Wheel size Cliff Notes

This is part 7 of 8. Here is the start!

A quick summary of the compromises that have to be made when designing bicycles for people under five feet, five inches tall.

Compromise 1, Accept Toe Strike
Some manufacturers choose to compromise safety instead of handling. By designing a bike for proper trail numbers, and a short top tube, this manufacturer has designed a bicycle that is very dangerous when trying to avoid an obstacle (like a car door or pedestrian) when riding. At Rodriguez Bicycles, we no longer build with this much toe strike because we have had to buy back so many small bikes over the years for this reason. No matter what someone tells you, you’re not going to get used to it, and too much toe strike is not OK.

This drawing is an exact re-creation of an actual bike that came in for repairs because the customer crashed while trying to avoid a car door. The rider was confused as to why they went down, but was sure they didn’t hit the car door.

The picture on top shows that the bike looks perfectly fine, and normal to the untrained eye. The fit measurements line up just right for most women around 5’3″ tall. The same drawing on the bottom shows the issue of toe-strike.

Frame drawing with toe overlap

Frame drawing with toe overlap highlighted


Compromise 2, The Magic Top Tube
On the face of things, this second bike has no toe overlap, acceptable handling geometry, and the right fit numbers. What the untrained eye doesn’t see here is that this is actually a trick. The seat tube angle has been designed very steep, so the top tube is artificially shortened. This way the manufacturer can list the bike in a catalog with a short top tube.

In real life, this is the worst compromise for most riders because it makes the reach almost impossible to shorten. Riders that have bikes like this soon find out that their knee is way too far forward and they have developed knee pain when they ride long distances. The only way to correct it is to push the seat way back, effectively lengthening the reach to the bars too far for a shorter rider. Now the rider needs a stem that’s shorter than any thing available. Unless your fit numbers call for a really steep seat angle, I recommend against this option.

On the top, you can see that this bike looks normal. On the bottom, you see that this is actually the worst way to design a small bike with 700c wheels if you consider fit and control as important. Many, many companies use this slight of hand to pass off a small bike as ‘women’s specific’ design.

frame drawing with sneaky geometry

frame drawing with sneaky geometry highlighted in red


Compromise 3, Ignore Control All Together

One way to get the big wheel out of the way of the rider’s foot is to slacken the head tube angle…..a lot…like a chopper. This option says “let’s build the bike to fit right, and we don’t care how it handles”. The bike drawn below is an exact re-creation of an expensive titanium custom bike that a 5′ 2″ tall woman brought in because it didn’t handle well. When I rode the bike, I would liken the handling to my grandfather’s 1966 Ford pickup without power steering. ie….it was a chore to steer this bike.

Although this option allows for a carbon fork, I suggest strongly that you try it for a weekend before you invest in a bike built like this. I also suggest that you try compromise 4 and 5 as well. I think that you’ll find that handling characteristics are much more important that you may think.

On the top, you can see that this bike looks normal to the untrained eye. On the bottom, you can see the result of a ‘chopper-style’ front end.

chopper bike frame drawing

chopper frame drawing with huge trail number pointed out


Compromise 4, Go Old-Style
The very best way to put a 700c wheel on a smaller bike is the same way that we used to do it in the 1970’s and 1980’s…..use a steel fork. By using a steel fork, we have the option to put a custom amount of rake in the fork to offset a slack steering angle. This keeps the handling characteristics correct, and allows us to build to the proper fit and knee angle.

Proportional wheels are always going to give the bike better handling, but this compromise will allow those who really want 700c on a small bike to have them. The drawbacks to this option are that the fork ends up being heavier, and you still have some issues related to large wheels on a smaller bike. Read what what a serious athlete of smaller stature has to say on that subject.

On the top, you can see that this bike looks normal to the untrained eye. Actually, it looks (and rides) a lot like the an old Peugot or Raleigh from the 1970’s. On the bottom, you can see that it results in pretty satisfactory numbers as well. This option is preferable to 3 previous options, but doesn’t really provide the petite rider with the same level of quick handling and control that the taller riders get on their bikes.

frame drawing with a custom fork

Pointing out on the same drawing at left the custom fork angles


Compromise 5, Perfectly Proportional but more limited selection of tires
The very best way to build a smaller bike considering handling, comfort, fit, and speed is to use wheels that are proportional to the frame size. Using a 650c wheel allows the builder to correct for all of the drawbacks listed above and use lighter wheels and carbon fork as desired.

The drawbacks to 650c wheels are that your tire choices are more limited. The cycling industry ignores the needs of female cyclists to a very large extent, and stocking 650c tires just isn’t cool. If you ride widths from 23mm to 28mm, and you don’t mind carrying a spare, then you’ll have no problems with 650c.

