Hi Harvey,
Even though we both speak the same language...there will always be those odd words that get used in a different context.......over here in icy England I don't think I've ever heard anyone call a small flanged hub a 'low flange'....
much the same as no one would call a small frame a 'low frame'.....its either small or perhaps might be called 'little'........and likewise, a large frame would be called 'large' or 'big' but never 'high'......or as I've often seen written 'tall'.......as in 'the frame is too tall for me'.......we'd simply say its too big.
Saying that....I must admit when we Brits look at a Campag [never Campy] 'hi - lo' rear hub we [or certainly I do] call it the same as you would...hi - lo!
Fascinating stuff, I'm sure there are many other terms which mean the same thing but have different words to say so....
Cheers
Kevin Sayles
Bridgwater Somerset UK
<classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [CR] Hubs [flange heights and now spoke crossings]
> 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