130mm forks – Inbred or 456?

Home Forum Bike Forum 130mm forks – Inbred or 456?

Viewing 32 posts - 1 through 32 (of 32 total)
  • 130mm forks – Inbred or 456?
  • I'm normally the one replying to these sorts of questions, but I've got myself in a bit of a muddle and could do with some advice from the STW collective wisdom!

    Bascially, I've just got a cracking deal on some Manitou Minute 130mm forks (with 20mm bolt thru) to run on my hardtail – which is likely to be ss most of the time – i've got both a 456 and an inbred at my disposal, but I can't decide which would be the better choice…

    I have a full suss, so most of the riding I'll do on it will be hacking around woods – however, it will still need to handle some technical drops and maybe small jumps, not much steep climbing though. (All post-pregancy – don't worry!)

    I'm about 7.5 stone (or was pre-pregancy!) so don't need a burly frame and I really like the 'flex' of steel.. so I was definitely thinking inbred (which I've had before and loved), I'm just not sure how it'll handle a 130mm fork (previously I've run 100-110mm forks on one and it was ace).

    I know it technically can take up to 130mm – I just don't know if a 456 would be better suited to it as this is bang in the middle of the travel it's designed for.

    So any experiences/thoughts?

    Anyone running an inbred with 130s?

    Cheers!

    hora
    Member

    Personally I would try the forks on both- why not! πŸ™‚

    Could do, but they're brand new so might loose a bit of cash by trying them out… plus I'm a bit lazy and don't want to fit headset, BB and cranks etc two or three times!

    grumm
    Member

    I'm about 7.5 stone

    Get yourself bulked up a bit for christs sake! πŸ˜›

    I'm sure I read a few people on here people said the normal inbred felt a bit boat like with a longer fork so I think the 456 might be better – I'm sure some of them will be along shortly.

    Thanks Grumm! I'm not that skinny though, must just have light bones! πŸ˜€

    Mind due, pregnancy probably will oblige with the 'bulking up' for quite some months πŸ˜•

    Thanks for the advice, it'll certainly be worth hearing how people find them…

    clubber
    Member

    If it's for Bristol the I prefer the inbred – it's just a fraction quicker steering. Both work spot on at 130 though for singletrack riding I tend to drop the travel to 115 just to make it that fraction quicker still.

    Cheers clubber! Yeah, it'll be almost solely Bristol riding, that's good to hear as I prefer the colour of the inbred πŸ˜€

    clubber
    Member

    Cool πŸ™‚

    matthewlhome
    Member

    i run 130mm revelations on my singlespeed inbred. It's great. I wind them down for riding round the edge of fields at home, but for 90% of the time i run them full height at 130mm. That is for singletrack and woodland blasting. And they were fine for riding at Lee Quarry at the weekender too. If you are running SS most of the time then the standard inbred would be better ( assuming slot dropout).

    I also have a summer season with 100mm forks, and it is a bit heavier than the standard one, and a heck of a lot lazier πŸ™‚

    Cool!

    Yeah, I'm definitely thinking inbred is the way forward then!

    Edit – right, refund on the 456 sorted, so inbred it is. Done and now I can stop obsessing about it!

    renton
    Member

    whoops!!

    i can answer this.

    i had a pair of revelations on a standard inbred , ran at 130mm travel i found the front end would wonder about on steep climbs.

    i stuck them on a 456 frame and it was like night and day different. the front end on the 456 just stuck to the floor and was so much better at climbing than the normal bred!

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    456 definately, I ran 100-130mm Revs on my Scandal (same geometry as an Inbred) and it wasn't very good at all at full length. Descended nicely but really inaccurate and clumsy all the rest of the time. With up to 110mm or so it was mint mind but it just doesn't ride like it's designed for the forks. I'd have another Scandal like a shot but I wouldn't put more than 110 in it.

    clubber
    Member

    Interesting to hear that Renton as I've never found it an issue though I do use fairly long stems (100 – 110mm) as befits my height. Can't say I noticed any difference when climbing on the 456 with near identical setup.

    clubber
    Member

    And northwind's post suggests more info needed. Stem length, bar height, saddle position, fork model, etc.

    renton
    Member

    here you go ……….

    inbred set up..

    456set up…

    Oh dear, that's not good news… πŸ™„

    Any reasons why there's such a difference of opinion, or do you think it's simply personal preference?

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Ah, clubber, good shout. Think I had an 80mm or possibly 90mm stem on that with fairly low bars, in an attempt to tame it a bit. No layback on the saddle. I ended up moving all that kit unchanged directly to my Soul which descends just as well while being much more accurate and agile. Though at the downside of costing me something like 800% of the cost of my Scandal frame πŸ˜‰

    I think, if I'm fair, I tolerated the Scandal as it was- I more or less thought "If this is the price of the long fork then that's fair enough" because I'd not ridden anything more suited to the fork. Then I did a testride on a Soul and every time I rode the Scandal after that it drove me nuts. It's not really fair to compare an Inbred or Scandal to a Soul because of the price difference but then I rode a 456 (and a P7) and found they both had a similiar effect, though neither to the same extent as the soul did.

    matthewlhome
    Member

    don't worry. the geometry on the two models isn's massively different. Wandery forks shouldn't be too much of a problem on a SS as you will likely be stood up stomping on hills anyway. I have to say I find the comments about the inbred being wandery odd (although i haven't ridden a normal 456) as i find the summer season much more wandery uphill even with shorter forks.

    For SS and hacking about in the woods I would always pick my standard inbred with 130s.

    Thanks Matt, it's good to have some reassurance!

    Thanks Northwind for your analysis – it is interesting. I think I'm going to stick with my inbred decision (with low bars, inline post, etc) and see how it goes – i guess worst case scenario I can step the forks down but hopefully I'll find it okay like some of the others.

    Just out of interest though – do you run your forks hard or soft would you say? And did the fork have a particularly tall axle to crown measurement?

    matthewlhome
    Member

    with sort of between 25-30% sag on them. I get almost all of the travel out of the air sprung revelations when ragging it. Soft enough to be fairly comfy, but just the hard side of divey with minimum compression damping on.

    But I am not the worlds most 'rad' rider so some would perhaps go harder.

    Premier Icon takisawa2
    Subscriber

    Is 20mm bolt-thru a bit overkill for a 7.5st rider on a SS Inbred ?

    mamadirt
    Member

    You should be fine with an Inbred. I tried 130mm Bombers on my older Inbred (80-100mm recommended forks iirc) – a bit choppered out but a riot on the downhills. The Minutes are much lower axle to crown anyway so should be fine – my original pair of 120mm Minutes were spot on (in fact, if I find their new 100mm Christmas replacements too short for the Tazer, they'll definitely have a place on the front of the lil red'bred).

    takisawa2 – Member

    Is 20mm bolt-thru a bit overkill for a 7.5st rider on a SS Inbred ?

    I wondered the same at 8.5 stone before swapping to bolt-thru but I'd never go back. The Minutes are not as stiff as the Marz 55s I've been using but are a world apart from the q/r Drop Offs I had previously – perfect forks for a lighter rider.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Is 20mm bolt-thru a bit overkill for a 7.5st rider on a SS Inbred ?

    Personally, I use a 20mm hub for the security, the stiffness issue is a nice bonus. FWIW, I'd have gone with the 456, but it's a personal thing, the 'bred will be cool.

    clubber
    Member

    This is my inbred set up for Bristol with the forks probably at 115 (though it could have been 130 as I generally don't notice the difference unless I've just made it as it's pretty marginal ). 110mm stem, low rise bars, lay back seatpost with saddle roughly in the middle

    the only time I've noticed the steering getting a bit wandery with the fork at 130 is only really steep stuff and even then it's been manageable. Nothing in Bristol has been an issue
    mind v

    Thanks for the feeback guys, yeah decision made so let's hope it works out!

    Nice pics Mamadirt – like you say, hopefully the minutes will be okay – and I think they're definitely gonna look sweet on the inbred! πŸ˜€

    takisawa2 – yeah, I understand your logic and did wonder the same before I tried bolt-thru (I was a little cynical about the whole stiffness argument), but just because I'm light doesn't mean I don't ride fast and hard (sometimes at least!). When I rode my 100mm xc bike at trail centres – it always used to surprise me how many bigger guys on 5" full suss trail bikes (in armour!) I used to overtake with relative ease!

    Anyway, like Mamadirt – once I tried bolt-thru there was no going back – they just track soo much better! I know it's less of an issue for Bristol riding (and wouldn't have bothered unless the Minutes had been such a good deal) but on berms and down techy descents, the difference was incredible and they'll be good for a bit of jumping – if I go that way. Plus the great thing about the minutes is they're also lighter than my rebas! Result 8)

    Anyway, thanks again for the advice and comments guys – and especially for the pics (Clubber – my goodness, you're a tall man aren't you!)

