Part of me wants to say Cove, I remember seeing them with a hoofing great pivot.
Must avoid retro bike rabbit hole!
Sticking with this I quite like it’s odd looks. Shame it’s SRAM only, maybe if it works there’ll be a “budget” option. Plus really fat comfy wheels might make for a fun long distance adventure thing.
I reckon it is wireless groupsets only, and Shimano currently doesn’t make one.
Correct.
Aren’t all flex stay bikes single pivot?
Joe
From a purely kinematic aspect of rear tire travel, yes. Differences in shock compression rates and other things like rigidity can all vary from that “simple” start.
I reckon the difference is that they are single-pivot, but “dual spring/shock” since in addition to the shock the chainstays flex, too.
Caveat: Indeed, I am not an engineer, and I didn’t know this was done before. I just haven’t seen it anywhere else till now.
Regarding the trade-off, I read something similar, but I reckon since the BB bearings are so (comparatively) large, I would not expect this to be a major issue in practice. Even if you have to replace the bearings, you can get SRAM BBs anywhere. It is likely much easier than having to chase down the exact bearing size. Similar things apply to headset bearings, too, which also do not travel much and see lots of side load (i. e. orthogonal to the plane of rotation).
Its batshit bad engineering just like threaded BBs are. Threaded bearing cups = misaligned bearings, which is guaranteed to shorten bearing life. Ever wonder why the only machines that use threaded bearing cups are bicycles.
I’m with you on pressfit BBs, I think they are in principle superior and most arguments in favor of threaded BBs seem to reduce to “Well, we think it is a better way to deal with the bike industry not meeting/caring about tolerances.” What these people forget is that this applies to other parts as well. E. g. I had to really crank down my seat post clamp on my last bike (so hard, it hurt my hand), because the seat tube was too wide.
To me this is slightly different, it is an attempt to replace one solution that is usually custom with another one that is standardized (like UDH). Apart from it being threaded, why would a BB be a bad solution? (I’m honestly curious, not trying to argue one way or the other.)
a SRAM dub BB is not an industry standard at some point in the near future its likely to become obsolete just like a SRAM front derailleur 
Whereas a 6806 bearing will be available for decades to come.
Using a BB is heavier than just pressing in some cartridge bearings, and way heavier than using Igus plastic bearings like Dave Turner FS bikes used to use.
It adds an extra machining step to the frame, you have to bore and face the female threaded inserts in the frame before they are threaded.
Increased tooling costs, threading tools are more expensive than boring and facing tools.
Aligning bearings in threaded holes to support a shaft is really bad practice.
The only advantage for the end user of using a BB is they can use the same tool to change the crankset BB as the swing arm main pivot BB.
The advantage for the industry is a steady income from replacing bearings that wear out sooner than they ought to,
Advantage I can see from a home mechanic would be ease of replacement, although I’d have thought ht2 would have been better as Shimano has used the same consistent axel diameter for almost (or maybe just over I can’t quite remember) 2 decades.
Not everyone has a bearing press but a BB wrench is practically idiot proof and cheap - assuming you don’t get an Abbey Tools one.
How often do the bearings wear out in practice? My previous mountain bike was a fully, and the bearings were changed once in 10 years, twice tops.
I reckon the dub BB standard will be around for the lifetime of the bike. When was the last time SRAM changed their BB standard?
True, but the industry seems to want to move back to threaded BBs. Like I wrote above, I don’t like it and I don’t think it is a “solution” to accepting bad manufacturing tolerances.
I’ve had zero issues with the threaded BB on my bikes. And if I do it’s easy and inexpensive to replace.
If only serviceability were a primary concern of bike manufacturers, though, in this case it is a side benefit for home mechanics. (I reckon integrated handlebars/stems would look very differently if bike manufacturers took serviceability seriously.)
The quality control problems bike manufacturers “avoid” by going with threaded BBs will still crop up in other places (see my example about my seatpost that kept on slipping).
This is as silly as the arguments that the bike industry is forcing trends like disc brakes onto consumers so they can sell more bikes.
Lauf is a very small company in the scope of the bike biz….no one is going to make any money because a few hundred BB’s used as pivot bearings wear out.
Dub is a 6806 bearing with a 1mm nylon bushing “borrowed” from Shimano once the Hollowtech patent expired. There are aftermarket bearings that are 6806 but with a 29mm ID that you could stock up on too.
While I like having the option to carry bottles, I very rarely do. Hydration pack is the way. I never use bottles when racing.