Originally Posted by
tjspiel
So here is my question. Let's say the difference between an LHT vs an Atlantis in terms of geometry mostly comes down to the fork. Did Grant hit upon a fork design that is truly better than most anything else or is it more that the Atlantis fork entails a different set of trade offs that are more pleasing to some riders but maybe not others? Because it seems to me that this stuff is pretty well understood by frame designers.
I think it's more a factor of the way Grant combines different aspects of frame designs. His main ideal is that many bike are too specialized in their purpose (and design) and that more bikes should be all-rounders. Road bikes tend to have steep angles, shorter chainstays, medium low bottom brackets and trail in the 58-62mm range. Touring bikes tend to have slacker angles, longer chainstays, very low bottom brackets and trail in the mid-60mm range. Road and touring bikes are very specialized. Grant simply takes the aspects that make a touring bike comfortable (very low bottom bracket, longer chainstays, slack angles) and combines them with one of the aspects that make a road bike feel more lively (trail in the 58-62mm range). He then adds fatter, lower pressure tires to increase felt comfort, higher handlebars for weight bearing comfort and possibly even heavier tubing to even further smooth out the ride. Theoretically, this combination should yield a bike that is very stable and smooth yet still retains a somewhat lively feel. This is precisely how fans of Rivendell bicycles describe their bikes. Some people ride Riv's and find them to be sluggish or truckish (much the same as many people feel about Surly's Long Haul Trucker). I think this is largely a factor of people who are used to light and nimble road bikes getting on a bike that is neither. I suspect that the average person who doesn't spend a lot of time on road bikes would be inclinded to like the ride of a Rivendell.