Größere Laufräder rollen leichter über Kanten, halten die Geschwindigkeit besser und sollen auf Bigger wheels roll over obstacles more easily, carry speed better and promise more traction on rough ground. That, in essence, is the thinking behind 32-inch wheels, a format now making its way over from the mountain bike world and shaping up as the next big shift in gravel. The obvious question is whether we need yet another new standard, one that brings new frames, new tires and a spare-parts market still to establish itself.
As our colleagues at sister magazine ENDURO suggested in their analysis of how wheel sizes are evolving, it seemed only a matter of time before the trend reached gravel. By now, that question appears to be answering itself. Alongside Faction Bike Studio and SCOTT, Ridley, Canyon, CUBE and Trek are also said to be working on their own 32-inch concepts. Just last weekend at Sea Otter Europe in Girona, it became clear how quickly the field is growing. Megamo unveiled a 32-inch version of the Silk, while Avona also presented their own prototype with a 32” version of the Callis. The latter even enjoyed immediate success in the accompanying UCI race.
Faction Bike Studio had already taken the first step a few months earlier. After their Big Ben MTB prototype, the team followed up with the Atlas, a 32-inch gravel bike, and we were among the first media outlets to ride it. As with so many prototypes, the key question is the same: are we looking at the future of gravel racing, or just another expensive detour the industry could do without?
If you know Faction Bike Studio, you’ll know that they usually develop concept bikes for other brands. The Atlas is therefore deliberately straightforward in its ambition. It is a feasibility study designed to answer one specific question: what happens when you fit 32-inch wheels to a gravel bike?
What’s Inside the Faction Bikes Atlas?
The frame combines carbon tubes with aluminium lugs, a hybrid construction Faction already used for their 32-inch Big Ben mountain bike. For prototype development, it’s a pragmatic and cost-effective approach. Unlike a conventional monocoque carbon frame or a welded aluminium frame, the geometry can be adjusted simply by swapping the lugs, without the need for expensive new carbon moulds or welding jigs.
Our test frame is equivalent to a size 55, or a medium. It’s fitted with 32-inch Easton carbon rims, 50 mm Schwalbe G-One RX Pro tires and a TRP/Classified Vistar Powershift drivetrain with a 46-tooth chainring. To keep the stack height in check, Faction use a -35° stem. It’s not the most elegant-looking solution, but functionally it does the job.
The geometry shows just how much trial and error goes into a prototype like this. Our size M test bike has a stack of 575 mm and a reach of 411 mm, figures you’ll also find on current 700c gravel bikes such as the new Canyon Grail CF SLX. On paper, then, your position on the Atlas is very similar to what you’d expect from a conventional race bike.
The difference lies in the details that the numbers on paper don’t reveal. Compared with 700c, the 32-inch wheels raise the front end by around 32 mm. In theory, that would be easy to compensate for. A head tube that might measure roughly 122 mm on a 700c bike would only need to be shortened to around 90 mm on the Atlas to keep the front end at the same height and retain compatibility with conventional stems. Around 90 mm is also close to the practical lower limit, as going any shorter quickly becomes technically difficult.
Why Faction opted for a -35° stem instead of shortening the head tube more aggressively remains unclear. Most likely, using a standard stem is simply easier and cheaper on a prototype than developing an ultra-short head tube optimised specifically for each frame size. It’s not exactly elegant, but that in itself shows just how much of a prototype this prototype really is.
It gets even more interesting when you look at the Atlas’s full size chart. On most production bikes, the head angle tends to get slacker as the frame size increases. On the Atlas, it does the exact opposite, rising from 68.5° in 2XS to 71.8° in XL/2XL.
The reason is likely down to the interaction between toe overlap and front-centre length. The smaller the frame, the tighter things get between the bottom bracket and the oversized front wheel. A slacker head angle pushes the front wheel further forward, creating the clearance needed.
That’s exactly what Faction are getting at with their own note. For our test size, it isn’t the head angle itself that ideally needs further adjustment, but the trail, in order to fine-tune the handling.
That isn’t simply a matter of choice, though. Trail is determined by the relationship between head angle and fork offset, meaning the distance between the steering axis and the centre of the hub. To change it without altering the head angle at the same time, the Atlas would need a fork with a different offset.
