Ritchie Logic

Hi,

I'm considering looking for a Bridgestone RB-1 or RB-2 and was wondering how it performs compared to newer bikes. Just trying to figure out if this is a factor.

I'd basically be using it for 10-40 miles rides for fitness and recreation. I think I read somewhere where Grant Petersen commented that they don't really compare to today's models in terms of performance.

Not sure what he may have meant by that.

Any thoughts or advice would be much appreciated. I currently have a '91 MB-2 that I've had since new that has been awesome.

Thanks.

RobbieTunes

Nothing in C&V really compares to today's modern bikes in terms of performance, but the definition of performance is subjective to the core, at least here.

Across the spectrum, modern bikes are generally lighter, stiffer where it counts, smoother where it counts, and have components that are more modern and more capable than most older complonents. Remember, I didn't say more durable.

For fitness, now, the bike must be considered in a different light: the ability to provide a workout, offset by it's inability to provide a bearable workout, compared to modern bikes.

In short, an RB-1 or RB-2 will fit the bill, very nicely, and be cheaper, in most cases. This is kind of what C&V riding is all about, once you take the wrenching, collecting, and conversation out of it.

You just have to decide if your recreation will be inhibited by shifting that isn't as modern as most bikes, or a couple of extra pounds, or a lack of stiffness that keeps your inner TdF abilities from putting you on the podium. As a plus, the shifting issues can easily be remedied if you so wish, check out the retro STI/Ergo thread here. Once you make your decision, you may well dive into the C&V arena and wonder why you even asked. C&V kind of puts some more fun into the equation.

You may notice I didn't mention Grant Peterson. Threads about him tend to grow 87 legs and go in that many different directions.

corwin1968

I am going to mention Grant Petersen since the OP references his opinion. I think a lot of what Grant was referring to is based on the way his opinions on bicycles has changed. I just checked the 1993 Bridgestone catalog and the RB's pretty much had race bike geometry with steeper angles and shorter chainstays. Grant's current designs (Rivendells) tend to have slacker angles, much longer chainstays and very low bottom brackets. Even his dedicated road bike (the Roadeo) has chainstays as long as my 1995 MTB based hybrid. I think over time he has just changed his preference from performance to comfort and he recommends his newer style of bikes to pretty much everyone who doesn't race professionally. I think that's a subjective thing and a racy bike is more appropriate for some people. If I was young and in good shape, I would definately prefer a light sporty bike over a heavier and more relaxed one. You'll have to make that decision yourself.

CardiacKid

If you are comparing high end and mid-range bikes today to the the RB-1 and RB-2 respectively,I agree with Robbie. However, if you compare them based purely on price today, I believe the RB is going to smoke the competition. I picked up my RB-2 a year ago for $200. I slapped a Brooks saddle and new bar tape on it. I promise you it performs better than a new $700 bike.

old's'cool

I'm going to quibble with the term "shifting issues", and I know this isn't your intended meaning exactly. A properly set up friction shifting system of decent specification (e.g. Suntour Cyclone) does not have shifting issues, per se, but yes, it does give up a little convenience & ease of use to modern indexed systems.

Road Fan

Or, are we really talking about a frame with nice thinwall tubing like the RB1 built with a fully modern group such as Campy Veloce (or better) 10 speed or modern Ultegra? It that case I'd expect the RB-1 to hold pretty near even with modern steel bikes of similar tubing and geometry.

No good reason other that upgrade cost why a bike on a vintage frame needs to be less nice to ride than similar build on a modern frame.

Ritchie Logic

Thanks guys for your help. I've learned a lot from everyone's input.

I plan to test ride the next one that appears for sale in my area. I would really love to own another Bridgestone (currently have a '91 MB-2).

I've really learned from these posts and appreciate everyone's help. I don't mind sacrificing a few things by going with an older bike. I guess I could always work on any shifting issues.

I think a big concern of mine is/was frame geometry but I'm not sure how much of a difference this would make as I'm willing to try to adapt the new bike (RB-1 or RB-2).

All is all this is very promising. Thanks!

RobbieTunes

clear and concise.

RobbieTunes

I meant the folks who prefer the least amount of slope on the learning curve....

RobbieTunes

I see no downside to your plan.

The only reason I own a bike made this century is my respect for the previous owner.

rccardr 

All good responses, but honestly...there's nothing really magical about an RB-1 compared to a dozen other excellent well made bikes/frames of the same era.

Don't get me wrong: grail bike, absolutely. Got a pristine '93 yellow frame myself in storage right now and will hang a dream group on it later this year.

I just don't expect it to ride any better than a bunch of other good bikes that are somewhat less publicly desireable.