That is good customer service, but I’m curious what you hope to accomplish. You were very concerned about chainstay length. What frame with 425mm chainstays and Di2 will fit 45mm tires better than the Trek? To get what you need you’ll probably end up on a bike with longer chainstays.
I don't think it will be a problem. There's more to bike geometry than the chainstay. If you compare the Checkpoint's geometry to that of other bikes, you'll see that Trek's is a little outside the norm. I was concerned about chainstay length with the Checkpoint because the Checkpoint, to me, is a logy handler. It's a slower reacting platform. It doesn't need any added wheelbase. I have probably 16,000 miles between a Lynskey and a Niner RLT9 which both had 430 to 435mm chain stays -- and both are nimbler handlers than the Checkpoint. Much more fun to ride and race. And they both offer plenty of tire / mud clearance. I will be fine.
A few things to keep in mind here: 1) There are 3 frames - the SL carbon one, the ALR 300 series AL one, and the AL 200 series one. When I was looking, I noticed the 200 and 300 series frames are pretty different with respect to cable routing and the bottom bracket area in general, so do pay attention to that. 2) Trek quotes the smallest frame size and with 2 or 4mm more clearance than you may see from a competitive brand. So you can usually go one size larger than noted. 3) If someone is running an electronic front derailleur, that's the worst case. Between the battery and the motor, none of these are made for big tires. You've got 11+ gears in back, just go 1x.
4) and most important... if you've got an AL frame, just risk the occasional tire rub! It's a frame you're going to get dirty anyway. You'll wear the paint off in a spot, so what! The tire will keep that spot shiny and bright.
FWIW - My old gen1 Crockett 200-series AL frame was rated at 35c, I can run 38c easy with mud clearance. 43mm (measured) fit ok when new, but as they expanded with age I got a rub mark.
FWIW to anyone looking for general Checkpoint info as it pertains to tire fit, as the OP has mentioned this is definitely a Di2 issue. I recently bought the 2020 checkpoint SL5 with the updated 105, it now comes with the 40mm Bontarager GR1 tire. 40’s fit fine with mechanical shifting on the carbon frame, I’d say 45 would have room for a little mud as well. The GR1 looks a lot like the G-one, with a little bit of a directional center tread, 120tpi and 40mm. They are loud as hell on pavement 🙂
That is good customer service, but I’m curious what you hope to accomplish. You were very concerned about chainstay length. What frame with 425mm chainstays and Di2 will fit 45mm tires better than the Trek? To get what you need you’ll probably end up on a bike with longer chainstays.
I, too, am curious about what FlashBazbo ended up with. Aside from longer chainstays, the only other thing that will help clear the FD is a slightly steeper HT angle...Which of course would give it slightly snappier handling, which the OP wants.
I'm finally back, after having completed my search for the Checkpoint replacement. The one bike brand that would have worked for me, but wasn't an option this time, was the Lynskey. Both of Lynskey's gravel offerings would have worked perfectly. (My own custom Lynskey, built before there was a Lynskey gravel bike, was built to have the handling and tire clearance I was looking for. Today's Lynskey gravel bikes are built to the same spec as my custom. It is the bike I wish I had never sold.)
But . . . I have come to the conclusion that, if Lynskey isn't an option, the best option is to go with a bike that can handle both 700c and 650b. (According to Trek, the Checkpoint can't do that.) I'm looking for handling that's sharp, yet stable -- maybe a little sharper than the Lynskey's. For me, that's going to be an OPEN new U.P. Time will tell if the handling is everything I hope it will be. But it has capacity for wide 650b tires with mud clearance. And it promises not to be boring.
As for the Checkpoint, there's a lot to like about the bike. It just isn't for me.
I think the issue in addition to wider tires not fitting with Di2 fd's is that Trek has clearly reduced the tire size spec on this bike. When I bought in March 2018 it was widely advertised as 45c and now it is clearly Bontrager 40c (which might be less for other tires).
I think the issue with Di2 could have be resolved by a disclaimer that Di2 wouldn't work with certain tires and rear axle positions. Otherwise a blanket reduction in the tire size spec does seem like Trek made a mistake at some level.
I don't know anything about the law but seems like false advertising (i doubt it was intentional but not really relevant) and you'd have grounds to return it if it's a big problem for you?
FlashBazbo wrote:I'm finally back, after having completed my search for the Checkpoint replacement. The one bike brand that would have worked for me, but wasn't an option this time, was the Lynskey. Both of Lynskey's gravel offerings would have worked perfectly. (My own custom Lynskey, built before there was a Lynskey gravel bike, was built to have the handling and tire clearance I was looking for. Today's Lynskey gravel bikes are built to the same spec as my custom. It is the bike I wish I had never sold.)
But . . . I have come to the conclusion that, if Lynskey isn't an option, the best option is to go with a bike that can handle both 700c and 650b. (According to Trek, the Checkpoint can't do that.) I'm looking for handling that's sharp, yet stable -- maybe a little sharper than the Lynskey's. For me, that's going to be an OPEN new U.P. Time will tell if the handling is everything I hope it will be. But it has capacity for wide 650b tires with mud clearance. And it promises not to be boring.
As for the Checkpoint, there's a lot to like about the bike. It just isn't for me.
Did you consider the 3T Exploro (if available through your lbs for your exchange)?
FlashBazbo wrote:I'm not sure if this is a problem for anything but Di2. The closest point of interference, for me, is my Di2 front derailleur. Even a 40mm tire won't clear that derailleur. It sticks back a full inch from the seat tube. (Maybe that's why Trek's various specs on this bike have gone all the way down to 35mm tire width max.) My LBS has asked Trek what the problem is and they haven't given him any answers except to say that they will do something for those who bought the bike expecting clearance for 45mm tires plus mud. They say they will get back to him with what they're going to do. But it's already been a week . . .
