Which inner tubes are best in terms of weight v durability?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Eraser92
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:35 am

by Eraser92

froze wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:35 pm
Tubolitos are freaking expensive, I don't get flats now so what advantage are those tubes? I haven't had a flat in 6 to 7 months with butyl tubes. I'm not going to pay more than three times as much for a tube unless they can prove they'll last through 12 sets of tires or longer! As the new thing to do is to brag about it requiring less watts to run...like a 1/2 to maybe 1 watt...news flash, you can't even detect that! In addition to that expense of the tube you have to buy their patches at $15 for the kit.

All of this snake oil marketing about aero this lightweight that is pure NONSENSE! Did you know that since 1981 the average speed of the TDF has only gone up 1 1/2 to 2 Km (which is about 1.2 mph faster) per hour to 2019? And that's with far better aeroness, lighter bikes and wheels, stiffer bikes and wheels for more power, better training, better diet, and better doping! http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html (for fun look at the average speed for 1971 and the early 60's) So now someone is going to tell me about the huge gain I'm going to get from using expensive tubes? LOL!!! People will buy into anything. If I bought all the stuff that claims they save 2 to 8 watts on various parts I would be saving roughly 150 watts on my bike...ok, next please.
It sounds like this isn't the forum for you, no need to get mad about people discussing upgrades. Enjoy your 1981 bike.

If anything tubolitos are one of the most value for money weight upgrades that are discussed here. Approx £30 extra for around 200g saving over normal butyl tubes.

User avatar
kytyree
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:55 am
Location: US

by kytyree

Do Turbolitos still all have that orange valve? I want to try them but orange is probably the worst color I could pick to add to the bike I'd use them on.

by Weenie


AJS914
Posts: 3479
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

Other than looking at the long term trend, the average speed of the TDF is a mostly meaningless stat. They don't actually "race" from start to finish. If you have the best aero bike which gives you a one bike length advantage in a sprint then it may help you win the race. The rider in 2nd place will have the same average speed.

crlincoln
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:42 am

by crlincoln

kytyree wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:39 pm
Do Turbolitos still all have that orange valve? I want to try them but orange is probably the worst color I could pick to add to the bike I'd use them on.
I've just brought a new tube and it's valve was black....

talltales
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:43 pm

by talltales

Ppl tent to forget weight savings are easlily negated by small increases in rolling resistance or losses in the frame, drive train ect. Loosing just one watt negates several hundred grams of weight savings. - At an ascent speed (VAM) of 1500 m per hour, a 1 W loss equals about 244 grams added weight ... At an ascent speed of 1000 m per hour, a 1 W loss equals about 360 grams added weight ... At an ascent speed of 500 m per hour, a 1 W loss equals about 720 grams added weight ... (!!) -> The best weight weenie trick there is is to maintain your drivetrain and roll on good rubber.

jlok
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:30 am

by jlok

I think ww just like to get light bike. Efficiency is of lower priority. This attitude is perfectly fine IMO.

Maybe in another place called Resistance Weenies or Performance Weenies...
Litespeed T1sl Disc / BMC TM02 < Giant Propel Advanced SL Disc 1 < Propel Adv < TCR Adv SL Disc < KTM Revelator Sky < CAAD 12 Disc < Domane S Disc < Alize < CAAD 10

talltales
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:43 pm

by talltales

Sure, but saving one watt in the drive train or tires, may be a lot easier and cheaper than saving 300+ g from an already light bike. - Just food for thourght ;-)

EDIT:

"interesting facts: the main factor for the rolling resistance is the air pressure. Inner tubes have a relatively small influence on the rolling resistance. Tubolito tubes‘ rolling resistance is by 0.3W higher compared to standard butyl tubes"

https://www.facebook.com/TubolitoTubes/ ... 486654204/

OOPS :-)

Without knowing the speed the turbolitios were measured at and what the quoted 0.3W rolling resistance INcrease is in reference to, its hard to know exactly, BUT this is what Im talking about. Small increases in rolling resistance easily negates the benefit of the weight saving. They are about 40 g each compared to a 120 g standard butyl tube. That is 160 g saving total, giving you about a  0.4 W power saving at 1000 VAM. That is effectively a zero sum game. Assenting at a lesser rate and you are at a (small) loss .. Substituting your standard butyl with a light butyl and the butyl comes out ahead ;-)

IF, as I suspect it is 0.3W per tyre, then we are at 0.6W total loss compared to butyl. Thus loosing you more in rolling resistance than you can gain from the weight saving, making the turbolitos an expensive DOWNgrade.

RocketRacing
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 am

by RocketRacing

As stated above. If speed matters, keeping crr low is key, weight be damned.

Weight weenie is not dead, it is just a more complex set of decisions to build a faster bike now. This is exactly why my ww bike is a good 1pbs heavier than it could be. But it is faster.

zinedrei
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:36 am

by zinedrei

talltales wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:38 am
Sure, but saving one watt in the drive train or tires, may be a lot easier and cheaper than saving 300+ g from an already light bike. - Just food for thourght ;-)

EDIT:

"interesting facts: the main factor for the rolling resistance is the air pressure. Inner tubes have a relatively small influence on the rolling resistance. Tubolito tubes‘ rolling resistance is by 0.3W higher compared to standard butyl tubes"

https://www.facebook.com/TubolitoTubes/ ... 486654204/

OOPS :-)

Without knowing the speed the turbolitios were measured at and what the quoted 0.3W rolling resistance INcrease is in reference to, its hard to know exactly, BUT this is what Im talking about. Small increases in rolling resistance easily negates the benefit of the weight saving. They are about 40 g each compared to a 120 g standard butyl tube. That is 160 g saving total, giving you about a  0.4 W power saving at 1000 VAM. That is effectively a zero sum game. Assenting at a lesser rate and you are at a (small) loss .. Substituting your standard butyl with a light butyl and the butyl comes out ahead ;-)

IF, as I suspect it is 0.3W per tyre, then we are at 0.6W total loss compared to butyl. Thus loosing you more in rolling resistance than you can gain from the weight saving, making the turbolitos an expensive DOWNgrade.
this is a weight weenie forum and not a resistance weenie forum :D

honestly, i dont even care if the lighter part i will install will add rolling resistance.
as long as i get the lightest one that my budget allows then i am happy

tubolitos may be a downgrade for you but if it will give me good value in terms of price vs grams shaved, then i'd happily take it
the only reason i will not consider it is when it is significantly more prone to punctures which appear to be not the case

Terrordact
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:30 pm

by Terrordact

talltales wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:38 am
Sure, but saving one watt in the drive train or tires, may be a lot easier and cheaper than saving 300+ g from an already light bike. - Just food for thourght ;-)

EDIT:

"interesting facts: the main factor for the rolling resistance is the air pressure. Inner tubes have a relatively small influence on the rolling resistance. Tubolito tubes‘ rolling resistance is by 0.3W higher compared to standard butyl tubes"

https://www.facebook.com/TubolitoTubes/ ... 486654204/

OOPS :-)

Without knowing the speed the turbolitios were measured at and what the quoted 0.3W rolling resistance INcrease is in reference to, its hard to know exactly, BUT this is what Im talking about. Small increases in rolling resistance easily negates the benefit of the weight saving. They are about 40 g each compared to a 120 g standard butyl tube. That is 160 g saving total, giving you about a  0.4 W power saving at 1000 VAM. That is effectively a zero sum game. Assenting at a lesser rate and you are at a (small) loss .. Substituting your standard butyl with a light butyl and the butyl comes out ahead ;-)

IF, as I suspect it is 0.3W per tyre, then we are at 0.6W total loss compared to butyl. Thus loosing you more in rolling resistance than you can gain from the weight saving, making the turbolitos an expensive DOWNgrade.
Except that is comparing the regular tube, not the S tubo, which not only has lower resistence than butyl, but on par or lower than latex, especially at low pressures. https://www.tubolito.com/wp-content/upl ... e-Road.jpg So now that it both weighs less, and rolling resistence may be better, is cost the only hinderance?

