I only have one trip spreadsheet, but it’s 1168 rows deep (as of today) and, for ease of viewing, columns B to Q across.
Everything quantifiable is on there.
As mentioned sometime before tires are often the big concern and it’s an issue right now.
Type: maximum appropriateness for the distance between new sets. In hindsight it’s clear. Guessing in advance is hard.
Distance: you want the maximum performance between tire stops, but performance and durability don’t go hand-in-hand.
Risk: how screwed are you if you wreck a tubeless tire? I don’t carry back-up tubes. A durability and remoteness equation. For instance there are no tires for Lucinda in Laos or Cambodia.
Choice availability: limited according to country
So, 1) my route through Laos and Cambodia through to Bangkok (the nearest tire stop) is 3244K on the shortest track 2) The roads are bad and often wet and muddy so we need a knobby 3) there are no TKC’s available in Thailand 4) Heidenaus are too scary on a wet, dirty surface.
Knowing all this months and countries ago, I shipped 1 set of Heidenaus, and a rear Karoo 3 to Chiang Mai, Thailand. Then l mounted up new Karoo 3’s for the trip there from Malaysia, see below.
The theory: 1) TKC’s are not available, Karoos are the closet thing, do a dry run on them from Kuala Lumpur and see how much wear you get. That’s the first line in the spreadsheet. 1748 K, 30% wear. 2) Swop in Chiang Mai to the Heidenaus for China since durability and risk are the biggest factors. 3) Swop back to the new rear Karoo for Laos and Cambodia for knobbyness. 4) Swop back to the Heidenaus for Myanmar for safety.
It’s not confusing when you have lots of time to think about it.
So the spreadsheet is tracking how far into the distance requirement for the Karoos. It should be fine, but that depends on road conditions. I have an emergency back-up plan if it goes wrong, lol.