Horses for courses and all that… It really depends on where you are riding and the speeds involved. If you are fighting for position shoulder to shoulder in a tight pack at 25+ mph on heavy chunk, it’s a lot more fun (for me) on a very stable/slack bike. Saying a gravel bike is boring is kind of like saying a trophy truck is boring because you can cruise over challenging terrain at high speeds without a bunch of drama.
But it’s cool that we all have different definitions for fun. For me, faster is almost always more fun (particularly when it’s a race).
I had the change to test a 32 gravel bike prototype on a 30km loop. The route included bit of everything, little bit of road, all sorts of gravel and XC trails with some mud to the mix. The wheels were some protos that where really really flexy (shallow rim, low flange hubs, very light spokes) that were a liability when cornering on asphalt and sprinting. But, in every other situation, the bike was shockingly fast. I cannot emphasize how much faster it felt (and was, accordind to Strava) over pretty much every terrain. Also, the grip is pretty mental as well. It was running some 50mm proto Schwalbes without a lot of thread and it felt at least as grippy as the 2.4 Barzos on my XC bike, even in the wet. Yes, it felt marginally slower to accelarate, but once you start getting confident you also brake much less into corners. Also, the rear end felt much plusher over bumps and roots with 50mm tires than my old Scale with 2.4s did. With proper wheels, I’d get that bike any day of the week, even for many routes I currently do on the XC bike. Finally a gravel bike that makes sense to me.
On the Rene Herse article, I really appreciate Jan’s contributions for the sport and his overall cycling philosophy, but he tends to speak a lot in absolutes and in this case clearly shot from the hip
I can see 32 inch working well for US type of gravel. Less sure about the “gravel” we have in the UK. For MTB i am less convinced and I do see compromises with sizing, length of bike, particularly chain stays. There will definitely be some trade offs - at least for a while whilst designers figure it out. Hopefully what we will see is that the 2 sizes continue in parallel with consumers having a choice based on their needs rather than being forced to buy new bikes.
Also my thought, these strike me as very American machines.
As someone who throws a bike onto trains and planes, the 29er hardtail is already a squeeze, 32er is a logistical pain when space is more at a premium and your country has sensible sized cars, vans, etc.
Going to BESPOKED this weekend, hope it’s not a 32inch bike show.
It’s funny you say this because it’s exactly what I mean by wanting a fun bike. And highlights how different people are in what they want and prefer.
I will choose “feels fast but rides slow” over “rides fast but feels slow” every time. I want the feeling. I couldn’t care less what my actual speed is. Because the feeling is real. Speed is just a number. So if I feel fast and it’s fun, I don’t really care if i’m riding 10mph or 50mph. The fun feeling and excitement is what matters. On the other side, if a bike is stable and boring to ride, I could be going 100mph and I wouldn’t ever choose it. Because to me, it’s just boring to ride. I don’t really care if i’m going faster if the bike isn’t fun to ride. It’s the ride that matters to me, not the speed. If I cared about speed, I’d just buy an e-bike.
Neither is right or wrong. I totally get why people want different bikes with different feelings. This just isn’t for me.
I’m going to wait and see on performance and whether this is something I’ll actually adopt (I just bought a new XC bike and just got new gravel wheels, so I don’t feel like replacing either). That said, I may be alone in this, but I think 32" wheels look aesthetically amazing. There’s something about the proportion of the giant wheels relative to the frame that makes these bikes look super fast and mean, IMO.
As in: on average, pooling hundreds of strava segment comparisons (some intentional TT power-targetted rides on specific routes, many were happenstance segments I’ve ridden for years) the 32"er takes about 15w less power for similar times.
Very non scientific, but data to consider nonetheless.
Riding the 32" is shocking at first. The grip, the rollover, and the inertia all are strikingly noticeable. Yes there are drawbacks, but I just setup for corners a little earlier and adjust my cadence so the rotation doesn’t outpace my pedal stroke.
For me, at 6’3" with a 6’7" wingspan, 32" is a win
I won’t be selling my seigla or top fuel anytime soon, but eventually i’ll be 100% 32" across my stable
Interesting to see the 15 watt comment as that is definitely in the ballpark from my testing. I’ve actually done 3 more surfaces for 29 v 32 Aspens than graphed here but I think this is sufficient for most to understand… as it shows, values are calculated from tested coefficient of rolling resistance.
I feel like the tough part for my ‘data gathering’ is I’m comparing my rigid 32 with 2.4" aspens to a ton of other bikes with totally different tire setups, riding positions, suspension systems, etc. So there are certainly outlier data and a lot of ‘noise’ to make conclusions from…like all black diamond single track routes…on my rigid 32" I’m not faster than on my (top fuel, ranger, wreckoning, sentinel, stumpy evo), and riding tarmac on the 32" vs a 40mm slick-tired gravel bike (seigla, chamois hagar, warbird, evasion lite) is not faster, but a lot of that is an obvious conclusion due to using the right bike for the right terrain if speed is your goal.
Whats interesting is the in between stuff. Category 1-4 gravel, double track, flowy single track, etc were the 32 just dominates my other bikes. Especially my 100mm travel Sonder Ti hardtail (there is not a single segment my hardtail can touch my 32").
Another area that I have found interesting is at higher speeds (20-25+mph) my 32 starts to be slower (-15w give or take) on smoother (cat 1-2) gravel than my seigla. I don’t have much of an explanation for that other than body positioning (seigla is setup very racey) and the sheer size of the 32x2.4 versus 29x45mm wheel/tire combo causing an aero penalty, but i think with some position adjustment i could get the 32" up to snuff for proper racing speeds on smooth gravel, especially if i had something like a 32x50mm tire. On the chunky gravel the 32" still comes out on top though.
There is a lot of talk about speed on here. Whilst UCI so far has not stepped in with any regulation regarding 32 it does not mean they wont. At the moment there are no race ready 32 bikes, so they wont need to. But I am not ruling out that if 32 bikes gives an unfair advantage to taller riders then UCI may step in and either ban or find some other obscure way of levelling the playing field. Particularly for XC, where I think it will be much harder to make small bikes fitting 32
hah! the nova is designed around a flat bar, so to make up for the added drop bar reach i used a saddle offset clamp. Also, i like a tilted forward/TT style saddle because i tend to do long rides and love to take naps in the aero bars.
Racing should have many flavors, and technology is a lot of the fun. If you want constraints, maybe cyclocross? Maybe a class of fixed standards in other disciplines. For the elite end, I like to see the changes and evolution. Drop bars debate has been fun. Banning at Leadville for safety was also a good move to prevent sheep from hurting themselves. Gravel should stay pretty open ended. I would like to see it stay that way. There are so many variables in each race, the available tech is part of the “skill”. Yest this favors those with money but if you are at the pointy end and driven to succeed you should be able to find a way. For those just off the pointy end, surely part of the game is finding the gains in what you have. XC has a different set of constraints. My concern with 32 inch wheels is that you drive advantage to a small subset of riders especially in the women. If you then couple that with evolving course design favoring the larger wheels then you do create a new set of problems for those not gifted with long limbs. There will always be exceptional athletes that will succeed and overcome their own genetic limitations but for most of those close to the pointy end, whether you are 2nd or 20th may come down to your parents. For the rest of us, it probably won’t matter. If the 32inch does become a game changer, at least all the trails I ride are already being adapted for the speeds of E-Bikes and getting less techy so when/if I size up, I won’t have to up my skills game. At 64, I really am not worrying about this.
I’d rather have more options than less to tweak and ride and explore and create more experiences by bicycle. If we were all on 26’s still that would be fine, but I find a lot of enjoyment creating new experiences with new technology on old trails.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but pretty much all sports are exclusionary at the elite level based on genetics and physical attributes.
That said, of course they should consider the impact from 32" wheels on competition/fairness, but that’s just one of the many considerations. I’m sure there is some scrambling going on behind closed doors. It could drive a lot of revenue for the bike industry. Not just bikes/tires/wheels, but I have to believe it will trickle down to other areas (bike cases, racks, tools, etc.). If UCI (or other governing bodies) are gonna ban it, they better do it quick before it gets too far out of the box. And it might succeed/thrive as a standard even if banned for sanctioned racing. It wouldn’t break my heart if 32" wheels were killed before they reached critical mass. I don’t want to buy a bunch of new stuff. But if it’s really 10+ watts faster on gravel and people are racing on them, that’s too much to ignore as a competitive racer.
