What sort of geometry do you like? The Checkpoint is known for being on the more lively side of geometry, which I definitely like, but others prefer a more progressive geometry. May try to test ride a bike or two with slacker geometry to see if it’s what you like. Sub-note, the new Checkpoint has a longer reach, but not really slacker, so use that how you will.
I have lots of friends with this bike who have never had issues with the BB, but BB90 is far from the best standard out there. The new version gets rid of all that garbage.
I would highly recommend a redshift shockstop stem, it seems to balance well with the isospeed in the rear.
The geometry is trek H3 endurance road bike geometry, it is not “lively” it is also not touring.
I’ve had more issues with BB86 and Specialized OSBB than BB90. BB90 isn’t perfect, but if you do ruin a BB bearing riding through sand/water it’s a 10min job and $30 in bearing to swap out the bad part (assuming you have the tools). All cartridge bearings press into something, the downside to BB90 is that the hole circumference needs to be spot on, which it won’t be in a carbon frame, and aligned which plastic the BB cups help with. this is no different than the BB86 situation where you’re pressfitting bearings into a metal tube that you’ve welded a bunch of times and then heat treated. The only other thing notable is that you can’t put SRAM Dub bearings (and PF30 / BB30) in there. If you’ve got a bad BB90 frame, you’ll have repeated bad bb issues from the get-go. If you’ve got a fine one like most of them, you won’t have an issue. Trek T47 is just pre-pressed bearings thats then threaded into the carbon frame (not the opposing side), it doesn’t guarantee a better world.
I was pretty neutral on the 2021 v 2022 model… seems i’m wrong.
Tour Int just did a test of the new Checkpoint in their latest. Interestingly, the new frame tested twice as complaint as the prior one. I think they are using an offset Isospeed post with that cutout at the bottom of the frame, similar to the Procaliber; the prior had the axle centered.
Rear Front
Old 92 89n/mm
New 45 41n/mm (these are the lowest numbers I've seen; these might be a misprint based on the score given. )
ALR 192 97 (same fork, but with AL steerer? stiffest seatpost known to man)
Crux 155 80n/mm
I was pretty dubious on the Isospeed on my gen1 Checkpoint relative to just a good seatpost on the AL frame, and these numbers back that up. I hadn’t noticed the difference here. The new unit looks to be legit if Tour’s numbers are consistent with this type of device and if they’re using the same seatpost height/frame.
Anyone have issues with the ISOspeed? I’m looking at a used 2023 Checkpoint SL6 this afternoon. Reason for asking is that sooo many of the local Madone owners had issues with that one. Can’t recall seeing anything posted about the Checkpoint, however this one is not adjustable IIUC.
FWIW I rented an SL5 in March and couldn’t adjust the seat height (it was too low) because the bolt was stripped, otherwise liked the bike.
Any pointers on what to check on a used-but-almost-new Checkpoint?
Yeah I’m not so concerned with weight, rented an SL5 for BWR AZ and it was ok. If the SL6 was a Rival 2x setup (its not, its 1x), I could drop the weight over half a pound on a spare Red PM crank sitting in my garage. I’ve got some Enve Aero road bars that will likely go on the bike. The SL6 has a carbon seat post, but alloy stem. Reason I mentioned potential ISOspeed issues - about 8 local Madone gen6 owners with top tube ISOspeed, including the LBS manager, and they’ve all had issues with keeping it tight or had to have Trek replace the frame.
I have a 2022 Checkpoint SLR. I’ve done multiple rides/races including Unbound 200. The only issue I’ve had with ISOspeed is that it developed a creak. I took it apart and added some grease… no issues since.
+1 on the non-adjustable rear iso speed being solid. I have it on a madone 9 and my '22 SL checkpoint. It’s a good system, love the feel of the backend on both of those bikes. I also had a domane with the front isospeed and it was great when it worked, but came loose constantly. I really wish they could have figured the front isospeed out, it was outstanding for off road use. Trek’s official story is that front isospeed wouldn’t help on the checkpoint, but I think they couldn’t figure it out for off road duty. I ran a redshift stem at unbound last year, worked pretty well.
