Ok,i’ve just spent a bomb building up my On One 456 -2011 in Salt ‘n’ Vinegar colours [ not everyones first choice ] but it was mint and barely used. Let me say for starters i am a steel fan. I also have a Genesis Altitude 2.0 with 853 steel tubes, but i wanted to build something more aggressive hence the 456.
Build:- 18″ frame,Fox Talas 140’s 15qr, new Hope pro 2’s lazer blue on Mavic 319, all XT, SLX crank set, XT brakes with ice tech rotors 180/160, Answer Pro taper 720mm carbon bars, Raceface Turbine 70mm stem, lots of Hope bits, xtr pedals- this build 27.8lbs.
First ride:- night ride, 3hr, Wales, agressive, gnarly descents, – put to the test to say the least. Here’s my opinion on the frame:-
1]-long top tube,wider wheel base, good stability, confidence on descents, great geometry.
2] 140 forks -superb on this bike, wind down to 120mm on steep climbs
3]high bottom bracket, good clearance for rocks, plus bash guard.
4]excellent with 70mm stem and 720m wide bars [ 1″ rise ]-great control
5]steel- stiff, trail buzz absorbent, no flex.
NEGATIVES;- riding over small rocks, terrible. The Genesis with 853 tubes much more springy,. If only On One could build this with Reynolds 853 steel tubes, thinner stays [ why so dam thick- its steel !!, ok don’t loose the wish bone, its a trademark but it doesn’t have to be so “fat” on the wish bone, its over the top…..If only then, without having to go to titanium to get more sproinggg. If only this was designed a bit better, i would buy it full premium for this geometry. By the way my 2nd hand frame cost £90, the rest of the bike, in total £1,500. I not an Evo fan,too slack, but what do you think could be done to improve on this iconic 456 design.

Evo2 has various tubing modifications to soften the ride.
Thanks for feedback.

Thanks Brant for the reply, have you considered Reynolds 853 tubing for the 456, as an alternative price point. The old geometry is still great, not as slack, better for climbing.

The ‘evo’ climbs great, its a hardtail after all….i’m struggling to think just how slack a hardtail would have to be before it pedalled up hill worse than a FS!….in fact head angle slackness is a red herring, its largely the seat tube angle that contributes more to climbing prowess and if i’m not mistaken Brant made the seat tube steeper on the ‘evo’ so while it is slacker up front this is counteracted by the adjustment to the seat tube design.
I love mine, i even bought an 853 Alpine frame to swap the components over and compare the two directly….ended up going back to the 456-evo, great bike.

Glad you like the Evo, its good to know but i think it would be hard to improve on the original 456 geometry, perfect angle for the front forks- except for the odd tweaking on the back end, 853 tubing would be exceptional for this 456 geometry IMHO. At the end of the day its a 456, = how can the ride be improved upon without changing the design geometry.?
The Evo is a different animal in my opinion.

I wasn’t too knocked out by the 456 geometry tbh- it’s competent enough, works reasonably at everything, but that’s about it. Doesn’t measure up well beside the early Ragleys frinstance, 456 goes up, down and along less well with the same amount of fork. I haven’t tried an Evo, would like to though.

Maybe that’s harsh, I’ve been lucky enough to have a c456, a Soul, and now a Ragley Ti and 2 out of 3 of those are basically works of genius.

deviant – Member

i’m struggling to think just how slack a hardtail would have to be before it pedalled up hill worse than a FS!

Ah now that depends entirely on what you’re riding on, FS can be faster on lumpy climbs, and grippier on techy climbs.

Agreed-I had a Yeti 575, – cost me £3,250, almost 6″ travel, yet one of the finest climbing full suss bikes i’ve ever had, better then any of my hardtails [ until i snapped a carbon triangle ]-but that’s not the point- how do you improve the original steel 456, [ not carbon, not Ti ]- without loosing its identity ?

I had a steel 456, replaced it with a 456Ti – end of thread.

I found the steel comfier at slower speeds and the Ti comfier at high speeds. Still my only bike 5 years later.

Got 2 456’s in my family… My one’s built quite light with 100mm air forks and full slx. Climbs great, very nimble, bars feel a little low on some descents but it works for me.
My sons one is built heavier with pike u-turns, very different bike, bit of an animal.
Fancy trying an evo sometime, never seen one tho…

I can confirm the evo 2 is nicely compliant without being noodly. The large central ‘can’ that joined the seatstays has been replaced by two smaller curvy tubes, welded as they meet at the seat tube. I reckon this is the main reason for the increased compliance.

I absolutely love my evo 2. The customer service at On One was also excellent.

Poor old Brant. He does a steel 456, a Ti version, a carbon version, an Evo version, a Ti Evo version, a650b version, he goes to another company and does a whole range of hardtails in steel, aluminium and Ti, and still someone’s asking him to tweaking the 456 a bit.

