Rail (750Wh) Trek Rail+ big gap in sizing...

W

Weeksy

E*POWAH Master
EMTB Pro
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,031
Location
Newbury(ish)
Looking at the Rail+ and must admit i'm a bit disappointed in the sizing.

I own several Treks and my 2 trail bikes are Fuel ex8s in ML as that's about a 465mm reach. I don't generally like going over 475mm (my previously Gen5 Fuel).
Disappointed to see i've got either 450mm or 490mm in the Rail+ as they don't seem to make an ML

I really like Treks and like the simplicity of their linkages in terms of cleaning and upkeep in the UK weather, their prices are usually pretty decent too.
 
⚡ EMTB Pro Go Pro — exclusive discounts & ad-free Peaty's 25% off & more · Ad-free browsing · Pro badge See the deals →
Some folks like a bit shorter reach on their eMTB do help with maneuverability due to added weight and stability inherit to added weight. That said, when you look at the overall geo to include top tube, stack and wheelbase is the M or L closer to your ML?

Can also run a 50 mm stem on M and higher rise bars too. The L with a 490 probably going to be too long even with a 35/32 mm stem.
 
the M is closer, but my lad (who'll also be using it) is a bit taller than me now. I've had a few long bikes (Bird and Spec Status) and prefered the smaller reach myself.
 
Yes Trek removing ML threw me a curve ball as well as that was what I have previously owned.

I am 6ft (I know this is actually a meaningless reference and leg / arm / body lengths vary) and chose a medium when I bought my Fuel Exe. I was lucky that my LBS lent me a medium and a large so I was able to do back to back comparisons.

Works for me - YMMV
 
My Trek Fuel EX size M/L (IIRC with 465mm reach) was perfect for me.

A 2022 Trek Rail 5 (M) was perfect for my wife (5'7") but too small for me (5'10" but gorilla shape). So had to go Large then mess with the cockpit a lot to make it comfortable. Downhill it's a beast (coil shock and forks).

If I was buying a Rail+ now I'd go Medium which IIRC is a little longer than the 2022 Rail 5 Medium.
 
Last edited:
Weeksy said:
the M is closer, but my lad (who'll also be using it) is a bit taller than me now. I've had a few long bikes (Bird and Spec Status) and prefered the smaller reach myself.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a compromise in multiple ways... maybe look to other brands with closer to ML sizing. Plenty offering 460-470 reaches in M/S3 sizes.
 
I just got the Trek rail+ gen 5 and in size L, im 182cm and 87cm inseam, and L 490 is the right size for me, dont know if that helps
 
irie said:
My Trek Fuel EX size M/L (IIRC with 465mm reach) was perfect for me.

A 2022 Trek Rail 5 (M) was perfect for my wife (5'7") but too small for me (5'10" but gorilla shape). So had to go Large then mess with the cockpit a lot to make it comfortable. Downhill it's a beast (coil shock and forks).

If I was buying a Rail+ now I'd go Medium which IIRC is a little longer than the 2022 Rail 5 Medium.
Click to expand...
Similar issues for me.
Both the Rail and Fuel EXE are medium sized but with some slight adjustments for geometry. The Rail originally came with a 60mm stem. Great for climbing but not so good for steepish descents. Both stems are now 45mm and fit OneUp carbon bars (760mm). 170mm AXS dropper’s on both.

My arm span is an embarrassing 6’3” and my inseam is 32”. (Gorilla-like 🥹). 5’9” tall/short. With that odd geometry I still like the Medium size. I tried a Large size in the Trek Rail and that didn’t seem right.

I haven’t installed the coil shock like you did, but I hope to soon.

Geometry is a funny thing sometimes. I guess the terrain and riding style dictates those differences. Besides a comfortable fit, a clean and clear cockpit was important for me.
 
My arm span is 6'1", my inseam is 33.5", 5'10" tall, 72kg. Knees went too near front of Rail (M).

So went with (L) which with an uncut fork steerer tube, PNW (31.8mm) carbon bars cut to 780mm, Spank Split 38mm stem, Oneup 180mm dropper, fits nicely. With a coil shock (Ohlins) and coil forks (Smashpot V2 Lyrik Ultimate D1 160mm) it's very nice downhill, and uphill just lean forward and increase the assistance. Hate stuff that breaks so got alloy 32 spoke wheels.
 
Last edited:
irie said:
Knees went too near front of Rail (M).
Click to expand...
Yup! That would definitely be a factor.

Surprisingly I don’t feel cramped. Maybe I’m use to the geometry of my bike(s).

Leaning towards a bit more on those climbs helps …but rarely in turbo. Can’t do that …too technical sometimes.
 
Stihldog said:
Yup! That would definitely be a factor.

