Thanks for the effort but again I’m lost in the first sentence.
I remember the switch from 26 to 29 in the early 00’s, it felt like my climbing went completely in the toilet. There was some “data” saying the 29 accelerated 3% slower than the 26 and I thought…if that is 3% it’s got to be the slowest 3% in the history of statistics! No times, no power (only had the nintendo based computrainer at that time), no consistency between tires, probably still running tubes, so who knows. But it sure felt slow.
There is a huge financial pressure for 32 to be faster. If you are sponsoring an athlete, you care about results but you are only into racing for sales. That’s it, sales. So you put him on a 32, have him talk it up, claim some sketchy data, and now you get to sell everybody new bikes.
“As we go into the future, we base our bike on physics. 26” wheels are lighter, stiffer, have a lower moment of inertia, and can fit more riders. With our advanced material science have developed a way to actually use the rim as the braking surface, increasing power and reducing weight."
The 32" debate is interesting - the struggling bike industry needs something to give it a kick. I was an early adaptor to 29" racing for a Gary Fisher grass roots team and my aluminium Paragon was heavy coming off of my carbon Trek 9.8. Still, as time went on and tires/wheels improved the bike stopped being an anchor.
This time around the tires and wheels are available ahead of the bikes, so perhaps someone learned something somewhere. I think in MTB it’s going to be a little while before everything is nailed down yet Ventum claim their sponsored riders will be racing their first MTB that has 32" wheels my Leadville. I feel that on the gravel side, 32" is an easy grasp…it seems logical: give up a few % aero for 10% speed.
My point was that race results are not indicative of the marginal differences between wheelsizes, as witnessed by an earlier generation of road racing cyclists’ attempt to determine for themselves faster tires widths and pressures. Using those of which they had many and great race results. We can now see that while they were choosing between less than ideal options given the available equipment, their framework was incomplete.
If 32’s really roll ~10w faster, Leadville will be a no brainer for 32’s. The tech sections are fast and mostly straight and the increased rollover will help. Even if 32’s add ~2lbs of weight for the climbs, there is a bunch of that course where rolling resistance is key. And whatever aero penalty 32’s bring, it’s somewhat minimized by the thin air at that altitude.
Ventum shared at Sea Otter that their sponsored athletes will be riding their 32" MTB at Leadville. That’s all I have. I heard it from two sources. Time will tell yet sharing what I have.
It’s super fast so far in tight, tech singletrack (Southeast US) so I’m not in a big rush to shorten it. I hadn’t even measured the actual CS length (sliding drops) til last night as I never think about it while riding.
Excellent! I’ll try to keep mine as short as possible once I settle on what gear is most applicable to my home trails. I’m on 34x19 on the 29er so I’m guessing a 20 or 21.
Are you thinking that an Aspen AT up front with an Aspen in the rear will be a good all around Trail/XC setup? I’m hoping Vittoria releases a 32 Barzo so I can run the Barzo/Peyote in the future.
Finally took my 32" on its first proper bikepacking mission. I think this is the #1 use case for the Nova: Loaded up, long haul, lower average speed, chunky double track/dirt roads.
Not interested in yet another standard to make equipment I already own incompatible. Bike fit for people below a certain height is definitely going to pose problems and gearing currently available will be limiting. I don’t really see an advantage for gravel that when getting more extreme would often dictate the use of an mtb. Plus the cost of going 32" requires a new bike which for many is a great excuse but for many is a great reason not to. Horrible idea for a road bike though unless it is for a very tall rider to get a more proportional fit.
Yah. There are those who want what they deem to be the latest and greatest for their pursuits, particularly if they’re competing and they feel it conveys a competitive advantage, but I think the large majority aren’t going to go buy a new bike to get 32 wheels, but rather when the time comes to buy a new bike, they might get one with 32" wheels. Anyway, among the riders I knew, that’s what happened with 29 and then 27.5. They got the new wheel size when it was time to buy a new bike.
As someone who has gone back and forth between running and cycling over the past 24 years running is cheaper by a wide margin. Not even close. Less expensive gear, less expensive clothes, less expensive races, less expensive travel when comparing like for like
Back on the 32 inch discussion. My cornering isn’t good enough on the trails I ride to even think about 32 inch mtb wheels (I have a hard enough time on tight turns after switching to a 29er even a decade later). But the Stinner Refugio 32 inch gravel titanium bike does look interesting.
When I first made the switch from my 26" fully to my 29" hardtail, I felt as if I was wearing clown shoes. 1–2 days later, it felt completely normal.
If there is a clear advantage to larger wheels in the eyes of the buying public, then they will establish themselves.
Not all things that establish themselves are good ideas nor are all good ideas adopted by the market. (Using smaller wheels for wider tires and larger wheels for narrower tires so that you get approximately the same diameter sounds like a good idea to me, but one that has been rejected by the market.)
