MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Can anyone explain the wierd sizing of 456s?
The Reach between the 16" and 20" frames differs by only 14mm - the 16" and 18" by only 3mm. In my book that's half a size between Small and Large and no discenable difference between Small and Medium.
I did recently buy a C456 in 20" guise as I wanted to have a longer bike with shorter stem but don't really like the gate-like proportions and am wondering if the 18" would've been a better option.
Rides great though.
Am I missing something? From on-one's website....
20" frame TT = 622
18" frame TT = 609
16" frame TT = 600
Still not a big difference but 14mm and 3mm differences? 😉
He's referring to "reach", which is "I" on the pic below.
The different top tube lengths would affect it, but it's a slightly different measurement.
[img] 
[/img]
How long are your legs/arms?
I run a 20" 456, 6'2" but long legs/arms.
I e-mailed on-one earlier in the year when i was considering a 456, told them i was 5' 9" and the official response was to always buy a size too small as its easier to enlarge a small bike with longer seat post, increased layback, longer stem etc....i reckoned an 18 inch was fine for me but they said a 16 inch frame would be better....going by on-one's sizing policy i reckon you'd need to be some kind of gangly freak to need a 20 inch frame!
I have a 16. Very low standover height means miles of post exposed and I'm only 5' 9" ish. Fairly long front end on it means running a very short stem isn't too cramped. Fit is OK, just looks weird when you're in XC mode.
6ft 4" here ride 20". Short legs long in the body.
Well I'm not really a gangly freak - a leggy/army/short torso 6' 1/2" but on-one recommended the 20".
6'1" (33" inside leg, vaguely gangly arms) here, had an 18" with lots of (layback) seat post but always felt a bit little. A weeks riding in Italy finally proved it, I felt like I was falling over the front of it on steep stuff.
Bought a 20" frame, much much better, and the saddle is now pushed most of the way forward on the post. So much so, I'm thinking of sticking a straight post in it.
Thanks IHN, we share the same vital statistics (I think). 20" good.
My post is pretty much in-line and is good with an 80mm stem.
The stated sizing on the web-site, then, is obviously rubbish if there is a good difference between the 'real-world' sizing. (with reference to reach, that is)
Had a steel in 18" & ran straight post & 70mm stem, bought a Ti & dropped to 16". 5"10, 32 inside leg & run a layback post (the Van Nicholas Ti post). 70mm stem currently, although I've found that while the bike feels great in 140mm travel, when I drop forks to 100 or 120mm, I do feel a little too over the front. Tempted to try a shorter stem when running less travel, but in reality, I'n happy running 140mm over most terrain & bike still climbs better than my legs will keep up with currently.