On the top, you can see that this bike looks well designed and proportional. On the bottom, you can see that all of the fit measurements are right, as well as the handling geometry. The only compromise being a more limited tire selection. The petite rider can experience the exact same performance and control as taller riders do on their bikes.

Frame drawing with a 650c wheelset

Frame drawing with 650 wheels showing no toe overlap, normal trail numbers and a proportional top tube length


There you have it. A full graphic illustration of the ups and downs of wheel sizes and smaller bikes. A lot of smaller riders and women get a lot of advice from friends who ride, but aren’t actually bike designers. We’re happy to build your smaller bike with 700c or 650c wheels. I think that it’s important that you consider the differences as explained by someone who designs bicycles for a living.


Related Items

Small Bike Compromise: Sacrifice Convenience?

This is part 6 of 8. Here is the start!
A quick overview of terms that are important:

  • Fork Rake – Offset that places the fork ends ahead of the steering axis
  • Head Tube Angle – The angle that the frame holds the fork at in relation to the ground (same as steering angle)
  • Trail – The distance that the axle trails the steering axis intersection with the ground
  • Effective Top Tube Length – The measurement from the center of the seat post to the center of the head tube when measured level
  • Reach to Bars – Distance from center of seat to center of handle bar stem
  • Proper Knee Alignment – Adjustment to ensure that your knee is centered over the pedal spindle
  • Seat Tube Angle – The angle of the seat tube in relation to the ground
  • Toe Strike – How much of the foot interferes with turning the front wheel

A Bike with 650c wheels, proportional to the frame

Compromise 5.) Sacrifice convenience:
Here’s an idea….why not go to the extra expense and use a proportional sized wheel on the bikes that are smaller? This is the method that companies use when they are trying to provide the best fitting bikes without compromising safety or good performance. It also costs more for the manufacturer, and requires commitment and understanding of their customer’s needs. 650c wheels provide a world of design upgrades to the shorter rider, and should not be mis-understood.

That being said, there is a drawback to them. The drawback is that there are fewer tire choices for 650c, and there are not a lot of shops that stock 650c tires. So, you’ll want to have a spare if you’re on a long tour. Other than that, there are no drawbacks to a 650c vs. a 700c tire.


Now, I realize that some customers want special tires or rims that are only available in 700c, and are willing to sacrifice the weight or performance of proportional wheels, and I have no argument with that. We’re happy to, and do build a lot of smaller bikes with 700c wheels. I do have an argument with shops that say things like “smaller wheels are slower”, or “there’s no compromise in it” when science and physics prove differently. Facts are stubborn things I guess.

Alright! Women and shorter riders, you make the decision. Do you want the same comfort, control and performance as the taller riders get? Or, would you rather have the same wheel size that the taller riders get? It doesn’t matter to us, as long as you are making an educated decision.


WOW! Are you still reading this? If so, you’ve probably got more questions. I’m happy to answer any of them regarding this issue. I’m dumbfounded as to why some folks out there almost get angry about this subject, but it seems like they do. Back in the days before 650c wheels were common, we used to use 24″ wheels for small bikes. Imaging how mad that would make those people 🙂 Anyway, shoot me an email if you have any questions about this article. It’s a technical article, and really could be a book if I went into every aspect of the issue. Suffice it to say, that if you grasp the facts in this article, you’ll be way ahead of many folks I meet in this industry.

Small Bike Compromise: Sacrifice Bike Weight!

This is part 5 of 8. Here is the start!
A quick overview of terms that are important:

  • Fork Rake – Offset that places the fork ends ahead of the steering axis
  • Head Tube Angle – The angle that the frame holds the fork at in relation to the ground (same as steering angle)
  • Trail – The distance that the axle trails the steering axis intersection with the ground
  • Effective Top Tube Length – The measurement from the center of the seat post to the center of the head tube when measured level
  • Reach to Bars – Distance from center of seat to center of handle bar stem
  • Proper Knee Alignment – Adjustment to ensure that your knee is centered over the pedal spindle
  • Seat Tube Angle – The angle of the seat tube in relation to the ground
  • Toe Strike – How much of the foot interferes with turning the front wheel

More detail of a steel fork solution

Compromise 4.) Sacrifice weight:
Let’s go old school, and use a steel fork like in the 1980’s. This is a pretty good option if you really want to use 700c wheels on a smaller bike. We can build a bike just like we used to in the 1980’s, and put lots of rake in the fork to match the slack steering angle to keep the trail number at 60mm. Although the steel fork is heavier than modern carbon forks, the bike will be comfortable to ride and you won’t hit your foot on the wheel when you try to turn. The handling of a bike like this is still not what most people are after on race bikes, as the ‘front center number’ (another article) is more like a 1980’s Peugot, but the bike is safe.

