A 32-inch gravel bike looks enormous next to a conventional gravel bike. The wheels are bigger than the 29-inch wheels that already dominate mountain biking, and the first question is almost unavoidable: is this genuinely useful, or are we simply making bikes bigger because we can?

I had the opportunity to borrow a custom 32-inch gravel bike from Ruchti and ride it for an entire day. This was not a short car-park test. I rode approximately 120 kilometres with around 1,600 metres of climbing, much of it on gravel and off-road terrain.

After more than five hours in the saddle, my verdict was clearer - and considerably more positive - than I expected.

What 32 inches actually means

The name refers to the wheel format, but the useful comparison is the rim diameter. A conventional 700c or 29-inch wheel uses a 622 mm bead-seat diameter. The 32-inch format tested here uses 686 mm: an increase of 64 mm at the rim.

The final outside diameter also depends on the tyre. My test bike used high-volume 2.4-inch tyres, so the visual and physical difference was substantial.

In theory, a larger wheel meets an obstacle at a shallower angle. It should roll more easily over rough ground and maintain momentum well. But this was not a controlled laboratory comparison. Tyres, pressure, geometry, wheel weight and the complete bike all influence the result.

That is exactly why I wanted to ride the whole system under real conditions.

The test bike and setup

The bike was a custom build rather than a normal production model. Its key details were:

  • Steel frame and rigid fork
  • Approximately 11 kg complete weight
  • 32-inch carbon wheels
  • 2.4-inch tyres at around 1.3 bar
  • Shimano GRX drivetrain
  • 32-tooth chainring
  • Disc brakes

Eleven kilograms is impressively reasonable for a steel bike with wheels and tyres of this size. More importantly, it meant that I was not testing an exceptionally heavy prototype and then blaming every slow response on the wheel diameter.

The bike was supplied by Ruchti for the test. There was no payment and no influence over my opinion or verdict.

My expectations before the ride

I started with three assumptions.

First, I expected a great deal of comfort. The large wheels and high-volume tyres should smooth out rough gravel even without a suspension fork.

Second, I expected the bike to carry speed well on straight and fast gravel roads.

Third, I expected to pay for those advantages with slower acceleration and noticeably heavier handling in tight turns.

The first two expectations proved correct. The third one was the surprise.

Where the large wheels make a real difference

The bike felt exceptionally smooth on rough gravel: not perfectly graded fine gravel, but the uneven tracks covered in larger stones that normally transmit a constant stream of impacts through a rigid bike.

At speeds of up to roughly 30 km/h on this kind of surface, the 32-inch bike was remarkably calm. The front wheel held its line, the tyres provided plenty of grip and the bike reduced the sensation of being knocked around by every stone.

I had expected my 29-inch full-suspension bike to be clearly more comfortable. On these rough but flowing gravel sections, it was not. That was the first major surprise of the day.

There is an important limit, however. A larger wheel is not suspension. If I hit a kerb, a deep hole, a root or a log hard, the rigid fork still transmitted a clear impact. On very rough and fast terrain, wheel size cannot replace suspension travel.

The advantage is therefore not that 32-inch wheels make every obstacle disappear. It is the way they calm down the repeated smaller impacts that dominate long gravel rides.

Comfort after five hours

The most convincing result came late in the ride.

After more than five hours, I still felt unusually fresh for someone riding a rigid steel bike on an off-road route. The combination of the large wheels, 2.4-inch tyres and low pressure reduced the constant vibration and small impacts that normally accumulate in the hands, arms and upper body.

This matters far more to me than a spectacular feeling during the first ten minutes. In an ultra-distance event, comfort is not simply a pleasant extra. It affects how long I can continue producing power, how confidently I descend and how many unnecessary stops I need.

The 32-inch bike did not merely meet my comfort expectations. It exceeded them.

The handling surprise

During the first few minutes, the steering felt unusual. I needed more input to guide the bike through a turn, and I was constantly aware of the larger front wheel.

