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.
We’ll start with a test by Bike-Test.com, then one from Vojo Mag, another from Global Mountain Bike Network, and finally, results from John Karrasch, who specialises in tyre rolling resistance tests.
Let’s check it all out.
29 vs 32-inch Wheels: Outdoor Test
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
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.
You can see Bike-Test’s full test HERE.
Vojo Mag Outdoor Testing
29 vs 32-inch Wheels: Outdoor Test
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
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.
You can see Vojo Mag’s full test HERE.
GMBN YouTube Channel
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.
You can see GCN’s full test HERE.
Rolling Resistance Testing by 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.
You can see John Karrasch’s full test HERE.
Bike-Test Additional Testing
Acceleration Test
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
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.
You can see Bike-Test’s full test HERE.
Summary
So what can we take away from all of this?
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.
If you haven’t already, check out my article on the scientific research behind why larger wheels are faster next, and my other article on how bigger wheels influence bike handling after that.