# high flange vs. low flange hubs



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm in the process of putting together a set of wheels for my singlespeed CX and have to decide between high flange Phil Wood hubs vs. his low flange ones. What I have gathered so far is the following:

1. High flange: stiffer, better road "feel", preferred by track racers for this sensitivity

2. Low flange: more compliance and comfort on rough roads such as offroad use, more durable if abused (hopping curbs and offroad trail CX riding)

Are these the only issues to consider when looking to decide between high/low flanges? Is there anything else I should think about?

Since I want this to be a comfortable multi-use bike for daily commuter/training bike, I'm tending to think low flange may suite my needs for comfort, but is there that much of a difference in comfort between high/lo flanges?


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

Kung Fu Felice said:


> 1. High flange: stiffer, better road "feel", preferred by track racers for this sensitivity


Well, high flanges does cause less wind up but is used in track mostly due to tradition. It had a point years ago when quality of spokes where poor.

A radial *tangential* spoke on a high flange will also meet the rim in an unfortunate angle. To avoid this, you can 'go down one cross'. You will then also have the benefit of shorter spokes, but the wind up and torque will be the same as low flange as the 'pulling vector' decreases.

The shorter spokes makes the wheels stiffer though as the angle increases.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*Myths*

Decide on looks.


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

JCav, seriously? If it's based on looks I'd go with the high flange! Nothing like more visible polished metal right?


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*Agree*



Kung Fu Felice said:


> JCav, seriously? If it's based on looks I'd go with the high flange! Nothing like more visible polished metal right?


I like that old-fashioned look, too. The old myth is that the shorter spokes make the high-flange wheel "stiffer", but the modern view is that all spoked wheels are quite stiff radially, compared to the tires --i.e., the tires absorb way more shock than the spokes ever could. The high flanges do make the wheel a bit stronger against _lateral_ loads -- not because of spoke length, but because of the greater bracing angle. But the difference is immaterial for road riding -- unless you're a hard-core sprinter. It does matter to trackies.

I built my fixie's wheels on an old set of Campy touring hubs I scavenged from a bike somebody was tossing out. They were scratched and dinged, so I polished them up. They're shiny and dinged now, and I think they look great. I don't there's any functional drawback to the high flanges. Come to think of it, there might be an advantage for SS/FG, since you spend significant time honking out of the saddle grinding up hills in that too-tall gear, which does impose lateral loads.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Source of stiffness*

High flange hubs give a "stiffer" wheel because they result in a better spoke bracing angle, all else equal, and so the wheels are laterally stiffer. Back in the day, it used to be said that a HF 4X was equivalent to a LF 3X, but I have never seen any data to support that. For vertical compliance, tires are much more important than hub flange size.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Though not precisely what you want, here is my experience concerning High Flange-Low Flange. I rode Campy High Flange record hubs on my 1985 Somec for 21 years. Most of that time, I was running slightly aero Sun Rims. Three Cross. Straight gauge spokes. Conti Sprinter Tubular tires.

Last year, my wife wanted my high flange hubs for a fixie she was building up. Therefore, I gave her my hubs and she gave me her Campy Record Low Flange hubs connected to Mavic 330 box rims. Three Cross. Straight gauge spokes. Conti Sprinter Tubular tires.

I can say without hesitation that the Low Flange/Box Rimmed wheels that I got from my wife ride _significantly more softly_ than did my old High Flange/Slightly Aero Rimmed wheelset. The low flange/box rim combo may have slightly less acceleration than the other combo, but I honestly can't tell a difference.

One gentleman's anecdotal opinion.


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

Is it possible the rims could have contributed to the stiffness, or a different spoke count? I didn't realize the flange alone could have been the lone cause of such a dramatic difference.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Both are 36 spoke wheelsets.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Mapei and the pea (was: Princess and the pea)*



Mapei said:


> I can say without hesitation that the Low Flange/Box Rimmed wheels that I got from my wife ride _significantly more softly_ than did my old High Flange/Slightly Aero Rimmed wheelset.


If you can really tell the difference in "softness" between high flange and low flange hubs, then you are as sensitive as the princess in the story of the Princess and the Pea. Direct measurements of wheels have shown that they vertical stiffnesses in the range of 10,000 - 20,000 lb/in. That's about two orders of magnitude greater than the stiffness of the tires - or equivalent to about 1or 2 psi difference in tire pressue. Would you say that tires at 100 psi ride _significantly more softly_ than tires at 101 or 102 psi? Do you think you could really tell the difference at all?

You may _think_ you could tell the difference, but I doubt that you could actually distinguish between them in a blind test.


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

Mapei, maybe you can do an experiment and isolate front and rear wheels to see which wheels the most effect on perceived harshness - try having high flange just on the rear wheel, and then just on the front wheel. I'm wondering if maybe its the rear wheel bias of weight distribution that makes a difference.


----------