This compromise is the one we recommend for smaller riders wanting big wheels. If you want to feel a bike set up this way in comparison to a 650c wheel bike, just ask and we’ll let you try them both on extended test rides.

Monday: Sacrifice convenience?

Small Bike Compromise: Sacrifice Performance!

This is part 4 of 8. Here is the start!
A quick overview of terms that are important:

  • Fork Rake – Offset that places the fork ends ahead of the steering axis
  • Head Tube Angle – The angle that the frame holds the fork at in relation to the ground (same as steering angle)
  • Trail – The distance that the axle trails the steering axis intersection with the ground
  • Effective Top Tube Length – The measurement from the center of the seat post to the center of the head tube when measured level
  • Reach to Bars – Distance from center of seat to center of handle bar stem
  • Proper Knee Alignment – Adjustment to ensure that your knee is centered over the pedal spindle
  • Seat Tube Angle – The angle of the seat tube in relation to the ground
  • Toe Strike – How much of the foot interferes with turning the front wheel

Compromise 3.) Sacrifice performance:
More detail on a slack headtube

If the head tube angle is made very slack, say 68 degrees or less, that will usually be enough to get the 700c wheel out of the way of the foot of most people who need a top tube of less than 53cm, even with a modern carbon fork. “Why not just do that?” you ask? Well, remember ‘trail’? In short, if a bike has a very slack head tube angle, but not enough rake in the fork, the steering is affected in a very negative way. It shoots up to over 100mm on some expensive custom bikes. In other words, you won’t be been doing the ‘look ma, no hands’ trick unless it’s followed by the ‘look ma, no teeth’ trick.

This compromise will result in a bike that handles like a 1966 Ford pickup with no power steering. The bike will be hard to control in tight corners, and just not as much fun as it should be. Having to put so much energy into steering creates pains in the neck, hands, shoulders, and arms. This is all the opposite of what Rodriguez philosophy of cycling is about.

Tomorrow: Compromise the weight of your bike?
Read more about it!

Small Bike Compromise: Trickery!

This is part 3 of 8. Here is the start!
A quick overview of terms that are important:

  • Fork Rake – Offset that places the fork ends ahead of the steering axis
  • Head Tube Angle – The angle that the frame holds the fork at in relation to the ground (same as steering angle)
  • Trail – The distance that the axle trails the steering axis intersection with the ground
  • Effective Top Tube Length – The measurement from the center of the seat post to the center of the head tube when measured level
  • Reach to Bars – Distance from center of seat to center of handle bar stem
  • Proper Knee Alignment – Adjustment to ensure that your knee is centered over the pedal spindle
  • Seat Tube Angle – The angle of the seat tube in relation to the ground
  • Toe Strike – How much of the foot interferes with turning the front wheel

More detail of drastic frame changes

Compromise 2.) Resort to Trickery:
Here’s a tricky one. If a bike has a modern carbon fork, a 70 degree head tube angle, a top tube length of 50cm, no toe strike, fairly decent trail of 79mm, and 700c wheels, has the company found the magic formula? No. They have artificially shortened the top tube by making the seat tube angle really steep. What does this mean for the rider? Really sore knees, or the seat pushed all the way back on the rails in order to get the knees in the right pedaling position. Once the seat is pushed back on the rails to accommodate for thigh length, the reach to the bars becomes the same as if the top tube were 53 or 54cm, and the rider is just as uncomfortable. Why do this at all? To list a 50cm top tube in the catalog. Many, many manufacturers pull this stunt. I call this misleading 🙁

Result – This one’s really not a compromise at all. You just end up with a bad fit, and bad design. Same as Really bad option number 1 with a little knee pain thrown in as an extra treat. Discomfort and pain always results in slower riding, and that’s one thing that everyone can agree on.

Important Note: Make absolutely sure that your salesperson uses a plumb line on your knee to ensure proper knee alignment. If they don’t use a plumb line, then leave without purchasing the bike as you are not dealing with an experienced bicycle fitter. If the bike you are riding has an extremely steep seat angle, chances are you’ll need a lot of attention to your knee position. I strongly recommend several rides before committing to a bike with a steep seat angle. A 15 minute test ride will not be long enough for any knee issues to arise.

Tomorrow: Do you want to Sacrifice Performance?
Find out Here!


Related Items

Small Bike Compromise: Wipe-Out!

