I’ve just acquired a 160mm travel fork which I probably intend to reduce for use on my good old 456SS, but veering towards the long end of the travel range has just crossed my mind…

Will it become the unholy Barge imagine? or is there some merit to having it in silly travel mode?

Depends on the axle-to-crown height of the fork, and also if you can reduce travel to 150mm….

160mm is 6.3″ – so technically you’d be over the six inches.

I use 140 on a carbon 456 its ok just for climbs but not ideal
if i did not have travel adjust I would go 120 mm personally as a decent compromise

The SS is already slack enough, I have a Lyrik on mine but run it at 130. On the few occasions I’ve tried it with the forks fully open it just feels like a bag of spanners – BB too high and any slight incline has you popping the front up way too easily

IIRC Brant designed it around a 100mm fork.

I’m more just wondering what others general experiences of a 456/~150mm fork combo were, hoping people will push me one way or another.

The currently fitted fork is 110mm which is OK, I was more likely to go up to 120 – 130ish, but then having just about any travel / A-C figure available as an option ha me thinking.

The fork can be reduced no problem, I shall be breaking out the spanners to do it this weekend probably, if I decide on a travel setting…

IIRC Brant designed it around a 100mm fork.

Then why market it as a 4″, 5″, 6″ capable frame?

Wouldn’t personally – I find my C456 best at 120mm, and I love it!

I thought it was 120mm. And IME On One will retain warranty with a 160mm fork. I ran a 160 Fox 36 on mine. No issues.

i used mine in france with a 6 inch fork

great for decending

brought it back to the uk HATED the bike – really wandered in climbs – couldnt get far enough forwards

– stuck a 100mm fork on it and once again it could climb – but still had a nice head angle for decending …

160mm is 6.3″ – so technically you’d be over the six inches.

Yes, thanks I shall be reducing their travel, I have yet to decide what to…

This is how it looks at present:

I’ve been pretty much OK with that old pair of QR DJ3s set at 110mm for a quite while now, but they are a bit firm for the descents, getting on quite a bit, and I fancied trying to find a plusher 20mm axled fork…

So I’ve just acquired some “Fixer-uper” OEM AM4s with a 20mm axle (I think they probably came off of a Commencal), pretty much the same fork as the DJs, a basic open bath 32mm stantion fork but with more travel, and a piece of piss to space down…

Cheap frame, Cheap forks that’s just the way I roll…

xiphon – Member

Then why market it as a 4″, 5″, 6″ capable frame?

The 456SS specifically was recommended for a shorter fork, because of the extra slackness – would probably be insanely slack at the upper end of fork travel in a way that the regular 456 ouldn’t

Then why market it as a 4″, 5″, 6″ capable frame?

Can it really just be marketing spiel? Is it true that the bike industries claims are but hollow half truths and lies 😉

Yeah I think I’m filing 6″ forks on a 456SS under the Heading “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”

I think I’ve been dissauded from 150mm, 140mm seems a bit much too, so I’m settling in the 120-130 range… Hmmm

125, middle for diddle 😉

There’s more than 10mm between a 32 stanchioned 150mm fork and a 36 at 160 too.

honourablegeorge – Member
There’s more than 10mm between a 32 stanchioned 150mm fork and a 36 at 160 too.

OK, but I’m replacing a 32mm Marzocchi fork with another, slightly newer 32mm Marzocchi fork which I will be adjusting the travel / A-C on as required… so that’s not likely to be a problem I’ll face…

Here’s mine I built up to do last years Sam houghton challenge. I thought it rode really well. Descending was great fun, and to be honest the climbs weren’t as bad as I thought they’d be.

I did sometimes, tbh I didn’t like it, the extra slack was nice but the extra BB height and loss of control/extra suspension movement was less nice. And it’s hard to make use of all that travel to be frank! 140mm worked well. (I eventually slacked mine off with a works headset, best of both worlds IMO)

Just taken 120mm Rebas off my Ti456 and replaced with RC41 150mm, as I felt it was a bit under forked with the Rebas. 150 might be a bit too far though, hard to tell till the water subsides a bit.

I made the mistake of putting a 160 Van R on my steel 456, and it was horrible. Hard to pedal well, and on any climb hard to stop the front wandering and lifting. I’ve also run it with a Fox 100 RLT, and couldn’t get on with either, found the ride hard and unforgiving. Its now has a 130mm coil Tora on it and it’s much more pleasurable to ride…..

I found a 150mm 36 was fine on my steel 456, but just seem to ‘overpower’ my 456Ti (weight I think). I then ran a 140mm Thor for three years.

Now replaced with a new 150 Rev, which is working brill.

The 36 Talas on my SS go up to 150mm but the novelty wore off after one ride at that height. The bike really doesn’t need that much travel to bomb down hills so i keep them low (110) most of the time but go up to 130 on occasions. I’d go with 120 on a non adjustable fork.

I run some 2009 rev dual air u turns on my 456. Pretty much leave them in 140mm travel all the time unless it’s a long uphill climb then I lock them out or if it’s a technical climb I wind them all the way down too. When the revs are in for service I run a set of marazochi 55Rs. A bit weighty and no lockout but equally as much fun on the descents.

I use Revelation Dual Position Airs at 120mm or 150mm. Fantastic.