Re: [CR] Hubs. - Terminology

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Campagnolo)

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:43:29 -0800
From: "verktyg" <verktyg@aol.com>
To: Ken Freeman <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>, <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, <freitas1@pacbell.net>
References: <754607.48975.qm@web27906.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7543b4a41001090618vefaabc9sd52911926860914d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7543b4a41001090618vefaabc9sd52911926860914d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Hubs. - Terminology


Ken,

During the 70s, high flange, low flange were the most common terms I encountered in different parts of the US. Large flange and small flange were also used - interchangeably. Anyone with a modicum of "10 speed bike" exposure understood what the terms meant.

At the beginning of the US Bike Boom most better quality bikes came with high flange or large flange hubs. One of the arguments for them was that the larger flanges were "stronger" and used shorter spokes so they were more laterally rigid in a hard turn!

Schwinn used high flange or large flange hubs on most of their multi speed bikes throughout the 60s and into the late 70s.

Entry level bike boom bikes also started appearing with high flange hubs even though many were cheap 3 piece units with nutted axles. Larger flanges looked more "racy" and these bikes were being billed as "10 speed racers". They even started showing up on "kid killer" department store gas pipe bikes.

During the boom, small flange or low flange hubs usually indicated lower quality to many novice bike buyers. Conversely, quick release wheels were a sign of a better quality bike.

At some point, maybe 1973 or 74, the Pro Peloton started using small flange or low flange hubs en masse. In 1975 low flange hubs were appearing on some premium (usually Italian) bikes and by 1977 most mid range and above road bikes in the US market came with small flange hubs.

"High flange hubs were for track bikes used on smooth surfaces" so the argument for small flange hubs went. The sales pitch for low flange hubs was they used longer spokes especially if they were 4x and thus provided a smoother ride.

The only problem I ever saw with these terms was when they were abbreviated: HF, LF - LF, SM... The abbreviation LF was/is confusing because it could mean either LOW or LARGE flange.

You say potatoe, I say potato...

This pedantic argument reminds me of the penchant amongst Illuminati bikies for correcting peoples pronunciations especially of French and Italian names.

Cam-pag-nolo, Leg-nan-o, Get-ain, Pee-you-gee-ot... :-)

Chas. Colerich Oakland, CA USA

Ken Freeman wrote:
> "Modern" is a relative term, in time and perhaps locale. I started haunting
> the upper-end bike shops in Chicago, building up good-bike lust, in my
> second year of high school, which must have been 1968. The sexy big hubs on
> 10-speed (2 front 5 rear) bicycles were termed high flange, by the shop
> staff and the not commonly available sales literature. Bike brands under
> discussion here are Raleigh, Dawes, Peugeot, Gitane, Mercier, Fiorelli,
> Cinelli, Atala, Holdsworth, Witcomb (UK), and the odd Herse or Singer. Few
> Japanese machines were in this market at that time.
>
> This style of hub was largely out of the shops sometime in the late '70s, I
> think. I regained active interest in bikes in the early '80s, and all hubs
> visible had the smaller flanges. Lower weight was the argument, and that
> the "HF is stronger" claim had been refuted. Such at least were the claims
> coming from the mouths of shop workers.
>
> I well recall the recommendations that 36 spokes was standard for road or
> city wheels, 32 for lithe and skilled road riders, and anything less should
> be track only. For top bikes Campy Record hubs were the gold (or Elektron?)
> standard, with odd anomalies found on French bikes and the few Brits (early
> Raleigh Competition) that imitated them.
>
> Perhaps this is a US lexical anomaly, relative to the UK. But a term in
> common use in a large market beginning at least 40 years ago can hardly be
> called a modern fashion. I do agree that "large" is a better descriptor
> than is "high." But I wish you luck in changing at elast 40 years of common
> US lexicon.
>
> Again, this was before Japanese products were common and their quality
> recognized, at least in Chicago.