Just ask the Phil Wood Co. for information on the disc brakes. They will tell you they can provide no information about them. Do you detect a legal settlement?- I did and got rid of mine.
Joe Bender-Zanoni Great Notch, NJ
Harvey M Sachs wrote:
> Please allow me to comment on the post from JB Froke and the response
> from Greg Parker.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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... :-)
>
> harvey sachs
> mcLean va
>
> Greetings,
>
> All around Thanksgiving, and through the graces of CR, I gratefully
> made the acquaintance and new friendship of a fellow-lister who also
> is a close-by neighbor. Upon meeting, "L.K." and I made a nice
> transaction whereby I became owner of my first Paramount, a 1973
> double-men's tandem. Owing to the stewardship of L.K. and his
> brother, this Paramount is in superb and virtually original condition,
> with only the most minor knicks and absolutely no knocks.
> Ala Ebay, I've already acquired the littlest Huret fixtures it needed
> for completion; the rest of the Campy, Cinelli and Mafac groups are
> intact. What's left to deal with are the two missing Brooks
> Professionals, which at some point were pulled in favor of more cushy
> alternatives. Not my main point in writing - but please note that I
> am fishing for two Professionals or B17s that would be somewhat
> matched in character or patina, if possible.
>
> Not only is this my first Paramount, its my first American bicycle,
> ever. And, again thankfully, it fits into our '37 International woody
> bike hauler with 1/2 inch to spare (phew). Car and bike, both from
> Chicago, seemingly well-paired!
>
> Now I have a question to ask of those who may have an OPINION on the
> matter: towards a correct 'period renovation,' would you put back the
> original large-flange campy hubs or keep (as the bike now has, and may
> have had since 1973 ??) the Phil Wood hubs with the Phil Wood Drum
> Brakes, all in pristine shape? In total, we're stopping on Mafac
> cantilevers (front and back) and Phil's drums (front and back). Thanks
> in advance.
>
> JB Froke
> Pebble Beach CA
>
> That's a lot of brakes! I'm not sure that the Phil disc brakes were
> available yet in 1973, but that was a popular upgrade on Paramount
> tandems later (although often just one of them, not two), so I'd keep
> 'em if it were I.....
>
> The Mafacs are basically redundant at this point, with those two disc
> brakes in place.
>
> Greg Parker
> Dexter, Michigan