# Phil Wood Philcentric EBB for standard shells



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

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


----------



## veloreality (May 10, 2009)

interesting....


----------



## Stevob (Feb 27, 2009)

nice new website


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2010)

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


----------



## jpbova (Apr 7, 2009)

miwuksurfer said:


> 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


----------



## ryker (Sep 9, 2008)

Found a pic here: http://www.handlebarsandwich.com/09/26/2010/interbike-2010

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


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

ryker said:


> Found a pic here: http://www.handlebarsandwich.com/09/26/2010/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.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

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...


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

byknuts said:


> 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


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

bikeny said:


> 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.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

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?


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

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...ric-bb-for-standard-threaded-frames-and-more/


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

miwuksurfer said:


> 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?


----------



## forwardcomponents (Dec 2, 2008)

bikeny said:


> ...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.


----------



## ISuckAtRiding (Jul 7, 2006)

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.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

forwardcomponents said:


> Interesting.


I'm glad you edited your post.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

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.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

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.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

Zanetti said:


> 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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

wv_bob said:


> 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...ric-bb-for-standard-threaded-frames-and-more/


----------



## jpbova (Apr 7, 2009)

sean salach said:


> 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


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

jpbova said:


> 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


----------



## jpbova (Apr 7, 2009)

Sparticus said:


> 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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

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.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

bad mechanic said:


> 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


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Sparticus said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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?


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

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?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

bad mechanic said:


> 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


----------



## kiwimtbr (Mar 1, 2004)

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


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

kiwimtbr said:


> 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.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

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.


----------



## jpbova (Apr 7, 2009)

external bearing bottom brackets have the same thing holding them in place and they don't loosen


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

jpbova said:


> 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.


----------



## jpbova (Apr 7, 2009)

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?


----------



## jpbova (Apr 7, 2009)

bad mechanic said:


> 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


----------



## jacobslide (Aug 28, 2008)

Anyone have any images of this installed? And, like the other ones out there, it only works with external bb cranksets, correct?


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

bad mechanic said:


> ...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


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

MSH said:


> 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.


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

bad mechanic said:


> 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


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

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."*


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

MSH said:


> 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...


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

byknuts said:


> 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


----------



## tomatoSS (Nov 27, 2010)

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).


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

tomatoSS said:


> i really am kind of anxious for this to become available.....


You can order it. Phil Wood is shipping them now...$190


----------



## tomatoSS (Nov 27, 2010)

MSH said:


> 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.


----------



## fishcreek (Apr 10, 2007)

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.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

MSH said:


> You can order it. Phil Wood is shipping them now...$190


For that price it better include Loctite.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

tomatoSS said:


> 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:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=613009

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.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

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.


----------



## tomatoSS (Nov 27, 2010)

itsdoable said:


> *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?


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

tomatoSS said:


> 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.


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

itsdoable said:


> 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?"_


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

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


----------



## tomatoSS (Nov 27, 2010)

bikeny said:


> 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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

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.


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

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.*_


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

bad mechanic said:


> 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


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

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.


----------



## FKMTB07 (Mar 29, 2007)

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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

AKamp said:


> 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.



FKMTB07 said:


> 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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

N/m


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

bad mechanic said:


> N/m


Thanks for posting this.

--sParty


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

???


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

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.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

bad mechanic said:


> ???


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:


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Sparticus said:


> 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".


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

itsdoable said:


> 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.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

itsdoable said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

bad mechanic said:


> 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


----------



## FKMTB07 (Mar 29, 2007)

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/documenti/en/Ultra_torque_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.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

Sparticus said:


> 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? :skep:

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.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> 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.



bikeny said:


> 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.


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

bikeny said:


> ....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



byknuts said:


> ...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.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

*Lol*



FKMTB07 said:


> 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


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

FKMTB07 said:


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


First, it's n/m as in "*N*o *M*essage". Second, really?!? :skep:



FKMTB07 said:


> 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.



FKMTB07 said:


> 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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

itsdoable said:


> 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.



itsdoable said:


> 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.



itsdoable said:


> 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.


----------



## orion_134 (Sep 2, 2010)

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?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

orion_134 said:


> 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


----------



## orion_134 (Sep 2, 2010)

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.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

orion_134 said:


> 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


----------



## orion_134 (Sep 2, 2010)

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...


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

bikeny said:


> 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.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> 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.



bad mechanic said:


> 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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

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.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> 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.
> ...


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?



bad mechanic said:


> 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.


----------



## fishcreek (Apr 10, 2007)

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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

itsdoable said:


> 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.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> 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.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

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!


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Sorry to dredge this thread up again, but has anyone actually used the Phil EBB yet?


----------



## forwardcomponents (Dec 2, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> 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.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=673835


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

bad mechanic said:


> 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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Why'd you scrape your plans?

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


----------



## MSH (Jun 30, 2005)

bad mechanic said:


> 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


----------



## Chromo (Oct 6, 2005)

*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?


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

Just got one, and installed it. Looks pretty cool. If anyone has any questions...


----------



## Cunha (Feb 23, 2011)

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.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Cunha said:


> I don't like how the Forward Components EBB for standard shells looks at all...


Why not?


----------



## Cunha (Feb 23, 2011)

A massive slab of stainless steel secured with a handful of set screws is not really my cup of tea.


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

Ok lots of questions it looks like. I need to ride it a few more times to see if it slips a bit. Fut first off instaliation. I have a xt crank and had to grind off the small chainring tabs, this did take a long time and SUCKED. It was especially frustrating because the bolt heads that set the eccentric stick out just a bit so it had to be done well. 
Other than the crank not fitting well the rest of the install was easy. The whole talk about the locktite is going to be mute so don't worry about it. You tighten the drive side cup all the way then not tighten the non drive quite all the way at first. I think this is where everyone gets freaked out. You then insert the alignment gauge and finish off the tightening of the non drive side, is still is pretty tight, I am not at all worried about this coming loose. 
Adjustment is a bit time consuming but in all honesty what ebb is not? You remove both sides of the crank then take the bolts out of the outside plate and reposition it, you can slide in the drive side crank arm and check chain tension. When you get it just set the non drive side cup a the same position and insert bolts then reinstall the cranks. The first time it was time consuming but after a coulpe of tries I think the whole process will take aobut 5 miinutes to dial it in with a new cog. Not bad at all.
The bb is pretty big looking, that might take awhile to get used to. The bearings feel really nice and I bet they are quite a bit nicer then the shimano bb that are just disposable. It is a phil wood product so you can replace bearings and it is not that expensive and if it lasts better than shimano it will be a pretty good value.
Weight was a big thing for me. All told I gained 60 grams from the set up I had been running with a magic gear and I could not change gears and getting a chain that was worn enough but not too much sucked. How many other EBBs weigh only 60 grams? Not too bad.
The indexing is like every 15 degrees. It is pretty good, not perfect, but pretty good. I think there is something like 1/4 of total adjustment. In reality I will run the same size ring all the time and only switch cogs one tooth so this is plenty without having to adjust chain lenght. I will alternate between a 36/ 17 and 18. Right now it is a touch tigher than I would like, but it is definalty not tight and has a brand new chain so it will be perfect after a ride.
I think this definatly could be the answer we are all looking for in terms of converting a frame. Time will tell. I have faith in my setup and I took the proper time and effort into the setup so I do not think it will slide. If it does I will tell you. I can post pics if anyone want to see them.


----------



## Cunha (Feb 23, 2011)

Thanks a ton for that review Cpeterson. Any photos are welcome, plus I'd like to see your bike just for fun.


----------



## Welsh Dave (Jul 26, 2005)

Loctite?
What happens when the chain wears and needs to be re-tensioned?
Do BOTH sides of the BB insert then need to be moved/ re-synched?

Adjusting my Fisher EBB already requires removing my Middleburns and messign about with 3 or 4 tools in all. Not the best idea with a square taper crank, IMO. But at least there's no Loctite to clean off/ re-apply. 
Or is that not an issue?

Profile BMX did a 2-piece indexed BB a few years back, for the large old-school BB shells. That one also required a special sych tool. Turns out that clamping the two parts together did something weird to the cartridge bearings (?exerted a binding preload?). They don't make the 2-piece design any more.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Did you happen to weigh it before installation? I'd love to find out the weight.


----------



## Cunha (Feb 23, 2011)

Read the instructions on Phil Wood's site first Welsh Dave. Loc Tite only needs to be applied once with this BB. Once the cups are aligned perfectly and set, they are set for good. The adjustment is pretty easy and is aided by the fact that the cups are indexed, so its real easy to get adjustment just right.

Thats the advantage. The theoretical disadvantage of securing part of the BB with loc tite has been examined here..but I am looking forward to seeing how it works for cpeterson since he actually has one. 

Besides the fact that once the cups are set, they don't need to be moved..blue loctite is pretty easy to remove with just a little heat or even no heat at all.


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

The loctite is on the threads into the frame, once installed this does not ever have to be removed unless you are taking it out of the bike. at instalation you make sure both cups are aligned, when it is in you hand it really is quite a simlpe task.
Next both inserts need to be removed to adust the chainlength. They are held into pace by 2 small bolts on each side and kept in place by contact from a number of splines, so after reemoving the crank it is just one allen needed. To check it you only need to adjust the drive side then when you are satisfied you match the non drive side up.

Weight was 320 grams.


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

*Square Taper Phil Centric BB*

The 2011 NAHBS show indyfab "caffeine racer" had the Phil external EBB on it. Picture below. I'm more interested in the *Square Taper Phil Centric* (source 2/16/11 Phil Wood)


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

*Phil External Eccentric*

The 2011 NAHBS show indyfab "caffeine racer" had the Phil external EBB on it.


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Do you have to remove the crank arms every time you need to tighten the chain?


----------



## Cunha (Feb 23, 2011)

yeah..that's the drawback of all ebbs.


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

I remember hearing that with the Phil unit you have to remove the cranks in order to get to the set screws can you tell me if it;s true Cpeterson?. This isn't needed for standard eccentrics like a pinch bolt style.though.


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

you do have to remove the crank to get to the set screws


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

djembe975 said:


> I remember hearing that with the Phil unit you have to remove the cranks in order to get to the set screws can you tell me if it;s true Cpeterson?. This isn't needed for standard eccentrics like a pinch bolt style.though.


yes, but this isn't a direct alternative for standard eccentrics since it is designed for frames that no standard eccentric would fit in


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

here is a pic of the set bolts on the non drive side


----------



## forwardcomponents (Dec 2, 2008)

Cunha said:


> yeah..that's the drawback of all ebbs.


That is not the drawback of all EBBs. It is the drawback of the Philcentric EBB. Only the Philcentric requires removal of the crank arms to adjust the tension. The Forward Components EBB and the Trickstuff Exzentriker(as far as I know) do not require removal of the crank arms.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

Cunha said:


> yeah..that's the drawback of all ebbs.


I've never removed my cranks to adjust my Bushnell, pinch bolt or set screw eBBs. Nor for my FC eBB.


----------



## s-keeper (Oct 12, 2010)

cpeterson, is yours a 73mm or 68mm bb shell? i hope you don't have to grind off the granny tabs for it to fit in a 68mm shell


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

i have a 73mm shell. but you will have to grind off the granny tabs regardless of the bb shell width, as the crank arm to bb interface is the same regardless, if you space it you do it on the threads between the frame and the cup, not between the cup and the crank.
if you get a singlespeed crank there is nothing to grind.


----------



## Cunha (Feb 23, 2011)

Gosh I misunderstood them then. My bad.


----------



## s-keeper (Oct 12, 2010)

As far as I understand it though, with the Forward Components EBB you don't use spacers with a 68mm bb and you don't need to grind the granny tabs off.

I wanted to use an Sram X9 double crank, with homebrew components inner ring and outer bash, which will give me the perfect chainline for an Alfine. I probably will just use a single speed crank with some chainring spacers now.


----------



## forwardcomponents (Dec 2, 2008)

s-keeper said:


> As far as I understand it though, with the Forward Components EBB you don't use spacers with a 68mm bb and you don't need to grind the granny tabs off.
> 
> I wanted to use an Sram X9 double crank, with homebrew components inner ring and outer bash, which will give me the perfect chainline for an Alfine. I probably will just use a single speed crank with some chainring spacers now.


The Forward Components EBB does use spacers with a 68mm bottom bracket. The spacers are placed on the spindle, between the outside face of the EBB and the inside face of the crankset. This allows the EBB to avoid interfering with the granny ring mounts. On the road version no spacers are required.


----------



## Bataivah (Feb 19, 2011)

More weight. Whats wrong with simplicity and a half link and/or tensioner? Just another tool and more adjustments to make.ut:


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Bataivah said:


> More weight. Whats wrong with simplicity and a half link and/or tensioner? Just another tool and more adjustments to make.ut:


And tensioners don't add weight and need to be adjusted?

Half links on their own don't give you fine adjustment for chain tension and still just rely on "magic", something which I will never deal with again nor recommend to anyone. Some tensioners are decently simple and worry-free, but many have problems, or complicate wheel removal, or add noise, or add drag, or are unreliable, etc. An ebb conversion on the other hand leaves you with the simplest and cleanest drivetrain possible on a converted frame once its installed and adjusted.

I really wouldn't mind having to use a tensioner again it was silent, smooth, and reliable; but there is something much nicer to me about owning and riding an SS setup without one

Besides, what's wrong with options?


----------



## Bataivah (Feb 19, 2011)

How much does it cost? Then another tool too. It can't be as light as a good tensioner.
But if that's what you like then that's all that matters.
I guess if I could buy one for $20 I would use one (with a free tool).
My tensioner is 100g and hand adjusted with tools I already have. ($17)...I go to SS to simplify things and go right back to where I was by removing the cranks all the time to adjust.
Too much BS for me.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Bataivah said:


> It can't be as light as a good tensioner.


Since both these options replace the existing BB, it could possibly be lighter than a tensioner.



Bataivah said:


> I guess if I could buy one for $20 I would use one (with a free tool).
> My tensioner is 100g and hand adjusted with tools I already have. ($17)...I go to SS to simplify things and go right back to where I was by removing the cranks all the time to adjust.
> Too much BS for me.


I enjoy SS for the way it rides on the trail. All the other stuff about maintenance and simplicity and cost is simply an added benefit for me. We're all different in those aspects

If you change gears often then something like the Phil certainly wouldn't make quite as much sense because of that complication of removing the cranks, but many people do run the same ratio for years. Also, I believe the special tools for the Phil are only for installation; all adjustments after that are done by hand with only a hex wrench.

However, as forward himself pointed out, his forwardcomponents EBB does not require removing the cranks for adjustment. His version also comes with the necessary installation tool for free


----------



## Bataivah (Feb 19, 2011)

I'll agree that it's a good idea for some set-ups, but it looks pricey for my poorman budget.


----------



## FirstStateCamber (Jul 4, 2006)

Is the FC no longer available? I know they are doing a revision, but I'd like to finish my SS build now!


----------



## p nut (Apr 19, 2007)

I've emailed (few weeks ago) and just PM'ed FC, but haven't received a response.


----------



## Precab (Jun 30, 2005)

*FC bb*

I too have sent a few emails without response on when FC BB will be back on the market. Frustrating


----------



## FirstStateCamber (Jul 4, 2006)

Well I was tired of getting no where quick, so I went the ENOcentric hub on my wheel build. This should be less trouble in the end since I won't have any grinding on my cranks to do, no special tools or locktite to rely on. I'll post my build once it's all done.


----------



## jbmcsu (Aug 4, 2005)

If you tighten the drive side all the way down then all you would need is blue loctite to keep the non drive from moving. Since they are connected together all of the forward crank rotation rotates the bearings backwards which can only put tightening forces on an English threaded bottom bracket. If the drive side is tightened properly there should be no problems. 

Same reason you have to loctite the drive side of an Italian BB, it wants to loosen up with forward pedaling forces.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

jbmcsu said:


> If you tighten the drive side all the way down then all you would need is blue loctite to keep the non drive from moving. Since they are connected together all of the forward crank rotation rotates the bearings backwards which can only put tightening forces on an English threaded bottom bracket. If the drive side is tightened properly there should be no problems.
> 
> Same reason you have to loctite the drive side of an Italian BB, it wants to loosen up with forward pedaling forces.


- Not having it tightened down properly will allow it to move in the threads, causing creaking.

- Not having it tightened down might misalign the bearings, since they're located by the shell's faces.

- Since it's an eccentric design, bearing precession isn't the only force at play. Because the bearings aren't concentric with the cup, pedaling creates torque on the cups.


----------



## druidh (Aug 25, 2004)

I've just been through an installation of the Philcentric EBB and thought some would like to hear more experiences...

The frame is a 907 Fatbike and I wanted an Alfine IGH to make it more weatherproof. One of the posts on the MTBR Fatbike forum mentioned the Philcentric as an option, so I decided to run with that. I hadn't looked into the fitting instructions before buying it, although I realised that none of my local bike shops would have the alignment tool, so I had to order up a special (100mm crank version) of that too.

Like a couple of the posters here, I was amazed that the whole system was to rely on Loctite. However, I thought I'd give it a go to see how we got on. Interestingly, PW provide a tube of RED Loctite, not the blue referred to above. 

It all seemed to go OK, but on my second ride, I noticed that the chain was going slack, By the time I got home, it was loose enough to take of the cogs by hand and would skip on any decent climb. I guessed that the cups had loosened in the shell. Upon dismantling, it transpired that the DS cup was loose, but the NDS had held in place. What this meant was that the spindle was at an angle and it took a fair bit of persuasion with a nylon mallet to remove the cranks, when the NDS popped out, it did so with the NDS bearing still attached!


So - a couple of things to change on re-fitting...

The installation, setting tool has some handy serrations designed, I guess, to give some purchase when tightening up the BB shells. Although I did it by hand, I wonder if they are actually designed to allow a chain-whip to be used?? This would at least snug the whole thing up a good bit more, even allowing for the subsequent re-setting of the NDS cup.