If you haven’t already looked at it, you might want to check the reach on those bars before assuming they would work on the checkpoint. Trek went very long on the checkpoint (for stability, etc.) and compensated with very short reach bars and short-ish stem. I switched my checkpoint stock bars out for aero road bars and that put me pretty much near the limit on stem options. I’m currently running an 80mm stem, but really need a 70 (which would give me about the same reach as the stock bar). Unfortunately, redshift doesn’t make a 70mm stem and I really like how that stem works after racing with it last year.
Thanks, I’ve tried to sell the Enve aero bars twice on Craigslist and 3 nibbles but no sale. Just listed again, this time on FB Marketplace two days ago and already 35 clicks so maybe this time.
At BWR I liked the stock bars. Will need to give ‘em the shake down over next couple of days. If I decide to keep the aero bars, are these two pics enough for you to say “no way” or “maybe” or “yes” on fit?
I had the prior Checkpoint SL and then upgraded to the SLR last year. No issues with either. The SLR had been essentially trouble free, the ISOspeed essentially unnoticeable (although I’m sure my backside and body appreciates it), and the tire clearance better than expected. Trek rates it for 45mm, but I still have plenty of clearance with Pathfinder Pro 47s on it at present (Enve G23 wheels). The addition of the in frame storage on the SLR was a nice upgrade as well.
There is one weird, but known, issue I haven’t seen much posted on with the Checkpoint SLR. Their is a slight alignment issue with the brakepads and rotors, where a small part of the brake pad doesn’t make contact with rotor. As your pads wear it is really noticeable. The lead mechanic at my local Trek shop says he is seeing it on SLRs and apparently Trek knows about the issue. Doesn’t really impact things riding but thought I’d post here about it.
Hard to say based on pics and it really depends on whether you like the extra reach or not. If you want to test the reach without the trouble of swapping to the enve bars, you could duplicate the reach by swapping in a longer stem on the stock bars (if you have one in your parts bin). To figure out the extra length needed, just look at the reach spec on each bar.
My ‘18 (?) with the mast style post has been problem free aside from the bearing cover fit/finish As a gravel bike, it’s beat up anyway, so not a big concern.
I’ve only had three issues, 1) the edges on the ISO rear covers are thin and wear a bit. They have that look of a sticker that’s not perfectly placed. That’s just a detail though. 2) the DI2 cover cracks because it’s not up to holding a whole water bottle. This shouldn’t be a issue on newer bikes. 3) BB90 eats 2-3 bearings /season. Shouldn’t be an issue on current bikes.
For newer bikes- if you’re going to travel, don’t get the seat mast SLR. Get the SL with the normal post. It packs better and you can run the Ergon /Canyon leaf spring post which is awesome.
To the questions that weren’t asked
In general, if you don’t want the downtube storage, consider the AL bike with the Ergon post - it’s way better than the ISO feature.
Bars- the last set of stock Trek alloy bars (2014 ish) were the stiffest I’ve ever tried. I tried FSA AGX wing bars and the bump destroyed my hands. I’m on 3T aero-gravel bars and they’re 5-stars (same reach though, but with integrated to stem routing). Older 3t Ergonova carbon and Easton EC70 aero also awesome for feel and ride.
Stem- carbon stem doesn’t do anything for anyone. It doesn’t save weight nor ride better. The stem is the worst carbon part.
@grwoolf
ISO F/R - Tour Int did a frame jig test of the new bike (3/2022) if their numbers are reliable, the new bike has 2x the compliance (40nm f&r vs 90nm f&r if I recall) of the prior model and the double ISO Domane. The longer tip tube and shorter head
tube basically eliminate the need for the front ISO.
If you’re still having issues, I’d look at your bars and bar tape. Lizard Skins tape, for example, is awful for damping despite what one might think. I tried finding a short damping stem for my kids MTB and they don’t exist. I might also suggest cutting up an old running shoe for the foam to use as padding.
My 2015 Domane had a seat mast. No more seat masts for me, and that bike didn’t travel. That bike had bb90 and my bearings lasted about 20,000 miles.
I’ve got a set of 1300g wheels, the stock Bontrager are almost 1800g so that one change is going to knock off 1 pound of weight from the bike. That and my power pedals are only immediate changes to the bike.
on the understated Trek downtube logo.