{"id":130394,"date":"2026-09-18T20:40:18","date_gmt":"2026-09-18T20:40:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/basketball.runfyers.com\/index.php\/2026\/09\/18\/power-rankings-the-unexpected-findings-of-comparing-32versus-29-wheels-in-the-real-world\/"},"modified":"2026-09-18T20:40:18","modified_gmt":"2026-09-18T20:40:18","slug":"power-rankings-the-unexpected-findings-of-comparing-32versus-29-wheels-in-the-real-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/basketball.runfyers.com\/index.php\/2026\/09\/18\/power-rankings-the-unexpected-findings-of-comparing-32versus-29-wheels-in-the-real-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Power rankings: The unexpected findings of comparing 32″versus 29″ wheels in the real world"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

The promised arrival of 32\u2033 wheels is being accompanied by an endless ream of speculation. From those that know, and those that are guessing. All kinds of technical talk about how much of an advantage the big wheels will be compared to their diminutive predecessors. We\u2019ve talked to pro riders about their own 32\u2033 bikes<\/a>, we\u2019ve consulted the tire designers responsible for helping create the actual tires for 32\u2033<\/a>, we\u2019ve consulted the oracles<\/a> and looked to the stars to try see the future.<\/p>\n

But when the rubber hits the dirt, what are the actual differences between 29\u2033 wheels and 32\u2033? Are they actually faster? Where are they faster? And how much faster?<\/p>\n

The findings are not what you\u2019d expect. At least, not entirely.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Hype versus cold hard facts<\/h2>\n

I hit my local trails with a power meter and two bikes. One prototype 32\u2033 xc bike<\/a> from an unnamed, but large brand. And, in the 29\u2033 corner, a race-proven Canyon Lux World Cup. Same trails. Same Favero power meter pedals. Same semi-fit editor\u2019s legs. All combined for an empirical, real-world comparison to find out the cold-hard truth about which tire size rules supreme.<\/p>\n

Okay, maybe it\u2019s more like a lukewarm, semi-empirical, real-world comparison. The real world isn\u2019t a laboratory. I\u2019m not fit enough to produce perfectly matched efforts and only had time for a couple of runs on each bike. But these are trails that I know well. And some differences were quite obvious, with the empirical and experiential findings lining up in a way that is hard to deny.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The method<\/h3>\n

Our search for cold hard facts led to an admittedly lukewarm truth. The head-t0-head match up was less of a blowout than expected, with no real K.O. punch landing in either direction. But here\u2019s how we achieved those findings and, then, what murky vision of the future that leaves us with.<\/p>\n

The test ride is divided into three sections. Three very different stretches of climbs. Or, two timed segments, with the longer, latter segment being divided into two. With power meter in hand, or at foot as it were, the two bikes were compared on time vs power and effort.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Why am I equivocating so much before even showing the numbers? Well, the two bikes have very similar suspension designs, but not identical. They both had fast tires (Maxxis Aspen vs Pirelli Scorpion XC RH) but not the same tire. The bikes had different suspension, with the 29\u2033 floating on RockShox SID\/SIDLux and the 32\u2033 on a Fox Float SL and the unreleased Fox fork that showed at Sea Otter and MADE bike show. And, due to circumstance, the rides took place on different days.<\/p>\n

So, semi-empirical. But anyway, on with the show.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Carter Woods on Sobo no Michi. He\u2019d be faster than me on any day. He was faster than me (virtually) on a 32\u2033, too.
photo: Liam Wallace<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Trails<\/h2>\n

In Cumberland\u2019s extensive trail network, I opted for two very different stretches of trail.<\/p>\n

First, the lowest section of Sobo No Michi, a winding, mostly smooth, mostly low-angle climbing trail that isn\u2019t exactly technically challenging but, crucially, is defined by many switchback corners.<\/p>\n

