Re: [CR]Phil Wood Hub Timeline?Quality?

(Example: Framebuilders:Doug Fattic)

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:10:02 -0600
To: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Bicycle Classics inc" <bikevint@tiac.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Phil Wood Hub Timeline?Quality?


My two cents on Phil:

The bb's really are (at least the ones that didn't kill the first wave of buyers) quite nice - I've seen them last a silly long time and Phil Wood would rebuild or replace the rare worn out one for a song (that has finally changed I believe). Most folks could really expect much more life out of one of them then they would a Campy - unless the expertly repacked the grease and adjusted it just right - which is a good chunk of work added up over perhaps many years.

The hubs, though, irk me no end. Why - because of SKF part number EN9-10 - the bearing that MaxiCar used which, had Phil used, would have ended the play problem. This bearing, when you look at it, has a race which will provide support from side loading of the bearing (am I confused or is this called a thrust bearing?) Yes, this bearing is pricey - the French expert on this list told me he heard the bearings of MaxiCar hubs cost more than the hubs themselves did to make! But if your going to do it, then do it right!

Then again, if the thought of a customer who purchases your product in good faith getting injured when the part fails doesn't bother you, why care if a hub has a bit of play?

Mike Kone in Boulder CO - where Campy crank arms break, tubular base tapes come unglued, Phil hub flanges fail, and where Campy 8sp bikes have front deraillieurs which throw chains - even though Campy denied there ever was a problem. (and why did Indurains bike have 3rd eye on it anyway - that was removed for the trade show?)

At 11:27 AM 4/26/02 -0700, Tom Dalton wrote:
>
>>>I could not disagree more. For example, I'm still using a Phil Wood BB that I
>>>bought in 1973 and it's not only running beautifully, it hasn't required any
>>>thing in that time. I also have a pair of the original 3 piece hubs that run
>>>perfectly as well. And I've had later hubs as well.
>
>I was very close to writing "the higher-quality grandaddy," becuase I do think that Phil stuff was and is a lot nicer than Nuke Proof, or White, or whatever. Despite the anecdotal evidence regarding Phil's less-than-inspiring concern about HIS OWN liability, I must conceed that I have also seen plenty of failed NR BB axles and hub flanges. What I don't get is the notion that adding Phil stuff frees the rider from some enormous maintenance hastle or improves the bike in some other way. At best the Phil stuff is equivalent to Campy and it may come up short in some ways. Correctly set-up Phil hubs have decernable play at the rim, which may not be perceptable when riding, but it certainly bugs me from an asthetic standpoint.
>
>>>While you may not like
>>>the look I don't think there can be any arguement about the way Phil Wood
>>>stuff works. While anything can fail I've never seen a failure in a piece of
>>>Phil stuff myself. And in the "there's Campy and everything else is crap"
>>>days they were really the only readily available alternative.
>
>Then the question becomes why chose an alternative? There probably were good reasons that I don't know. But it's like my Germanophile friend said when I told him I my girlfirend was thinking about buying an IS300. "Why would she buy the car that's trying to be a 328i when should just buy a 328i?" I suppose it's a (perceived) reliability issue, just as Phil hubs are a durability/maintenance issue.
>
>Tom Dalton
>
>
>Phil Brown
>It may yet rain in NoHo, Ca
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more