One handling note on the 32"er- yes you have to set up for corners sooner, but the tires contact patch is enormous. Its the kind of thing where you can really lay the bike over in flat loose turns and not break traction. If anything, its more forgiving in corners and will let you corner faster even if you make a mistake.
That may be true for some people depending on the terrain/skills. But my cornering technique (or rather lack there of) has struggled to make tight turns with the two 29ers I have had vs the 26 I use to ride. I almost went with a 27.5 in 2013 when I got a new mtb instead of 29 due to this. These types of turns are just a small fraction of my riding, so I have been ok with the trade-off. But it still is something that gets me. Some of it could also be due to mountain bikes getting more slack over the years which results in a longer wheelbase. This has helped me feel more stable on more sweeping turns, but the hairpin turns either going up or down remain a challenge for me with these larger wheels and longer wheelbases
Here’s a podcast where one of the most vocal supporters of 32" experimentation, Daniel Yang of Neuhaus Metalworks, claims that after all of their testing and even producing 32" frames, he thinks that wheelsize is too big for anyone under somewhere around 180cm (if I remember correctly).
They’re now going to experiment with the 750D wheel size that everyone passed by a few years ago. 
Even if you’re not interested in 32" wheels the podcast is worth a listen. This guy has a calming voice and some interesting takes. Highly recommend.
Of course this is just a rough example it pretty clearly indicates that such a large wheel and accompanying bicycle is for taller riders almost exclusively, those toward one end of the bell curve. That leads one to think it is not a mainstream kind of thing like 29" wheels have been being applicable to the majority of riders. I’m sure 32" has many benefits but it seems that those attributes are going to be reserved for a narrower segment of the riding populace.
BUT if you consider that 29" wheels are maybe only “best” for the very middle of the curve, while 27.5" may be best for small riders and 32" best for big riders, then that “mainstream” 29" size may shrink a bit.
As handlebars, cranks, stack heights, reaches, etc., all change based on rider size, wheel size probably should too. 
Obviously, the middle of the curve holds the most riders, but I think that 27.5" and 32" wheels are definitely valid for fitting everyday people on bikes as best as possible.
Unfortunately manufacturers no longer offer 27.5 forks and frames in their XC lineup. Seems like with the current crunch on the supply in the US we’re unlikely to see manufacturers offer their high-end bikes in 3 different tire sizes. Maybe in a better bike economy we would be so lucky!
Some do! I know Trek still has some models using 27.5" on small XC bikes..
But not their XC race bikes. Just their cheaper, entry models I think. And I think their bigger travel bikes, like top fuel have a 27.5 in the smallest size.
That’s pretty wide. 32mm works for me.
Stinner has the 32" Refugio (gravel bike) for order now. Frameset, Frameset+Wheels, or Full Build. Haven’t had the chance to see how the geometry is different from their ‘regular’ refugio
Max chainring is 38 tooth. But if I think that would calculate out to ~35 mph in the 10t cog at 100 rpm with a 2.1 inch tire (hard to confirm since most gear inch calculators don’t have 32 inch wheels built in as an option). So not quite as bad as it seems…fairly close to where a 29" w/ 2.1" 42 chainring would be on the same cog (36 mph)
32er trickledown: Wheel bags and travel cases. Bike racks that accommodate 32" wheels. New truing stand or extensions (or take tire off). New dishing tool. RD hanger tool might be too short. 8" longer rim tape.
This has been tried before often without wider market acceptance. It isn’t that I am knocking 32" wheels but I do think it is a solution looking for a problem. 700c/29er offer almost universal compatibility and fits the broadest swath of riders. A big plus is the ability to have cross compatibility with wheels and components in general between road and gravel and even MTB to an extent. Though I am sure there will always be those that can benefit from things at the outer levels for fit purposes, I don’t quite agree that 32" wheels fall into a fit category. That is just my own perspective. Curiously just last week this topic was one with some riding buddies and we span a range of heights from 5’4" to 6’1" and not a single one of us thought ther is any reason at all to switch and on the contrary found reasons not to.
Looking at that geometry for a 56cm top tube (their M/L), and comparing to my 56 cm top tube Mosaic GT-1 (which is somewhat similar to a Crux geometry)
Stack: Mosaic: 566mm, Stinner: 630mm
Reach: Mosaic: 406mm, Stineer 410mm
That stack difference is huge. I’m assuming that the Stinner is more of a ‘touring’ geometry and not a race geometry. It does make me wonder if any of the custom manufacturers yet, or future manufacturers, will be able to create a more race-fit geometry with the 32" wheels..
Offers is one thing, finding wheels/tires for is a whole other.
Fragmentation hurts everyone, best to stick to one size, in this dying hobby of ours.
I’m wondering if that’s also a bit due to the lack of non-suspension corrected forks yet? All these 32" early birds look kind of weird to me because of the ultra short headtubes and the long fork legs.
Besides, if you’re looking for 56cm frames, you’re probably too short for a 32" bike anyway - not that it can’t work but there will be compromises for a race geometry
Yeah this bike has a 490mm A2C fork, which is extremely long for a gravel bike. Looking at the Deda Gera Curvy fork, it should be possible to make a 430mm gravel fork with 32"x2.25" clearance officially (and 2.4" unofficially). The numbers will look way different with such a fork.
First I’ll say I’m not the market for the new wheel size and see no allure. I’m 5’6"-ish and already have big issues with the toe overlap on my current “gravel” bike. So good on everybody who wants one, I don’t grudge them their choice and they can enjoy it.
My question is a use case that I haven’t seen mentioned yet. The talk is about MTB and gravel bikes but what about 32" wheels for triathlon bikes? Figure 32s are advertised to carry momentum better and the bigger wheels would allow for deeper sections and bigger rear discs resulting in a greater sail effect for better and worse. Add to that nimble handling is less of a concern on those bikes so in this case a 5’4" triathlete might still enjoy the benefits of a 32er tri bike for the rollout plus added aero. Just curious.
Interesting. I began racing tris in the early pre aero days of wild innovation among which were 26" wheels. I had a Kestrel Km40 with said wheels that I very much enjoyed. There was not any disadvantage to speed although gearing was definitely affected but in the case of small wheels it’s in the riders favor, 32" wheels would be just the opposite. Fit was a big reason for smaller wheels so I have a hard time seeing 32" wheels being of benefit to a tri bike, especially so for shorter men and most women. Where I think it becomes a problem is the front of the bike and having to account for the larger diameter both for geo and rider fit. I’d too be curious to see what a bike designer would come up with.
Parks Dishing tool can be extended to fit on a 32 if you move the feet out to the last screw. Parks truing stand fits my 32"er with a 2.4" tire mounted. The frame and wheels fit inside my evoc bike bag (wheels stored inside with frame) The 32"er fits on my yakima bike rack.