oh no what SS am i going to build up this summer. I don't think there is anthing that is around the same price…

Gutted i like the Inbred as well.

I am not to sure if it has been posted yet (but i will post it any way)

"I am not to sure if it has been posted yet"

It has.

still not good news on 2nd reading though. I can't believe they won't replace it with something similar but a bit more beefy though.

"I can't believe they won't replace it with something similar but a bit more beefy though"

er, 456?

There's got to be something wrong with this CEN test if it's going to kill off bikes like the inbred, cotic soul, etc…

(i like the idea of a strength test for mountain bikes, but it sounds like someone's got the test-rig set to '11')

(yes, i know you can get a CEN compliant cotic soul, but it's been made less twangy, and twangy is the whole point of an 853 frame)

but the 456 geometry isn't the same as the Inbred, is it?

I want soemthign that's a bit more 'xc' than a 456 – so I can run 80-100mm forks on it and mince my way around the South Downs.

er, brant'll be along in a moment to prove me wrong, but i'm sure the 456 has inbred angles…

i know you can get a CEN compliant cotic soul, but it's been made less twangy

I think the new one rides very similarly. Gussets added for strength, but top tube is now ovalised to keep ride quality.

i'm sure the 456 has inbred angles…

The 456 has the same head angle as a standard inbred, for a given fork length, but has a steeper seat angle and shorter top tube to put you more over the front of the bike.
But most people I've seen ignore this with a love of layback seatposts and saddles pushed back – and then wonder why things get a bit light on the front end when climbing steep hills. Ah well.
The biggest difference between the 456 and the Inbred was that the 456 (and summer season) have (had?) a 1/8in larger top tube. Which adds 30% to stiffness and 20% to strength for 10% weight increase (roughly speaking).

I thought it was dead. But in the comments Stevo seems to imply they are going to redesign it. So dead in its current incarnation soon to be reincarnated.

ERM……does this mean that my plan to buy an Inbred & stick the bits of the old bike should be accelerated, while they are still available?
I assume they are still available as they are still for sale on the website?

I'd be fitting a U-Turn Reba to it (85-115mm), so presumably the Inbred would be better suited than the 456?
I know the 456 is for 4-6" forks, but I assumed that it might be a bit steep when fitted with a 4" fork?
I want to build up a hardtail that I can use for general trail riding & I'd rather it was less 'XC' in terms of angles.

http://cotic.co.uk/press/WIDEOPEN_CEN

The 456 has the same head angle as a standard inbred, for a given fork length, but has a steeper seat angle and shorter top tube to put you more over the front of the bike.

Is it just the Inbred with the bigger TT and a steeper seat tube (i.e. front centre remains the same)?

kelvin – Member

http://cotic.co.uk/press/WIDEOPEN_CEN

Can someone please take the nice little boys and girls from Dirt Bike Magazine and see them safely to school for some grammar lessons?

Thanks…

Is it just the Inbred with the bigger TT and a steeper seat tube (i.e. front centre remains the same)?

It was when it started out, though things have moved on a bit since then (and I've not been at on-one for a year).

ps: think the lines on the new carbon 29er look great.

For my money the normal inbred rides much better than the 456 or SS, I'm sad to see it go but I guess it has changed a few times over the years anyway.

I will be giving my 853 breds a quick fondle next time I see them

Plum

Does no-one else think there's a load of stock to clear before the warehouse move at On One and this story is likley to have some, maybe a lot of marketing hyperbole in it?

I generally like OnOne and Brant's (now no longer OnOne but the Ragley / Shedfire sites seem to have a similar flavour and feel) take on marketing and self promotion. I'm just surprised it all gets taken quite so seriously 😉

Im surprised if they dont re-design the inbred to be compliant with the new design regs. Its been a popular budget frame for years now, surely On-One would be losing out if they dont replace it?

Does no-one else think there's a load of stock to clear before the warehouse move at On One and this story is likley to have some, maybe a lot of marketing hyperbole in it?

These frames have failed a safety test. Please buy them.

Im surprised if they dont re-design the inbred to be compliant with the new design regs. Its been a popular budget frame for years now, surely On-One would be losing out if they dont replace it?

Like they say that they're going to do in the comments?

Brilliantly explained on the geometry Brant

While we are on this subject how do the chain stays compare in terms of chain ring and tyre clearance.

Can someone please take the nice little boys and girls from Dirt Bike Magazine and see them safely to school for some grammar lessons?

Sure…

But first you should take some reading lessons because:

1. Dirt bike magazine is for MX/enduro bikes, not mtb.
2. Thats Wideopenmag, not Dirt.

Jus' sayin' 😉

Like they say that they're going to do in the comments?

Not read the article, just this thread. Like. 😉

errrr, Dirt is for anything MTB now, the even tested the cannondale rush with a carbon frame!

Hasn't covered motorsport or BMX for years (with the odd exception)

Dirt Mountain Bike Magazine

Dirt Bike Magazine

Wot he sed ^

😀

PJ266 – Member
Sure…

But first you should take some reading lessons because:

1. Dirt bike magazine is for MX/enduro bikes, not mtb.
2. Thats Wideopenmag, not Dirt.

Forgive my teenager magazine reference mistakes… I was making the foolish error of reading the name of the magazine from the bottom of the page… How silly of me to think they'd write their name on the bottom and get it right…

I didn't think a bike had to pass the CEN test to go on sale? Isn't it just a badge of "quality".

