Home > Other Fun Stuff > Prototypes & Concepts

Faction Bike Studio Begins Testing Its 32-Inch Big Ben Prototype

Faction Bike Studio's 32-inch wheeled big ben prototype full suspension bike in the forest.Big Ben in the wild. (photo/Faction Bike Studio)
25 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Big wheels were a common sight at Eurobike this year, including Faction Bike Studio’s 32-inch full suspension prototype on display — and getting a lot of attention — in the Maxxis booth. While “Project Big Ben” broke cover and received much fanfare at the show, it had never been ridden and was a completely untested concept bike. 

The idea wasn’t to launch a polished product,” says Faction Product Manager, Adam Robbins, “but to challenge what’s possible and expand the way we think about performance and comfort in off-road cycling.”

Since then, the folks at Faction Bike Studio have completed their very first rounds of test rides, gathering real-world impressions on the performance, benefits, and drawbacks of 32-inch wheels and tires on the trails. Fortunately, we’ve worked with the Faction team on previous projects, and they were kind enough to share their intial ride impressions and some photos with us.

Project Big Ben

If you haven’t been following along, this concept bike, named Project Big Ben, was conceived and prototyped earlier this year in the few short months between Sea Otter and Eurobike. Using Faction’s rapid prototyping capability, the bonded aluminum frame was paired with a custom Intend inverted 32-inch fork and Maxxis’ 32-inch Aspen prototype tires. It has 120 mm of travel front and rear, and appears to be XC-oriented.

Of course, it isn’t the only 32-inch bike around, with Dirty Sixer’s production 32er hardtail on track to launch soon, and brands like BMC are openly experimenting with bigger wheels, too. We’re quite confident that plenty of brands have been testing 32-inch wheels, bikes, and related components behind the scenes as well, but most have done well to keep it under wraps. 

None of us at Bikerumor has ridden a 32-inch-wheeled bike yet. In fact, very few people have. Sure, we have assumptions about how they might perform, but without trying these bigger wheels and tires for ourselves, they are just that: assumptions. Which is why we’re excited that Faction is giving us a look behind the curtain and sharing its ride impressions with us. Here’s what they had to say after testing Big Ben.

a test rider climbing up a steep rock roll on the Big Ben prototype.
Big wheels keep on turning. We’re told Big Ben climbs surprisingly well. (photo/Faction Bike Studio)

From the Faction Press Release:

Initial Ride Impressions: Big Tires, Big Possibilities

Ride Quality & Comfort

Riders quickly noticed a smoother, more planted ride compared to traditional 29” setups. The larger wheels rolled effortlessly over roots and rocks, significantly damping trail chatter. Rider position felt more centered within the bike, enhancing control and confidence, particularly in fast, rough terrain.

Climbing & Acceleration

Perhaps most surprising was how well the Big Ben climbed. Traction and momentum on technical ascents improved, with testers noting a more confident pedal feel and less tendency to stall out on tricky features. Acceleration felt unexpectedly light for a wheel this large, though testers recommended gearing adjustments, such as smaller chainrings, for optimal performance.

Descending & Handling

Descending showcased both strengths and limitations. The big wheels smoothed out small bumps and chatter impressively, but the current short travel XC setup occasionally felt undergunned on steep drops, with some front-end dive. Steering was responsive, though slightly more deliberate than a 29”, requiring a bit more commitment in tight terrain.

Traction & Tires

Dry conditions brought out the best in the oversized contact patches, traction was excellent, even on loose surfaces. However, performance dropped noticeably in wetter sections, highlighting the importance of tire choice and tread design for future iterations.

Fit, Geometry & Agility

Fit was solid across the board. Geometry felt well balanced overall, though feedback suggested a slightly shorter rear center and revised front end setup could enhance descending confidence.

Jumping & Technical Riding

Jumping was stable and confidence inspiring. That said, manuals and bunny hops were trickier to initiate, as shifting weight rearward required more effort than on smaller wheels. Tight, technical line changes demanded precision, but felt manageable with proper technique.

Looking Ahead: Concept Today, Platform Tomorrow?

While Big Ben remains in its early concept stage, Faction’s internal discussions have already turned toward potential applications. Test riders saw serious promise for XC, trail, and gravel use. One particularly intriguing takeaway? The idea of a mixed wheel setup, with a 32” front and 29” rear, as a potential game changer for aggressive trail and enduro categories.

For now, Big Ben is proof of possibility, a concept that went from sketch to test ride in under three months, challenging assumptions about what a mountain bike can be.

a test rider taking the Big Ben protoype off a drop
In its current short-travel setup, Big Ben looks like a blast to ride on the right terrain. (photo/Faction Bike Studio)

Our Takeaway

Without riding Big Ben for ourselves, it’s obviously hard to know exactly what it’s like, but for the most part, Faction’s ride impressions align with what we think riding 32-inch wheels would be like. A smooth, planted, and stable ride, easier rollover, enlarged contact patch, and enhanced traction (with the right tires for the conditions) are some of the main advantages that we’d expect from larger wheels and that Faction noted in their ride impressions. 

Of course, those perceived benefits go hand in hand with some seemingly minor downsides noted by the test riders. Those include the potential need to make gearing adjustments, steer more deliberately (I remember the first time I rode a 29er), and more effort required to get on the rear wheel. Of course, handling differences are something most riders will adapt to over time, and things like choosing the right gearing, frame geometry, and suspension travel will shake out with future testing and designs. 

For now, we’ll have to wait and see what the future of 32-inch wheels and tires is, but I’m expecting to see more 32-inch wheels, tires, and forks that will contribute to the proliferation of more prototype (and production) XC, gravel, and trail bikes in the coming months and years. I’d also agree with Faction’s assessment that mixed wheel setups with 32-inch front wheels seem like a likely potential application. 

In the meantime, I’m looking forward to seeing some more ride impressions from Faction, hopefully including some back-to-back timed testing against 29-inch wheels for comparison. Who knows, maybe we’ll even get to try out Big Ben for ourselves. Fingers crossed…

factionbikestudio.com

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

25 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Whodee
Whodee
3 months ago

Cool bike. Interested to see more big wheel stuff.

But wow, their website is terrible. Legitimate looks like someone just followed five AI prompts.

Keith
Keith
3 months ago

“enlarged contact patch”

If the tyre pressure is the same as a 29″ wheel, as I expect it would be for the same width of casing, the contact patch will be a slightly different shape (longer and narrower) but the same area – P=FA

seraph
seraph
3 months ago
Reply to  Keith

If it’s the same tire width (relatively) then the contact patch will indeed be larger.

Cloxxki
Cloxxki
1 month ago
Reply to  Keith

At the same pressure. But you’ll be running them at lower pressure.
Hitting rims gets easier/trickier. An air volume reducing high pressure bladder may be needed. I invented that once to press tire beads to the rim and Schwalbe brought that to market (not asking me LOL).

Tim
Tim
3 months ago

The thing that excites me most about 32 is that it reduces the need for suspension. I say, give us not just 32, give us 32+, front and rear!
Of course, 32 and full suspension is going to be the best for fast riding over rough terrain, but for a lot of us fully rigid and 32 will be very capable offroad while demanding very little maintenance.
One thing is almost for certain: if the bike industry succeeds in making 32 succeed, they will fund it by taking a decade or more to figure out the geometry. Of course, let’s not forget how slow the demand side of the equation (i.e., riders) is to accept improvements.

Bart983643
Bart983643
3 months ago
Reply to  Tim

Look how long the industry supported 29+. Can’t see this being much different, if they ride great or not it’s a minority of the riding population who can fit a bike that these wheels fit into.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bart983643
Tim
Tim
3 months ago
Reply to  Bart983643

What height range do you think we’re talking about? I’d guess we’re looking at a floor of 5 feet five inches (165cm), which covers quite a few people.

Bart983643
Bart983643
3 months ago

The lengths the bike industry go to, to make a T-Type mech look in proportion to anything

Eggs Benedict
Eggs Benedict
3 months ago

With 32″ wheels/tires and 120mm fork, everyone can slam their stem and look pro. Buy your -17deg stems now while they are cheap and no one wants them.

Simplex Field Service
Simplex Field Service
3 months ago
Reply to  Eggs Benedict

32″ is the new 650B, but for tall people.

Cloxxki
Cloxxki
3 months ago
Reply to  Eggs Benedict

Just flip a riser bar and be happy.

Grillis
Grillis
3 months ago

32″ gravel is where these could really shine.

Tim
Tim
3 months ago
Reply to  Grillis

Why would gravel be an especially useful application for these wheels? It seems to me that bigger wheels impart a bigger benefit when you’re riding on bumpy terrain. But I could be missing something!

Richard
Richard
3 months ago
Reply to  Grillis

WANT

Tim
Tim
3 months ago

“…manuals and bunny hops were trickier to initiate, as shifting weight rearward required more effort than on smaller wheels.” This is a bit of an understatement- I remember how hard it is to get the front wheel of a 29er off the ground than it is with a 26er. With a 32er, we’re talking about epic amounts of bottom bracket drop.
That said- the need to lift the wheel off the ground in the first place is greatly diminished when you have wheels this big.

Cloxxki
Cloxxki
3 months ago
Reply to  Tim

The flip side is that the front wheel doesn’t wander nearly as much on steep seated climbs. Technical climbs on 29″ vs 26″ feel like cheating. I’d consistently, as the tallest rider in the race, make it up some climbs no-one else did.

nooner
nooner
3 months ago

C’mon, average speed is the key metric that everyone wants to see. A B testing, 29 vs. 32, same track, same rider, same power output. Repeatable data. Everything else is just subjective opinion. Data NOW!

Tim
Tim
3 months ago
Reply to  nooner

I think we need multiple tracks with multiple conditions, multiple riders.

Cloxxki
Cloxxki
3 months ago
Reply to  nooner

An equivalent bike for testing takes some judgment calls. Although you could test all smaller wheel bikes and try and find an optimum, and then design some 32″ers to try and best it.
With larger wheels, you tend to get away with less suspension travel which somewhat offsets the obvious weight penalty.
When you decide to skip suspension for having the larger wheels (as I have with 29″ for my trails), the weight penalty of 10% larger wheels totally disappears.

Richard
Richard
3 months ago
Reply to  nooner

That is important.

However, it’s only part of the story.

I ride for fun & enjoyment. I want something new and interesting for local rides. I want to explore and experiment and play.

JackL
JackL
3 months ago

This might be something for the right discipline(s) and the right – read: tall – riders. But once the bandwagon starts rolling, financial and commercial/milking logic will take over. And marketing departments will once more push the greatest thing since sliced bread for all riders in all disciplines.

Strangely fashion brands have not tried to convince parents to put babies in adult’s clothes to simplify their assortment and make people buy new outfits. Oh well, that last thing already exists. My mistake.

Tim
Tim
3 months ago
Reply to  JackL

People all the way down to 5’5″ or so (correct me if I’m wrong) fit on 29ers, so it seems more like high-average height women and low-average height men will be able to use 32.

Cloxxki
Cloxxki
3 months ago
Reply to  JackL

Please be informed that a short female rider got a world cup win on 29″ when it was still in its infancy. 10% larger than a short woman, 32″ would still suit a person below average height just as well.
Whether a specific world cup course suits any wheel size is a matter of testing. Dig some partial circle 14.5″ radius potholes and you know with 29″ it’s going to suck most of all sizes.

Dr Tidy
Dr Tidy
3 months ago

Please can we stop using the word “oversized”, it’s bike industry BS. If everything is oversized, nothing will fit.

Richard
Richard
3 months ago
Reply to  Dr Tidy

Nice on Doc. It’s like use of “standard”.

There can only be one “standard” for a particular item..otherwise it isn’t “standard”, it’s a “defined specification”.

Compare the bike industry to the the Telco industry, where 5G is the same all over the world, on all phones, from all manufactures…
…and all of the networking equipment that underpins this meets A STANDARD. ONE STANDARD.

The bike industry has a lot to learn.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.