3 Questions With Forbidden's Owen Pemberton What inspired the decision to start Forbidden?
Both myself and Ali had a desire to start a small company/brand that would allow us to develop the products that we wanted to create without having to keep one eye on pleasing the mass market. We often spoke about the craft beer industry and how you can relate what the bigger bike brands produce to brands like Budweiser, Kokanee, Carling, etc...It’s not a bad product, it does what it’s supposed to, but in a way that will appeal to as many people as possible.
And then you have these small upstart brands, much like the craft breweries, popping up and making the product that they want to make, purely because it’s what they want to make. Some are a bit more experimental than others, some are better quality than others, but they all have a real-ness that a growing number of customers seem to associate with. We felt like there was enough room for another small, boutique, brand to offer a somewhat unique product, and here we are with Forbidden and the Druid.
Do you have any goals as far as how much you want the company to grow?
From day one we’ve always said we just want to grow it enough that ourselves and everyone else involved can make a comfortable living. We don’t have any desires to compete with any of the big guys with volume. I’m a big believer if you scale a business right you don’t have to be so focused on constantly growing. Growth is good and healthy in the initial phase of a business but you often see these days that it becomes all-consuming, it’s at that point that you run the risk of losing your passion and alienating your core customers, just to make the numbers look good.
What's been the hardest part about starting your own bike company?
Ali and I are product focused guys so developing the bike has been relatively easy. It’s all the other parts of operating a business, the things that are new to us, that have been a challenge. It’s always daunting taking on new, unfamiliar tasks but when you have as many as we have had to get this off the ground it can be a little difficult. We’ve assembled a great team, which presently stands 6 strong, everyone involved is pushing themselves to gain knowledge and develop new skills as and when needed to overcome the challenges we have faced. It’s awesome to see and I’m confident moving forward that we’ve got the right people to make this work.
But consumers want them, because of perceived gain. Just pedal like a sane person and boom, problem solved.
Use it loads.
Plus cane creeks Climb mode is the dogs vs RS and fox
With so many "holding companies" or "Brand owners" it can hard to be sure who owns who these days
www.commencalusa.com/supreme-sx-c102x3044467
I'm sure @forbiddenbike is already developing a 150mm enduro bike. Would be a sweet ride.
I’ve had one of these on my “next bike” shirt list for a while, problem is that it was wasn’t that long ago that I got my last bike!
Then there are outliers like Giant with their super light aluminium frames or Scott with dramatically lighter carbon ones.
Keeping that in mind, the Druid is very much an exotic boutique frame and pricing reflects that.
Possibly unlike others on this site, I don't judge someone's knowledge about bikes based on their frame material or wheelsize, so not sure where you are coming from with this disclaimer. If your wheels still roll, then in my opinion they still "work". :-)
Although cheap carbon compared against better alloys like Prolite, 6066 or 7005 will practically not have a weight advantage at all, given similar stiffness and strengh requirements. Also carbon mats are way easier to work with than aluminium alloy, so actual values highly depend on the metal working prowess of the company making the frames. Generally its way easier to manufacture a decent carbon frame than it is to manufacture a decent alloy frame, theres just a lot less that can go wrong and it generally requires less skill.
On the other hand anisotropic properties make designing composite products much more difficult, different layups affect the characteristics of the products, if you were to simulate said products before manufacturing every change in the layup would need to be simulated, there is simulation software to predict draping and to design separate cloth pieces to do the layup, etc. Then there's the fact that the whole manufacturing process is insanely labour intensive and is, for the cycling industry, mostly performed in asia or in general in less developed parts of the world due to price reasons with only select few manufacturers doing the layup in the 'western' world. The existing large scale manufacturers also do it by the way of 'black magic' with little actual designing done on the frames (simulation and layup optimisation) as far as i'm told, etc.
One thing is for sure, we've most likely reached peak aluminium. We most likely have not scratched the composite surface yet. But I'm not sure we ever will due to price constraints.
And one benefit for composite is the fact that as a garage company ordering the frames from asia, the MOQ is much lower for composite frames (but the entry cost per frame is higher because of tooling).
A Knolly is legit one of my alternatives, and has just been bumped up the list because of my disappointment at the pricing of the Druid.
Edit: i mostly retract this. I just built up a Druid on Fanatik and a Smash on Guerrilla Gravity's website. Choosing almost the exact same spec (sometimes somewhat oddly as they were the most comparable options), I get the Druid to come in at $7144 vs. the Smash at $5960 for the Smash. They are basically the same weight, with the Smash coming in maybe a 1/5 lb lighter, but I suspect that's within the margin of measurement error. On the Druid/Fanatik build you get charged extra for basically everything (headset, chain, BB, etc) whereas on the Smash some of that is included in the original frame price and other components are sold in more cost effective but build limiting packages. That adds up to spread the price out a bit farther than just frame/shock would have suggested.
For reference, the bikes were built in size L with the DPX2, a MRP Ribbon 150, an NX drivetrain (for comparability), Code R brakes, and a Bike Yoke Revive dropper. I'm not sure what headset or bottom bracket the Smash is, I used basic Cane Creek and SRAM offerings on the Druid. The wheels were different (Ibis 942 Logo Carbons on the Druid vs. Industry 9 Enduro 305s on the Smash) so that put the weight comparison off a bit, though they were the most similarly priced in the configurators.
Anyway, it's a small and probably inconsequential form of protest, but it helps me feel like I'm doing something. At the end of the day it at least helps companies in my own and other countries outside the US.
Side note... I've been on the new Knolly Fugitive LT for a couple months now, just raced my first enduro of the year on it last weekend. And the thing truly does f*cking rip! It's just so fast... Actually reading this review I couldn't help but keep thinking how it sounded like he was describing my Fugitive and the way it rides. The four by four suspension system really is killer and the 135mm of travel out back feels like way more. I've got a 160mm fork on it, ride on the west coast of BC and haven't found anything it can't handle yet. Knolly is great company to work with, you can just call them up and start building a bike over the phone... super cool people. Let me know if you have any questions.
Your Fugitive comments echo my own experience. Is it possible that the Druid can ride better than a Fugitive? I plan to find out soon. It would be a bit lighter and I love the space in the main triangle. Carbon I can take or leave, it does not excite me.
I'm really wanting to build one with a Trust linkage fork. Just seems so fitting and I have a hunch the performance would be outstanding.
Ditch the SB150 build and do the above or ditch the Stumpy EVO? hmmm.
True first world problems.
How is tire clearance and rear triangle stiffness? Does not appear to be a single piece rear triangle from the photos. Couldn't tell to be sure though.
I'm a 100kg person, who would buy a bike and use it for 10-15 years until it is thoroughly outdated. And probably bikepack it across a few countries even though it isn't made for it between the regular gnarly riding.
Thanks.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Y1k2TloXE&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=Fanatik+Weekly+Emails&utm_campaign=33a2e8ac87-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_27_07_33_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12f1fa7482-33a2e8ac87-267666797&goal=0_12f1fa7482-33a2e8ac87-267666797&mc_cid=33a2e8ac87&mc_eid=e814076a4f
Wonder what the idea is with the massive seat tower all the way up to the seat clamp, prepared for future ovalized dropper posts or what?
"The XTR brakes were a little finicky early on in the testing period when temperatures hovered around freezing, but once the mercury rose the lever feel improved"
Is this the typical shimano "wandering bite point"?
@mikekazimer: That being said, what would be the advantages of the Druid something like the Ripmo which is both longer travel and livelier feeling?
I’m splitting hairs here. All of these bike are fantastic no question. Riding them is the only way to know which one is for you.
Rear centre grows with each frame size.
STA gets more steep with the increase in frame size.
Decent, not extreme geometry.
Looks great.
Interestingly different suspension design.
Linkage / shock protected from dirt etc.
I'd love to know if it'll come to Australia. It certainly deserves to do well regardless.
1 extra jockey wheel that sits on a massive bearing, which will likely outlive most derailleurs, and the addition of a few extra chain links, which is a job so simple anyone can handle it, is hardly complex.
This bike actually looks surprisingly straight forward compared to most other bikes on the market these days.
