While I may not agree I get Madronemike's POV from a few posts back as I can read the reality between the lines, which apply to almost everyone. Personal opinion is always shaped by personal experience.

He's right in the sense that you can jump on almost any bike and tour so... he bought a bike, toured, and found it worked. Hard to argue that. I'm sure one could jump on all the bikes mentioned here and tour no problem most of the time. In fact they are probably better than 75% of the bikes being toured on right now (better than mine anyway). Mike also works a shop that sells trek. Of course he bought a trek. Discount, peers and familiarity.

Not saying mike was wrong, just that personal opinion isn't always the best way to judge objective quality.

When I look at that trek it appears to be niche est, like last weeks cutthroat. Almost every image shows knobby type tires (how long will you ride those on the road) and no fenders which puts it more in a the bikepacking genre. Candy for the eye and imagination but how much of what it has transfers to basic touring needs is questionable, if one considers there is a high dollar cost for it's specific uniqueness.

I imagine the through axle is meant to appeal to the target audience, many of whom are familiar with TA's on downhillers. That crowd will have no problem with the concept but it is a pretty small subset of touring overall.

The larger group will ask why mess with axle technology that works? Having a through axle that would be hard to repair is a HUGE error in my books. Sure failures are rare and a solution probably could eventually be sought but I want easy sourced, easy fix components on a touring bike, not proprietary stuff.

Why 28 spokes. I really don't get that on a bike targeted to off road use. I don't even get why people would choose 32 over 36 on the road but that's just over engineered me. There are no negatives to more spokes and all I can think is some cool factor attempt to shave the buffer to just above failure point... why? I want degrees of buffer on a touring bike.

And that is probably a big divide to jump for people coming from a road bike background where light and fast is promoted so much.
SQ mentioned calling his future bike Zombie Killer. Interesting. It's funny the way people view an activity or piece of equipment. I call my Raleigh Matilda as in the song. For many hours some days I hum it as we waltz together down the road. When I tour I am in meander rather than ripping a new a hole mode. Not a criticism, just an observation about the psychology of names and the perception of what we are going to do when we tour.


Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong
Under the shade of a coolibah tree,
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boiled:
"Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me?"

Chorus:
Waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda
You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boiled:
"You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."

Down came a jumbuck to drink at that billabong.
Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with glee.
And he sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tucker bag:
"You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."

(Chorus)

Up rode the squatter, mounted on his thoroughbred.
Down came the troopers, one, two, and three.
"Whose is that jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag?
You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."

(Chorus)

Up jumped the swagman and sprang into the billabong.
"You'll never take me alive!" said he
And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong:
"Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me?"