This is part 2 of 8. Here is the start!
A quick overview of terms that are important:

  • Fork Rake – Offset that places the fork ends ahead of the steering axis
  • Head Tube Angle – The angle that the frame holds the fork at in relation to the ground (same as steering angle)
  • Trail – The distance that the axle trails the steering axis intersection with the ground
  • Effective Top Tube Length – The measurement from the center of the seat post to the center of the head tube when measured level
  • Reach to Bars – Distance from center of seat to center of handle bar stem
  • Proper Knee Alignment – Adjustment to ensure that your knee is centered over the pedal spindle
  • Seat Tube Angle – The angle of the seat tube in relation to the ground
  • Toe Strike – How much of the foot interferes with turning the front wheel

Wipe-Out!
More detail of Toe Overlap
Compromise 1.) I call this one Wipe-out
Believe it or not, there are manufacturers that say ‘toe-strike’ is not an issue. So, they just build the small bikes to the same handling characteristics as the large bikes. 60mm of trail, 72 degree head tube angle, 40 ~ 45mm or fork rake, 73.5 degree seat angle, 50cm top tube, and toes be dammed. Massive toe strike like the photo shown above in this article is common place with some major race bike manufacturers.

This picture is one I took when the customer brought the bike in because of crash damage. He didn’t know why he crashed, he only know that he had swerved to miss a car door that was opened suddenly in front of him. I’ll bet you can figure out how he crashed. We quit offering bikes built with massive toe-strike because of our money back guarantee. So many people who thought it would be fine, decided that they were not fine with a lot of toe strike and returned the bicycle to us for a complete refund. Nothing speeds up design upgrades like a money back guarantee I’ll tell you!

I urge you to check any bike that you are considering purchasing for acceptable level of toe-strike before you buy it. A 15 minute test ride won’t do either. If you’re going to accept a bunch of toe-strike, you should ride the bike on your regular route a few times before you buy it. As far as I know, we are the only manufacturer who will buy back a bike that the customer is not satisfied with. With most manufacturers, you bought it, it’s yours! There are a lot of women and shorter riders out there that have listed a bike on Craigslist after discovering that they were afraid to ride it because of toe-strike.

Tomorrow: Would manufacturers resort to Trickery?
Find out here!

650c vs 700c

Today’s subject: 650c vs. 700c wheels on smaller bikes

Related Items
Find wider 650c tires at
650biketires.com


See photo galleries of 650c bikes at www.rodbikes.com

A quick word about wheel size: 650c is a smaller size than 700c. It’s a not a huge amount (We get into that in a few days) but it’s certainly visually noticeable when next to each other.

This is a series of eight articles that we’ve put together to explain the challenges that bicycle manufacturers face when building bicycles for petite cyclist with big wheels. It should put to rest several myths by educating you in the area of bicycle geometry as it relates to fit, safety, handling and practicality. These articles may seem basic to those in the industry, but are written for those not in the industry. Over the next several days, we will post, one at a time, the series. Thanks for reading, and I hope the information is helpful for any petite cyclists out there that are being bombarded with conflicting advice.
Now on to the overview and reasons for the series.

The quick overview of this series for those who don’t need massive amounts of info

Although they can be made to look normal, 700c wheels on a small bike always results in one or more unavoidable compromises.

Although 650c wheels allow us to design a smaller bike to handle great and fit comfortably, they do result in a few compromises.

Obviously if there were no downside to 700c on every bike, then that’s all we would offer. But, there are several drawbacks, and that’s why we offer 650c wheels as an option for smaller bikes.

Now, maybe you want to really understand the subject before you commit? Maybe you’re the type that needs to arm yourself with some technical facts before you brave the conversation with ‘the bike expert’. For those of you who really want to have a grasp on the subject, I’ve written more….a lot more.

Who this series is for:

  1. Anyone who is under 5′ 5″ tall (especially women), has long legs, and is shopping for a bicycle.
  2. Anyone who is advising someone who is under 5′ 5″ tall about bicycles and what to look for when selecting the proper size.
  3. Anyone who likes to read nitty gritty details from the mind of a crazed bicycle frame designer who’s spent his entire adult life designing bicycles.

Terms you’ll want to understand for this series:

  • Fork Rake – Offset that places the fork ends ahead of the steering axis
  • Head Tube Angle – The angle that the frame holds the fork at in relation to the ground (same as steering angle)
  • Trail – The distance that the axle trails the steering axis intersection with the ground
  • Effective Top Tube Length – The measurement from the center of the seat post to the center of the head tube when measured level
  • Reach to Bars – Distance from center of seat to center of handle bar stem
  • Proper Knee Alignment – Adjustment to ensure that your knee is centered over the pedal spindle
  • Seat Tube Angle – The angle of the seat tube in relation to the ground
  • Toe Strike – How much of the foot interferes with turning the front wheel
Disclaimer: I’m not trying to sell anyone on a specific wheel size. Realize as you read this series, we are happy to build any size bike with any size wheel. I just want to show why we offer smaller wheels for those who need smaller bikes. We build small bikes with 700c wheels all the time as some people are willing to accept the performance compromises that are unavoidable.

