[Closed] On One 456 with 160mm forks?

too much imo
is at its best on 140mm.
what trail centres are you riding that warrant 160mm up front?!!

+1 140mm

It does though ride fine with my talas 36's (150mm) run with plenty of sag.

i run mine with talas 36's on and its fine. Must be some fairly hardcore trail centre for 160mm 😮

I use my 456 Summer Season with some 2007 Marzocchi Bomber Z1s that have 160mm of travel and love hacking about on it. I think 150mm would perhaps be ideal, but it descends and ascends fine with a 60mm stem and no risers. I live on the edge of Dartmoor, so I am mostly riding steep stuff. However, it has been fine on flatter terrain like Haldon. If you've already got the forks, I'd go for it!

I recently went on a ride with a guy who has designed the new aluminium 456 and he wasn't sure about the angles. However, I was faster than him and I guess that's the ultimate test?!

I've got a choice of forks for my Carbon 456, when it arrives, of RS Lyrik U-Turn (160 to 115mm) or Magura Laurin 130s. Not sure which to put on as while the Lyriks might be overkill at 160, I can wind them down too.

Tough call.

+1 for fine with fox 36 talas
I don't run extra sag, I run the right amount of sag 😉

I had 160mm Fox 36's on my 456ti as they were the only forks I had when I got the frame. They did have a slightly softer spring than I would normally run though

TBH it rode Ok and was an absolute blast but now has 140mm Magura Thors on it. Way lighter, not just as much of a blast but still good.

If I ever took it to the Alps I'd put the 36's back on.

Run Float 150's on my Ti 456 and love it - much better than the Pikes previously.

I've gone ridged with mine at the moment and loving it. I am doing some bigger stuff in a few weeks so the fox's at about 120mm will br on. 160 would be over kill. Although it would look bloody good.

Depends where you ride. To be honest I started riding mine about at 140 all the time unless going uphill steeply. In the end I thought the handling on the flat twisty singletrack was better at 120mm with it wound back out to 140 for the downhill. Can't see the point in more travel than that or an even more relaxed head angle on a medium weight hardtail, or the need to drag around any more weight - not sure you would be any faster downhill and will almost certainly be slower on the flat and uphill. I guess it depends if performance riding it or looking cool resting against the cafe wall are most important to you 😀

Bear in mind that Fox and Magura are typically 10mm shorter axle to crown than Rockshox, so in terms of head angle etc. i.e. 150mm Fox = 140mm Rockshox

And conversely changing from a 140 fox(510mm) to a 160 Lyrik (545mm) will change the head angle by 2 degrees.

i'm not mocking anyone, but i have a question for youse long-forkers up there;

do you actually use the 160mm travel? - have you checked? with zipties etc?

or is it a handling thing - do you like the slacker head angle you get with longer forks?

Have to agree. Apart from proper gnarly jumps (which I confess I know absolutely nothing about, but would question if that's what the 456 is intended for), any lump that takes the front end of a hardtail through 160mm of travel is going give you one hell of a smack up the arse 0.1secs later when the rear end gets to the same point. Unless of course you choose to ride with huge amounts of sag, rendering the bike a sloppy blancmange for the all other aspects of the trail.

Perhaps we should stop talking about travel length and focus on axle-crown length as I suspect most folks are really talking about handling when they discuss which fork is best for which bike etc.

I was pondering this Q myself... Carbon 456, slightly wound down lyriks... hmmm.

As for travel use, simply see what bits are dirty at the end of the ride, or listen for the clang on landings 😀

160 on a 456 is great as long as you can drop the front for climbing. I normally use about 140mm on my AM2's but have used the full 160 when getting things a bit wrong.

any lump that takes the front end of a hardtail through 160mm of travel is going give you one hell of a smack up the arse 0.1secs later when the rear end gets to the same point.

my 456 feels best with about 120 on its Pikes. 160 might be okay for really steep stuff but I can't imagine it'll feel good everywhere else.

I'm gonna get a 456 carbon, already bought a set of 140 rl fox 32's with the taper head and 15mm axle, so hope it builds into a nice, fast and tough bike. I'm 6,3 and they only do the mediums (18in), anyone had exprience of the sizing of the 456, i want the bike to feel small, but would this be too small?

My other bike is a 08 enduro in a large, and that feels about right, but does make for a big bike. So hope the 456 will make for a nice alternative for short rides and riding to work with.

If it doesn't fit you Al, il buy it off you 😉

i'm 6ft but like longer bikes, with a 60mm stem a 18" 456 is ace, tried a 16" but it was only really good on twisty stuff, couldn't climb on it at all.

maybe buy a 20" off the classifides and have a play before splahing out on the carbon one?

I'm 6ft4 on a 20" with a 60mm stem and a touch of layback on the seatpost. I reckon I could get away with an 18" length wise with a longer stem but would struggle to get a decent pedalling position even with a 400mm seatpost.

6'3" on a 18 is just about doable but you'll need a longish stem I suspect.

I'm 5'11" and run a 70mm which is spot-on. You'll need maybe 90-110 which will slow the steering down a tad, and pitch you further forward. Still could be okay but depends on how you like your steering.

ok, cheers for the info guys, i think i'll try the 18 and see what happens.

look out for a "FS 456 carbon" in a few weeks time 😀