study, 1 litre PET bottles were exposed to
> realistic
> > but extreme reuse parameters, such as sunlight, heat, storage time,
and
> > physical degradation, which are known to increase chemical migration
into
> > the water being consumed. Water samples were then extracted using a
solid
> > phase extraction, followed by GC-MS. Migration compounds were
> > tentatively identified by GC-MS analysis using Wiley and NIST
> > libraries and were verified and quantified when possible using known
> > standards. Measured concentrations and toxicity data were obtained for
> > the
> > identified compounds and were used to evaluate the
> > noncarcinogenic and carcinogenics risks. Four
> compounds,
> > 1,4-benzenedicarboxaldehyde,
> > benzoic acid butyl ester, 4-ethoxy-benzoic acid ethyl
> ester,
> > di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA),
> > were found to migrate from PET bottles exposed to conditions of reuse.
> It
> > was found that PET bottle reuse increased organic chemical migration
> and
> > concentrations increased with length of reuse. Original and reused
PET
> > bottles were found to have different migration potential's based on
> the
> > colour or brand of bottle. A preliminary screening of other types
of
> > non-PET reusable water bottles found that migration was not limited
> to
> > PET alone and might also pose a health concern. The analytical
procedure
> > used was better than current FDA testing procedures because it
> allowed
> > a detailed risk assessment to be conducted. PET bottles may exceed
> > acceptable carcinogenic risk levels, especially for
> > di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), under different reuse exposure
> scenarios,
> > however little is known about the toxicity of most PET migration
> > compounds.
> > More research is needed on the toxicity of the migration compounds
> > from both PET and non-PET bottles before a risk assessment can
> > adequately
> > predict the human health risks associated with prolonged bottle reuse.
> > Reuse
> > of PET bottles may be increasing organic chemical migration into the
water
> > being consumed and consumers may be exposing themselves to elevated
> > levels of migration compounds for which few toxicity data exist.
> > ================================================================
> >
> > You can also down load a 13 page pdf file from Swiss Federal
> Laboratories
> > for Materials
> > Testing and Research http://www.sodis.ch/files/Report_EMPA.pdf or
> read
> > their summary:
> > 3.4 Summary and conclusions
> > Under conditions of solar disinfection of drinking water, migration
> of
> > organic components from poly-ethylene > terephthalate (PET) bottles
to
> > the water was studied. 6 bottles were exposed to sunlight at 60°C. For
> > comparison, 6 bottles were exposed to sunlight at ambient temperature
> > (maximum water temperature 34°C) and 3 bottles were kept in the shade
at
> > room temperature (25°C), respectively. Total time of exposure to
> sunlight
> > was 17 hours. In order to elaborate the possible influence of
further
> > parameters, new and used bottles from different countries Honduras,
> Nepal,
> > and Switzerland) were selected. Qualitative analyses of the water
samples
> > revealed traces of several organic compounds possibly due to
> flavour
> > components of the originally bottled beverages. Above a detection limit
of
> > 1
> > µg/L, no further organic components could be detected. Levels of
the
> > plasticisers di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
> > (DEHA) and di(2-ethylhexyl)
> > phthalate (DEHP) detected in the water were 0.010 - 0.046 µg/L for DEHA
> and
> > 0.10 - 0.71 µg/L for DEHP. As concentrations in blank samples
were
> > in
> > a similar range (average 0.018 µg/L for DEHA and 0.11 µg/L for DEHP),
the
> > detected levels have to be considered as maximum levels. If the
highest
> > detected levels are used for a toxicological assessment of DEHA and DEHP
> > (0.046 µg/L for DEHA and 0.71 µg/L for DEHP), the carcinogenic risk
> posed
> > by permanent exposure to these levels is 1.6 · 10 -9 for DEHA and 2.8 ·
> 10
> > -7 for DEHP, being below a carcinogenic risk of 1 in 10 6 .
Furthermore,
> > these levels are distinctly below the WHO guidelines for drinking water
> > quality (80 µg/L for DEHA and 8 µg/L for DEHP).
> >

That is odd, you'd think anything being used to carry something for human consumption would be free from carcinogens. I'm skeptical about that claim that after time the bottle breaks down and can introduce carcinogens into your body.

I looked into this just then, and it turns out that email is a hoax. Reusing PET is OK.

See for example
http://www.plasticsmythbuster.org/reusing.asp
http://www.debris.com/journal/832

Your instinct was right on target. :)

It certainly sounds like they have done their research. Im sure my boss would be interested in seeing that info, she just forwarded on what she had but has been in the industry for over 15 years and they know their stuff.
I think well just have to agree to disagree on this one, I'm obviously not going to support the use of PET because well, I work for BOA and I just don't think they look very good in your cages. It's going to sound extremely snobby (this is cycling after all) but I don't want to put a 1$ mount franklin bottle in the carbon cage of my $6000 Caad 7 R3000 because normal bottles look and function a lot better (and our metallic blue matches my frame!). Just my opinion though and I am happy to admit that I am a lot more snobby about this sort of thing than most.
Happy Riding

Zefal Magnum - 34 oz.

It wasn't 15 years, more like 3-5 years max the PET hoax has been circulating.

Perhaps BOA could consider using PET on a line of bike bottles?

i too use the polars. two of them. i keep them in the fridge until i ride. they are excellent at keeping the drink cold. once you get to the end it is hard to get that last bit out. i normally take the lid off at that point. later.

hmm...thought it was dihydrogen monoxide;) gotta specify the number of oxygens

Just an update... I broke out my polar bottle for my weekend ride and it wasn't bad. No leaks and it sure was nice having cold water for most of the 38 miles (I only had one and refilled a couple times on the way... if I had two I'm sure it would have kept cold for the whole way). I still wouldn't mind one of those sure shot spouts, but until I find one I'm sticking with the polar!

I had a couple of the Nike bottles and while relatively soft and easy to squeeze, they ultimately split and began to leak where the rubberized panel in attached to the translucent main body. This was two summers ago so maybe that problem has since been solved/fixed.

What I meant to say is that my boss has been in the industry for 15 years. We don't have anyplans to go in to PET in the future. We actually have a plastics company which moulds our bottles in Sydney and our specialty is the printing. Pet bottles are harder to print on due to the thinner and crushable plastic which is why you see most of them with stickers and not ink printed on.
We are at the higher end of the market so quality and long life our main concerns and you don't really get either with PET.

Cheers
Jason