Or will it be too weird….oh and its a 14″£99 frame too

I used mine with 140mm Vanillas for a few years. It was fine. 130mm is the sweet spot though, IMO. Mine’s a 16in.

What forks are they? Most stuff can have the travel reduced these days

Fox float RL’s about 5 years old but havent been used for about 4 of those

“14” £99″ bloomin phone auto-fill!

I ran 130mm Revs on mine for a while. It was OK but personally, I’d stick with 100-120

How classic is classic? the first white 853 ones were all over the place with anything over about 60mm.

I ran 130mm Revs on mine for a while. It was OK but personally, I’d stick with 100-120

They’re designed (Unless it’s been changed in the last couple of years or so) for 100-130mm forks. Personally I found 115mm Rebas a bit too short for me. I used it in a few guises…..

130mm Recons

odds_003 by PeterPoddy, on Flickr

115mm Rebas

IMG_1459 by PeterPoddy, on Flickr

(This is the same frame after a respray)
140mm Vanillas

IMG_7246 by PeterPoddy, on Flickr

And now with Genesis rig ids as a tourer/commuter

IMG_1586 by PeterPoddy, on Flickr

130mm was the best of the lot.
So much so I’ve got a pair of top of the range in their day 130mm Revelation Air U-Turns sitting in a box waiting for the day it ends up as an MTB again. 🙂

How classic is classic? the first white 853 ones were all over the place with anything over about 60mm.

They were changed after that. My blue/orange on is one of the limited edition 853s from about 5 years ago. 4-5 inch (100-130mm) was the standard then. 🙂

Classic as in current but not a 456

In short, no. Inbreds are designed for XC and have classic XC geometry. Sounds like you need a 456. Injbreds are designed for 80-100mm-120mm forks. Folk seem to mix them up with the 456 which is designed for longer forks.

The last models pre-CEN test were designed for 100-130. I think it’s 100 max now if you want to be safe

Injbreds are designed for 80-100mm fors. Folk seem to mix them up with the 456 which is designed to 100mm + forks.

Nope. The OLD MK1 Inbred was designed for 80mm forks, then, later they were designed for 4-5in (100-130mm) forks
The 456 is designed for 4-6in (100-150mm) forks.
I’m not mixing anything up. I have a 456 as well!

Now, weather theyve been redesigned AGAIN a lot more recently I don’t know, but nobody but XC racers uses 100mm forks do they? (To all intents and purposes) And the Inbred is NOT an XC race bike, is it? So, personally, I doubt it’s been changed and it’ll still be fine with a 5in fork.
On One MIGHT be saying “100mm forks” on their website to differentiate the current Inbred from the 456, but if the geometry is the same as it was 5 years ago (And I think it might be…) then it’s just the description that’s changed for marketing purposes…… Capishe..? 😉

The last models pre-CEN test were designed for 100-130. I think it’s 100 max now if you want to be safe

Why would that be? That’s topsy-turvy thinking! The CEN testing makes frames stiffer and stronger… i.e. More suited to longer forks if anything.
Again, they may just be SAYING that to cover their arses. The only thing we need to know is if the geometry has changed in the last, say, 1-3 years. And I don’t just mean head angle. The whole shape of a frame changes as suspension travel increases… 🙂

They are saying 120mm max on the website. That’s the same frame as it’s been for years now, I’d bet on that.

It’ll be fine! 🙂

Strangely you seem to enjoy typing as if you actually have an iota of understanding of how a frames overall geometry should be changed for the benefits of a longer travel fork to outweigh the negatives Mr Pod and yet you still recommend ruining the geometry of the blokes inbred by jacking the front end up by 40mm.. 😕
Your pics speak for themselves, worried you might not have had enough pedal/chainring clearance, were you?

Slightly OT, but I’ve just notice that in all the time I’ve had my Inbred, it’s had the same chain set, the same wheels, the same shifters and mechs, and I’ve even put the original seat post back on, and the same bars and stem are now on Mrs PPs commuter

Really, all I’ve changed is the forks and the tyres! 🙂

yet you still recommend ruining the geometry of the blokes inbred by jacking the front end up by 40mm.

That’s only YOUR opinion and you’re putting words into my mouth! I’ve only ever changed it by 25mm each way, for a start, and I said (If you care to read it) that “130mm is the sweet spot”

To be honest, 140mm was a bit wandery up steep hills for me.

