Since this thread has morphed from "integrated racks" to a critique of Rob English's engineering and design...

duanedr- your concern about flexibility of the bike in post #6- it appears the top tube is "unusually" thin. The tube has been ovalized at the seat tube juncture, so from the side it looks thin, but this increases rigidity over a round tube. Not that the top tube adds much to the rigidity of a bike frame anyway.

As for the seat stays- They add very little to the rigidity of the rear end. They are in compression so very little is needed. The triangulation of the chainstays coupled with the rear wheel mounted is what makes it rigid.

Seat Post? I know Rob custom machines his seat posts (in house) to put the "butting" where it needs to be to eliminate failures in a critical area.

This bike is Rob's winter training bike, and it ain't flimsy! He may not be a big guy, but he can put out some watts, and wouldn't personally settle for less than perfect. He was a racer and an engineer before building bicycle frame.

unterhausen- "engineers build things with inadequate fatigue resistance every day. That's why engineers like me have jobs." You can over-engineer a structure, and a purpose-built bike ain't the place to start. I've seen a lot of projects that were "over-built" due to an overly-cautious engineer, that didn't work. Bridges and overpasses are on thing, but bicycles? You can't just add a hundred tons on concrete and rebar.

Who knows the life span of lightweight bikes? That is not why we have them. Want a bike to last 20 years? Might as well as buy a Surly and drag around an extra 10 pounds or so.

In closing- don't make an assumption based on what you see in the pics, unless you have some firsthand knowledge that there is a problem. Personally, I build my own frames (and have drawn a lot of inspiration from Rob,) but if it were within my budget, I'd kill for a bike from him.