Happy Feet

Well, it's a bit of the old want vs need discussion if you ask me and don't argue your right to like what you like of course though I'm not sure how brifters are a safety thing. I don't like DT shifters either but use stem shifters for my daily work commuter and probably do more shifting in 1 hour on that in traffic than I do all day touring on a nice shoulder. I have grown to dislike the front index shifters on my touring bike and plan to swap them out for friction next time I change things up (drop bar conversion). I like the micro adjustment they allow for the front derailer.

Smaller spaced gears may be nice I guess but in reality find that I spend most of the time in the middle chainring and just move up and down the rear. That's why friction on the front is good enough for me. Practically speaking 7 gears is plenty for me back there as well. It's shifting gears on a touring bike, not a race car.

And disc vs canti vs V brakes? Again, it all sounds important but this last fall I rode down three major mountain passes (Kicking Horse, Rogers, Coquihalla) using Cantis and had no problem stopping, two out of three in the rain to boot. I also train riding up and down three mountain passes locally (Fraser Canyon, Coquihalla, Manning) as well as the mountain I live on (Sumas), each with major downhill sections. I'm sure there's a bigger test out there somewhere but I haven't found it yet.

I'm all for progress but also keep myself grounded in practical application. If I see something that really adds value I'm all over it but I don't believe in adopting new over old just because it's new. A lot of new ideas turn out to be total crap (Trek's low spoke count adventure wheels for example) and sometimes old technology is still around because it actually works.

No one is denying that people should be able to buy what they want with their disposable income for a hobby but there is a difference between practical improvements and perceived improvements. If I were trying to buy/build a strong bike to carry weight (the theme of the thread) I would not obsess over cassette hubs and rear spacing. I would look directly to a 26" 36-40h wheelset if I could and I would also pick a proven frame design like the LHT. Many many many many many many people, all over he world, use that bike to do heavy, tough tours.

Some people complain that it is not nimble enough but for my tastes, I do not want a nimble loaded touring bike. I want a straight tracking one.
No need to nimbly swerve out of the shoulder into traffic.
Do need to keep going relatively straight down the shoulder for hours and hours at a time when I am a bit tired and slow in the reflexes.
Maybe there's a reason the LHT acts like that.


There is also this whole thing that happens on a forum like this where the participants may or may not representatively reflect the actual activity they are discussing.
It's pretty easy to trend towards new and more expensive options when one is older, has more disposable income, and is probably creating the dream bike they wished they might have had for most of their earlier riding career. I have no data of course, but suspect that many people actually considering a bike tour might not have thousands to drop on an expensive bike, expensive panniers and expensive UL gear plus the expense of the tour itself. I sometimes take a hit for offering a cost conscious approach to touring but think that always describing it in very expensive best case terms might convince some that they cannot afford to do the activity.

You can always spend more if you want but you don't need to spend more to fully enjoy a bike tour. In this case the OP needs a strong bike and, good news, that's not to hard of a hoop to jump through.