Lightweight tubes - worth bothering?

ai_1

I've always used standard butyl tubes, typically Continental Race 28.
I'm going to replace the GP 4 Seasons tyres on my tri bike with a set of Continental GP4000s I have lying around. I'm wondering if there's any point trying different tubes while I'm at it?

I realise I could reduce the weight by 50g or so per wheel which is nice but not terribly important. Especially on a tri bike that will be used primarily on flatter terrain. I'm more interested in reducing rolling resistance. I'm rather sceptical of our ability to detect small changes in rolling resistance. I think we generally "feel" what we expect to feel with a lot of this stuff though we may claim otherwise on here! So, while I'm curious if you think lightweight tubes feel faster or more supple, I'm more interested in whether you think you have any evidence that they make a measurable difference.
Even better, has anyone done lab tests comparing rolling resistance? I remember seeing a chart around here somewhere showing independent test results for rolling resistance of several popular tyres. Anyone know if there's something similar available comparing the impact of different tubes?

I don't have tubeless ready wheels and already have non-tubeless clinchers ready to go on so tubeless is not an option for now.

So my options are:

- Standard butyl - cheap, reliable, easy to fit
- Lightweight butyl (supersonic) - expensive, weight saving, probably some rolling resistance saving, more fragile to fit
- Latex - expensive, weight saving, rolling resistance saving, higher rate of air loss, fragile to fit?[/list]

Do I have the pros and cons correct?
What are your preferences?

homers_double

Some of the lads I've ridden with have had pinch flats with cheap tubes, a lot more than I've ever had.

Not that superlightweight are cheap but they would be fragile as you say. So for that reason I'd stick with something more reliable for the sake of a few G's.

ai_1

homers double wrote:

Some of the lads I've ridden with have had pinch flats with cheap tubes, a lot more than I've ever had.

Not that superlightweight are cheap but they would be fragile as you say. So for that reason I'd stick with something more reliable for the sake of a few G's.

As it is I get very, very few puntures. I don't think I've had a single one in the last 5000km. I wouldn't like that to change! I would have expected that, provided they're fitted properly, lighter tubes wouldn't make much difference? After all the tyre provides all the protection and the tube is just to provide an airtight chamber. If the reality is they're less reliable I'd be inclined to stick with what I've got!
Has anyone else found this to be the case?

ai_1

I just came across this:
http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com ... ke-reviews
http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com ... -tube-2014
http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com ... s-clincher

If accurate this shows a reduction of around 1.5W to 2W for the tested latex tube versus the standard butyl tube at 29km/h and pressure between 80psi and 120psi. Relevant but not substantial. Indeed the difference between tyres that would generally be regarded as fairly equivalent is significantly bigger, e.g. GP4000sII is shown as having a reduction of between 2.7W and 3.9W as compared with Pro4 SC.
The third link compares standard butyl, light butyl, latex and tubeless setups. The conclusion is that the light tube tested is a middle ground between the standard butyl and the latex tubes with the latex still being lower resistance than any other option. The tubeless only beats the standard tube but since the tyre is different it's only really applicable to this specific comparison.

g00se

I've tried latex and I'm a convert (!?!) I wouldn't bother for winter tyres, but if you ride some light summer best tyres like Veloflex, GP4000, Vittoria Open, then it's worth trying. Unquantifiable, but they feel faster, and 'sing' on the smooth stuff.

A tip is to take at least one butyl spare tube and patches - as a latex puncture is difficult to repair. If you have a lot of punctures on a ride, you'll know that you can use the patches if you keep the butyl tube as the last tube to use.

Saying all that, going to try tubeless now.

ai_1

g00se wrote:

I've tried latex and I'm a convert (!?!) I wouldn't bother for winter tyres, but if you ride some light summer best tyres like Veloflex, GP4000, Vittoria Open, then it's worth trying. Unquantifiable, but they feel faster, and 'sing' on the smooth stuff.

A tip is to take at least one butyl spare tube and patches - as a latex puncture is difficult to repair. If you have a lot of punctures on a ride, you'll know that you can use the patches if you keep the butyl tube as the last tube to use.

Saying all that, going to try tubeless now.

Tempting but the one thing putting me off is the air loss issue.
I wouldn't be too bothered having to top off the pressure before each ride. However, for a half-ironman race which I think requires you to leave your bike in transition the night before - there could be a problem with being under-pressure when you hop on your bike the next day? I'm doing one in August and will use this bike.

napoleond

I use latex on my best clinchers and use tubs with latex I need, but for triathlon where you sometimes have to rack your bike in transition overnight is suggest it's a bit of a no no.

Edit: just read your post before mine!

Indeed, if you are racing a half IM and leaving your bike overnight, stick with butyl.

g00se

If you're leaving them overnight, then just over-inflate by 10-20 psi (assuming you're not riding them up to the tyres max - and Conti tyres will officially take double the stated max inflation pressure). I'm sure you could experiment a few times to see how much they loose in the time-frame you'll be leaving them in transition.

drlodge

I've used Conti Supersonic on the Rourke and had no problems fitting them or with punctures. Doubt I can tell any difference really but its an easy and relatively cheap way to save 50g off the rim weight. Another advantage is that they take up alot less space in your EPMS, probably half the size or the Race tube.

simon_masterson

Latex tubes can poke their way through small spaces; I don't know if thin butyl tubes do this as well. Given adequate rim tape coverage and sufficient pressure, I can't see why not to use a lightweight inner tube, but neither can I see much point if the tyre isn't light and supple enough...

john1967

I experimented with the sub 50g tubes last year and just suffered blow out after blow out.One of them blew out right at the start of TT. I now use the specialised Red box tubes,they weigh about 65g and give me no trouble.Nobody is going to notice an extra 20grams.

iron-clover

I would go for it for racing on.
I use conti supersonics for racing and TTs when I'm not using my tubs (a lightweight tube is far cheaper to replace than a tub...) and when paired with a lightweight tyre such as schwalbe ultremo they feel really nice- not the same level as the tubs but the feel going through corners is better than normal tubes.

For example, I reccied a sporting TT course with 27mm tyres (pro4 endurance) with standard tubes, and on the twisty descent they were only so so, grip was a bit of an issue. When I went out with the 23mm ultremos it was more like riding on rails despite being narrower and higher pressure.

Plus you'll feel the weight saving at the rim more than anywhere else on the bike- you won't go faster when you're up to speed but when you accelerate you can really feel the difference between training and racing rubber. Although you probably won't see much of an actual time saving, I find a definite psychological boost.

The supersonics are butyle so won't deflate too much over time compared to latex, but using talc when first putting them in the tyres will help prevent them getting stuck anywhere and burst when you inflate them- they really are thin! Once in I haven't actually punctured on them yet, but then I don't do an awful lot of miles on them.

EDIT: If you blow out using supersonics- you're going wrong somewhere!