After getting what seemed like a good deal on these bars I've found some haunting info about stem compatibility and bar failure.
One review indicates that Easton only warrentied these bars when installed with their 2 bolt stem. For the life of me I can't see how a wisely torqued 4 bolt stem wouldn't suffice.
I understand that, in either case, one doesn't want to crush-cut fibers of the tube but is it really that critical that a 2 bolt stem be used?
<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=29vj8sl" t
hmmmm I think Easton just wants you to use their products. However it's a warranty issue. As far as I know, 2 vs 4 bolt stems depends on the design. If you aren't worried about warranty, look at the new Ritchey WCS C260. It was designed for carbon bars.
Thanks. sorry my pic-link didn't work because a view of the Easton 2 bolt compared with the Ritchey WCS C260 you mention shows pretty clearly what the issue is; surface contact area, and how force is distributed broadly vs narrowly.
Makes sense as neither of these stems has a "cut-out" area on the stem cap. The Easton may weigh slightly more as the main stem body looks nearly solid.
note to self: work on pic posting skills
I believe Easton were concerned that a person with four bolt stem would torque the bolts too unevenly resulting in slippage followed by too much torque to one side of the four bolt. Then you would have all the clamping force concentrated to one side and possibly too much force on one side. Harder to do with two bolts. But they have backed off that now that they make their own four bolt stems.
You must log in to post.
