# 93 Bridgestone MB3



## chuckster (Aug 17, 2006)

I have a vintage MB3 that I have owned since it was new. Is it stupid to even consider putting a 1 inch suspension fork on this bike to smooth out some of the bumps? (assuming I can find one). Bridgestone offered the RS quadra on the 94 model. I just ride fire trail type roads but I would like the option of doing some more technical stuff.

Is there a market for the stock MB3 if I chose to start fresh with a new hardtail? I assume the new forks/ brakes, etc would be worth upgrading to current technology.

thanks in advance

Chuck


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

chuckster said:


> I have a vintage MB3 that I have owned since it was new. Is it stupid to even consider putting a 1 inch suspension fork on this bike to smooth out some of the bumps? (assuming I can find one). Bridgestone offered the RS quadra on the 94 model. I just ride fire trail type roads but I would like the option of doing some more technical stuff.
> 
> Is there a market for the stock MB3 if I chose to start fresh with a new hardtail? I assume the new forks/ brakes, etc would be worth upgrading to current technology.
> 
> ...


I have the same bike and love it. I can not see putting a suspension fork on it as you will slow down the steering and bump the weight to at least 27 pounds, if you have already swapped for lighter tire-wheels.

MB-3's don't bring as much as mb1-2's, but fair money. Personally not enough to unload considering what a lugged quality steel frame would cost to replace. I would buy a modern bike but keep the MB-3 intact.


----------



## chuckster (Aug 17, 2006)

thanks for the reply.

What upgrades/ replacements have you done on your MB3?


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

chuckster said:


> thanks for the reply.
> 
> What upgrades/ replacements have you done on your MB3?


Mine cost me $3.00 in the as is bin at Sally's. Wheelset and seatpost were missing, headset hammered. I put in a Campy record headset I had as well as a XT Mavic 217 wheelset I redished to seven speed. I bought new IRC Mytho's and a Core seatpost. In its current form it weighs 25 lbs on the bathroom scale.


----------



## ~martini~ (Dec 20, 2003)

To get more cush out of a ride, you can always find a larger volume tire to slip on the front. Something like a Vredestein Killer Bee 2.25 or 2.4 would be ideal. Large, light and fast rolling. Another option would be a Schwalbe Fast Fred in the 2.4 size. You don't wack out geometry, but you get more traction for techy stuff, and more speed on the open stuff.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

I use a short and long travel 96 Judy XC along with the original Ritchey forks on my Bridgestones. I switch them around when I want something different. Plus I just like changing things all the time.


----------



## Sixty Fiver (Apr 10, 2006)

I love the classic rigid mountain bikes that were built on high quality fully lugged frames... without an active suspension to fall back on the frame geometry had to be right and the steel had to be of outstanding quality to ensure good performance and a comfortable ride.

My classic is an '87 Kuwahara Cascade on an Ishiwata quad butted and fully lugged frame... the bike will handle everything from epic backcountry touring (it's original design) to XC to some tricky singletrack to my daily commute.

I'd be keeping the MB3 and if not you can send it my retirement home for classic and viintage bikes where it will be well taken care of and ridden often.


----------



## B-Rant (Jun 16, 2006)

My dad bought one for my mom in '93 and later installed a softride stem. If you can find a softride in good condition, that might not be a bad option. Still rides great.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Nice MB-3. These have the same geometry as the MB-1 and MB-2 so it'll ride nice.I use 2.1 tires on mine. I can't picture Bridgestones with suspension. I guess their old ads brain-washed me.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

*What a difference five years makes.*

This is my latest acquisition, a 88 MB-3. Totally different bike. The 93 jumps when you pedal, the 88 is OK but very ho-hum in comparison. I even put the light wheelset from the 93 on it for a fair comparison. Not even close. The 93 forces a big grin every time I get on it. Are the 93 MB1's and 2's much better frame wise?


