Originally Posted by
PDKL45
While they may not have the highest rated components, that is more often a strength than a weakness in a touring bike. Components that are widely available, relatively cheap and moderately tough are better on a bike that you are going to ride into the unknown. Often parts that are a generation or two old, widely understood by mechanics and stocked in their shops are going to serve you better while off the beaten path than newer stuff that may need to be ordered specially, sometimes from a foreign country.
Originally Posted by
Squeezebox
Somebody above mentioned using mid-range components, so they can be swapped out easier than the high range stuff. I've always been an advocate of buy the best you can afford, But if you break down in the middle of no-where mid range just might be better. I will try to back off of my pissy attitude and try to accept that mid range is probably the best way to go.
Right On! Oh sorry! That's Ride On!!!
OK, serious question: as you move up on the component range, from mid-range to high end, what are you actually getting in benefit? It was always my understanding that as you moved up, you were generally sacrificing durability for weight, and the higher end stuff, while more precise with some less slop and tighter tolerances, required more fiddling to keep in proper tune. Is that a fair understanding, or am I wrong in that?
Non-serious addition to a non-serious thread: as to why people swap out far more on a touring bike than any other bike, it is simply because there are far more parts on a touring bike to swap out than any other bike.