{"id":1844370,"date":"2026-03-24T17:44:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T14:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/?p=1844370"},"modified":"2026-03-24T17:44:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T14:44:00","slug":"the-pros-and-cons-of-32%e2%80%b3-wheels-and-what-we-can-learn-from-29er-adoption","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/?p=1844370","title":{"rendered":"The pros and cons of 32\u2033 wheels, and what we can learn from 29er adoption"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\"A<\/a>
Photo: BTCHN\u2019 Alpina<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Over the last year or so, 32\u201d wheels have been a common thread on many mountain bike media platforms, including Singletracks<\/a>. While this larger wheel size initially seemed like a unique one-off on equally unique bikes at trade shows, it now seems to have filtered into the industry\u2019s bloodstream.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And while we\u2019re seeing changes in mountain bike geometry and suspension tech begin to level out, it seems that 32\u201d bikes could shake things up again. But, do the pros of 32\u201d wheels outweigh the cons? And is this latest transition going to be like the shift to 29\u201d wheels in the 2010s?<\/p>\n

Performance advantages of 32\u2033 wheels<\/h2>\n

Bigger wheels are known to roll faster owing to increased momentum and larger contact patch with the ground. \u201cIt rolls faster<\/strong>. It definitely rolls faster,\u201d Vassago Bikes<\/a> owner Tom Ament told Singletracks recently. \u201cAnd it seems like you can push a little bigger gear\u201d thanks to the increased efficiency. In fact this is why cross-country racers first gravitated toward 29er wheels in the early 2000s and why some are experimenting with 32\u2033 wheels today.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Joe McEwan, founder of Starling Cycles<\/a>, has been riding around on his Big Bird for the last several months, noting the differences with a 32\u201d front wheel. According to McEwan, the increased roll-over performance of the 32\u201d wheel is noticeable. But, McEwan said, it is marginal gains, at best.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Close-up<\/a>
The Starling Big Bird with a 32\u2033 wheel up front. Photo: Starlingcycles.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a little change. And, I think this is the problem, isn\u2019t it? Because racing is always used as an example, and then they blow up the importance of marginal gains, but they don\u2019t matter for everybody else,\u201d McEwan explained.\u00a0<\/p>\n

At the highest XC race levels, McEwan can understand the benefits of 32\u201d wheels. But for the weekend trail ride with your mates, you\u2019ll see more impressive gains by not being hungover or stopping at the \u201cloo\u201d before a ride.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What McEwan really pointed out was the 32\u201d wheel\u2019s gyroscopic stability<\/strong>. He explained that the bigger wheels track very well, staying incredibly planted to the ground and providing good traction<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\u201cI mean, the thing is fast,\u201d Ament said. \u201cWhen I went from 26 to 29 you know how, like when you accelerate on a 29 versus a 26 they just felt slower, but they weren\u2019t. This doesn\u2019t feel \u2014 you don\u2019t get those feelings on this. It\u2019s really nice. It\u2019s a really nice wheel size.\u201d<\/p>\n

Larger, 32-inch diameter wheels are less likely than smaller wheels to get hung up on rocks and roots, or sucked into holes in the trail. Ament notes that today\u2019s wide, large-diameter, high-volume tires like the 32\u00d72.4\u2033 Maxxis Aspen help to \u201csmooth things out<\/strong> a little bit more.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, for exceptionally tall riders, 32ers can offer a better, more proportional bike fit.<\/p>\n

But there are disadvantages to 32\u2033 mountain bike wheels<\/h2>\n

However, that planted feeling comes at the price of cornering. The bigger wheels track well while going straight, but are quite a bit to manage in the turns. And while you might get used to this, physics don\u2019t change: bigger wheels will have a larger turning radius<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Another disadvantage, at least currently, is that buyers have limited choices<\/strong> when it comes to bikes and components, and prices are high. Though we are beginning to see more brands building 32\u201d bikes, a common thread is that 32\u201d components are incredibly hard to find.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Rare components equal expensive components<\/strong>. Starling\u2019s Big Bird, a 32\/29 mullet bike based on the Mega Murmur, certainly isn\u2019t cheap. For those willing to fork over the dough, the handmade frame, special fork, wheels, and tires will set them back over $7,000.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And, along with 32\u201d bikes being a more expensive endeavor, the bikes are also heavier<\/strong>. Simply put, bigger means more material, and that equates to higher weights.<\/p>\n

Bike fit<\/strong> is another challenge when it comes to 32er mountain bikes. In a conversation, Vassago\u2019s<\/a> Tom Ament told Singletracks\u2019 Editor-in-Chief, Jeff Barber, the difficulty of building 32\u201d bikes for smaller riders. Ament explained that one of the key geometry aspects of building a bike around 32\u201d wheels was keeping the bottom bracket relatively low, around what it would be on a 29er. With the extra bottom bracket drop and larger wheel size, there is no room at all to get behind the saddle on smaller frames.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Ament also mentioned that the front of the bike has to be significantly taller, making it relatively unwieldy<\/strong> for shorter riders. To remedy this, a rather drastic negative drop stem can be used, but it will still leave them with a particularly tall front end.<\/p>\n

Will this be like the shift to 29ers from 26\u2033 wheels? <\/h2>\n

If you rode mountain bikes (or were even born) in the 2000s, you likely remember seeing 29\u201d wheels rolling at your local trailhead for the first time, back when 26\u2033 wheels were the standard. Truth be told, 29\u201d wheels were around even before that. In the late 90s, frame builders like Gary Fisher were toying with larger 700c road hoops to see how they\u2019d fare on the trails.<\/p>\n

