Hi as I said. it was a fashion, The small hubs were called, and as far as Im concerned, small flange! and the large flange, large flange. Theres no need to change it ,its simple and has always been the same, those who have not studied the history proprly have renamed them high and low. Why change an accepted nommenclature through ignorance and allow it to be set in stone, we might as well call high wheelers Big and Little wheeled bikes.The hubs are labled Small and Large for both Campag and Airlite in the 63 edition of Holdsworths aids and were still the same in that bible in 75, Im looking at them now. So they are Large and Small, not big and little. Just a point. Barrie Carter Roundham, UK
From: Harvey Sachs <hmsachs@verizon.net> Subject: re: Hubs [flange heights and now spoke crossings] To: barriemgracer@yahoo.co.uk, "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Date: Saturday, 9 January, 2010, 14:35
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