The problem with Phil Wood BBs and hubs isn't the bearings, but the lack of seals for them. The black rubber shields are intended to keep out dust, not water. So you basically have the bearings exposed to the elements... If you ride in the rain, they won't last long. As you point out, at least they are replaceable.
Regarding the SKF bottom bracket you installed, it sounds that either the BB shell's threads are too small (worn reamer), or the SKF unit's threads are too large. That would constrict the BB, reduce its diameter, and cause rough running of the rollers on the driveside. The SKF does have a very thin shell (to maximize space for the bearings inside and minimize the weight), so it may be a bit more sensitive to misalignment, etc., than other BBs with thicker shells. If your friend's BB is faulty, then it's covered by our 10-year warranty, of course (which includes the bearings, unlike almost all other BB warranties). Jan Heine Compass Bicycles Ltd. www.compasscycle.com Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/ On Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:58:54 AM UTC-8, Anton Tutter wrote: > Phil Wood complaints. [...] Since they don't manufacture their own > bearings but use standard bearings (of which they source very high quality > ones from the Japanese mfr NTN), the reliability of their BBs should be no > better or worse than any other brand that uses similarly high quality > bearings. > > As for SKF BBs, I have never owned one but I had an interesting experience > installing one on a friend's bike. Her frame was a new, hand-built frame > from a known Boston-area master builder, so there was no possibility of the > BB having been faced/chased improperly. The SKF threaded in by hand and > spun very smoothly, until the drive side cup was torqued to spec. Then the > bearings began to bind and feel rough. If I backed off the torque and > loosened the DS cup, the bearings turned smoothly again. This was without > the NDS cup installed, so there were no axial alignment issues causing the > binding-- the non-drive side was right on axis and the NDS cup could thread > in without binding the cartridge. I suspect the cartridge housing, which > is milled as one piece with the DS cup, had been improperly made, and when > torqued into the BB shell, deformed slightly, putting stress on the bearing > where where there shouldn't be. When I grabbed another random used Shimano > cartridge unit from my parts bin, it torqued in just fine and remained > smooth. > > Anton > > > On Saturday, November 29, 2014 8:07:07 AM UTC-5, ascpgh wrote: >> >> Anton, You touched on my major favorite. Mavic headsets, bottom brackets >> and hubs of the late '80s and early '90s opened a special place in my >> heart, for cartridge bearings particularly. The BB was fantastic, >> serviceable without deinstalling. The bearings were not fiddly odd ducks, >> I'd picked some up at an industrial bearing supply house. Appreciating the >> same, I have had fluctuating luck with the Phil BBs. I switched to the SKF >> in my Ram when I changed my triple to a wide double. I was very much into >> that era of Mavic components until their manufacture ended. I still found >> NOS at shops ten years later. That headset, predating threadless, was >> fantastic in its design and operation. Once the sourcing of those parts >> became rare I sold my Mavic mechanic's toolkit to Jeremy at >> http://www.tearsforgears.com (On the front page, the picture for Mavic >> tools is the box. All those technical drawings on mylar pages too.) >> >> Shifting systems have always been moving targets when trying to pin down >> the sweet spot. Indexed shifting has an impulse that the shifter generates >> and transmits down the cable to which the derailleur responds. The >> different brands do so in different manners which vary where the stress >> peaks are and also how those pieces are able to tolerate being cheapened >> for budget groups. The chain and cog teeth interaction once the shift >> impulse is initiated is the final interaction. Shimano shifting seems to >> produce the highest spike of impulse energy for indexed shifts and I feel >> like over the years it is a key source of the wear that befalls their "out >> of the box" shifting first. These sudden yanks of cable have left so many >> rear derailleurs with accumulated play in the parallelogram pivots, as that >> thread about STX pointed out. Anyone have a strong feeling as to the >> durability of your shift cables in a particular brand's drivetrain? >> >> There is nothing better than a sweet functioning component, even more so >> if light too. I have to say I have been confounded by such components when >> they don't meet the expectations that either the expense or effort to >> provide for them in a build. Bottom of the top third hub offerings from >> Shimano have done well for me and I think no ill thoughts about their >> retirement. I was about to send a set back to PJW for a new build and he >> instead offered a new in box set of XTs that made postage and three days >> time evaporate any goodwill my previous set possessed. Wouldn't do that >> with some more boutique hubset. >> >> Contrary to the sweet spot components are the let downs; the hanger >> queens, the part so many talk well about in magazines, those that just went >> "snap" before you really even had a chance to break them in. That is the >> list on the inside of the toolbox lid, written in red crayon by quivering >> hand and the spots of dried sweat. That is a more emotional list that