I had, as normal, greased up the cups when installing them. I'm wondering if this messed with the Loctite, in which case I'll try cleaning/d-greasing it all and re-installing with no grease.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

druidh said:


> The installation, setting tool has some handy serrations designed, I guess, to give some purchase when tightening up the BB shells. Although I did it by hand, I wonder if they are actually designed to allow a chain-whip to be used?? This would at least snug the whole thing up a good bit more, even allowing for the subsequent re-setting of the NDS cup.
> 
> I had, as normal, greased up the cups when installing them. I'm wondering if this messed with the Loctite, in which case I'll try cleaning/d-greasing it all and re-installing with no grease.


Yup, it's for a chain whip.

Did you put grease on the threads? If you do, then it'll absolutely keep the thread locker from working. Loctite needs clean threads.


----------



## 1-bar (Jun 10, 2004)

I ordered a Philcentric for my Salsa Mamasita. It was about $150(+$25 for labor to install the cups) and I should have it by the end of this week. It REALLY blows that I have to rely on a LBS to install it because of the special tool that is need. I don't mind supporting my LBS, I enjoy doing the work myself... at least my LBS is very competent stating that they know all about the loctite and drive vs. non drive side tightening. I should have some install and use opinions in about a weeks time.


----------



## ratherbeintobago (Aug 20, 2010)

To ask a daft question, is a maximum of 24 degrees loosening enough to make a big impact on the torque of the NDS cup?

Andy


----------



## forwardcomponents (Dec 2, 2008)

My apologies for not responding to emails in a more timely manner. I did not realize that there was still interest in the product. I would really enjoy being able to supply to the current demand, especially considering the alternatives on the market. Unfortunately, the EBB is just not economically viable to produce. If it was, I would gladly restart production.


----------



## bennymack (Dec 14, 2008)

forwardcomponents said:


> My apologies for not responding to emails in a more timely manner. I did not realize that there was still interest in the product. I would really enjoy being able to supply to the current demand, especially considering the alternatives on the market. Unfortunately, the EBB is just not economically viable to produce. If it was, I would gladly restart production.


Oh hey, man! You're still around! That's good to hear. I am still using my FC EBB (53 road miles yesterday). Mounted up perfectly the first time and has been flawless ever since.


----------



## Muffin Man (Dec 14, 2011)

what is your website? The one in your sig doesnt work?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

forwardcomponents said:


> My apologies for not responding to emails in a more timely manner. I did not realize that there was still interest in the product. I would really enjoy being able to supply to the current demand, especially considering the alternatives on the market. Unfortunately, the EBB is just not economically viable to produce. If it was, I would gladly restart production.


Raise the price, the line starts here.


----------



## forwardcomponents (Dec 2, 2008)

Muffin Man said:


> what is your website? The one in your sig doesnt work?


The site is down since the product is no longer on the market.


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

I have now been using my philcentric ebb for over a year and after some intial slippage, and subsequent over use of loctite I have had zero problems with it. it is sweet.


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

cpeterson, does chain tensioning indeed require removal of the crankarms, a special tool, and can you only use square taper type cranksets?


----------



## ratherbeintobago (Aug 20, 2010)

illnacord said:


> can you only use square taper type cranksets?


IIRC The Philcentric replaces normal EBB cups, so you can only use external bearing cranks - square taper/Octalink/ISIS won't work.

Andy


----------



## cpeterson (Nov 9, 2007)

illnacord said:


> cpeterson, does chain tensioning indeed require removal of the crankarms, a special tool, and can you only use square taper type cranksets?


You are required to remove the cranks to adjust the chain tension. You do not need a specail tool to adjust the chain tension. The special tool is only required for the initial instalation of the system. To adjust the chain tension you will need what ever tool are required to remover your particular crank and a 2.5mm allen to remove the bolts that holt the bearings in the cups. It can take a couple tries to get the correct tension so it is more time consuming than a typical EBB that is in a single speed specific frame. But my Phil Wood EBB has not slipped in over a year and does not creak, and the bearing in it are so smooth and nice, plus I was able to turn my beloved standard frame into a singlespeed and can choose the gear I ride. Perfect.


----------



## hihache (Aug 17, 2006)

Just bumping this for some additional info on the philcentric BB.

It is not compatible with Stylo OCT or XX1 cranks out of the box. The stylo crankset would work with some modification. The XX1 spider is too small.

It is compatible with X1 cranks with no modification.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

hihache said:


> Just bumping this for some additional info on the philcentric BB.
> 
> It is not compatible with Stylo OCT or XX1 cranks out of the box. The stylo crankset would work with some modification. The XX1 spider is too small.
> 
> It is compatible with X1 cranks with no modification.


What width is your bottom bracket shell?


----------

