Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 149
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751

    Phil Wood Philcentric EBB for standard shells

    Does anyone have more information, pictures, or pricing on the new Phil Wood Philcentric? It's an EBB for standard shells like the FC EBB or Tr!ckstuff Exzentriker. However, it's indexed at 15*, which seems like a viable solution to keep it from slipping. It might lead to creaking, though, and I'm still not sure how they ensure the indexing of the two cups are synched. I could see them not worrying about that, since the most the two sides would be off is 7.5*.

    http://www.philwood.com/products/bbpages/eccentric.php

  2. #2
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,151
    interesting....

  3. #3
    nothing to see here
    Reputation: Stevob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,246
    nice new website
    I see hills.

    I want to climb them.

  4. #4
    miwuksurfer
    Guest
    There is a special alignment tool which must be purchased. I have one on the way. I'll post photos when I get it.

  5. #5
    Tree Thumper
    Reputation: jpbova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by miwuksurfer
    There is a special alignment tool which must be purchased. I have one on the way. I'll post photos when I get it.
    post a full review please
    ~JPB

    "Loud Hubs Save Lives"

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    44
    Found a pic here: http://www.handlebarsandwich.com/09/...interbike-2010

    It's a long document - search for Philcentric and look at the next picture.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by ryker
    Found a pic here: http://www.handlebarsandwich.com/09/...interbike-2010

    It's a long document - search for Philcentric and look at the next picture.
    Great find. The pictures from the article are below. They show pretty clearly how the system works. My guess is the holes in the cups are threaded, and the two screws thread into the holes, keeping the eccentric tight.

    I guess you synch one side to the other by cranking it even tighter to rotate it?

    Also, I talked with Phil, and they said the weight should be around 250g.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Phil Wood Philcentric EBB for standard shells-phil1.jpg  

    Phil Wood Philcentric EBB for standard shells-phil2.jpg  


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    Edit: scratch that, looks like keyed dents in the outer surface of the frame-threaded disc.
    so undo the little 4 mm bolts, pull the outer disc outwards, re-position, bolt it back down.
    would certainly keep things for rotating on their own!
    but it means you're removing the non-drive side crankarm/bb cup to adjust the bb offset, n'est-ce-pas?

    edit numero dos: *blink blink* just remembered, the wife's raceface cranks have the bb axle fixed to the non drive side crankarm, not the driveside as with shimano... so pull that out, means the whole crank on the floor, re-adjust tension, etc...
    Last edited by byknuts; 10-26-2010 at 08:45 AM.
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,420
    Quote Originally Posted by byknuts
    Edit: scratch that, looks like keyed dents in the outer surface of the frame-threaded disc.
    so undo the little 4 mm bolts, pull the outer disc outwards, re-position, bolt it back down.
    would certainly keep things for rotating on their own!
    but it means you're removing the non-drive side crankarm/bb cup to adjust the bb offset, n'est-ce-pas?
    I think you just have to remove the 2 screws and it should be able to turn without pulling outwards, so no crank removal.

    Looks like an interesting design, but I am still unsure how you keep the 2 sides in sync. Seems like they just thread into the frame, and the screw holes end up wherever they end up. We must be missing something.

    Mark

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    I think you just have to remove the 2 screws and it should be able to turn without pulling outwards, so no crank removal.

    Looks like an interesting design, but I am still unsure how you keep the 2 sides in sync. Seems like they just thread into the frame, and the screw holes end up wherever they end up. We must be missing something.
    With the indexing around the cup, I can't see the screws being what keep it from rotating. I'm pretty sure byknuts is correct that the eccentrics need to be pulled out to rotate them.

    Well, the most either cup would have to rotate to synch to the other one is 7.5*, so I could see it being a matter of just tightening the cup just a little more to rotate it.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    I might be wrong about the whole non-drive side crankarm needing to be removed, but unless your spindle's fairly long you might not have enough room to get the outer disc past the indexing on the inner disc without removing it.
    Either better pics or descriptions or both shall go with him!!

    Edit: both cups need to be removed to re-set to a new location, look at the driveside cup there... standard crankarm to bb cup clearances, like 3mm. no way that's how short the "indexing" points are on the eccentric part.

    I'm going to assume that the installation tool aligns the two "frame" cups in the first place? ne'er to stray?
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    ASK (and give me a boring lunch hour to faff about on the interwebs with) and ye shall receive...

    http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/10/28/...ames-and-more/
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by miwuksurfer
    There is a special alignment tool which must be purchased. I have one on the way. I'll post photos when I get it.
    Would you mind telling us how much you paid for the EBB and the tool?

  14. #14
    Rockstar
    Reputation: forwardcomponents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    ...I am still unsure how you keep the 2 sides in sync. Seems like they just thread into the frame, and the screw holes end up wherever they end up.
    Interesting.

  15. #15
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,421
    you can almost always get a few degrees of an extra turn, which would allow you to align the bolt holes. However, the torque on each cup would likely be unequal, although i doubt it would matter much. Looks like a major PITA to set up and adjust when your chain gets slack or you change gears. The FC one looks much more simple.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,470
    Quote Originally Posted by forwardcomponents
    Interesting.
    I'm glad you edited your post.

  17. #17
    All 26.5" all the time!
    Reputation: Zanetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,855
    My first though on the cup alignment problem would be for Phil to supply some thin washers/shims that fit between one of the cups and the frame.

    An assortment of .002 to .008 stainless shims would probably do the trick.

  18. #18
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Wonder if these would work with any Phil BB. Would be a nice upgrade to my Fatback, assuming it's easily adjustable enough. My current gearing is close to a magic gear, but not quite there, so a tensioner is currently needed.

  19. #19
    I'm just messing with you
    Reputation: wv_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanetti
    the cup alignment problem
    Problem? The only problem I see is that posters are guessing how it would work based on a few pictures and vague conversations.
    Chasing bears through the woods drunk with a dull hatchet is strongly not advised

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by wv_bob
    Problem? The only problem I see is that posters are guessing how it would work based on a few pictures and vague conversations.
    Actually, the link byknuts posted has a very clear explanation of how it works.

    Here it is again:
    http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/10/28/...ames-and-more/

  21. #21
    Tree Thumper
    Reputation: jpbova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach
    Wonder if these would work with any Phil BB. Would be a nice upgrade to my Fatback, assuming it's easily adjustable enough. My current gearing is close to a magic gear, but not quite there, so a tensioner is currently needed.
    the EBB is it's own BB... according to the article posted it takes a shimano crank and spindle
    ~JPB

    "Loud Hubs Save Lives"

  22. #22
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by jpbova
    the EBB is it's own BB... according to the article posted it takes a shimano crank and spindle
    Right. I'm still awaiting a square taper compatible version... FC, Phil, whoever... which I don't actually expect will ever be produced.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  23. #23
    Tree Thumper
    Reputation: jpbova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    Right. I'm still awaiting a square taper compatible version... FC, Phil, whoever... which I don't actually expect will ever be produced.

    --sParty
    me too! I don't think it will happen either that's why the Ti single speed I'm building will have a Eno hub.

    It doesn't seem cost effective for a company to make a square taper EBB with all the spindle lengths and what not. What do I know though I don't run a BB company.
    ~JPB

    "Loud Hubs Save Lives"

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    It seems to me a ST axle wouldn't be hard to make for an external bottom bracket, if you didn't mind the increase q factor.

  25. #25
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    It seems to me a ST axle wouldn't be hard to make for an external bottom bracket, if you didn't mind the increase q factor.
    How much do you figure it would increase q compared to a standard 122mm sq taper spindle?

    I have to employ the long spindle in order to achieve ring/stay clearance anyway.

    Probably no need to answer, bad mech... it's certainly a moot point... will anyone really go to the effort to produce such a problem solver... I can't imagine. But it's fun to mentally go down that road a ways...

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    How much do you figure it would increase q compared to a standard 122mm sq taper spindle?

    I have to employ the long spindle in order to achieve ring/stay clearance anyway.

    Probably no need to answer, bad mech... it's certainly a moot point... will anyone really go to the effort to produce such a problem solver... I can't imagine. But it's fun to mentally go down that road a ways...

    --sParty
    My guess would be between 15 and 20mm more over stock, since that's the added width of the external cups.

    If I were to do it, and remember I'm not a ME or machinist, would be to make a 24mm axle with a ST at each end, with a bearing seat where the bearings would sit using a EBB on a 68mm shell. Then I'd use shims to space the cups out to match the axle. That's just my thought though.

    What size cranks are you running again? Isn't it something around 200mm? Is that size not available in an external BB crankset?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    nothing vague about it.
    one external cup that holds the bearings, it has indexing "slugs" that locate in the indexed voids in the internal cup (read: screwed into frame) and are held down by 2x 4mm bolts per side.
    the slugs fitting into the voids (peg in hole) is the way of ensuring the external cups don't rotate under pressure, so an actual solid indexed stop instead of a set-screw.
    voids located at 15 degrees, tool is used to match side to side in the first place, once those internal cups are screwed down tight they shouldn't drift... so SHOULD stay synched side to side.

    makes sense! but since you'll have to remove enough of the external cup to rotate it to a new position, you might need to remove the crankarm as well... the pics show what seems to be a pretty deep engagement between the slugs and the voids, so I'd expect at least 5 or 6mm movement needed to disengage the external cup from the internal's indexing points and rotate it to the new position.
    seems set and forget, just tougher to set.

    (please don't regard my assertion about the need to remove a crankarm as a negative, set and forget is more important to me than routine re-adjustments)

    just for personal knowledge, anyone know whether this was one of phil's last projects?
    or was this entire design firmly post PW?
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  28. #28
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    My guess would be between 15 and 20mm more over stock, since that's the added width of the external cups.

    If I were to do it, and remember I'm not a ME or machinist, would be to make a 24mm axle with a ST at each end, with a bearing seat where the bearings would sit using a EBB on a 68mm shell. Then I'd use shims to space the cups out to match the axle. That's just my thought though.

    What size cranks are you running again? Isn't it something around 200mm? Is that size not available in an external BB crankset?
    195mm. I have 4 "custom" 195mm cranks and they are expensive. I'd rather not buy another one if I can avoid it.

    That said, I seem to remember seeing Zinn (at least I thought) offering a custom length crank with a large diameter hollow axle/spindle/whatever you call it attached to the drive arm... but I checked his site and didn't find it. Seems like I saw it a year or so ago and it's price was in the neighborhood of $750.

    Not going there regardless. I'd rather invest that money in a new custom frame as opposed to a BB retrofit.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kiwimtbr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    please excuse my ignorance on this topic, but i am trying figure out haow exactly these things work. do they only work with a certain type of BB so obviuosly you cant use a square taper type BB.
    Could someone help explain it to me

    Cheers
    2010 Yeti ASR 7

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimtbr
    please excuse my ignorance on this topic, but i am trying figure out haow exactly these things work. do they only work with a certain type of BB so obviuosly you cant use a square taper type BB.
    You don't use it with a bottom bracket, as it is the bottom bracket. It's used with a external bottom bracket crankset, and the EBB replaces the external BB cups. This will be the third EBB for a standard BB shell, the other being the Trickstuff Exzentriker and the Forward Components EBB, which is what I use and recommend.

  31. #31
    All 26.5" all the time!
    Reputation: Zanetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,855
    Stumbled across the installation instructions: http://www.philwood.com/philpdfs/philcentric.pdf

    Blue locktite is the only thing keeping the non drive side cup from loosening? Wonder how that's going to hold up to single speed abuse.

  32. #32
    Tree Thumper
    Reputation: jpbova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    111
    external bearing bottom brackets have the same thing holding them in place and they don't loosen
    ~JPB

    "Loud Hubs Save Lives"

  33. #33
    All 26.5" all the time!
    Reputation: Zanetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,855
    External BB cups are torqued to a certain spec, not left loose with the hopes of a thread locking agent to keep them from moving.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by jpbova
    external bearing bottom brackets have the same thing holding them in place and they don't loosen
    Did you read the instructions? Zanetti is right. You tighten the non-drive side cup all the way down, and then loosen it 1/4 turn, which you then use to synch the cups.

  35. #35
    Tree Thumper
    Reputation: jpbova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    111
    I don't have it in my hand. It's hard to visualize it correctly, but please tell me if I am wrong. The cups are still in the frame tightened until the edge of the cup hits the frame? that would keep it from moving, right? especially when the EBB is in the upper right handed postion?
    ~JPB

    "Loud Hubs Save Lives"

  36. #36
    Tree Thumper
    Reputation: jpbova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Did you read the instructions? Zanetti is right. You tighten the non-drive side cup all the way down, and then loosen it 1/4 turn, which you then use to synch the cups.
    no, I didn't read them. I understood a little better after I did read them
    ~JPB

    "Loud Hubs Save Lives"

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    118
    Anyone have any images of this installed? And, like the other ones out there, it only works with external bb cranksets, correct?

  38. #38
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    ...You tighten the non-drive side cup all the way down, and then loosen it 1/4 turn, which you then use to synch the cups.
    I read the PW instructions a few times and what I'm not understanding is at what point you actually snug the non-drive side cup down after synching the cups, since the non-drive cup is loosened the 1/4 turn prior to synching? It isn't clearly called out when you torque the non-drive side cup back down. I can only assume it's prior to installing the cup cover on step 9 of the install instructions, but does this screw up the synching?

    http://www.philwood.com/philpdfs/philcentric.pdf

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH
    I read the PW instructions a few times and what I'm not understanding is at what point you actually snug the non-drive side cup down after synching the cups, since the non-drive cup is loosened the 1/4 turn prior to synching? It isn't clearly called out when you torque the non-drive side cup back down. I can only assume it's prior to installing the cup cover on step 9 of the install instructions, but does this screw up the synching?

    http://www.philwood.com/philpdfs/philcentric.pdf
    I don't think the cup is ever snugged down, and you're relying on the thread locker to keep it in place.

  40. #40
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    I don't think the cup is ever snugged down, and you're relying on the thread locker to keep it in place.
    Wow.....to my feeble brain this doesn't seem like a component/area that you want to rely on Loctite to hold things in place. I might have to lob a call into PW to see what they have to say and just to confirm.

    Edit - sent them an email for confirmation
    Last edited by MSH; 11-29-2010 at 03:17 PM.

  41. #41
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Here's the feedback directly from one of the Phil Wood engineers on the non-drive side cup install....

    "The non-drive side of the Philcentric is held in place with Loctite. You want to get the non-drive cup threaded as far as you can into the frame while still keeping the cups aligned. Due to variances in frame widths, it may not be possible to snug the non-drive cup completely against the frame and maintain the necessary cup alignment. In this situation, the Loctite will prevent the cup from moving after it has fully cured overnight. Hopefully I have answered your question."

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH
    Here's the feedback directly from one of the Phil Wood engineers on the non-drive side cup install....

    "The non-drive side of the Philcentric is held in place with Loctite. In this situation, the Loctite will prevent the cup from moving after it has fully cured overnight. Hopefully I have answered your question."

    speculation over, nothing's keyed, no solid stop, no friction, just cured loctite...
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  43. #43
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by byknuts

    speculation over, nothing's keyed, no solid stop, no friction, just cured loctite...
    Yeah... I mean... uh... really? I'm so not there.

    Fortunately my bikes don't employ the style of cranks used with this EBB. Whew.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33
    i really am kind of anxious for this to become available. i absolutely love the way my homegrown frame rides, but i hate gears. i'd kill to ditch my surly chain tensioner for something like this (if this actually works well).

  45. #45
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by tomatoSS
    i really am kind of anxious for this to become available.....
    You can order it. Phil Wood is shipping them now...$190
    Last edited by MSH; 11-29-2010 at 09:43 PM.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH
    You can order it. Phil Wood is shipping them now...$190
    do you have to call to order it? i dont see it on their online store.

  47. #47
    one chain loop
    Reputation: fishcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,360
    wow, i'm surprised that someone is still excited about this fully cured loctite thingy. i'd stick with the tried and tested forward components.
    everything sucks but my vacuum cleaner.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,470
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH
    You can order it. Phil Wood is shipping them now...$190
    For that price it better include Loctite.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by tomatoSS
    i really am kind of anxious for this to become available. i absolutely love the way my homegrown frame rides, but i hate gears. i'd kill to ditch my surly chain tensioner for something like this (if this actually works well).
    Just go with the Forward Components EBB (http://www.forwardcycle.com/). It's the same concept, and works extremely well. In fact, I'm using one on my Homegrown hardtail, and will soon be installing another one on my Homegrown Sweetspot.

    The downside to using one of these on a Homegrown is Homegrowns all used 73mm bottom bracket shells. The two solutions are to face the shell down to 68mm, or cut the granny ring mounts off the crankset you're using. Personally, I ended up facing down the shell:
    Another Forward Components EBB review

    Another good option on a Homegrown is the Eno Eccentric rear hub, but FC EBB is better and, in my opinion, is worth the extra hassle of installing.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Phils has been around for a while, and is known for making things that last. So I'd be willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they've tested this, and it works.

    That being said, I'm still running the FC eBB, and it definitely works. There are now 3 options, which is good.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    Phils has been around for a while, and is known for making things that last. So I'd be willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they've tested this, and it works.
    That being said, I'm still running the FC eBB, and it definitely works. There are now 3 options, which is good.
    this is the exact reason that i'd consider buying this. they have made nothing but top-notch compoents for quite some time.

    do they make an eccentric bottom bracket that'll work with the race face ISIS cranks?

  52. #52
    I'm just messing with you
    Reputation: wv_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,424
    Quote Originally Posted by tomatoSS
    they have made nothing but top-notch compoents for quite some time.
    That was why I was interested in the Phil part, until I read that the strategy is to hold the cups in place with lock-tite. At that point my faith that it is the best part for me to use went away.
    Chasing bears through the woods drunk with a dull hatchet is strongly not advised

  53. #53
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    Phils has been around for a while, and is known for making things that last. So I'd be willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they've tested this, and it works.....
    Agreed. One of the best reputations in the business. All Phil products I have used over the years have been bulletproof. With that being said, although I'm already committed to giving their EBB a shot I'd be lying if I said I wasn't nervous about the loctite solution. I'm just hoping my frame is going to one of those that the non-drive cup can be snugged down and still have everything aligned properly.

    Another FYI for everyone...
    When I talked to the folks at Phil Wood I found out that they will not sell the install tools (Cup Driver and Symmetry Gauge) to consumers, which means most of us are stuck going to a shop for the install of the cups. I certainly hope they change that restriction at some point.
    Once the cups are dialed in & installed any adjustment with the cup cover is completely separate, so you can make adjustments for different cogs, chain stretch adjust etc. on your own.

    I would be curious to find out the question that "byknuts" brought up regarding the EBB..
    "just for personal knowledge, anyone know whether this was one of phil's last projects?
    or was this entire design firmly post PW?"

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,420
    I think what Phil needs with this EBB is a set of precision shim washers to finetune the BB width. That way you could add various washers to get the BB indexed right and still tighten the cup without relying on the locktight to hold it..

    Mark

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    I think what Phil needs with this EBB is a set of precision shim washers to finetune the BB width. That way you could add various washers to get the BB indexed right and still tighten the cup without relying on the locktight to hold it..

    Mark
    McMaster Carr sells all kinds of stainless steel shims (1.375 I.D., 1.875 O.D.) in different thicknesses ranging from 0.002" thick to 0.125" thick. they are relatively inexpensive too.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    I'm sorry, I love Phil as a company, but this solution is a non-starter for me. After all the care taken to face BB shells and make sure everything is in alignment, you're not even going to tighten the cup down all the way?

    In addition, having to take this in to the shop to have it aligned is a complete non-starter for me. It's ok if the tool is expensive, but it's completely unacceptable if it's unavailable to the consumer, as many of us go to lengths to keep our bike out of the shop. This is especially annoying for those of us who own BB facing tools, since you could just keep shaving the shell until the cups synch.

    Ultimately, while I love Phil quality and finish, and love the indexing idea, I'm going to stay with the FC EBB as it's simpler, proven, and is a design which allow the cup to be tightened down.

  57. #57
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    FYI - Additional input from my email dialogue with one of the Phil Wood engineers. I alluded to the fact that there are a number of folks that are skeptical of the current PW EBB solution and provided the engineer the link to this thread. Here is his reply.....

    During our field tests of the Philcentric we didn't encounter any issues with the non-drive side cup. Thank you for the feedback and the heads up on the mtbr forum discussions.We are currently compiling more information for the Philcentric to add to our website. Hopefully the new technical information will help ease the minds of the skeptics out there.

  58. #58
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    I'm sorry, I love Phil as a company, but this solution is a non-starter for me. After all the care taken to face BB shells and make sure everything is in alignment, you're not even going to tighten the cup down all the way?

    In addition, having to take this in to the shop to have it aligned is a complete non-starter for me. It's ok if the tool is expensive, but it's completely unacceptable if it's unavailable to the consumer, as many of us go to lengths to keep our bike out of the shop. This is especially annoying for those of us who own BB facing tools, since you could just keep shaving the shell until the cups synch.

    Ultimately, while I love Phil quality and finish, and love the indexing idea, I'm going to stay with the FC EBB as it's simpler, proven, and is a design which allow the cup to be tightened down.
    +1 & +1 & +1 more.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,048
    Plenty of older shimano sealed BB's didn't have the non-drive side cups tightenned all the way down until a flange hits the frame, they would bottom against the bb itself. In fact, many of them used plastic cups and worked pretty damn well without any creaks or movement. I can't tell if this is the same design or not but it appears to be to me. I wouldn't hesitate using one. Even phils own BB could care less how well the BB was faced, it only relied on the BB cartridge and they didn't have to be overly tight either.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    313
    I think I'd trust that the engineers at PW have this one figured out.

    Lower-end Shimano NDS BB cups were/are plastic.

    Campy external BB cups are basically just hand-tightened with locktite on both sides.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by AKamp
    Plenty of older shimano sealed BB's didn't have the non-drive side cups tightenned all the way down until a flange hits the frame, they would bottom against the bb itself. In fact, many of them used plastic cups and worked pretty damn well without any creaks or movement. I can't tell if this is the same design or not but it appears to be to me. I wouldn't hesitate using one. Even phils own BB could care less how well the BB was faced, it only relied on the BB cartridge and they didn't have to be overly tight either.
    Cartridge bottom brackets work completely differently from an external bottom bracket (like the Phil EBB), and the two cannot be compared. The design is completely different. Cartridge bottom brackets locate their bearings using the cartridge's shell, while external bottom brackets locate the bearings using the frame's bottom bracket shell's faces. Also, yes, even Phil's cups have to be fairly tight at 27Nm.

    Phil's engineers aren't infallible, and even though it may work, it doesn't mean our other options aren't better.


    Quote Originally Posted by FKMTB07
    Lower-end Shimano NDS BB cups were/are plastic.

    Campy external BB cups are basically just hand-tightened with locktite on both sides.
    Like with AKamp, the Shimano plastic "cups" were for cartridge bottom brackets, and is of no relevance. The Phil EBB is not a cartidge BB!

    Campagnolo external bottom brackets are tightened to 35Nm, which is the same torque as Shimano external bottom brackets. So no, not hand tight.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    N/m

  63. #63
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    N/m
    Thanks for posting this.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    ???
    Last edited by bad mechanic; 12-01-2010 at 05:09 PM.

  65. #65
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    So my LBS placed the order for the Philcentric (one of the 3 shops Phil Wood recommended to do the install for) early Monday morning.This was prior to my dialogue with the PW engineer confirming the loctite solution for the non-drive side cup. Initially, I was committed to proceeding, but after giving this more thought I have decided to change course and go with a FC EBB.
    At this point the PW solution (to me anyway) seems half-baked. I'm confident they will fine tune the product over time, but I don't want to be part of the Beta testing team, so to speak, on the initial offering. At the same time I don't want to screw my LBS so I may have to eat some of the cost on the order they already placed, but I'd rather go that route than have a product installed on my bike that I have less than complete confidence in every time I'm out on a ride.
    Last edited by MSH; 12-01-2010 at 09:34 PM.

  66. #66
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    ???
    That was in reply to your post about your pet peeve, which coincidentally is also one of mine. I don't know what happened to the illustrative graphic you included, bad mech.

    --sParty

    Edit: It's called the Caring Continuum. Here it is:

    Last edited by Sparticus; 12-01-2010 at 07:44 PM.
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    OK, lets just see how you would make something like this work.

    BB bearing, cartridge BBs or external cups (which use cartridge bearings), self center when you snug them because of centering force on the 60deg thread surfaces. So how would you center the non-drive side philcentric cup? An easy way is to make the threads over sized, or better yet, taper the threads such that it becomes an interference fit before it bottoms out. It would be similar to a standard headset, except you screw it in instead of pressing it in, it should thus stay centered and not creak (like headsets, or pressed in BB bearings). Pressed in bearings have a hard stop, in this case the hard stop is the threads, and it's adjustable.

    The next thing is to account for the precession forces that will turn the cup (the reason you have a left hand and right hand thread on the BB's). That is the job of the Locktite, and since the cup is interference fit already, you will not need that strong a bond to prevent the cup from rotating.

    The engineering is pretty strait forward, it's then a matter of testing to see how oversized you need the cup threads to be, and what type of locktite will do.

    I'd have no issues paying for and trying something like this.

    However, I do like the fact that the exzentriker and FC eBBs are infinitely adjustable.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    That was in reply to your post about your pet peeve, which coincidentally is also one of mine. I don't know what happened to the illustrative graphic you included, bad mech.

    --sParty

    Edit: It's called the Caring Continuum. Here it is:

    Heh, yes. I posted that originally, but thought better of it and took it down since I'm trying to be a kinder and gentler MTBR member (notice I didn't insult AKamp or FKMTB07 even once). Now, all bets would have been off if he'd said "for all intensive purposes".

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    OK, lets just see how you would..
    Wouldn't work for several reasons. First, just like now, you still wouldn't be able to adjust the bottom out point to account for synching the two sides. Second, this is an external bottom bracket, and the bearings on each side are aligned to each other using the face of the frame's BB shell, not the threads. Finally, you're still relying on thread locker to keep it from turning. Basically, you still have all the same problems, except now with a more complicated system.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,420
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    OK, lets just see how you would make something like this work.

    BB bearing, cartridge BBs or external cups (which use cartridge bearings), self center when you snug them because of centering force on the 60deg thread surfaces. So how would you center the non-drive side philcentric cup? An easy way is to make the threads over sized, or better yet, taper the threads such that it becomes an interference fit before it bottoms out. It would be similar to a standard headset, except you screw it in instead of pressing it in, it should thus stay centered and not creak (like headsets, or pressed in BB bearings). Pressed in bearings have a hard stop, in this case the hard stop is the threads, and it's adjustable.

    The next thing is to account for the precession forces that will turn the cup (the reason you have a left hand and right hand thread on the BB's). That is the job of the Locktite, and since the cup is interference fit already, you will not need that strong a bond to prevent the cup from rotating.

    The engineering is pretty strait forward, it's then a matter of testing to see how oversized you need the cup threads to be, and what type of locktite will do.

    I'd have no issues paying for and trying something like this.

    However, I do like the fact that the exzentriker and FC eBBs are infinitely adjustable.
    Do you know that the Phil unit uses a tapered thread, or are you guessing about that? Even if they are, it's still not the same thing as a press fit. First of all, press fits are not tapered, but an interference fit instead, and the diameter is the same all the way down the part. Second, even press fit items need to be bottomed out against something. Are you suggesting it would be OK to press a set of BB30 bearings in only part of the way? I certainly would not want to ride a bike like that! Third, a tapered thread would only cause the cup to bottom out earlier on the threads instead of on the face of the shell. You still don't get any adjustment with a system like that and are relying on the locktight to keep it from spinning.

    Someone also mentioned the old Shimano cartridge units that don't bottom out on the shell. Again, they still bottom out and are tightened against something, in this case the cartridge unit itself.

    I will repeat my earlier post: a set of precision shims would solve all of these issues. Especially considering these are supposed to be shop installed only.

    I have a lot of respect for Phil Co., but this item seems not ready for prime time. Especially considering there are already 2 manufacturers making competing products, and I doubt the Phil unit will undercut them in price!

    Mark

  71. #71
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Heh, yes. I posted that originally, but thought better of it and took it down since I'm trying to be a kinder and gentler MTBR member (notice I didn't insult AKamp or FKMTB07 even once). Now, all bets would have been off if he'd said "for all intensive purposes".
    I hear ya, bro. There, their, they're and all that.

    Have you noticed that the words "a lot" are becoming one word these days? Interesting to watch the lexicon morph, though disappointing to realize that the morphing charge is lead not by wordsmiths but rather by the clueless.

    Society... goin' ta hell.

    We now return you to your regularly programed bike chatter.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    313
    Well, just to stir the pot more, I'll pick a few nits:

    The correct abbreviation for Newton Meter, the unit of torque, is Nm. Not N/m.

    http://www.campagnolo.com/repository...e_crankset.pdf

    See section 3 - Installing the crankset. "Tighten the cup by hand until you cannot screw it in any further" after loctite is applied. If you don't have 222 loctite, which any Campy shop would/should have, you can tighten the cups to 35 Nm, but the nominal instructions call for hand tight with 222. Even for Italian threaded BB cups.



    So, all that being said, I think I'd be okay with the Phil system of not-torqued-down plus loctite. I like the idea of indexing the eccentric movement because it would be a lot harder to slip and/or would require less tightening to prevent slippage. In order for the bb to slip, you'd have to overcome the forces of friction (like in a normal EBB) plus bust through the bolts/screws sitting in the indexes. I'd actually like to see an indexed EBB that uses a conventional EBB-sized BB shell. I feel like a system like that would be easier to build and maintain because you'd have a lot of extra space to work with.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    Society is going to hell.

    --sParty


    FKMTB: campy uses a wave washer spring to maintain tension in the ultra torque cranks.
    It's in diagram 12, listed as being "a".
    I sheared my campy bolt and shot my arm out of the bb so I know what it looks like inside

    I think slapping something like this into the PW design would work to keep tension. (not campy's, they're designed to be INSIDE the bb cup and press against the bearing)
    But hearing that there are only 3 shops that have been PW approved to install, and I can't buy the install tool myself?

    Out of the enthusiasts that are running around modifying non-ss frames to ss use in this day and age, how many are doing so WITHOUT the mechanical knowledge required to install this ebb?
    Hammerschmidt includes a precision tool to align the inside of the crank's mechanism with the ISCG tabs on the frame.
    Since PW's ebb drive side is screwed all the way in and is static (like the ISCG tabs) the only difference between the faces needing alignment is the distance. (ISCG to crank is close, bb cup to bb cup is farther)
    But you can't argue that the tool couldn't possibly be used correctly by (and therefore can't be sold to) a home mechanic.
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Wouldn't work for several reasons. First, just like now, you still wouldn't be able to adjust the bottom out point to account for syncing the two sides. Second, this is an external bottom bracket, and the bearings on each side are aligned to each other using the face of the frame's BB shell, not the threads. Finally, you're still relying on thread locker to keep it from turning. Basically, you still have all the same problems, except now with a more complicated system.
    1) you can still sync the cups before the locktite sets, an interference fit does not mean it's fused.

    2) conventional External BB's get their radial alignment by bottoming on a faced BB shell, because the threads are not an interference fit (ie they are loose and allow some lateral play). With an interference fit, the bottom-out is primarily for axial loads, radial alignment is now handled by then length of the BB shell that the interference fit occupies.

    3) yes, the thread lock is there to keep the cup from turning. You have to ask, what load is causing the cups to turn, and what do you need to stop it.





    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    Do you know that the Phil unit uses a tapered thread, or are you guessing about that? Even if they are, it's still not the same thing as a press fit. First of all, press fits are not tapered, but an interference fit instead, and the diameter is the same all the way down the part. Second, even press fit items need to be bottomed out against something. Are you suggesting it would be OK to press a set of BB30 bearings in only part of the way? I certainly would not want to ride a bike like that! Third, a tapered thread would only cause the cup to bottom out earlier on the threads instead of on the face of the shell. You still don't get any adjustment with a system like that and are relying on the locktight to keep it from spinning.
    I have no idea what Phil's is doing, I just looked at how I would make a system like this work. Press fits are tapered at the start, so you can initiate the fit. An oversized thread can be tapered at the start as well, and be constant diameter the rest of the way, I just don't think that is necessary. The bottom-out on press fits are for axial loads, something the threads can handle (I.E. you are "bottoming out" on the threads). Press fit cups can be rotated for alignment (you can rotate a fully pressed in headset cup if you have the right tool). And yes, the locktite is there to prevent the cup from rotating.



    Instead of a spring washer or shims, you may be able to use a plastic washer that can be compressed a bit. You only need ~15 deg of rotation max, so a thin plastic shim would probably have enough give.

  75. #75
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    ....I have a lot of respect for Phil Co., but this item seems not ready for prime time. Especially considering there are already 2 manufacturers making competing products, and I doubt the Phil unit will undercut them in price!

    Mark
    Forward Components - $165CAD for MTB version. Exch rate CAD to USD is currently almost 1 to 1 so they come least expensive of 3

    Phil Wood - $190 USD

    Exzentriker - $134 Euros (approx $177 USD) + Install Tool = $12.60 Euro (Approx $16.67 USD) but shipping is a whopping 45 Euros or approx $60


    Quote Originally Posted by byknuts
    ...But hearing that there are only 3 shops that have been PW approved to install, and I can't buy the install tool myself?...
    I should provide clarity as I believe you pulled that info from my post. When I called Phil Wood they gave me the names of the 3 shops in the Denver area they do the most business with and would be most likely to purchase the tools to install the new EBB. I think any Phil Wood dealer can purchase the tools and do the install. The question is whether most shops are going to be willing to purchase the tools (which I understand is $50 shop cost for the 2 tools) for something that has very little demand thus far. That was the feedback I received from 2 of the 3 shops that I spoke to.

  76. #76
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,822

    Lol

    Quote Originally Posted by FKMTB07
    Well, just to stir the pot more, I'll pick a few nits:

    The correct abbreviation for Newton Meter, the unit of torque, is Nm. Not N/m.
    ....
    N/m is MTBRese for "no message."

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by FKMTB07
    The correct abbreviation for Newton Meter, the unit of torque, is Nm. Not N/m.
    First, it's n/m as in "No Message". Second, really?!?

    Quote Originally Posted by FKMTB07
    See section 3 - Installing the crankset. "Tighten the cup by hand until you cannot screw it in any further" after loctite is applied.
    You're right, the Ultra Torque is hand tight; my mistake. However, the Power Torque still specifies 35Nm.

    Quote Originally Posted by FKMTB07
    So, all that being said, I think I'd be okay with the Phil system of not-torqued-down plus loctite.
    It's still not the same. The Campy one is still being tightened, to some extent, against the face of the shell. The Phil EBB, since it's off center, is also applying torque to the cup, which the Campy system isn't.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    1) you can still sync the cups before the locktite sets, an interference fit does not mean it's fused.
    If you're still counting on thread locker, then there's no point in screwing with the threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    2) conventional External BB's get their radial alignment by bottoming on...
    Once your threads begin to have an "interference fit", you won't be able to continue turning the cup. The friction generated would be enormous. Second, the problem here isn't primarily of alignment, it's keeping the cup from turning.

    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    3) yes, the thread lock is there to keep the cup from turning. You have to ask, what load is causing the cups to turn, and what do you need to stop it.
    Do you know what's causing them to turn? Because with an EBB you not only have to worry about precession, but also the torque from the off center axle is now generating.

    bikeny has the right idea with shims.

  79. #79
    Man up
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    485
    Then you'll have to be removing shims every time the chain stretches or chain is replaced? Or will the shims only be for the cups and the inner mech will then stay in alignment?
    '08 GF Montare
    '10 Rockhopper SS
    Semper Fidelis
    02-10 SSGT of Marines
    (Most) always down for a ride in the Gville area

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,420
    Quote Originally Posted by orion_134
    Then you'll have to be removing shims every time the chain stretches or chain is replaced? Or will the shims only be for the cups and the inner mech will then stay in alignment?
    The shims (or locktite according to Phil) is only to get the 2 cups aligned and indexed properly. That process has nothing to do with actually tensioning the chain. Once the two cups are indexed correctly to each other, they never have to move again. Any adjustment is done with common tools.

    Mark

  81. #81
    Man up
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    485
    Oh, so the gripe here is that the force of pedaling is going put a torque on the inner piece that will create a friction of the inner set screws onto the cups which will then overcome the locktite and shift the cups? Assuming that the inner part is at a position other than 6 or 12 o'clock.
    '08 GF Montare
    '10 Rockhopper SS
    Semper Fidelis
    02-10 SSGT of Marines
    (Most) always down for a ride in the Gville area

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,420
    Quote Originally Posted by orion_134
    Oh, so the gripe here is that the force of pedaling is going put a torque on the inner piece that will create a friction of the inner set screws onto the cups which will then overcome the locktite and shift the cups? Assuming that the inner part is at a position other than 6 or 12 o'clock.
    Basically, yes. Because this is an eccentric, the axle is not in the center of the cups, and any pedaling force will try to rotate the cups. How much force there is I do not know. Phil Wood Co. seems to think the locktite is enough to keep it from moving. Some here, including myself, think there are better solutions.

    That actually leads to another question: What loctite are they using? Just looked it up, and they spec. blue, which is the weakest. I would not trust it. If they spec'd red, I think it would hold just fine, but have fun trying to remove it if you ever have to!

    Mark

  83. #83
    Man up
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    485
    Need to approximate an avg force by a given heavy rider, find the torque (at 90*) that force puts on setscrews . Then find coefficient of static friction of steel on steel with locktite related to how deeply it's threaded and see if the torque can twist it. Or just measure how much torque it takes to break the cups loose and see how close that is to the rider-generated force. I'm sure there's a physics major out there itching for a problem...
    '08 GF Montare
    '10 Rockhopper SS
    Semper Fidelis
    02-10 SSGT of Marines
    (Most) always down for a ride in the Gville area

  84. #84
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    The shims (or locktite according to Phil) is only to get the 2 cups aligned and indexed properly. That process has nothing to do with actually tensioning the chain. Once the two cups are indexed correctly to each other, they never have to move again. Any adjustment is done with common tools.
    Exactly. With the Phil Wood design once the cups are aligned and set you don't touch them. All adjustments for different cogs, chain stretch adjustment, etc are done with the cup covers and set screws.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Cartridge bottom brackets work completely differently from an external bottom bracket (like the Phil EBB), and the two cannot be compared. The design is completely different. Cartridge bottom brackets locate their bearings using the cartridge's shell, while external bottom brackets locate the bearings using the frame's bottom bracket shell's faces. Also, yes, even Phil's cups have to be fairly tight at 27Nm.

    Phil's engineers aren't infallible, and even though it may work, it doesn't mean our other options aren't better.



    Like with AKamp, the Shimano plastic "cups" were for cartridge bottom brackets, and is of no relevance. The Phil EBB is not a cartidge BB!

    Campagnolo external bottom brackets are tightened to 35Nm, which is the same torque as Shimano external bottom brackets. So no, not hand tight.

    Good points. I guess that is why I still ride square taper. Maybe I should pay attention to some of the newer setups and how they actually work.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Once your threads begin to have an "interference fit", you won't be able to continue turning the cup. The friction generated would be enormous. Second, the problem here isn't primarily of alignment, it's keeping the cup from turning.
    That depends on the interference, but oversized threads are not an uncommon solution if you do not have a hard stop. The issue with a standard thread is that they are clearance interfaces, which means if you do not snug it down to a stop, it will wobble. Since the bearing is outboard of the threads (a cantilevered force), this will lead to creaks and movement. Red loctite would probably hold, but that's not the way I would do it. A precision fit (similar to those used for cartridge bearings) would probably work with locktite, but I'd prefer an interference. And done right, with the right tool, you will be able to tread it all the way in. Since Phil's tool uses a chain whip, I suspect the fit is precision, or minimal interference, but I'm just guessing.


    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Do you know what's causing them to turn? Because with an EBB you not only have to worry about precession, but also the torque from the off center axle is now generating.
    OK, so we are talking about ~8mm throw on the non-drive side, 4mm moment arm times your dynamic weight. Chain loads (~2.5x your dynamic weight) are primarily taken up on the drive side, and not (or minimally) transmitted to the non-drive side. Regardless, consider that the FC or Exzentriker does not use locktite, and do not loosen by the eccentric force. If you use 271 locktite (red) on a BB cup, you will not be able to remove it with a standard BB tool without heat, but you will be able to remove the FC or Exzentriker. So yes, I believe you can use locktite to prevent the cup from turning.


    However:

    Phils is one of a few companies that I would trust that they field tested the device before putting it on the market, so I would not have any issues trying it (especially if I've already figures out how it could be done).

    But, the other 2 options have 2 big advantages for me: infinite adjustability, and home install. Some people who are not anal about chain tension (ie; non-fixie use), who don't do their own work, and like the simple index setup would probably find this a viable option. If you have a few gear ratios that you like to use, you can just record the index position for each, which makes changing gears relatively easy (although I'm not sure you should be changing gears on a SS...). But you do have to remove the crank to change the index - fortunately the Shimano pinch bolt cranks are pretty easy to remove.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    1. Phil uses blue, not red.
    2. Precision cut threads are expensive.
    3. BB shell threads aren't precision cut.
    4. You're not turning interference threads very with hand tools.
    5. The EBB has a total throw of over 12mm, and has to deal with drops and slamming into logs/rocks.
    6. FC and Exzentriker are torqued down quite tight. Torque is the proper way to retain a threaded component.

    So all you're trying to say is you believe thread locker will hold it in place. Ok.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    1. Phil uses blue, not red.
    2. Precision cut threads are expensive.
    3. BB shell threads aren't precision cut.
    4. You're not turning interference threads very with hand tools.
    5. The EBB has a total throw of over 12mm, and has to deal with drops and slamming into logs/rocks.
    6. FC and Exzentriker are torqued down quite tight. Torque is the proper way to retain a threaded component.
    1) I never said Phils used red, it was an example of locktite holding. Obviously Phils has figured that blue is fine.
    2) yes
    3) yes
    4) I disagree, it depends on the tools. Itsdoable (sic) BTDT. But Phils may not be doing it that way. Why do you suppose they are only allowing lbs's to install them?
    5) Sorry, 15mm for the FC, 7mm arm. But that does not change anything.
    6) So what, it's not the only way to retain it. If another way works, does that make it improper? Isn't it already "improper" to be sticking a eBB into a standard BB shell?



    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    So all you're trying to say is you believe thread locker will hold it in place. Ok.
    No, but it's obviously not worth arguing about if you are going to put words in my posts. However, it may be what Phils believes. Lets wait and see how they hold up?

    I just think it's disingenuous to just say "it won't work" when a product comes from a company that obviously field tested it.

  89. #89
    one chain loop
    Reputation: fishcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,360
    not too crazy about the notches, yes it makes the spindle nice and straight but since it is indexed, the chain tension is preset and cannot be fine tuned.

    the nds bb cup flange is high stress area too, not having it flushed to the bb shell might be asking for trouble.
    everything sucks but my vacuum cleaner.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    I just think it's disingenuous to just say "it won't work" when a product comes from a company that obviously field tested it.
    I didn't say it won't work, I said it's not a good way to do it, and therefore will not use the product. Big difference.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    I didn't say it won't work, I said it's not a good way to do it, and therefore will not use the product. Big difference.
    True, you only said my solution for this design would not work.

    I'll withhold judgment until I see the actual product and install.

  92. #92
    Low Rep Count
    Reputation: 1SPD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,958
    FC EBB ftw! I am looking at building up another frame over the winter and will be in the market for an ebb. I will be going with the FC version. I have the option of coverting my current rear hub to eccentric as I have White Industry hubs. But I also know that I want to build up another set of wheels with a set of Hopes or something uber light. So I don't want to commit to coverting my hub at this point.

    I agree, PW has probably done their homework but until some of you guys are riding on one of these for substantial period of time, I'm not going to mess with it. Also, I know badmechanic and he is pretty spot on with his component choices and if the FC is working for him then I know it will exceed my expectations!

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Sorry to dredge this thread up again, but has anyone actually used the Phil EBB yet?

  94. #94
    Rockstar
    Reputation: forwardcomponents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Sorry to dredge this thread up again, but has anyone actually used the Phil EBB yet?
    I have been looking forward to a report myself, for obvious reasons. There is one in the Fat Bikes forum, but it is very brief.

    My New 9:ZERO:7 w/ Alfine 11

  95. #95
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Sorry to dredge this thread up again, but has anyone actually used the Phil EBB yet?

    I scraped my plans for the PW and went with the FC. Got it installed but still have some side to side play with my cranks. Eric was going to send me an additional 2.5mm spacer and o-rings to address the play. Looking forward to getting it installed.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,751
    Why'd you scrape your plans?

    Huh, is your shell a little narrower than 68mm?

  97. #97
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Why'd you scrape your plans?

    Huh, is your shell a little narrower than 68mm?
    Don't want to be a beta tester LOL. I'll let someone else do that. In all seriousness though, I just became nervous with the PW solution in it's current format. I guess time will tell on their solution and if folks have issues.

    Not sure on the shell. It's a Soulcraft steel frame with 68 mm shell. Sean faces and preps the BB & HT prior to shipping out all his frames. He's one of the best in the biz, so I doubt he shaved off too much material. I didn't measure it. I have the new single 5 mm spacer Eric is now shipping on there and the crank fixing bolt properly torqued and there is a bit of play side to side, so Eric was going to send me some extra's to take up the slack/play.

    MH

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    51

    Any Feedback on this Product

    Leaving aside the views expressed above in relation to the way the product has been engineered, has anybody actually fitted one and if so, does it work as advertised?

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpeterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    224
    Just got one, and installed it. Looks pretty cool. If anyone has any questions...

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    22
    Lots of questions - tell us how it is performing for you? How was the installation process? Do you have doubts about the way the BB is secured with loc tite and does it leave anything to be desired in that way? Can you think of a way that it would be improved? Do you trust it? Do its indexed adjustment points allow you to get your chain tension just right, despite the doubts of some posters here?

    If you just posted everything that came to your mind about it..it would probably be helpful. A lot of us want to believe that anything from PW is rock solid but are a little skeptical about this product.

    I don't like how the Forward Components EBB for standard shells looks at all, so I'd much rather have this one or that really expensive european one. EDIT- and it would be good if the phil wood worked well just for ease of obtaining parts.

    So tell us anything you can think of.
    Last edited by Cunha; 03-08-2011 at 12:39 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •