I have Phil hubs, front and rear. I have laced many wheels till now, and disassembled most hub models I came across (save for hubs with internal gearing/planetary gears).

I will agree with those that say they are ugly. They are also expensive. however, there are other, much more over-priced hubs, that don't actually justify the price, such as some of the DT Swiss and White Industries (White Industries hubs are not all that expensive, but they are very low quality, when you look at them carefully and from the inside - Surly are MUCH better, for the same price).

So, what makes Phil hubs special is three things: precise machining with very strict tolerances (White Industries fails at this miserably), excellent quality bearings (sure, you can buy these for your hub, but really good quality cassette bearings cost more than you imagine), and finally, shell material. To have a shell made of a strong aluminum alloy means more durable flanges (extremely important, IMHO) and threads. But machining a hub shell from such material means more wear on the tools.

I am not sure that the average cyclist needs this level of quality, and most of my hubs are Shimano, and I am very satisfied with them. But I acknowledge the quality of Phil hubs, and do see where the money goes, in their case. Some DT Wwiss hubs, while also of excellent quality, are about twice or thrice as expensive as they should be.

By hub brake you mean the Phil Wood drum brake, I assume? Those drum brakes are expensive as heck. Never had one in my hands, actually. Only seen on pictures and diagrams

I am curious to hear of some examples of WI's poor quality. Personally, I was not impressed by their stock bearings. My ENO seized in less than a year. I do agree with your comment on DT.

Unlike with the other hubs, the ENO practically forced me to open it up almost immediately after I started using the wheel into which I laced it in. It would produce a clocking sound at every pedal strike, which I first attributed to the freewheel, but turned out to be caused by the hub itself. After opening it, I found that one of the bearings didn't sit tightly inside the shell in the cylindrical aperture (this is where I discovered the White Industrie's poor machining, all over the place). The bearings used are very average, but they were particularly mis-treated when placed in such a poorly-shaped shell. It took me a bit of trial and error (the malformation wasn't visible to the naked eye) but I finally managed to lodge the bearing in question in a stable position and force it in. I got this hub on discount, but I feel ripped off - I should have paid exactly 1/10th for such drek.

I bought the WI track hubs and built them to open pros, I sold them before I even put tires on them.

I too was not impressed w the WI hubs; their biggest selling point is the splined interface, but even that was enough for me to keep them. I bought the Phil ISO instead.

I wonder if your hubs were the exception(s), and not the rule?

Zero probs with my White stuff, especially the freewheels.

Good job.

Nobody puts phil wood hubs on their bike for performance. The hubs weigh a ton and the bearings are rolling through molasses. You know why I put phils on mine?

1) Custom drilling + slotted
2) 14h radial front/16h rear left side radial with no chance of flanges breaking as depicted in photo.



You keep thinking and telling people that formula and surly's are the same as phil wood and i'll keep telling people why you post ******** nonsense like that on this forum. They are *not* the same regardless of whether _you_ think they're worth it or not.

That's the point, Phils will never wear out, raced or not. E.g you'd be an idiot to race phils anyways, they weigh a ton. In applications where durability and strength is important (touring, low spoke count, radial lacing), they will destroy every single hub mentioned by milbach. Buy the right hub for the right job, but to claim that a low end piece of **** hub like a formula or dimension is even on the same level as a Phil quality wise is ludicrous.

I don't care whether they're "worth it", that's not what i'm debating.

I'm running a piece of **** quando hub laced to a 32h alex da28 on my commuter and it is just fine. Buy the right equipment for the right job.

Operator, you are moving your argument way past the OPs question (and putting words in people's mouths). The OP asked about Phil Wood hubs being used on the street with a track bike. No one's arguing that you are wrong or that other hubs match Phil Wood hubs in quality or durability. However, you are greatly exaggerating when you refer to hubs such as Formulas, Surlys, and Dimensions (Novatec) as being pieces of ****. They (and others) are good solid reliable hubs that are sold at a much more reasonable price. Any advantages that Phil track hubs have over these hubs (for street use on a track bike, to address the OPs original question) are going to be lost on 99.9% of the people that buy them.

Its also worth pointing out that Phil Wood product's aren't as flawless as people seem to think. I destroyed the bearings of a Phil bottom bracket in less than 1000 miles, whereas cheap no-name bottom brackets that I have have gone more than 10000 miles. You can find threads on BF and elsewhere about stripped threads on Phil hubs and other problems relating to Phil products. That is not to say they are not quality, but they aren't made of magic either. And they certainly aren't worth 5 times the value of other products that are 99% just as reliable (my opinion).

The lock ring threading on my Phil Wood rear hub decided to **** the bed, so I threw a freewheel on and I use it as my single speed cross wheel.

Pretty, but save yourself some cash. I got a (used) disc and a trispoke for less than it cost a set of Phil to Velocitys.

Respaceable axles is nice, but not that nice IMO. Plus they're a ***** to do.

Was the loss of your bottom bracket bearings the result of

1 - Poor design
2 - Poor implementation
3 - Poor installation
4 - Poor maintenance

If I fail to properly operate/maintain my BMW and it goes to **** am I qualified to declare their product isn't any better than that produced by KIA or GM? Unless we're gonna quantify the performance of the hubs across a broad range of criteria, arguing the merits of whether one hub is better than another or worth the extra dollars is about as productive as asking which messenger bag is most appropriate for hanging off the back of the chair at Starbucks.

The Phil BB in question was installed correctly and ridden on a bike that only sees fair weather. The bearings wore prematurely and were crunchy and developed play in just under 1000 miles. Phil replaced the bearings under warrantee but I haven't used that BB since, so I don't know if the new bearings will last longer. But, considering the initial cost of the BB + the trouble have having to ship the BB back to Phil, I could have just as easily bought 5 other bottom brackets that probably would have each lasted many times longer.

My point is not to declare that Phil products are ****..they clearly are not. However the cult-like worship of Phil Wood products often clouds reality. They are not flawless and despite the fact that they are 5 times the cost of lesser components, they are not 5 times as durable or 5 times less likely to fail. 99.99% of the time, lesser components will work just as well and in some instances better. If you plan on touring the southern cone of South America on y our tandem, then Phil Hubs may be the best choice. But if all you do is ride your trendy fixie around town, you are kidding yourself if you think Phil Wood hubs offer any significant advantages over other hubs that are equivalent to the increased cost.

I've been following this thread for a while, and it seems to me that there are some misconceptions regarding cost versus quality of any any given product. Having worked for 35 years in the nuclear power industry, I am familiar with the cost of the government mandated zero failure rate requirement for all equipment that is used in domestic nuclear power stations. A common circuit breaker that might cost $50 in your neighborhood electrical parts store, will cost about $2000 when supplied to a nuclear power station. At first sight this might appear to be a total ripoff until you realize that each and every item must be exhaustively tested to meet every specified requirement and that perhaps as many as 50% of the manufactured parts will be rejected. So the expectation of zero defects in better than average products such as Phil Wood hubs is not reasonable, however, a much lower failure rate should be expected. Mihlbach had a bad experience with a Phil Wood BB, so he has biased his outlook on that basis. But unless more than one experiencial data point is collected, it is hard to compare the relative quality/value of different products. I could tell you that I have not 1, but 4 Phil BBs that are 25-35 years old, have all seen extensive hard use in all kinds of weather conditions and are still working smoothly today. However, that really does not mean much until it is compared with the outcome for a much larger sample from production over the years.

I call BS. Do you actually own a phil bb, or did you make that up for forum fodder or to continue sounding like you know everything there is to know ab cycling and it's aftermarket?

I agree with you and don't doubt your experiences with Phil BBs. In most instances, cost increases are exponential relative to failure rate or any other measure of "quality". That is true of bikes, bike parts, and many other products.

I'm not debating the quality of Phil Hubs, but I haven't seen convincing data suggesting that the failure rate of Phil Hubs is lower than any other hub, perhaps with the possible exception of bearings, which are cheap and easy to replace with any hub. Most of Phil's reputation, particularly among the FG/SS crowd, is based upon a cult-like following and has little to do with any sort of proven superiority. Even if it could be demonstrated that Phil hubs are less prone to failure, last longer, or whatever, hubs, in general, have very lower failure rates. Moreover, bike hubs and nuclear power plants have very different consequences when they malfunction. For bike parts, I'd rather pay exponentially less for something that is going to work 99.999% of the time rather than 99.9999% of the time, particularly if the most likely failure (such as premature bearing wear) is a gradual and non-catastrophic event that is cheaply repaired.

