[Closed] 456 Evo 2 - 120mm forks?

I used to run 130mm on my old 456, it was nigh on perfect, I presume on the slacker evo it'd be similar just with a lower BB?

I'm running 130mm on my evo 2. It seems to work for me. If it's too high I can always slam the stem.

I tend to prefer a bike that can cope with rocky and rooty stuff and if that means I have to muscle it a bit more around corners then so be it. Running my bike the way I do, I am conscious that I have to really 'complete' turns, not just relying on it snapping around on its own.

Anyhow, it is axle-crown height that is really important here I think.

Oh, BTW mine also has an on one smoothie regular headset which adds a good 10mm to the head tube length when the bearings are up against the race.

In my experience, I prefer bikes that you can get low on and weight the fork as a conscious thing, rather than the opposite way around.

I can tell you're getting tempted, for the money you really won't regret it.

Apologies for the slight thread hi-jack, but what does the Evo 2 provide over the Evo or even the Inbred?

I think I am going to complete my hardtail upgrade with an Evo 2 frame but would be running 130 U-Turn Tora's on it. This will be my local woods, XC / trail, dad-duty machine. I have a Pitch for bigger and bouncier days, so I will be not building this bike up too hardcore.

I have seen many Inbreds, 456 and C456's being thrown about so I know they are very versatile.

I've tried my normal 456 with 120, 130 and 150 mm, and it's fine on any of them, takes a bit more weight over the front to make it round uphill switch-backs the longer the fork is, but the pay back is that it is more relaxed going down steep stuff.

If it's too high I can always slam the stem.

What does that mean?

Move the spacers around I guess?

Very tempted DannyH, I'm currently riding an inbred hack bike (rigid, ss) the most, having also just upgraded my Genesis (120mm reba's, hope/mavic wheels, renthal bars, hope stem, thomson post etc - and hardly ridden it since....), but every time I jump on it, it just feels so slow, and dead.

Building my Evo up with 120mm Rebas, looks plenty slack enough. I believe Evo2 is same geo, just lighter tubing and revised seattube for droppers.

but every time I jump on it, it just feels so slow, and dead

Which bike are you referring to here, the Inbred or the Genesis? If it's the Genesis I assume it's the Core?

It might be good to figure out what it is about your current bike that makes it feel "slow and dead" before shelling out for a new frame. Is it not very lively in the corners or just difficult to pedal up to speed?

I'm talking about the genesis yeah, it's a 2011 Core. Just feels slow to pedal up to speed, and I'd have to say not very lively in the corners too, handling's a bit wooden feeling, but I am running wide bars.

I'm gonna get out and ride as much as poss. over xmas period, nealry 3 weeks off, so I'll see how I get on, but considering options if I don't get on with it. I may swap good bits over onto my inbred for a while and see how that feels.

For the record, I think the Evo2 is a really good frame, but it's the kind of bike you need to really thrash to get the most out of. It's a lot slacker than your core, 65.7 vs 71 degrees and so not likely to feel "lively" until pointed downhill at speed.

Had a 456summer season with 130's on it and it was plenty slack enough, to ride dh and tech trails. Also not to much work handling wise on the ups. Isn't the evo2 similar geo to the summer season?

If it's too high I can always slam the stem.

What does that mean?

Yes sorry about that - I lapsed into MBR speak. At least I haven't just ranted on about how the bike really needs a 45 degree head angle, 1000mm width bars and a 1mm stem.

When you describe the core as feeling 'wooden' and dead I know where you are coming from, but not in a completely 'my core was rubbish my evo is brilliant' way.

The core is bound to feel more 'wooden' as it is a fairly large tubed alu frame (particularly in the rear triangle - which is where compliance is best in my opinion). The trade off here is that it will be a lighter frame than the steel evo - so if you pop it around and 'ride light' you won't notice the lack of compliance as much. Unless you are a very competent and very fit rider, however, this will tire you out quickly!

The evo keeps my legs fresher on descents due to its extra compliance, I have no doubt of this - trails that were a series of 'slams' on the core just have the edge taken off of them by the evo frame. It compensates for my lack of fitness and skill if you like - which is a good thing in my book!

As stated above, for whipping around smoothish woodland singletrack, the core is probably better suited. It is steeper and so flicks around easier. However I would rather have a bike that is a bit more work on 'easier' stuff, but that is more capable on bigger stuff. You definitely have to make sure you [u]complete[/u] corners on the evo as if you don't, it leaves you out of shape for the next one (this is the chief 'bad' trait of slack head angles for me).

Again as previously stated, I do not pretend to be a good climber, so the slack angle doesn't bother me - I'll get there in the end - and enjoy blasting down the other side.

Anyhow - I'm now in danger of over-analysing it - I prefer the evo2, it makes me feel a better rider than the Core did - and surely that's the point?!

Yeah, I reckon so, some good points in there that make a lot of sense to me.

I'm thinking that I perhaps won't be doing enough of the 'gnarr' stuff to warrant the slackness of the evo2 as it may compromise the rest of my riding too much. I'm not sure whether it's the rigid forks on my inbred, or the steel that I'm liking so much - I'll have to experiment a bit I think.

My riding is more XC with a bit of harder trail thrown in I guess, I ride F.O.D., Cwmcarn, Hopton, Mortimer Forest, Nant yr Arian, plus some local forests and bits and pieces. Maybe if it's the steel 'zing' that I'm after an inbred would be a better choice, or a soul...........