Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    one word, not two braingel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    se portland
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    any info on bridgestone 200?

    were the 200,300,etc models on par with rb-2, rb-3,etc, or are they much lower quality? there's a 200 up on my CL right now (http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/bik/268426342.html) that i'm thinking about, but it doesn't seem like the seller knows anything about it, and it's far enough from my house that i don't feel like riding up there just to be dissappointed...it's got stem shifters and double brake levers, so i'm guessing it's not really that high quality, but hopefully someone can tell me otherwise. if it's worth it i'll go check it out, and i'm sure i can get the price significantly lowered.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    '''96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '12 Surly Pacer, All are 3x8,9 or 10. It is hilly around here!
    Posts
    25,410
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In 1985 I bought a Bridgestone 400, which at the time was the bottom of their "good bike" line. It had butted Cr-Mo main tubes and Hi-ten (i.e. plain carbon steel.) stays and fork blades. It had an SR alloy crank, Sun Tour ARX derailleurs and clamp-on Sun Tour dt shifters. It cost me $250 brand new.

    The 300 and 200 were well below it in both frame quality and components. I still have the '85 catalog spec pages and the 200 from that year is listed as having a straight gauge Hi-ten frame and fork and pretty low line components including a steel seatpost. As you noted it came with stem shifters and brake extension levers.

    It certainly isn't one of the "collectable grade" Bridgestones and I would pay very little for it. BTW, the MSRP in 1985 was $179.95.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    584
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think they used the "Hundreds" names for years and years before switching to the "RB/MB/CB" nomenclature. I bought a Bridgestone new in 1974 (paid $92 at the LBS), and I'm pretty sure it was a "100" model. IIRC, you had to go a few models up the line just to get a chromoly seat tube. I think the "100" meant 100% cast iron. I commuted on it for several years - got my cardio workout riding it, and my weight workout lifting it up and down stairs from my apartment.

    The bike in the CL listing has the same stem-mount shifters, flat-crown fork, chain ring guard, brake levers and suicide levers that I recall, but mine had centerpull brakes and did not have QR wheels. You might note that their "entry level racer" in 1985 was the "600" model: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgest...one6001985.pdf Even it was a 24-pounder, according to the article.

  4. #4
    one word, not two braingel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    se portland
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was under the impression that all of the Bridgestone models ran the other way in quality, ie. 100 is good and 600 not so much. At any rate, it sounds like maybe I should just let it find a different home.

  5. #5
    Yet another vegan biker
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Trapped behind the corn curtain
    My Bikes
    Sakae Prism, Vintage Fuji bike(S), too many bikes, one from scratch bike.
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was under the impression that all of the Bridgestone models ran the other way in quality, ie. 100 is good and 600 not so much.
    It does go that way in later years. I have an XO5 but would love to have an XO1

Posting Permissions

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