Then something interesting happened: after approximately 10 to 15 minutes, I adapted.

The bike stopped feeling strange and started feeling normal. The route contained repeated direction changes, tighter corners and short trail sections, yet I never felt that the wheel size created a serious lack of agility.

In fast gravel corners, the opposite was often true. The large contact patch and high-volume tyre gave me more grip and confidence. I normally approach loose corners with a certain amount of caution, especially on drop bars. On this bike, I felt more secure and could trust the front wheel more readily.

It is not a twitchy bike, and riders who want instant direction changes may still prefer a smaller format. But for the kind of gravel and ultra riding I do, the handling was easily agile enough.

Acceleration and climbing

I also expected the larger wheels to feel reluctant when accelerating or climbing. Again, the real experience was much better.

The bike never felt like a huge, heavy object underneath me. It accelerated cleanly, and even on climbs above 10 per cent it remained completely manageable - including later in the ride.

Part of that result comes from the sensible complete weight and gearing, not only from the wheel size. I cannot claim that 32-inch wheels are inherently faster from this single ride. I can say that the feared penalty did not become a practical problem.

For my use, acceleration and climbing would not prevent me from choosing this format.

Fit: excellent for me, less obvious for smaller riders

At 186 cm, I felt completely comfortable on the bike. It did not feel excessively large, and the fit was comparable to the XL 29-inch bikes I already know.

That does not mean the format will work equally well for everyone. Larger wheels create real geometric challenges: frame clearance, toe overlap, handlebar height and weight distribution all become more difficult as the rider and frame get smaller.

For taller riders, the proportions can feel natural. Smaller riders should treat fit and geometry as a central part of the decision, not as a detail to solve after buying the bike.

The practical disadvantages are real

The clearest compromises appeared away from the trail.

The bike only just fitted into my estate car. On a tow-bar rack, the wheels extend farther beyond the sides of the vehicle. A flight case designed around conventional bikes may require both wheels to be removed and the frame to be packed in a different orientation.

For ultra racing, I would also think carefully about replacement parts. Tyres, rims and spokes for 29-inch wheels are widely available. A 32-inch setup currently requires more planning, especially when travelling to an event or racing through remote areas.

None of these issues changes the way the bike rides. They do change how easy it is to own and travel with.

How I would build a 32-inch ultra bike

For fast gravel and moderately rough terrain, this rigid setup already worked extremely well.

For mountain-bike-style ultras with fast, broken descents, deep holes and larger impacts, I would probably add around 80 mm of front suspension. The wheels handle repeated rough gravel beautifully, but a suspension fork would add control and protection when the impacts become sharper and faster.

That combination is particularly interesting to me: the rollover and calmness of 32-inch wheels, enough tyre volume for grip, and just enough suspension for genuinely rough sections.

It would not be a lightweight conventional gravel bike. It could, however, be an exceptionally effective ultra bike.

My verdict after 120 kilometres

32-inch wheels are not nonsense, and they are not merely a visual gimmick.

The comfort advantage was real. The bike felt composed on rough gravel, retained excellent grip and left me surprisingly fresh after five hours. More importantly, the disadvantages I expected in agility, acceleration and climbing were far smaller than anticipated. After a short adaptation period, they were not meaningful limitations for me.

The real reservations are practical: transport, component availability and whether the geometry works for the rider. A 32-inch bike is not automatically better for everyone or every route.

For a tall rider tackling long, rough and fast ultra-distance events, however, I now see a genuine use case. I am seriously considering whether my own ultra bike for next season should use 32-inch wheels.

The format still needs to prove itself beyond one long ride. But after 120 kilometres, the question is no longer whether 32 inches can work. The more interesting question is how far the idea can be taken.

Would you choose 32-inch wheels for a fast gravel race, a rough ultra or a bikepacking trip - or is 29 inches already enough?

You can also read why I no longer want a lightweight gravel bike for ultra bikepacking and how comfort has changed the way I evaluate race bikes.