“a Ti version, a carbon version, an Evo version, a Ti Evo version”,not poor old Brant at all, he’s making a fortune ….its just marketing,…all good bikes in their own right, you have to evolve to survive..however…the original 456 steel geometry has something more, the magic formula, almost perfect….now all that has to be done is perfect it somehow…..i believe its just a different quality steel/ get the small bump compliance right…weld a Ti triangle to the back of it maybe….?? wow..lol

FWIW the carbon didn’t have anything to do with Brant other than the geometry, it was while he was off Ragleying. Think he’d probably have done a better job of it tbh!

dannyh, That Evo 2 back end wish bone….looks like the answer…

http://forums.mtbr.com/one/456-evo-767004-12.html

Yes, and it does look nice as well. The red ones on that thread is like mine, but that is a 20″ if I’m not mistaken, so a bit gate-like compared to my 18″. The colour is lovely as well, think Classic Ferrari. Mmmmmmmmm!

Always thought it would be nice if they did a version with swap drop outs to allow for singlespeed use..

c456 here.

best bike I’ve ever had but…

Snakey rear triangle needed to add ‘bounce’.

Proper sizing – seriously, how much ‘real’ difference is there between the 16″, 18″ and 20″ frames with respect to reach / wheelbase? The 16″ is too long and the 20″ is too short.

And the 18″ should be 17″ and the 20″ should be 18″. High seat tubes are rubbish. (I ride a 20″)

Seat tube is 2 degrees too slack.

Otherwise angles are spot on – any slacker in the HA and it wouldn’t go round tight switch-backs.

Being really picky I reckon the swap-outs could be improved so that a shorter chain-stay set-up could be achieved.

Awesome frame though all the same and I don’t really care about improvements as mine’s a keeper.

Weird topic. Build a previous version then ask brant to modify?

Apple heres my iphone 3, please make changes

To be fair you be unlikely to get Johnny Ives responding though.

Who’s riding an evo 2 then? I’m liking that raw/blue colour a lot, and fancy a cheap(ish) steel frame. Does anybody know how an evo2 would compare to my genesis core?

@core – My mate has an evo 2 and he likes it. It’s certainly a nice frame with some quality touches, I particularly like the bulged seat tube. The only reservation I have is the 1/8th head tube as it limits fork choice. Compared to a core, well it’s 4 degrees slacker to start with.

It sounds like an awesome bike, but you don’t mention the tyres. What are you using? Pressures? High volume tyres run tubeless with lower pressures can make a heap of difference to ride feel and it’s a lot easier than either doing the Tardis thing and travelling back to redesign the original frame or spending the rest of your life finding someone who can weld in a titanium rear triangle.

Or a twangy seatpost. Or a suspension seatpost. Or a really soft saddle… 😉

I think you have to remember the 456 is not a premium high price point frame, its good VFM but obviously it won’t be perfect. And of course there are pricier slack HTs with an 853 sticker on them available elsewhere.

Its a bit like complaining that your ford focus isn’t as good as an M3 despite the price difference.

BadlyWiredDog makes a good point rear tyre choice and pressure can help take the edge off the ride, a sticking plaster perhaps, but an effective one.

Its a BT like complaining that your ford focus isn’t as good as an M3 despite the price difference.

Yeah, they should stick to telephones and televising football matches, not commenting on people’s choice of car, the interfering bastids… 🙂

Edited 8)

Badlywireddog, you make many valid points. Yes it is a Tardis thing to go back, but sometimes you look back on a design and ask yourself , why was it so dam sucessfull ?, what could have been done different at the time, knowing what we know now. Sure its like redesigning the iconic mini, – they never really achieved it [ British design / German engine ] was it better ? Some would argue no, however they are selling more then ever….or if someone remade the VW cammper bus,…now that would be something with technology we have now. Back to the bike, i was using Panaraer 2.1 with about 40 psi, muddy rocky conditions. My next ride will be Mountain Kings, 2.4 at lower psi. Don’t get me wrong, the bike is great, sure Titanium in this would probably be Van Nicholas and have more dampening properties, Lynskey frame different again but both much more expensive. Maybe i will just re-design/ tweak the back end and get it made in Reynolds 953 first as last. Now that would be something…expensive..yes.. 😯

Get a carbon one, that will address your concerns.

They’re cheap enough secondhand now and tough as old boots.

@core

I went from a genesis core to an evo2, so am fairly uniquely qualified to answer your question.

My genesis was a 2009 model.

The evo is a lot slacker at the front. It is a bit longer in the top tube and as short in the back triangle. It is far nicer than the core in my opinion, and a heck of a lot more comfortable.

You would not be disappointed if you switched trust me.

The extra twang makes up for the slightly higher weight in ride quality. I am running 1×10 and really enjoying being able to ride quickly over rough stuff without loosing the chain.

It is nicely compliant, but far from noodly. It just doesn’t pound your legs like the big rigid alu pipes of the core.

How exactly does swapping from an alu Core to a 456 Evo qualify you to provide the answer to moving from a steel Altitude to a 456?

i was using Panaraer 2.1 with about 40 psi, muddy rocky conditions.

Yeah, that would probably be quite harsh. I reckon you’ll be pleasantly surprised with fatter tyres at lower pressures.

@johnhe.

Because the poster ‘core’ asked what it would be like swapping to an evo 2 from a genesis core, perhaps?

Please actually bother to read the posts above before making a tit of yourself. 😕

What type of riding are you doing dannyh? And how does that slackness affect climbing compared to the core? (I’d be running 120mm reba on both btw).

Typical uk riding for someone who lives somewhere moderately hilly is how I’d describe it.

So mostly around woods and hills that have short steep bits, but nothing ‘epic’. The highest hill around me is 270 odd metres.

Intersperse that with bigger away days. Peaks, Yorkshire dales, long mynd, that kind of thing.

Climbing wise I prefer the evo. This has more to do with it being a better fit and shape than the core. The 09 core was criticised for being a bit short IIRC, so the slightly longer top tube has really helped. I run 130 recons and only wind them down for very steep stuff, or quite steep if it is drawn out. I am not exactly a mountain goat, so my approach has always been ‘get there in the end’.

On the way down I rate the evo miles ahead of the core. Far more ‘set’ and much more comfortable on the calves. It still pops around nicely, though, if you really get hold of it.

On twisty stuff the slack head angle probably shows itself most (climbing wise it is offset by the steeper seat angle). This just means you have to ride it more aggressively through turns, getting a bit lower, steepening the head angle a bit and really pulling the back end around behind is the way, but this is how I like to ride anyway. So long as my legs don’t give out first.

Ok, i think the answer to the question is to get on-one / planet -x to build a limited edition issue of the 456 in Reynolds 853 – lets say a 500- units. Cos, 853 is stronger then DN6 double butted 4130 chromoly steel,
they could make the stays thinner, also the can/ wishbone could be sized down by 25-40 % without sacrificing strength. The stonger material and thinner tubes, would create more flex and therfore more small bump compliant to the back side.The frame would be stronger then titanium, [ less chance of fatigue at head tube as well.] or you could get the likes of Pipedream to build it in 953 -which they are doing at the moment, which is even stronger then 853 ]with the same geometry.

Would be interesting to see what they could do with it.

Well guys- update a few months on. Still riding the 456 steel and enjoying it as a very competent winter hack. Got a big Hans Dampf 2.3 upfront [ closer to a 2.5 ]and she rides through anything.

http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/10550354/
However -as Br said earlier in the thread -just replace with a Ti frame and forget about it. Well -ive was luck to pick up pre loved Lynskey built 456 Ti with the extra stay support- so new project to come. Will keep the steel 456 frame tho..just incase… 🙂
http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/10550374/

Ok, i think the answer to the question is to get on-one / planet -x to build a limited edition issue of the 456 in Reynolds 853 – lets say a 500- units. Cos, 853 is stronger then DN6 double butted 4130 chromoly steel,
they could make the stays thinner, also the can/ wishbone could be sized down by 25-40 % without sacrificing strength. The stonger material and thinner tubes, would create more flex and therfore more small bump compliant to the back side.The frame would be stronger then titanium, [ less chance of fatigue at head tube as well.] or you could get the likes of Pipedream to build it in 953 -which they are doing at the moment, which is even stronger then 853 ]with the same geometry.

There was an original inbred 853, most people commented it rode pretty much like the DN6 version and the weight saved wasn’t very much. I had an 853 Sanderson, and whilst very nice, it was a bit too flexible. I think trying to take some arbitrary ammount of stiffness off a 456 would ruin it. It’s a hardtail, it’ll always be stiff.

I think rear stay thickness/design and comfort is a bit of a placebo. You see thin stays and think comfortable, the modulous of those tubes in compression is huge. The comforts more likley to come from things like long seatubes being able to flex more while seated, and while stood up the whole top tube bends to dissipate forces transfered to it from the rear stays.

And after all that, it would still weigh more than a C456 (and carbon you can at least pretend to be optimising stiffness hoisontaly and maximising it verticaly more so than steel tubes.

Look at a lot of bikes from Canada in the 90/00’s and Nicolai today, mahoosive square section seatstays. If seatstay stiffness really was a (negative) issue, those bikes would be unrideable.