Hi guys.
Just wondering what is the reasoning for a high-flange vs a low-flange hub.
(and for that matter mid-flange hub)

I have a set of high-flange campy hubs for the campy bikes,
and the old sunshine high-flange front/ phil low-flange rear for japanese beater,
but just really like the looks of the large hubs.

I've been using a nice set of 90's phil hubs, more like a mid-flange hub than a low-flange, on my '73 lately,
and just started wondering what the benefits/drawbacks are.

Thanks guys.

TP

But this doesn't really apply anymore, I don't think. In laymans terms, high flange hubs look neat

The only drawback I can think of about a high-flange vs a low-flange, is the extra weight, if you're really all that worried about it.

+1 High flange look cool.

High flange hubs were considered to be stiffer "back in the day." Some folks insist they can tell the difference; I can't, but I don't have a powerful riding style (understatement). If you look at old pics and video, you'll see that high flange hubs were often used for time trialing. In the Eddy era, you also tend to see them on French bikes, while Italian bikes usually have low-flange hubs (there was at least a perception among some racer types that Italian frames were stiffer than French ones).

i'd imagine that a low flange hub might weigh less than a high flange hub...less metal.

but +1 that high flange hubs look the best.

The main reason I like high flange hubs is that when your riding and the sun is shining you can look down at the shadow of your bike and see the sun spinning through your hubs - it doesn't work with low flange.

I've always preferred the look of low flange, myself. But that's just me. Although, they do look nice if they are polished mirror bright!

But what others have said is right: High flange hubs reduced the length of the spokes, resulting in a stiffer wheel. They were mainly used for track bikes and tt-specific bikes, etc.

Craven: The hubs themselves weighed a tad more (if my old-fart memory is working correctly today), but the (less) weight of the shorter spokes offset it.

I thought that there was something about a high flange for the rear to make it possible to replace a spoke without removing the freewheel ...?

The spoke holes area also further apart on a high flange hub. I don't recall seeing a flange crack between the spoke holes but I've seen plenty of other gadgets crack between fastner holes (Like wooden sailboats).

Personally I prefer high flange. But they may not be Plan A for very high mileage riders.

A friend who is just a few months short of half a million miles has had 2 high flange Campi hubs fracture at the barrel due to increased flexing of the barrel caused by the increased leverage of the high flanges. The flex is tiny but aluminum has no fatigue limit so after several million cycles it can fail.

BTW the guy is a featherweight spinner and very easy on his equipment.

I always thought it was the shorter spokes = greater strength reason, but changing a spoke without pulling the freewheel and cool looks are great reasons too!

Yah, you betcha:
https://home.comcast.net/~jeff_wills/...es/bike041.htm

maybe if you compliment them with deep rims, but I don't know anything about it.

Jeff! That bike is AWESOME! A C&V bent that really looks the part!

Here's a real C&V 'bent.



Frame is a '64 Raleigh Woman's Sport (slightly modified )
Rear wheel and fender from a '72 Raleigh Twenty
Front wheel and fender from a '64 Moulton Deluxe
North Road handlebars are great for a bent as are the original Dare grips.

Oh, my! I think you got the wrong forum....

Explain the gearing, please?

In the 60's it was High Flange Campagnolo.

later 60's and 70's the pros migrated to low flange. And so did the market.
I have plenty of both, I really don't think there is much of a difference.

But if you want to be really cool, have a low flange front and a Hi-Lo rear. Allegedly for better spoke angle. But I just classify them as cool. In a very Euro-Asia Imports kind of way, as they imported 500 sets way back.

I will say around town lately I have seen some Cruiser type bikes with really huge alloy Hi flange hubs, look kind of AirLite with big holes in the flanges...36 spokes. I have not bothered to figure out how they can be obtained yet though.

I had a Campy low-flange hub break at the drive-side flange, after 20 years of use. It was a 36H, and I weigh 180. I am not a "punishing" sort of rider, but we do have world-class potholes here.

Sheldon Brown suggested that the most practical wheelset might be low-flange front and high-flange rear. He also liked the 32F/40R British approach to spoke count. And he suggested that different width tires on front and rear was sensible, since they don't carry the same load, but (IIRC) ended by mentioning that he did have a bike with wider tire in front, because that absorbed more road shock!

Ha! Mark--actually, after I posted in response to Jeff's bike, I thought about your Raleigh, which I remembered seeing here some time ago.

I once cracked a Shimano HF front hub at a spoke hole.

High flange hubs were popular through the 1960s and into the 1970s, about the same time as centerpull brakes. HF hubs seem to be making a comeback, at least in some brands.

Actually, they are still to this day preferred for track racing, particularly in sprinting. Also, Campy made a HI/LO rear hub with a high flange on the right side (freewheel side) and a low flange on the left. The idea was that there was less dish in the wheel and shorter spokes on the pulling side, resulting in less windup and more lateral stiffness. Some current rear wheels are built with HI/LO hubs such as those made by Easton. In the 70s and 80s, I had two sets of tubular racing wheels, a low flange set for road racing and a high flange set for criteriums.