beware of low stack heights and carbon bars
- Thread starter chillindrdude
- Start date
I have a reading apathy. He still hasn't answered the question if he put down any lock-tite or the such when he initially clamped it. This all sounds like an issue with the stem, not the bars.Do you have reading comprehension?
unless factory bolts came with locktite, i usually don't put lock-tite on it.
most of the time, i notice that bolts are pre-greased out of the box. because of the steel bolts, aluminum threads interface, i use grease and not lock-tite due to stripping/seizing concerns.
what is your usual practice? lock-tite?
upon the initial build and first ride, i usually go back and recheck torque with a park tool torque wrench.
aside from the crash issue, it may very well be primarily a stem issue. i have since gone back to my trusty E.13 direct mount stem, it's been with me for 3 seasons now and still rockin. serves me right for changing something that was proven.
i do buy into the lower handlebar height hype. i do agree that things can be taken to the extreme/excess. but the lower height does help weight the front of the bike alittle easier for cornering, and may lower the CoG somewhat.
most of the time, i notice that bolts are pre-greased out of the box. because of the steel bolts, aluminum threads interface, i use grease and not lock-tite due to stripping/seizing concerns.
what is your usual practice? lock-tite?
upon the initial build and first ride, i usually go back and recheck torque with a park tool torque wrench.
aside from the crash issue, it may very well be primarily a stem issue. i have since gone back to my trusty E.13 direct mount stem, it's been with me for 3 seasons now and still rockin. serves me right for changing something that was proven.
i do buy into the lower handlebar height hype. i do agree that things can be taken to the extreme/excess. but the lower height does help weight the front of the bike alittle easier for cornering, and may lower the CoG somewhat.
Last edited:
sometimes i do fancy the occasional adult conversation/debate about bike riding and tech-nerdy stuff. but everything seems to degenerate into innuendos and sarcastic one-liners. 
That means sex right?
i'm married dude.
So that means your cut off from adult fun then?....So anyways you broke that thing you put your hand around and now its not working so you need a new one right?i'm married dude.
btw your sig is cool though.
Last edited:
damn I guess it is true... im never getting married!i'm married dude.
hello?
the easton havoc stem has semi-slotted bolt holes for reach adjust, where as the E.13 has individual holes for reach adjust. there is more movement of the bolt within the semi-slotted holes of the Easton compared to the individual hole of the E.13. the tolerance isn't as precise, which is why i think the stem rotated despite torqued to manufacturer spec.
i dunno if that made any sense.
i dunno if that made any sense.
wanna know to solve this? we should take cues from road riding... integrated carbon bar/stem/top crown.
I'm sure their tolerance is precise (enough). As stated before, the holes shouldn't be a pin fit. No offense, but I'd be sure I actually knew what I was talking about before I claimed a company's product was "out of spec." When I read that, I heard "Havoc's tolerances are slop." I'd be a little upset if someone used similar language in describing one of my products. You seem like a pretty smart dude, but I don't think the stem was to blame for this one.
Last edited:
i understand that it shouldn't be a pin fit, but compared to the e.13, the bolt certainly fits alittle tighter.
tolerances in the easton could be 1mm tighter, or it could be a con of the semi-slotted design.
so "out of spec" is factually untrue without me privy to proprietary design data. don't think i ever said "slop". but i understand your point
tolerances in the easton could be 1mm tighter, or it could be a con of the semi-slotted design.
so "out of spec" is factually untrue without me privy to proprietary design data. don't think i ever said "slop". but i understand your point
That's some serious win right there!
Major disagree. It should have tight tolerances, there isn't a downside to that, clearly there is a downside to the alternative.
Make a fail product, get a fail grade.
Like it or not, yours or anyones.
Feel the heat, no passes for rep, got to live up to it, or pay the piper.
You do understand the meaning of tolerance, right? Just because the design differs from others doesn't mean the had sloppy tolerances. Tell me, how many stems have you designed/produced? Not to toot my own horn, but I've been working on a two-piece direct mount that has been in the testing stages for months now. The holes in question are oversized ~.0148, but to extremely tight tolerance. So yes, I think I'm correct in saying that the wording used is misleading at best.
The alternative you speak of would create additional stress risers, increasing the chance for complete stem failure at the crown interface. I'd much rather have that energy dispersed, even if it means a bit of shift.
Not trying to be a dick, but it pains me to see folks bashing perfectly good products. Our community is a small one, and word of mouth is a powerful selling tool.
Last edited:
i'd be interested to see your prototype Rewster. 
Thanks man, they've debuted at a couple races already, I can't produce them fast enough for testers.i'd be interested to see your prototype Rewster.
Again, my posts weren't an attack on you.....the possibility of a manufacturer releasing a sub-par product sparked my interest. Take 'er easy.
Last edited:
The description of the failure is that of a flawed product. Further inspection required, you talk of design tolerances, not actual product - did you measure this particular stem yourself? I believe Evil designed their Revolt frame with proper tolerance thresholds, yet the end product failed to meet those tolerances. Or am I bashing a perfectly good product there?
Real world - doesn't require a B.S. in Material engineering to form a legitimate opinion. I am an Easton fan, never had a problem with their product, but to dismiss it yourself having not examined it should preempt your comment above.
EDIT: Also its a bit tiring that whenever a product is called into question, that it is described as bashing. Forums exist to discuss these things, this is a fine example of something called into question and being discussed. There seem to be a plethora of claimed engineers on here, yet you wont see full accord. I'd rather hear about it and form an opinion, than have the OP's keep it 'between them and the company'. If the product stands up, it will regardless of any discussion. Your input is quite valid, but your closing paragraph exemplifies this tendency to claim expertise over others that is too narrow an analysis, and comes off (not in this case) often as arrogant.
Last edited:
The OP should have stopped and looked at the landing (and that tree on his right) before hitting this drop. He was riding Diablo after all!
I just called into question the use of "out of spec". No, I didn't measure the stem myself. The OP was comparing it to another product, and clarified what he meant. I was merely pointing out that recklessly using "out of spec" could lead other readers to form a negative opinion about a company's quality control standards, which is not what the OP meant by it.
I'm not claiming expertise, and sorry if I came off as arrogant...certainly didn't mean to. I'm just a guy, with a little engineering education, who plays with a little cnc mill. I was speaking from my limited experience, nothing more. I completely agree with you; an education is pricey, knowledge is free.
I still think we have a different definition of tolerance. To me, tolerance is an acceptable variation of a specified dimension introduced during machining. Whether or not said specified dimension is adequate is a design/safety margin issue, not a tolerance issue. i.e. revolt.
Last edited:
No butthurtation! lol..
I havent seen the stem either, and I meant to qualify that you didnt come off as arrogant, although many do. The brothers of arrogance rarely make their appearances anymore, maybe this comment will bring them out....
I could only compare to other products I have experience with as the OP did, but I can say, that barring bolts being significantly loose, no stem I have ever owned would shift notably as described.
The jerk in me wants to blame the low stack height trend; where the heck is that Kovarik quote about low front ends? hmm..
I'm leaning more towards blaming the crash. **** happens. All the more reason to not run carbon.
Since I ride a V10c I properly disagree.
Crashing sucks, things break, alu bars would suffer as well, but theres already 2 active threads about that.
Prediction: Bye Bye Aluminum!
i think carbon is up for DH applications, all dependent on the layup and design.
however, i don't think it'll enjoy the widespread appeal because of it's price. i'm still up in the air whether i'm gonna run the Havoc Carbon on my dh bike once i get the crash replacement.
i got a chromag osx fubar on the demo right now, no real dh rides, but i like the cockpit position and it certainly looks/feels durable.
however, i don't think it'll enjoy the widespread appeal because of it's price. i'm still up in the air whether i'm gonna run the Havoc Carbon on my dh bike once i get the crash replacement.
i got a chromag osx fubar on the demo right now, no real dh rides, but i like the cockpit position and it certainly looks/feels durable.