4 months on the 32 mullet Epic. Having a riot with it, bike rips. Did a local enduro today and got 8th OA. Wish i had a knobbier front tire as struggled with traction but it could have been worse. Contrary to what people have commented the 32 wheel and drop stem are very fun and take flight no problem.
Quick long post, but a vote would be appreciated.
Waiting for 36 inch is silly, because it's been around, mountainbikes to be exact, for 20 years.
Main downside: it's got the same tire choice as 32" had until very recently when Maxxis made the first high end tire for it.
But why not 36"? Well, obviously, that's pushing it for "regular" people.
How does that work out practically, then?
I've here overlaid my 2014 29"Cube XL (a short bike by today's standards, S frames have the same wheelbase now), with a sketch of a 36"er with the exact same fit.
Fork is a hypothetical 100 mm fork. Even if I'd use a Fox Podium, with this front wheel it would only give 85 mm of travel. I've given it 70 mm of offset to get the front to steer, and keep away from the toes a bit better.
Head tube is steep for a modern bike, slack for vintage bike, but we don't want the bike to feel too long and front heavy.
BB is slightly higher, in part due to the hypothetical girthy 36x2.4" fitted. They're bigger than the moped-like tires available in 36" now.
The rims are 101 mm larger than 32" wheels. There, 450 mm chainstays are doable, so I've just added 50 mm and used 500 mm. Due to the extra 50 mm of BB dropm the horizontal chainstay length isn't all that bad.
I've had to bend the heck out of the seat tube to still end up with my seat where I like it. Not great for most dropper posts, but that's a factor with 32" bikes to some degree as well, unless the chainstays are also in the 500 mm range.
Note how tight the main frame triangle gets.
Reach is short for a modern XL, long for a vintage one.
With that super tall front end, to achieve the standard seat to bar drop of a 2014 XL hardtail, takes both a weird droopy stem and a flipped 50 mm riser bar of sorts.
How does such a bike ride? Well, there are very similar bikes out there. Even with a suspension fork. NBA legend Rick Smits rides one with a travel reduced dual crown fork.
Reviews are out there, but none are with high quality tires.
According to Siberian bike wizard torXlab, it's possible to give a 32" tire a kevlar bead transplant. Rip out the 686 mm one, and sew in a 787 mm one, furnished from 37-39 winding of thin kevlar bead. That's what he's doing to scale tires up to a size they're not available in. Due to tire threads being a diagonal weave, the tire just adheres to the shape dictated by the bead diameter.
Someone will eventually make a high-end 36" tire, either through the above described method, or by building the mold. A high 5 figure endeavor, but owners of existing 36" molds may be able to modify their equipment to produce a larger, more high end tire.
Even for an XL rider, a super high end 36" bike seems just a bit too much, right? Absolutelutely.
That said, with S riders so comfortable on their 29" bikes, it's really not that far fetched. I weigh over double of what an XC World Cup race winner at 4'11/151 cm weighs, and I'm 28% taller. She's on 29" wheels so I ought to be able to handle a 20 kg 37" bike just fine.
Hard to imagine, but what are the arguments for it to not work? Even the wheelbase isn't super outragious. A bit clumsy long, but how many turns per ride does that bother me?
We do deal with diminishing returns here.
A 14% taller wheel (over 32", our new base line) will of course roll over obstacles better and generate less rolling resistance on any surface. The gains there get ever smaller as there's less resistance to reduce from.
At the same time, the extra weight needed in the rims, spokes and fork to support this next dimension...it's simply going to add more weight with every per cent we scale up.
Tire weight, that's the least of my worries. 14% more, the overall weight of the rider+bike barely changes, after all.
Frame weight, hardly different. A bit more strengthening at the head tube, I guess.
There are some M riders on 36" bikes, but no-one claims it's an appropriate size for them. They do think it's a fun ride, though, and commenters so sometimes forget that most of us rider for fun. Commenters were really upset about 29" arriving, and have now grown over that. 32" is the next thing to be upset about. History doesn't repeat but it sure does rhyme.
Would I want a 36" bike? Well, sort of.
20 years ago when I'd posted a similar drawing and frame builders found new business creating this weird new reality on wheels, one of those builders offered to build me a frame and for fork free. Super generous. I declined the offer as I just didn't see myself allocating the funds to building it up to a bike any time soon.
If there were a group buy for a carbon frame and someone created the crucial high quality tires...I'd be mightily tempted. Carbon rims already exist, funnily enough.
