03/31/2026
Lets talk more about 32" wheels. First off, thank you for everyone's feedback on the last post, its really helping us understand the market and demand for these bikes.
In this post, we are going to dive deeper into the Lorax 32. Our goal when prototyping the Lorax 32 was to make our beloved Lorax, but with 32" wheels, and keep all other variables as unchanged as possible. Mostly, because we love the Lorax, we feel it is refined, polished, and we know it well. Second, because when testing out something new, we didnt want to design an entirely new model, we needed to keep variables as low as possible to really understand if what we were feeling on the bike was the main variable (32" wheels), or something else that we changed. By keeping it as close as possible to a Lorax, then we were able to really feel the difference the wheel size makes.
When starting the design around the larger wheels, our design process was changed a bit. WIth the larger wheel, there is fitment constraints in the rear triangle, so we had to start there. The larger diameter wheel moves the axle up and back, relative to the BB, so from an engineering perspective, the very first thing we needed to to was extend rear center to 470mm, and BB drop to 99mm. This was in order to keep the BB placement in space as identical to a current 29er Lorax as possible, and then also keep the rear end as short as possible, while still fitting in the wheel. These two dimensions are essentially dictated to us by the wheel size, so we started there.
Second, was dialing in the fit and handling. We don't typically start our designs with the rear end of the bike, but we were able to make it work with our formula, especially since we were trying to replicate an existing bike's fit and handling as close as possible. What makes up Esker's "secret sauce" on bike fit and geometry, is a formula Tim has created over a few decades that balances out a few specific numbers such as rear center, front center and mechanical trail in a way that repeatedly creates bikes that are highly reviewed, and revered, for their geometry and fit.
When talking about 32” wheels, one of the primary concerns is fit. Because of the taller front wheel, and fitting in a suspension fork, the stack heights get really tall. On the Lorax, we were able to keep stack heights very similar to their 29er counterpart, mostly because we did not design the Lorax 32 to take a suspension fork. We are commonly seeing this on the first 32” bikes to be released, because it makes designing for proper fit much easier, but also because there are not any mainstream suspension forks on the market yet. We chose to use the same 495mm length fork we currently use on the 29er Lorax, and while it significantly shortened the head tube length, we were able to fit it all into the desired stack height. Due to this, we were able to almost exactly replicate fit.
The final major change was to the head angle. We never design our bikes for a certain head angle. Head angle is a resulting output from our formula that we apply to other geometry numbers. But for those interested, it only changed by going about 0.7 degrees steeper than a 29er Lorax. This is because this bike has more Mechanical Trail than it’s 29er counterpart. One common misconception about geometry is that to keep handling the same, we would want to keep Mechanical Trail the same. This is not true though, as we mentioned, Mechanical Trail is adjusted by a formula we have that balances it appropriately with the changes in other geometry measurements, such as rear center, in order to keep the overall feel of the bike similar. Concentrating on one single geometry number, without understanding how they all work together as a whole, is a common mistake in bicycle design, and we’ve seen this pop up a few times recently with a few of the 32” wheel models already released to the market.
As for the rest of the frame design, we overall kept it the same as a standard Lorax. We used the same chainstays, seatstays, and downtube as normal. To help cope with the slight additional stress of the larger front wheel, we used a top tube borrowed from a different upcoming model that is slightly larger diameter than a Lorax, and about 0.1mm larger in average wall thickness. The only other major frame design change is a prominent bend in the seat tube, to keep the rear center as short as possible. Frame fitments remain all identical, including using Boost 148mm rear spacing. We have also seen a lot of discussion of using SuperBoost 157mm rear spacing for 32” wheels. We think this is completely un-necessary, as testing with both alloy and carbon wheels, we did not notice any wheel flex that would cause concern, or need the additional triangulation of that hub standard. And remember, Tim is 300lbs, he can flex a wheel if its gonna flex.
Finally, our thoughts. We’ve been giving it the testing rounds here at Esker, where most of us are 6’1” or taller, and also using local trusted testers to give it a ride. We have prototypes in Medium, Large, and XL.
Tim – For the gravel/touring application of a Lorax, I think this is where 32” wheels will get their greatest early adoption. The Lorax 32 was instantly comfortable, noticeably faster than a 29” wheel, and insanely stable. One immediate thing I noticed is that out-of-the-saddle climbing felt much more stable. This could be the extremely low BB drop, or this could be the gyroscopic nature of the wheels. I felt less “worn out” at the end of a ride on the Lorax 32. From a personal perspective, I am sold on 32” wheels for this use case, and my body height.
Tuck – Having spent the majority of my time on gravel roads, but also having taken it through singletrack, Lorax 32 shines in fast-paced, straight lines. I found myself working the same as Lorax 29, without even realizing how much faster I was going, and it’s a whole lot of fun.
Kyle – Feels like a big wheeled gravel bike.
So there you have it. Our download on “Lorax 32, so far” What else do you want to know?