The thing is, I have actually used this bike for a loooooong time, with 4 different forks, and I know what I like by now.
RD asked “will it be too weird?”
No. I don’t think it will. He might not like it for long, that’s up to him. But I’m guessing he wants to use what he has hanging around, and it’ll be fine, if not ideal. From the POV of someone who’s ACTUALLY TRIED IT

Have you tried it, by any chance?

No? Thought not. 🙂

I don’t need a 456, i have some spare forks that’s all, original idea is to use rigids, will probably use those.

Play nice now children

FWIW I had a 140Talas on my slotdrop SS inbred. rode fine on 100-120-140, but tbh only put it up to 140 for hucking and the odd decent in the peaks so used it on 100 most of the time. There are a couple of nice sized drops at chicksands which didn’t bang through the travel at 120, so the 140 setting was really for slowing the steering and steadying it all down on the steep stuff rather than needing the extra travel.

Also: I totally failed to break it.
Lets hope it fails catastrophically in the hands of the **** that knicked it & he has a very nasty injury as a result.

the pre-CEN frames were shown on the website as being suitable for up to 130mm forks. after CEN came through the existing stock was shown as being suitable for up to 100mm.
IIRC.
i would expect that post CEN the inbred was tweaked a bit, but i expect there are others in full possession of those facts who will be able to comment on that more fully and accurately.
i ran 130mm revs for a couple of years, and after they went south, 140mm pikes, on my recent edition of the 853 inbreds ( same run as Peter’s ), wound down to 130mm.
i ripped the head tube off it. no – i don’t do gap jumps or owt.
felt like it handled fine up until then, and 3 days before that i’d done 100km south to north across dartmooor on it.
personally i’d space the fork down if it were me. might be worth comparing A-C heights of the fox’s against the rockshox?

Well I inherited an original on one (light blue same as PP’s) from a mate after it fell off his car rack at (ahem) 70mph and bounced across a dual carriageway (early Sunday morning fortunately so no cars about or it would have been nasty)
New rear mech, new rear wheel, carbon bars and seat post replaced and drop out straightened and it’s been working fine off road for last 8 months first with 130mm Revs and now a set of 130 Bombers (slightly longer AtoC length than the RS, probably similar to some modern day 140 forks)
Had a good ride on it today, including thrashing it through rock gardens and down drop offs and it was fine, geometry felt really sorted, it climbed okay and I really enjoyed riding it
I’m not dead, bike is still in one piece, they are, from what I’ve seen solid adaptable little frames

I ran a second Gen Inbred for a year or more. 120mm was definetley its sweet spot. At 130mm it started to get a bit “lazy” in the steering dept.

Mine sits at 115-120 on U Turns. Rarely wound out to 130 for some downhill. I wouldn’t want 140 on it.

but I’ve just notice that in all the time I’ve had my Inbred

In the time I’ve had my 853 Inbred I’ve changed everything but the frame!

I had a Scandal, so same geometry- really disliked it at 130mm, so would expect no good to come of 140mm, even if it doesn’t fold in half.

(when MBR had to sabotage an Inbred in a bike test so that an Orange could win, they did it by sticking 140mm Revs in it, then spent the whole test complaining that it was too long and tall)

I Have run several forks on my Origanal inbred. I currently have 130mm revs U turn to 100 mm never take them off 130mm, now.

I am in the prosses of changing them for pikes, and the revs getting put on something lighter.

I think it rides fine but i have 5mm rise bars and only 2mm spacer to lower the front end. Possibly going flat.

Gentlemen, perhaps you should have a read up on the CEN standard for mountain bikes EN 14766:2005. I may be wrong, but I would have thought that the only change with the inbred frame (if the geometry and tube lengths have stayed the same throughout each generation) is in the description on their website. The frame is tested to the CEN standard and passed with the 120mm max fork. Why would it have been re-designed specifically to take a shorter travel fork?

eh?
who said it had been?

No pics but I ran 130mm Marz Drop Offs on mine very briefly (very high axle to crown, prob more akin to current 140-150mm forks) – felt pretty jacked-up but loadsa fun on the downhills. 120mm Manitou Minutes (at the other end of the a to c spectrum) were spot on imho.