[Closed] Inbred or 456 for 120mm Fork?

Isn't the geometry of the Inbred & 456 pretty much the same?
I thought the 456 was just built a bit tougher.

I've got a 115mm u-turn Reba on my Inbred & it's fine, and I wouldn't have thought an extra 5mm would make much difference.

I run a inbred gen 2 with 130mm fox vanillas. They dont have lockout and are a 2004 model so quite basic. It climbs okay but not the best, i think if it had gears it would be easier as the centre of gravity would be better on steep hills. Going downhill its a good laugh, not as precise as rigid forks but thats to be expected.

2cm isn't that much, I know the angles will change but not a big amount

if you already have the fork but are thinking about a frame, the 456 may work better... but if you have an option on a cheap frame then go for it

My old inbred worked a treat with 120s.
Climbed well and descended like a wild out of control thing (maybe that part was down to me)

If the geometry is the same, does the extra beefiness of the 456 allow it to handle better with a 120mm fork?

i don't think the geometry is the same, the 456 has a slacker headtube to allow for the longer travel forks, so surely it has to be diferent??

According to Brant when I got my 456, they have the same head angle but the 456 is slacker (or is it steeper, I forget now...) on the seat tube. The 456 has a beefier top tube to cope better with longer forks.

a bit soft and wheels on the ground = inbred
otherwise = 456

My 456 was spot on with a 115mm fork most of the time. 130 made it better on the steeper DH stuff.

Oh, he also said, ignore the stated geo as he just made that up to look right for how the bike actually rides...

pickle - Member
i don't think the geometry is the same, the 456 has a slacker headtube to allow for the longer travel forks, so surely it has to be diferent??

That's not what the website says. 456 & Inbred geometry is the same.
Perhaps you are thinking of the 456 Summer Season which has a 2 degree slacker head angle?

120mm = Inbred for me. 🙂

I'd make the decision on how burly/light you want it to be, not on fork travel issues.

456 is much tougher but heavier as a result.

Cant speak for the first generation, but for the latest Inbred 120mm is the absolute perfect length fork.

but heavier as a result.

About 50g, again, according to Brant.

according to Brant

...and what would he know 😆

I ran 115mm Rebas on my Inbred, worked nicely. Now have a 456 frame and some 110-140 Revs to build asap.

I would say 120 is the best compromise on a 456... What Brant learned about fitting long forks to hardtails he took to Ragley... On-One are still producing a frame designed for 100mm forks which can have longer forks put on it (see also Whyte and many others)... but that doesn't actually mean it will ride all that well if you do... all in my humble opinion of course 8)

I had 100-130mm Revs in my Scandal- same geometry as the Inbred. TBH it rode like it was a bit pissed at anything above about 110mm, brilliant down short but anything longer and it wagged... BB felt a little high too. Not horrible, I rode it like that for a long time and just thought that was what longer travel hardtails were like, til I tried a Soul.

So, 456 for me.

Running a 456 with 120mm Maverick SC-32's

I do not think I would go longer cos it handles so well with no low BB issues

The way I read it from On-One the 456 will take anything from 4"-6" with the sweet spot at 5" 130mm

So Messiah, are you suggesting that no current on-one frame would be ideal for a 120mm fork? The Piglet is optimized for 120, but I live in the States, which means I would have to order from CRC. In addition to their own problems, I've been reading about some production issues with Ragley and I would prefer not to be stuck having to deal with a company an ocean away with problems.

I've been reading about some production issues with Ragley and I would prefer not to be stuck having to deal with a company an ocean away with problems.

Just to clear this up, Im sure the production issues Ragley had were sorted before any frames were sold. Brant wouldn't even sell a batch frames just because the paint was slightly wrong.

Is that what I said? Perhaps I should have said 120mm is optimum for the 456 in my opinion, but I used the word compromise to show there are good things about running 100mm or running 140+mm.

It's called the 456 becasue it can takes forks of 4", 5" or 6" travel... 120-130mm is the 5" option which is in the middle and what I would say suits it best. Run 4" or equivalent lenght rigid for XC racing and lazer accuracy, run 5" (120mm) as an all round bike, and go 6" if you want better DH and don't mind the tail wagging the dog on long climbs.

Also - at 120-130mm I would go for an inline post to bring the seat angle back up a few degrees to help with steep seated climbing... just a suggestion mind 😉

I have a mk1 slotdropout inbred and have 80-130mm Revs. It feels best at 115mm. Less is twitchy, more , it wanders, but ok for the downhill. The bike was originally advertised at 4-5" until the CEN came in and then it said MAx 100mm. I notice the new SDO Inbreds are back to 4-5" again...

I agree 100% with phinw, my 853 Inbred is at 115 most of the time. Fitting U turns to it was the best thing I did after struggling with fixed 130mm forks for too long

My 456s seem happier with something longer on the front most of the time ....save for climbing