That's all it is on my part......intuition based on feel. I'm no scientist.
Jay
Harvey Sachs wrote:
> Jay -
> your comment (below) is intuitively attractive, but I don't think it
> is well supported. For example, if you think 4x, the spoke length for
> high flange is essentially identical to that for low flange. Taking
> all factors into account, Jim Papadopoulos rna out the equations and
> concluded that the differences in wheel stiffness between 4x and
> radial are probably too small to perceive - sort of a pump strokes'
> worth of pressure difference in the tire. So, I'm not inclined to
> believe that shorter spokes being stiffer is the answer. After all,
> the loading on a spoke is pure tension. If anything, wouldn't wire
> gauge=spoke diameter matter more? Personally, my guess is that 3x v.
> 4x, high-flange v. small flange, etc. are fashion items more than
> structural optimization.
>
> harvey sachs
> mcLean va.
> (with no pretense to being able to do the analysis myself).
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> Higher flange equals shorter spokes equals stiffer drive side, which
> is what you want when you're stomping on the pedals.
>
> Jay Sexton
> Sebastopol, CA
>
>
> This one puzzles me.
> ebay item 110209598317
> http://ebay.com/
>
> why would one need a high low Track hub? I always thought the
> high low hub was designed to compensate for the unequal spoke
> tensions created by dishing on 5 and 6 speed freewheels.
> I also was under the impression that a Track hub will have less
> required dish due to the more symetrical design of the hub.
>
> So, unless I'm totally wrong (wouldn't be the first time)
> whats the rational behind this hub?
>
> Marty Eison
> Frisco, Texas, USA