veers >> from rational at time. 105 STI lives there for me. A catastrophic pawl >> failure of the front shifter of our tandem within the first 1000 miles of >> use, halfway into a very nice, very hilly ride, that began six hours away >> from home. The first time I'd experienced the rendered uselessness of an >> otherwise functional bike. >> >> Andy Cheatham >> Pittsburgh >> >> On Friday, November 28, 2014 11:32:41 AM UTC-5, Anton Tutter wrote: >>> >>> Andy, there are certainly exceptions like you point out, where a premium >>> is put on weight savings over durability. And it's generally accepted that >>> a $20 Shimano UN55 bottom bracket will last as long as an expensive >>> weight-weenie titanium bottom bracket, and operate just as smoothly. But >>> it's also very well known that certain high-end hubs can last forever, >>> compared to low end hubs with lower quality bearing races and seals that >>> wear out quickly. >>> >>> My favorite components are those that use replaceable cartridge >>> bearings. This way, you can just replace the bearings if they go bad rather >>> than sacrifice an expensive component. I had a very expensive titanium >>> Phil BB go bad after it sat in rusty water that built up inside my frame. >>> It ruined the bearings. Phil replaced the bearings for me for a nominal >>> fee, and as a result, I had a new BB again. If it had been a lower end, >>> non-serviceable BB, it would have had to been chucked. >>> >>> Anton >>> >>> >>> On Friday, November 28, 2014 11:09:35 AM UTC-5, ascpgh wrote: >>>> >>>> The exception to " But for things with complex moving parts like STI >>>> shifters, or things with bearings like hubs and bottom brackets, more >>>> expensive is generally better." is when those expenses bring about lighter >>>> material use that doesn't necessarily play well with the intended use of a >>>> group. >>>> >>>> On a long ago cross country ride by four riders, one bar end shifted 8 >>>> speed one Ultegra STI and two Dura Ace STI drivetrains, one group proved >>>> to >>>> need attention and demonstrated wear first. It was the DA STI. By >>>> mid-continent the shifters were ill-behaving and each rider required a >>>> replacement. Collective wear, be it from dust in the air, water-carried >>>> grit or the water itself in the form of rain, automobile road spray or >>>> mind-numbing mile after mile of other bicycle wheel spray, took its toll >>>> on >>>> the DA but not the Ultegra. I continue to use the same bar ends from that >>>> ride. >>>> >>>> The expense of an aluminum pivot pin over a CrMo or stainless one may >>>> weigh less, if that is the intent, but it sure will wear down faster. The >>>> "more expensive" moving parts may not be particularly better if durability >>>> is the primary objective. By durable, I think about my commuter bike and >>>> its mid-level gear that sucks up the abuse of its use like the super fly, >>>> high-end stuff most likely cannot. >>>> >>>> Andy Cheatham >>>> Pittsburgh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:50:25 AM UTC-5, Anton Tutter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You've opened a can of worms with that question, as I'm sure you'll >>>>> receive a bevy of opinions. >>>>> >>>>> In my experience, low-end groups (Shimano Acera, Sora) not only >>>>> perform sub-par but also are much heavier and don't last as long. As you >>>>> move up the food chain, they get lighter, operate with more precision, >>>>> and >>>>> last longer due various reasons, such as better bearings, more expensive >>>>> materials, etc. But the climb up the food chain isn't always linear, and >>>>> some component levels around the middle of the pack stand out as >>>>> exemplary >>>>> given their price-point and marketing placement. For example, Shimano 105 >>>>> has always impressed me, giving 90% of the quality of Dura Ace but at 30% >>>>> of the price. I'm sure similar comparisons can be made with SRAM and >>>>> Campagnolo groups, but I don't have first hand experience current >>>>> iterations of those brands' groups. >>>>> >>>>> And then there's also the trickle-down effect. Component manufacturers >>>>> will put the results of their latest technologies on their expensive >>>>> components, and when they become proven over time and cheaper to >>>>> manufacturer, they trickle down into the lower groups. Think technologies >>>>> like STI. Originally introduced in the Dura Ace group 25 years ago, now >>>>> even entry level road groups use the technology. So a low-end group today >>>>> may be as good as or better than a group one step up from 10-20 years >>>>> ago. >>>>> Sometimes I have a tough time discerning the quality difference of newer >>>>> Sora components and older 105/ultegra components. >>>>> >>>>> With certain components like cassettes and cranks, where there are >>>>> essentially no moving parts, the only thing the higher group level gets >>>>> you >>>>> is weight savings. But for things with complex moving parts like STI >>>>> shifters, or things with bearings like hubs and bottom brackets, more >>>>> expensive is generally better. >>>>> >>>>> Anton >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:54:55 PM UTC-5, Benedikt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone feel that the expensive group sets (i.e. derailleurs, >>>>>> cranks, cassettes, brake/shift levers) are any better then the entry >>>>>> level? >>>>>> What is it that drives the price up? Is it the performance or just the >>>>>> material it's made up of/weight? >>>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
