Phil Wood BB + Campy Chorus/Record Triple Cranks

[Neil Brooks]

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

 

[[email protected]]

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.

 

[Roy Zipris]

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

 

[[email protected]]

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

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Neil
Brooks <[email protected]> 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

 

[[email protected]]

On 7 Feb 2005 18:31:04 -0800, [email protected] 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 **** 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

 

[Kenny]

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.

 

[Kenny]

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.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> 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


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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
>

 

[A Muzi]

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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

neil-<< 1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?
>><BR><BR>

Excellent, not any problem, have one on my fixie. BUT we don't see problems
with the Campagnolo ones either. Installed on properly prepped frames make a
big difference.

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

Nope, they have been doing this for a 'few' years.

Neil-<< 3) Dollars aside, pros and cons of Phil Wood vs. Campy BB >><BR><BR>


See above, both work well.

Neil-<< 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?
>><BR><BR>

Nope

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Neil Brooks]

SKIP TO THE "***" FOR THE ENDING!

Many thanks to all who replied:

Russel and Roy: 'tis good to hear resounding support for the Campy BB's.

Suzy and Kenny: Thanks so much for validating all that I have heard about
Phil Wood -- even if (to Mike Jacoubowsky's point) that's all you did ;-)

Carl: cogent points, to be sure. In the extant case, however, I'm working
with an LBS (sole proprietor shop) with whom I've had no experience. FWIW,
I have extensive virtual experience with the frequent posters on this NG,
and have had ample time to weigh their credibility. I /know/ what /they're/
selling! I have not yet reached that point with this LBS owner.

Luke: the implication from the LBS owner was that the Phil Wood BB was
/likely/ to have a bad taper that would be incompatible with, and destroy,
the Campy crank, despite the fact that PW /makes/ Campy-specific tapers. I
was a bit taken aback at such a sweeping statement. He followed it up with
"Are you willing to take that chance?"

Andy: very good points. It would be hard to describe the San Diego
environment as "harsh" ;-) My comment about the economics was because the
/difference/ in bb pricing represents about 1% of the bike's purchase price.
If the benefits of the incremental $70 were substantial, I didn't want to be
pound foolish.

Peter: thanks, as always.

THE ENVELOPE PLEASE . . . .

What I get from this NG is information (albeit in the form of opinion) with
a bare minimum of badgering. When I left the shop, I felt bullied and
confused rather than educated and enlightened. While this LBS owner has a
reputation for strong opinions, I was interested in hearing supporting
arguments for those opinions. What I felt I was getting instead was a bit
of fear mongering. I'm also not one who likes to hear 'trash talk' about
the quality control of a company known for its engineering and manufacturing
prowess. Most Campy and Shimano people around here have a healthy dose of
respect for the other group. I like that.

*** After posting to r.b.t., I drove to the other Moots dealer in town. In
about an hour, my deposit was down. The bike should be in a week from
Friday. It was an excellent customer service experience: they shared
information, facts, and figures, helped me think through my reasoning, then
honored whatever decisions I made--never presenting doom and gloom scenarios
as a potential consequence of my foolhardiness. I went with the Record BB.
If it fries in 2yrs, I'll buy some Phil.

I'm pretty damned excited about this bike. I'll put a couple pix and the
spec list on my website when she rolls into town.

Many thanks again!

 

[Rick Warner]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:20:28 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>My questions to y'all:
>
> 1) Experience with, or collective impression of, Phil Wood BB's?

Excellent.

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

Not if they get the proper spindle; PW has a variety of spindles,
including one's for Campy.

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

One plus for PW is they have perhaps the best customer
service/warranty in the business. I just had a PW hub serviced; it
needed new bearings, a new axle, and a new end cap. They covered the
axle/cap under warranty. This is a 1979 hub! Try to get any other
company in the business to cover a 25 year old part as a warranty
repair.

> 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?

Either the folks at the LBS are trying to scare you, or they are
(re)spreading rumors.

- rick

 

[Jay Beattie]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

I am riding on a 1978(?) Phil BB (rebuilt two or three times).
I think I got my first one in '76, but it was on a bike that was
stolen a few years later. Phil was someone I knew, so I bought
his stuff pretty early on when I could afford it. Anyway, the
BBs are not indestructable (I broke an axle on one), but they are
very good. The seals are not perfect, and expect to be adding
grease if you live in a wet climate. I have never tried to press
in my own bearings and have let Phil do that. My bike has an
Italian BB shell, and I have to be careful to clean the threads
and get good coverage with LockTite or else the right ring will
unscrew on me. If I did not need an Italian BB, I would have
gone with a UN-something Shimano disposable BB because the Phil
rebuild cost (it was a wreck) is not that cheap and because my
square-taper Shimano cranks are becoming a thing of the past.
When I bought my first Phil BB it was to avoid the hassle of
cup-n-ring BBs and the Campy "what me worry?" nearly-zero bearing
seals. It was a no-brainer choice, especially with Phil's
life-time bearing warranty and the fact that his shop was about
ten blocks away in the event something crapped out. With all the
sealed options from Campy today, I have no clue as to what is
truly better now from a cost-benefit standpoint.-- Jay Beattie.

 

[Kenny]

How did you break an axle on your PW BB?

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How did you break an axle on your PW BB?

Just Riding Along. It broke in the center section. Phil fixed
it. -- Jay Beattie.