That’s one factor. As someone else pointed out you’d run the 700x38 at 40psi and the 650x47 at 35psi, so you have more tire sag, a different roll axis, different trail… this in practice isn’t a big deal in my experience on flat gravel/dirt.
The other factor is that the expectation is that there’s more chainstay room when you move the meat of the tire backward. On my SL, there’s not- its not bowed there. It fits a 700x50 the same as a 650x50. Some frames can fit a larger tire because the tire would run into the seatpost, but the checkpoint clears a 700x50 with the axle full forward here - the benefit is standover height only here.
They are also quoting the smallest size the same as the bigger ones, so the smaller frames have challenges the big ones dont’ have.
I don’t understand most of these factors. There’s nothing that prevents Trek from consolidating models. If trek sold a Checkpoint/Domane SLR H1.5 fit that took 40tires with aero cabling, aero-ish post, a 53t ring, and some weight considerations (take out some mounts) you’d have the same bike. These a detailed product qualities, not differentiators between the models. To the end customer, the Domane and Checkpoint both have a flexy seat post, the same geo, the Domane takes 38c tires, the Checkpoint takes 45c-ish, the pics of the Domane are on the road, the Checkpoint are on dirt. The standard customer doesn’t care where the seat post binder is. The needs of the ‘race gravel’ market and the ‘roubaix’ customer are exactly the same aside from tire size.
Gravel bikes seem to be trending towards a 1x and with more mounting solutions. Endurance road bikes are still primarily 2x and more focused on weight and not being able to mount stuff
Im sure it’s a lot more complicated than “it’s the same bike with different sized tires”
Sure, and they may well do that. All I am doing is reading tea leaves and taking some educated guesses based on my connection to Trek, their established history and some thought of on my own. I make no claim that I am entirely right. I could be wrong on all accounts.
Oversimplified, that is true, but there is more to it in reality.
As I noted, they use two very difference systems at present. Whether that matters to any particular riders is a separate question, but they are not identical and have notable function differences IMO.
Again, true in some, but not all cases. Ask around for Domane and Madone users with that new style IsoSpeed, and more than a handful are having issues with slipping posts. I see it as a design flaw and one that adds to an overcomplicated solution compared to the simple IsoSpeed.
For a bike that is intended as a “gravel” direction, I think the simpler solution and more traditional (for Trek at least) seat mast design has notable benefits.
Maybe Trek will blend the Gravel and Endurance bike models, but they seem to like offering ranges of models, so keeping those separate along with CX as unique seem like safe bets from my seat.
Looks like I’m a bit off - 7mm of Stack and reach to the Domane , so there’s a headset spacer and stem length difference. The wheelbase difference is the rear chain stay adjuster on the Checkpoint in the 15mm longer mode. Effectively with the same fit, they’re the same geometry… in the consumer geometry, not the SLR race fit. There’s not an angle that it going to make a combined model less at one discipline or the other.
Sure, anything is possible. But considering the clear branding on those bikes, and the lifecycle they typically apply to their bike models, I think a new CP model is a near inevitability. With the current state of the world, they may be on a new schedule, but who knows?
I also really doubt TREK would go through the trouble of designing a one off bike for a handful of racers for a gravel race, they really stand to gain nothing from it
THere’s no reason to do that here. The current frame or a Domane would have worked fine. That bike also has SRAM AXS XPLR 10-44 on it too,which hasn’t been released.
The front end. It’s got standard (non-ISO) headtube and the H1 geometry (instead of “Pro Endurance” H1.5). The regular SLR had F & R ISO. Not necessarily Emonda , but they’re doing what ABG suggested - a small run of long and low bikes.
I have one of these as the ‘one bike to rule them all’ and so far it’s living up to the promise! Off road with 47mm 650b, on road 28-32mm 700c.
The only questions I have are about the isospeed and the adjustable seat stay. These for some reason aren’t mentioned in the manual I’ve found!
Is the isospeed adjustable, or do you just torque both bolts to the max written on there?
Is there a rule of thumb for the seat stay adjustment? I’ve lengthed it and it did seem to slow the steering, but I’m not sure I can be bothered adjusting it every time I go off road. Any thoughts?
There is no adjustment. The torque listed is to make sure the pivot screw remains tight. Set it as directed, it will not change the feel of the flex.
As you note, longer (more rearward) increases wheelbase and chainstay length, which gives more stability and resistance to turning when compared to the shorter (more forward) position.
It’s enough of a hassle to change that I suggest that people find a happy medium for what they want and leave it there.
isospeed is not adjustable. As implemented, it really doesn’t do anything here, but take up space on the website. I’d try a more flexible saddle if you want more slack. A brooks rubber saddle with the cutout is probably the easiest to point to
the Chainstay adjustment - just put it where you like it and leave it there. There’s no real reason to move it. The bike will take 29x 50c in both positions. The handling difference isn’t a stability difference, it just moves the ‘pivot’ of your turn rearward. This widens your turning radius and perceived handling, but that’s it. The real reason it’s there is so you can run it singlespeed.
Sadly, I have no clue. Considering we already overshot UB2021 (which could become a future debut time for gravel gear), I am not sure when Trek will drop the info for everyone.
The current climate of low availability stands to impact it as well, but we still see brands releasing new models despite really low volumes offered.
Thanks, wasn’t sure if they had sent some type of teaser to dealers. Shipping the bikes with inventory so low, but still expecting an embargo to be respected seems kinda crazy. Who knows, maybe the leaks are intentional.
