Allow me to address a few common misconceptions. First of all, whether forged or CNC-machined, the point at which a part fails (and all parts will fail!) is not determined by how it's manufactured, but rather by how well it's engineered. My aim was to build a stronger and stiffer stem in absolute terms. Why? I wasn't satisfied with the selection of stems I tried, e.g. a Ritchey 4-Axis WCS and Thomson X4, all 130mm, and hoped I could do better.
With FEA (Finite Element Analysis) only being a predictive tool, we calculated how my 3D-stem models behaved when applying the stringent EN14781 and EN14766 test protocols (respectively for road and mountainbikes). The published FEA-report concluded that stresses remained well below the fatigue limit of AL7075-T6 aluminum, the material used for this stem. Currently, these claims are undergoing validation through real world testing by our development partner, a trusted handlebar manufacturer in Germany. The project sustained minor delays caused by illness and faulty manufacturing, so final results are still pending.
Should this stem pass the demanding EN-tests, a basic requirement for stems raced in UCI events, an even greater challenge arises: Convincing potential buyers that our stem is sufficiently strong, stiff and durable, and safe enough for its given application despite its low weight.
As for stiffness values, they mean little by themselves. Such numbers only speak through comparative data generated by pitting this stem against competitors. Blessings to those with patience and understanding!