# Bridgestone Zip, MB-1, or XO-1



## hegstad1 (Sep 16, 2010)

So not really a hypothetical situation...

I love all these bikes for their own reasons and if I could own all of them I would. As luck would have it, I have a line on each of them but I can only afford to spring for one. The decision is not easy.

The MB-0 is a 1991 and in pretty decent shape with all original parts. The MB-1 is a 1993 with that beautiful biplane fork and is VERY clean. The XO-1 is the orange 1993 and appears to be all original as well. I was only able to see the XO from a distance so I will have to inspect it closer before making a decision. 

The prices are fair but not inexpensive.

So the question is...What do you all like about these bikes? I have to say I am intrigued by the XO. I have my mountain bikes but nothing like a cross bike and it looks like a fun ride.


----------



## -Anomie- (Jan 16, 2005)

The XO is the rarest of the group and the hardest to find for sale, so I would probably go for that one first unless it's in crappy condition. Then the MB-1 if it has a biplane fork. MB-1's come up for sale pretty often, but not with that fork. The Zip, while rarer than a MB-1 (sans fork), isn't that uncommon. The hard part with those is finding one for a reasonable price. For some reason everyone seems to think they're worth a small fortune, but unless it's an 8 out of 10 or better with all the original parts, I wouldn't pay more than $500 bucks for one (even though my first ever MTB was a MB-0). Just my opinion, for what it's worth.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

last i heard, those biplane forks were folding on their legs while ridden hard.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

I'd buy the MB!, sell the Biplane to finance the bike and run a Ritchey Logic.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Either the MB-1 and XO-1 would be my choice. Both are great bikes. The lugs are nicer on the MB, and the fork is hard to beat.

The Zip, while a nice bike, is TIG welded which to me is not what makes a Bridgestone a Bridgestone. It's a nice bike, but to me is less "cool" than the lugged bikes.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Mb-1


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

XO-1 by a long shot.


----------



## blilrat (Oct 27, 2011)

if you're not using it as a mountain bike - the XO-1.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

I would get the XO1 asap.. it's a bike on it's own class, own category. I would also get the MB1 but i will swap the fork for a ritchey logic cause i those biplanes were made w/ the wrong tubing which lend to catastrophic failure.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Hmmm... I never had problems with the bi-plane fork on my '94 MB-1 (that has since been sold). Are fork failures really that common?


----------



## 805MTB (Jul 4, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> Hmmm... I never had problems with the bi-plane fork on my '94 MB-1 (that has since been sold). Are fork failures really that common?


There's at least one nasty photo of a folded fork on this site....saw it in the archives not long ago. BUT I haven't heard of more than 1 or 2 instances and those guys were racing.

I'd take a look at the XO-1, see if you like it and see which one fits you best. I'm not too thrilled about how my zip rides, though it's a nice bike to look at.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

I have both the MB-1 and the XO-1 and love them both. So I'd say get the one that fits you best. If they both fit well, get the one that's in better shape (ie: has the most life left in it). If they're comparable, then BY ALL MEANS, GET THE XO-1!!!!

I don't think the bi-plane fork issue is as bad as people have made it out to be. (We had some discussion in the Bridgestone thread). You just have to remember that you're not riding a hardtail, choose your lines, and finesse it accordingly.

The XO-1 fork is a thing of beauty, too. The thing about the XO-1 is that there's really nothing else like it. I ride mine more than the MB-1 because it's a fun change of pace compared to anything else - which isn't to say that it's not a really nice ride for it's own sake. The MB-1, on the other hand, as nice as it is, is just a high-end, mass-production mountain bike with old-school geometry.

And there's no question that the XO-1 will be worth more in time. Even Grant Peterson has said so. I think I've read that even though there were supposed to be 1000 built (250 of any given size), they stopped the run at 750 because it wasn't selling. Add to that some attrition from crashes and a whole bunch that were converted to travel bikes by adding S&S couplers, and it's a rare piece of USABLE history.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

klasse said:


> There's at least one nasty photo of a folded fork on this site....saw it in the archives not long ago. BUT I haven't heard of more than 1 or 2 instances and those guys were racing.
> 
> I'd take a look at the XO-1, see if you like it and see which one fits you best. I'm not too thrilled about how my zip rides, though it's a nice bike to look at.


make it 2 riders on this forum only. one was a lightweight on a small bike, nos frame which broke while he was racing.


----------



## datmony (Jul 12, 2012)

I bent my 93 fork within the first week of riding it. Swapped it for a Ritchey Logic which has now been on there for pushing 20 years hassle free. The crowned fork is beautiful and I have another frameset with it on it but I would never ride one again because of the note above of the fork being spec'd with the wrong size tubing.


----------



## Major (Jul 8, 2008)

klasse said:


> I'd take a look at the XO-1, see if you like it and see which one fits you best. I'm not too thrilled about how my zip rides, though it's a nice bike to look at.


I'm not in love with how my Zip rides either, though it's not bad by any means. I'm beginning to think I prefer more laid back geometries (in mtb's!) to racy, steep ones like on the Zip.

Haven't built up my '88 MB-1 yet (noticed the damn clear coat is peeling), but I would probably still go for the XO-1 if I had the choice.


----------



## utahdog2003 (Jul 8, 2004)

Get the Zip. They aren't getting any more durable and we Americans aren't getting any lighter. At some point the lines will meet and Zips will only be around in collections. Both my MB-1 and my MB-2 could have been thrown off a 10 story building and ridden home.


----------



## datmony (Jul 12, 2012)

Utahdog2003 - Amen. My MB1 has been through hell and back and all it said was Dante is a wuss.


----------



## oldskoolwrench (Jul 12, 2012)

Picked up a '93½ MB-1 for a song earlier this year in my size (39cm) and it's _extremely _clean, a hoot to ride, and solid as a rock!










But, to the OP... if it fits, I'd jump on the XO-1!

:thumbsup:


----------



## datmony (Jul 12, 2012)

Oldskoolwrench - that thing is spectacular. That is the same '93 that I have in a 46cm. Absolutely lovely bike. I just picked up another one of those stems but the aluminum version. So much fun to ride.

OP - if you decide not to buy the MB1, what size is it in? I would love another 46cm.


----------



## hegstad1 (Sep 16, 2010)

Fun discussion. Thanks for all your insight. The MB-1 appears to be 17 or 18in. I will check them out again next week. I'm not sure what size the XO is, It is stored "up high".


----------



## phoenixbikes (Sep 24, 2010)

I had a 93 MB-1, 21" frame. Great bike, very fast but not terribly durable. I broke the original Logic fork, and also one of the bi-plane models. The bi-plane fork rode nicely until it cracked. The frame suffered a fatal blow in an auto/bicycle accident. 

:madman:


----------



## 805MTB (Jul 4, 2010)

oldskoolwrench said:


> Picked up a '93½ MB-1 for a song earlier this year in my size (39cm) and it's _extremely _clean, a hoot to ride, and solid as a rock!


wow, pretty rare size. nice find! why are you calling it a 93 1/2?

mine is 46cm, strictly wall art for now: http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/1993-bridgestone-mb-1-a-784489.html


----------



## datmony (Jul 12, 2012)

The best way to notice is the Allsop/Softride stem and the trigger shifters which were what was spec'd on the 94. They did that halfway through the years production as they decided they couldn't keep bucking the trigger shifter and shock trends that were happening. There are also some others around that were a 93 frame but built in 94 (these were built for warranty claims but some got released to shops for sale as the frame only). I have one of those that I built up for my mother to ride on the bike trails years ago. It has the 93 paint scheme but a 94 head badge.


----------

