One radically different approach would be going for low weight, basically the bikes you'd see in road racing with some minor changes for longevity. For 10k mile

One radically different approach would be going for low weight, basically the bikes you'd see in road racing with some minor changes for longevity. For 10k miles you'd want to carry two replacement chains and three or four tires (not pairs), and a generous amount of tubes (the author's argument against tubeless is perfectly valid, they are only tubeless until they are not). Even with all routine spare parts (and some selected not-so-routine) much lighter than the "unbreakable heavy duty" bikes that keep breaking in surprising ways, 10k miles isn't much to those fragile-looking speed machines. But the caveat is that you'd have to radically minimize luggage, because if you'd pack the fragile-looking like the seemingly unbreakable, they would quickly cease being fragile-looking. Just like the seemingly unbreakable would completely fail to disappoint, without the load they usually get burdened with. (bags impose far more stress on the bike per unit of mass than the rider, because the rider separates his mass from the bike with active, predictive suspension while the bags just hang on)