Mason is showing off the Macro32 at Bespoked Dresden, and it is moving past the concept stage. It uses Hunt Proven 32-inch wheels and is slated to be ridden in the Taurus Mountain Race before a 2027 release.
We have seen plenty of wheel size trends come and go, but 32 inch tires and forks are actually appearing now. For long distance adventure riding, it is a big jump from the 29er standard we have all lived with. I am not sure if the extra roll is worth the bulk, but it is an interesting shift for the adventure scene.
Does the availability of 32-inch tires and forks now justify the transition from 29-inch wheels for long-distance adventure riding?
Does the availability of 32-inch tires and forks now justify the transition from 29-inch wheels for long-distance adventure riding?
In practice the modest rolling‑resistance win of a 32 in tyre is quickly eaten by the geometry penalties it imposes: higher bottom‑bracket, reduced pedal clearance and a lifted centre of gravity that makes high‑speed descents on loose gravel feel twitchy. For an expedition rig the real durability prize is a robust rim, 36‑spoke steel, heavy‑gauge alloy, or a composite mag, because spoke failures are the most common breakdown in remote areas. A 29 in platform already rolls over most terrain efficiently while keeping the load low and centered, which preserves stability under load. So unless your frame is already engineered for a 32 in fork and you accept the trade‑offs, the switch isn’t justified. What clearance does your current frame give for a 32‑in fork and rear axle?
My current rig doesn't have any clearance for a 32-inch setup; I'm talking about a full frame swap for something like the Macro32.
nickynite said:
higher bottom‑bracket, reduced pedal clearance and a lifted centre of gravity that makes high‑speed descents on loose gravel feel twitchy
That sounds like a lot of worry for a bike that's meant for long-haul adventure, not a downhill race. If you're hauling gear across a continent, I'd take a slightly higher center of gravity over the constant jarring of a smaller wheel. Stability is great, but so is not feeling every pebble in your spine for ten hours a day.
A higher centre of gravity doesn’t actually damp the jarring you feel on loose gravel – that vibration comes from wheel compliance and the lack of suspension, not from where the rider’s mass sits. Raising the CG mainly reduces high‑speed descending stability and makes the bike feel twitchier when the rear loads shift. For an expedition rig the priority is to keep the load low and centred so that the bike tracks predictably over bumps. A modest speed‑gain from a larger wheel is quickly swallowed by the extra moment arm introduced by a lifted bottom bracket, plus the loss of pedal clearance that makes deep‑gear climbing and front‑pedal strikes more likely. In short, you’ll still be pounding the same terrain; you’ll just be less stable when you need it most. Robust, high‑spoke composite or mag wheels and a low‑CG layout win out over a slight comfort gain from a higher‑CG 32‑inch setup.
Robust, high‑spoke composite or mag wheels and a low‑CG layout win out over a slight comfort gain from a higher‑CG 32‑inch setup.
Exactly. For a rider pushing 250 lb+, the few extra centimeters of rollover you get from a 32‑in tyre barely register over ten‑hour days, but the raised bottom bracket and longer chainstays lengthen the moment arm on every bump. My go‑to solution is a beefy 36‑spoke, 2.2 R rim with a 28‑30 mm tyre run at the high end of its pressure range (80‑90 psi). That combo gives the compliance a larger‑volume tyre provides while keeping the wheel stiff enough to survive a busted spoke in the middle of nowhere. Pair it with a compact crank (50/34) and a 12‑speed cassette (11‑50) and you can stay in a 70‑80 rpm cadence up 10 % grades without killing your knees. If you still want the 32‑in look, you’re forced into a frame that lifts the BB by ~15 mm and narrows the rear triangle, which for a Clydesdale makes the bike feel twitchy on loose gravel. The only way to salvage stability is to add a front rack loaded low or redesign the frame for a lower BB – neither of which is practical on a production macro‑32. Bottom line: stick with a robust 29‑in (or even 28‑in) wheelset, keep the CG low, and trust the extra tyre volume for any comfort you need.
The debate often narrows down to a choice between stability and compliance, but we should also consider the energy management implications. On a significant climb, every bit of rotating mass matters. While a 32-inch wheel might offer a smoother rollover, the increased rotational inertia can make repeated steep ascents feel noticeably more taxing over a long day.
I tend to lean towards the 29-inch approach for that reason. If I can achieve sufficient comfort through a high-quality titanium frame and a well-chosen tire volume on a standard wheelset, I would much rather preserve my cadence and energy for the climbs than chase a marginal gain in descending stability that I might not even need for the terrain I'm tackling.
Rotating mass is a real thing, sure, but we're talking about a mountain bike, not a time-trial rig. I'll take a bit of extra weight on the wheels if it means I'm not feeling like I'm being shaken apart by the time I hit the halfway mark. If the climb is harder, you just shift to a lighter setup or accept the extra effort; you can't exactly ''shift' your suspension or your wheel diameter halfway through a continent-crossing trek. For me, the trade-off is simple: a little more effort on the ups is a fair price to pay for staying intact on the downs.
Rotating mass isn’t just ‘a bit extra’ when you’re grinding up a 10% grade for the third time in a day, it’s a measurable drag on cadence and recovery. You’re right that a 32-inch wheel won’t magically fix rough terrain, but the claim that you can’t ‘shift’ your wheel diameter is a false choice. If the Macro32’s geometry is that twitchy, the solution isn’t to accept the trade-off; it’s to redesign the frame for a lower BB and wider rear triangle instead of shoehorning a larger wheel into a downsized trail platform. The current crop of 29-inch expedition rigs already balance compliance and stability without the rotational penalty, why force a square peg into a round hole?
You're acting like there's a perfect, universal solution that satisfies everyone, but that's not how riding works. If the 29-inch rigs are so perfect, then why do people even bother looking at stuff like the Macro32? It's because some of us value the smoother roll of a bigger diameter more than we care about being the most efficient climbers on the planet. You can call it a ''square peg,' but I call it a different set of priorities. For me, the stability and comfort of that extra roll are worth the extra effort on the steep bits. Some people want to chase a perfect cadence and a low CG, and that's fine, but you can't tell someone else their gear choice is just a mistake because it doesn't fit your specific definition of 'optimal.'
If the 29-inch rigs are so perfect, then why do people even bother looking at stuff like the Macro32?
Because a bigger wheel looks impressive on a brochure, but it doesn't change the laws of physics. It isn't about 'optimal' or 'perfect', it's about whether you're willing to trade a stable, planted feel for a bit of rollover that you can otherwise get with a wider 29-inch tyre. For a rider my size, that 'different priority' usually manifests as a bike that wants to wander when you're loaded down. I'm not telling you it's a mistake, but if you're trading a low center of gravity for a smoother roll, you're paying a price in handling that hits heavier riders first and hardest.
That sounds good on paper, but once you slap a 32" rim on a budget hardtail the leverage on the rear linkage jumps up a notch. I’ve smashed a cheap fork on a trial run – the extra leverage snapped the pivot bolt before I even hit a moderate berm. The extra roll you’re after is easily earned with a 2.5‑wide 29‑inch tyre and a lower pressure, keeping the centre of gravity where it belongs.
Bottom line: unless you’re buying a purpose‑built macro‑32 frame, the durability hit isn’t worth the marginal comfort gain. Stick with a solid 29‑in setup, wide tyre, and trigger shifters – they won’t let a jerky pull on the bars steal a shift, and they survive the grind.
