Ritchey Hi-lo flange design

the answer could be in here under Brandt FAQ

http://sheldonbrown.com/articles.html

Quoted post said:

the answer could be in here under Brandt FAQ

http://sheldonbrown.com/articles.html

Unfortunatly, I could not find anything in the FAQ. I have also tried
searching this sight for older posts that might have an explaination
but haven't found anything. Thanks for the thought though.
Steve

steve said:

I was looking through the wheels on Ritchey's site and noticed that
most of them have a large non-drive flange and a smaller drive-
flange. His reasoning for this was that "hi-lo rear hub flange
eliminates dish tension problems." In terms of geometry this seems
all wrong. Yet I have talked to the people at Phil wood, who also
have the same flange design, and they claim the same thing. So does
anyone have any idea if there is any logic to this design? One thing
I should probably mention is that none of Ritchey's wheels are laced
tangentially so flange dia. will effect tension, even if it is slight.

My recollection is that Campy's brief foray into producing hi-low flange
hubs had the high flange on the drive side. I always thought the idea
was that it would reduce drive-side spoke tension (or raise
non-drive-side, either way).

I found a picture on page 18 of

http://www.campyonly.com/history/catalogs/1982_olympic_catalog.pdf ,

but the pdf isn't high resolution, and it's hard to tell from the image.

Mark J.

On May 23, 3:07 pm, Mark <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

steve said:

I was looking through the wheels on Ritchey's site and noticed that
most of them have a large non-drive flange and a smaller drive-
flange. His reasoning for this was that "hi-lo rear hub flange
eliminates dish tension problems." In terms of geometry this seems
all wrong. Yet I have talked to the people at Phil wood, who also
have the same flange design, and they claim the same thing. So does
anyone have any idea if there is any logic to this design? One thing
I should probably mention is that none of Ritchey's wheels are laced
tangentially so flange dia. will effect tension, even if it is slight.

My recollection is that Campy's brief foray into producing hi-low flange
hubs had the high flange on the drive side. I always thought the idea
was that it would reduce drive-side spoke tension (or raise
non-drive-side, either way).

I found a picture on page 18 of

http://www.campyonly.com/history/catalogs/1982_olympic_catalog.pdf,

but the pdf isn't high resolution, and it's hard to tell from the image.

Mark J.

Pretty sure that it is high on drive side, note that all the quick
release levers have been put on the drive side!

On May 23, 1:07 am, Mark <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

steve said:

I was looking through the wheels on Ritchey's site and noticed that
most of them have a large non-drive flange and a smaller drive-
flange. His reasoning for this was that "hi-lo rear hub flange
eliminates dish tension problems." In terms of geometry this seems
all wrong. Yet I have talked to the people at Phil wood, who also
have the same flange design, and they claim the same thing. So does
anyone have any idea if there is any logic to this design? One thing
I should probably mention is that none of Ritchey's wheels are laced
tangentially so flange dia. will effect tension, even if it is slight.

My recollection is that Campy's brief foray into producing hi-low flange
hubs had the high flange on the drive side. I always thought the idea
was that it would reduce drive-side spoke tension (or raise
non-drive-side, either way).

I found a picture on page 18 of

http://www.campyonly.com/history/catalogs/1982_olympic_catalog.pdf,

but the pdf isn't high resolution, and it's hard to tell from the image.

Mark J.

There are a number of companies that have used a large drive flange
and a small non-drive flange to even out spoke tension. To me, this
makes more sense but, to have a large non-drive flange doesn't make
sense.

Steve Sauter

steve said:

His reasoning for this was that "hi-lo rear hub flange
eliminates dish tension problems." In terms of geometry this seems
all wrong.

I don't get it either. The tension ratio in the rear wheel will be the
same as the bracing angle ratio (or the tangent of the angle to be
more precise). A larger flange on the left will give you a greater
bracing angle on that side... but so would moving the flange over a
little. A greater bracing angle unbalances the tension more though,
not less.

Oh well... it isn't the first or worst example of a company
introducing a poor design just so they could be different. The fact
that Phil Wood is also doing it gives me pause though... didn't think
they were known for this sort of marketing.

Mark said:

My recollection is that Campy's brief foray into producing hi-low flange
hubs had the high flange on the drive side. I always thought the idea
was that it would reduce drive-side spoke tension (or raise
non-drive-side, either way).

That would make more sense to me, too. I think that the boutique wheels
put the small flange on the drive side to improve spoke-derailleur
clearance rather than to even out spoke tension. Similarly, putting
radial spokes on the right side rather than on the left is another
effort to improve clearance that is sold as being for another purpose,
but clearly all that can do in increase torque in the center of the hub,
necessitating a stronger and heavier hub body than they would need, had
they decided to do radial on the left rather than the right.

--

David L. Johnson

Ron Ruff said:

steve said:

His reasoning for this was that "hi-lo rear hub flange
eliminates dish tension problems." In terms of geometry this seems
all wrong.