It does have a similar number of bearings/pivot points to a 4-bar though, due to the linkage that drives the shock. (Five pivots plus the idler bearing, but some appear to be bushings on their website.) However, I agree with your correction -- it's no more complex than any other FS design out there, and should be more reliable due to the large main pivot.
@forbiddenbike - would you bolt a L rear to an XL front for a customer?
This also explains why often when watching the RAW videos I noticed when these bikes (Specifically the Commencal) take a big landing, you hear a brake squeak as the wheel (that presumably is locked by the brakes in the air) is forced to turn through the clamped brakes on landing as the suspension compresses.
I guess this is a trait of the HPP/single pivot design that can't much be helped but it does seem more noticeable on the HPP vs a 4 bar type single pivot design.
I reckon this could be my first 29er! Assuming I can buy in the UK?!
i mean they dont have the best modulation and the pads rattle but i can live with that lol
Now make it a 79er, offer it in complete options with competitive pricing and corner the Pinkbike reader market ????
@ForbiddenBike I haven't been able to find it anywhere yet, I'm curious what the shock size is?
It varies by size due to clearance at the swing arm. S: 32T M: 34T L: 36T XL: 38T
(though i'm not liking that carbon too much :/ )
I have had multiple people trying out my bike commenting at how comfortable the cockpit feels. And i, of course, completely agree. I love it.
So no, it's not about aero. It's about the position itself and how it feels. This would surely feel cramped, unless i used a 70 mm stem (i have a 40 now).
EDIT: Oh, i said reach, but i think reach is the dumbest measurement on a bike that gets pedalled sitting down that's currently in wide use (don't get me started on RAD). But given the similar seat tube angles, the comparison here is appropriate. Otherwise i'd say that it needs a longer effective seat tube. Which it does. But it should be longer by the same amount as the reach. So... yeah.
Btw which bike are you riding?
The Druid has the reach of a 'normal' bike (think Slash, Enduro, Megatower, etc.) with the seattube angle of a proper XL bike. You should compare it to the reach values of Raaw's Madonna, Nicolai's G2/Geometron, Pole Machine, even Yeti's SB150. And Bird's AM9.
@jollyXroger: i ride the Bird AM9. 680 mm ETT, 510 mm reach. The actual seat tube angle is 71°, which is kinda slack, the virtual is 76° and the actual angle at the seat height is around 75°. I could go steeper still i think.
EDIT: adding 30 mm to the reach would put it very much inline with my Bird. Even on the wheelbase front. And i can assure you, after riding a Large Reign with a 1220-ish mm wheelbase, going to a 29er with a 1292 mm wheelbase is a non issue. Anywhere. Tight switchbacks are not a problem, at least not a bigger one than before.
That I can understand.
@yzedf I can't believe your knees hit the bars when seated.
The issue for tall riders with the bent/offset seat tubes is that we get much further back over the rear wheel, but the cockpit length is OK. With a steep seat tube, we are more centered, closer to the BB, but you need what looks like an insane reach to still have the correct cockpit length.
Longer wheelbases also are not what's really needed, it's more of an effect of the longer reach, so it's something that's 'needed' through cause and effect.
Forbidden did an excellent job with making real STA steeper as the frame size increases to maintain the effective STA the same, but as Primoz points out steep seat tube angles have this trade off in shortening the ETT number. Case in point RAAW Madonna XL, 500mm in reach and 636mm in ETT.
@Primoz
Is it as good as British media outlets make it? Their credibility loses battles to patriotism more than not.
If you want a bike to descend well you have to buy based on reach and either the ETT or STA will be compromised for seated riding. No way around it.
As for the product, it's a bit heavy (given the component spec on both bikes, the frame is ~0,7 kg heavier than the Reign), the paint is most likely complete shit (get the raw one, mine is blue), given the nicks i've seen on mine in a month, the configurator and pricing are excelent and their customer support is... impecable. I have nothing but good things to say.
If anything, i'd think about the raw one a bit more, since it does look good (it is actually completely unpainted), maaaaaaybe i'd like it to be a bit lighter and i'd prefer a bit steeper seat tube angle, since the actual angle is 71°.
