Originally Posted by dhk2 .
You obviously are a lot more impressed with bike reviews in magazines than I am. Call me a cynic, but it seems to me a lot of this stuff is just marketing hype. The magazines are given bikes to ride and write about, and aren't going to write a negative review for fear they would lose advertizing revenue. 90% of what they write is just perceptions which we know can be easily influenced by expectations as set up by the marketing types. And I have to laugh at Craig Calfee's explanation of why he doesn't put eyelets for racks on a CF bike frame, yet he's willing to put eyelets on a CF fork to mount a disc brake caliper.
Thats why I like BQ. They've angered quite a few manufacturers with honest reviews. I actually started to read them after reading an honest negative review about a VO crank. They only have a few ads, and the majority are business card-sized ads by custom frame builders and NOS parts suppliers.
Im sure the fork is reinforced to hold the caliper properly--probably layered inside to support the stress. And you are basing your criticism on my summary of the article and not the article itself. Im sure the stress of a loaded rear rack is different from the stress of a disc brake as well. A load on a rear rack is far more unpredictable than the stress of a disc brake. I like Calfee for providing smaller thicker-walled tubing rather than paper-thin zertz-pocked frames that end up being sent to Calfee for repair whenever the handlebar strikes the top tube. But i'm sure if you sent them an email they would be happy to explain their design process for supporting discs.
And I don't even know what the hostility is for, Im not trying to sell you one--I'm just trying to enjoy an interesting thread on the future of bike design.