The Physics Behind Bigger Wheels
The different ride feel is largely down to weight. A 32-inch wheel and tirecombination is heavier, which means it takes more effort to accelerate and more force to slow down again. Once up to speed, though, that extra rotating mass helps it carry momentum more stubbornly.
Then there’s the geometry of the wheel itself. A larger wheel hits edges and holes at a shallower angle, so it rolls over them more smoothly rather than striking them head-on, losing less speed in the process.
Together, these two effects, greater mass and a shallower impact angle, bring a whole range of changes to the way the bike rides. Bigger wheels roll over holes and rocks more easily and lose less speed in the process.
The key factor is the angle at which the tire meets an obstacle. The larger the wheel radius, the shallower that angle becomes. Rolling over an edge then feels more like riding up a gentle ramp than hitting a sudden step. A smaller wheel, by contrast, has to use more of its forward energy to get over the same obstacle. It is briefly slowed down and then has to accelerate again afterwards. With a larger wheel, that braking effect is noticeably reduced, and over countless small impacts it can add up to a genuine speed advantage.
Overall, the bike feels less twitchy over rough ground, tracks more confidently through fast sections and remains calmer at high speed thanks in part to the slightly stronger gyroscopic effect of the heavier wheels. Impacts and vibrations feel better muted, while the longer contact patch improves power transfer on loose surfaces.
The wheels also drop less deeply into holes and depressions, making the handling more predictable on rough terrain. Because fewer sharp impacts mean less need for constant corrections and repeated accelerations, the bike carries more flow across coarse gravel. As a result, rough sections feel noticeably smoother without necessarily needing more suspension travel.
The OversizePromise: What Does the Atlas Deliver on the Trail?
That’s exactly what you notice on fast gravel tracks. Where 700c wheels can catch or briefly hang up on a sharp edge, the Atlas’s bigger wheels simply roll through, making potholes and washboard surfaces feel more like minor ripples. Once up to speed, the Atlas carries its momentum with impressive consistency, without demanding constant bursts of acceleration.
The larger, longer contact patch of the 32-inch tires also deliver noticeably more traction on loose gravel, especially through corners and on climbs. In practice, the ride feels closer to an oversized enduro wheel than a conventional gravel bike: planted, composed and almost ponderous. On fast descents over loose terrain, that combination of rollover, inertia and grip gives the Atlas a level of calm you simply don’t expect from a gravel bike.
What the 32-Inch Gravel Bike Prototype Still Hasn’t Solved
The compromises the Atlas has had to make fall into two categories: those that affect the ride itself, and those that concern the practical side of things, from frame sizing to finding spare parts when you’re out on the road.
The clearest sign that the Atlas is still a prototype rather than a finished product shows up around the bottom bracket, and you can feel the consequences while riding. With its 142 mm chainline, the chain rubs against the spokes when you’re in the largest sprocket and putting down power. This isn’t an adjustment issue or a matter of manufacturing tolerances, but a fundamental compatibility problem between the wheel size, bottom bracket position and the drivetrain components currently available.
The real culprit is the steep angle at which the spokes run from the hub to the rim. A different chainline wouldn’t solve the problem because the spoke angle and cassette position would remain unchanged. The only real fix would be a higher hub flange or a wider rear hub, for example a 148 mm setup. While testing, that simply meant avoiding the easiest gear for us.
Then there’s the cornering. You tip into the first tight bend, then the second, and quickly notice that the Atlas doesn’t change direction quite as eagerly as a 700c bike. It doesn’t feel sluggish in the way an heavy bike can, but it is inherently a little more cumbersome through rapid direction changes and tight turns. That’s simply a consequence of the larger wheels, amplified by the already slack head angle, which is set to get even slacker.
The same inertia and stability that inspire confidence on fast, open sections demand a little more forward planning here than on a nimble 700c bike. In practice, though, it never becomes a serious problem. Spend a little time on the Atlas and you quickly learn how it wants to be ridden.
