Re: [CR]Where are the high flange hubs?

(Example: Books)

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:44:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Where are the high flange hubs?
To: HM & SS Sachs <sachs@erols.com>, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, ternst1@cox.net
In-Reply-To: <419F3EFA.6090507@erols.com>


Well, maybe, but I'd want to see how the tests were conducted. Maybe different wheels react similarly to radial loading, but actual riding involves lateral loads, which might be an entirely different story. As an engineer myself, I'm always suspicious of "scientific testing". True, sometimes it can explode myths, but testing only gives you the answers to the questions you design the test to ask. It's all too common to see people design tests to prove what they believe, often with total sincerity, and the firm but mistaken belief that they are being "scientific". In my mind it takes more than a few hours of testing to conclusively disprove millions of manyears of collective practical experiene, even granting that experience is subjective and can be influenced by popoular myth.

Regards,

Jerry Moos Houston, TX

HM & SS Sachs <sachs@erols.com> wrote: Ted Ernst has done an excellent job of capturing the conventional wisdom about performance differences between high flange and low flange hubs. My good friend Jim Papadopoulos actually did measurements on wheels, particularly on spoking patterns (radial to 4 cross). In the test stand, the differences were so small as to be unnoticeable. What continues to amaze me is how much the "engineering" of the bikes we love was driven by marketing, myth, and tradition. It's not unique in this (think about house construction). Here's an example: Schwinn (and others) did a lot of real engineering for their manufacturing processes, but not nearly as much for the product design itself -- unless you count waterpipe welding and grinding.

Again, I'm not criticizing Ted, for whom I have great respect, but just pointing out where all of us were, and how it seems to differ from some other fields that are better capitalized.

harvey sachs

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It's not a matter of better,but a matter of proper application of product. In general terms, high flange hubs were prettier?(to the commodity broker importer),and several $ more expensive. A lot of the older racing bikes were fairly flexible so a stiffer more responsive high flange balanced some of that out. High flanges were also nice for short course tight corner racing. Remember, there were few racers but a lot of new riders who wanted fast , light bikes and a racing bike is what they got. A good clincher wheel sport touring bike with lesser quality equipment was cheaper and obviously not as good. There were few good frame sport touring bikes on the market during the '60's. Custom, sure, but not production hand built as the " racing bikes" were. It was not a matter of the customer getting smarter as it was the shops and importers getting to know bikes better and wising up. Maybe the europeans had a little sales con going on also to get rid of less popular items at home. The small flange hubs were better for rough roads and long distance riding. As the frame tubing metallurgy improved the stiffer frames allowed for more small flange hub use and it got to be standard as time went along. In my opinion a large flange hub is still nicer for short course snappy riding. But with today's technology. metallurgy, carbon, aero shaped rims, one can beat themselves to aches and pains. My feeling on this is only for vintage bike use. Today's equipment is much nicer, but the old stuff is much more fun. Modern riders and, equipment are blended with comfort, weight,and efficiency in mind. During the '60's-'70's I raced on 28h Arc en Ciel rims, high flange hubs in all the So. Cal. races and hardly ever had to touch up the true. Ted Ernst.