Second, Climbmax. This segment was ridden as one effort, tying together lower and upper. While both are far more technical than Sobo, the sections have very different flavours. The lower section has more space between features and is less technical. The upper is constantly, repeatedly punishing with steep, often loose stretches connecting frustrating steps up logs and rocks, finishing with two bigger rock faces that, I hate to admit, force me to my feet as often as I make it up them cleanly.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Squiggly lines: 32\u2033 power (pink) vs. heart rate (grey).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The results: Gimmie some numbers<\/h3>\n

Sobo no Michi<\/p>\n

29: 2:38 (11.5 km\/h) \u2013 352 W\/175bpm
32: 2:53 (10.5 km\/h) \u2013 339W\/154bpm<\/p>\n

Lower Climbmax<\/p>\n

29: 1:56 (10.1 km\/h) 314 W 184bpm
32: 1:52 (10.5 km\/h) 356 W \/177bpm<\/p>\n

Upper Climbmax<\/p>\n

29: 3:02 (10.9 km\/h) \u2013 327 W\/187bpm
32: 2:47 (11.9 km\/h) \u2013 358 W\/187bpm<\/p>\n

Both Climbmax (upper and lower combined)<\/p>\n

29: 5:19 (11.0 km\/h) 326 W\/186bpm
32: 5:00 (11.8 km\/h) \u2013 361 W\/183bpm<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Deciphering the results<\/h3>\n

So, that\u2019s all a bit messy. But there\u2019s a couple takeaways.<\/p>\n

One: the 29\u2033 was faster on Sobo, with just a small difference in Watts (13). By 15 seconds over less than 3 minutes. That is kind of surprising. I\u2019d expected the 32\u2033 not to be a huge advantage, but I didn\u2019t think it\u2019d be slower.<\/p>\n

Two: the 32\u2033 was faster than the 29\u2033 on Climbmax, by 19 seconds over five minutes . But almost all of that difference (15 seconds) was on the upper section, despite a smaller differences in wattage between efforts on upper and lower (31 vs 42). This lines up with the purported advantages of 32\u2033 tires. More grip for steeper, looser surfaces made it easier to put down power on the big wheels while better roll-over made it easier to stay seated and stay on the gas at times where I was forced to stand and surge my way up shelves of rock and roots on the 29\u2033.<\/p>\n

Looking at heart rate, it was identical on upper Climbmax and actually lower when riding the 32\u2033 on lower Climbmax. Why? Well, if my theory holds, I was able to stay seated and put in a much more even effort on the big wheels versus having to stand, surge, and re-accelerate more often on the \u2018little\u2019 29-er.<\/p>\n

Differences in power throw off those numbers a little bit, I\u2019ll admit. But they\u2019re backed up by supporting rides. A less powerful 32\u2033 effort on the Climbmaxes still produced a significantly faster time on the upper section and a similarly equal time on the lower section. A less powerful 29\u2033 effort on Sobo still produced a faster time than on the 32\u2033.<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s how those ride\u2019s felt.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Still all we can show of the 32\u2033 bike we rode<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The company you keep: some context and some B.S. beyond the numbers<\/h3>\n

As I said, the numbers are a little murky. But some context might help make the picture a little clearer. Or, as I\u2019ll get into below, a little differently murky.<\/p>\n

While the numbers are a little murky, how those rides felt clears the water a little. At least in terms of explaining the numbers. First, I thought my 32\u2033 climb on the fast, flowy Sobo was going to blow Strava leaderboards out of the water. I was genuinely surprised when the 29\u2033 was significantly faster, as the efforts felt similar.<\/p>\n

At the opposite end, I fully expected upper Climbmax to be faster, based on how the ride felt. But I wasn\u2019t expecting it to be that fast. I also thought lower Climbmax would be faster than it was.<\/p>\n

