Latex Tubes vs Ultra Light Butyl Tubes?

Everything about building wheels, glueing tubs, etc.
Rush
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:10 am

by Rush

gospastic wrote:I read this interview the other day with Josh Poertner, former Zipp employee. He seems to believe in latex tubes. Good enough for me.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... h-poertner

From that article
Yes, latex is probably the best bang for the buck upgrade you can ever make to any of your bikes. They are definitely more labor intensive to install than butyl, and you have to pump them up every day...but you can save 3-5 watts per wheel(!) compared to butyl. At the moment, tubeless is getting better, but still nobody has a tubeless system as efficient as a high quality standard tire with latex inner tube.

Putting it in perspective, that $20 latex tube at minimum would be worth maybe 3 watts in a front wheel compared to $1000 for the best ceramic bearings which might get you 0.8-1 watt for a wheelset upgrade.

That's pretty compelling stuff.

by Weenie


HillRPete
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

Along those lines, I'm wondering how latex lined tubular stacks up against butyl equipped clincher. The tests finding clincher rolling better than tubs were made with latex in both? Anyone remember how big the difference was?

ToffieBoi
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:54 pm

by ToffieBoi

HillRPete wrote:Along those lines, I'm wondering how latex lined tubular stacks up against butyl equipped clincher. The tests finding clincher rolling better than tubs were made with latex in both? Anyone remember how big the difference was?


Clinchers roll better than tubulars? I've never heard of it. I really wonder about that test.


User avatar
WMW
in the industry
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Location: Ruidoso, NM

by WMW

HillRPete wrote:The tests finding clincher rolling better than tubs were made with latex in both?


Actually with butyl tubes in the clinchers, they were still better. Jobst Brandt did some tests like 25 years ago, plus a bunch of recent ones by Tour Mag.

The glue job on the tubulars is critical. The extra loss comes from the glue. As I recall some guys on BikeTechReview figured out a way to glue tubulars to minimize the loss, but I didn't pay much attention since I didn't use them. I think they used hard glues first, then Al Morrison found that a very thorough glue job with regular tubular adhesive worked pretty well. If you search that site you should find something. Report back here if you do!

Also just heard from someone doing "secret" testing of the the effect of sidewinds, that tubulars suck there also... more loss.

All this shouldn't be too surprising since you are introducing a very high hysteresis layer of stuff between the rim and tire.
formerly rruff...

HillRPete
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

WMW, that really makes me wonder about Continental vs Mastik glue. The Continental one dries out quite well, while the Mastik is always lauded for staying sticky and "self healing". Would be curious to find out how new vs aged glue jobs stack up against each other, with different glue brands.

Or what about ditching the basetape altogether, to eliminate any hysteresis losses it might cause?

Edit: ok maybe no basetape would be a bit much, but what about something super thin that doesn't compress / doesn't cause hysteresis losses.

fdegrove
Tubbie Guru
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 2:20 am
Location: Belgium

by fdegrove

Hi,

Or what about ditching the basetape altogether, to eliminate any hysteresis losses it might cause?


The base tape is there for good reason, it protects the stitches from being torn.

Keep in mind also that whatever the crr test results they're just that, i.e plain lab tests.
In the real world you'll quite likely be more efficient overall on properly glued tubulars.
Vittoria's Mastik One is still the best rim cement for road use. Still, if you want to better your crr and don't mind cutting a tub when it's punctured to remove it from the rim then Terokal's 244 is your friend.

That said, the measurements only brigade does not seem to understand how things work so their "science" should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Also just heard from someone doing "secret" testing of the the effect of sidewinds, that tubulars suck there also... more loss.


Really? How so?
Any sources on that?

Cheers, ;)
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.


sawyer
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

Latex tubes are certainly the loudest bang for buck when paired with clincher rims

They are simply a bad idea outside the safe cocoon of a tubular

The crr tests suggest very little difference between latex tube and clincher and OTOH a good glue job and equivalent latex filled tubular

Though the inherent risk means that is anything but apples with apples
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5422
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

Ding, ding, ding. Give this man a reading prize.
On Feb 15, 2011 in why so few tubulars on the roads?, HammerTime2 wrote:The tube in a tubular is safely ensconced in a nice controlled environment inside the tubular. Not so with a clincher. This is at least part of the reason for lower propensity to flat on tubulars. Additonally, perhaps less propensity to flat on tubulars while inflating/removing pump due to better valve/tube interface on many tubulars compared to many cheap a#@ clincher tubes which fail at the valve/tube interface..

On Feb 15, 2011 in why so few tubulars on the roads?, Geoff wrote:If I could figure out why tubulars don't flat for me, I would be very pleased. Pinch flats must have something to do with it (lack thereof), but it can't just be that, given the post mortems that I have done on punctured clincher tubes. That may just be one of life's great mysteries.

On Feb 15, 2011 in why so few tubulars on the roads?, HammerTime2 wrote:grasshopper, the tube ensconcement wards off pinch flats and myriad other maladies.

fdegrove
Tubbie Guru
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 2:20 am
Location: Belgium

by fdegrove

Hi,

Ding, ding, ding. Give this man a reading prize.


A prize for what exactly? Going Off Topic?

Ciao, ;)
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

sawyer
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

hi

fdegrove - IIRC we have a similar view on this one ... latex is best in a tubular
or the bedroom (second best)

The issue is not just one of "installation" as it's sometimes described. That is one aspect
of it. It's an open system vs. closed system problem ... elasticity of latex has a strong preference
for the latter
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

fdegrove
Tubbie Guru
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 2:20 am
Location: Belgium

by fdegrove

Hi,

fdegrove - IIRC we have a similar view on this one ...


We do indeed.

The issue is not just one of "installation" as it's sometimes described. That is one aspect
of it. It's an open system vs. closed system problem ... elasticity of latex has a strong preference
for the latter


Agreed.
Personally I view the entire experience as a transition. A taster if you like.
After which you either move on to tubulars or revert to clinchers and butyl inner tubes.

Ciao, ;)
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

User avatar
WMW
in the industry
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Location: Ruidoso, NM

by WMW

I've got at least 30k miles using latex tubes in clinchers. What is the problem I'm supposed to experience? Except the need to pump more, it's all been good.
formerly rruff...

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5422
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

Maybe because you're a wheel guru and have the magic touch.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post