Bike Industry Misinformation
There is a lot of misinformation that is spread throughout the cycling industry about bigger wheels and smaller wheels. There are reasons for this, but this article is about why we do what we do. If you want to delve further into the misinformation I go into that here. For those that have already heard it, and just want to get educated on the subject, read on.

Oh yeah, if someone at a bike shop tells you that 650c wheels are slow (it happens all the time), ask them if you can test ride one of their slow 650c wheel bikes to see for yourself. Chances are, they don’t have any, and probably have never even ridden one. Why would they have ridden a 650 bike if they are over 5’4″ tall? If you’ve been told this, and want to read more on the subject, that’s here.

Why Compromise? Well, sometimes you just have to.

If you ride a modern bicycle with a top tube shorter than 54cm, and the wheel size is 700c, you’re already compromising. This series is to inform you of the compromises that are made throughout the bicycle industry when designing bicycles for riders under 5′ 5″. It is very technical, and ventures into eye glazing geometries. If you read it well, and understand it, you will be more educated in the subject of bicycle design than most folks who actually work in the bicycle industry. My goal is to help the more petite cyclists among us make an educated decision based on physics and truth. Along the way, I’ve linked to some information that will dispel the myths that have been regurgitated for years in bike shops and magazine articles.

A stock frame from another company with 2 inches of toe overlap

Example of toe strike on smaller race bike


A Rodriguez built for the same size rider, with no toe overlap

Example of same size bike with no to strike

So, why do some bike manufactures suggest smaller wheels on smaller bikes?
Short answer: Because they want to offer the petite rider the same performance and comfort as they do the taller rider. It all boils down to something called Toe Overlap or Toe Strike:

If your front wheel overlaps and hits your foot when you turn, this is called ‘toe strike’. The smaller a frame becomes, the closer the front wheel gets to the rider’s foot. A small amount (maybe 1/4″ or so) of ‘toe strike’ can be common on modern race bikes, but more than 1/4″ can be quite a nuisance, or even dangerous, especially if the rider wants to use fenders.

Good Design
A smaller wheel allows us to produce a shorter reach frame with the proper head tube angle for good control while at the same time minimizing any, if not all, toe strike. Using a 700c wheel on a bike with an effective top tube of less than 53cm requires design gymnastics (or in some cases, cheating a little) to keep this from happening. Design gymnastics result in improperly fitted bikes, or bikes that handle poorly.


In the 1980’s smaller high performance bikes had 700c wheels. What happened to those good designs?

The Carbon Age – Now that carbon forks are the norm on just about all competition bikes, they must be purchased from manufacturers who do not offer products with rakes required to accommodate really slack head tube angles. If we could custom make carbon forks one at a time, the way we used to make steel forks, then we could pull this off, and our jobs would be easier.

Trail Mix
Something that most people don’t realize (including many who work in bike shops), is that there are good reasons for the head tube (steering) angle and fork rake as they relate to the handling characteristics of your bicycle. They are entwined with each other, and when one changes, so must the other. The trail number is dependent upon the combination of the two, and ignoring it will result in a bicycle that doesn’t handle properly. The desired trail number for most purposes is 60mm or somewhere very close to it.

If you want to have some real fun, ask your bicycle salesperson “what’s the trail on this bike?”. It’s a good way to determine the experience level of your salesperson.

Why did steel work better?
Steel forks offer much more flexibility for bicycle design. Years ago (1990 and before), we built lots of small bikes with 700c wheels and steel forks. We could change the head tube angle to a more ‘slack’ degree to move the wheel further out in front of the rider and then build the fork with more ‘rake’ to accommodate proper handling. The more ‘slack’ the head tube angle, the more ‘rake’ is required in the fork to maintain the appropriate ‘trail’ number of 60mm. The added rake moved the wheel out even further.

The very best way to put a 700c wheel on a smaller bike in 2012 is the same way that we used to do it in the 1970’s and 1980’s…..use a steel fork. By using a steel fork, we can keep the handling characteristics acceptable, and still build to the proper fit and knee angle.


The things I’ve seen:

Smaller bikes with 700c wheels and modern carbon forks have been made by many manufacturers, and I’ve probably seen them all in the repair shop. The compromises used are many. Here’s a list of the compromised designs I’ve seen:

Really bad option: No compromise, completely ignore proportions
Some manufacturers don’t even pretend. They simply make the small frames with a 54cm top tube, just like their bigger frames. So the reach to the handlebars for a 5′ tall rider is the same as the 5’8″ rider. Many women have ridden this way most of their lives, and they think bicycles just have to be uncomfortable.

