XX light 2.35 OR 2.10 innertubes in a 2.40 Rocket Ron

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
ArferBar
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:32 pm

by ArferBar

Planning on getting some 2.4 Rocket Ron's, i want to get some lightweight tubes......


they do two Schwalbe XXlight, one goes up to 2.10 at 100g and the other is 2.35 at 130g

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/schwalbe-sv1 ... prod14897/

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/schwalbe-sv1 ... prod18127/

im feeling that the 2.35 would be the most appropriate, but then this is weightweenies and im wondering if i can get away with the 2.10's in a 2.40????

wanting to stick with Schwalbe as we are a stockest of them

does anyone have experience of durability or compatibility?

would really appreciate

thanks

by Weenie


TheRookie
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:23 pm
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom

by TheRookie

Similar idea to mine, I use Schwalbe 26x1.0-1.5 in my 2.2 tyres, never had a problem, they are 125g and I only pay £4 (about $6 US) each.

A friend uses 29er tubes in his home built 36er as the 36" tubes are 500g EACH.

So I'd say it's worth trying the 2.1's......
Impoverished weight weenie wanna-be!
Budget 26" HT build viewtopic.php?f=10&t=110956

Tokyo Drifter
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:28 am

by Tokyo Drifter

a) Why are you running tubes?

b) why are you running 2.4s and tweaking out about weight? If you're riding a bike like it should be ridden with 2.4s (ie, sideways, in the air) then lightweight stuff will just be a non-starter.

ArferBar
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:32 pm

by ArferBar

TheRookie wrote:Similar idea to mine, I use Schwalbe 26x1.0-1.5 in my 2.2 tyres, never had a problem, they are 125g and I only pay £4 (about $6 US) each.

A friend uses 29er tubes in his home built 36er as the 36" tubes are 500g EACH.

So I'd say it's worth trying the 2.1's......



thankyou, i emailed sjs cycles yesterday and they told me........ "The SV14 X light tubes will be fine for use in your 2.4” tyres.
I wouldn’t recommend the 2.10” versions though, the thin rubber cannot cope with the extra volume needed to inflate a 2.4” tyre.
Normal weight 2.10” tubes tend to be fine, but not the extra light versions."

i think thats the crux is that there the extra light versions and best not to push them too much.but then it could just be them covering there asses perhaps

thanks

ArferBar
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:32 pm

by ArferBar

Tokyo Drifter wrote:a) Why are you running tubes?

b) why are you running 2.4s and tweaking out about weight? If you're riding a bike like it should be ridden with 2.4s (ie, sideways, in the air) then lightweight stuff will just be a non-starter.



thanks for the reply 'Tokyo Drifter', if we go down this line of inquiry its going to end up in an argument.

Anything more helpful would be greatly appreciated thanks again

02GF74
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:04 pm
Location: Sunny UK

by 02GF74

if your bedget will stretch to £ 9.99 consider:

Maxxis Fly Weight Innertube



At .45mm thin, flyweight inner tubes are the lightest butyl tubes known to mankind. Speed is increased because rotational weight is decreased. Flyweight tubes are packaged with a unique cloth rim strip to be used only with flyweight tubes.

•The lightest innertubes available
•0.45mm Thin
•For use with Maxxis rim strip (supplied)
•Valve Types: Presta valve, 48mm Presta or 60mm Presta
•Sizes: 26x1.50/1.75" , 26x1.95/2.125" or 700cx18/25c
•Weight: 86g (1.50/1.75"), 104g (1.95/2.125")
•Colour: Black

by Weenie


DanW
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Here, there and everywhere

by DanW

Tokyo Drifter makes a very valid point. 2.4 is massive, large even by DH standards.

Tubeless or regular tubes designed to work with the size tyres you use would certainly be far more logical than trying to get away an inadequate solution for a few g's. If the g's matter why so large tyres?

Lightweight tubes work perfectly fine if used as intended. Before tubeless I liked Conti Supersonics although I am not sure they are made beyond about 2.1...

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post