Phil Wood BB + Campy Chorus/Record Triple Cranks

LBS and I are working on my Moots Vamoots. I've heard excellent things
about Phil Wood's bottom brackets (s/s spindle). I've heard nothing
particularly glowing about the Campy BB's. Let's put the $ difference aside
for a second (peanuts in the grand scheme).

The LBS called me in today to show me an example of a "new" Phil Wood BB
that had a subtle notchy feeling when spun. I asked to what he attributed
this. He said, in effect, sloppy manufacturing processes. A while into the
conversation, he told me that improperly installing PW BB's could also ruin
them, leaving a 'notchy' feeling, and that this particular BB had, in fact,
been installed on a bike, but "only had about 100 miles on it." It was no
longer "new."

Further, he cautioned that--if the taper was imperfect on the PW BB, and
didn't match the Campy crankset exactly--it could ruin the crankset and that
Campy would void the warranty. When asked how common this was, he asked if
I was interested in taking that chance.

My questions to y'all:

1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?

2) Any /real/ risk of Phil Wood's "taper being off" and ruining a Campy
crankset?

3) Dollars aside, pros and cons of Phil Wood vs. Campy BB

4) I'm a little spooked by the way this piece of the process played out,
and by the suddenly shifting facts. Anybody else share that reaction?

TIA,

Neil

Neil Brooks wrote:
LBS and I are working on my Moots Vamoots. I've heard excellent
things
about Phil Wood's bottom brackets (s/s spindle). I've heard nothing
particularly glowing about the Campy BB's.

I'll give a glowing recommendation of my 1998 Campagnolo Chorus bottom
bracket. It works just fine after many thousands of miles.



My questions to y'all:

1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?

Phil Wood bottom brackets require one or two of the special Phil Wood
bottom bracket tools to install or adjust. With Campagnolo, you
already have the $6 Park tool because it fits the cassette cluster. If
you are ever on a ride and need mechanical help from the supporting
bike shop, they may not carry along specialized Phil Wood tools.
Something to consider. My brother has one of these Phil Wood bottom
brackets, titanium of course, and it came loose or needed adjusting on
RAGBRAI about 10 years ago. He was not carrying the special tools
required for Phil Wood bottom bracket cups. So he had to ride my old
bike for the last day. I've never thought much of Phil Wood ever
since.


2) Any /real/ risk of Phil Wood's "taper being off" and ruining a
Campy
crankset?

Phil Wood makes tapers for both Shimano and Campagnolo. Just make sure
they send one officially marked as Campagnolo. Then save the receipt
and box and serial number, etc. so if the question ever arises about
whether the taper ruined the crank, you will have proof it is
officially a Campagnolo taper. Then the shop/company being contacted
about the warranty will claim you drove the crank on to far because you
used a cheater bar on your wrench and ruined it that way. So you'll
never be able to prove the taper ruined the crank and get warranty
work.



3) Dollars aside, pros and cons of Phil Wood vs. Campy BB

See above.

I'm no mechanic, but I have a PW BB on my Chorus-triple equipped
Spectrum. No problems after about 3500-4000 miles. The bike was built
just about a year ago, and FWIW, I doubt that Tom Kellogg, who built
it, would have outfitted it with a troublesome part. --Roy Zipris

Neil Brooks wrote:

1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?

I've used the 111mm one with a Campy track crank, and highly recommend
it. Smooth, strong, dependable, and extremely well made.

This is in contrast to a Campy Record one (102mm on one of my roadies)
that had two seals installed in one of the cups, making for some
confusion when assembling, and only lasted about 15,000km.

2) Any /real/ risk of Phil Wood's "taper being off" and ruining a
Campy
crankset?

Given the level of quality on the Phil product, I'd say you'd be much
more likely to get a sus Campy taper. Phil Woods 102 and 111mm axles
have tapers made for Campy. It's possible that your LBS mechanic
doesn't understand this, and assumes they use a Shimano taper.


3) Dollars aside, pros and cons of Phil Wood vs. Campy BB

Comparing with Record, I reckon the Phil is the better bottom bracket.
It's a tad heavier, but is totally indestructible, and replacement
bearings are readily available, unlike with Campy. I should point out
that it is possible to replace the bearings on a Campy Record BB (I did
this the first time mine discombobulated, with SKS replacements) but
it's by no means easy.

Phil Wood BBs don't do up hard against the drive-side BB face. This is
good, in that the chainline is adjustable a little bit, and it saves
you having to machine the faces flat.

4) I'm a little spooked by the way this piece of the process
played out,
and by the suddenly shifting facts. Anybody else share that
reaction?

Your LBS mechanic sounds like he's full of it. It happens. One of my
friends was told (by the owner of an LBS, no less) when replacing a
Kysirium wheel that had fallen apart after a couple of months, that
Open-pro rims "have gone badly downhill in the last couple of years".
Unfortunately, when money is at stake, people's principles
all-too-often go out the window.

I like to keep my BS-detector on super sensitive whenever in a bike
shop, and when I hear obvious garbage, ignore the advice of whatever
the person has to say after that. That's where usenet is good. There
may be opinions here, and those opinions may be contradictory, but at
least they're generally honest opinions, and not based on wanting to
sell you something.