Surprisingly I don’t feel cramped. Maybe I’m use to the geometry of my bike(s).

Leaning towards a bit more on those climbs helps …but rarely in turbo. Can’t do that …too technical sometimes.
Click to expand...

Think that once you have something that works well in your terrain then you adapt your riding around it, I know I do.

Was 'funny' climbing today in the mud, wheel spun even without assistance. On one stretch gave up and pushed the bike. :rolleyes: Looked behind and the new High Roller 3 had turned into a slick. :LOL:
 
Hopefully Trek see the error of their ways and make a ML Rail in the next refresh. The current sizing gap is huge; I won't buy another Trek if they keep doing this.
 
Wilbur said:
Hopefully Trek see the error of their ways and make a ML Rail in the next refresh. The current sizing gap is huge; I won't buy another Trek if they keep doing this.
Click to expand...
Might have to wait until battery technology evolves enough to have high capacity but physically smaller/shorter removable batteries allowing down tubes to be 'sensible' lengths.

Edit: having said that, have a couple of 500Wh Vertical Powertube (non-Smart) batteries which came with our bikes that I am hopeful will in the future be able to be rebuilt with higher capacity cells to significantly increase capacity and reduce weight from ~2.8kg. For example, 600Wh and 2.5kg in the same packaging would be very nice.
 
Last edited:
Wilbur said:
Hopefully Trek see the error of their ways and make a ML Rail in the next refresh. The current sizing gap is huge; I won't buy another Trek if they keep doing this.
Click to expand...
It 100% stopped me buying one this weekend gone. I was having some knee issues as is common in the last few years and i was ready to press the button, but i stopped once i saw i couldn't get anything like the sizing I want.
 
Weeksy said:
It 100% stopped me buying one this weekend gone. I was having some knee issues as is common in the last few years and i was ready to press the button, but i stopped once i saw i couldn't get anything like the sizing I want.
Click to expand...
Agree, the difference between Medium and Large (40mm reach?) is bluddy silly. :rolleyes:
 
Weeksy said:
Looking at the Rail+ and must admit i'm a bit disappointed in the sizing.

I own several Treks and my 2 trail bikes are Fuel ex8s in ML as that's about a 465mm reach. I don't generally like going over 475mm (my previously Gen5 Fuel).
Disappointed to see i've got either 450mm or 490mm in the Rail+ as they don't seem to make an ML

I really like Treks and like the simplicity of their linkages in terms of cleaning and upkeep in the UK weather, their prices are usually pretty decent too.
Click to expand...
I was in a similar boat, wanted reach of 465-475, I have the MY22 Rail 9.8XT and reach in (mino) low position is 452mm added a 50mm stem and gets it close to 465. Its honestly a lot better than the 490 odd of the large.

Such a big gap as others have said is a pain in the arse.
 
JP-NZ said:
Such a big gap as others have said is a pain in the arse.
Click to expand...

By coincidence was in the LBS today and talked about this gap. They said they had lost several Trek Rail sales because of the huge gap between Medium and Large. Also said that they believe there is a new Rail range coming out at the end of this year. Not holding my breath ;)
 
Weeksy said:
Looking at the Rail+ and must admit i'm a bit disappointed in the sizing.

I own several Treks and my 2 trail bikes are Fuel ex8s in ML as that's about a 465mm reach. I don't generally like going over 475mm (my previously Gen5 Fuel).
Disappointed to see i've got either 450mm or 490mm in the Rail+ as they don't seem to make an ML

I really like Treks and like the simplicity of their linkages in terms of cleaning and upkeep in the UK weather, their prices are usually pretty decent too.
Click to expand...
That is a big gap.... Well just buy a different bike if the sizing doesn't match your body.
 
NMNomad said:
I am 6'2" with a 29" inseam. I was sized for a large. But, if I were to do it again I would pick up a medium frame.
Click to expand...
Agree with you. As said earlier:

irie said:
My Trek Fuel EX size M/L (IIRC with 465mm reach) was perfect for me.

A 2022 Trek Rail 5 (M) was perfect for my wife (5'7") but too small for me (5'10" but gorilla shape). So had to go Large then mess with the cockpit a lot to make it comfortable. Downhill it's a beast (coil shock and forks).

If I was buying a Rail+ now I'd go Medium which IIRC is a little longer than the 2022 Rail 5 Medium.
Click to expand...
 
Well the sizing deffo cost Trek a sale this weekend as I bought a Mondraker Sly instead of a Fuel/Rail due to their sizing issues. I own multiple treks and with the Bosch motor they were top of my list.... until the 'reach'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Keep reading
    Browse all

    Similar Threads

    Community Stats

    Since 2018
    668K
    Messages
    40,722
    Members
    Join 30,000+ Riders, it's free!
    Back
    Top