Trek Rail 2022 Reach

[Zed]

I'm confused about what Trek are doing here. I'm looking at Treks' AU page, at a Large size. They have different reach numbers:

• 2022 Rail 7 & 9 with 625wh at 470mm
• 2022 Rail 9.8XT with 750wh is 491mm

So you look at that and think OK they've had to lengthen the bike to fit the 750wh battery in. But then, there's a 9.8XT in a Medium with the 750wh and the reach is 456mm.

I don't get it. Anyone have insights on this? Maybe it's just a symptom of them not fully re-designing the Large for the new battery. Which would seem weird. It's annoying. I feel like 491 is too long, and 456 is too short. Where's the 470?!?

The Crafty is a similar story with 490mm in Large (and 750wh Bosch). They do at least have the 470mm in Medium though. They also come with a 30mm stem (vs 45mm on the Trek). Potential upside there with a 420mm seat tube on the Medium Crafty. It's climbing the ladder for me I think. Or live with the 30mm stem? It's shorter than I historically like though. Big gamble $ wise.

EDIT: Loam Wolf crew couldn't get it either, from 16:40 (good whole vid though!):


It's a shame. The Rail is right up there for me but I really think I'd need a M/L size...

 

[JP-NZ]

It's a shame. The Rail is right up there for me but I really think I'd need a M/L size...

How tall are you and what reach are you coming from?

 

[Zed]

How tall are you and what reach are you coming from?

I'm 181cm. The longest reach I had recent years was 477 and I don't think I'd want to go bigger, that was on a Knolly Fugitive, running a 40mm stem. I found that bike a bit too straight line oriented and even though the kinematics and build quality were awesome I just wasn't enamored with it handling wise, bit too long for what it was, a trail bike. My last ebike was an Orbea Wild and it was quite bit shorter I think it was 455 - a bit too short though, admittedly; I think I ran a 60mm stem and I'd prefer to run 40mm. We do have a lot of tighter trails, I like longer bikes for the faster trails sure but they're like 30% of my riding at best. I know I could ride the 491 on the Large Rail OK, but I'd be out of options if I found it a bit cumbersome, which isn't somewhere I want to be for that kind of outlay...

I dunno 30mm and swept back bars maybe it'd be ok. But OMG if it's not...

Anyway, I'll be getting a bike at some point in the next few months and the plan is to have a priority list and see what I can actually source once I have the cash .

 

[JP-NZ]

I’m 178cm and have ordered the medium 9.8XT. My ideal reach is around 460mm. My last enduro bike was an Intense with 455mm reach so I know I’ll be fine.

I totally understand what you mean though a M/L with 470+/- would be perfect for a lot of people.

 

[js71]

I have a 21 9.8 and a 22 9.8. I’m 186cm with 32” inseam. The 22 reach is spot on for me. The 21 always felt too short. I’m also running Diety 50mm riser bars on my 22. It’s perfect. But I do think the gap from M to L is quite huge this year.

 

[Wak]

Trek have bodged up the sizes on the new 750 they just made a new front triangle to fit the battery in cheep way ov duin it and a grand more to big a gap between M And L

 

[Andyvicks]

I can see Trek bringing M/L sizes to the Rail and other EMTBs in the near future to bring them into line with their conventional mountain bike sizing. The reach measurement difference between a medium and a large (with a M/L in the middle) for a conventional bike (Slash) is about the same as the medium and a large 2022 smart system Rail.

 

[torabora851]

Interestingly, the new Fuel Ex has the same reach for L and a huge gap between M and L reaches. Seems the long reach is not related to the requirement to fit a big battery.

 

[Oupy]

Seems to be a perspective thing and viewing it either positive or negative, much like the Pygmalion effect of things living up or down to expectations. For the Rail in particular, the mindset going into a group test seemed to be around "I'm worried Trek has ruined this bike by increasing the reach" - thus dominating the basis of opinion when testing the bike.

 

[Zed]

Seems to be a perspective thing and viewing it either positive or negative, much like the Pygmalion effect of things living up or down to expectations. For the Rail in particular, the mindset going into a group test seemed to be around "I'm worried Trek has ruined this bike by increasing the reach" - thus dominating the basis of opinion when testing the bike.

Or perhaps, it could just been that people riding a Large in general want a reach around 470
I mean this is the physical dimensions of my body, it's not just an expectation...
To me, 490 is Enduro sled reach - which is fine if you have the trails but it's too long for 70%+ of my riding. I also think that kind of reach on those kinds of trails would better suit 170mm travel.
It would of course be nice to have both bikes.

 

[Shane(NZ)]

I'm 193cm , I recently brought a Trance e+ X 2022 which has a reach of just over 510mm , I was concerned it was going to be to much, my powerfly was 478mm also in XL, but actually didn't feel like much difference to me.

2 cents worth!