Well, I don't know everything, but thanks for the comment.

you sure about that? i compared some formula hubs and philwoods in person and unless my judgement is totally off or i was high that day, the philwoods were significantly lighter.

As I said previously, unless you're going to compile data characterizing the performance of the hubs your statement is nothing but an opinion based on a sample size of one.

The most frequent cause of premature bearing failure is improper installation of the unit. But accusing you or your LBS of that would be my opinion.

...

To be fair, who's going to compile that sort of data just to pick out a hub? Hearsay is what it's all about, especially 'round here. From what I've read, mihlbach got a lemon from PW, but they made it right with him. That at least points to good customer service, and that's what you want because, regardless of sample size, if you win the lottery and get the lemon, you want the maker to make it right.

mihlbach adds, however, that he doesn't think that the performance warrants the added expense.

And here's the trick about forums on the Giant Tubular System of Truth-ernet: you've got to get to know the evaluator before you trust his evaluation. Are his purposes and yours sufficiently compatible that you can trust his judgment? (From what I've read, I trust mihlbach's judgment, because I think his purposes are close to mine.) If not, read someone else's post. It's really quite simple.

(I'm sure I ruffle feathers when I disparage on-the-stand spin-tests of wheels (which some mistakenly think is a test of a hub). Sure, it's lovely to watch a wheel spin for a long time with no other forces acting upon it. But I'm more interested in what the wheel is doing at mile 100 of a grueling ride. You can't evaluate that on a stand. And any readers should keep this sort of thing in mind when they read my occasionally snarky, often cynical remarks.)

{steps off soapbox}

i buy phil for their durability. assuming i don't wreck my bike in a crash, the price seems worth it if it lasts a reasonable amount of time. it's not hard to figure out for yourself whether or not the part is question is worth the msrp if it lasts whatever amount of time you deem reasonable. for me that amount if time starts at, lets say, 10 years. would you get a chris king head set or a cheap ritchey headset? i prefer to buy qaulity parts once, rather than keep replacing cheap parts.

I doubt very much that I am the only one to have a White Industrie's hub with cheap and crappy bearings, or that I am the only one with atrociously badly machined shell. When there are such fabrication imperfections, assembly failures are much more frequent, hence the bearing that was "dancing" in my case. Basically, the axis of the bearing and the axis of the shell were not parallel (the difference is just a fraction of a degree, but enough to cause the clicking noise at every revolution). Careful repositioning of the bearing solved the problem, but also opened my eyes to what piece of crap did I spend my money on. For less money, Surly's are way, way better, in every aspect.

I haven't had particularly good luck with WI products either, including a pair of cranks and hubs.

I don't have the track hubs, but a pair of H1 road hubs. The front bearings crapped out very quickly. I've since replaced the front and the rear is still smooth, but I can't (nor my LBS) seem to eliminate a small amount of bearing play in either hub. Apparently they addressed this problem with the H2 hubs, which are a bit heavier and probably have a bit more meat in the hubshell. That said the hubs are beautiful and the freehub mechanism with titantium freehub body is top notch.

The splined interface of my ENO cranks and chainring are also problematic. The tiny amount of play (which WI assured me is normal) loosens the lockring every ride (when riding fixed) and creaks like mad. I was able to solve the problem with a bit of loctite on the lockring. The hub-cog interface of their track hubs has the same flawed design. I would steer clear of the track hubs for that reason alone.

WIs main problem is their tendency to produce odd designs, which usually end up being flawed somehow.

I have never liked splined cranks for that reason, and have always stayed with traditional square taper and adjustable open bearing BBs. I've seen people at the track have problems with splined cranks on other brands like FSA. As far as splined cogs is concerned, it seems to me that if you have to apply loctite on the lockring to prevent it from loosening, that totally defeats the primary pupose of the splined interface, which is to permit easy and quick gear changes at the track.

T-trackie, I'm not sure if you understoood me or not, but just to be clear (and for others reading this), the WI ENO cranks uses a square taper BB. However, the crank mates with the chainring via a spined interface that is identical to the track hub interface and is held on by a lockring. This splined interface functions properly when riding in SS mode, because the torque is unidirectional. However when riding fixed, the rocking back and forth of the chainring loosens the lockring.

Agreed 100%.