bridgestone mountain bike fit

[tlawnsby]

Hi,

Just curious if anyone has a Bridgestone mountain bike and how much
shorter the size is vs your road bike.

I had a new Bridgestone MB in the early 90's and loved it, but can't
remember the size. There's another one on craigslist that I have an
opportunity to purchase.

My PBH is 82 -- I normally ride a 21" (53cm) regular road bike, and I
have a 56cm Rambouillet which is perfect.

The MB-4 for sale is a 19" c-t -- I can try it out later this week
but it's kind of a long drive, hate to waste the time if there's no
chance of it fitting.

Thanks, Tom.

[PATRICK MOORE]

FWIW, I ride a 58 road bike, Grant would put me on at least a 60 if he could, and I have always found 19" mtbs the right size (my "Medium" Monocog 29er has a 17" st). I would guess that a 19 might be too large. I have no idea what my PBH is.

And, it's only a "4".

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumesp...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

[mark]

My PBH is 86 cm, my road bike and my Riv tourer have seat tubes of 58
cm c-c, the Rivendell site tells me a 59 cm Roadeo would be the right
choice (saving my pennies...). I just measured my early '90s MB-3 and
the seat tube is 20" c-t.

HTH,
mark

[Richard]

Several of the Bridgestone catalogs from the 1990's indicate the 49cm
MB-4 had a 57.5 top tube. Standover heights range from 75.9 to 76.6.

[tlawnsby]

Thanks for all the info. I think I would be pretty stretched out on
the 19" -- I'll wait for a smaller size.

[newenglandbike]

I wouldn't be so sure that you'd be stretched out- the 19" will have
higher handlebars, and with even slightly higher handlebars, your
reach is extended significantly (the angle of incidence from your arms
to your shoulders increases). Grant Petersen has a great
explanation of this in one of the Rivendell readers, RR #41 I think
(?) Also, the MB line of bikes typically had shorter reach, higher
stems. I would try it out.

[Pete Olson]

Tom-
I wouldn’t automatically reject the 49cm size; I think it might depend
on what handlebar height you prefer and what sort of terrain you will
be riding. I have a 1992 MB-2 in 49 cm. When I bought it, I found it
quite comfortable but as I have gotten older, I lost my tolerance for
long rides with the handlebars below saddle height. (When purchased
in spring 1993, the dealer had added a Softride shock stem, which may
effectively have lowered the bar a little and stretched out the
reach.) I have an 86 pbh and fairly long torso and arms. I used to
ride a 56 cm horizontal top tube road bike but now am on a 59 cm
Romulus with the bars a little above the saddle. I added a stem riser
to the MB-2 last summer and am currently using it as a winter utility
bike with studded tires. Anyway, for me currently, I think the next
size up (52cm) Bridgestone would be a better fit and would be -7cm
compared to a RBW road bike. -Pete

On Jan 23, 4:45 pm, tlawnsby <tlawn...@clearwire.net> wrote:

[cyclotourist]

I had a 1994 49cm MB2, and ended up selling it as too small.  Should have bought the 52cm, but I wanted that "agressive" racey-thing back then... regrets.

I have an 89cm PBH.

DE

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

"Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym."  ~Bill Nye, scientist guy

[Hetchins52]

I sometimes commute on an 18" MB-5 (my fendered rain bike) and also
have a 19" MB-3 or -4 frame (its battered and no longer has the model
number; I bought it as a spare). The head tubes are identical, but the
actual top tube has less slope on the larger frame and is a cm longer.
The canonical sizing back in 1992 would have you on the 18". (At least
at the Bridgestone shop where I worked at that time.) Remember that
stems on those bikes were fairly flat and long: 7 cm was considered
short and most were in the 9 to 12 cm range.
The cheaper MB-6 was built with a little shorter t-t dimension, I
think with the assumption that the rider would be less aggressive and
more casual and upright.

David Lipsky
Berkeley