1992 Bridgestone XO-2
 

Just wondering about the ride quaility of this bike as a loaded tourer.

I would guess it would be good in that role. But then, I have never ridden one. I have a XO1 frame that is looking for a fork so I can find out.

jim

I've got a 93 XO4 and I absolutely love the ride. Unfortunately for the bike, it's my only winter ride, so it sees way more abuse than it should, but it keeps me going. Faster, and better climbing, than any hybrid bike has a right to be. I don't know if this has any bearing on touring or not, though. I will say it is the easiest bicycle to ride no-hands on that I have ever ridden. That sure means a lot :rolleyes::D

No hands is good as long as you are not wearing dentures, right ?
It's hard to get much feedback on these bikes because the production levels were only 1,000 or so.
I think I may have been caught up in the Bridgestone mystique when I bid on this thing sight unseen as my new touring bike, but it was way cheaper than a new LHT.
I did get a very positive response on the XO-2 touring capabilities from a college professor in NY today, so things are looking up.
Film at 11:00.

XO2 will work pretty well, but it will work better with a new carbon fork. Yes, get rid of that horrible old boat anchor fork.

jim

Are carbon forks and front panniers mutually exclusive ?

Read my first post in this thread: I am trying to liberate a XO fork for my own use, so I was jokingly suggesting you swap yours out so I could grab it.

But to try to answer your question, I would think that a fairly robust carbon fork would be fine, but completely unnecessary for your purposes.

jim

Sorry, I'm conditioned to respond to humor only with a smilie prompt.
Sad, but true.
BTW, isn't the XO-2 tubing the red-headed step child of the XO-1 ?
Your comment went right over my head.

I am not sure if the frames of the XO1 and 2 are the same tubing. I do know that there is a big drop off down to the XO3. The Bridgestone catalogs are on Sheldon's site somewhere.

jim

I might be loosing it ,but,isnt this a C+V forum ? lol

Given the price that XO-1s command, I think many consider them to be classics. One just went for c.$1600 on the bay. That's approaching Cinelli, Merckx and DeRosa territory. There aren't many other bikes that command that much money.

money doesnt mean classic !

I have an XO-2, bought new back in '92 and it is a very good riding, stable bike. The year they had the mustache bar with the mountion bike brakes and Deore thumb shifters. The bike is about 27 pounds, which while not super light, is certainly not a boat anchor. Oh, and no red hair, but it does have a nice green paint job.;)

Sorry to hijack this thread, but since we are talking about Bridgestones:
I am looking at this bike: http://madison.craigslist.org/bik/578026408.html
and was also reviewing the catalog a bit on SB's site. Can anyone tell me about the sizing (ie, how it relates to current road bike sizing)? Is the top tube a straight or sloping top tube? Also, what about the components (I don't even know if they are original)? I'm not picky about them for the purpose of this bike, but I am curious. Could the X0-5 be used as a light tourer? It looks like there is enough clearance for fenders and "winter" tires, but I am still waiting to hear back from the seller. In the meantime, I thought I'd check in here.

First, surely an XO counts as C&V doesn't it? I suppose it is not that old, but in every respect it is much more like the bikes of 30 years ago then it is like bikes of today. Lugs, threaded headset, no carbon, non V-brake, no carbon fiber anywhere, and classic geometry.

I gather that the BOB purists draw the line of desirability between the XO2 and XO3. Not that they are not worthy bikes, in my opinion. I think the main difference is that the lower XOs had 700c wheels, and so they are more like a modern hybrid. The higher XOs had 26" wheels and so were really odd ducks with their roadish frames and small wheels.

I think they all had level toptubes.

If the components are original, I would think you could expect them to be a shade better than what one would typically find on a lower-end bike of that vintage. Top mount shifters, for instance, are nice.

I am not sure about the 700c XOs, but I think there should be plenty of room for big tires and fenders.

jim

Jim
Can you tell me what the biggest tire you can run on the XO-2.
Mine's coming with 26x1.5, but they aren't really touring tires.
I'll probably get two sets, something fairly narrow for pavement and then maybe 1.75s for gravel, if they will fit.

Larger tires will fit, and are a good idea. The tubing is not the same as on the XO-1. The XO-1 is a classic, the XO-2 is a nice old bike. Nothing wrong with it, I bought one. But the rep of the XO bikes rests largely on how cool the XO-1 is.

Level top tubes, and with the crazy left over XO-1 frames used to build up XO-3 bikes in 1994, well you can't even make the blanket statement that the XO-1 or 2 are the only ones with real BOB appeal.

I saw a fellow last spring, while riding in the Diabetes charity ride, who was given a 94 XO-3 by a lady as he was going door to door trying to line up pledges. She told him she had no money to make a pledge, but she had an old bike in the garage he could have. It looked like it had less then 100 total miles on it (counting the 30 or so that day). I was on my XO-2 and I was startled to see a bike with mustache bars and the same green color-- Struck up a conversation and got to hear his fortunate bike tale.

I am the wrong person to ask. I have owned an XO1 frame for about two weeks. I have never seen one on the hoof, much less ridden one.

But, I am huge fan of narrow tires on this type of bike. I would think that 1.5 would be plenty wide for most any sort of on-road use. Heck, I would even suggest going smaller than that, even for touring. Maybe especially for touring. Sure would make for a long tour to have to be staring down at the fat marshmellow under you the whole time.

jim

Yes and no...

The XO-1 has a sweet ride with those tires. But for loaded touring or dirt you want bigger. The Xo-2 isn't bad with the Tom Slicks, but if I was to ride it again,
I'd find something just a little bigger.

Matter of taste, I suppose. But 1.5 is the equivalent of a pretty fat road tire. I am not a loaded tourer, so take my guesswork for what it is, but I think most loaded tourers go with tires that are narrower than that. For comparison, I am pretty heavy (230#) and I ride 1.25 on a couple of MTBs converted for road use, and they have more than enough beef to keep my rims off the ground.

jim

You can keep the rims off the ground with a one inch tire. It will ride like a rock...
What's the point? It's never going to be fast, it wasn't built that way. The bike was made to cruise. And if you are cruising around enjoying things, a little extra cush makes sense.

Btw,
it could be someone makes a carbon fork with a one inch steerer made for old school 26 inch bikes. I am not ware of any, but then I haven't been looking... You might want to look at steel. It'd cost a pretty penny, but you could get one made from one of the nicer steels.

Hi all,

I also have a 92 X0-2. Nice dark green color and used it as a commuter during my Master's degree days. It actually was the first bicycle I bought. I believe the differences between the XO-1 and XO-2 are substantial. XO-2 is tig welded, 01 is lugged. The 02 has Tange Chromo and I believe the 01 has a lighter tube set. It is true the XO-2 is a beast (27lbs), but that said it works excellently as a commuter in heavy car traffic with the upright seating position and all. I actually thought about selling mine a couple of times and then pulled it out and rode it again. It took a day to get used to it after riding English racing bikes a bunch, but it does deliver in terms of stability and comfort and me being a sentimental sod that I am I have always decided to keep it.

Sorry for the digression.

cheers,

Roland

Remember that this is true for that year, but not for the '94 model year.