I actually appreciate this approach simply because it doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not. This will provide the proper stand-over height, but a shorter rider’s reach to the bars will be a long trip and a very uncomfortable ride (sore neck, back, arms, shoulders, etc.). Many shorter riders know what I’m talking about as they’ve never been offered a proper fitting bicycle for most of their life.

Now, if you’re of smaller stature or need a top tube length less than 54cm, and you want your bike to fit right, there’s a number of compromises that you can choose from. Some of these compromises are much better than the others, and some are meant to fool you.

Tomorrow’s article:
Wipe-out! Some manufacturers are building dangerous bikes for their petite cyclists.

Click here to continue your study.

Related Items

Team Crest-Huffy

‘Steel’ on the road after all these years!

Dennis Bushnell holding a Raleigh 'funny bike' he's just finished buildingDennis in 1984 looking funny, holding an Olympic funny bike

A fleet of Team Crest bikes in Dennis' shop in 1990
Freshly built fleet of Custom Team Crest Bikes hang in Dennis’ shop – 1990


The Team Crest Huffy bike before repair
One of them makes their way back to R+E Cycles in 2011

Dennis Bushnell's signature on the bike's chainstay
Dennis’ signature still in great shape on the chain stay


A crack in the seat stay on the Team Crest Huffy bike

After 2 decades, a small crack has appeared in the super thin tubing


Willy checking seat stay's against the cracked one

Proper tubing is selected to replace the cracked section


A Picture of the repaired frame with no noticable paint damage

After a new seat stay, a little spray paint, the bike is ready for more action!

As you may or may not know, our head frame builder, Dennis Bushnell has long been respected as one of the finest bicycle frame builders in the United States. As long ago as 1984, he was selected to build the bicycles for the U.S. Olympic team.

It was no surprise that in 1990 he was asked to build a fleet of bikes for the Huffy Crest Team. The bikes were ridden by racers like Scott Moninger and others throughout the year. A few weeks ago, one of those frames found its way back to Dennis here at Rodriguez Bicycle company for a small repair.

I thought a quick article demonstrating the longevity of steel as a bicycle frame material was in order. Here’s a lugged steel frame that was built as light as possible for its day, and designed only to be raced professionally for a year. It certainly served that purpose, but then spent twenty more years on the road before a small crack developed.

The frame weighs just 3 pounds 14 ounces verified on a digital scale. For a 1990 frame, this is incredibly light. Now, I will say that there were plenty of aluminum and carbon bikes that weighed in just under 4 pounds in 1990 as well. Something to consider: How many of those world class carbon or aluminum frames built in 1990 do you see still on the road after being professionally raced? How many of them are on the road for 20 years? How many of them could be easily repaired and back on the road if they cracked? It’s just worth considering if you’re looking to ride your expensive custom bike for 20 years plus.

After selecting an appropriate new seat stay, we were able to repair the bike fully with very minimal damage to the classic paint job. This is just one of the beautiful things about a high quality steel frame. Even a high-performance steel frame built super light, can still be repaired decades down the road.


Bushnell, the Eccentric King!

Patent GraphicOur patent has been issued!
(To clarify, An eccentric bottom bracket is a part that is used to adjust the chain tension on any bicycle that has no derailleurs. Track bikes, Rohloff bikes and the chain between captain and stoker on tandems are the most common uses.)

How long does it take to get a patent? Apparently about 4 years.

Way back in early 2007 or so, we began the patent process for the now patented Bushnell® Eccentric bottom bracket. I didn’t know how long it would take, but as of December 6th, 2011 we have our patent! The patent number is U.S. Patent No. 8,070,633.

We’re thrilled to finally have the patent process completed. Production of this ingenious Dennis Bushnell creation continues uninterrupted. We manufacture several thousand of these each year right here in Seattle at the Rodriguez shop. It’s a true American manufacturing success story that’s seldom heard of anymore. We actually ship these parts to companies all over the world, including to Taiwan. That’s right! An American made bicycle part being shipped to Taiwan for use in bicycles.

The benefits of this light-weight, versatile design have been known throughout the tandem world for a long time. Now, with the onslaught of Rohloff equipped bikes and single speed bikes, the Bushnell® has really taken it’s position at the top of the industry! Congratulations to Dennis Bushnell on creating a design that is worthy of patenting!

I realize that the eccentric is a very specialized part, and not everyone wants to wade that deep into the muck, but I thought all of you would be interested in the fact that we now have a patent, and the parts will still be made in the U.S.A.

