Re: [CR]High Flange/mid flange/low flange

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot)

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:21:58 -0700
From: "Steve Maas" <bikestuff@nonlintec.com>
To: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]High Flange/mid flange/low flange
References: <898217.20280.qm@web82206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <898217.20280.qm@web82206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
cc: Classic Rendezvous

Sorry, it is more than a few tenths. I just ran two cases with Spocalc, which show about 5mm difference out of ~295 for Campagnolo high and low flange dimensions. This is still well below 2% though--it's hard to see that as significant for much of anything.

However, it just occurred to me that putting the spokes out farther on the flange helps it support the same torque with lower forces on the flange, so if you're groping for a benefit, I suppose you could call that one. As long as it's not radially spoked, though.

Frankly, I'd rather see the value of high-flange hubs in their elegance, and resist the urge always to read functional benefits into things that were not developed for functional reasons.

Steve Maas Long Beach, Ca.

Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
> Tom is right. For the same rim and cross pattern, a hub with a larger
> flange will take a shorter spoke. If one doubts that, one need only
> pick up Sutherland's and turn to the spoke length charts. As Tom says,
> the length difference may not be significant when riding the bike, but
> it must be considered when building wheels.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, TX
>
> */Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>/* wrote:
>
> Steve Maas wrote:
>
> The main advantage is that the high-flange hubs are really cool
> looking.
> I have yet to hear of a credible, significant technical advantage. I
> have heard some claims that are incorrect. In particular, spoke
> length and angle are no different from short-flange hubs, unless
> radial spoking is used, which is a bad idea in any case.
>
> Steve,
>
> I agree with the first point, the main advantage of high flange is
> looks, especially from the perspective of most of us on this list.
> If high flange hubs end up on the wrong bike the looks are also the
> main drawback. This said, there are differences between high and low
> flange hubs. They may not meet your standards for significance, or
> even credibility, but the two that come to mind are as follows: 1)
> More spoke angulation, and 2) the final cross (on tangentally laced
> wheels) is closer to the rim. I have no idea where I picked up the
> silly term "angulation," and I think it bears explanation. What I'm
> refering to is the fact that the spokes on a high flange hub start
> at a closer radial distance from the rim, but approximatley the same
> lateral distance from the hub centerline when compared to low
> flange. As a result, the lateral component of spoke tension is
> higher, for a given tension along the spoke. This is why the Campy
> Record high-low actually makes some sense.
> It brings the obliquity of the left and right sides closer to even
> as compared to either a low or a high flange hub.
>
> On the second matter, for a given spoke pattern, the final cross is
> closer to the rim when you use a high flange hub. This leaves a
> shorter span of spoke between the last point at which the spoke gets
> support from the spoke it crosses, and where it meets the rim. I
> doubt this makes much difference, but there's a better chance that
> it will if the spokes are tied and soldered, as is typical with
> track wheels.
>
> You are incorrect that high and low flange wheels use the same spoke
> length except in cases where the spoking is radial. The correct
> spoke length typically differs, irrespective of cross pattern, but
> can be the same under specific conditions.
>
> As for radial spoking, I'd say it qualifies as a "bad idea" to about
> the extent that low or high flange hubs are better or worse than one
> another. It's just another example of a wheel configuration that has
> had it's significance seriously overblown. The only real issue with
> radial is that it overloads the hub flange and can lead to early
> flange failure. Obviously you need at least one tangental side on a
> rear wheel. A friend did the "experiment" of building a full radial
> rear, and while it was rideable, it had a lot of windup.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, PA USA
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Building a website is a piece of cake.
> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous