[Question overhauled after I realised it appeared snobbish, narrow and not in good faith, as pointed out by @gschenk . This sentiment originated due to a recent failure with a critical bolt mechanism which elicited wariness for all 'extra' bolts on bikes at large. Feel free to read the older version.]
This question is not exactly objective, of course, but I intend to get to know the objective merits or anecdotes of the lack thereof to find "reasonable cause" for classifying adjustable stems as either a 'pro' or a 'con'.
In judicial jargon, similar to establishing "reasonable doubt" with a jury.
Having no personal experience with this myself, I cannot possibly have a valuable opinion devoid of bias and speculation. Hence, I request your anecdotes, and opinions based on experience of using adjustable stems.
To be specific in terms of what 'merit' or reasonable cause' counts as, I'm curious about where they fall in the following criteria in particular , although of course, I remain open to other criteria :
- Reliability & Durability
- Cost & Value
- Realistic Extent of Effect On Riding Posture
- Unique Advantages Not Seen In Standard Parts
- Level of Precision Adjustment Possible Realistically
- Severeness Of OCD Possible (or Lack Thereof) Adjusting to the Ever-elusive 'Sweet Epot' (by a Finicky Rider)
How did I come to this question ? What's the original purpose and motivation ? As mentioned in my comment in reply to the aforementioned @gschenck :
...considering if they were a real advantage or a "meh" or if they were solving a problem that didn't exist ( a solid con in my book) when my friend asked me to recommend him a bike and there were two with basically the only component difference being one has an adjustable stem...
Also as mentioned in this comment :
...apologies for the unintended snobbish appearance.