Well, if youre going to be pedantic at least make sure you do it right.

Oh, and I am a teenager 😛

Plenty other cheap frames rusty out there.

That article in that magazine link is very good. I did smile at Cy's comment though:

Up until CEN came along, you could just draw a frame shape in BikeCAD, pick a few tubes off a catalogue, go to Taiwan and get 100 made and hey presto! You're a bike company.

Ehhhh…. Isn't that exactly what Cy/Brant/others did to get started?!

The main comments from Cotic, Genesis, Ragley all say "yes, you have to think about it, but it's perfectly achievable." Which is not what it says on the On-One site. It actually doesn't say much on the On-One site. Well, that's up to them. I love Inbreds, most recently rode my 853 SS at Puffer '10.

I would like to know which test they failed and how. Certainly passed all my "safety tests" over 5 or so years!

Cheers, al.

Ehhhh…. Isn't that exactly what Cy/Brant/others did to get started?!

Well I have some colourful FEA thingamjigs from 2002 that suggest Cy did a little bit more than that.

apologies, harsh comment re Cotic removed by self.

Ok these are the tests in question.

4.8.2 Frame and front fork assembly – impact test (falling mass)
4.8.2.1 General <basically dropping a mass onto the front forks of a vertically mounted bike> Manufacturers of frames are permitted to conduct the test with a solid-steel bar fitted in place of a front fork.
4.8.2.2 Requirement – When tested by the method described in 4.8.2.3, there shall be no visible cracks or fractures in the assembly and there shall be no separation of any parts of any suspension system. The permanent set measured between the axes of the wheel axles (the wheel-base – see 3.22 and Figure 27) shall not exceed the following values:
a) 30 mm where a fork is fitted;
b) 10 mm where a solid-steel bar is fitted in place of a fork.

4.8.3 Frame and front fork assembly – impact test (falling frame)
4.8.3.1 General <basically slamming the front forks of a loaded frame onto an anvil with the pivot at the rear dropouts>
4.8.3.2 Requirement – When tested by the method described in 4.8.3.3, there shall be no visible cracks or fractures in the assembly and the permanent set measured between the axes of the wheel axles (the wheel-base – see 3.22 and Figure 28) shall
not exceed 60 mm for a frame-fork assembly…

4.8.4 Frame – fatigue test with pedalling forces
4.8.4.1 General <bit long to copy in here>
4.8.4.2 Requirement – When tested by the method described in 4.8.4.3 there shall be no visible cracks or fractures in the frame, and there shall be no separation of any parts of any suspension system.

4.8.5 Frame – fatigue test with horizontal forces
4.8.5.1 General <Secured front fork twisted repeatedly to load frame which is anchored at the rear dropouts>
4.8.5.2 Requirement – When tested by the method described in 4.8.5.3, there shall be no visible cracks or fractures in the frame and there shall be no separation of any parts of any suspension system.

4.8.6 Frame – fatigue test with a vertical force
4.8.6.1 General <bouncing weight of back of sear tube onto a frame/fork combo which is free running at the forks but anchored at the rear dropouts>
4.8.6.2 Requirement – When tested by the method described in 4.8.6.3, there shall be no visible cracks or fractures in the frame and there shall be no separation of any parts of the suspension system.

I'd love to know which one(s) failed because if it's the headtube area that failed 4.8.2 or 4.8.3 with an iron bar fitted then I suspect that an Inbred fitted with any suspension fork will never encounter similar loads. Might have been an own goal going for the "bar test" approach rather than the "fork test" with steel's tendency to deform a 10mm threshold rather than 30mm?

I can't imagine pedal loads 4.8.4 would ever be a problem on a steel frame? Or that 4.8.6 would be a problem with the shock absorbing characteristics of flexy steel stays and tubes? 4.8.5 might be an issue at the headtube welds?

On-One had a bit of a crow about other manufacturers choosing a fork rather than iron bar test approach. Be a bit of hubris if they could've passed the Inbred using the same approach… All credit to the 456 for it's build strength passing the bar test, but it's a different beast.

Maybe On-one will expand on which clauses the frame failed. Could be in their interest, currently there's the possibility that it failed them all…?

PS. I own one (geared) Inbred and am pretty happy with it as a trail/XC bike so I'm a curious owner.

PPS. Full test spec at http://www.baltikvairas.lt/filemanager/download/29/EN%2014766%20.pdf

Ahwiles wrote, (yes, i know you can get a CEN compliant cotic soul, but it's been made less twangy, and twangy is the whole point of an 853 frame)

It rides very much the same tbh, nobody's going to jump on the revised Soul and go "Oh, if only it was an 08 model" IMO. Still nice and compliant, steers a wee bit better with a 140mm fork but then, you weren't supposed to run a 140 in an old model Soul anyway so no wonder. It's not a massive change

the page has vanished from on one