Carbon Components & Polo - Bad idea?

Sorry if this has been asked too many times in the past. But. I have been given a carbon stem and would like to fit it onto by polo bike just to see if the longer reach works better with my new frame (and then stick with it if it does)

Is carbon on a polo bike just asking for trouble?

Answers on a postcard with photos of horrific injuries if applicable......

carbon forks i have seen break but some including estelle 'mega smash' rogers stodd up to loads of beating. Jono has new carbon bars right? And i mean he's ... jono, you seen what he does to bikes right? I think you'll be alright.

What size is it? I have a 120mm in good old traditional metal that would be less of a risk.

How old is this metal?
How many stress cycles has it been through?
What's its UTS?
Why is it less of a risk?

CF got a bad rep in the early days of its use in bicycles for a number of factors. These days the stresses placed on components are far better understood and construction methods have altered accordingly.
As a result, CF design is much improved to the point where (weight for weight) the absolute strength and reliability of components are easily as good as steel, aluminum or titanium alternatives. Look to Chris Hoy and other track sprinters for an example of how much force can be put through a CF stem...

As ever when it comes to bikes and components, one must consider the maxim of "strong, light, cheap - pick any two".
Also, longevity and reliability of components will depend upon their use and installation - an over-tightened "good old traditional metal" component will be far more likely to fail than a CF one installed to the correct torque settings.

I'd very much agree with what Landslide has said.

A carbon stem will be fine

I'd add my agreement, but with the following qualifications:

a) not all carbon is created equal.
b) it's harder to tell if carbon is damaged than with metals.
c) carbon doesn't bend, or give any other indication of impending snappage, it just snaps.

It's the combination of b) and c) that makes me wary of it. I'd use it for my Sunday-best road or mountain bike, but I'd expect to replace components after crashing/dinging them, even if they looked fine.

Aluminium should be replaced 'periodically', as Landslide says, but I still trust it more than crabon. I bent my aluminium crank in a crash at the London Open, and replaced it ASAP. If that had been carbon, I wouldn't have known it had undergone severe trauma, and would probably have snapped at some point between now and then.

Part of me thinks the 'internal damage/repeated impact' problem with crabon is overstated, but a bigger part of me values my teeth/face/balls more than the negligible weight saving/stiffness gain. Especially on stems. Stems and cranks are stupid places to use crabon.

I've heard of two stems cracking this year in polo, both aluminium.

Yeah, it's not stupid for strength reasons, more stiffness/lightness/costness ratio. Carbon cranks and stems cost a lot, aren't much (if at all) stiffer or lighter than aluminium ones, and require bonded thread inserts, which, in my experience, sometimes come loose. If anything on my bike is going to be held together by glue, I'd prefer if it was one of my bodges.

My stem cracked.

hayden has been using super aero (really wide blades) carbon forks for around a year and a half now. no prolems

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and advice. I reckon I'll try the bike with the stem and then look into finding something cheaper and steel on here if it works.