Would I expect to be faster around my usual loops with a 36"er over a 32"er? Not really. On some really rough gravel roads that force pro riders into a hiking session, I do think a 36" bike would just truck over it unencumbered. Let alone descending rough roads and trails. Just a different game. Overall on a typical ride...probably a handful. Just like a fancy 29" bike is to a World Cup winning lady. You get used to it, you get proficient at it, and from there, anything smaller just feels undersized, probably :)
When someone does build a high end 36" bike and tire, I definitely do want to experience it.
For now, 32" seems more than fine, and 34" I may just keep all to myself when torXlab gets his custom tire business up and running :-D
MTB, Gravel, maybe even Road or City?
"We considered it, but there is no demand"
This is the answer to many good ideas in cycling. The ones with the vision of a brighter future are not by definition the decision makers at bike brands.
I'm riding a recently new to me 2014 Cube Reaction carbon hardtail. It's their entry level carbon line. No attempts to get the frames under 900 grams or even 1000 grams. Just value for money, also in the spec.
The 32" version of my bike, with 2027 parts and sensible geometry, would be really, really hard to beat.
The leaked Trek Procaliber 32" for 2027 may be very close to that. We don't know a thing about spec yet, but a low entry price has been reliably rumored.
The whispered Cube 32" bikes for 2027 are said to be all be at flagship level and in limited supply. No budget carbon frame. Entry level for a hardtail may be €3000 or so (my guess, I didn't hear), but no doubt offering great value. Their current flagship Phenix 29" hardtail has a 27.2 mm seat post, so limited to short travel dropper posts. I may well pass on that if applied to the 32" bike, if I go dropped, I go big. Their fully suspension bikes have more dropper friendly 30.9 mm seat posts.
I've always wanted a Lenz Leviathan 29" but never made the step. Now there's a 32" version, actually a second iteration of it. Reports are very encouraging.
I'm not a Specialized guy, but their much hyped Crux 5 gravel bike, in 32" with clearance for 2.4" tires...that'd be good for the whole 32" segment.
There's less of a performance benefit to be had, but an aero 32" road bike with clearance for 40 or 45 mm tires would be interesting to try. Slight more capable on road roads, cutting actual corners, and maybe even do light gravel riding. I'll buy a fatty compatible aero gravel bike first, but a compelling oversized road bike would be quite compelling for people who pay full price for bikes, rather than live to race.
A rigid 29+ bike sized up to 32+ would be super interesting. Even more grip and rollover and comfort.
What existing bike would you point out and go "I'll have this with 32 inch wheels, please"?
Posted by asollie, a 2XL/3XL rider.
https://www.mtbr.com/posts/16716069/
"I'm incredibly pleased with it.
Chad at Corvid Cycles did an incredible job on the frame, Adam from Brindle Custom Finishes did an exquisite job on the paint, and I have to say I nailed the geo completely.
It handles like what I think all gravel bikes are supposed to feel like, but in this case it actually works for me at 6'7".
Just like my experience with longer chainstays on MTBs, I find that I can actually corner more sharply with these 480mm stays that on the 425mm ones from my Canyon Grail; purely because I actually have traction I can trust on the front wheel."
Posted by the Siberian bike wizard, torXlab.
(Translation by Google)
"32 inch wheels are becoming more and more common.
This year, three bikes arrived at #VVT, and a couple more are in development. They will be there, but no actual examples have been brought yet.
32 inch wheels are still of interest to the market and manufacturers. According to insiders, almost all the Tru Batya complete wheels that arrived are sold out.
Now, compared to the new models, they both look a bit more basic, as befits test models, but at the same time, they've become even more reminiscent of traditional 29" bikes. Well, the bikes themselves turned out quite different in both geometry and feel.
It's a shame no one brought a 32 inch gravel bike."
WELT seems to be French, TRU is Russian.
The TRU Batya complete bike is on sale for the equivalent of €1075, with 11 speed Shimano CUES setup.
The TRU carbon frame may well be a private label Tideace or Tantan frame. If it is, earlier comments apply, buyer beware :-D
For context: my current build will have 180 mm Shimano XTs and there wasn't really an alternative on the market in that size.
Options longer than 180 mm have always been rare. I own a set of wicked heavy 195 mm cranks that require a weirdly long square taper BB, and I have Road and MTB sets of 185 mm cranks from Specialites TA.
Now, there's a trend of going even shorter with cranks, and it's hurting taller riders most. You can't even through money at a large company anymore and get their top offering in 180 mm.
