There are performance differences attributable to flange size, but it's durability and building issues more than on-the-road performance that I'm referring to.
Firstly, addressing the latter issue of wheel performance, smaller flanges build stiffer wheels. This I learned from Ric Hjertberg a few years back, while he was a consultant for Shimano. So, from a rim durability standpoint, the low flange hub wins, and the sprinter, too, may prefer wheels built on low flange hubs.
The added flex in a high-flange-hubbed wheel is caused by the flanges not being fully canted to match the spoke's bracing angle. Thus, tension in the spokes flexes the flanges local to each hole toward the centerline of the bicycle.
With added flexibility from the nipples inward, rims are subject to being more easily bent. The added flexibility does however lend a more even stress distribution among spokes, increasing the fatigue life of the spokes and also of the rim's nipple sockets.
I have yet to quantify any differences in wheel building or spoke replacement ease attributable to larg vs. small flanges, but I would intuitively give the nod here to larger flanges. I like big flange hubs anyway so I had to say that.
I doubt, no I'm 99.9% sure, that there are any quantifiable "cushioning" effects that larger or smaller flanges lend to "ride quality".
David Snyder, BSME, B.S. & etc., cooling off post-ride in Auburn, CA, usa
Tom Dalton wrote:
>
>
> Steve Maas <bikestuff@nonlintec.com> wrote: 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.
>
> I say:
>
> Five mm is a mile when you're building a wheel, which one knows if one
> builds wheels on a regular basis. There's a reason spokes come in one mm
> increments. I agree that the the mechanical influence of +/- 2% is likely
> insignificant, in and of itself. I never said otherwise, but the fact is,
> we're not talking about the "same" spoke lengths. If you're going to be
> rigorous, do so consistently.
>
> Steve Maas wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I say:
>
> Do you really believe that the different hub sizes were developed for no
> reason other than visual appeal? That seems unlikely to me. Don't get me
> wrong, I too am unconvinced that there is a substantial mechanical
> difference, but wouldn't you think that varying flange sizes were at least
> an attempt to change something mechanically? In other words, there may be
> no actual benefit to "read in" but historically there may have been some
> beliefs that led to the different sizes, and those historical beliefs
> might be of interest.
>
> As I said before, the primary difference between big hubs and little
> hubs, especially from the CR perspective, is the look. What's right for
> one era may be wrong for another. Actually, it was you who said that the
> benefit of high flange is that they look cool. That's a general opinion
> that you hold, which is fine, but it's perhaps more relevant that certain
> bikes are more "correct" with certain hubs. Either way, I agree that the
> mechanical diffs between flange sizes are near-zero for most applications,
> and that a lot of BS, folklore, and technical half-truth swirls around the
> supposed mechanical differences. Still, you said you've, "heard of no
> credible, significant technical advantage, " so I tried to present two
> actual geometric differences that MIGHT have a mechanical influence. It
> seems that you are intent on dismissing them as nonexistant, when they do,
> in fact, exist.