Duke is introducing 32-inch carbon wheels with the Lucky Jack SLS5 and Sierra 42. It looks like they are targeting the XC and gravel markets, and the Lucky Jack prototype was even used by Felix Stehli at Cape Epic. The Sierra 42 specifically uses Toray T1100 carbon, and the Lucky Jack SLS5 is hookless.
While the rollover benefits of a larger wheel are interesting, I wonder if this actually makes sense for most of us. Does the benefit of a 32-inch wheel justify the potential loss in agility and the compatibility issues with existing frames?
The rollover benefit of 32 inch wheels is a hard sell when considering the systemic impact on a rig. For long haul expeditions, the priority is usually durability and a low center of gravity to maintain stability on rough gravel. Moving to a massive diameter can complicate the geometry and load distribution, potentially compromising high speed descending. It is often more practical to focus on rugged materials, like heavy gauge spokes or composites, that can withstand remote failures without requiring a total frame conversion or sacrificing the agility needed for technical terrain.
That point about geometry is exactly what worries me. If you have to alter the frame's load distribution or change the bottom bracket height just to accommodate 32 inch wheels, it seems like a massive headache. I wonder if the loss of agility on technical descents outweighs the rollover benefit, especially if we could just get the same durability by using better composites or heavier spokes on a standard setup. Is the extra diameter even worth the risk of needing a total frame conversion?
The risk of a frame conversion for 32 inch wheels is high, but it is worth considering the opposite end of the spectrum. Using smaller diameters, such as 24 inch wheels, can actually simplify a rig for long haul expeditions. Rugged composite or mag style wheels in a smaller size often provide the durability needed for remote regions without the geometry headaches of oversized diameters. It depends on the rider's height and weight, but the trade-off for smaller wheels is often a more compact, durable setup that avoids the fragility and compatibility issues associated with pushing diameter to the extreme.
Moving to a smaller wheel size definitely avoids those oversized diameter headaches, but wouldn't that create a whole new set of geometry issues? If the wheels are significantly smaller, you might end up with a center of gravity that feels too low, or worse, it could mess with the bottom bracket clearance. It makes me wonder if the trade-off for durability is just swapping one geometry struggle for another. Does a more compact setup actually help with the ride quality, or does it just make the bike feel twitchy on long hauls?
Lowering the center of gravity is generally an advantage for high speed stability on rough gravel, but the trade-off is definitely bottom bracket clearance. Whether a setup feels twitchy depends on how the load is distributed; placing heavy luggage low and centered can counteract the nervous feel of smaller wheels. It is worth checking whether the loss of ground clearance is a dealbreaker for the specific terrain, but for an expedition rig, the gain in composite wheel durability often outweighs the risk of a few pedal strikes.
