I know this is a contentious topic, but here goes anyway . . .

Are there any accepted parameters to assess strength vs lateral stiffness trade-offs in some quantified way? Or even a quantified argument for minimum bracing angle?

My personal context for this is a need to build a 157mm Super Boost rear wheel for a Pivot Switchblade. Please lets avoid debating the desirability of this "standard" . . . it is what it is, and frames need wheels.

I'm comparing different hub options. Any 150/157mm DH rear hub can be used, most of them with symmetric flange spacing. There are also a few (very few) hubs that push the NDS flange further outboard, which increases NDS bracing angle and "total" bracing angle, while (of course) dramatically increasing spoke tension disparity. These asymmetrically flange-spaced hubs are generally either very expensive ($near $400 for SRAM XO DH or i9) or impossible to acquire (DT 350 super boost which is OEM custom to Pivot which Pivot inexplicably refuses to resell as hubs or wheels, and DT refuses to sell thru distributors or direct).

So essentially I would like to quantify the potential benefit (if any) of using an expensive and/or rare hub with widely spaced NDS flange versus an affordable, widely available hub w/ equally spaced flanges (DT 350 157 DH).

Using a SRAM XO DH, retail DT 350 157 and Pivot proprietary DT 350 as examples, 3X lacing for all (Pivot hub can only do 3X so keeping apples-to-apples) and the chosen rim being normally drilled (not asymmetric/offset), the bracing angles work out to:

retail 350: NDS = 5.3deg DS = 5.3deg 100% L/R tension

Pivot 350: NDS = 7.7deg DS = 5.0deg 153% L/R tension

retail XO: NDS = 8.2deg DS = 5.5deg 149% L/R tension

As a baseline comparison, the same rim on DT 350 IS 148mm Boost gives:

148 350: NDS = 7.2deg DS = 4.6deg 157% L/R tension

Various schools of thought could be applied. Is "best" the one with the least-worst-minimum? Or the most-best-maximum? Or the most equal tension? Obviously its some mix of the three . . . one needs a reasonable minimum bracing angle, and more symmetry is better if all else equal, but at what point does in increase in one justify a decrease in another??

Personally, I am inclined to dismiss the greater NDS bracing angle of the X0 or Pivot hub. One reason is that, all else equal, increased bracing angle on one side only improves lateral stiffness in one direction only (forces opposing the angle) so the NDS advantage quite literally only applies to half your turns or impacts, no? But another reason is that these DH spaced hubs already achieve a relatively high DS bracing angle, so gaining NDS bracing angle would seem relatively unhelpful compared to the dramatic increase in spoke tension inequality. See above where a DT 350 157mm hub gets 5.3deg minimum bracing angle versus 4.6deg on the same hub with Boost 148mm spacing.

I'm heavily biased toward DT's ratchet freehubs since I've never, ever blown one up (but I've blown nearly 10 pawl freehubs from Shimano, Easton, Formula and Powertap). So I'm skeptical of any pawl designs, even i9 (queue the haters). Plus the unequal-spaced flange hubs from i9 and SRAM are nearly $400, whereas I can get the DT for <$150. I'll have a heavier wheel, but its affordable and symmetric/equal tension.

So at this point I don't really need help choosing a hub, but I'd like to learn/know more about quantifiable benefits of the proverbial angle/tension tradeoff.

I've also developed skepticism toward some of Pivot's hype for their Super Boost hubs. The additional NDS spacing does f*&X-all for the lateral tension, reduces strength (due to tension asymmetry) and on top of that they go to 28H hubs/rims. Especially when their stock DT rims are symmetrically drilled (so can't "exploit' the greater NDS spacing for greater effective DS spacing). At first I tried begging for access to their hubs, but at this point the 32H retail DH version of DT 350 seems arguably better.