----------



## maddog17 (Apr 21, 2004)

this is my MB-3 with a suspension front fork, i really never noticed any difference in steering after putting it on.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Start your research here. 

http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/official-what-worth-thread-wiw-463090.html


----------



## AlliKat (Apr 28, 2006)

I stumbled on this thread as I'm considering unloading my cobalt MB-3. i think it was 92 when I bought it. I want to fund a road bike purchase as part of my race training. Currently, mine has a fair amount of newer parts (xt rear hub, avid sd-5's etc) and I have a lot of the original parts in the bin. Where are people successful selling and how much? eBay? or mtbr classifieds.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

AlliKat said:


> I stumbled on this thread as I'm considering unloading my cobalt MB-3. i think it was 92 when I bought it. I want to fund a road bike purchase as part of my race training. Currently, mine has a fair amount of newer parts (xt rear hub, avid sd-5's etc) and I have a lot of the original parts in the bin. Where are people successful selling and how much? eBay? or mtbr classifieds.


What size is it. You can not expect much for it unless it is exceptional, I have seen mb3 frames go for well under $100.00 and the most for a exceptional example with exceptional parts for over $350.00 on ebay. Your best return will be parting that bike since it is not original and not even collectable if it was all original. Anybody with money to drop on a MB will search out a MB1.


----------



## guywitharitchey (Nov 29, 2011)

Love it stock and rigid. Wouldn't want to ride it with suspension though personally. I agree with previous posters about larger volume tires as a good option to take the edge off.


----------



## Tastytoast (Mar 18, 2012)

New to the forums!

I have never really dabbled much into getting to know my bike, as it has been with my family ever since I was a kid, but I finally did some research on it and it's a '93 Bridgestone MB-3. I stumbled on this post and forum while trying to learn more about my bike. I have been living with some issues with it (neophyte) and I recently decided I'm going to try to confront them head on. 

First of all, I like this bike, it's very smooth and the size is perfect in that it's a bit smaller, so it feels more manageable. I was wondering, what types of things should I address to make it more up to date? Reason I ask is because it's stock except for new tires. I'm wondering if new technology exists that would drastically improve the bike. 

So the bike has a few issues. 
- The gears in the back, it might be called the cassette?, the teeth of the middle gears are all contorted. Is this fixable? Perhaps the chain needs lubing?
- The front brake is "spongy". It lacks feel and the lever goes all the way to the bar. Even while at the bar, I feel like I could go another 30% before locking the wheels. Maybe it needs a new cable?
- The seat is entirely uncomfortable! I think I should find a replacement. Any suggestions?

This bike is great and I want to give it the lovin' it deserves, but I'm a dilletante who wants to learn more, but lacks any foundation. Any suggestions and/or feedback would be awesome. Thanks!

T.T


----------



## ish (Jun 17, 2009)

No need to modernize the bike; get a newer bike if that's what you are after.

For the brake issue, it sounds like the cable sheath is messed up.

Seats are kind of a trial and error thing. Each tush is different.


----------



## Fahzure (Jul 26, 2011)

*Marzocchi*

Older Marzocchis, Bomber Z1-Z5, had pinch bolt crowns that can be relieved at the top of the stanchion to allow it to slide through the crown, reducing the ride height by 20-25 mm. These forks work great and are easy to find. Careful with the mod and check that your tire clears the crown with the springs removed and the fork bottomed.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

I wouldn't get a suspension fork for it. That bike wasn't designed for one in mind.

If I were you, I would take it to the lbs and get a basic tune up. It'll do wonders on shifting and braking. If you want to do it yourself, Zinn is a good book to read to learn how. But it's like doing any home improvement task...lots of trips to the hardware store. 

The saddle is going to be a personal preference issue like ish said. Some shops will let you demo a bunch of different saddles though so can try them out without paying a bunch of money.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

girlonbike said:


> I wouldn't get a suspension fork for it. That bike wasn't designed for one in mind.
> 
> If I were you, I would take it to the lbs and get a basic tune up. It'll do wonders on shifting and braking. If you want to do it yourself, Zinn is a good book to read to learn how. But it's like doing any home improvement task...lots of trips to the hardware store.
> 
> The saddle is going to be a personal preference issue like ish said. Some shops will let you demo a bunch of different saddles though so can try them out without paying a bunch of money.


Good advice here. The Bridgestones are know for ovalized headtubes, not a good choice for a suspension fork.


