Classic & Vintage - Phil hub with Hi-Lo flanges, high on NDS?

I saw these on eBay:

http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/001/3f/e7/58be_1.JPG

I've seen lots of Hi-Lo hubs with high flange on the drive side; but why put the high flange on the non-drive side?

Those are heavy as a brick. Supposedly, they'd outlast you, if it matters.

I saw these on eBay:

I've seen lots of Hi-Lo hubs with high flange on the drive side; but why put the high flange on the non-drive side?

I bought a pair of those in 1997. They are now on their second bike, and 4th pair of wheels. I've never touched the bearings and they are still rock solid and silky smooth.

The latest pair of wheels were built with Velocity Synergy O/C in the rear. The left and right spokes are the *same* length, thanks to that high left flange and the O/C rim.

I saw these on eBay:

I've seen lots of Hi-Lo hubs with high flange on the drive side; but why put the high flange on the non-drive side?

Its actually a way of reducing spoke dishing. Spoke length can be closer to equal on drive and non-drive side, and therefore spoke tension can be closer to equal all around (particularly, higher than normal on the nds). That is the major problem in rear wheel building. The spoke dishing prevents the nds spoke tension from being brought up to a healthy level.

Off-center rims are another way of building dish into the componentry (rims and hubs), instead of achieving it using only the spokes. This is a wonderful idea, and I think all rear multi-speed wheels should use off-set spoke bed rims. It makes the wheel much stronger because spoke tension on the nds can actually be made adequate. One of those great engineering ideas that just hasn't caught on. I think its typically easier to build the dish into the rim than the hub, but these are certainly not a bad idea. What baffles me is the large flange on drive side. Not sure I get that one yet.

The latest pair of wheels were built with Velocity Synergy O/C in the rear. The left and right spokes are the *same* length, thanks to that high left flange and the O/C rim.

So the flange alone wasn't enough to equalize the spoke lengths? The flange looks quite a bit larger, and I figured it would make up for the usual ~2mm drive side to non-drive side difference.

So the flange alone wasn't enough to equalize the spoke lengths? The flange looks quite a bit larger, and I figured it would make up for the usual ~2mm drive side to non-drive side difference.

I didn't try a calculation without the O/C rim. I had the hubs on hand, and I was so pleased with the O/C rim on my other bike, that using an O/C rim again was a no-brainer. I might be able to find the calculations and see how much difference it made.

Sure, I'd be interested to know. But i'm guessing if you went ahead with the build, they were close to equal, possibly even a bit shorter on non-drive side?

What baffles me is the large flange on drive side. Not sure I get that one yet.

The reason for larger diameter flange on the drive side is (I believe) that it makes the angle of spoke greater on drive side, thus reducing the tension necessary. This is why I don't understand putting the large flange on the non-drive side, which makes the differential in drive and non-drive spoke angles greater, not less.

However, I trust that Phil Wood did not do it just because it looks kewl.

The reason for larger diameter flange on the drive side is (I believe) that it makes the angle of spoke greater on drive side, thus reducing the tension necessary. This is why I don't understand putting the large flange on the non-drive side, which makes the differential in drive and non-drive spoke angles greater, not less.

However, I trust that Phil Wood did not do it just because it looks kewl.


I thought about that. Nds spoke angle is greater with the large flange, and its already greater than the ds spoke angle in the first place.

But then I thought about how you'd stand on stairs. I always think of a guy standing when I think about spoke angles. Anyhow, I'd rather have better spoke tension on the nds than a better spoke angle on the ds. I know its a give and take, and there are benefits and flaws to each method, but it seems nds spoke tension is the priority. Maybe coupled with an o/c rim some of the drive side angle can be resolved, and you have the strongest rear wheel you can build.

The reason for larger diameter flange on the drive side is (I believe) that it makes the angle of spoke greater on drive side, thus reducing the tension necessary. This is why I don't understand putting the large flange on the non-drive side, which makes the differential in drive and non-drive spoke angles greater, not less.

However, I trust that Phil Wood did not do it just because it looks kewl.

The reason for larger diameter on the drive side is the possibility for replacement of broken drive-side spokes without the need to pull your freewheel while sitting on the side of the road in nebraska with a fully loaded touring bike.

This is also the reason for the hypercracker, the maillard helicomatic hub and modern cassette hubs. :thumb: