Rail (750Wh) Rail geometry.

[Peaky Rider]

The Trek Rail 9.8 XT Gen 3 2023 can currently be had for £6,000 (was £8350) here in the UK and I am dangerously tempted.
Not just by the price, but also by the fact various reviews on the Tube refer to the frame being "much" longer (about two cm) than the alloy framed versions. This is to accommodate the larger battery. I feel a longer top tube would suit me. Trouble is, I can't find anything in the published stats to support this.

Dimensions from Trek website.
Effective top tube - Rail 7 (ally) - 61.3 cm. Rail 9.8XT (carbon) - 60.1 cm.
Reach - Rail 7 - 44.5 cm. Rail 9.8XT 45.2 cm.
Those figures don't suggest any great difference to me but I often find frame measurements a mystery..
I could go and sit on one but that would be too dangerous.

 

[irie]

Try this link.

Geometry Geeks

The world's biggest open geometry database. Find bikes by name or numbers. Easily compare bike geometry side-by-side.

geometrygeeks.bike

 

[Peaky Rider]

Thanks irie, just used the Geeks table and it reads pretty much the same as the Trek website, as one might expect.
I'm still struggling to see where this extra frame length comes from. I guess it must result from the overall changes in the geometry and I'm just looking at it too simply.

 

[STATO]

Dont know much about Trek but looking on the website seems like you are comparing Medium in different Gen models;

Reach - Rail 7 - 44.5 cm. Rail 9.8XT 45.2 cm.

0.7cm longer
But the the XL seems to be the 2cm longer reach reviews claim.

Regarding the '9.8 is longer to fit bigger battery' just looking at both seems the battery door is much closer to the motor than the alu or other older models. So id guess this is more of the reason than the made up waffle many bike reviewers spout.

 

[mustclime]

I may get a little heat on this but Trek is a very conservative company with their frame/bike designs IMO. Sadly when they try to get up to date they screw it up like the new Slash. The rail is a dated design, the carbon is a little closer to being up to date but the geometry is still not there IMO. Out of the big three brands out there, Specialized is the most up to date with geometry and integration. Giant’s suspension design does not blend well with a mid motor e bike( chain stays have to be really long). All this being said, the rail is a great choice but it’s kinda like a Ford Mustang in a Euro car meet.

 

[rzr]

new Rail (gen3/4) also has slacker head angle, by about .4-.5 deg.
and steeper seat tube by 2* - that's why TTH is only 6mm longer on size L, and 1cm shorter! on size M.

reach longer by ~21mm (size L), but on M, reach is longer only by 6-7mm

also Rail gen3/4 has some new knock block? however on mine Rail gen2 (carbon L) I was able to run Zeb WITHOUT knock block and nothing was obscruting the fork....

that extra length comes from longer tubes of course

 

[Hob Nob]

I may get a little heat on this but Trek is a very conservative company with their frame/bike designs IMO. Sadly when they try to get up to date they screw it up like the new Slash. The rail is a dated design, the carbon is a little closer to being up to date but the geometry is still not there IMO. Out of the big three brands out there, Specialized is the most up to date with geometry and integration. Giant’s suspension design does not blend well with a mid motor e bike( chain stays have to be really long). All this being said, the rail is a great choice but it’s kinda like a Ford Mustang in a Euro car meet.

Of course these things are subjective. But comparing a large Gen4 Rail to an S4 Levo:

- Rail is longer reach
- Higher stack
- HTA comparable in stock settings, if you run a 170 fork on the Rail is 63.8 degrees
- STA is steeper on the Rail
- WB is longer too
- Bigger battery on the Rail

I’d also add, the shock issues on the Levo (running a shock thats far too small, and all of the clevis mount related failures) don’t make it an appealing purchase.

Having had a Gen3 Levo & now having a Gen4 Rail, I would say the Rail is a considerably better bike, with a better motor & battery system.

But hey, just my opinion.

 

[rzr]

can't compare to Rail gen3/4,
But now I own Levo gen3 carbon and it's waay better than Rail gen2 (9.7 (carbon) 2021 - I rode it for a month).
way better geo, and adjustable, quiet motor, and fully customisable (on rail gen2 there was nothing you could change with Bosch - basically eco or almost full power, that was BIG con for me).
however rear suspension (as noted above) could be better, had to change it to Cascade long travel link.
I put 29" on the back on mine Levo, works good, mainly to rise BB, I have a lot of techy and rocky stuff here.

new Rail has a bit better geo (than the old one), no problems with stock suspenson? new Bosch system might be better than the previous? (a bit of customisation of eco and turbo mode) however battery is still a bit higher and closer to head tube - affects maneuverability a bit)

 

[Marvin2Shoes]

I test rode the Levo (carbon frame was all they stocked) and I thought it was a very light and responsive bike to ride. I tested the latest Trek Rail about an hour later and immediately purchased it. It was heavier, it's geometry was such that I didn't feel comfortable riding without my hands on the bars but wow, it had better torque from the motor, it was a heavy-duty beast that matched my solid frame and I liked the way the large version frame fitted me. I would have liked to test-ride an alloy frame Levo so it could have been a better comparison. Alloy is just my personal preference.

 

[mustclime]

Of course these things are subjective. But comparing a large Gen4 Rail to an S4 Levo:

- Rail is longer reach
- Higher stack
- HTA comparable in stock settings, if you run a 170 fork on the Rail is 63.8 degrees
- STA is steeper on the Rail
- WB is longer too
- Bigger battery on the Rail

I’d also add, the shock issues on the Levo (running a shock thats far too small, and all of the clevis mount related failures) don’t make it an appealing purchase.

Having had a Gen3 Levo & now having a Gen4 Rail, I would say the Rail is a considerably better bike, with a better motor & battery system.

But hey, just my opinion.

1) the rail has the same seat tube angle as the Levo. The rail has 5mm more reach in medium/s3
2) the seat angle gets slacker when you replace the 160mm fork with a 170mm
3) when you jack up the front, you loose reach and as you lay back the seat tube, you end up sliding the seat all the way forward on its rails…. Even less reach.
4) the more expensive models have the crap through shaft shocks. You end up getting the “cheap” model shock hardware to mount a proper shock. Who would have thought doubling the number of seals in an air shock would cause an issue? Plus the 230mmx 57.5mm is a PIA to find.

I ride a Kenevo, steeper seat tube angle, longer reach and some real travel.

But the rail is an ok bike, I just wish Trek would Slash e bike.

 

[Jeremybub]

I have both in the stable and both are very different, IMO comparing the two is like comparing a Cybertruck to the Rivian
The girl that gets my attention all depending on my riding plans with the crew.
S-Levo, tech, tight single track, steeps, jumps, Levo is a 170/165 travel
T-Rail, flow, drops and feature's, oh yeah pedal day (cant beat a 29 on pedal days) Rail is a 170/150, flip chip in Low

 

[rzr]

interesting comparison, for me Levo is more capable bike, and Rail feels like a trail bike with more travel.

 

[Hob Nob]

1) the rail has the same seat tube angle as the Levo. The rail has 5mm more reach in medium/s3
2) the seat angle gets slacker when you replace the 160mm fork with a 170mm
3) when you jack up the front, you loose reach and as you lay back the seat tube, you end up sliding the seat all the way forward on its rails…. Even less reach.
4) the more expensive models have the crap through shaft shocks. You end up getting the “cheap” model shock hardware to mount a proper shock. Who would have thought doubling the number of seals in an air shock would cause an issue? Plus the 230mmx 57.5mm is a PIA to find.

I ride a Kenevo, steeper seat tube angle, longer reach and some real travel.

But the rail is an ok bike, I just wish Trek would Slash e bike.

So, in reference to your previous point, where it was ‘very conservative’ its actually very similar to the Levo, which is apparently the ‘most up to date brand’ with its geometry?

In reference to your points, comparing S4/L, which is what I was doing.

1. The Rail is 77.1 degrees, the Levo is 76.2.
2. Correct. 10mm on a fork is not losing a degree of STA though.
3. Incorrect. Saddle position has no reflection on reach.
4. I would rather a Thru-Shaft against a 210x55 clevis mount shock destroyer. Also a 230 i2i is not difficult to find, and most shocks have easily adjustable stroke lengths now. My Rail, for example runs a 62.5mm stroke, giving it ~163mm of travel now.

The Kenevo is a totally different bike to both the Levo/Rail. I’m sure they are great, but I have no interest/need in a 27.5” dual crown long travel ebike for where I live.

 

[mustclime]

Up to date geo? Transition, orbea, pole and Marin. The plastic rail gen 4 are up to date , the alloy Rails are not. I was in sterling yesterday with a buddy that does not have pivot or yeti money to spend. He asked my opinion on what to get, I told him to look at the Marin alpine trail E1….. or the Marin alpine trail E if he wants to upgrade out of the box. Right now they are priced at $3800-$3400 .

 

[JP-NZ]

Thanks irie, just used the Geeks table and it reads pretty much the same as the Trek website, as one might expect.
I'm still struggling to see where this extra frame length comes from. I guess it must result from the overall changes in the geometry and I'm just looking at it too simply.

It is the bike overall, the Gen3 Rail 9.8XT is a great buy especially at that price! I may also be a bit biased though. 2300km on mine and its been faultless, rides everything so well

 

[rzr]

So, in reference to your previous point, where it was ‘very conservative’ its actually very similar to the Levo, which is apparently the ‘most up to date brand’ with its geometry?

yes, it is, as I mentioned before, Rail feels like a trail bike with more travel, and Levo like a proper shredder.
HTA is still ~1*C slacker on Levo. but it's not only this, maybe CG is lower as well (battery is lower and closer to a motor) and that gives better/sure-footed feeling.

 

[joshtammi]

Can get the Rail 9.9 XX1 AXS Gen 4 in Australia for 6200GPB here. I've been very tempted, especially because my Kenevo needs a warranty claim haha.