In the early 2000s, Fisher was one of the first to bring the bigger wheel size to production. Back then, 29- wheels were almost exclusively reserved for XC riding and racing. In fact, the UCI officially approved the larger wheel size in 1999, when they updated their rules, although \u201c700c,\u201d the more common term at the time, was used.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Throughout the 2000s we saw more XC bikes adopt the larger wheel size. As we entered the late 2000s, and especially into the 2010s, 29\u201d wheels became the norm on nearly all XC bikes, and more trail bikes. Then they moved into the gravity realm.<\/p>\n

27.5\u2033 wheels came, and mostly went<\/h3>\n

Tweener, 27.5\u2033 wheels offered a good \u201cbalance\u201d between 26\u201d and 29\u201d wheels. Riders still had some of the agility they loved from the smaller, 26\u201d wheel size, but with the added rollover and control of the larger size.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But, for whatever reason (we\u2019ll let you tell us in the comments), 27.5 was short-lived, remaining now mostly as a rowdy rear-wheel option<\/a>. Clearly, 29 has taken over the industry.<\/p>\n

In some cases, the transition to 32\u201d wheels is feeling similar to the change to 29\u201d. Sam Alison, founder of Singular Cycles, writes on the design similarities<\/a> between frames for 29\u201d and 32\u201d wheeled bikes. Alison found that key geometry aspects, such as chainstay length and bottom bracket height, were concerns when designing frames for both wheel sizes, despite the two timelines being decades apart.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

However, adopting a 32\u201d wheel presents unique challenges that the 29\u201d transition simply didn\u2019t have.<\/p>\n

The transition to 29\u201d wheels was gradual, with over a decade from their introduction to the size becoming the norm. The reality is, 29\u201d wheels were already becoming standard on XC bikes long before they made their way onto our daily drivers. And when they did, the necessary components were already there: tires, forks, wheels, etc.<\/p>\n

During this time, many companies were also still working with aluminum. It is much simpler and cheaper to rework a metal frame to accommodate larger wheels than to commission new carbon molds. This is why all the current 32\u201d frames are from smaller, boutique frame builders, crafting from aluminum or steel.<\/p>\n

Simply put, as we transitioned from 26\u201d to 29\u201d wheels, 29\u201d wheels were already widespread, albeit on the XC side. While brands like DirtySixer<\/a> toyed with 32\u201d wheels a decade ago, those were one-off projects. At this point, today, the 32\u201d infrastructure simply isn\u2019t in place at scale like it was when 29\u201d bikes went mainstream.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

For riders who do decide to switch from 29\u2033 to 32\u2033 wheels, Ament says the difference doesn\u2019t feel as big as it did from 26\u2033 to 29\u2033 wheels. \u201cI thought the jump from 26 to 29 was pretty drastic. It felt, it felt way different. But from the 29 to the 32 it\u2019s not that big a jump.\u201d<\/p>\n

32ers are unlikely to unseat 29ers, but there is demand for them<\/h2>\n

When asked if 32\u2033 wheels might one day rival 29ers, DirtySixer founder David Folch said he didn\u2019t think so<\/a>. \u201cIt\u2019s not about replacing 29 or signing the death of 26. I\u2019m totally against that idea. I still believe that all wheel sizes have a usage, depending on the rider\u2019s height, depending on what you need from your bike.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 32 is just going to be an additional solution for people that are interested, and that are maybe over 5\u20198\u2033, 5\u20199\u2033, and are curious enough,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Ultimately, McEwan doesn\u2019t see 32\u201d wheels as being particularly good for the industry. He acknowledges that larger riders need larger bikes, but feels that can be accomplished with 29\u201d wheels. The major rub with very large frames, even on 29\u201d wheels, is that they look funny. According to McEwan, the most significant thing 32\u201d wheels will do is make the largest frames look more proportionate.<\/p>\n

And, if the industry goes that way, he fears it will make an already expensive sport even more out of reach.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019re not going to be able to upgrade a 29 to a 32,\u201d McEwan said. \u201cYou\u2019re going to have to buy a whole new bike. And all that means is\u2013I\u2019m being very cynical about this\u2013you\u2019re just making people spend more money. You\u2019re making the sport less attainable. You\u2019re making the sport worse.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, why build the Big Bird? Simply put, McEwan can. Starling is a small operation that hand-makes frames and is in the perfect position to try.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

And, since mountain bikers love shiny and new things, McEwan also knows he\u2019ll sell more than a few.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<!–<\/p>\n

\n

Related articles<\/h4>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t–><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/div>\n

\t\t\t\tjQuery(function() {
\n\t\t\t\t\tpostpayloads._8ea269f4ed20726e463d6208b170dcc1 = {“ids”:”712860,714804,710762,692284″,”posts_per_page”:null,”offset”:0,”style”:”4up”};
\n\t\t\t\t\tpostcounter._8ea269f4ed20726e463d6208b170dcc1 = {start: 0, step: 0, end: 0};
\n\t\t\t\t});<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\tjQuery(function() {
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tra_affiliate_load_related(‘_8ea269f4ed20726e463d6208b170dcc1’, ”, 4);
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t});<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Photo: BTCHN\u2019 Alpina Over the last year or so, 32\u201d wheels have been a common thread on many mountain bike media platforms, including Singletracks. While this larger wheel size initially seemed like a unique one-off on equally unique bikes at trade shows, it now seems to have filtered into the industry\u2019s bloodstream.\u00a0 And while we\u2019re […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[226,274],"class_list":["post-1844370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-crawlmanager","tag-singletracks-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1844370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1844370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1844370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1844370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}