    I'll let you know how I get on, but it'll probably be at least the Summer before I get to give it a proper go πŸ™ in the meantime I'll have to amuse myself with building it up and making it look pretty! πŸ˜€

    Thanks again, MM

    PeterPoddy
    Member

    Just to buck the trend a little bit, I used to run 115mm Rebas on my Inbred and they never felt 'enough'. I was looking for some Revs but came up with some silly cheap Vanillas with 140mm of travel (Β£145 brand new in Canada on holiday!) so I stuck them on. To be honest they are spot on for me and I certainly wouldn't swap them for anything shorter now

    Premier Icon takisawa2
    Subscriber

    takisawa2 – yeah, I understand your logic and did wonder the same before I tried bolt-thru (I was a little cynical about the whole stiffness argument), but just because I'm light doesn't mean I don't ride fast and hard (sometimes at least!). When I rode my 100mm xc bike at trail centres – it always used to surprise me how many bigger guys on 5" full suss trail bikes (in armour!) I used to overtake with relative ease!

    No worries. Only mentioned it because I put some Pikes on a Soul & it felt a bit "over-forked" if you know what I mean. Made the frame feel very flexy. Sounds like you know your stuff though, & your style of riding will benefit no end. I'd not go back to Q/R now.
    May it be a good/long/hot summer for you. πŸ™‚

    Premier Icon billyboy
    Subscriber

    I would go with the 456 for that fork………..but……….

    I can't give a direct answer as I've never ridden an Inbred with 130 forks. I can tell you that 456s will ride ok with travel set at 100/110 on 32 Talas/Air Pike and Air Revelation Forks… but they do feel happier for the majority of riding with travel at 130. I can also say that on a non adjustable 130 Pace Air RC41 fork you can manage most things but a travel adjust fork definately aids steeper climbs.

    I personally would not put a 130 fork on a frame designed for 80/100 as a result of a bad experience I had on a mate's bike. He had taken a Titanium frame designed for a rigid fork (Circa 1990ish) and put a 100mm Rockshock fork on it. Everytime you headed up a slight hill the front end started to lift but it also wiped out on me on a fast flowing twisty downhill which I had done a hundred times before on several other bikes with no problems. There were no other aggravating factors and we put it down to the set up. He is partially sighted and he had been putting his numerous crashes on that bike down to his eyesight. He has now abandoned the thing and his crash rate has returned to a rather more normal level.

    A rule I have heard quoted by more than one bike mechanic is………. never go more than 20mm either side of the recommended travel for the frame. I followed that rule with a Kona hardtail some years back when I changed to a fork with more travel and it worked ok, but definately compromised the climbing ability a little.

    BUT…..if you have folks on here who say they have tried this particular combo and are saying it has worked then hopefully they know more than me and are right.

    clubber
    Member

    Inbreds are designed for 100 – 130mm forks… (well not the first ones which were 80 – 100 but all others)

    renton
    Member

    as you can see from my pictures i had 130mm forks.

    both cockpits are the same(stem length bars etc.

    the inbred was a 20"
    the 456 was a 18"

    i dont know why but the 456 climbed better, might have had something to do with the steepr seat angle on the 456 putting more weight over the front

    i had to get rid of them though as i always felt like i was to low at the front and going down steep bits i was putting a lot of weight through my wrists.

    still very nice bikes which ever you choose

    hora
    Member

    Renton 115-160 Lyriks would have sorted that?

    Cheers guys!

    Takisawa2 – it's nice that you think I 'know my stuff' πŸ™‚ I may well find teh frame a bit flexy with the bolt-thru – if I do end up changing my mind and going for a 456 in the long-run it won't be a big deal, I quite like building and fettling with bikes anyway! Still, we'll see – and cheers I hope my Summer is like that too!

    PeterPoddy – yep, well I think this thread definitely shows that everyone has different tastes and preferences! At least I'm fairly confident the 130s will be 'enough' for me! πŸ˜€

    Billyboy – Thanks for the words of warning, but as Clubber says, the more modern inbreds are built to take up to 130mm so there shouldn't be any risk involved.

    Renton – yeah, I think the steaper seat angle does make the 456 climb better, I think I recall Brant saying that anyway. Thankfully Bristol riding isn't massively hilly or steep, so I should be okay! Like I say – it'll be interesting to see how I get on anyway… man I'm a geek! πŸ˜€

Viewing 32 posts - 1 through 32 (of 32 total)

The topic ‘130mm forks – Inbred or 456?’ is closed to new replies.