I can't imagine any way this possibly could be true.
I bite my tongue when tempted to respond to the technical nonsense that appears regularly with regard to bicycling. This is one reason why I dropped off the frame-builders' list; it was just too much to take. Especially disturbing was how people who tried to inject some rationality were savaged.
When you're discussing things like craftsmanship or whether Lance Armstrong takes steroids, you can line up on any side of the issue you wish (especially if your skin is thick enough!) But when it comes to functionality, these are just simple machines that obey the laws of mechanics. Nothing more; there's no magical ingredient.
Now, here's a test for the many of you who violently disagree with this. Are you going to back up your position with hard facts, or are we going to see a "Steve Maas is a twit" thread?
Steve Maas (School of Engineering and Materials Science, University College, Dublin) Dublin, Ireland
>Was reminded by the recently posted reviews on Bulgier's site that in
\r?\n>the 70s conventional wisdom said that small flange hubs would
\r?\n>noticeably soften the ride compared to large flange, other things
\r?\n>being equal. I didn't notice much difference back then but most large
\r?\n>flange wheels I had were 4-cross.
\r?\n>
\r?\n>What do you think? Comparing 3-cross large flange vs. small flange.
\r?\n>
\r?\n>Mitch Harris
\r?\n>Little Rock Canyon, Utah