TREK Checkpoint?

Some shops will have existing orders (like, placed months ago) that will be delivered sooner than that. My shop has orders for SL 6s and 7s that will be delivered this summer/fall.

1 Like

Looks like there’s a new Checkpoint coming soon, and being that the old version was launched in 2018, makes sense we’d see a revised 2022 model in the near future. I’d have really liked to have seen a front IsoSpeed though. https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/new-trek-gravel-bike-ridden-by-quinn-simmons-at-unbound-gravel/

3 Likes

I was wondering what he was riding!

Pic stolen from a Trek CP FB page:

I wonder if we will finally see an SLR (top level carbon) and SL (same mold/frame, but lower level carbon) like they do on their other models?

Seems like they skipped Front IsoSpeed, which I think is good. A RedShift stem is a much better option for people wanting real relief and I think the RS stem is a perfect match to the Rear IsoSpeed.

Also hard to see, but I am hoping they include the down tube storage system like many of their other models. (however, considering the saddle bag in use, and the lack of what I see as the surround typical of their DT hole, I am not overly optimistic this gets the storage).

2 Likes

Quinn Simmonds is 6’0” and that headtube definitely looks like a lower fit than H2 for the frame size he would ride, so I’m assuming that’s a new SLR variant in a race fit.

1 Like

Check out this pic: https://www.velonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CHeckpoint-logo.jpeg?crop=1500:844&width=1500

Looks like there is a downtube storage port!

2 Likes

I agree this looks like an “SLR” type model. This is Quinn Simmons bike? looks like an H2 fit here with a longer top tube based on the shorter looking stem. (Note: Quinn looks to run a fit that looks like it could fall over forward even on an H1.5 for Strada - https://www.instagram.com/p/CL9X25hldEc/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link ) .

With the “aero” notes, I don’t see how they’d differentiate this build from the Domane (with it’s current all-road theme) as 7mm of tire clearance isn’t going to sway a lot of customers. This is missing all the fork mounts, but I’m guessing that is fine abandoning the “bike backing” theme here, as they have two other models for that. I’m guessing they’d combine this with the Boone (or just drop CX) and are going to lengthen the frame a bit for toe-clearance.

Comparing SLR, the Domane has the very different and fully adjustable rear IsoSpeed setup. The CP sticks with the super simple system of the original IsoSpeed. Then consider that the Domane also includes front IsoSpeed while the CP may well not include it.

Those details included with what I expect will be a max of at least 45mm x 700c clearance on the CP SLR will split it from even the 38mm max on the Domane. We may even see Trek officially allow 650b wheel size, but I am not entirely sure they will make that leap.

Additionally, we don’t know the geometry yet, and there are chances that the CP is more “gravel focused” than the Domane. And I highly doubt Trek would drop the Boone from the lineup. The geo and smaller tire size limits split it out from the direction in the current “gravel” scene.

The general reluctance to “support” 650b really baffles me. There’s really not a lot that needs to happen aside from maybe having someone grab a pair of calipers and measure what will fit.

No one is really talking about altering geometry to support that wheel size, though I do think a bike that was built around 700c 28/32mm that could also fit 650b 47mm would be a pretty interesting do it all bike.

The concern Trek cited originally was BB height, 650b wheels are not as tall as 700c. Whether you agree with their concern is up to you.

700x38 is a 2192 diameter
650x45 is a 2117 diameter (sorry closest I could find to 47)

That’s not insignificant, and requiring that much tire I would venture to say someone should be on an MTB

700c is 19mm greater diameter than 650b, so you can do the math that way. It seems hard to say whether that’s significant without knowing what will fit.

Edit: meant to say radius.

Simply taking rim size will not account for a difference in diameter with various tires. I’m also not talking about tire clearance against the frame but it’s significant in the sense of how much lower the BB is, if I want a larger tire I’m probably riding more rough terrain and if I’m riding more rough terrain why would I want my pedals ~38mm closer to the ground for pedal strikes.

Not sure where 38mm came from, but it’s not nearly that for any of my bikes. It’s usually around a centimeter or less once I mount larger tires. It really depends on what the constraining factor is for a given bike.

But I think that’s exactly why Trek won’t officially support 650b. They design the bike around something like a 700x40 so unless they support something like a 650x55 then the difference in geo is just too big.

Something like the new Allied Echo is what you are talking about. By flipping some chips at the front and rear axles it officially supports up to 700x30 in ‘road mode’ and 700x40 in ‘gravel mode’

1 Like

I took circumference not diameter, that’s my fault. If we call it 1cm that’s exactly how much my flip chip lowers my BB, and it’s enough of a difference that I leave it in high for anything except the trails that most closely resemble a bike park because otherwise I’m clipping pedals way more often than I’d like.

The Diverge supports 2.1", so that’s about right.

650b wheels suck

Damn, you’re right. I guess Trek just doesn’t consider those tires a frequent enough use case to design their bike around it.

1 Like

MTB scene is similar, pretty much everything comes standard with a 29” now, and the bikes that had options for a factory 650 version can still fit the 650 but you can’t really buy much in a 650 from factory anymore. The people want bigger wheels, when many enduro and DH guys are making the switch over I think it dealt a big blow to the 27.5+ market because that was their bread and butter segment