If you are hungry for knowledge though, and you’d like to read more about the Bushnell® eccentric (oh I’ve got more believe me), and why it’s the number one item in its class, read on.

Eccentric Thoughts from Rodriguez Bicycle Company.

Who Cares About Eccentric Bottom Brackets?


Rohloff, Tandem or Single Speed bike riders should.

Each week, I get dozen’s of emails asking if they can upgrade their existing bicycle to our patented Bushnell® Eccentric Bottom Bracket. These are from people who’ve bought expensive single speed bikes, Rohloff equipped bikes, or tandems that use eccentric bottom brackets (referred to as EBB throughout this article). As they have examined their bike, they’ve discovered the fact that their bike came stock with an EBB that was designed in the the Fred Flinstone era. While this may have saved their frame builder a hundred dollars or so, it has no benefit for them, and actually makes their bike heavier, and harder to use. They discovered our design on-line, and want to know if they can retro-fit one into their custom bicycle. Most of the time, it is possible, but sometimes the bottom bracket shell that is used is too small to fit any EBB into the bike except for the one that came with it:-( For this reason, it’s important for you to find this out before you order your new frame.

In this article, I aim to help customers understand the different designs, so they can steer their frame builder to the eccentric that works best, not just the cheapest option. As a customer, it’s up to you to educate yourself on the different styles, and then ask your builder to use the one you want before the frame is built. Otherwise, they will usually choose the cheapest option. It’s an easy place to skimp if your customer doesn’t know any better right? Customer education has always been our friend here at Rodriguez Bicycles, and here’s a new area to focus on.


Note: All of the designs mentioned in this article, including the Bushnell®, are available to every frame builder through their standard frame building supply companies. Any reputable frame builder is able to build your frame to accept any design, but you have to express your preference.

The Bushnell® EBB


The Patented Bushnell® EBB is the most popular design on the market today.


The Bushnell® EBB is self contained. It does not rely on parts welded to the frame to hold it’s adjustment.

This is a product that we manufacture right here in our
shop in Seattle
. We ship them all over the world, and have distributors in England, Germany, and large accounts in Taiwan and Japan. Just last week I was notified that our patent will issue on December 6th, 2011! I thought an article about why this product exists, and why it’s better, was long overdue. There are several things that make the Bushnell® unique, but lets focus on the benefits to the user.

Safer Design:
The first benefit is the fact that the design does not use parts welded to the frame to hold it’s adjustment. That means if you get a little heavy handed, ‘reef’ to hard on the bolt and strip the threads, you’ve just stripped a nut, but have not damaged your frame. Every year we upgrade several people to Bushnell® EBBs after they’ve stripped the threads in their frame. Sometimes we even get a call from other bike manufacturers trying to help one of their own customers who’ve stripped their frame.

Ease of adjustment:
As you read through this article, you see that there are many eccentrics on the market, but only one Bushnell®. The Bushnell® was designed by Dennis Bushnell, our head frame builder, to address all of the design drawbacks of the other designs, and ease of adjustment was key. A 4mm alan wrench is all that is required to adjust your chain tension when you are using a Bushnell®. No hammers required (yes some require a hammer).

Light Weight
Although we’re not complete weight freaks, a lot of customers want the best performance and the lightest weight option. The Featherweight Bushnell® EBB is that answer at just 140grams. This is why it is used as the standard on light-weight tandems and other bikes in the industry.



There are massive differences between a $15 eccentric and a $160 eccentric

The Mark
(set pin) design ebb







Mark leaves terrible divots in your ebb, making accurate adjustment almost impossible.


Benefits: Extremely inexpensive

Drawbacks: Harder to use, and not very reliable.

The first $15 option we’ll call Mark. Mark is a good name, because the design forces sharpened ‘set’ pins into a solid block of aluminum and leaves ‘marks’ all over it. I guess we could call it Scratch or Gouge, but Mark sounds more like a real name. It always finds it’s mark again, even though you’re trying to adjust it.

The eccentric itself is just a solid block of aluminum that the user rotates in the bottom bracket shell welded into the frame. The frame builder welds nuts onto the outside of the frame on the bottom bracket shell. You will use a wrench to drive the set pins through the nuts, and into the aluminum EBB. Once the hardened steel pins have created a deep divot into the softer aluminum EBB, it’s very hard to make a fine adjustment because the pins always try to turn the ebb right back to the divot.

Aside from being very difficult to use, the Mark design has very little surface contact so is the most likely to slip out of adjustment. This is because the amount of contact bewteen the frame and the aluminum ebb is very little. The set pins drive the unit against the top of the frame’s bottom bracket, so the points of contact are about 25% at the top, and the set pins themselves.