Looking at the trails themselves, those experiences on Climbmax make sense. On the lower section, there were parts where the big wheels made a big difference but, back on the 29\u2033, I still felt fast. That changed on the upper section. I was bouncing around on the \u2018little\u2019 wheels, fighting to keep power on the pedals, sliding on dirt and, at the end, couldn\u2019t make the big rock despite trying as hard as I could. On the 32\u2033, the experience was totally different. It felt easier to keep putting down power, it rarely felt like I was running out of grip. Even on the big rock move at the end, when I was totally gassed, it wasn\u2019t a struggle to get to the top. So the power numbers are higher, in part, because it was easier to keep putting down power.<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s the company. On Sobo and lower Climbmax, I completely failed to make a dent in the Strava leaderboards. On upper Climbmax, I suddenly vaulted up past the locals and into the ranks of visiting pros. To be clear, I\u2019m under no illusion that that\u2019s my own efforts as, just minutes earlier, they were still virtually putting the boots to me (and I\u2019m aware that they rode those times in the middle of a much longer BC Bike Race Stage at the end of a long week). Instead, I\u2019ll stick to arguing that, on the really technical trails, the 32\u2033 started to shine, carrying me above my own abilities.<\/p>\n

\"Michael<\/a>
Michael Woods training on Ventum\u2019s prototype 32\u2033 cross country bike ahead of Leadville 100. Justin Diamond \/ Ventum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Tipping Point: Grip and roll-over versus rotational mass and acceleration<\/h2>\n

Which brings us to some conclusions. Or some more questions. Instead of being a knock-out, this little quasi-scientific game proved that the advantages of 32\u2033 aren\u2019t quite as clear cut as it might seem. Except where they are. Which makes the move to bigger wheels less clear cut than the move from 26\u2033 to 29\u2033.<\/p>\n

When 29\u2033 rolled out, the improvement\u2019s in roll-over were so huge compared to 26\u2033 wheels that any drawbacks to the increased rotational mass were quickly (or eventually) forgotten. But, the move from 29\u2033 to 32\u2033 isn\u2019t as clear cut. Even moderately technical trails it was close while on easier, faster trails the faster acceleration of 29\u2033 was a significant advantage. On really technical or loose trails? 32\u2033 a huge advantage. The improved grip and roll-over made it perceptibly easier to clean hard stretches of trail, with that experience being backed up by numbers.<\/p>\n

But how often are we all riding very difficult stretches of trail? And is that worth the trade-off on easier trails, even in a racing environment?<\/p>\n

Put another way, when do we hit a tipping point between the gains earned by adding more grip and roll-over speed versus the downsides of adding rotational mass and loss in acceleration? Is 32\u2033 too much for most riding situations, even when it\u2019s significantly better in more extreme situations? Or, god forbid, should we start talking about 30.5\u2033 as potentially striking a better balance?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Big wheels make roots and rocks feel small. Sam Whittingham\u2019s Naked 32\u2033 for MADE bike show.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It\u2019s not all about climbing<\/h2>\n

All of those notes apply in different ways when you point the bike downhill. While cross country types will be most concerned about climbing efficiency this weekend in Solider Hollow, descending is equally important (or more important) when you\u2019re just riding for fun. It also matters to racing, even if it doesn\u2019t look like a huge gap. But being able to descend more easily means more recovery which then means you can hit the next hill harder. So, I guess it matters to everyone.<\/p>\n

I won\u2019t get into time differences between riding the 29\u2033 and the 32\u2033. And I do get into the details of how the big bike feels different in far more detail in my ride impressions story<\/a>. But I will say the 32\u2033 does make riding any kind of technical sections far smoother and, therefore, easier. This is especially relevant for traditionally more steep and sharp-steering cross country bikes. It was just less work, mentally and physically, to ride hard trails on the big wheels than on a 29\u2033. The 29\u2033 was more fun, though. It corners faster, it is easier to move around in the air or to play around moving between lines on the trail. But that\u2019s what we all said about 27.5\u2033 and 26\u2033 wheels, too, and now 29\u2033 are reasonably fun.<\/p>\n

So, what are the conclusions? Well, first off, the power and efficiency debate isn\u2019t as clear cut as some, myself included, would have assumed. 32\u2033 are not a universal K.O. blow for 29 wheels, perhaps even in XC racing. There are ride, trails and races that will suit the little wheels better. But also, 32\u2033 are more of an advantage, in some respects, than anticipated on descents. So this could be an interesting battle. Hold on, it\u2019s about to get weird.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n