I reckon that within a few years manufacturers will still be inventing new bike categories to market to people money to spend and an n+1 stable to fill.
OreoCookie: why not offer a XC hardtail with dropbars and additional mounting points instead? I reckon the latter is much more robust.
Because an XC hardtail is too long, too slack, with geometry suited to the kind of riding that is rarely if at all done with a load of bikepacking bags fitted.
Hang on we’ve just created a new category of bike “Gnarpacking”, quick call Trek’s engineering, I mean marketing team.
Yeah, but that’s the full suspension XC bike from this manufacturer. Maybe their bikes are a tad portly, but it seems the most apple to apples comparison at the moment. I’m not sure why we’re even talking about hard tails to be honest.
Maybe I am biased, because my XC hardtail is from 2014 and has geometry similar to modern gravel bikes, but it works extremely well in most situations including when I am pulling a bike trailer across terrain. The only thing missing are mounting points. I put on narrower semislick tires and in my neck of the (non-)woods, it works extremely well on- and off-road.
If I wanted a dedicated “trekking” bike, then it’d likely look very differently (e. g. a Pinion gearbox or a Rohloff hub, Gates belt drive instead of a chain, etc.). The CheckOut doesn’t fit into any box (which is totally cool), and I am not quite sure who it is made for.
I have at least half-dozen events where I think the bike would be a benefit, or improvement over what other bikes are available. I’ve already experimented with putting dropbars on hardtail/FS MTBs and found them less than ideal. I want to buy an off-the-shelf bike, with geometry designed for purpose - not cobbling together a compromise dropbar MTB with excessive reach/trail/FC.
I also do not want to try to buy a hardtail or FS from 10+ years ago (again) that may or may not have workable geometry, outdated specifications, and questionable durability.
I would be on size M for the Checkout. I’ve been considering buying a Chisel FS to convert to dropbars and have been stuck picking between S/M, it’s obvious the Checkout geometry is optimized around dropbars and more mixed terrain riding.
Trek’s latest gravel bike has been spotted a few times this year, with the most notable appearances being Justinas Leveika’s wins at The Accursed Race in May and at the Trans Balkan Race a month later.
Full-suspension bikes have taken over a much larger share of endurance MTB and bikepacking racing than even just 5 years ago, nevermind 10. Dropbars are lagging behind but are still much more common than the past. Having a stock option is a benefit for this type of bike. Converting from a MTB from flat bars to dropbars is a big technical and monetary hurdle for most people, even before the issues of fit, geometry/handling.
There is a larger market for this bike than the Niner MCR but I’m curious to see if it’s able to take off at $6,000+.
If the bike was lighter… in the 18-20 pound range I think there could be some potential here for rough “West Coast gravel" courses like up in Oregon and the Truckee-Tahoe area. But at 25 pounds at $9,000 I think most would opt for a more capable and lighter MTB.
Not sure how you take a Checkpoint (or a Diverge), already 20lbs, and add a full suspension and not get somewhere in the vicinity of 25lbs. Maybe if you started with something lighter, like a Crux, but I’m not sure that’s realistic.
I personally think the weight is a red herring. Would I prefer it be lighter? Sure, but I don’t think it’s going to end up being that material for a lot of west coast gravel, even with our hills. Lots of people show up to events out here on XC bikes, which are going to be in the same ballpark. They mostly look to be suffering in the eastern WA/OR winds more so than from the climbs.
Not the bike I was hoping Trek would release, but I don’t claim to understand much about adventure racing. As a gravel race bike, I guess it checks some boxes but seems like a bunch of compromises.
Besides the interesting rear rack that works with suspension, I don’t know why they didn’t just change the geometry on a supercaliber to make it work better with drop bars and call it a day. If you are going to add the cost/complexity/weight of damped full suspension, why such short travel? The bike is as heavy as a supercaliber with significantly less travel. With modern suspension (particularly Flight Attendant), the extra travel isn’t hurting you when you don’t need it and it’s great when you do need it. I think full suspension definitely has a place in gravel for some courses, but I’m not understanding the limited travel approach everyone seems to be taking. It’s like they are trying to be half pregnant with the move to suspension and don’t want to fully commit. All the downside of damped suspension without taking full advantage.
Yeah, that was my initial thought until I looked at the weight on a supercal. The ~$6k supercal is almost 27 lbs (so actually a little heavier than the Checkout for similar price point). I didn’t really review the specs, but I was surprised the supercal is that heavy. Basically pushing 29lbs once you add pedals, cages, etc. on a bike that is supposed to be sitting between a FS and HT. Makes me feel a little better about my 120/120 epic 8 that is right around 26lbs on race day. Anyways, I’d still take the heavier supercal over the checkout for the additional travel.
Also, not so sure about that name. I get the desire to create the “check…..” family of off road bikes, but checkout just doesn’t bring many positive vibes for me.
Yeah, that’s what I figured also, it just comes with some negative baggage in my mind. I’m far from a marketing expert, so what do I know. And I really don’t care what someone calls their product if it works well. I bought a set of 2.4 “Dubnitals” when they were released, I have no idea what that name even means.
This review (below) by Ben Delany is pretty good. Mostly for the interviews. He interviews a guy from Trek and a guy & gal from Rockshox on the development process for the bike and suspension. I’m probably reading/speculating too much into some of the comments, but my take-aways -
This bike has been in the works for 3+ years and started as a rigid bike, basically as a “fun” bike for folks who like to underbike and were “bored” with their XC bikes. My read is that it was basically a drop bar XC HT bike that would take MTB tires but without suspension.
