Re: [CR] Hubs [flange heights and now spoke crossings]

(Example: Racing:Roger de Vlaeminck)

In-Reply-To: <4B48941A.7020206@verizon.net>
References: <4B48941A.7020206@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:07:21 -0500
From: "Ken Freeman" <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>
To: <hsachs@alumni.rice.edu>
Cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Hubs [flange heights and now spoke crossings]


In this case "LF" will be absolutely confusing; it'll refer to both large flanges and small flanges.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Harvey Sachs <hmsachs@verizon.net> wrote:
> Kevin Sayles and Barrie Carter make some important points I'd like to
> comment on.
>
> RENAMING: "The term High Flange is wrong and a recent renaming."
> HS: I'm sure you're right, but I think the renaming is helpful, though. I
> think it was pushed by Sheldon Brown. "LF" could be either low flange or
> large flange, while HF and SF are perfectly clear.
>
> FASHION v. FUNCTION: here is no evidence for greater strength or stiffness
> for high flange hubs. Jim Papadopoulos ran the equations real hard. In a
> blind test, the difference between HF and SF is like a tire pump stroke or
> two. Just can't tell it. Same, as I recall Jim's work, about the difference
> between radial and all the way to 4-cross - except for needing some
> tangentiBut, there are opinions.
>
> But, fashion matters in understanding what they did, and why, and thanks
> for the explanations!
>
> harvey sachs
> mcLean va
> _______________________________________________
>

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA