peterdavidhaile

@Uuno: yes, I was responding to a comment about 32ers minimum cs length.

@ShredDoggg: my 32er has 450mm CS. Outside diameter of the 2.4 Aspen is 808mm. BSA BB Shells are usually 38.1mm diameter Half of each added together + 5 mm of clearance gives a minimum CS length of 428mm.

@atrokz: When talking about rolling resistance we run tests and attempt to quantify them via a relatable metric for the intended audience, in this case "watts saved at typical bicycle speeds" is a relevant and appropriate while admittedly not precise. I think your understanding of friction is misapplied and largely based on static friction which is not a great model for rolling resistance. When rolling resistance is the topic, of course rollover is relevant; it's included in the tests between different sizes. What pressure someone can get away with is also relevant, my 29er is more efficient off road at 17psi, but I'll burp the tire off the rim every ride, which for one reason or another is not an issue I've faced on the 32er at 17 psi. My gut tells me the smaller angle of attack afforded by 32ers is a big reason they are so efficient and that the shape of the contact patch is not something we actively manipulate as much as a result of changing the wheel diameter. And wheel diameter is tested when comparing rolling resistance in the real world. But whether or not my gut is right as to WHY they're more efficient, the data from testing is showing THAT they're more efficient without a claim as to why. The mass difference is overblown because most people forget that the wheels are rotating proportionally slower for a given speed. The math works out so that the the difference is purely the same as the difference in mass between setups that are identical in every way except size; it has nothing to do with the fact that the mass is rotating. I don't think 32ers are for everyone; some people don't care how fast they go, some people won't like that tire to bum incidents become more common, some people won't like the way they look. There are a variety of reasons not to like them, that's fine. It's just bikes. Though for those folks seeking to cover ground efficiently, in my experience they're the best thing going right now.

Rolling resistance is DEFINITELY decreased. All the data I've seen is somewhere between 5-10w depending on the surface. Experientially they feel faster the "chundier" the trail gets, cow or moose bumps cause dramatically less slowing down. My personal data confirms the feeling as well, with greater speed for a given power, as well as being easier to ride. The switch from pavement to loose washboard has over the years left such an expectation of deceleration that when riding the 32er it is shocking how much better it deals with washboard/ cow bumps.

One thing I think people miss about 32" bikes for WCXC is that many riders are already using ultra-negative rise stems on their 29ers. When the same athletes switch to 32" bikes maintaining there position requires setups that look pretty extreme to many. This bike is a great example of one having an extreme looking cockpit that I'd wager is far too low for the vast majority of mountain bikers. On my personal 32er I have a 90mm headtube with an ZS/EC 44 headset and a -10deg 70mm stem and I think I'm going to raise the stem 5-10mm from it's slammed state right now. I'm athletic but have never been described as extremely flexible. For non-professional athletes I think the outcry about fit issues has been overblown by a large margin. My 32er has quickly become my favorite bike, it rolls so easily, corners so hard, and smooths out the chatter in a pretty astounding way. For the height curious I'm 6' tall and have a 770mm saddle height. For xc/dc setups I see it offering pretty compelling advantages. Regarding "fun"-ness; The big wheels are for sure less dynamic, and the pump timing is definitely different; but for riders that who find "fun" to mean cornering hard and covering ground quickly and efficiently 32ers are pretty sweet. I'm having a lot of fun on mine. I snagged two downhill KOM's on Saturday FWIW. I think they'll be very popular for anyone who's style of fun involves a powermeter; I gather that's probably not most of the PB core audience, but the endurance community is going to love them.

It would be really nice to be able to compare the q2 against q1, perhaps with bold vs faded lines.