>>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