So...A buddy of mine dropped off this fantastic looking Bridgestone RB2 for me. A garage sale find he was kind enough to pass on to me as it is my size (kinda). I have ridden it a few times now maybe 75 miles or so and I gotta say...Hate it! Not my cup of tea.
First of all...The fit. The frame measures 52cm on the seat tube and 56cm on the top tube. I'm a vertically challenged dude with normal (or even I suppose) proportions. The top tube is just way to stinkin' long. I could put a tiny lil stem on it but I personally feel that a stem shorter then 90cm is just plain ugly on a road bike. It's not gonna fit and look good at the same time.
Then there is the ride...It's dead and feels like a lead weight. I'd rather ride my aluminum GT MTB or my GF's crappy Motobecane Mirage FG/SS conversion. The bike isn't exactly confidence inspiring pushing hard in turns either. There is a nice river in my backyard...I suppose I could launch a lil drift boat and use the B-stone as an anchor!
The only place this bike performs decently is in the driveway posing for pics and that aint sayin' much. It only has one lug so there is virtually no romance for me...

I like the color combo and graphics though...

I put it on Craigslist fishing for a trade and to my utter surprise (and disappointment) I have only received 2 offers...Both for crap.

The bike:

First of all, don't give up yet.

A lot of really good bikes were good in most sizes except the smallest. They have to make compromises at that end of the scale, and they sometimes do it wrong. 56cm for a top tube does sound too long. Please reconsider getting a shorter stem, at least to try it. You might find you can tolerate the look after a while. And whoa, that looks like a huge stem for a bike of that size.

Second of all, try new tires. Good tires can liven up just about any bike. At the high end, I have Schwalbe Stelvio tires, which ride like a dream. At the low end, you can get some Panaracer Pasela tires at $20 each which are damned good at any price.

What year is that? Looks like a post-Petersen model? I'm fairly certain the frames were lugged under his tenure there.

I had an '88 in 59cm, and the thing was a very lively ride, nice acceleration and quick handling. Even with crappy wheels and tires on it.

It looks like the saddle is about as far back as possible. What about moving it forward a bit and trying a bit shorter stem?

Quick check shows it to be a 1990 or 1991 model year (based on the paint scheme).

1990...When did Grant leave?

Okay, I'm wrong. It's a '90 model. Geometry is definitely more relaxed than on my '88, which might account for a more sluggish feeling ride. Doesn't appear any of the tubes are high tensile steel.

You could market this as a decent rando or fireroads bike, as you can get fat tires and fenders on it. Also has double eyelets on the front, ideal for a front rack (edit: okay, yours doesn't, the one in the catalog does!).

After '94 I think. EDIT: '94 were the last models produced. Bridgestone closed shop in the US in '93: https://sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/...interview.html

The saddle is indeed pretty far back...I did the plumb bob and 15 degree bend at 6 o'clock fit method which keeps my sit bones in my Brooks butt groove and keeps the strain off of my bum left knee...It's necessary.

Wow, a dampening of my quest for a Bridgestone....still looking RB1 frame, and until this post, was considering an RB2. Maybe a little earlier model...

+1 I rode an RB1 a year or two ago...A red and white one. It was a blast. I have a 1987 T700 frame and fork sitting here that might serve me better if I can ever get the blasted seat post out...

I've never seen or nor heard of a lugless RB-2 ( or any other "RB-x" model, for that matter). Can you show some close up pics of the joints on that bike?

I've got the 57.5 cm 1993 RB-1 and it is a real honey. I've ridden a larger frame RB-2 and it was a
nice ride, too. I believe you but my experience is nothing like what you describe. I encourage you to dig a little deeper on some of the set-up suggestions.

I wonder too about the frame size impact on the "dead" ride.

kpug, why not just measure the saddle heel to brake hood distance on a bike whose upper body fit you like, and compare that measurement to the RB2? You'll find out quick if the fit issue can be fixed with a nice-looking stem.

The one you have looks sort of like a 11 cm, and on that bike I think anything down to an 8 cm would look good. That 3 cm leeway gives you a lot of effective adjustment, to see if it can get comfortable.

Top tube can be a bit misleading. If you set your saddle the way you did on every bike, by setback and knee angle, the saddle position with respect to BB will always be the same regardless of seat tube angle (assuming you can always get a seatpost that works right. The correct top tube will be longer for a laid back seat tube than for a steeper one. I THINK the RB's had more laid back seat posts, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, this "real-world total reach" measurement will tell you if this can work with a shorter stem, now that you have the saddle nailed in.

Check the catalog here. It clearly states that it is tig welded. I assume it's because it is made from oversized tubes and there were no lugs at the time to handle them...