It's one thing to procure longer cranks, but it's another thing to mount them (axle options used to be weird), and THEN you are dealing with looming pedal strikes. The pedals get closer to the ground.
Modern bikes are designed around ~170 mm cranks. You'll see on the Salsa Fargo32, designed by a 5'2" lady engineer, that even the XL frame has the very same BB drop as the SM. The resulting BB is ideal for someone, but not for a tall rider building a proportional bike.
With access to more affordable custom frames by Walty (titanium) and Marino (steel), and now these modern (seeming very workable) Zinn cranks, a reasonably priced giant friendly bike is suddenly more attainable than ever.
If you have a 39"/1 meter inseam, you may well be able to turn 200 mm cranks.
On your custom frame, specify ~30 mm less BB drop than on an equivalent commercial offering, and you'll be in the ball park.
It might not be the worst idea in the world to:
1- Order a carbon Trek Procaliber 32" bike. Look only at parts spec (120 mm fork!), order a common size.
2- Order a custom frame from Marino or Waltly, or something more fancy, of course. Have the custom frame be made to fit the Trek's parts and of course the Zinn cranks.
3- Order this Zinn crankset (don't wait for it it go out of stock)
4- Sell the Trek frame (it WILL be desirable, I paid a lot for my alu Gary Fisher Supercaliber 29 frame in 2002) and toss its stock cranks into the deal.
I wouldn't be surprised if an unridden Trek carbon 32" frame fetched more than a custom steel Marino frame costs ($700-750) shipped. Your giant spec Marino won't be light, but it will be riding bliss for someone who's not used to fitting in cars, through doorways, at fixed height desks, let alone mainstream bicycles. As a percentage of body weight, the big bike will be lighter than any of the World Cup women's.
It takes some effort, but I'm not sure it's been as attainable at any point in MTB history.
32" is entering mainstream and you can have proportional cranks.
If you have the dough, of course talk to DirtySixer or Zinn, they actually know about fitting a tall rider on a bike and by extension, may know more about bikes in general than many other boutique brands.
I didn't make that claim, check the link!
You know what, I'm not 100% positive.
If that front rotor is 160 mm, then the wheel is ~800mm, 32".
If it's a 140mm rotor, it's just 29". Yeah, I did the pixel count comparison.
Drawing a line through the axles, does the BB seem around 105 mm dropped? I guess so...maybe?
Nino is not a big dude, so I'd expected the wheels to stand out more. The Icelandic lighting, volcanic surface and tall rims may not help the onlooker here.
I kind of suspect it's mistaken identity, but could be legit. I'm getting so used to 32" wheels, they don't look big anymore.
Still it's cool to see the wider Maxxis Aspen ST fitting well.
I passionately hope that the crop of 32" Aero bikes will be fitting 2.4" tires, at least in the dry.
If they don't, the Walty fork will fix that for the front at least.
Last pic is an AI enhanced picture of them in a group. If I had to bet...it's the same wheel size for them all.
The 32" segment runs from 9:53.
Curiously he says that getting to fit shorter riders on 32" Gravel will be easier. For himself at 6'2"/188 cm he could Gravel setup easy enough. Stack within 1 cm.
The embedded title was : "How a 49-year-old mountain biker stays competitive against pros in their 20s"
I'm loving that title. Oddly specific to me, and I can use some extra speed to get closer to the young pros or at least the other geezers. The M50 race winners are not slow! They were faster than me even when we were both younger :-D
Waltly Titanium from Xiamen in China, known for their supply of many boutique brands and various custom builds, have a SHORT carbon 32" Gravel fork in the making.
At 444 mm axle-to-crown, it's the shortest it can reasonably be while accommodating a 32x2.4" tire. Unbound XL style mud might not be the ideal terrain to tackle with such a big tire, but on 50-51mm tires, it will probably be fine.
The 411 mm wheel radius indicated is a measurement on the tall side for 32", most people tend to measure 404-409 mm for the regular 32x2.4" Aspens, depending on time it was inflated/ridden and on which rim.
The 15x110 mm thru-axle (for 700C Gravel, 12x100 mm has been the norm) helps build a strong front wheel, and in most cases that front wheel can then be swapped for someone's 32" MTB front wheel. All you need then is to use same size disc rotors between bikes, and wheel swaps are a breeze. Single piston brakes on the Gravel bike, dual piston on the MTB? I like it!
Especially when affordable (alu rim) wheels become available, it will be attractive to keep a "beater" wheelset around that can be shared between the MTB and Gravel bike. I'd like to have such a 32" wheelset with 50 or 60 mm road slicks. Those have proven to be just lovely for solo rides in 26" and 29". I'm actually about to head out on a longer ride with such 60 mm slicks. Comfort and speed, pick both.
Of special note on the Waltly fork is the 60 mm offset (I may or may not have tipped them into that direction..).
The extra offset over the 42-55 mm we tend to see in 700C Gravel aids in creating toe clearance while at the same time spicing back up the steering response. To push the 32" front wheel away from the toes, we'll see slacker head tube angles than are traditional in Gravel.
The larger wheel size causes a slower steering response, even with the same head tube angle and offset. Keeping the offset proportional just makes sense to me, and some may want to use a bit extra for taste or fit.
This fork might also have a use case for some custom 700C frames, for those who need their toe clearance and snappy handling, but do not need the lowest of low handlebar positions. That said, thanks to 32", crazy low stems do now exist. The compromise for 700C riders may be the Boost axle. Their existing Gravel wheels won't fit, but any modern MTB wheel, will.
Curious choice for a Vee Tire Co. T-Monster tire.
They could not get others. Seriously, it's difficult.
Okay...
Might explain the small time difference ;-)
They wanted to hate it, gave it half a chance, and it was faster.
Long video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3hilkN3DKM
Facebook info on the project:
Here we go again. We’ve just about recovered from the pain of 29v27.5, but now 32in wheels are heading our way, and it looks like we might have to go through all that fun again. To find out whether there are any benefits to this new wheel size, we headed out to ride this Frankenbike Canyon MTB Strive:ON converted with a Manitou MTB Dorado fork, Vee Tire Co. T-Monster tyre, and a carbon rim from Aliexpress . With back-to-back runs against a Specialized MTB Levo Evo and some clever software that lets you compare your runs, we set out to find out whether 32in wheels are faster. And more importantly, still fun to ride. Check out the video now on our YouTube channel.
My main takeaways about 32 inch wheels based on some true single track riding. Riding conditions were hero dirt. The trail network is mostly flat with some punchy climbs and fast descents. Typical rocky and rooty sections that are common on older New England trail networks (Horse Hill trails for those curious). I am 5'9" and 170 lbs riding a size medium.
* Clearance was VERY tight near the seat tube, but I didn't notice any rubbing or drag.
* The geometry of this bike actually felt pretty good overall. BB drop was pretty good and it felt like I was "in" the bike and able to stay low.
* Something about the trail/offset/front grip is noticably different, but felt like something I will get used to.
* Rolls VERY fast, faster than a 29r without a doubt. The crappy winter beater single pot brakes were not adequate and completely unsafe. I do think a nicely maintained 4 pot system with 180s would feel pretty good for most riders under 200 lbs. The lack of suspense fork with the front tire kinda being hard to keep in contact with the ground added to this feeling of inadequate braking.
* Increased rollover on the rear tire was noticeable compared to the 29er, but the front was a little harder to put it where I wanted and wasn't as forgiving as I expected. I think a suspension fork would do this lots of favors... Haven't ridden a 29r fully rigid in years, so it's hard to compare. I do ride a hardtail 29r very frequently.
* It was more work to slow down, more work to turn, and more work to get back rolling. But once it's rolling where you point it, it's a very efficient pedaller.
* Ultimately I'll still reach for my front squish 29r more right now because of the cushion and functional brakes. Maybe a Wren is in the future for this bike next year.
Edit: Formatting and words.
Besides manufacturer support, which I would not bet on long term, are there any functional disadvantages to 36” that don’t affect 32” wheels? Once there are forks with adequate clearance for larger wheels are we going to see another showdown between XL and XXL bikes? I’m pretty solidly in the tires matter > rims camp, but every time they roll out a new frames it seems to create new and unintended possibilities for misuse 🤓
Behind a pay wall, so I have not read most of it.
With this whole story it's never become clear to me: what's there to be banned?
In the drop bar disciplines, there's at most an allowance for 700 mm diameter tires. Less in cyclo-cross, adding a specific maximum tire width.
Most 45 mm 700C Gravel tires end up over 700 mm, to my knowledge.
If UCI doesn't want 32" wheels...it needs to do...nothing, right?
Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
In non-UCI races, 32" is doing well. Two pro riders have used it, both Scott prototypes, and both have won a big race already.
