Grant's bikes were an effort to solve some of the problems, but his non-integrated approach makes the bike's use combersome. Rear bags hanging off seats (hitting the riders behind), zip-tied fenders, no provision for internal lighting systems. Sure his bikes address the issues in a roundabout way, but but the whole is ungainly and not as seemless to the rider.
The construteur approach gets it all in a nice package with no excuses. And the advantage is the constructeur bike offers endless opportunties for the craftsmanship and innovation that folks like Peter Weigle, Bruce Gordon - and shorty Brian Baylis can wow us with.
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
>
\r?\n> Mike Kone says: "So its not fancy lugs, its not about being part of a
\r?\n> trend, its about the best tool for the job. It just so happens that the job
\r?\n> these
\r?\n> bikes are best at, is the same job that most people mistakenly purchase
\r?\n> ultra light race bikes to accomplish. They are buying the wrong tool. When
\r?\n> this
\r?\n> becomes more understood, contructeur type integrated bikes will gain the
\r?\n> recognition they deserve."
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> But, hasn't Grant at Rivendell advocated this sort of bike for years?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> The integrated bike on the other hand is more than just a frame with parts.
\r?\n> Bruce Gordon's integrated racks, Peter Weigel and Mike Barry's offerings
\r?\n> have done it. I'm anxious to see whether that is what Brian is doing or
\r?\n> whether it is just a touring frame with bolt on parts. A fully integrated
\r?\n> bike,
\r?\n> ala some of the fine French machines with internally routed electrical lighting
\r?\n> cables, would be something that would really interest me.
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Lou Deeter, Orlando FL