Regards,

Suzy

In article , Neil
Brooks wrote:

My questions to y'all:

1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?

Here's my take on Phil's BBs (based on two purchases): The superb
craftmanship aside, they're not worth the extra expense. Their, or
rather, their bearings' lifespans were not appreciably longer than the
Shimano UN-xx square taper BBs I've used. True, the Phil BB bearing
cartridges are replaceable, but at an expense equal to the price of new
Shimano cartridge BB, and at much inconvenience--I had to ship the BBs
back to Phil's Cal. factory for servicing. Too much trouble. Further,
the Phil requires a specialized tool for installation and removal.

Henceforth I'd consider a Phil only if a setup required exacting
chainline adjustments (Phil BBs don't utilize a conventional fixed
right-cup; they offer some latitude in how they're installed) or there
was difficulty obtaining the desired spindle length--I believe Phil is
one of the few still selling 103mm square tapers.

But the BB is beautiful. If only Phil would market a BB featuring the
self-service convenience of their FSA hubs....


2) Any /real/ risk of Phil Wood's "taper being off" and ruining a Campy
crankset?

I don't follow. Phil sells Campy specific tapers. If by your question
you mean "should one have reservations concerning Phil's quality
control?", I would answer that there's no basis for such a concern.
Phil is renowned for its quality of craftmanship.


3) Dollars aside, pros and cons of Phil Wood vs. Campy BB

No experience here.

4) I'm a little spooked by the way this piece of the process played out,
and by the suddenly shifting facts. Anybody else share that reaction?


I was quite surprised by your LBS attributing the roughness of the Phil
BB to 'sloppy manufacturing processes' All the Phil components I've
owned contradict the notion that the company suffers erratic or
mediocre standards.

luke

On 7 Feb 2005 18:31:04 -0800, wrote:

[snip]

Your LBS mechanic sounds like he's full of it. It happens. One of my
friends was told (by the owner of an LBS, no less) when replacing a
Kysirium wheel that had fallen apart after a couple of months, that
Open-pro rims "have gone badly downhill in the last couple of years".
Unfortunately, when money is at stake, people's principles
all-too-often go out the window.

I like to keep my BS-detector on super sensitive whenever in a bike
shop, and when I hear obvious garbage, ignore the advice of whatever
the person has to say after that. That's where usenet is good. There
may be opinions here, and those opinions may be contradictory, but at
least they're generally honest opinions, and not based on wanting to
sell you something.

Regards,

Suzy

Dear Suzy,

To be fair, the LBS owner may be just as honest and sincere
as anyone posting on the internet news groups--he could be
basing his bad opinion of Mavic not on his hopes of keeping
your friend's money, but on a few bad rims that he's seen or
heard about from other dealers. (Hell, for all I know, he
could even be right.)

Greed is hardly the only source of BS. We are all trying to
sell something to each other, whether we like to admit it or
not.

You're selling the image of someone intelligent and alert to
BS, while I'm trying to upstage you with my slightly
improved product (New! With 10% More Quibbles!). And someone
else will likely jump in with his wry or practical take on
the matter.

I think that you're quite sincere, but an awful lot of us
boast with amazing modesty of our dislike of dishonesty and
bad motives, given how busily we accuse everyone else of
such failings.

"The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in,
shockproof crap detector. This is the writer's radar and all
great writers have had it."

--An almost pathological liar who spent his life selling
himself with notorious dishonesty (and if not a great
writer, certainly a damned good one, judging by "A Clean,
Well-Lighted Place")

Carl Fogel

My experience with Record BB mirror that os Suzy's. It just died after
15,000k. I bought the PW stainless BB as a replacement. I had to buy
the tool also. After 16,000k of use, I've never had to touch it. In my
biased opinion I think PW's BBs are the best engineered out there.

My experience with Record BB mirror that os Suzy's. It just died after
15,000k. I bought the PW stainless BB as a replacement. I had to buy
the tool also. After 16,000k of use, I've never had to touch it. In my
biased opinion I think PW's BBs are the best engineered out there.

Your LBS mechanic sounds like he's full of it. It happens. One of my
friends was told (by the owner of an LBS, no less) when replacing a
Kysirium wheel that had fallen apart after a couple of months, that
Open-pro rims "have gone badly downhill in the last couple of years".
Unfortunately, when money is at stake, people's principles
all-too-often go out the window.

Could be that the conversation was distorted just a wee bit. Mavic did, in
fact, make a large number of Open-pro rims that were infamous for noisy
nipple/ferrule interfaces. One ride in the rain and from then on, endless
creaking (well, you *could* oil them before every single ride...). Those
rims are the stuff of legend, as they were *not* cheap, they were a name
brand, and an awful lot of LBS wheelbuilders had run-ins with their
customers who believed that, somehow, it was the wheelbuilder's fault. And
so you have a story that some just can't avoid wanting to tell people. They
got stung by Mavic, and they want to let the world know. It's not entirely
fair, as Mavic fixed the problem (without ever admitting to it, as far as I
know).

But it is possible that the LBS person might have been mis-quoted just
enough to make it appear more emotional and less factual than it may have
been. Or not.

