I don't think it counters that decision, just the one about easy resupply. I think that there are two problems with having a bike based on future proofing: One is that it really isn't possible, new stuff always comes up, and it is tough to figure out what it will be. Somewhat a "perfect being the enemy of the good" thing. You are guessing what you might need vs, making a clean decision about what is best now. I think it would make more sense to make the ultimate bike of one kind rather than keeping all options open. Unless these options are going to actually make a difference on the road.

Take the MSR stove. The dual fuel stove idea means the one stove has the possibility of using different fuels if you get into a jam. That is the kind of back up I can see. Though overall most experienced travelers can probably figure out a lighter option, or even do without a stove.

I don't see a situation where a Gates drive, or even an IGF alternative ona bike running deraileurs, provides a contingency benefit. One is just taking on a weight, cost, durability, complexity, burden, in the hope that the features added will have a someday advantage. That seems to me a bit like packing the kitchen sink rather than making a simpler list that will handle the job anyway.

So as I say, too difficult to guess. It is hard enough to make the perfect today bike, let along figure out the future, and unless one limits those additions to stuff that actually makes the bike better per tour, one is degrading current performance.

I also think that cost wise, with the list of features here, one could almost make two frames/bikes, one IGH, and one not, if one dropped the Gates part of the equation. Probably not possible if both have to have S&S though. That is becoming a costly necessity with air travel shaping up as it is.

Most recent time I saw a "survey" Gates was regarded with distain among frame builders. A lot of seasoned builder are really anti NAHBS show bikes. Personally I think they are fine, but the pulling out the stops thing belong at NAHBS, not on the road. At this point someone usually jumps in and points out that around the world cycling records have been set with Gates "touring" bikes. That doesn't really change my mind, but it does show that Gates is rugged in certain uses.

Not if you say it doesn't. I am adverse to the belt and suspenders approach, I prefer to make a judgment about what I need and stick to it. As I say, I would mostly accept redundancy weight, complexity, etc... if it had an in-tour advantage. 26" wheels are a great idea, and I haven't thought deeply on it, but the idea of being able to handle 650 strikes me as a pretty near to no harm one.

The problem I have is that for a lot of touring, "loaded" is already the belt and suspenders model. Most people with all the gear, heavy tourers, already have too much stuff. To make an I-couldn't-make-up-my-mind version is to double down on indecision. Not in your case, I am talking now about what this would mean if everyone's bike looked like yours. I like your bike, and only said it went over the top with the Gates stuff, though if you pressed, for me, IGH interchangeability is also going there.

One thing I notice about lightweight outdoor gear is that with a few exceptions, most notably the ultralite backlash movement, most new gear is a lot heavier than it used to be. Secondary aspect is that a lot of the excess weight has to do with indecision. Thirdly some of the problem is an excess desire for durability. Fourth it is relatively too expensive.


I like the idea of different brake mounting options. This one adds little weight; Does not really compromise the bike in any way etc... I feel it does provide in-tour advantages like if something bad happened with Avid BB7, you could mount a cheap canti picked up on the road and run the same levers and cables, etc...

I have never had a braking failure where the brakes simply did not work. Though I had one just the other day with my city bike. I start from the premise that a) the idea of brake redundancy is universally accepted, where I live it is actually the law. b) With tandems, which is actually the weight range I operate in, the idea of 3 brakes is pretty universal. c) If I was limited to 2 brakes, I would actually prefer both to be on the front.

The touring failures I refer to have mostly been weather related. The brakes simply didn't work well enough to stop the bike withint he distance I regard essential. But there are a wide range of possible failure scenarios, related to maintenance, overheating, water, mud, grit, fouling/interference, mechanical failure, damage, hand position, etc... The brakes absolutely have to work, and my feeling is that to some degree while the cycling breaking systems are elegant, they are not all that robust.

My actual prefered option is as follows, and yeah, this is me going a little crazy: Petersen self-energizing canti on the rear. This brake is great front or rear, and I have run them as a front brake only, but I really only need them on the rear, where they get a better bite than I can comfortably get with road levers. I like to run the Paul neo retro as my main brake, up front. I would also run just a pair of Pauls if I wanted a cleaner looks. But hidden under the bags, the Petersens are my secret weapon. I run an Avid BB7 MTB brake on the front wheel. This is my emergency, and wet weather friend. It also allows me to have a lever on the tops, where I spend a lot of time if the wind is favourable. My feeling is weirdness aside, that is probably a more practical set-up than double discs.

There are V brakes that will space for 26 or 650, so you do not need to mount a rear BB7 or other disc just to get dual wheel use.