I don't get it either. The tension ratio in the rear wheel will be the
same as the bracing angle ratio (or the tangent of the angle to be
more precise). A larger flange on the left will give you a greater
bracing angle on that side... but so would moving the flange over a
little. A greater bracing angle unbalances the tension more though,
not less.

indeed. larger RIGHT flange may marginally help, but large left makes
it worse.

Quoted message said:

Oh well... it isn't the first or worst example of a company
introducing a poor design just so they could be different.

ritchie also went down the road of reduced flange width apparently under
the impression that improved tension ratio also improved lateral
stiffness. it seems tom's not too good at math. that's a shame as he's
excellent at marketing. after he's sorted out this flange thing, he
needs to sort out his crank design...

Quoted message said:

The fact
that Phil Wood is also doing it gives me pause though... didn't think
they were known for this sort of marketing.

phil allegedly do it to give equal spoke length both sides. very poor
rationale.

jim beam said:

Ron Ruff said:

steve said:

His reasoning for this was that "hi-lo rear hub flange
eliminates dish tension problems." In terms of geometry this seems
all wrong.

Quoted message said:

I don't get it either. The tension ratio in the rear wheel will be the
same as the bracing angle ratio (or the tangent of the angle to be
more precise). A larger flange on the left will give you a greater
bracing angle on that side... but so would moving the flange over a
little. A greater bracing angle unbalances the tension more though,
not less.

indeed. larger RIGHT flange may marginally help, but large left makes
it worse.

Quoted message said:

Oh well... it isn't the first or worst example of a company
introducing a poor design just so they could be different.

ritchie also went down the road of reduced flange width apparently under
the impression that improved tension ratio also improved lateral
stiffness. it seems tom's not too good at math. that's a shame as he's
excellent at marketing. after he's sorted out this flange thing, he
needs to sort out his crank design...

Quoted message said:

The fact
that Phil Wood is also doing it gives me pause though... didn't think
they were known for this sort of marketing.

phil allegedly do it to give equal spoke length both sides. very poor
rationale.

I talked to Phil's tech about this and they said that it was done in
order to even out spoke tension. They specificly mentioned that it
was not to make spoke lengths even, that was just a side benifit. I am
curious why so many companies have done this with there hubs. I
believe Cane creek, Phil, Rolf, and Ritchey have all used this larger
non-drive than drive flange. How are so many companies so wrong?
Ritchey has spent years trying to make rear wheels with more even
spoke tension. From using offset rims to moving the non-drive flange
closer to the center of the hub. All of those ideas worked in making
spoke tension more even, even if they sacrifised lateral strength. So
why all of a sudden would Ritchey go off the deep end with this flange
design? They could have marketed a hi-lo flange with a larger drive
flange just as well I would think.

Steve Sauter

steve said:

jim beam said:

Ron Ruff said:

On May 22, 12:03 pm, steve <[email hidden]> wrote:
> His reasoning for this was that "hi-lo rear hub flange
> eliminates dish tension problems." In terms of geometry this seems
> all wrong.
I don't get it either. The tension ratio in the rear wheel will be the
same as the bracing angle ratio (or the tangent of the angle to be
more precise). A larger flange on the left will give you a greater
bracing angle on that side... but so would moving the flange over a
little. A greater bracing angle unbalances the tension more though,
not less.

indeed. larger RIGHT flange may marginally help, but large left makes
it worse.

Quoted message said:

Oh well... it isn't the first or worst example of a company
introducing a poor design just so they could be different.

ritchie also went down the road of reduced flange width apparently under
the impression that improved tension ratio also improved lateral
stiffness. it seems tom's not too good at math. that's a shame as he's
excellent at marketing. after he's sorted out this flange thing, he
needs to sort out his crank design...

Quoted message said:

The fact
that Phil Wood is also doing it gives me pause though... didn't think
they were known for this sort of marketing.

phil allegedly do it to give equal spoke length both sides. very poor
rationale.

I talked to Phil's tech about this and they said that it was done in
order to even out spoke tension. They specificly mentioned that it
was not to make spoke lengths even, that was just a side benifit. I am
curious why so many companies have done this with there hubs. I
believe Cane creek, Phil, Rolf, and Ritchey have all used this larger
non-drive than drive flange. How are so many companies so wrong?

easy. someone tells them something and they believe it - they don't
bother checking it for themselves. or if they can't do the math, find
someone independent who can. just look at the number of people that
repeat jobst's mistakes - simply because they don't know any better and
won't check or think for themselves.

Quoted message said:

Ritchey has spent years trying to make rear wheels with more even
spoke tension. From using offset rims to moving the non-drive flange
closer to the center of the hub. All of those ideas worked in making
spoke tension more even, even if they sacrifised lateral strength. So
why all of a sudden would Ritchey go off the deep end with this flange
design? They could have marketed a hi-lo flange with a larger drive
flange just as well I would think.

Steve Sauter

or not bother at all. beyond an adequate spoke tension that doesn't
allow spokes to go slack in normal use, what matters most in a wheel is
lateral stiffness. that's a primarily a function of geometry, and short
of adopting a wheel design with no offset, there is no solution. the
closest is campy's g3 design, but that's kinda cheating since it's
doubling the spoke count on one side to compensate. or halving it on
the other - depending on viewpoint.