I like to keep my BS-detector on super sensitive whenever in a bike
shop, and when I hear obvious garbage, ignore the advice of whatever
the person has to say after that. That's where usenet is good. There
may be opinions here, and those opinions may be contradictory, but at
least they're generally honest opinions, and not based on wanting to
sell you something.

Actually, I find usenet very good for figuring out where customers are
coming from, more so than establishing facts. I learn what the various
questions and opinions of the day are, and then go to usually-reliable
industry sources to get to the bottom of things. And no, the
usually-reliable industry sources aren't always completely accurate either,
but if you cultivate several of them, learn where they're coming from and
how they work, you can usually get a pretty good idea of how things work and
what's BS vs not.

Usenet has so much information coming at you that the temptation for many is
to simply look for "facts" to support what you already believe. That's the
real danger (which, of course, mirrors life outside of usenet as well...
it's just a whole lot easier when you can google things).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


wrote in message
oups.com...

Neil Brooks wrote:

1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?

I've used the 111mm one with a Campy track crank, and highly recommend
it. Smooth, strong, dependable, and extremely well made.

This is in contrast to a Campy Record one (102mm on one of my roadies)
that had two seals installed in one of the cups, making for some
confusion when assembling, and only lasted about 15,000km.

2) Any /real/ risk of Phil Wood's "taper being off" and ruining a
Campy
crankset?

Given the level of quality on the Phil product, I'd say you'd be much
more likely to get a sus Campy taper. Phil Woods 102 and 111mm axles
have tapers made for Campy. It's possible that your LBS mechanic
doesn't understand this, and assumes they use a Shimano taper.


3) Dollars aside, pros and cons of Phil Wood vs. Campy BB

Comparing with Record, I reckon the Phil is the better bottom bracket.
It's a tad heavier, but is totally indestructible, and replacement
bearings are readily available, unlike with Campy. I should point out
that it is possible to replace the bearings on a Campy Record BB (I did
this the first time mine discombobulated, with SKS replacements) but
it's by no means easy.

Phil Wood BBs don't do up hard against the drive-side BB face. This is
good, in that the chainline is adjustable a little bit, and it saves
you having to machine the faces flat.

4) I'm a little spooked by the way this piece of the process
played out,
and by the suddenly shifting facts. Anybody else share that
reaction?

Your LBS mechanic sounds like he's full of it. It happens. One of my
friends was told (by the owner of an LBS, no less) when replacing a
Kysirium wheel that had fallen apart after a couple of months, that
Open-pro rims "have gone badly downhill in the last couple of years".
Unfortunately, when money is at stake, people's principles
all-too-often go out the window.

I like to keep my BS-detector on super sensitive whenever in a bike
shop, and when I hear obvious garbage, ignore the advice of whatever
the person has to say after that. That's where usenet is good. There
may be opinions here, and those opinions may be contradictory, but at
least they're generally honest opinions, and not based on wanting to
sell you something.

Regards,

Suzy

Neil Brooks wrote:

LBS and I are working on my Moots Vamoots. I've heard excellent things
about Phil Wood's bottom brackets (s/s spindle). I've heard nothing
particularly glowing about the Campy BB's. Let's put the $ difference aside
for a second (peanuts in the grand scheme).

The LBS called me in today to show me an example of a "new" Phil Wood BB
that had a subtle notchy feeling when spun. I asked to what he attributed
this. He said, in effect, sloppy manufacturing processes. A while into the
conversation, he told me that improperly installing PW BB's could also ruin
them, leaving a 'notchy' feeling, and that this particular BB had, in fact,
been installed on a bike, but "only had about 100 miles on it." It was no
longer "new."

Further, he cautioned that--if the taper was imperfect on the PW BB, and
didn't match the Campy crankset exactly--it could ruin the crankset and that
Campy would void the warranty. When asked how common this was, he asked if
I was interested in taking that chance.

My questions to y'all:
1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?
2) Any /real/ risk of Phil Wood's "taper being off" and ruining a Campy
crankset?
3) Dollars aside, pros and cons of Phil Wood vs. Campy BB
4) I'm a little spooked by the way this piece of the process played out,
and by the suddenly shifting facts. Anybody else share that reaction?

No idea about that particular BB but Phils are noted for
consistently high quality and extreme durability. They are
particularly recommended where durability is critical (
expedition touring) but they're neither cheap nor light.

Campagnolo's Chorus and Record BBs ( same bearings) are at
the very top of available products, too.
IMHO you may be splitting hairs here - nothing wrong with
any of the three mentioned.

Phil does indeed produce spindles in three different taper
sections and myriad lengths. Phil is a good choice where
nothing else fits as they make literally every conceivable
dimension of spindle and each and every current and obsolete
thread.

You can 'notch' any cartridge BB by hammering on the end of
the spindle You can often 'un notch' a cheap BB (CS-11,
LP-20) the same way but with a softer tap.

'Peanuts'? Phil Wood are roughly double the price of Chorus
here ($62 vs $130).

If it is a Chorus crank, I'd go Chorus, unless you expect
severe riding environments like salt water slush commuting.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971