I made a long post here: www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/How-Much-Reach-is-Too-Much-Reach,9956?page=3#post_40682
As for your angles and all, have you drank the koolaid you're talking about? I actually tried mine. It's the best damn koolaid in the world. Bending over the bar to have enough weight on the front wheel is... Stupid. Sorry, but it's stupid. Like i mentioned in jollyXroger's reply, i can pedal up relaxed on stuff i barely clear on a 'conventional bike' because of the insanely long reach and effective top tube. Because i don't need to bend over the front. I can focus on where to put the bike and stuff.
Read more here: www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/How-Much-Reach-is-Too-Much-Reach,9956?page=3#post_40682
Yes, Bird looks like the best value modern geometry bike out there, at the moment.
I don't know what your're going on about re weight distribution. That is a ratio of front to rear centre, not simply, long reach.
An XL Mega 275 that would fit @Primoz is 515mm in reach and 668.44mm in ETT, Mega 290 515mm in reach and 678.42mm in ETT. Basically, exactly the numbers that Primoz was asking for from @ForbiddenBike.
And yes, no amount of reach and/or ETT will make you, him or me ride like Sam Hill so don't know what you are on about here?
If you wanted to make a point that shorter is better you would have better been served by saying that Greg Minaar chose an XL over XXL Magatower for his personal, non-competition bike. An XL Druid and Megatower basically measure the same. Then again Megatower has a quite slacker real STA that for someone in the 190cm territory results in longer and noticeable saddle center to bars distance at full seat tube extension.
Personally, I often find myself sliding back down the saddle for some additional comfort. Even on my 499mm reach / 670mm ETT bike with a 50mm stem. I'm about 192cm.
But hey, I get it, you're rich and blow through a bike every 6 months so it really doesn't matter if a bike fits you, it won't be around long enough to do your body any long term harm. Some of us like to ride hard and be at least a little responsible financially in this expensive hobby.
Seriously, there are two of us clearly showing our point of view, which is based on numbers, experiences and facts. Yet you don't want to budge even an inch, not even to say 'yeah, it might be different for you tall guys than for me, i'm only 5' tall' (i don't know how tall you are, but i bet you're not in XL category). I'm over with this debate. I said what i wanted to say and i stand behind my comments. The Druid is 30 mm too short in XL. Period. Prove me wrong. By buying me a frame, delivering it to me and setting it up for a test ride. If you're XL material, i can prove you wrong by giving you my Bird to test when you bring the Druid.
I mean, suffer if you want. I got a bike with an insane reach, that 'shouldn't work' and am loving it on the uphills. Where i spend most of the energy. And am loving it on the downhills as well. So my experiences, besides all of the thinking and number crunching i have done on this matter, directly negate your point of view.
But don't worry. I get this a lot. It's only understandable, when only a few percents of population at most can understand and truly experience the point of view. And, like i mentioned, besides me, i have three cases of similarly tall people commenting on how well my bike fits seated down. I'm willing to bet we would all find the Druid too short.
And yes, you'll say the descending point again. But, again, it takes me an hour of seated pedalling, most of it uphill, to earn less than 10 minutes of descending. Most of the enduro races are pedalled up, the ratio is roughly the same.
Now please, be audacious enough, if you dare, and say that the pedalling fit and performance don't matter in a race scenario, where you spend most of the time doing just that, even though it doesn't count towards the race time.
I don't know, it seems my point of view is completely logical and more or less covers all the situations, not only the 5 % of bike riding time most people throwing around the wonder of reach think about. I've said it many times and i'll say it again. Reach is a useless number, especially when you get to ultra steep seat tube angled frames and especially so when you get to the extremes of sizes (XL, S/XS and the like). Current geometry measures and frame designs just don't work there. But not enough people are idiots with a Don Quixote syndrome to go around the internet and yell stuff like this to try and make the industry change, mostly because most of the small percentage people just don't know how much better they could have had it. There's just not enough of us :/
As for the XL, the Bird I have currently fits nicely, i think i'd try to go with a straight seat tube (so the virtual and actual angles are the same) at 76° or 77°. The reach should then be roughly 510 to 520 mm given my bike with the effective top tube length dropping at around 680 to 700 mm, but that could be determined given all other geometry values. I'd go 65° on the head angle, 160 mm travel front and back, horst link suspension (looks like a Slash - you have all the load inputs into the front triangle as close to the vertices (BB, headtube, ST/TT joint) as possible, which is the best construction wise). I'd try to go as short chainstay wise (420 to 430 mm), since i don't think the mantra 'longer chainstay for taller riders to balance out the weight distribution' is correct, it's a bandaid fix brought on by the slacker than optimal seat tube angles. With such a steep seat tube angle your weight will be relatively far forwards and the weight distribution should be fairly okay i think. But the length should be tested on prototypes to see what works best.
