 |
| Janis 650B FS from the 2009 Interbike |
First of all, 32" wheel bikes did show there, but I think this was more 'click-bait' than any real trend making when it comes to that wheel size and the future of cycling. There is still a ton of skepticism surrounding this wheel size and the bikes? Many look kind of goofy, like an adolescent teenager. Negative rise stems, and geometry tweaked to fit around those gargantuan hoops.
Maybe it is just a shock from the norm and we'd get used to it all eventually. But I will say some 32 inch wheeled bikes look completely normal as well. So I'm not sure the shock and awe is all there is to that.
I will say that while some think 32"ers are inevitably going to "be a thing" in the future, I would caution against having this opinion. Why? Because 17 years ago another wheel size was purportedly going to "take over the market". Many bikes were made and sold to make one feel that "this is an inevitable thing". And then, a mere six years later?
It was over.
 |
| Lenz "Lunch Box" 6" travel 29"er in 2008 |
I'm talking about the 650B/27.5"er "revolution" in long travel mountain biking. Supposedly the thinking was that 29"er wheels would never make a viable long travel full suspension bike. Anything beyond three inches of travel was going to be too goofy in terms of geometry, too ungainly, and no fun to ride.
Companies invested in the nascent "enduro" MTB scene were all onboard with promoting 5"- 6" travel 27.5 wheeled machines and the industry went whole-hog with the idea for a few years. This was purportedly going to be the realm of 650B wheels for the foreseeable future. All Enduro and DH bikes were going to be this wheel size. But....
That didn't happen. Meanwhile, as the industry geared up for the "next big thing" in wheels starting around 2010-2011, there were companies proving that 29"ers were completely viable long-travel MTB bikes. They just needed the proper components, (forks, wheels, tires) to get the job done. Geometry was a little bit of a problem, but with the advent of 1X and the elimination of front derailleurs, this became an easily fixed problem for full-suspension 29"ers.
Then it was discovered that 29"ers actually rolled over stuff better, and still could be made to fit almost everyone. Dropper posts were another boon to bringing bigger wheels to Enduro and DH courses. By 2017-2018, the 29"er wheel had pretty much put the kibosh on any future 27.5"er advancements.
So....what's the lesson here? Couldn't 32"ers follow the same path as 29"ers? Possibly. However; as I've stated before, now with this larger diameter wheel, you are cutting off a lot of people on the shorter end of the scale in terms of who can ride 32". Marketing 32" as "The Next Big Thing", (no pun intended), is made a lot more difficult when a large portion of your potential sales won't ever fit on that wheel size.
Every so-called scientific test of 32" wheels points to a gain in speed and grip, but perhaps we've reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to who can actually benefit from this. And weight matters. 32"ers are never going to be as light as 700c based wheels. The logical fall off of benefit versus an increase in negatives starts to become more apparent as we reach 32" diameters and larger wheels.
So, based on what you see, you'd think, "Well, this 32" thing has some legs!". But don't forget what happened to 27.5"ers. Just because there is activity in the industry that doesn't always indicate success in sales. I'd stay wary of any predictions regarding the success of 32"ers in the future. It might stick, but then again, it might be just a little bit too much for many people to accept or even be able to use.
3 comments:
I don't think one size fits all. My family and friends range from 4' 10" to 6" 7" (the only one who races bicycles is 6' 0"). 29" wheels are too big for the smaller ones and make awkwardly proportioned frames for the larger ones. I don't know if 32" wheels will ever become a big thing but I think they, like 27.5", fill a useful niche.
Regarding the "Every so-called scientific test of 32" wheels points to a gain in speed and grip.." statement, the key word is "so-called." To my knowledge the only tests showing this were based on the Chung method which, outside of the cycling world, is not considered scientifically sound. It relies in inference rather than actual data, which too often "proves" the tester's hypothesis. The reason Chung method testing is popular in the cycling industry is because it's cheap and (relatively) easy to do.
Jan Heine of Bicycle Qarterly/Rene Herse wrote a blog post outlining as much, and before folks suggest he's " just trying to sell more of his own tires" I'd challenge them to review his testing methodology and interpretation of results vs. the rest of the bike industry's. He and other BQ staff have PhDs and literally do statistical analysis for a living (Mark Vanderkamp), whereas some tire tests you see don't even include a control sample or statistical analysis--because the people doing the tests don't even know what they are.
Basically, the Chung testing is too accurate--they're supposedly measuring changes with more precision than is possible in a wind tunnel which is highly suspect. I'm not bringing this up to be snarky, it's just that so many cyclists take "tests" at face value without really understanding how scientific method works. Here's a link to Heine's original blog posts, there's a Velo podcast somewhere where he debates John Karrasch on the Chung method, but I can't find it...
https://www.renehersecycles.com/the-science-why-32-inch-wheels-are-not-faster/?srsltid=AU7gw4W25Z8h6D2rd3FT-YAxUkmB7jwsMOVmSLYx6kwSw6Wy4Su0OgPv
https://www.renehersecycles.com/virtual-elevation-testing-problems-and-promise/
IMHO Jan Heine makes a good point about wheel diameter not making much difference if the bumps are small enough the tire can absorb them. However I don't think I've ever seen a road with uniform bumps. Even the pavement I ride has potholes, wrinkles, and other irregularities to big for 40 or 45 mm tires to absorb. Any kind of dirt or gravel is far less uniform.
BTW I've had two sets of Rene Herse tires. I can't measure rolling resistance accurately but both seemed pretty fast. On pavement definitely faster than touring tires but not as fast as road racing tires, Both were also quite comfortable. However the Extralight set got flats every week. The Endurance set got flats maybe every month, better but still a PITA. In comparison my 40 mm Pirelli P-Zero Race have gone almost 2 years with zero flats.
Post a Comment