When we move to larger wheel diameters, vibration transmitted through the bike often decreases. So, does this hold up for 32″ bikes too?
Bike-Test.com recently conducted a controlled vibration analysis comparing 29 and 32-inch wheel sizes over a series of standardised obstacles, isolating the effect of wheel diameter.
If you aren’t aware, vibration is an important performance factor for off-road riding. Lower vibration is typically associated with greater comfort, reduced upper-body fatigue, and improved control on rough terrain. This is why we’ve spent so much time at the CYCLINGABOUT Comfort Lab testing the vibration damping of different bikes and components.
Right, let’s now find out if 32″ bikes can reduce overall vibration.
29 vs 32″ Bike Vibration Test
Image: Bike-Test.com
Bike-Test used the same Bike Ahead Composites bike and simply swapped between 29 and 32-inch wheelsets. This approach keeps as many variables as possible under control. Rider position, suspension setup, and frame geometry were all kept identical, meaning wheel size was effectively the only changing factor in the test.
The larger wheels and tyres added roughly 700 grams to the bike, and both setups used Maxxis Aspen tyres with the same width, casing, and tread pattern.
To help contextualise the vibration results, the hardtails were also compared to a current 29-inch Orbea Oiz full-suspension bike. This bike offers 120 mm of front and rear suspension travel and weighs about 2 kg more than the 32-inch hardtail.
For the test, a smartphone was mounted on the top tube, and its accelerometer recorded vibrations as the bikes rolled over a controlled obstacle course of wooden slats mounted on boards. Each bike was tested 10 times.
All bikes were tested using the same tyre pressure, which introduces a small limitation. As shown in a previous article, larger wheels experience higher hoop stress (or tyre drop) at the same pressure, meaning the 32-inch tyre effectively runs slightly firmer than the 29-inch tyre. So, strictly speaking, the test isn’t a perfect apples-to-apples comparison.
The 32-inch wheels produced less vibration overall, giving the bike a noticeably calmer ride.
Peak impacts were 2% lower on the 32-inch bike (9.2 g vs 9.4 g), but the total accumulated vibration dropped by about 5%. The variation between the lowest and highest impacts also decreased slightly, by around 2%.
One reason why this occurs is that each bump or impact represents a smaller proportion of the wheel’s overall diameter, allowing it to be “smoothed out” more effectively as the wheel rolls over it.
However, when compared to the 29-inch full-suspension bike, the advantages of rear suspension and longer travel were still much more pronounced: peak impacts were 11% lower, total vibrations dropped 14%, and overall variability in impacts decreased by 25%.
In other words, larger wheels improve vibration damping on a hardtail, but the effect is small compared with the advantage of a heavier, full-suspension bike with longer suspension travel.
Summary
These results point to a small but perceptible comfort benefit in favour of the larger wheel size. And it’s reasonable to suspect that if the testers had instead matched for hoop stress (or tyre drop) between the two wheel sizes, the difference might have been even more pronounced.
Taken together, this adds another advantage to the case for 32-inch wheels over 29-inch wheels, alongside benefits that already include:
At first glance, 32-inch wheels might seem like a step too far, but initial tests suggest they’re actually faster than 29ers on most terrain – even where you wouldn’t expect it.
They’ve also just scored their first major international mountain bike race victory at the Cape Epic under Felix Stehli, which makes these big wheels even more interesting.
In this article, I’ll walk you through all the real-world test data currently available comparing 29 and 32-inch wheels.
Swapping between 29 and 32″ wheels on the same Bike Ahead MTB. Image: Bike-Test.com
The first test I’m sharing has the most variables controlled for, which makes it especially interesting.
Bike-Test used the same Bike Ahead Composites bike, simply swapping between 29 and 32-inch wheels. That meant that rider position, suspension settings, and frame geometry were kept identical, making wheel size the only real factor being tested.
The larger wheels and tyres added roughly 700 grams to the bike, and both setups used Maxxis Aspen tyres with the same width, casing, and tread pattern.
To help contextualise the results, the hardtails were also compared to a current 29-inch Orbea Oiz full-suspension bike. This bike offers 120 mm of front and rear suspension travel and weighs about 2 kg more than the 32-inch hardtail.
The test took place on a 1.5 km trail loop that included a mix of terrain: uphill singletrack, flowy downhill singletrack, technical singletrack, rooty sections, and a gravel path.
Each section was timed individually for two test riders, and 30 laps were completed in total. Power-meter pedals were used to ensure rider effort stayed consistent, and the downhill sections were ridden coasting only.
Outdoor Test Results
Image: Bike-Test.com
Despite the 700-gram weight penalty of the 32-inch wheels, the test riders found no measurable climbing penalty. Power data and sector times from two riders were essentially identical between wheel sizes.
On the flowy downhill trail, performance across all bikes was also nearly identical. The differences were simply too small to be considered an advantage.
The root section produced a repeatable performance gain of about 3% for the 32er over the 29er, equal to roughly one second over a 30-second segment. In fact, over this terrain, the 32-inch hardtail actually came close to matching the speed of the 120mm full-suspension bike.
The biggest difference appeared on the technical singletrack, where the 32er was 2 to 3 seconds faster over a 32-second segment. This equates to a 6 to 9% advantage over the 29er.
Overall, there wasn’t a single section where the 32-inch bike performed measurably worse than the others. Over the full 1.5 km loop, the 32-inch hardtail was about 4% faster than the 29-inch hardtail, which equates to roughly 2.5 seconds per minute – a substantial margin in racing terms, especially considering that cross-country mountain bike races typically last 1 to 5 hours.
The 32-inch hardtail was also about 3% faster than the 29-inch full-suspension bike, which works out to roughly two seconds per minute. Where the full-suspension bike lost time was on the climb and smoother sections, likely due to its additional weight and slightly reduced pedalling efficiency.
Vojo Mag also compared the lap times of bikes with 29 and 32-inch wheels. They tested a Trek Procaliber Gen 3 against an AVN 32″ Prototype. The Trek had 120 mm of travel, while the AVN was equipped with a Lefty fork modified to 90 mm travel. Both bikes ran identical Maxxis Aspen 2.4″ tyres on the same wheel model and a comparable drivetrain.
The test rider used a single power meter that was changed between bikes for each run. Every segment was ridden three times per bike to ensure consistent, repeatable results.
The first segment was a downhill trail lasting around five minutes, followed by a mixed flat and hilly trail section of about 5.5 minutes, and finally an uphill paved road climb taking approximately nine minutes to complete.
Outdoor Test Results
Image: Paul Humbert / Vojo Mag
The largest performance difference appeared on the downhill segment, where the 32-inch wheels were 4.7% faster – roughly 3 seconds per minute.
On the mixed flat and hilly trail segment, the 32-inch setup still maintained an advantage of 2.4%, about 1.5 seconds per minute. These time differences both align with the previous results by Bike-Test.
Despite the heavier wheels and greater rotational inertia, the 32-inch wheels were 1.6% faster on the uphill paved road too, or approximately 1 second per minute.
Ultimately, Vojo Mag found that the 32-inch wheels consistently produced faster times across all segments. This was despite the test rider being critical of the modified Lefty fork, which lacked sensitivity at the start of its travel and tended to bottom out. That limitation may even have held the 32-inch bike back, suggesting the time gaps could be larger with a fork specifically designed for 32-inch wheels.
The Sour Pasta Party 32″ mountain bike. Image: Global Mountain Biking Network
Another comparison between 29 and 32-inch wheels was conducted by the GMBN YouTube channel, although this test was far less controlled, so it’s difficult to draw strong conclusions.
In this test, GMBN compared a steel Sour Pasta Party 32 with a carbon Orbea Alma M‑Team 29. The bikes differed substantially, with an estimated 3 to 4 kg weight gap, and they also had different tyres fitted.
Even with the large weight difference, the 32-inch bike completed the roughly 10-minute off-road course two seconds faster overall.
The 29er worked out to be 1.7% faster on the timed downhill section, which the presenter attributed to the bike feeling more nimble and easier to accelerate out of corners. On the uphill segment, however, the 32-inch bike was 2.5% faster, despite being several kilograms heavier.
29″ wheels look rather small compared to 32″ wheels. Image: John Karrasch
John conducts tyre rolling resistance tests using the Virtual Elevation method, which keeps as many variables constant as possible, so any differences in power output can be attributed directly to the wheels and tyres.
So far, John has tested 29 vs 32-inch wheels on four surfaces, using the same Maxxis Aspen 2.4″ tyres on both bikes. Unlike many of the other tests discussed here, he adjusts the tyre pressure on the 32-inch setup to maintain equivalent hoop stress – an approach I strongly approve of.
On very smooth pavement at 30 km/h, John measured a 5.5-watt lower rolling resistance for the 32-inch wheels. This equates to a 15% reduction in rolling resistance for the Maxxis Aspens – a larger difference than expected on such a smooth surface.
On Category 1 Gravel at 32 km/h, the advantage of the larger wheels increased further: John recorded a 9-watt reduction for the 32-inch wheels. And on a rougher Category 2 Gravel surface at 30 km/h, the rolling resistance dropped by 9.5 watts.
Over rough cobblestones, the advantage of the 32-inch wheels was more modest, with about a 6-watt reduction in rolling resistance at 30 km/h. This is likely smaller than you might expect based on earlier results, but it makes sense – cobblestones are a much harder surface than rough dirt. On firmer terrain like this, the benefits of a larger wheel diameter are typically less pronounced than they are off-road.
Overall, John saw the rolling resistance of the tyres drop on every surface, to the tune of 5 to 10 watts.
Bike-Test used a special rig to measure the rotational energy of a larger diameter wheel. Image: Bike-Test.com
Outside of their timed laps, Bike-Test also investigated the effect of higher rotational mass.
Using a test rig, they measured the moment of inertia of the wheels and found the 32-inch setup to be 33% higher than the 29-inch version. That might sound concerning at first, but because the larger wheel rotates more slowly at a given speed, the actual increase in rotational energy comes out to only about 10% once the extra weight is considered.
Moreover, since wheels make up just a small fraction of the total bike-and-rider mass, the real-world effect on acceleration is minimal. In a sprint from 0 to 30 km/h, Bike-Test calculated that the heavier 32-inch wheelset would require roughly 3 additional watts to accelerate at the same rate, assuming a 70 kg rider is producing around 400 watts.
That basically means a 0 to 30 km/h acceleration time difference would be roughly 0.05 seconds at 400 watts, or well under half the time it takes to blink your eyes.
Vibration Test
Bike-Test built some simple obstacles to compare the vibrations of different wheel sizes. Image: Bike-Test.com
Finally, Bike-Test conducted a vibration analysis comparing 29 and 32-inch wheels. Lower vibrations typically translate to more comfort, reduced upper-body fatigue, and better control on rough terrain, making this an important metric to consider.
For the test, a smartphone was mounted to the top tube and its accelerometer recorded vibrations while the bikes rolled over a controlled obstacle course made from wooden slats mounted on boards. Each bike was tested 10 times.
The bikes all used the same tyre pressure, which introduces a small limitation. As shown in my previous video, larger wheels experience higher hoop stress (or tyre drop) at the same pressure, meaning the 32-inch tyre effectively runs slightly firmer than the 29-inch tyre.
Even so, the 32-inch wheels produced less vibration overall, giving the bike a noticeably calmer ride. Peak impacts were 2% lower on the 32-inch bike (9.2 g vs 9.4 g), but the total accumulated vibration dropped by about 5%. The variation between the lowest and highest impacts also decreased slightly, by around 2%.
However, when compared to the 29-inch full-suspension bike, the advantages of rear suspension and longer travel were still much more pronounced: peak impacts were 11% lower, total vibrations dropped 14%, and overall variability in impacts decreased by 25%.
In other words, larger wheels improve vibration damping on a hardtail, but the effect is small compared with the advantage of a full-suspension system.
While these tests aren’t peer-reviewed scientific studies, the trend is surprisingly consistent. Not only compared to each other, but similar trends show in previous 26 vs 29” studies.
Across every comparison we’ve looked at, the 32ers were either the same speed or faster than the 29ers. And in some cases, especially on smooth and uphill terrain, the gains were larger than expected. This means that gravel bikes might just see a performance boost in the coming years.
Of course, it’s still early days. We need more tyres tested, in different widths, and at different pressures. We also need more riders and more bikes. But if these results continue to hold up, 32-inch wheels could offer a decent performance advantage to racers or those seeking a smoother and more efficient ride.
Big-wheeled bikes often get criticised for sluggish handling. People claim they’re too long, steer like a barge, and simply aren’t as fun to ride. With riders now experimenting with 29″ vs 32″ wheels, these claims deserve a closer look.
In this article, we’re going to investigate how larger wheels shape a bike’s handling characteristics – that’s everything from stability and momentum to steering behaviour and grip.
Since wheelbase plays a major role in how a bike handles, let’s start by finding out whether a 32er actually needs a longer wheelbase than a 29er.
Will Bigger Wheels Make a Bike Longer?
Front Centre Horizontal Length
The Stoll P32 is the first production full suspension carbon 32″ MTB. Image: Stoll Bikes
You might expect the front centre to grow significantly to fit a larger wheel, but in practice, it barely needs to change.
Going from a 29er to a 32er reduces tyre-to-pedal clearance by about 32 mm, but even compared to the shortest modern XC bikes, you won’t run into toe-overlap issues. So in practice, a 32er can use the same front centre as a 29er.
Rear Centre Length
Get used to seeing curved seat tubes on 32″ MTBs such as this Falconer.
For the rear centre, most modern XC bikes use a horizontal length of 430 to 440 mm, and the good news is that 32-inch wheels can fit within that range too, so long as we use a few clever frame design tricks.
The first step is bending the seat tube so the larger wheel can clear it. Next, we need to create space where the tyre, chainring, and chainstay meet, which can be done with sculpted yokes.
An elevated chainstay design will make it easier to package large-diameter 32″ wheels. Image: Yeti Cycles
The cleanest solution is an elevated chainstay, which sidesteps most packaging constraints altogether. English Cycles is currently building a 32er with a 425 mm rear centre – shorter than almost every XC bike on the market.
So basically, with the right design choices, a 32er can match the wheelbase of a 29er, which means we can rule that out as a handling drawback. Let’s now examine how 32″ wheels impact ride stability.
How Will 32″ Wheels Affect Ride Stability?
Low-Speed Stability
A 32er tips from side to side a bit more slowly than a 29er due to the higher effective roll inertia.
On a 32er, you sit just a touch deeper between the wheels, simply because your centre of mass is a little lower compared to the height of the axles (assuming the bottom bracket height stays the same).
This subtle shift means that at low speeds, a 32er tips from side to side a bit more slowly. As a result, it could feel slightly harder to balance in tight, slow, or highly technical sections compared to a smaller-wheeled 29er.
That said, the effect is small, usually only a 1 to 3% increase in effective roll inertia, so I suspect most riders will not even notice it.
As your speed rises, the gyroscopic forces from the larger and heavier wheels increase rapidly, and they soon become a far bigger source of stability than the small change in COM position. Gyroscopic forces resist rotational changes, which makes the bike feel noticeably more stable at speed.
In practice, this means you’re less likely to be deflected off your line, you’ll carry more speed over rough ground, and the bike gains a more “planted” feel on the trail.
Numerically, a 32″ wheel carries about 24% more angular momentum than a 29″ wheel at the same speed. You’ll start to notice this somewhere between 10 and 20 km/h, and at higher speeds, the 32er begins to feel more and more like a steamroller as the angular-momentum gap grows.
The downside is that this extra high-speed stability comes with reduced agility – leaning the bike requires a bit more rider input. Whether that’s a positive or negative depends on the speed at which you’re cornering, how tight your trails are, and whether you prefer a more “playful” or more “planted” ride feel.
High-Speed Stability Summary
29″ Wheels
✅ Lower gyroscopic forces ✅ More agile feel ❌ Less high-speed stability
32″ Wheels
❌ Higher gyroscopic forces ❌ Less agile feel ✅ More high-speed stability
Forward Pitch Stability
The endo angle is larger on the 32″ MTB due to the wheel axles sitting higher relative to your centre of mass.
Pitch stability describes how resistant your bike is to tipping forward under heavy braking or when your front wheel hits rocks, holes, or other obstacles. More pitch stability means more confidence on steep descents.
One way to quantify this is by looking at the endo angle on a given slope – the angle through which the bike can rotate forward before you reach the tipping point. A larger endo angle basically means it’s harder to go over the bars.
Because the axles sit slightly higher relative to your centre of mass on a 32er, the endo angle increases by about one degree, which is similar to adding ~30 mm of front-centre to a 29er. That’s a meaningful bump in pitch stability without altering wheelbase.
In short, for a given wheelbase length, bigger wheels give you noticeably better pitch stability, letting you ride steeper, more technical terrain with less risk of being pitched over the front.
Pitch Stability Summary
29″ Wheels
❌ Smaller endo angle ❌ Easier to pitch over the bars
32″ Wheels
✅ Larger endo angle ✅ Harder to pitch over the bars
Anti-Looping Stability
The looping angle is larger on the 32″ MTB due to the wheel axles sitting higher relative to your centre of mass.
It’s the same story at the rear of the bike, but here, we call it the looping angle. This is the angle that defines how far you can tip backward before you reach the point of looping out.
In practical terms, a bike with a larger looping angle can climb steeper terrain more effectively. This is because there’s more weight over the front wheel, meaning it won’t lift off the ground as easily, giving you better front traction when the gradient kicks up.
Once again, because the wheel axles sit slightly higher in relation to your centre of mass on a 32-inch bike, the looping angle increases by about one degree.
To get that same level of anti-looping stability on a 29er, you’d need to lengthen the chainstays by around 18 mm. So just like up front, the bigger wheels give you more climbing stability without altering the bike’s wheelbase length.
The downside of a larger looping angle is that it becomes a bit harder to pop the front wheel up. That means hopping, manualling, and clearing obstacles all require more effort. To make a 32er pop up as easily as a 29er, you’d need to shorten the chainstays by about 18 mm.
Anti-Looping Stability Summary
29″ Wheels
❌ Smaller looping angle ❌ Easier to loop out ❌ Less planted front wheel ✅ Easier to pop the front up
32″ Wheels
✅ Larger looping angle ✅ Harder to loop out ✅ More planted front wheel ❌ Harder to pop the front up
Momentum
The bigger wheels have more inertia, which means carry more speed and feel more stable. Image: Stoll Bikes
Next, let’s look at how bigger wheels hold momentum.
The tyres and rims aren’t just bigger and heavier on a 32er; the weight also sits further from the hub. That gives them more inertia, which makes the wheels resist speed changes.
In other words, the wheels are a bit harder to get moving… but once they’re rolling, they don’t want to slow down. This helps carry more speed over small rises and makes the bike feel more stable on rough terrain.
And on rougher surfaces, that extra angular momentum can make the bike carry more speed and feel more stable because you get pinged off line by bumps much less.
My calculations show that 32″ carbon rims and comparable tyres require around 13% more energy to spin up than their 29″ equivalents. But because wheels are only a small fraction of the total system mass, the real-world acceleration difference is minimal.
Momentum Summary
29″ Wheels
❌ Holds less momentum ❌ Less stable over bumps ✅ Quicker acceleration
32″ Wheels
✅ Holds more momentum ✅ More stable over bumps ❌ Slower acceleration
Steering Feel
It’s a bit harder to steer a 32er, but there are ways to counter the additional torque. Image: Stoll Bikes
The larger and heavier 32″ wheel also produces more gyroscopic torque, which influences steering feel.
A rider can usually apply several newton-metres of steering torque through the handlebars. At low speeds (under 10 km/h) and with gentle steering inputs, the torque difference between wheel sizes is well below 1 Nm – far too small for anyone to notice.
At higher speeds or during rapid steering, a 32″ wheel adds roughly 1 to 2 Nm of extra torque at the bars compared to a 29er. Most riders will likely perceive this not as heavier steering but as increased high-speed stability, especially given that handlebars often provide 30 to 50 Nm of leverage.
If you really wanted to counter it, adding a few centimetres of handlebar width would pretty much do the job. We can also compensate through geometry tweaks, such as changing the head angle or fork offset.
And realistically, we’ll need to adjust both if we want our 32ers to feel like 29ers, because the bigger wheel naturally adds more trail and more wheel flop. But we’ll cover that in part three.
Steering Feel Summary
29″ Wheels
✅ Less steering torque ✅ Easier to steer ❌ Reduced feeling of high-speed stability
32″ Wheels
❌ More steering torque ❌ Harder to steer ✅ Increased feeling of high-speed stability
Traction and Tyre Performance
Let’s assume you’re using identical tyres on a 29 and 32″ wheelset. Which wheel size will achieve more grip?
Before we start, I want to make it clear: when it comes to tyre grip, the biggest factors are always going to be the tread pattern, casing construction, pressure, and rubber compound of the tyre – not factors around the wheel size itself.
The only somewhat scientific test I found that compared the cornering grip of 26 and 29-inch bikes using the same tyre model and air pressure was by Mountain Bike Magazin in Germany. They used an accelerometer and speed sensor to measure the traction limit through a flat corner.
The results suggested that cornering grip was identical between the two wheel sizes at equal pressures. But the equal pressure thing might have been the problem, and here’s why.
Tyre Footprint
The tyre footprint is the contact area the tyre makes with the ground at any instant in time, and its size mainly depends on three factors: vertical load, casing stiffness, and air pressure.
The interesting thing is that if you’re running the same tyre model at the same pressure, say a Schwalbe G-One at 20 psi, the total contact area will be about the same whether it’s mounted on a 20-inch folding bike, a 27.5 plus bike, or a 700C gravel bike.
So, on the surface level, the footprint should be the same for 32″ and 29″ wheels, right? Well, that’s not the full story.
A better way to compare tyre performance is by looking at either the hoop stress or tyre drop because these reflect how the tyre structure responds to internal pressure and load. When hoop stress or tyre drop is matched across bikes with different wheel sizes, the tyres ride very similarly.
For tyre drop, we measure how much the tyre compresses under your weight.
Because 32-inch wheels have a larger air volume, they actually need slightly less pressure to achieve the same tyre drop or hoop stress – about 1 psi lower on a 2.4″ tyre. That reduction in pressure boosts the 32″ wheels’ contact patch by roughly 5% compared to a 29er (20 vs 21 psi).
So yes, the 32-inch wheel ends up with a larger footprint than the 29-inch wheel using the same tyre. This allows a tyre to conform better to the terrain, providing more grip and more comfort.
Tyre Footprint Summary
29″ Wheels
❌ Smaller tyre footprint ❌ Less grip
32″ Wheels
✅ Bigger tyre footprint ✅ More grip
Tread Engagement: More Knobs in Contact
The tyre footprint shape also changes with the wheel diameter. A larger diameter wheel has a longer but narrower tyre footprint. But the variation in shape is probably much smaller than you’d expect – or have been made to believe.
Between 29 and 32-inch wheels with 2.4″ tyres, it’s likely a 5% difference in each dimension – longer but narrower for the 32. But when we factor in the reduction in tyre pressure needed to achieve the same tyre drop, the contact patch length grows to about 10% longer.
This is nothing huge, likely 5mm more length or so, but it might be just enough additional length to engage one extra row of knobs, which means more grip relative to the 29er.
Having said that, I think the bigger improvement in traction is from something else – a larger wheel is less jolted over rough terrain because, as we discussed in part one, the angle of attack is reduced. This allows the 32er to maintain a more consistent grip when the trail is loose or bumpy.
Tread Engagement Summary
29″ Wheels
❌ Shorter contact patch ❌ Fewer tyre knobs engaged ❌ Less grip ❌ More jolted over rough terrain
32″ Wheels
✅ Longer contact patch ✅ More tyre knobs engaged ✅ More grip ✅ Less jolted over rough terrain
Cornering Traction
Cornering traction increases with wheel diameter. Image: Giant Bicycles
And lastly, we need to look at cornering traction. Cornering traction really comes down to how a tyre spreads sideways forces into the ground.
With a 32-inch wheel, the contact patch is about 10% longer. That extra length means the tyre distorts less and the tread blocks shear less under load, which boosts cornering stiffness and reduces the slip angle needed to make grip.
At the same lean angle on the trail, a 32er is simply operating further from its traction limit than a 29er, which means you can lean a few more degrees before the tyre begins to drift sideways under load.
Kinematic modelling suggests a 10 to 12% bump in usable cornering grip – and you’ll feel that most on loose-over-hardpack and off-camber sections where every bit of extra bite matters.
Cornering Traction Summary
29″ Wheels
❌ Lower cornering stiffness ❌ More tyre distortion ❌ Less usable cornering grip
32″ Wheels
✅ Higher cornering stiffness ✅ Less tyre distortion ✅ More usable cornering grip
29″ vs 32″: Which Wheel Size Is Best?
29″ Wheels
32″ Wheels
Low-Speed Stability
✅ Quicker to initiate lean ✅ Better low-speed balance
❌ Slower to initiate lean ❌ Worse low-speed balance
High-Speed Stability
✅ Lower gyroscopic forces ✅ More agile feel ❌ Less high-speed stability
❌ Higher gyroscopic forces ❌ Less agile feel ✅ More high-speed stability
Forward Pitch Stability
❌ Smaller endo angle ❌ Easier to pitch over the bars
✅ Larger endo angle ✅ Harder to pitch over the bars
Anti-Looping Stability
❌ Smaller looping angle ❌ Easier to loop out ❌ Less planted front wheel ✅ Easier to pop the front up
✅ Larger looping angle ✅ Harder to loop out ✅ More planted front wheel ❌ Harder to pop the front up
Momentum
❌ Holds less momentum ❌ Less stable over bumps ✅ Quicker acceleration
✅ Holds more momentum ✅ More stable over bumps ❌ Slower acceleration
Steering Feel
✅ Less steering torque ✅ Easier to steer ❌ Reduced high-speed stability
❌ More steering torque ❌ Harder to steer ✅ Increased high-speed stability
Tyre Footprint
❌ Smaller tyre footprint ❌ Less grip
✅ Bigger tyre footprint ✅ More grip
Tread Engagement
❌ Shorter contact patch ❌ Fewer tyre knobs engaged ❌ Less grip ❌ More jolted over rough terrain
✅ Longer contact patch ✅ More tyre knobs engaged ✅ More grip ✅ Less jolted over rough terrain
Cornering Traction
❌ Lower cornering stiffness ❌ More tyre distortion ❌ Less usable cornering grip
✅ Higher cornering stiffness ✅ Less tyre distortion ✅ More usable cornering grip
In summary, if your trails are fast, rough, or open, a 32er plays to its strengths: more stability, more traction, more momentum, and more confidence on steep terrain. And if your riding is tight, twisty, or playful, a 29er still feels more responsive and easier to flick around.
Ultimately, the right choice comes down to your trails and your preferred riding style.
The 32” MTB category is no longer a novelty – it’s rapidly becoming the next big frontier in off-road bike design, with everything from full-suspension mountain bikes to surprisingly capable gravel rigs emerging worldwide.
These extra-large wheels bring noticeably better rollover, increased stability, and a surprising boost in cornering traction. As a result, both major manufacturers and small custom builders are now treating 32-inch wheels as a genuinely competitive size for XC, trail, and gravel riding.
In this article, I’ve rounded up 20 of the most interesting 32″ bikes, from World Cup-tested prototypes to custom titanium hardtails and near-production gravel machines. Together, they show just how quickly this wheel size is maturing, and how close we are to seeing mainstream 32er options.
If you want to know why bigger wheels roll faster, check out my article HERE, where I dive into all the scientific tests.
Right, let’s get into it!
Actofive I-Train 32″ MTB
The Actofive I-Train is a rather nice looking 32″ MTB. Image: Actofive
Simon Metzner of Actofive has built this 32″ MTB based on his I-Train platform, a project that originated at the request of wheel manufacturer DT Swiss, who needed suitable frames to test their 32″ wheels.
This isn’t a modified 29″ frame. Simon designed a completely new CNC-machined main frame and matching seatstays to accommodate the larger wheels. The Actofive 32″ MTB can be set up as a 120, 130 or 140 mm trail bike, with the possibility of a “mullet” configuration using a 29″ rear wheel too.
The geometry is very adjustable too. A flip-chip at the lower shock mount gives three possible chassis heights: low, medium and high. And the chainstay is modular, with replaceable tabs at the ends that allow you to reduce the chainstay length for smaller 29″ wheels.
Geometry was carefully tuned to match the seat position and handlebar height of the 29er. Achieving this required a custom-machined stem with a pronounced negative rise. The bike features an adjustable 65° head angle and long 465 mm chainstays, providing the clearance needed for the oversized wheels.
Up front, the bike uses a conventional DT Swiss telescopic suspension fork. To accommodate the large wheel, DT Swiss developed a dropout adapter that extends the fork length, adjusts offset, and correctly positions the disc brake caliper.
The Actofive I-Train 32 is currently available to order as a frame only for €6,990.
Alutech E-Enduro 32″ MTB Super Mullet
This Alutech E-Enduro uses a 32″ front wheel and a 27.5″ rear wheel! Image: MTB-News.de
The Alutech 32″ Super Mullet is a prototype featuring a 32″ front wheel and a rear wheel that can be either 27.5″ or 29″, depending on rider height. The bike is built on the Alutech Pelmo E-Enduro platform, which offers 170 mm of travel front and rear.
Alutech carefully adjusted the geometry to accommodate the 32″ front wheel without creating an excessively high front end or bottom bracket. The stem was machined down, and a flat bar was installed, keeping handlebar height in check.
The matching suspension fork comes from Intend. Thanks to their upside-down design and small-batch production, Intend can quickly create 32″ fork prototypes for bike manufacturers to test.
This bike also showcases the first 32″ Maxxis Dissector tyre, with a more aggressive tread pattern than the Maxxis Aspen XC tyre we see elsewhere. This is further evidence that the 32″ trend isn’t limited to XC applications.
So far, this prototype bike has only been rolled around a parking lot, but Alutech plans extensive testing to determine the viability of the Super Mullet. The main challenge currently is component availability, so the rough timeline for a production version is tentatively set for summer 2026.
Baum DBM 32″ Gravel Bike
This Baum DBM 32er uses a Cannondale Lefty fork to smooth out gravel roads.
Australian custom titanium frame builder Baum Cycles has been testing a prototype of their DBM (Drop Bar Mountain) model. The frame was built for owner Darren Baum, who stands around 183 cm (6 ft) tall. He notes that this is likely the lower height limit for a gravel bike with 32″ wheels, as the front wheel comes close to the down tube and pedals when the fork compresses.
To accommodate the large wheel, Baum modified a Cannondale Lefty Ocho mountain bike fork, which has no arch to interfere with the tyre. Suspension travel was reduced from 100 mm to 80 mm to prevent the front wheel from contacting the down tube under compression, though this is arguably a more suitable travel range for a gravel bike anyway.
Darren’s early impressions highlight an interesting bike handling challenge. When running low tyre pressures, which are necessary for such large-volume tyres, it creates a contact patch with the ground that leads to sluggish handling. Baum Cycles is exploring ways to address this, though perhaps narrower 32″ gravel tyres will appear in the meantime.
Bike Ahead Composites 32″ MTB
The Bike Ahead Composites 32″ MTB tips the scales at just 9.6kg.
This 32″ XC hardtail is a custom build from Bike Ahead Composites, and it weighs in at just 9.6 kg (21.1 lbs)!
To fit the larger wheels, Bike Ahead adapted its 29″ XC carbon frame by extending the rear triangle with new dropouts, making room for the oversized rear wheel, hence the slightly higher bottom bracket.
A custom stem from Radoxx Components with a negative rise keeps the handlebar height similar to their 29er, while an Intend Samurai suspension fork with 100 mm of travel manages front-wheel traction.
The wheels are Bike Ahead Composites’ own Biturbo Monocoque wheels, featuring the brand’s signature 6-spoke design. According to Bike Ahead, the larger diameter of a 32-inch wheel allows the monocoque construction to perform even better, delivering a significantly improved weight-to-stiffness ratio compared to conventional wheels.
A production version of this Bike Ahead 32″ MTB isn’t currently planned; this test mule was built to showcase and evaluate their new 32″ wheels.
Black Sheep Rigid 32″ MTB
This Black Sheep 32″ MTB was built well before its time.
Black Sheep Bikes has never shied away from experimentation. Builder James Bleakley has crafted everything from 24″ fat bikes to 36″ gravel machines.
A 32″ rigid MTB, then, is no surprise. This bike was actually built six years ago, but couldn’t be ridden aggressively at the time, as suitable wheels and tyres didn’t exist. According to James, it felt too heavy and sluggish, and eventually ended up tucked away in a corner of his workshop.
Now, the bike is fulfilling its original vision. Fitted with lightweight Astral Outback 32″ rims and tubeless Maxxis Aspen tyres, it’s shed over two kilograms, and it finally rides well.
The titanium frame, with its double-curved top tubes and adjustable dropouts, is visually striking. A “Deathplosion” fork with titanium leaf springs helps absorb vibrations, while the fully removable rear triangle makes the bike easy to travel with.
BMC Project Fahrenheit 32″ MTB Prototype
The BMC Project Fahrenheit uses a cut-up Fourstroke frame to test the new 32″ wheel size.
BMC made waves earlier this year when they unveiled a highly modified full-suspension MTB with 32″ wheels at the Andorra Mountain Bike World Cup. Factory Racing rider Titouan Carod took it out for two practice laps before returning to the pits, giving the rest of the field an unexpected opportunity to inspect the brand’s latest experiment.
The frame combines aluminium head tube and bottom bracket sections that are bonded with carbon fibre tubes. This approach is common among prototypes, as it allows for rapid iteration and testing.
Up front, a standard DT Swiss F 232 One 29er fork has been modified with a CNC attachment on the lowers, enabling the use of a 32″ wheel and allowing the R&D team to experiment with fork offsets. The stem is designed to mount both above and below the head tube, positioning the handlebars almost below the tube’s centreline, keeping bar height consistent with the 29er version.
The overall design closely mirrors BMC’s current 29er Fourstroke, with the intent of isolating wheel size as the primary variable. By keeping geometry and suspension design consistent, BMC aimed to evaluate the impact of 32″ wheels without fundamentally changing bike feel.
BTCHN Bikes 32″ Gravel Bike
The BTCHN 32er gravel bike has the shortest chainstay length here, at just 423mm.
Tyler Reiswig of BTCHN Bikes recently completed a steel 32″ drop-bar gravel bike with an exceptionally short wheelbase. Built as a singlespeed for himself, Tyler – standing 175 cm (5′9″) – notes that riding a 32″ gravel bike at his height works without compromise, provided the setup is rigid.
A 3D-printed chainstay yoke provides ample tyre clearance on the ultra-short 423 mm rear centre, while a custom bar and stem with an effective 16 mm stem length ensures proper fit and toe-wheel clearance.
A 70° head tube angle paired with 55 mm of fork offset results in light, responsive steering. The fork is particularly innovative, featuring a 3D-printed stainless steel crown and dropouts bonded to titanium legs. The front axle is positioned slightly behind the fork legs, reducing load reversal.
Both front and rear hubs use Boost 148 mm spacing and wide singlespeed flanges to improve spoke bracing angles and maintain wheel stiffness.
Clydesdale BFG 32″ Gravel Bike
This Clydesdale BFG gravel bike is built for a 211cm tall rider, which explains why the 32-inch wheels look so small.
The BFG (Big Friendly Giant) is a purpose-built bike for very tall riders. These titanium bikes are available with either 32-inch or 36-inch wheels, creating properly scaled geometry for riders up to an incredible 226 cm (7’5″).
The BFG is suited to everything from city riding and bike paths to gravel and mountain bike trails. Riders can choose between drop bars or flat bars, and the bikes can be configured with either a 1× drivetrain or a 2×11 setup.
To match taller proportions, the BFG can be fitted with extra-long crank arms and extra-wide handlebars, ensuring a comfortable fit. The wheels are custom-built in Zinn’s Colorado workshop using their own Clydesdale hubs, rated for riders up to 204 kg (450 lbs). Each wheel uses 36 double-butted spokes and DT Swiss brass nipples, providing the durability and long-term trueness required for heavier, more powerful riders.
Clydesdale Bronco 32″ MTB
The Clydesdale Bronco bikes are primarily built for big and tall riders.
The Clydesdale Bronco follows the same design philosophy as the BFG, offering properly scaled bikes for larger riders. This titanium hardtail is available with 32-inch wheels and comes in sizes from Medium to 4XL, covering riders from 175 cm to 213 cm (5’9″ to 7’2″).
The Bronco is built around a Wren Sports inverted fork, which can be run at reduced travel, 120 mm instead of the standard 150 mm, to prevent the larger 32-inch wheel from contacting the fork crown.
As with all Clydesdale builds, key contact points and components are tailored to the rider. Crank length, handlebars, stem, saddle, and wheels are all adjusted based on individual measurements and weight.
The Bronco also uses a 157 mm wide rear hub spacing, allowing for a significantly stiffer and more torsion-resistant rear wheel – an important consideration for a heavy rider rolling on 32″ wheels.
Dead Rabbit XCO 32″ MTB
Despite its retro styling, the Dead Rabbit XCO 32″ MTB is thoroughly modern.
Dead Rabbit has crafted a distinctive cross-country MTB prototype, featuring an aluminium frame paired with 32″ wheels. Its neon yellow and purple retro paintwork bridges the gap between 1990s style and modern tech.
The bike is built by Björn Aeschlimann, owner of Dead Rabbit Bikes, who makes a living designing custom frames for other bike manufacturers. In fact, his Swiss workshop is currently developing 32″ MTB prototypes for multiple big brands.
This prototype offers 100 mm of rear travel and 97 mm up front, with a frame geometry carefully designed to reduce the visual bulk of the 32″ wheels. The swingarm features an elevated chainstay design, keeping the stays short while ensuring ample tyre clearance and space for a chainring.
The cockpit stands out as well: a custom stem with low stack height and negative rise allows for a longer 100 mm head tube without raising handlebar height. To maintain a low bar position, Björn added a custom extra-flat upper headset cap.
The Bright Racing suspension fork is made in Italy, but the moulds for the carbon uppers were produced by Björn in Switzerland. Its upside-down design makes it ideal for testing, as different dropouts can be milled quickly to experiment with offset settings.
Björn aims to release a production-ready version of this bike, with the frameset expected to retail for €2,600.
DirtySixer Gravel with 32-Inch Wheels
The DirtySixer gravel bike is another bike built for big and tall riders.
DirtySixer describes this as the ultimate 32″ gravel bike for tall riders, offering three frame sizes that suit cyclists from 178 to 210 cm (5’10” to 6’11”).
This aluminium (or titanium) gravel platform is built around a carbon fork and DirtySixer’s own 36-hole alloy rims, paired with a Ritchey Comp Beacon XL handlebar and a SRAM Apex 12-speed drivetrain. It rolls on VeeTire T-Monster 2.40″ tyres, which are reassuringly chunky for rough gravel and light trail use.
To maximise wheel stiffness and strength, DirtySixer employ fat-bike hub standards – 150 mm wide up front and 197 mm wide at the rear. This widens the crankset width by roughly 40 mm compared to a conventional gravel bike. Most taller riders usually won’t notice the extra width, but those closer to the lower end of the height range (around 178 cm) may find it wider than ideal.
The frame clears tyres up to 2.5″, and includes two bottle mounts inside the main triangle, along with fender mounts. The complete bike is priced at US $5,899.
DirtySixer 32″ MTB
This DirtySixer 32″ MTB looks very well proportioned, given it’s sized for a 198cm tall rider.
DirtySixer is also preparing to bring a 32-inch hardtail into full production.
The brand has spent years designing big-wheeled bikes specifically for taller riders (typically 190 cm and above) who fall outside the size ranges offered by most mainstream manufacturers. This prototype 32″ MTB features a 120 mm Wren suspension fork and T-Monster tyres, and the frame has all the modern features – UDH dropouts, internal routing for a dropper post, and numerous eyelets for accessories.
According to founder David Folch, DirtySixer builds its frames well beyond standard certification requirements to ensure they remain strong and safe for taller, heavier riders.
The DirtySixer hardtail MTB is currently available for pre-order in three sizes, from XL to 3XL, suitable for riders between 175 and 211 cm (5’9″ to 6’11”). Complete builds retail for US $6,499.
Falconer 32″ MTB
This Falconer 32″ MTB looks to be a fun ride.
This Falconer 32″ MTB was among the first frames designed specifically to work with a suspension fork. Pictured here with a modified Intend fork, a custom BTCHN’ flat bar, and Astral aluminium rims, it was built for Alec White of White Industries, who is 180cm (5’11”) for reference.
The bike is intended as an ultra-stable cross-country machine. Its long 650 mm top tube, upright fit, and short seat tube put it firmly in line with the modern geometry trends seen on more progressive hardtails.
Builder Cameron Falconer believes that fully unlocking the potential of 32″ wheels will require the widest possible hub spacing to improve bracing angles and keep the wheels stiff enough for aggressive riding. This bike runs a wide-flange singlespeed setup to support that goal, helping maximise wheel stiffness as part of the overall design.
KTM Sixty-Four 32″ MTB
The KTM Sixty-Four gives us a glimpse into the future of 32″ wheels.