About M and L frames, i think the current might be perfectly fine, because they fit the vast majority of the population. I think i'd still go somewhat steep on the seat tube angle, since a friend of mine, who has a PhD from kinesiology, told me the steeper the better pedalling efficiency wise. I would after all be making bikes to pedal (i'd focus on aggressive XC, 'downcountry' bikes up to enduro bikes, so ~100 to 160-ish mm travel on a 29er).
As for the smaller sizes, i think it would be very wise to check the effects of 27,5" vs. 29" wheels. And check if a slacker seat tube angle might actually be beneficial (with the current designs of bent/offset seat tubes, very short riders get a very stepe actual seat tube angle). I would definitely consult people more versed in this mater in these regards, so kinesiologists, bike fitters, etc. After all, i'd be designing the frame itself (suspension geometry and all the other stuff), i am after all an engineer.
Bottom line, current designs fit M/L frames very well, but are then just stretched or compressed a bit for (X)S and (X)XL riders. It is understandable given the market size and given the development process considerations (each size needs it's own finite element and then a mechanical stress test analysis performed). Most smaller companies can hardly afford all of that i'd say. Besides making different geometries for each size, not just length wise but also angle wise (i'd be happy to put a different head tube angle on a different size), i think i'd try to make different suspension geometries as well since an (X)XL rider will require completely different antisquat values to an XS rider. Antisquat is centre of gravity dependant and the height difference between the two riders is not insignificant. Plus you could tune the leverage ratios etc.
This is an ideal situation, but it would be very expensive (very doesn't even begin to cover it). Each frame size would require it's own rocker link design, which could probably be forged for the M/L sizes but not for the others given the volume, the tube shapes as well as lengths would be significantly different between sizes, etc. Carbon would make things easier in this regard since you're making different molds for different sizes anyway (for the front triangle), so you'd just need a few more of them for the rear end.
I'm not holding my breath hoping that we will someday see all of this, but maybe we will. Who knows.
If i had the option i'd go crazy with prototypes trying out all sorts of different things with only changing as few things as possible. I even had (well, have) the idea of making a straight comparison of 26", 27,5" and 29" bikes by making three frames with identical cockpits, identical axle positions in the horizontal direction (so horizontal front centre and rear centre lengths) with the same ground to BB height on all three of them, having the same fork angle, trying to have the same force response on the rear wheel contact patch from the shock, etc. Basically it would show how much of an impact wheel size has had on the progression of bikes in the past few years. After all, this is what 10 years has done: i.imgur.com/7Pgd2YR.gif
(All three bikes are mine, though the first one, the Meta 5.5, is currently owned by my friend and has the seat set up for him and he has swapped out the original 90 mm stem for a shorter one. I owned the Meta from 2008 to 2015, the Giant from 2015 up to now and i am currently riding the Bird.)
P.S: That meta brings back memories: www.pinkbike.com/photo/8512506
The mech's spring is not 'eating up' any forces either, it's still transferring it through the chain to the chainring, to the pedals, to you blah blah blah.
Try this out for yourself, if you have a suspension bike, it doesn't matter which one, pick up the rear end and slam it down, your pedals will spin backwards violently, this happens not because of the tension on the top of the chainring, but rather by the the pull from the bottom, which initially tries to spin the cranks forwards, but then the chain tension hits the freehub, and bounces it backwards, this is what they tell you this design fixes, but you can clearly see it doesn't, and it's exaggerated on high pivot designs.