----------



## adlu (May 2, 2019)

Hi, this is my first post. I'm looking for a steel mountain bike frame with rim brake attachments and 26" wheels for a bikepacking trip through Latin America. The 1991-1994 Bridgestone MBs look like a good option, but I've been told to look for 1 1/8 headtubes to maximize the number of compatible forks. Does anyone know the headtube size for the MB-3s from these years? Thanks for any advice on this specific question, or thoughts on other old frames I should consider.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

1in head tube. If you are back packing and carrying anything on the bike then the rigid original fork is better. the head tube is not your problem. Get an MB3 or MB1. Or a fat chance wicked, ritchey ascent, stumpjumper, jamis dragon, khs montana... so many options. You can even get a new black mountain cycles cx frame.
Add Trek 950 970 990 to your list. As touring frames they are very good.


----------



## adlu (May 2, 2019)

Thanks for your message. Would the 1" head tube limit me if the original rigid fork fails? Are rigid fork failures are nearly impossible?

On the topic of Stumpjumpers, does anyone have experience with M2 vs. steel on the mid-90's models, in terms of durability and ride?

Thanks!


----------



## phattruth (Apr 22, 2012)

adlu said:


> Thanks for your message. Would the 1" head tube limit me if the original rigid fork fails? Are rigid fork failures are nearly impossible?
> 
> On the topic of Stumpjumpers, does anyone have experience with M2 vs. steel on the mid-90's models, in terms of durability and ride?
> 
> Thanks!


The 1" fork is very unlikely to fail unless you're doing big jumps. I know the ride quality is great as I have several of these bikes. I would shy away from an M2 Stumpjumper unless you want to make regular trips to the chiropractor. Any aluminum frame will beat you up, but particularly M2 frames. Go with a steel frame and fork. Early Steel GT Avalanches had 1-1/8" headtubes and the ride in fantastic. That may be a good option for you.


----------



## adlu (May 2, 2019)

Thanks phattruth, I laughed out loud at your evaluation of the M2 Stumpjumper. 

colker1 (and everyone else also), I found a 1991 Trek 970 on my local craiglist that the owner says is in excellent condition with all original components. What do you think is a reasonable price for it? The owner's asking $400 OBO. Thanks!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

adlu said:


> Thanks phattruth, I laughed out loud at your evaluation of the M2 Stumpjumper.
> 
> colker1 (and everyone else also), I found a 1991 Trek 970 on my local craiglist that the owner says is in excellent condition with all original components. What do you think is a reasonable price for it? The owner's asking $400 OBO. Thanks!


I am not an expert on prices but it sounds 100 bucks too high. It´s a good bike for what you want to do w/ it but there are plenty of stumpjumpers around and it´s a slightly better riding bike when on singletrack. Bridgestones are special but harder to find. Aluminum bikes tend to be stiff... you could look for a steel stumpjumper: built from tange prestige tubing. Those treks are oversized steel. Prestige steel is a better riding steel tube.
There is also the high end steel 90s mtb. Bontrager, Fat Chance, Ibis, Salsa, Ritchey. It would cost you 2x what a Trek costs.... but i believe well worth it. A WTB Phoenix would cost 3x.
MOst important: get a bike that fits right. 8in of seatpost showing is the golden rule for the era.


----------



## adlu (May 2, 2019)

Thanks for all the tips. I'm definitely keeping an eye out for mid-90's Stumpjumpers as well as the others you mentioned. I found something that looks really nice today, but it's a bit over my budget when I include the upgrades I would need to give it.

It's a Marin Team Issue, most likely 1992 based on the decals in Marin's 1992 catalog. The size is right for me and it has mostly XT components (shifters, rim brakes, derailers), but I will need to upgrade the handlebar, pedals, and rear wheel. The crankset is Shimano biopace, and not sure about the cassette.

Also, it doesn't have seat stay attachments for a rear rack.

Attaching some pics. Does $350 seem like a reasonable price?

Thanks!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

You will have to upgrade tires as well and crankset though i wonder how a biopace crankset ended on a 92 bike. I suggest you look for something better built to your tastes.


----------