KTM unveiled its new aluminium 32″ MTB at this year’s Lenzerheide Cross Country World Cup. The brand calls this prototype “Project 64”, a nod to its pair of 32-inch wheels (32×2).
Although the KTM Sixty-Four didn’t make it onto the start line, it appears to be a highly refined prototype with a finish that’s essentially production-ready. Interestingly, KTM chose to keep the top tube straight rather than lowering it for more standover. It certainly gives the bike a cleaner silhouette, but the resulting frame could still feel tall for riders with shorter inseams.
Component-wise, KTM has fitted an Intend suspension fork, and it tapped into its team partnership with Mavic for the wheelset. The involvement of the iconic French brand suggests that Mavic may be close to releasing a production-ready 32″ wheel option.
Leovelo 32″ Rigid MTB
The Leovelo 32″ MTB is built super light for a bike with big wheels.
Leovelo has built a lightweight, rigid 32″ MTB that stands out immediately thanks to its short chainstays. At just 10.4 kilograms, it’s impressively light for a steel hardtail built around such massive wheels.
The custom Columbus steel tubeset combines a flat, ovalised top tube, a sharply curved seat tube, elegant wishbone seatstays, and 445 mm chainstays, giving the bike a striking visual presence. The Columbus Adventure carbon fork, along with the Bike Ahead Composite 32″ rims and seatpost, are all custom-painted to match for a cohesive finish.
Leovelo will soon be offering 32″ builds as part of its custom frame programme, so anyone intrigued by the 32″ wheel size can get in touch with Leo directly.
Neuhaus Nova 32″ Rigid MTB
The Neuhaus Nova 32″ MTB is designed specifically around a carbon rigid fork.
Neuhaus Bikes takes fit and geometry scaling very seriously, offering an impressive 16 stock sizes for their 32″ Nova model. The aim was to recreate the handling of their 29″ Hummingbird hardtail with larger wheels – adjusting dimensions where necessary, but without pushing anything into extreme territory.
Neuhaus ultimately opted to forgo a suspension fork, deciding it pushed the stack height beyond their target fit and feel – plus, there are currently very few 32″ suspension forks to choose from.
With a rigid chassis, Neuhaus is relying on the oversized wheels to shoulder some of the workload: the improved rollover smooths out impacts, and the larger contact patch of 32″ tyres delivers noticeably more grip. And of course, riding a rigid bike tends to make you a better rider anyway.
The Neuhaus Nova will be production-ready and shipping in early 2026.
Retrotec Custom
It’s hard to believe this 32″ MTB is already around a decade old.
This is a fun bike to include on this list! It’s one of the earliest 32″ MTBs with a suspension fork, and it dates back to around 2017, when pro racer Carl Decker approached Curtis Inglis of Retrotec with the ambitious idea of building a 32-inch bike. They had access to 32-inch aluminium rims, but had to get creative with the tyres, stitching together sections of 27.5-inch tyre casings to make their own 32-inch versions.
Fitted with a RockShox RS-1 suspension fork, the Retrotec prototype ended up with geometry that Carl felt was ideal for riding around Bend, Oregon. By today’s standards, though, its head tube angle is noticeably steeper than and the top tube shorter than what we typically see on modern big-wheel bikes.
Stoll P32 32″ MTB
The Stoll P32 shows what’s possible when it comes to pairing 32″ wheels with full suspension XC bikes.
After extensive testing with an aluminium mule, Swiss brand Stoll has unveiled the first carbon full-suspension 32″ bike.
The Stoll P32 is clearly designed to be a fast cross-country rig. The 1,750-gram carbon frame can be set up with either 100 or 120 mm of travel, with all cables routed cleanly through the headset. Complete bike weights start at 10.9 kg, which is right in line with today’s World Cup machines.
Geometry details remain under wraps for now; Stoll is intentionally keeping their findings confidential while the rest of the industry develops their own full suspension bikes around 32″ wheels.
Stoll will offer the P32 in four build variants priced between 9,500 and 14,000 CHF, with a frameset available for 5,000 CHF. A downtube storage compartment can be added for an additional 450 CHF.
All Stoll P32 models will run an Intend inverted suspension fork. Wheel options include Duke Lucky Jack carbon rims laced with PiRope spokes to DT Swiss hubs, or Bike Ahead Biturbo RS 32 wheels.
Production begins in early 2026. Medium sizes are expected to ship in April, followed by large sizes in June – covering riders from roughly 170 to 192 cm. Stoll is currently evaluating whether a smaller size is feasible, and there is no word on an extra-large size just yet.
Trentadue 32″ MTB & Gravel Bike
The Trentadue 32″ MTB is available as a hardtail or gravel bike.
Italian brand 36pollici (which literally translates to 36 inches) has been building 36-inch bikes for a long time, and is now applying that experience to some 32″ bike models.
Under the new TrentaDue label, the company plans to launch an aluminium mountain bike equipped with an inverted RST fork offering 75 mm of travel. A gravel version will also be available, paired with a rigid fork.
Given that 36pollici’s 36er MTB weighs just 12 kg (26.6 lbs), the upcoming TrentaDue models are expected to be competitively light – especially with the inclusion of the Damil carbon 32″ wheels.
Zinn BIG Full Suspension 32″ MTB
The Zinn BIG 32″ MTB is one of the first full suspension bikes available with 32-inch wheels.
Zinn has long specialised in bikes for the big-and-tall community (usually under the brand Clydesdale), and their new full-suspension 32er finally puts XC trail riding on the table for tall riders who want 32-inch wheels.
With 120 mm of travel front and 110 mm rear, the BIG Full Suspension comes in 2XL and 3XL sizes. The unusually long head tubes allow tall riders to achieve a comfortable bar height without excessive saddle-to-bar drop. The 2XL is designed for riders from around 193 cm to 203 cm (6’4 to 6’8), while the 3XL suits anyone taller than 203 cm (6’8).
Zinn notes that they can also build 32ers in smaller sizes (M, L, and XL) on request.
Because there are still no suspension forks purpose-built for 32″ wheels, Zinn is currently using the Wren Sports inverted fork, which can be run at reduced travel without shortening its overall length – crucial for maintaining correct geometry with the large front wheel.
The suspension linkage is engineered to confidently support riders up to 136 kg (300 lbs). Zinn has also chosen a lower leverage ratio than typical full-suspension bikes, allowing heavier riders to achieve plush performance without simply maxing out shock pressure.
To handle the loads of tall, powerful riders, the frame uses oversized, thick-wall tubing in the front triangle, reinforced by a support brace joining the top tube and seat tube directly to the rear shock pivot cluster. The BIG 32er also employs 157 mm rear hub spacing, enabling stiffer, more torsion-resistant rear wheels, which is especially important with the 32″ rim diameter.
32-inch wheels are really starting to gain momentum, and it’s looking like they could become a genuine alternative to other wheel sizes.
This topic tends to spark some pretty divided opinions. On one hand, the marketing narrative says bigger wheels are faster. But dive into the online chatter and you’ll find plenty of people arguing the opposite: that larger wheels make bikes slower, and it’s all just a bike-industry ploy to sell more product.
In this article, we’re going to look past all marketing claims and online debates, and instead use real science and maths to uncover the truth.
We’ll start with how big 32″ wheels really are, and whether short riders can use them. We’ll then find out if bigger wheels are really faster and more efficient, and how their additional weight and size affect factors like speed, acceleration and aerodynamics.
This will be part one of a three-part series: next time, we’ll dive into how larger wheels change the handling characteristics of a bike, including stability, grip, steering, and braking. And in the last article, we’ll explore all the compromises involved in designing a bike that can actually fit these giant hoops.
But first, let’s clear up one of the biggest sources of confusion: what 26, 29 or 32″ wheels actually are.
Wheel Size Is Not What You Think
Wheel Size
Rim Diameter
Outside Tyre Diameter
26 × 2.40″
559 mm (22.0″)
681 mm (26.8″)
27.5 × 2.40″
584 mm (23.0″)
706 mm (27.8″)
29 × 2.40″
622 mm (24.5″)
744 mm (29.3″)
32 × 2.40″
686 mm (27.0″)
808 mm (31.8″)
The terms 26, 27.5, 29 and 32 inches are really just rough references to the outer diameter of a wheel with a typical tyre fitted. In reality, it’s actually quite rare for a wheel and tyre combo to match those inch numbers exactly.
That’s because tyre width plays a big role – as you go wider, the outer diameter increases. In fact, if you fit a wide enough tyre, you can “balloon” the overall wheel size to the point where a 26″ wheel has a larger diameter than a 32″ wheel.
Wheel Size
Rim Diameter
Outside Tyre Diameter
26 × 4.90″
559 mm (22.0″)
808 mm (31.8″)
27.5 × 4.40″
584 mm (23.0″)
808 mm (31.8″)
29 × 3.80″
622 mm (24.5″)
808 mm (31.8″)
32 × 2.40″
686 mm (27.0″)
808 mm (31.8″)
In this table, I’ve adjusted the tyre widths of common wheel sizes so that they match the 32-inch wheel diameter.
What’s really interesting is that 32-inch wheels are about the same diameter as most fat bike wheels on the market today. We can thus say that if you’re tall enough to ride a fat bike, which is roughly 155 cm or 5 ft 1, you can fit on a 32er. But whether a small rider can descend a steep and technical trail with big wheels is another matter entirely.
Alright, let’s now dig into the physics behind larger wheels and why they can roll faster and more efficiently, and then we’ll check whether the scientific research backs it up.
Why Are Biggers Wheels Faster?
Better Rollover
Bigger wheels roll up and over obstacles much more smoothly. This is because they have a smaller angle of attack – that’s the angle the wheel has to climb when it meets an obstacle.
When a larger wheel hits an obstacle, it makes contact earlier and begins to rise sooner, letting it roll up and over in a more gradual motion. This makes the bump feel smoother (you experience less of a harsh jolt), more comfortable, and it also means you can carry more momentum after the obstacle.
With the extra momentum and smoother ride, you’ll find it’s much easier to climb steep trails littered with rocks – and it even explains why bikes with 36-inch wheels can practically glide up stairs!
20mm Bump Contact Angle
60mm Bump Contact Angle
100mm Bump Contact Angle
26 x 2.4″ MTB
19.7° (Baseline)
34.5° (Baseline)
45.1° (Baseline)
27.5 x 2.4″ MTB
19.4° (-1.8%)
33.9° (-1.8%)
44.2° (-1.9%)
700C x 50 mm
19.2° (-2.9%)
33.5° (-3.0%)
43.7° (-3.0%)
750D x 40 mm
18.9° (-4.1%)
33.1° (-4.2%)
43.1° (-4.3%)
29 x 2.4″ MTB
18.9° (-4.4%)
33.0° (-4.5%)
43.0° (-4.6%)
29 x 3.0″ MTB
18.5° (-6.3%)
32.3° (-6.4%)
42.1° (-6.5%)
32 x 2.4″ MTB
18.1° (-8.3%)
31.6° (-8.4%)
41.2° (-8.6%)
36 x 2.4″ MTB
17.1° (-13.5%)
29.8° (-13.6%)
38.7° (-14.0%)
Here’s a table I put together showing some wheel sizes and their angle of attack when rolling over 20, 60, and 100 mm bumps. These numbers are simplistic, as it doesn’t take into account tyre deformation, tyre pressure, and lean angles.
You’ll notice that when you move from a 26-inch wheel to a 29-inch wheel, the angle of attack drops by about 4.5% across all bump heights. And when we jump from a 29-inch to a 32-inch wheel, it gives you almost the same improvement again (~4.2%).
So, if you already know how much smoother and more momentum-carrying a 29er feels compared to a 26, expect a similar upgrade again when stepping up from 29 to 32 inches.
Less Sinking Into Holes
Larger wheels also don’t fall as deeply into holes on the trail. With less vertical movement, you use less energy dropping in and climbing back out of holes, and as a result, you can maintain more speed.
This difference is especially noticeable when you’re riding uphill, where you have less momentum to help you maintain speed.
Perceived Bump Height
Wheel Rise Over 120.3mm Ramp Length (mm)
Wheel Rise Over 202.6mm Ramp Length
Wheel Rise Over 253.8mm Ramp Length
26 x 2.4″ MTB
22.0 (+10%)
66.8 (+11.3%)
113.5 (+13.5%)
27.5 x 2.4″ MTB
21.1 (+5.5%)
62.2 (+6.5%)
107.6 (+7.6%)
700C x 50 mm
20.6 (+3.0%)
62.2 (+3.7%)
104.3 (+4.3%)
750D x 40 mm
20.1 (+0.5%)
60.4 (+0.7%)
100.6 (+0.6%)
29 x 2.4″ MTB
20.0 (Baseline)
60.0 (Baseline)
100.0 (Baseline)
29 x 3.0″ MTB
19.2 (-4.0%)
57.2 (-4.7%)
95.3 (-4.7%)
32 x 2.4″ MTB
18.3 (-8.5%)
54.5 (-9.2%)
89.6 (-10.4%)
36 x 2.4″ MTB
16.2 (-19%)
47.7 (-20.5%)
77.4 (-22.6%)
My favourite way to explain wheel diameter differences is with something I call perceived bump height. It’s a way of describing how different wheel sizes feel when they roll over obstacles.
Here’s how it works. A bigger wheel spreads the same vertical rise over a longer distance. So, if we lock the ramp length for a given bump height with a certain wheel size, we can then compare the total rise over that same ramp length using other wheel sizes.
It sounds complicated, but here’s an example: a 29-inch wheel rolling over a 60 mm bump has a ramp length of about 203 mm. If we use that same ramp length with a 32-inch wheel, it would only have risen about 55 mm after 203mm because of its smaller angle of attack.
So, in other words, a 32-inch wheel rolling over a 60 mm bump should feel just like a 29er hitting a 55 mm bump. Pretty cool, right?
This diagram is better illustrated in my video at 5:15.
The effect scales with bump size too. A 100 mm bump on a 32er would feel like a 90 mm bump on a 29er. And remember, this works both ways. The same percentage applies when rolling off things: a 100 mm step down on a 32er will feel more like a 90 mm step on a 29er.
So overall, we can say that every bump should feel 9-10% smaller on the 32er compared to the 29er.
Tyre Deformation
The flex is spread over a longer section of the 32″ tyre, resulting in a lower rolling resistance.
The final reason 32″ wheels can roll faster comes down to tyre deformation.
When a tyre rolls, the small patch that touches the ground forms because the casing flexes under load. That flexing costs energy. Every rotation, the rubber and material inside the tyre bend and rebound.
With a larger wheel, the tyre’s curve is slightly flatter where it meets the ground. That spreads the flex over a longer section of the tyre, so it deforms more gradually and loses less energy as it rolls. We’ll drill more into the details of this in part two.
It’s now time to take a look at the scientific research and see whether it supports the idea that larger wheels are faster.
The Scientific Research on Wheel Sizes
Schwalbe Tyres Drum Test
Let’s start with a simple lab test. German tyre company Schwalbe used a steel drum to understand how rolling resistance changes when you use the same tyre model and width, but on different rim diameters.
Their general findings were that rolling resistance consistently decreases as the wheel diameter increases. In fact, a 29″ wheel was found to have around 40% less rolling resistance than a 16″ wheel, which is a huge difference! However, the differences got much smaller when comparing diameters in the 26″ to 29″ range.
These findings are interesting, but they need to be corroborated with outdoor testing as well, so Schwalbe approached the German Sport University in Cologne.
German Sport University Cologne
The power required to ride at 20 km/h uphill on different surfaces (2.5 bar /36.3 psi). Image: Schwalbe
This private study compared identical bikes fitted with 26-inch and 29-inch wheels using the same tyres. This is one of many tests from the last decade or two, when we saw mountain bike wheel diameters increase from 26 to 29.
Researchers got riders to pedal bikes with both wheel sizes at 20 km/h on three different surfaces, and they found that the 29er consistently rolled with less resistance.
The biggest difference showed up on asphalt and gravel at low pressure (1.5 bar / 21.8 psi). The 26″ wheel bike needed about 214.3 watts to travel at 20 km/h uphill, while the 29er only needed 206.4 watts, roughly 7.9 watts less, or about a 4% reduction in power.
When they bumped the pressure up to 2.5 bar (36 psi), the gap shrank, but the 29er still came out ahead, about 4 to 6 watts less power required across all surfaces, which works out to a 2 to 3% improvement.
University of Pretoria
Measured rolling resistance for four mountain bikes, indicating the effects of wheel diameter and suspension type. Image: University of Pretoria
In our next test, researchers from the University of Pretoria looked at how wheel size affects rolling resistance on different surfaces, using both hardtail and full-suspension mountain bikes (study HERE).
On smooth bitumen, the researchers didn’t find any real difference between 26 and 29-inch wheels. But once the surface got rougher, for example, on grass and gravel, the 29er rolled quite a bit easier, showing around 12 to 15% less rolling resistance.
The biggest difference showed up on the sand. Here, the 29-inch wheels had around 20% less rolling resistance compared to the 26-inch setup.
That makes sense: as a tyre rolls through sand, it’s effectively climbing a small ramp of it the whole time. A larger wheel faces a shallower ramp angle, which means it takes less energy to keep it moving forward.
The four surfaces that researchers measured the rolling resistance of.
The researchers also ran a second test. They had the riders hit a 100mm obstacle at a set speed and measured how far the bikes rolled before coming to a complete stop.
The 26er slowed down a lot more – it stopped 15.5% shorter than when there was no obstacle. The 29er only stopped 7% shorter, which means the bigger wheels carried more momentum after the impact.
And here’s a neat detail: rider weight actually makes a difference. If you weigh around 70 kg, the 26er stops about 12% shorter after hitting the bump. But if you’re closer to 90 kg, that jumps to 20% shorter.
So, the takeaway is that the heavier you are, the more those bigger wheels might help you keep rolling smoothly through rough terrain.
Let’s now look at the studies that tested different wheel sizes on cross-country courses.
Swiss Federal Institute of Sports
Outline and profile of the purpose-built cross-country mountain bike course used during the study, including the different sections that might be expected to favour either 29″ wheel bikes (A) or 26″ wheel bikes (B).
Researchers took ten elite riders from the Swiss national cross-country team and had them do six laps on a simulated XC course (study HERE). They completed three laps on a 26-inch bike and three on a 29-inch bike.
Half the course was tight and technical, the kind of terrain you’d expect to favour a smaller wheel. The other half was made up of straights and rougher sections that should, in theory, suit a 29er.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting. When the results came in, the 29ers were faster overall, averaging 304 seconds per lap, compared to 311 on the 26-inch bikes (2.3% quicker). And that advantage even held in the tighter, more technical sections.
What’s really cool is that these time gains came without any increase in measured effort. The power output and heart rate were basically identical. So, it appeared the larger wheels were simply more efficient, rolling faster for the same amount of work. In addition, most riders rated the 29″ bikes as the better performers, especially when hitting obstacles.
Southern Utah University
The segment times and kilocalories expended were lower for the 29-inch wheels in the Southern Utah University study.
Another study from Southern Utah University found an even bigger difference in performance on their 6.7-kilometre test loop (study HERE). Unlike the Swiss race-pace trial, riders here were asked to maintain a steady, sub-maximal effort.
At comparable work rates, the 29er delivered some clear advantages: the average speed was 6.8% faster, with a heart rate that was about 5% lower. On top of that, the total energy expenditure was 9.4% lower on the 29er compared to the 26er, with the biggest gains appearing on the climbs.
Massey University
The Massey University study saw riders complete the course 3% quicker on 29″ wheels.
A different study from Massey University had participants complete a lap of their test course at full race pace (study HERE).
The results showed that riders were slower on 26″ wheels, finishing in 635 seconds, compared to 617 seconds on 29er wheels – a 3% faster time. This improvement came without any significant differences in power output or heart rate between the two setups.
University of Central Lancashire
And finally, the only study I found showing no statistically significant difference between wheel sizes was conducted by the University of Central Lancashire (study HERE). In that experiment, nine competitive male cyclists each completed a 3.48 km trail loop as fast as possible, using bikes equipped with 26″, 27.5″, and 29″ wheels.
On average, the 29er was about 1.3% faster than the 26-inch bike and required 6.7% less work on the climb. But despite those small gains, the researchers concluded that there were no statistically significant differences between the three wheel sizes in any of the measured performance metrics.
Looking at the broader picture, the scientific data consistently show that larger wheels roll faster and more efficiently. Most studies focus on 26″ vs 29″ wheels, so we don’t yet have definitive proof for 32″. But there’s no reason the same physics wouldn’t carry over, as long as the bikes share similar geometry, stiffness, riding position, and tyres.
Let’s now use physics to see how 32″ wheels will affect weight, speed, acceleration, and aerodynamics.
How Much Heavier Are 32″ Wheels?
This Bike Ahead 32″ MTB custom build is just 9.6kg or 21.2 lb.
I was actually quite surprised when I ran the numbers on how much weight you add when you scale up to bigger wheels.
The tyres make up the biggest jump at about 91 grams each (Maxxis). Then you’ve got the rims, adding 65 grams each, the larger rotors at 56 grams each, the spokes at 32 grams, and just 6 grams for the slightly wider rear hub. Throw in a bit of extra sealant, maybe 50 grams, and around 100 grams more for a longer suspension fork. The total is about 600 grams of extra weight.
Now, you might be wondering about the frame weight. I found the weights of a 26″ and a 29″ Scott Scale hardtail frame, and the difference was only 61 grams. There’s probably a bit more weight required for a 32er, as the frame needs to handle slightly higher forces.
But in total, once the frame and components are truly optimised, we can say it’s less than one kilogram (2.2lb).
Does a 32″ Bike’s Weight Affect Cycling Speed?
To be faster, the extra weight of a 32″ MTB needs to be offset by a lower rolling resistance. Image: Stoll Bikes
Now that we have an idea of how much extra weight we can expect on a 32″ bike, let’s see what the time differences would be over a 50 km long cycling course with 1kg extra weight.
Let’s assume a rider is 80kg and they can sustain 200W power output. Their 29″ bike is 11.5 kg, the 32″ bike is 12.5kg. Both bikes have the same rolling resistance and aerodynamics for this simulation that I calculated using Bike Calculator.
Over 50km of cycling and 500m elevation gain, the 1kg heavier 32″ bike would be about 27 seconds behind, which is 0.4% slower. This jumps to 56 seconds behind with 1000m elevation gain over 50km, or 0.6% slower.
So even on a climb-heavy route, the rider on the larger wheels would only need to roll about 0.4 to 0.6% faster to neutralise the extra weight. That’s a very small margin, and well within the performance gains seen in the scientific tests.
Now, what about acceleration with the heavier wheels?
How Much Slower Do 32″ Wheels Accelerate?
Acceleration is a touch slower on the 32″ bike due to the larger and heavier wheels. Image: Stoll Bikes
32″ wheels are heavier and therefore require more energy to accelerate them to the same speed as a 29″ wheel. The good news is that once rolling, it’s not more taxing to sustain a 32″ wheel.
In terms of acceleration time, an 80 kg rider on a 12 kg bike producing 500 watts would go from 0 to 20 km/h in 2.94 seconds with 29-inch wheels and 2.97 seconds with 32-inch wheels. That’s a difference of just 0.03 seconds, or about the amount of time it takes to blink your eyes. Basically, nothing.
A rider on a 29er would need to accelerate 33 times at 500 watts before they’d be a full second ahead of the rider on the 32-inch wheels.
So, yes, smaller wheels are faster and more reactive under acceleration, but in terms of time, the difference is smaller than you’d think.
How Much Less Aerodynamic Are 32″ Wheels?
This Baum DBM gravel bike prototype has been designed to fit 32 x 2.4″ Wheels. Image: Baum Cycles
At higher speeds, wind resistance can make up around 80% of the total resistance you’re fighting, so it’s an important factor for us to consider.
A 32-inch wheel adds about 9% more frontal area than a 29er, and the matching fork about 7%. But when you plug those numbers into the drag equation with your body included, the effect is surprisingly small, because your body makes up most of the total drag.
Switching from 29″ to 32″ wheels will probably add around 5 watts of aero drag at 30 km/h, assuming your position and Cd don’t change (they will!). And at typical mountain-bike speeds, it’s more like 1 or 1.5 watts.
Not nothing, but small enough that it could be offset by other wheel advantages.
Summary
Ultimately, the scientific research suggests lower rolling resistance and higher efficiency for bigger wheels, especially on rougher surfaces. That means more speed for the same or less effort.
Yes, bigger wheels are a bit heavier, slower to accelerate, and less aerodynamic, but in many cases, these factors can feasibly be offset by the lower rolling resistance.
In the next article, we’ll investigate the handling characteristics of larger wheels, including how they affect balance, grip, steering, and braking. And in the last article, we’ll explore the compromises involved in designing a frame that can actually fit these giant hoops.
