Okey-dokey, then. Apparently there are not many fans of the Phil disc brake, to put it mildly. I wasn't aware of the issues, having never seen one fail. Hadn't really heard much about them over the years, just saw some in use "back in the day."
The Paramount tandem team that I rode with regularly that had them, installed them after some front tire overheating and blow-off issues on long descents, so I guess tandem brakes lead a hard life.
Our trusty old Santana has the Arai drum on the rear, which has never been a problem, coupled with cantilvers from that big "S" company, actuated by a Modolo twin-cable lever. We've hauled a 70-pound trailer with that setup in the past, without any problems. Your actual mileage may vary.
Greg Parker
Ann Arbor, Michigan
> Please allow me to comment on the post from JB Froke and the response from Greg
\r?\n> Parker.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I still have a Phil brake on our seldom-ridden tandem's rear wheel, as a >wet weather or long hill retard, but I will never again rely on a Phil as the > primary brake. Almost all of the Phil brakes had a fundamental design >flaw: The friction element was a fibre disk that gripped the hub with >splines that matched the splines on the thread-on brake piece. This is >not acceptable practice for this material, and I was stoking a friend's >tandem when I stripped out the splines. The fibre splines just plain >failed.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> If you are "lucky," you have one of the very rare late Phil brakes with a >steel center and two fibre faces. I think I still have one of those in a box, >too. Burned out, totally scorched, on a steep SF Bay area hill.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> In addition, as I have mentioned a long time ago on this august forum, I >am strongly opposed to dished front wheels, because front wheels see >very strong lateral loads (among other things, on very tight turns at low >to moderate speeds) that tend to collapse wheels pushed toward the >shallow-dish side. I never saw a Phil-braked front wheel that was not >dished.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> FWIW, the design had many elegant features, and is a thing of beauty. >Unlike modern automotive or bike disk brakes, it is built much like an >automotive clutch assembly: the fiber piece, like a car clutch (remember >those, class?) rotates since it is attached to the hub. The fibre piece is >squeezed between two plates, as an auto clutch is squeezed between >flywheel and pressure plate.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> BTW, as a resource, I do have some spares for these units, I don't >know why. Of course, I want a signed disclaimer that they won't really >be used... :-)
\r?\n>
\r?\n> harvey sachs
\r?\n> mcLean va
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Greetings,
\r?\n>
\r?\n> All around Thanksgiving, and through the graces of CR, I gratefully made
\r?\n> the acquaintance and new friendship of a fellow-lister who also is a
\r?\n> close-by neighbor. Upon meeting, "L.K." and I made a nice transaction
\r?\n> whereby I became owner of my first Paramount, a 1973 double-men's
\r?\n> tandem. Owing to the stewardship of L.K. and his brother, this
\r?\n> Paramount is in superb and virtually original condition, with only the
\r?\n> most minor knicks and absolutely no knocks.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Ala Ebay, I've already acquired the littlest Huret fixtures it needed
\r?\n> for completion; the rest of the Campy, Cinelli and Mafac groups are
\r?\n> intact. What's left to deal with are the two missing Brooks
\r?\n> Professionals, which at some point were pulled in favor of more cushy
\r?\n> alternatives. Not my main point in writing - but please note that I am
\r?\n> fishing for two Professionals or B17s that would be somewhat matched in
\r?\n> character or patina, if possible.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Not only is this my first Paramount, its my first American bicycle,
\r?\n> ever. And, again thankfully, it fits into our '37 International woody
\r?\n> bike hauler with 1/2 inch to spare (phew). Car and bike, both from
\r?\n> Chicago, seemingly well-paired!
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Now I have a question to ask of those who may have an OPINION on the
\r?\n> matter: towards a correct 'period renovation,' would you put back the
\r?\n> original large-flange campy hubs or keep (as the bike now has, and may
\r?\n> have had since 1973 ??) the Phil Wood hubs with the Phil Wood Drum
\r?\n> Brakes, all in pristine shape? In total, we're stopping on Mafac
\r?\n> cantilevers (front and back) and Phil's drums (front and back). Thanks
\r?\n> in advance.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> JB Froke
\r?\n> Pebble Beach CA
\r?\n>
\r?\n> That's a lot of brakes! I'm not sure that the Phil disc brakes were available
\r?\n> yet in 1973, but that was a popular upgrade on Paramount tandems later (although
\r?\n> often just one of them, not two), so I'd keep 'em if it were I.....
\r?\n>
\r?\n> The Mafacs are basically redundant at this point, with those two disc brakes in
\r?\n> place.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Greg Parker
\r?\n> Dexter, Michigan