Either way, my LBS is making it right for me -- trading out my Checkpoint frameset for a new frameset of my choice, and switching over the components for no charge. THAT, my friends, is great customer service. I offered to pay something, but he refused. Wow. With any luck, by the end of March, this won't be my problem anymore.
That's excellent service but is this case anything less would've been pretty outrageous IMHO.
FlashBazbo wrote:I'm finally back, after having completed my search for the Checkpoint replacement. The one bike brand that would have worked for me, but wasn't an option this time, was the Lynskey. Both of Lynskey's gravel offerings would have worked perfectly. (My own custom Lynskey, built before there was a Lynskey gravel bike, was built to have the handling and tire clearance I was looking for. Today's Lynskey gravel bikes are built to the same spec as my custom. It is the bike I wish I had never sold.)
But . . . I have come to the conclusion that, if Lynskey isn't an option, the best option is to go with a bike that can handle both 700c and 650b. (According to Trek, the Checkpoint can't do that.) I'm looking for handling that's sharp, yet stable -- maybe a little sharper than the Lynskey's. For me, that's going to be an OPEN new U.P. Time will tell if the handling is everything I hope it will be. But it has capacity for wide 650b tires with mud clearance. And it promises not to be boring.
As for the Checkpoint, there's a lot to like about the bike. It just isn't for me.
are you then going 2x or 1x? And with 700C or 650B wheels?
are you then going 2x or 1x? And with 700C or 650B wheels?
I went 2x. (I did 1x on gravel for 18 months and didn't like it. 1x is GREAT unless you're racing down a relatively smooth, fast descent. Then, a 1x runs out of gearing pretty dramatically against guys running 2x. I began to dislike 1x as I spun out in 42x11 and watched the 2x guys roll into the distance.)
And I went with both 700c and 650b. At the Open Range 200k, I used 650b x 47 Terrene Elwood (Tough) tires. They were pretty good in the deep sand. On firmer gravel/dirt, I like a narrower 35mm or 38mm 700c tire.
I went 2x. (I did 1x on gravel for 18 months and didn't like it. 1x is GREAT unless you're racing down a relatively smooth, fast descent. Then, a 1x runs out of gearing pretty dramatically against guys running 2x. I began to dislike 1x as I spun out in 42x11 and watched the 2x guys roll into the distance.)
And I went with both 700c and 650b. At the Open Range 200k, I used 650b x 47 Terrene Elwood (Tough) tires. They were pretty good in the deep sand. On firmer gravel/dirt, I like a narrower 35mm or 38mm 700c tire.
Interesting! What are you running now? 50/34 11-34?
I went 2x. (I did 1x on gravel for 18 months and didn't like it. 1x is GREAT unless you're racing down a relatively smooth, fast descent. Then, a 1x runs out of gearing pretty dramatically against guys running 2x. I began to dislike 1x as I spun out in 42x11 and watched the 2x guys roll into the distance.) .
So run a bigger chainring. I have a 44 oval chainring with a 10-42 cassette. I haven't been able to run out of gears on steep descents. If you are racing and worried about guys dropping you on down hills, you should be able to push a 44 / 42 up hill.
So run a bigger chainring. I have a 44 oval chainring with a 10-42 cassette. I haven't been able to run out of gears on steep descents. If you are racing and worried about guys dropping you on down hills, you should be able to push a 44 / 42 up hill.
If I were a flatlander, or if my primary objective were to have a "cool" 1x setup, I might think about that. But Tennessee gravel races usually have several long, steep climbs, and it is a matter of honor for race organizers to throw in a couple (or more) climbs of 20% to 25% grade. On those grades, 1:1 ratios aren't good enough -- they're a poor compromise.
Why make sacrifices in order to rock a 1x setup, if I don't have to? The benefits just aren't worth it. It would be foolish. I'll stay with what makes sense, but I appreciate your concern and your zeal for the 1x.
Yup, I like that combo better than a 1x. I think 1x is fine if I am on my own, but wen I am in a paceline, race, or group ride where the group sets the cadence - 1x is going to be a compromise I don't need.
If you run a 46 big ring with an 11 cog, you are at 117 gear inches. You will still be out geared if someone has a 50/11 at 128 gear inches (note that a 42/10 also has 117 gear inches and you would be out geared by someone running a 44/10).
At the end of the day, if you are racing against stronger riders, who can push a bigger smaller gears up the mountains, they can have a bigger gear on the way down regardless of whether they are riding 1x or 2x.
If you run a 46 big ring with an 11 cog, you are at 117 gear inches. You will still be out geared if someone has a 50/11 at 128 gear inches (note that a 42/10 also has 117 gear inches and you would be out geared by someone running a 44/10).
At the end of the day, if you are racing against stronger riders, who can push a bigger smaller gears up the mountains, they can have a bigger gear on the way down regardless of whether they are riding 1x or 2x.
You don't seem to understand. You see, in Tennessee, just about every long, steep descent is accompanied by equal and opposite long, steep climb. It's not JUST about going downhill. It's also about going uphill. 1x doesn't do wide ranges as well as 2x. It's inherent to the respective designs. Please don't take that personally. I was a very early 1x adopter. That experience taught me that 1x is much better suited to the midwestern flatlands than it is to my area. If I lived in the flatlands, I might still be using 1x. But 2x was originally invented for just the sort of terrain I experience every day. Why should I punish myself with 1x just for fashion's sake?
