Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
This is why we are only now going back to the Moon after 50 years since the last attempt, and this attempt is no less fraught and over the bleeding edge of ability, sanity and safety. It was known decades ago that bigger wheels are faster wheels. Something called an 'angle of approach' or something similar. World record attempts used to be done on 36" wheels. Yes, bigger wheels make it easier to design a bike for an NBA player but that is NOT their only use case! I know 4'11" and 5'2" female cyclists that use 700C. If it were really necessary for a bikes wheels to have a proportion to the riders height, most women would be on 24" or 451 wheels. With what passes for "primo" pavement in 2026, Road wheels should in fact be at least 32". But because too many people don't have ANY ability to conceptualize, we get people arguing for 20" wheels or Plus or even FAT size tires, even when speed is the goal. Sigh.
No, I do see the advantage of larger wheels for speed. What I wrote was in response to
Spoonrobot saying that the geometry details may not yet be perfectly matched for 32", and my point was, yes, and there may also be inherent stability issues with higher axles. I always try to accompany theory with practical examples, and it's often useful to look at things towards "limits", thus, a comparison to 20"/406 is useful; I KNOW that size wheel is not faster. But it does have some stability advantages in axle height on steeps, uphill and downhill, and 32" is not intended for flat road bikes, so it's relevant. And even on flat pavement, how many riders have gone over the handlebars under front braking force alone, because the center of mass height is not well suited to the wheel size and wheelbase?