This is why i find this sort of design to be so annoying, it's a half baked attempt at actually isolating pedaling and suspension forces. It's especially bad when people like MK go on record as saying it does this and cures that when it simply does not.
If i perform the same experiment on my Racelink, no matter how hard i chuck it, absolutely naff all happens at the pedals, because they found a way to completely decouple the pedals from the suspension action.
I'm not suggesting all bikes need to go as far as having two chains and a jackshaft like the Brooklyn, though it is the best way, but the chain at the bottom of the chainring NEEDS to be hitched up as close to the pivot point as possible, the closer it is, the less kickback you will get, it's that simple.
Designs like this, the Norco, the Commencal etc are definitely a nod in the right direction, though i wouldn't call it a step. A rearward axle path is always preferable and anyone with half a brain has known that forever, the problem has always been, how to route the chain to eliminate the inherent chain growth, without frying the brains of idiots who don't understand anything mechanical and think that tradition is the key to the future (all e-bike haters) hence 15 years of boring bikes...
But then a few companies who say they actually want to build better bikes, start touting a half baked, half arsed attempt at half fixing a problem and just keep shouting" high pivot, high pivot", like that's all that's needed to make a bike better, and to add to that, they completely ignore the other big problem with single pivot designs, brake jack. Why do we never see floating brake arms on single pivot bikes anymore? They could be made to weigh f*ck all and bring a huge performance advantage, but no, that's that'd be ridiculous, how would they explain that to the plebs as well?...
I wish i could say designs like this are a good sign for the future, but really i think it's just another desperate marketing ploy by people more interested in duping people and making money, than actually pushing the boundaries of bike design, or they'd have actually tried a bit harder than the last guy, instead they're all just copying each other, again, and that's a red flag if ever you'll see one.
The reason nobody is running 2 chains is because you lose any anti squat from chain growth.
I don't think there is any conspiracy against floating brakes either. High pivot bikes don't experience brake jack they experience brake squat, which is actually useful for balancing the geometry of the bike. If you eliminate brake squat with a floating brake the bike will pitch forward under braking way more.
Brake 'jack' is not a thing on single pivots unless the pivot is below the contact point of the tire; The suspension squats when braking. The reason most single pivots feel rough when under brakes is because of the pedal kickback (which is absent on the Druid), not the suspension squatting.
Deadmeat should be the name of the cells inside your head, stop thieving oxygen.
My 1998 Marin B-17 had tons of anti squat, when you apply pressure to the pedals the suspension extends, or to put it another way, stops working properly.
Even back then they said "it helps on climbs because it digs the tyre in", but that was bullshit then and it's still bullshit now, stability and consistency helps on climbs, not bobbing about.
Brake jack doesn't exist... Hmmm.. That's just moronic. On a single pivot bike without a floating brake arm, regardless of where the bloody pivot is, if you apply the brake and sit on the bike, the suspension won't compress, that happens out on the trail too. Any words used describe this effect as GOOD aren't worth their weight in dog shit...
Read the f'ing words I wrote you knuckle dragger, 'brake jack is not a thing on single pivots' "JACK" meaning extension, you know...to jack a car, to know jack sh;t etc. If you squeeze the rear brake on any bike the suspension compresses the same, the front wheel moves forward to compensate. If you squeeze both brakes the bike won't compress, same thing happens on a DW link, 4 bar etc. It has nothing to do with the suspension compressing, it has to do with the force vector from the tire causing the suspension to rise.
You know enough words to sound like you know what you're talking about, but the reality is you haven't a bloody clue.
Watching you get so worked up over something you're completely wrong about is hilarious.
And, trust me, i'm an engineer (if you have any doubts).
I don't think you understand how product testing works either. Hint: it happened before the production bikes went on sale. Clients are not 'test mules', they are clients.
Out of curiosity though, what would your solution be? Should they give the first batch of frames away for free? Or all frames before they reach EWS podium? What if they never race EWS? Should they give out freebies until they go bust? Should every mtb brand who doesn't race EWS close shop? Should every new brand of any product be prohibited from charging money for it because it's new? I'd love a 101 on how you would go about setting up any new manufacturing business.
Maybe you're a 140lb whippet, in which case my experience doesn't apply.