On-One 456 Carbon v. Ibis Tranny- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,965

    On-One 456 Carbon v. Ibis Tranny

    Pondering building one of these two as a singlespeed. I've seen a couple of reviews of the Tranny, but can't find any reviews of the On-one 456 Carbon. Thoughts on these two bikes? Both appear to be SS'able and gear-able, with similar weights (~1500g.) The On-one can go up to a 160mm fork, while the Tranny appears to be limited to a 100 (or so.) I don't travel/fly with a bike, so the ability to take the Tranny apart doesn't really do much for me, but I haven't had good luck with sliding dropout frames either. The geometry of the On-one isn't my style - I like a longer ETT; the XL Tranny may fit me a tad bit better.
    The On-one is also half the price of the Tranny. The combination of the longer fork-ability and the price is making me lean towards the On-one.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    i'd go with the tranny if you can swing it. I almost bought one myself.
    My buddy (who wrote the mtbr tranny review). Has been riding the crap out of his for almost a year, and he's not easy on his bikes. The chain tension has not been an issue whatsoever with that frame. He NEVER has to adjust it.
    As for the fork, both bikes have a head tube angle within 1/2 a degree of eachother. This means that the fork on the on-one can be about 10mm longer than the tranny to achieve the same head tube angle. With that said, the on-one is going to handle like dog **** with anything much over that. Just because the frame can handle the leverage of the longer fork doesnt mean the geometry will be any good. The tranny might be able to handle the same length fork, but Ibis isnt going to advertise that because they know it'll handle like crap and they dont endorse that kind of stuff.

  3. #3
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,965
    I had considered that "forkability" and handling issue. I had a Soul Cycles Hooligan for a while and briefly experimented with a Revelation on it (as opposed to the Reba I had been running.) Could it handle the Revelation? Yes. Did I like the handling? No.

    I like Ibis (Scot helped me out financially with a local bike-related community project, so I feel like I owe him one) but....$1400 for a hardtail frame seems extreme. I don't take baths in krugerands, so coughing up that much cash for a bike I'd ride about 1x per week....dunno. Hard to swallow. Having owned a couple of steel On-ones, I know they're decent frames, but I have no idea what they're doing for/with carbon. I'd love to hear some sort of user review of the 456 Carbon.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    dunno about "handling like crap"... nothing works the way it' supposed to outside of it's design parameters, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

    there's a guy on the ibis forum, running a 160mm fox 36 on his tranny... check him out and ask him.
    my take: the tranny's a xc racer/ light trailbike, the on-one's a heavy trailbike/ am hardtail.

    where does your terrain and riding style fall?

    for me the COMPLETE lack of tire/mud clearance in the tranny kills it.
    2.2's? 2.3's? but not with mud?
    you'd think something named "tranny" would be more willing to get really dirty. (that's the SFW version of that joke)

    BUT I'd rather get a tranny specifically for the travel-bike abilities.
    well that and because I figured out that a niner carbon fork fits perfectly and only weighs 550 grams and i already have the fork...
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  5. #5
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by byknuts
    dunno about "handling like crap"... nothing works the way it' supposed to outside of it's design parameters, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

    ..
    it may work if you're going straight. But if your trail (geometry trail, not the trail you're riding) is all effed up because your bike is all raked out then it's going to push through every corner and you're likely to end up on your face. It's really not a matter of opinion, it's fact. If someone only wants to go jump off of rocks or bomb steep downhills and tripod every corner, then it may work out for them, but there is a definite compromise. Of course a good amount of fork offset will help with the trail issue, and i dont know what these bigger forks run for offset.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mighty Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    584
    @ earthpig

    don't you have a big black jabberwocky?
    Ride & Smile

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    more trail just means slower handling... short stem, wider bars, sorted!
    compensate maaaan!

    I'm just saying that when I ran the 888 on my giant acid, yes it looked goofy! but up and down and over hill and dale I went.
    could also corner while pedalling because my bb was absurdly high!!
    noone got hurt, nothing untoward happened, it handled like a HT downhiller instead of a dirt jumper. (which I guess it kind of was)
    but you can adjust how the bike feels to YOU by changing the controls (stem and bars) to largely negate the slowed steering you feel from the bike.

    I agree, a 160 on the tranny is definitely pushing the bike out of it's design parameters, but if the bike's parameters don't match your riding then there's nothing to do but try something new. (new bike or new parameters)

    just because it's effed up on paper, doesn't mean it's not working perfectly for you on the trails.
    if SOME people weren't looking for front wheel stability, why are there so many 29'er front wheels out there?
    (he says to the guy running a custom built Siren 69er... ahem cough cough)

    again- tranny good, but bad mud clearance.
    on-one good, but no travel-bike breakdown.
    tranny's geo starts around 80mm and seems to start being "out of range" around 120mm.
    on one's starts about 100 and goes to 160.
    so again to OP, where's your riding zone in that range?
    they both ping a certain desire in me... but WOW would the builds be different from one to the other!
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  8. #8
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,965
    OP here, back to reclaim my thread.

    First, something was said comparing the two frames (ala one as a light, XC/trail bike, the other as a heavy AM/trail bike.) The weight of the two frames is about equal (or so I've heard.) Ibis advertises 1350g, but real world purchasers report 1500g. On One reports 1500g (so it's probably heavier.) I don't think .25 - .3 lb is going to make that much of a difference. A toss up.

    As for "riding zone," I have a couple of forks I could run - a dual air U-turn Reba (85-110) or a dual air U-turn Revelation (110-140.) Clearly, either fork would work on the On-one, but I'd likely not run the Revelation on the Ibis. I'm usually a "longer fork is better" kind of guy, but it seems little silly to throw a 140mm fork on a 3.3 lb hardtail frame. While this would be built for SS duty, the versatility to swap on gears and a long fork is intriguing. A toss up on this one too.

    As for mud clearance, we don't ride in the mud around here. Add rain/moisture to our trails and they turn into a heavy, muddy goo that hardens to concrete. The kind of sticky mud that clogs the widest of stays. Plus, I'd be running no larger than a 2.1 - 2.2 tire anyway. Another toss up.

    Travel-ability - frankly, this one is sorta irrevelant. I don't fly with a bike - never have, and don't have any plans to do so, nor do I see any good reason to do so. So, the fact that the Tranny breaks apart doesn't really matter. But, on the other hand, it sounds like the tensioning system on the Tranny works really well, or at least as well or better than the best tensioning systems out there. I've had bad luck with sliding dropouts slipping before, but it looks like the swap out drops on the 456 aren't "sliding drops," but horizontal/track ends - and I don't have a bolt-on rear hub. Again, a toss up.

    Fit/geometry - based on the ETT alone, the XL Tranny looks like it would fit better than the 20" 456. I demoed an L Tranny, and it felt a little small. But, 73 degree seat tube angles are a bit steeper than I'd like. So, the ability to run a longer fork on the 456 (and the resulting slacker SA) is a bonus. Another toss up.

    Price - About $800 shipped (from the UK) for the 456, compared to over $1400 shipped for the Tranny. That said, I really don't know (and haven't heard much) about the quality of On-one's carbon frames. I know that Ibis makes a high-quality product. Ibis' warranty is 3 years; On-one's appears to be 2 years. Advantage, probably On-one.

    Intangibles - Again, I know Scot Nicol and he definitely has invested some time/effort/money to help me with a project. I kinda feel like I owe him and Ibis. And, in this economy, I feel somewhat compelled to "buy Amuricun." Advantage, Ibis.

    I dunno. I feel all tossed up.

  9. #9
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,478
    Unreal Cycles has the carbon On-One for $695.

    http://mtb.unrealcycles.com/catalog/item585.htm

  10. #10
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by byknuts
    more trail just means slower handling... short stem, wider bars, sorted!
    compensate maaaan!

    I'm just saying that when I ran the 888 on my giant acid, yes it looked goofy! but up and down and over hill and dale I went.
    could also corner while pedalling because my bb was absurdly high!!
    noone got hurt, nothing untoward happened, it handled like a HT downhiller instead of a dirt jumper. (which I guess it kind of was)
    but you can adjust how the bike feels to YOU by changing the controls (stem and bars) to largely negate the slowed steering you feel from the bike.

    I agree, a 160 on the tranny is definitely pushing the bike out of it's design parameters, but if the bike's parameters don't match your riding then there's nothing to do but try something new. (new bike or new parameters)

    just because it's effed up on paper, doesn't mean it's not working perfectly for you on the trails.
    if SOME people weren't looking for front wheel stability, why are there so many 29'er front wheels out there?
    (he says to the guy running a custom built Siren 69er... ahem cough cough)

    again- tranny good, but bad mud clearance.
    on-one good, but no travel-bike breakdown.
    tranny's geo starts around 80mm and seems to start being "out of range" around 120mm.
    on one's starts about 100 and goes to 160.
    so again to OP, where's your riding zone in that range?
    they both ping a certain desire in me... but WOW would the builds be different from one to the other!
    bars and stem have nothing to do with trail, nor will they compensate for it being out of wack.

    I think your math is a bit off, why is the tranny's range only 40mm, and the on-one is 60mm? The on-one is probably closer to 90-130 unless you have a rediculous amount of sag on anything longer. even that is too much IMO

    And who rides a 69er? My bike is a 26er, front and rear. you wont catch 29" wheel on my bikes.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.