Frame sizing...My GF's Cannondale "Black Lightning" is a blast to ride and it is really close to an optimal fit for me. 50cm C-C seat tube w/a 53cm C-C toptube and 90mm stem. A bit of a strech but enjoyable non the less. My Bianchi is just about 52cm C-C square with a 100mm stem and a fist full of seatpost showing. Just slapped it together with junk parts to see what it would look like and rode it...Like a glove and tons of fun!

It's the 56cm top tube...Just plain weird IMO. I think the over sized tubes contribute to the lameness of the ride quality and lack of response. It would probably be just fine as a grocery getter or light touring camping bike but it's a RB2...Doesn't that imply that it's a pretty decent roadbike? I think so.

I'm blaming Grant! He probably thought it needed 38c tires and a short technomic raised 10 inches above the saddle to make a good bike out of it....Hate it!

There definitely appears to have been an experiment with longer wheel base for that year. If you look at the 53cm the year previous, '89, the TT is 52.5, the year following, '91, it's 54.5. The respective wheelbases in millimeters for the '89, '90 and '91 model years (though I have more trouble seeing these) are: 957, 1018, and 979.

+1 I'm with him that looks like an overly long stem proportion-wise. I'd guessimate it needs to be 2.5 to 5 cm shorter.

I doubt this is correct, but a lot of WSD's are oversquare regarding top tube/seat tube, since women generally have shorter legs and longer torsos.

I do have two bikes that are 60 x 63.5, but I've sure never seen 1 4cm oversquare frame, especially that small. It's a pretty bike, and I could easily see it with black rims and a black saddle, under me, if it fit, which it doesn't.

Why are you complaining so much about a bike you paid little or nothing for? It's not Grant's fault that you're short and were given a bike that's too big for you. Apparently you weren't aware of this, but most of bridgestone's bikes from that era had very long top tubes. I had a lugged RB-2 that was a 53cm (I ride a 58) and it was pretty close to fitting for me, and rode perfectly fine BTW.

Because it's fun to complain? Isn't that why you complain about him complaining? Don't be complacent, be completist; complain about complaining whenever you can. Compare a couple of companies, compute, then complain! I hope this composition hasn't compounded your complaint, it's by no means comprehensive, but then, I haven't been compensated, so it's completely complimentary on my part.


Comprende?

Cool!

Ya! What JJ said...

What am I complaining about?!?!? The fact that out of my 6 or so rideable road bikes in my preferred size the Bridgestone has to be the oddball with an abnormally long toptube. I was pretty darn stoked to find it on my front porch 'cause like so many others Bridgestones of this era they are/were on my short list of bikes to collect. I'm terribly sorry to upset people with my opinion that it just plain sucks...In almost completely stock trim it rides like crap IMO. I expected better. It's second from the top!

P.S. I've never found that any roadbike that I've had has made noticeable compromises in handling or construction methods in a 52cm. I may be short but I'm not that short. I have however had 48-50cm bikes have terrible toe overlap with 27" wheels...

No bike is for everyone. Just because it is a Peterson era Bridgestone does not mean it will be kissed by God. What does not work for you might be amazing for someone else and something you love I might think sucks.

I actually like longer top tube lengths. I have never ridden an RB of any kind before so I can't comment.

I think you are really bashing it to get Bridgestone fans worked up though. It's just as easy to say "Man this Bridgestone has a weird geometry that doesn't work for me" but you have to go on about how much you "hate it" and it "sucks" and it's awful.

It didn;t work for you....deal with it and move on.

It would be an even trade then, right?

Women have shorter torsos and longer legs. ZZ Top will tell you so.

That's really not my intention...This is the 5th Bridgestone I've ridden. I currently own 2 and recently sold 2 to a friend. I've never ridden my T700 but it measures up and is triple butted chromoly so I assume it will be just fine for its purpose. Like I said the RB1 I rode for a bit was fantastic even with it's IMO low level parts. It performed flawlessly and was lively and responsive. The RBT I rode was a pleasure as well even though it was a bit big. I also had a Phica (sp?) fixed conversion that was a blast after shaving the weight from components and a swap to 700c's. I like Bridgestones just as much as the next guy and fully intend to get 2 more...A RB1 and an MB1. I've learned my lesson though and will research frame geometry to get a frame that is closer to square like my T700...


Touche!

I kind of wonder how that bike would be set up as a light touring rig, or pannier-laden commuter? I've read that some folks prefer a shorter standover height for touring rigs (I could be wrong though). I don't know how the tig aspect plays out for heavy touring though, probably okay. If you were local I'd give it a shot.

We were recently out in the Seattle area and I can't believe how many Bridgestones I saw running around. I suspect that before Friday you'll get a decent offer if you perk up your listing a bit. If only you were local....................