Eventually, teams may just not put the UCI races on the roster anymore. To them it's not about UCI brownie points, but about what visibility brings them the best sales. Guess what, bike brands with race teams and sponsored riders just do it to sell bikes, not for fun. Gravel teams that can afford to buy bikes and do without a bike partner, will still only do the UCI races if they bring them better marketing opportunities than all the other races.
It will be fascinating to see how this shakes out. I'm not the average cyclist, but a 32" aero gravel bike has me VERY interested in finding reasons to ride it a lot. Do road bike things without all the road bike discomfort. Do off-road things without having to tack upwind on road transfers. Gravel bikes with 700C wheel already do those things, but 32" will do it better, for me at least.
So excited to receive mine. Literally cannot wait. I'm a 200cm tall bikepacker and this bike checks every box for me (except price tag lol). Anyone else waiting on one? Last update said delivery should be around August.
(For many XL riders, the L will actually be just fine)
Contrary to earlier word I'd received from Big Rock, they have decided to not modify their mold after all, and now have the frames available.
Around €816 for a single frame. If you can organize a group buy, it does get cheaper.
Shipping flashed at €178 for me but is subject to negotiation with Big Rock, says Alibaba.
In Small, the painted frame is 980 grams, so quite light.
Keep in mind that due to the likely (much) taller stack than any 29"er you'll realistically compare this to, the cockpit will fit you longer than the indicated Reach number will have you suspect. Think ~15-25 mm longer.
The 461 mm Reach on the Large will fit like ~485 mm Reach on a similar XL 29"er with the same handlebar placement relative to the BB and seat.
Detailed analysis of the M:
I scrubbed the web for the geometries of 2026 flagship carbon 29" hardtails, and the average Reach for an M was 434 mm. The Big Rock with 441 mm isn't an outlier in that sense, but due to its stack is 42.7 mm taller than the average 29" M, and the 23º slope of the head tube is applied to that as added cockpit length.
You'll see in the image that the Medium's Reach will fit 18.1 mm longer, so like 459.1 mm Reach would on a 29"er. The average Large flagship carbon 29" hardtail from my benchmark, has a 460 mm Reach. With the adjusted seat to your height, this M fits JUST like your average 29" L. All you need to do it bring your grips in the same position as on that L 29". this will likely require some droopy stem or a lower profile handlebar.
Use this knowledge to anticipate the kind of stem length (handlebar to steerer) you'll end up with, or what frame size you need.
The Big Rock frame is designed around a 540 mm fork. You could see that as an unloaded 100 mm travel fork, or a sagged 120 mm fork, numbers end up about the same depending on how much sag you run or account for.
The 67º head tube angle is on the slack size even for 29" hardtails, and with 32" it feels a bit like a ~1.5º slacker head tube still. So, similar to 65.5º on a 29"er. If your trails are quite twist and turn, you may consider an angleset to crank it by up by 1 or 2º. I don't think many owners of carbon hardtails will need it any slacker than Big Rock designed it.
I can't promise it's covered under warranty, but if you'd go slacker, a 130 mm fork might not be totally weird on there.
Cool is that they kept the chainstays quite short for those who want to have that 29" like feel. I've not seen any pictures of the tire clearance (not for lack of asking) but it's been test ridden with Aspens, so it may well be fine.
148 mm Boost, that seems sensible to me.
This frame is probably lighter than the upcoming Trek Procaliber, which is designed around 100-120 mm travel depending of frame size, according to leakers. The current 29" Procaliber is known as quite compliant. A T1000 lightweight frame likely is on the harsher side.
Carbon experts, please comment!
Me as an XL rider who doesn't need the very longest Reach and shorter stem, will fit fine on the L, although the seat post will be extended ridiculously high. On any XL it's already silly, but that's a me problem.
It's a sexy thing for sure. Two months ago I'd have ordered the L if available.
Now the Treks are incoming, Cube is doing flagship bikes, Scott hits in March.
When Big Rock seemed to play the long game with the Large, I went and ordered a steel Marino. Less money for a custom frame and logos with sliding dropouts, but perhaps 2 kgs more :)
There is a carbon hardtail in my near future, most likely. When the Cubes arrive, I hope to get to ride the full suspensions. I wonder how much benefit those still offer in 32".
I'd really like a carbon Big Rock, but their geometry oversight makes it sub-optimal for my specific situation. The Trek will be €1799 MSRP for a complete bike...
James was early to the 29" game, and look where he's taking 32" with his style.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Da6iDQCO5ze/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
