 |
| As seen at the Unbound XL back in early June. |
Of course, I have several thoughts on this introduction by Trek and I have had several discussions with N.Y. Roll concerning the bike already. I'm going to throw out my thoughts here on today's post, but I also encourage you, the reader, to chime in on this bike in the comments section. Is it a mountain bike? Is it unnecessary? Who is this bicycle for?
Okay, with all of these thoughts circulating in our heads, let's tackle the most common thought I see being expressed about the Checkout online. The thought I see most commenters expressing has to do with the Checkout being - or trying to be - a mountain bike. But many feel it is something a bit less than a mountain bike. Well......is the Checkout a mountain bike or not?
To figure this out I went to research a few things. The geometry used for what is called XC MTB today is very unlike anything we've seen in years past. The geometry today leans into downhill/enduro influences pretty heavily, so you have bikes with zero - or near zero - stem extensions, very slack head tube angles, and the ubiquitous "long/low" layout of the chassis. We did not always mountain bike this way. My thought was the Checkout is an FS 29"er from 15 years ago.
So, is this true? I went and researched the numbers from a 2011 Gary Fisher HiFi Deluxe, a dual suspension trail bike. I don't think anyone in 2025 would look at this as being anything other than a mountain bike. An old mountain bike, but a mountain bike. Here is what I found:
Gary Fisher HiFi Deluxe vs Checkout (HiFi numbers first, then Checkout's)
- Head Tube Angle: 71.0° vs 69.5°
- Seat Tube Angle: 73.6° vs 73.0°
- Seat Tube Length: 48.3cm vs 54cm
- Top Tube Length: 61.7cm vs 61.3cm
- Bottom Bracket Drop: 45mm vs 68mm
- Chain Stay Length: 450mm vs 442mm
- Trail: 74mm vs 88mm
 |
| Image courtesy of Trek Bikes |
NOTE: I compared a Size Large for each, so apples to apples as far as sizing goes. You can find variances by comparing different sizes.
Okay, I see a big difference in three areas. One: Bottom bracket drop. But remember, the HiFi Deluxe had 100mm travel front/110mm travel rear. The bottom bracket needed to be higher due to sag when setting up the bike. So, perhaps a wash there, depending on rider weight.
Second: Chain Stay Length. Again, the HiFi Deluxe has more travel, so this figures in, and it had a front derailleur with triple chain rings. Make this a 1X design and the Fisher could have easily had a shorter chain stay in the realm of the Checkout's.
Third: Trail. This is the figure which takes into account front end geometry and wheel size. The Checkout is actually more stable than the HiFi due to its longer Trail figure.
One more detail: The Checkout is based around road bike drive train standard while the HiFi is based on MTB drive train standard. This matters. A LOT. However; it is easier to get a wide range, low gear AND a fast gear on a road bike standard drive train than it is on a mountain bike standard drive train in 2025, so advantage Checkout here.
After considering all this, the answer to "Is the Checkout just a drop bar mountain bike?" is YES. An older mountain bike, but yes. This is a mountain bike. I'd say it is a more capable mountain bike in several ways than the HiFi was. Only the short travel on the Checkout (60mm front, 55mm rear) is holding it back. So, maybe we should add to the answer here. "The Checkout is a drop bar MTB from another era with too little travel."
 |
| 2011 Fisher HiFi Deluxe (Image courtesy of Trek Bikes) |
Next: "Who is this bike for?" I've seen many online defending the Checkout by saying it is a bike for ultra-endurance folks who do things like the Atlas Mountain Bike Race, or Trans-whatever continental type rides you want to point to. Okay....maybe so. But how many people actually do these events and are not sponsored athletes who have to ride certain equipment? Then take the remainder and see who want to trust a carbon fiber bike on a thousand mile or more outback trek across unsupported territories. I'm guessing we would be left with a not very large market for buyers. .
So, I believe Trek isn't going to base their marketing around events and riders who do those types of events, but they will gladly take their money if they choose a Checkout. No, Trek is looking at something else here with more chances for sales.
What has more appeal these days than Gravel™. Also, note the Checkout has a rack. Note the frame bags Trek shows the Checkout with in some of their marketing. Note the name: "Checkout". A clever take on their gravel bike nomenclature, certainly, but an intentional name as well. All this points to bike packing/touring. Trek even had the media crowd come to a press camp and had the journos ride the Checkout on fire roads, single track, and other mountainous type trails. Not a lick of gravel roads like we have in the Mid-West to be seen. Also intentional.
So, Trek is trying to appeal to the bike packing type who could justify the Checkout as being a gravel bike, or an everyday usage bike in a pinch. This helps the consumer accept the big price tag (9K) of the Checkout and its weight as well. (Reportedly something around 27lbs). I also expect a lesser priced aluminum framed Checkout at some point.
There are more to things here which I have thoughts on, but in my opinion, the Checkout is a throw-back 29"er FS bike with a nod towards gravel. It is trying to capture those consumers who have a wanderlust for bike packing but need to justify their purchase by having the bike be some other thing as well. And what better way to do this than make it a pseudo-gravel bike.
10 comments:
There was a time in my life when a bike like this would've tickled my fancy, but that time has long since passed. Today I choose to ride a rigid mountain bike a lot of the time off-road, and on gravel it's the same thing. I don't need the complexity and necessary service of a suspension bike for gravel. The 'suspension' on my Lauf Seigla is all I need on rough days, but even with that bike in the quiver, I still choose my rigid Black Mountain Cycles Mod Zero most of the time for gravel.
@MG - Keeping it simple is best for maximizing fun. At leat a lot of the time, this works out. The very few times anyone would actually benefit from a bicycle like this are generally few. So in the meantime you are left carting around the extra weight, and as you correctly point out, the extra maintenance will have to be done as well.
So, yeah, I'm with you on this.
I think the real question is did Salsa miss the mark? Should Salsa cycles reserected the Dos Niner in a drop bar configuration and updated the frame, especially the materials.
@NY Roll - There is a lot to be considered there. Scandium was what the Dos was made from, and while it was light and flexed the way the design for the Dos needed it to flex, it ended up failing most of the time. This is why there are very few Dos Niners out there anymore.
However, this and the Moots YBB do show a way which a gravel design might be done to take advantage of the soft tail idea. I liked the shock Salsa used on the Dos as it was incredibly easy to set up and very low maintenance. Used with the correct material and design, I think a gravel bike version of the soft tail design would actually be a great idea for many people who ride gravel.
On soft tail gravel bikes: https://g-tedproductions.blogspot.com/2022/08/soft-tail-design-and-gravel-match-made.html (Copy and paste to your browser to read this post from 2022)
There is a reason my dropbar Salsa Big Mama FS 29er is still a favorite. Not so good for bikepacking because of the small (low) front triangle, but it does everything else well and rides as I expect a bicycle to ride.
I had one of those, great bike. Unfortunately, mine lasted less than 2 seaons because the chainstay cracked, similar to how many Dos Niner's cracked.
@Guitar Ted. Again, agree 100%. A Ti Dos Niner gravel bike would be so sweet.
I loved my Big Mama. Even won races on it. For its time, it was an amazing weapon.
@MG There is a single example of that very bike in existence.
Post a Comment