Old 11-23-14, 12:54 PM
  #56  
sickz
Senior Member
 
sickz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: los angeles
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
lt's clear up the first misconception. Friction isn't dependent on surface area, it's related to the clamping force. There is a benefit in terms of slippage by increasing the torque at the slipping surface, but not enough to justify the effort.

If we go back in history, the real reason for a bulged center becomes obvious. It's so the bar can be slipped through the stem freely and only be a close fit at the center. In this way, the bulge on bars is like the raised crown sear on fork steerers.

The second reason is to increase bending moment at the fulcrum, where bending stresses are highest.

As far as slippage goes, the remedy is cheaper and simpler than forming the bulges. Simply coat the bar clamping area with traction material similar to the traction strips on stair treads. Many already do this, and it's very effective even at low clamping force.

As I posted earlier, I suspect the ONLY reason for increasing clamp diameter is to have something new to sell.
ahh.. i learn something new everyday. makes sense when i think about it from that perspective. would explain the odd size handlebar clamps (26.0mm) and the resulting tube diameters of most bars. (.940"). either or being sized to facilitate a 1" clamp.

"The second reason is to increase bending moment at the fulcrum, where bending stresses are highest. " i agree with this. although i think this was more of a beneficial result that they ran w/ rather than design specifications.

the larger diameter could have result to facilitate sliding the stem over bars with non circular cross sections full on airfoils, etc.
sickz is offline