Sounds like it evolved into full suspension ~2 years ago based on what the rockshox engineer implied. Maybe coincidence, but I think that’s about the time drop bar MTB’s were starting to make some waves in the grand prix series.
The flight attendant question came up and the gal from Rockshox was tight lipped, but said it’s something others have asked for. I can’t imagine it will be too hard to get there since the new Rudy damper was modeled after the Sid SL and the shock is just a Sidluxe XC shock. The current solution for lockout is to reach down and flip each of them manually (which really sucks IMO), so I’d expect/hope to see FA on gravel suspension sooner rather than later. Maybe at Unbound next year.
It’s easy to second guess some of their design choices based on where the market is today, but it’s certainly an innovative bike. Even though it’s not really being marketed as a gravel race bike, I bet we’ll see some folks racing it at events like Unbound and Big Sugar.
Most of us are pretty particular about suspension travel length when it comes to MTBs. We wouldn’t dare think of riding a 140/150 bike for an XC race, even if it had the same geometry, so why ride a 100/120 bike for a gravel race when you’re only using 25-50% of the travel?
With everyone opting to run bigger and bigger tires for the more technical gravel races, there comes a point where what you need for more grip is damped suspension, and you probably don’t need 100 or 120mm of it. For those scenarios, of course, the bike industry will build the right bike for you, especially when that segment of the industry is booming more than most others.
The argument with this bike vs a MTB, aside from the length of travel, is that the kinematics of most MTB geometries are dependent on the shock being in a certain location between the rear axle and the top of the head tube. That’s why in so many of those bikes, as the sizes go up, the seat tube simply extends futher up past the suspension linkage rather than moving all of the suspension itself. The result is a very similar-sized main triangle for most sizes, which isn’t ideal for the really long rides or tours that this bike was designed for. Many people opt for hardtails because of this issue, but in my opinion, that is also a compromise given what we know about suspension.
I do think that weight is a consideration here, but I’m fairly confident that an SLR version of this bike or something similar will arrive that is more race-focused. Either that or a whole new full-sus gravel race bike. This is certainly something different.
Regardless, this will serve as a fun experiment, and if I’m right about suspension’s role in off-road riding, I think we’ll remember this bike along with the Niner MCR that everyone’s referencing now down the road when things get really fine-tuned for all applications.
I’m all for the experiment, and would love to try one of these out!
Good to hear. Below, I’m honestly curious, not trying to argue choices.
Why not run flatbars? (I don’t mean to start a flamewar, it’s an honest question.)
What do you mean with questionable durability? Because the bike and all its components are old(er)?
My off-road bike is a Merida hardtail from 2014 that has been stripped and built from scratch in 2018 with great components, and further upgraded in 2022. I use it for commuting, pulling a bike trailer, riding on-road, (light) off-road and it works great. I feel overbiked in almost all situations. I wish I could get a bit more aero sometimes, but that’s it.
Agree to a point, but I think the suspension travel bias is grounded a bit from the “old days” when bigger travel translated to less efficient pedaling dynamics. With dual lockouts and now Flight Attendant, a 120/120 bike isn’t any less efficient than a fully rigid bike in places where it’s smooth and you still have significant travel when needed. And I’m not saying you would/should design a gravel bike with 120/120, but I think the hybrid XC bikes (World cup and supercal) is where I’d want to land on suspension travel.
Before I had a gravel bike, my gravel race bike was a FS 100/100 Scott Spark RC. It did just fine and plenty of podiums and decent results. And even after getting a gravel bike, I’d still pull out a FS XC MTB on some gravel courses. I raced my Epic 8 to a decent result at Big Sugar last year (with no fitness) and I also raced it at Valley of Tears this year and grabbed a podium spot. The only big downsides for me are the limited chainring size and the aero penalty with flat bars. Having less suspension travel wouldn’t make the bike any faster and it would be slower in places.
I agree with everything you’re saying. I pretty much exclusively use an Epic 8 these days. There aren’t many downsides to that bike whatsoever.
BUT. Is it the best bike for all scenarios? No, but it’s more than good enough for me..
If I had a large bike budget, I’d certainly ensure that I had the right bike for each type of ride though, and I can see where a short-travel drop bar bike would fit in.
Flat bars have an aerodynamic penalty in themselves, complicate both aero fit and the ability to move into more aero positions while racing. They’re also harder to manage in groups. That’s all aside from the fact I don’t enjoy riding flat bars outside of XC racing.
Yes, there is a bit of NOS stuff out there but most of the older bikes available have been used hard or have some undisclosed problem(s). If there’s a frame/fork failure often you’re stuck replacing everything or wasting time trying to hunt down a replacement that may another problem shortly. Most FS bikes have been serviced poorly through the life of the bike, if at all.
I get what you are saying… but this summer I did a 100 mile (chunky) gravel race. Everyone was on the hoods, maybe the drops when it got bumpy. I don’t really see an advantage over a narrow flat bar. Outside of those racing to win is anyone in aero position for these races very long?
Did you do the 100 miles on a flat bar? My own experience is that my hands get serious fatigue from being stuck in one position on an mtb after a few hours. Especially in sketchy terrain where you’re white knuckling it sometimes. For me, being able to move around on a drop bar makes a big difference, even if it’s only for short periods. Kind of like the difference in saddle fatigue when riding indoors vs out.