As if this is not enough, the Mark design is often rendered useless when a rider over-tightens a set pin and breaks the welded nut right off of the frame. The good news about the Mark design is that a Bushnell® EBB usually drops right in and works beautifully.


Here’s an example
of a custom titanium frame rescued with a Bushnell EBB. Every month we sell several Bushnell EBBs to customers who have the Mark design in their frame. I’m very surprised at how many manufacturers still use the Mark design in their $4,000+ bicycles.


Enter Evolution:

Modified Mark uses a ‘pinch bolt system’




The second $15 option we’ll call modified Mark, as it’s really just an improved version of Mark. This is a design that we used to use ourselves way back in the mid 1980’s when it was the best option. It’s pretty much the same solid block of aluminum, but the frame has been cut, or slotted, where it holds the ebb and then a pinch bolt system has been brazed or welded onto the frame. When the pinch bolts are tightened, the frame ‘closes up’ around the aluminum ebb and holds it into place.

The Good News
The pinch bolt design holds it’s adjustment better than Mark because of the fact that there is full contact all the way around the aluminum EBB. It also doesn’t gouge ‘memory’ marks into the EBB so you can more easily make micro-adjusments.

The Bad News
Other than it’s relatively heavy weight, there are a few other drawbacks to this design. The biggest drawback is the fact that, like the Mark design before it, the bicycle frame is used as the method to actually hold the adjustment and not the EBB component itself. This means that if the pinch bolt breaks off of the frame, or the threads are stripped out, the fix is not an easy one, but one that requires frame work and re-painting. The next drawback is the fact that since the frame is split at the bottom bracket, an expanding design like the Bushnell® will not work in the frame unless frame modifications are made.



Let’s step forward to 1990 or so


The 1990’s brought the
split/wedge design



Adjustment required
know-how and a hammer


Here I am adjusting a Rodriguez tandem customer’s chain ‘on-the-road’ during the
1995 Tandem Rally


I can’t remember if it was the late 1980’s or the early 1990’s, but around that time Cannondale came up with a good design that we started to use instead of modified Mark.

We liked the design because it didn’t use threaded parts welded awkwardly to the frame to hold the adjustment, but was a self-contained unit. This meant that the frame was safe from the gorilla type torque that bike mechanics often applied to eccentric bottom brackets.

The design was similar to a handlebar stem with a wedge and a bolt that pulled the wedge into position tight against the bottom bracket shell. There was very good friction between the parts and the adjustment held extremely well. The design was heavy like the others, but all in all was nice looking in the frame, and kept the frames safe.

It was not without it’s problems though. The Cannondale wedge design required a very specific method to loosen it when you needed to adjust the chain. That technique? Hammering! “Woooh, wait a minute! Are you going to use that hammer on my bike?” Was a phrase anxiously hollered by customers watching me preparing to make an adjustment to their expensive tandem.

The design was not intuitive for most bike mechanics either. When you break a stem loose, you hit the stem bolt with a hammer, not the actual stem. For this reason, most bike mechanics who hadn’t seen one of these before, usually took a good ‘whack’ at the bolt after loosening it up like they would on a stem. Well, this would not loosen the eccentric, but rather drive the threads right out of the special nut required for the eccentric. I spent many hours on the phone (and still do) explaining to mechanics how to get one of these out of a bike after you’ve stripped the nut.

A better design was needed for expensive tandems.


That answer came in the form of the Bushnell® EBB.



The Patented Bushnell® EBB is the most popular design on the market today.


The Bushnell® EBB is self contained. It does not rely on parts welded to the frame to hold it’s adjustment.

Well we’ve come full circle. The patented Bushnell® EBB was designed by Dennis to specifically address every drawback in all of the above designs. It remains to this day the best selling EBB on the market. There is no substitute for the quality of engineering and construction of this American made product.

With the rise of popularity in single speed bikes and Rohloff equipped bikes (we’re the biggest Rohloff builder in the U.S.A.), the eccentric bottom bracket has new life. Dennis originally designed our EBB for tandems, and that’s why we have a big head start on every other manufacturer of EBBs. The fact that ours was in development for years means that you’re getting a product that’s tried and true. This goes for any bike that needs an EBB.

We stand behind the Bushnell® EBB just like we stand behind everything we make. When a Bushnell® EBB customer emails us for help, their talking directly to the folks that have designed, manufactured and assembled that part. Remember, demand the best for your custom bike. We think you’ll agree, that the Bushnell® EBB is that choice.

If you’d like to read an evolutionary history of the eccentric bottom bracket, click here.