Well two things:

1) nothing is simple any more. We have an 18 page ultralite thread gurgling along. Been there done that, not reading it, but I am sure the hair splitting is just as massive as here. Now they may be on a better path, almost certainly are. But to pretend anything is simple or ideal just isn't the way it is. I remember back in the 70s we used to buy kits and make our own gear. That sure kept the crowds down.

2) identity wise, some folks want to be the dudes that got there with six pounds on the rack, and other guys want to be the guys who did it with 160 pounds. Nobody wants to be mister sensible in-between. Where is the T-shirt in that? Same reason nobody sells bikes. They all have to be extreme MTBs, BMX, Cross, Tri, etc...

insane

so I would not have three wheels with my contraption
and would not have an extra weight in the trailer itself

Would you know what was good for fully loaded? BF and Brompton have been happily to the ends of the earth under many seats. Not my preference, but your "bold" claim is nonsense. You could even carry 120 pounds with a trailer, or probably on the frame with an added module. If you buy a "folding bike" (which a new world tourist really isn't anyway) that isn't designed for touring you get what you pay for.

I don't personally love trailers, and prefer two wheels. On the other hand you will have the weight, and really if you are pulling 120, or 80 the exact method gets to be trivial. A third wheel probably has some advantages. Keeping the load low is huge, at the weight you are considering. The biggest advantage is you could probably get out there tomorrow, for about what the couplers cost on the frame you are contemplating. That would suit some.

I would still like to hear why the weight. Don't care if you are carrying bibles to the Congo, or vibrators to Kabul, but I would like to know if you are ignorant about camping trends, sorta crazy about carrying your comforts, or have a serious reason to carry a lot of stuff. Because until you clear up your need for so much weight, at least in generalities, you are looking a little crazy/ill informed, which may be far from the truth, like Kroop. No need to feed the doubters.

Too much weight, too few spokes = broken spokes.

That's what 32 and 36 spoke wheels are for and a reason to keep your load to sensible proportions. When I decided to try touring on a carbon frame I knew the stock Shimano R500 wheels (20 spokes front 24 rear) would be immediately replaced with some 32 spoke Open Pros.

ABSOLUTELY
for a "bomb proof" design
I would go with 48 spokes AND SOLDER

Bike Friday and R&E both make a frame to separate a tandem ,
and have the rear element attach to the front section, to function as a single bike
when your GF has to arrive later or leave early on that big tour..

worst case scenario

carrying 20 gallons of water going across Australia

here we go

nothing wrong with "extra" module for regular bike

I still think just incorporating your ideas into an extra-cycle is what you really want... But your got me curious now.

Tell you what, if you build this, I am very much looking forward to seeing pictures and reports from your ride. I've seen and heard people touring on penny farthings, recumbents, single speed, guy pulling a red child's wagon, 10 grand bicycles, Walmart bicycles (like me) and of course tandems but with 2 people riding it. Don't know if a unicycle has been done though.... Be interesting to read about your experiences.

why is that ?

money wise ? - probably it would cost MORE
air travel transportation issues " ?? - not solved
weight ? - probably the same
SO WHY NOT TO GO with something NEW **********???

green horn. . .

You can't sit here and say "oh, those are terrible ideas, mine wouldn't weight that much!"

and then go on about "oh, I'll make it 'bombproof' with 48 spoke wheels and a huge ass frame and these big frickin hard shell cases"

The fact is a trailer would suit your needs better, be lighter, be cheaper, and be able to break down so you could get it somewhere as opposed to a monster bike.

A trailer WILL be lighter than making a larger frame

A frame MUST be rigid enough to support you, that includes anything behind you. As the bike gets bigger, rigidity becomes an issue, the bike has to be built beefier as a result and overall the bike will weigh more than the trailer addition to a bike.

The idea of 48 spoke wheels with solder is the insane idea. Overkill at its worst. You would be the guy who drives his Chevy 3500 crew cab 30 miles to his office job every day. Spinning weight is much worse than dead weight.

Why are you worried about weight when you want to carry 20 lbs of water?

There is a reason nobody has come up with exactly what you're looking for.

Not discouraging you from asking questions, but you want a total redesign of something that has lasted more than a few decades largely unchanged in overall design. A lot of alternatives have been proposed, some have been good. Most have flopped. Either way I'll stick with my 'traditional' (whatever the heck that means) touring rig.

Plunk your money down and show us what you made then . talk is cheap.


need to carry more water than this guy?


https://wildworks.co.nz/csr/photographs.php




FWIW I built a 48 spoke rear wheel , Phil wood Freewheel hub.. A 700c rim

no soldering job , It s not a banked track velodrome ..

broke 1 spoke .. you have to undo the soldering to replace 1 spoke

the use of a freewheel hub was part of the extra spoke thing ..

only carried the spare spokes and the freewheel tool..

borrowed the Big F wrench when I needed it. week after the 1 spoke broke

I built the wheels .. spot truing brought it back in true with 47 spokes ..

https://onewheelforlife.blogspot.com/

but she had a sag wagon. I've read others of unsupported tours. Bags strapped to the back of the saddle, between the wheel (huge hub for this).

I have one of these wheels myself, I was contemplating the US tour but don't see it as a reasonable option unsupported. . . at least not if I want to enjoy myself.

there is an account of a guy going across the USA on a unicycle with panniers in the early 80's on the c&v forum. I'm too lazy to look for it but if you're interested do a search.

absolutely

Green horn : from your point of view, can you please lay out the pros and cons of your idea? Also, what real life experience brought you to this idea? I'm just curious.

well
who said that ?

I did NOT

what I am proposing is the reduced version of tandem
that is why i started
Thread: Single touring using tandem , WHY NOT ??


I really believe that extra weight of the frame is not so significant
and new approach solves a lot of common problems faced during touring

what did You get so far from 4 pages of EXPLANATION ??

I do not know what or how else to explain this CONTRAPTION

well

who was following him in the car or the van ???

i got a lot of disconnected thoughts that didnt make much sense, which is why i was looking for a summary. No worries if that's not possible.

No one. Same as the guy who went around the world on a penny farthing. No support. Sometimes less is more.

20 gallons of water is a rational reason, assuming that is the number. That will be really hard to accommodate up high on a bike.

Have you read the Canning Stock Route guy's trip report. https://wildworks.co.nz/csr/equipment.php

20 gallons is 160 pounds without containers. That's a whole lot of water.

disconnected thoughts ??

well well
a lot of people CLEARLY know what I am trying to do