The mountain bike-specific risk of the tire touching the frame under suspension compression doesn’t apply to a rigid gravel bike. The weight penalty is also relatively modest. Larger rims, tires and spokes inevitably weigh more, and with a 1,300 g wheelset and 1,000 g tires, you’re looking at roughly 230 g extra per wheel. You can feel it, but on a high-end bike it’s hardly a deal-breaker. In fact, that additional mass is part of what gives the Atlas its composure. So it isn’t simply a drawback, but the price you pay for a genuine advantage in ride dynamics.
Frame sizing is a different story.
On smaller frames, packaging becomes the limiting factor. A size S, let alone an XS, is effectively impossible because once reach and chainstays become short enough, there simply isn’t enough room to maintain adequate toe clearance around the oversized front wheel. Even our size M test bike already feels as though the available space has been pushed close to the limit i
If you’re planning multi-day trips with luggage, you’ll also quickly notice that the big wheels take up space that would otherwise be available for frame bags. Transport could become another hurdle too. Getting a bike with 32-inch wheels into a car or onto a rear-mounted bike rack is likely to be less straightforward than with a 700c gravel bike. Compared with a full-suspension mountain bike on the same wheel size, though, it still shouldn’t be a major issue.
Things get more interesting in the larger frame sizes. What falls apart in S or XS because of toe clearance starts to look surprisingly well proportioned in XL or 2XL. We recently saw a similar effect with Canyon’s one-off bike for the 2.06-metre-tall LeBron James, which was based on a 29-inch mountain bike. It seems plausible that as frame size increases, not only the proportions but also the handling of the Atlas could improve.
In fast, exposed sections with crosswinds, the greater lateral surface of the wheels is also likely to become noticeable. And if you break a spoke on a long trip, you’re largely on your own for now. There still isn’t an established spare-parts market for 32-inch wheels, although things are slowly starting to move. Schwalbe and MAXXIS have now officially presented their own 32-inch tires, while the first wheels in this format from DT Swiss, NEWMEN and Bike Ahead Composites have also been spotted. It will probably take a little longer before that develops into a genuinely useful choice of replacement parts when you’re travelling.
Future or Dead End? Who Actually Benefits from 32-Inch Wheels on a Gravel Bike?
That’sexactly where the Atlas raises the fundamental question we should be asking about 32-inch wheels: does the new size solve a genuine problem, or does it mainly create a whole host of new ones? The answer depends almost entirely on how and where you ride.
In ultra-distance races such as UNBOUND, where riders spend more than 300 kilometres in the saddle and the course can be rough and punishing but is rarely tight and twisty, the Atlas plays to its strengths: less fatigue thanks to the smoother ride and more control at high speed. That is exactly what SCOTT are targeting with their own 32-inch prototype, which the brand and Robin Gemperle rode to victory in the XXL distance.
On a more technical, corner-heavy course, though, those same characteristics could become a drawback, just as we already noticed in the tighter bends during our test. For the wider market, the benefits therefore remain difficult to quantify. There are still too many unknowns, including new standards, costly tooling for manufacturers and a spare-parts market that is only just beginning to take shape
Conclusions
The Faction Atlas lays bare the challenges of building a 32-inch gravel bike. Whether those growing pains afflict the format as a whole is another question. The Avona Callis’s win at the UCI race at Sea Otter Europe in Girona suggests that at least some of these compromises can be engineered away. But whether 32-inch wheels are truly ready for the mainstream, or destined to remain a racer’s niche, is something production bikes will have to prove in further testing.
You can find more information at factionbikestudio.com.
Did you enjoy this article? If so, we would be stoked if you decide to support us with a monthly contribution. By becoming a supporter of GRAN FONDO, you will help secure a sustainable future for high-quality cycling journalism. Click here to learn more.
Words: Jan Fock Photos: Jan Fock
About the Author
Jan Fock
Jan Fock combines sporting ambition with a deep understanding of cycling culture at 41 Publishing. As a social scientist, he brings a well-founded sense for trends and dynamics to the editorial team of GRAN FONDO magazine. His focus is on testing high-end road and gravel bikes, with a particular passion for bikepacking and punchy after work-rides. Jan combines his organizational talent with meticulous analysis, providing precise orientation in his profound buyer’s guides for all those who enjoy riding pushing themselves in the saddle.
