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?

As I was saying.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/a...or-bike-brands

Let's just move past the fact that the article you posted doesn't support your point. It seems like it does, to you, because you 1) didn't read the article so you don't understand it 2) don't understand your own point.

Civilization revolves around creating goods and services with which to generate profit.

"This is a ruse by the industry to create sales!"

Very insightful analysis, surprised you aren't behind a lectern at Wharton.

32" wheels appear to be as much organic as industry driven. There's no "ploy" here when individual consumers are demanding products and driving development with their own money. Almost every 32" bike I've seen has been self-funded by the rider. Much like 650b, there is a vast amount of work that is being done and has been done by enthusiasts working with and within the industry to bring this about. Much is not visible, or at least not visible unless someone looks hard and has access to some of the closed bicycle communities. What ends up on MTBR, Escape Collective, or Pinkbike is only a small part of the bigger picture. The most likely outcome is that 32" becomes another standard, not the standard. Although it's possible to be a failure in the same sense as 650b, or a total replacement like 29".

Regardless, all the complaints we read today, I could go back and find dozens or letters, comments, and posts saying the same thing about 29". There is a real tension when products are thought to be deprecated soon. Things change, they're always changing, you either ride the wave or you complain on the beach with sand in your shorts.

And guess what? Surf's up, man

Theoretically, the threshold is fairly low and within the overall wheel diameter. Realistically the testing so far indicates this is probably not an issue. The total crr of 700c is much lower than the total crr of 26" or 650c for instance, and is becomes even less relevant as the surface becomes rougher and speeds necessarily lower. Triathletes wrung this out fairly well maybe 10-15 years ago.

Good riding weather can't get here soon enough.

It's sunny, in the mid-40s with light wind. That's not good riding weather? It's even going to be 60°f tomorrow and 70°f on Monday.

Get out there! The only thing stopping you, is you.

Is it a fad if it's winning races?

The last thing anyone wants is for their dear bike to suddenly become obsolete. Or at least hopelessly outdated. Every single technological advance has been scorned by someone. Usually someone who loves the bike they ride and doesn't have the funds to get a new one.

29ers, 27.5, tapered head tubes, electronic shifting, thru axles, disc brakes, tire clearance, relaxed head tube angles, short cranks, tubeless, full suspension, gravel suspension, dropper posts, carbon fiber, and I'm sure I missed about a million other things.

All of these things got somebody's knickers in a twist. Some have become almost universally accepted while others have faded.

My biggest problem with it is the OP using 32's as a reason to copy and paste BS to this forum.

Good article on NPR about a slice of USA domestic bike production. Exec summary: After his grandfather went over the bars overbraking the front, he developed one-hand braking for both brakes ("linked braking" in Honda-speak, first used on their VFR, took a while to work out the bugs), but a hard sell, partly because few bikes made in USA any more. He tooled up to make kids bikes in Seymour Indiana (a good town for it, a smallish town but home to things like Seymour (Sumitomo) tubing, at least in the 1990s), with a lean but high-tech operation; Laser cutting of tubes and robotic welding, very few assembly workers. It's working, but his kids bikes are multiples in price over Chinese made competitors at wallymart. He's asking for Trump to implement (BIG) tariffs on the steel and aluminum coming in on import bikes.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/29/nx-s1...ffs-opposition

Lol. Read it and understand it just fine. Thank you.

32" will be a passing fad.

Fortunately I will likely not live long enough to have such incredible () innovation impact my life in even the remotest way

I'm 6'4 and I don't need a bike that big.

According to some people on here, years ago, all my 26" bikes with quill stems, and square taper cranks, should've been obsolete years ago, and I would need to go on a trip like in the movie Cherry 2000, to the Burning Man bike graveyard just to find a nds crank arm and a tire.

Well sure, but could the industry make you want a bike that big?

Other than the Schwinn cruiser, no. Those mtbs are ugly.

Yes, but like payola, could seeing it enough times make it appeal to you more?

Things are still very new and in flux but I think the aesthetic is going to be a challenge in the short term.

They absolutely are obsolete. Still rideable, still serviceable, so if you're happy enough then keep riding them.

You're probably not too concerned as to whether they give you a competitive advantage in a race. That's fine.

If you open pinkbike or other bike classified sellers, just do a search for full suspension bikes. You'll see that there is very little difference between bike designs in the last 10 years. Subtle changes but overall a 2016 isn't too out of place on today's trails.

Compare that to the weird stuff that everyone was riding in the 90's. I had a friend with a Klein Manta, another on a Y bike, one on a GT LTS, I had a ProFlex, and someone in the group was probably saving up for a Slingshot.

Whether or not 32 is an improvement remains to be seen. I'm pleased that someone is trying new things.

As more of an all mountain/flow/shuttle type of rider, I don't actually see this as an advantage. I think it's more of an XC type of tool. What I've said about 32 on previous threads is that I want it on a gravel bike, other than the 750b, I don't think anyone is doing that. Probably because of toe overlap.

The UCI approved 32" wheels for XC racing 18 months ago, or so. 32" and even 36" wheels have been on the market for some time A friend has a 36" wheel bike but he is 6'8".
As was posted above, literally everything different that comes out is derided as a "fad" or "not needed" or some other descriptor. And, of course, the old standard reply that it's just the bike industry trying to increase sales. To which I say "You mean a company that makes a product wants us to buy their product? Bastards!"

Keep an open mind. Listen to the data, do the research and make an informed decision about what you want from a bike, or other product. If you're happy with your old bike and are not in the market, fine. But you can't claim your 26er is better than a 29er or that a 32" wheel is wrong if you've never tried them or even read up on the facts.

Most of what I have read with regard to 32" wheels is that they are best suited to taller riders, duh. Moreso with 36" wheels. So they may be a niche market, and that's fine. But innovation is good. Choice is good. Modern mountain bikes are far superior to the things we were riding in the early 90s. This happened because of innovations, companies trying things, taking risks. Sure, some freak might be able to smoke a rough trail on a 26er hardtail, but the vast majority of us will benefit from a modern, well chosen bike.

Getting the bar low enough is even a problem for some on 29ers. For a super tall rider, I think a 32" wheeled bike won't have that issue. I think for trail riders and enduro type riders a low handlebar isn't an issue.

That is not a surprise. Handlebar height was already a problem for 29ers.

Agreed. They really got things dialed in between 2016 and 2020 which is why I will continue to hold onto my 2020 trail bike. A 2026 trail bike doesn't get me anything better or even much different that what I have now other than maybe a few mm change in a geometry which won't be tangible anyway.

Sometimes that is the case though. 27.5, 27.5+ and 29+ MTBS were the hot item from ~2016-2020. Most all of the manufactures had one or all of those in their line up at one. Now go to their websites...slim pickings for 27.5 and 27.5+ and 29+ aren't even offered.

Yes, 29" wheels dominate most mtb racing and most mtb sales. 29+ was a niche market, smaller than 27.5+. I have a 27.5 + bike, purchased in 2018. The + part means it came with 2.8 width tires, which were highly touted around 2016. When decent 2.6 tires came out, the mags stopped praising 2.8s, even though there isn't much difference.

I have replaced the front tire with a 2.6. Thought about a 2.4 because now there are 2.4s made to work on 35mm rims, which I have. But the weight savings is minimal and I like the stability of the wider tires at low pressure.

I was sold on the bike by the fit/geometry. And my lbs gave me a super deal, even though he had to order it. It's rare that I can feel comfortable on any bike off the shelf.

I had a 27.5+ bike from 2016 to 2020. It came with 27.5 x 2.8 tires. Sold it and went back to 29er for the trail bike. Running 29 x 2.4 in back and 29 x 2.6 in front. Wouldn't want any larger. My XC bike will only fit 29 x 2.4 max.

I guess my point being that those tire sizes ended up being a passes fad. I feel the same will happen with the 32" if it actually takes off and becomes mainstream. All we have now is a few boutique builders and a handful of component suppliers.

Latest from Peter Verdone. Although this is a rigid fork it's planning for a suspension fork.