Re: [CR] Hubs - L/F. L/F, H/F and S/F

(Example: Framebuilders:Tony Beek)

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 19:15:07 +0100
From: "M-gineering" <info@m-gineering.nl>
Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <29cfc1e01001090925r17b1c73di422a87b7f545fc33@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <29cfc1e01001090925r17b1c73di422a87b7f545fc33@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Hubs - L/F. L/F, H/F and S/F


Norris Lockley wrote: I am feeling depressed and looking for a fight. ..

good! ;)

And just be perverse I am
> going to state categorically that he real term for such hubs is LARGE FLANGE
> - this being the translation of the French term for such hubs which is
> Grandes Flasques.

i've also seen them described as wide flange!
>
> Large flange hubs were very often chosen because they enabled the
> wheelbuilder to use shorter spokes which were lighter than longer ones

ah yes, you save 11 grams on the spokes and need flanges which are 25 grams heavier. With a bit of luck and some holes it will be about equal

and
> shorter spokes also produced, by and large, stiffer wheels. Hence the very
> common use of large flange hubs for track racing bkes on which, more often
> than not the spokes were also tied and soldered.

The spokes are 5% shorter, ie roughly 5 % stiffer. If there are any measurable effects, it will be because of the higher flange producing less change in tension when you torque the hub.

-- mvg

Marten Gerritsen, still enjoying the looks of 'hoogflensnaven' in
Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands