What’s this one?
you could just keep riding the bikes you have, no?
I sympathize with the worry of obsolescence; when popular enough, new stuff almost always displaces old stuff. If 29" is truly deprecated, it will wither, less options, less of the mid and top-range stuff to eventually none at all.
Anyone in the sport for a decade or two has lived it, multiple times.
The narrative setting is more exhausting than anything else. It’s not clear to me why 32" deserves such adversarial framing in comparison to other product developments but it does strike me as the sort of behavior that has hurt and even crashed other industries’ trade journalism.
Unfortunately, if 32" is indeed faster I think that’s it for 29". The bikes will be around for a long long time and will probably remain as an option but bigger will displace smaller from the top down. Gravel and XC probably the same level of risk.
Fit looks interesting, are you going for kind of an aero forward fit (“meme fit”) or is that just how it shook out between the bike’s geo and your anthropometry?
I was saying for the road. Road and MTB rules are different. Why don’t you see as much experimentation on the road?
Or… you could just ride your bikes and ignore all the consumeristic nonsense? This is a problem we cyclists have created for ourselves, and only we can fix it.
I have bad news for you if you think running shoes are an easier market to keep up with. It is objectively worse by a country mile. New shoes drop every week, and most serious runners have a different shoe for a minimum of 3 different use cases, with most having way more.
Honestly, best case scenario.
Then we can not have these threads, and everyone can go back to optimizing tire width instead. 
Yeah buy they’re 200 bucks, not 6,000.
Roadie’s are a hard bunch- I’m still in awe that they left tubular’s-.
RH doesn’t really have opposing results to me or anyone on this per se as they haven’t done any 32" testing.
Yes it is! Great drop bar. Im also a fan of the fsa kwing agx
Because the nova’s reach was built for a flat bar, I opted to shorten the drop bars added reach by moving my saddle further forward using a seat-post offset clamp. I also like a cozy cockpit so I can nap in my aerobars on the long haul days 
Oh I was hoping it was someone else. I wrote a short critique of the rumble strip testing, which features many of the issues that will underline the rest of this Op-Ed.
Otherwise, from the first sentence he has made an error - there have already been carefully controlled testing that larger wheels roll faster. Much was performed when 29" was overtaking 26", and there is older data showing the difference in 20" and 700c wheels for road riding.
Pretty decent video from Delany. Sounds like more question than answers from the industry folks, but seems to be on the radar for most. If these small indy builders start selling a bunch of steel/ti 32" gravel bikes, the big OEMs will be scrambling to release 32" bikes ASAP to grabe easy market share. I’m much more excited about the possibilities of 32" for gravel than I am XC, but I’d bet it’s coming for both.
One thing I was encouraged by was a couple people talking about hub spacing and making it sound like wider spacing is likely.
Setting aside road which isn’t going to change quickly or at all … assuming 32 is significantly faster than 29, then it becomes an arms race.
At the pro/elite level everyone will be forced to upgrade creating a ripple effect through the industry. Within a short period everyone at that level will have it and the competitive gains for the first-movers will erode. Perhaps there will be a period of experimentation while everyone figures out how best to optimize the size, geo, weight, aero, cost and standards trade-offs. So it will be a free-for-all but within a couple of upgrade cycles it will all level out. In the end state, we’ve just caused a whole lot of money to be spent and racing will be equally faster for everyone. And speed means more risk/worse accidents, something that the UCI is trying to address for road. The people who lose out are those that can’t afford to play or keep up.
There’s also an “Osbourne” problem for the industry. If the industry puts out a message that 32ers are better, faster, bigger to motivate the transition, customers will realize there’s a big upgrade cycle coming … then there’s going to be challenges selling the “out-dated” 29ers stock. We’ve been through this before and the confusion around standards and the long transition time smoothed things out I suppose, but lots of people got burnt. Maybe we’ll be smarter this time.
Or maybe the UCI will just ban it for UCI XC and gravel, and that’ll be the end of it?
I don’t know about wider spaced hubs for 32’s. My nova is running boost spacing. I built the wheelset with 28hole nextie carbon rims and berd spokes. Im 240 lbs and tend to break a lot of bike parts but have had 0 wheel concerns or issues so far, and I am definitely not interested in investing in superboost (again…after selling my evil wreckoning and associated spare parts 
)
Another picture for posterity
I’m going to skip this iteration and wait for the 35-inch wheels.
This has already started. I, for one, am not buying any gravel or mtb until I see how this plays out. I’d be absolutely shocked if the big boys (Spec/Trek/Giant) haven’t been all hands on deck on this for a while already. We know the Trek xco riders have been testing 32 from hearing Riley Amos talk about it. And since it will be legal at world cup races this season, there will be people racing them for sure. Prototypes or mules or whatever, but it’s happening.