RocketRacing
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 am

by RocketRacing

Terrordact wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:15 pm
talltales wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:38 am
Sure, but saving one watt in the drive train or tires, may be a lot easier and cheaper than saving 300+ g from an already light bike. - Just food for thourght ;-)

EDIT:

"interesting facts: the main factor for the rolling resistance is the air pressure. Inner tubes have a relatively small influence on the rolling resistance. Tubolito tubes‘ rolling resistance is by 0.3W higher compared to standard butyl tubes"

https://www.facebook.com/TubolitoTubes/ ... 486654204/

OOPS :-)

Without knowing the speed the turbolitios were measured at and what the quoted 0.3W rolling resistance INcrease is in reference to, its hard to know exactly, BUT this is what Im talking about. Small increases in rolling resistance easily negates the benefit of the weight saving. They are about 40 g each compared to a 120 g standard butyl tube. That is 160 g saving total, giving you about a  0.4 W power saving at 1000 VAM. That is effectively a zero sum game. Assenting at a lesser rate and you are at a (small) loss .. Substituting your standard butyl with a light butyl and the butyl comes out ahead ;-)

IF, as I suspect it is 0.3W per tyre, then we are at 0.6W total loss compared to butyl. Thus loosing you more in rolling resistance than you can gain from the weight saving, making the turbolitos an expensive DOWNgrade.
Except that is comparing the regular tube, not the S tubo, which not only has lower resistence than butyl, but on par or lower than latex, especially at low pressures. https://www.tubolito.com/wp-content/upl ... e-Road.jpg So now that it both weighs less, and rolling resistence may be better, is cost the only hinderance?
For lighter, and better crr than latex... i will pay a small fortune. My issue is one of reliability of the superlight version... especially related to rim brake generated heat. I want a bit more independant data before i jump. Would love to see bikerollingresistance compare the turbolitos to the graphine 2.0 latex tubes and a few other options.

But something has to give. Reliability? Lack of valve stem options? Durability? Heat resistance? Or maybe it is the wonder product and latex goes way of the dodo. Until then i see it as a corsa speed... the fastest yes, but at what compromise? There is a reason why i run gp5000. It was a informed choice.

Flying too close to the sun...

zinedrei
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:36 am

by zinedrei

RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:20 am
My issue is one of reliability of the superlight version... especially related to rim brake generated heat.
is there a reliability issue for the superlight version?
if there is, is it only for those used bikes with rim brakes?

RocketRacing
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 am

by RocketRacing

zinedrei wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:25 am
RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:20 am
My issue is one of reliability of the superlight version... especially related to rim brake generated heat.
is there a reliability issue for the superlight version?
if there is, is it only for those used bikes with rim brakes?
Who knows, but the s-tubo road (that performs close to latex, better at low pressures if you trust the data) is advised for disc brake only. Tubolito states: “.Specifically made for disc brakes (not suitable for rim brakes).” In my mind suggesting the product does not like heat.

The regular version is still pretty light, but vs latex, the inferior crr in the realm of 4-5w is just a no go if overally performance is your goal (and it is for me).

They would be great for instagram weight weenie bikes however, and make a solid spare. My spare is the lightest of all... my cellphone, as life limits my ability to go that far from home. And for the few rides i do requiring a spare, i take latex so when i swap, i can just leave it in until the next replacement. I am going to test some superlight challenge latex tubes however. But i suspect they will be another “too close to the sun” option.

zinedrei
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:36 am

by zinedrei

RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:37 am
zinedrei wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:25 am
RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:20 am
My issue is one of reliability of the superlight version... especially related to rim brake generated heat.
is there a reliability issue for the superlight version?
if there is, is it only for those used bikes with rim brakes?
Who knows, but the s-tubo road (that performs close to latex, better at low pressures if you trust the data) is advised for disc brake only. Tubolito states: “.Specifically made for disc brakes (not suitable for rim brakes).” In my mind suggesting the product does not like heat.

The regular version is still pretty light, but vs latex, the inferior crr in the realm of 4-5w is just a no go if overally performance is your goal (and it is for me).

They would be great for instagram weight weenie bikes however, and make a solid spare. My spare is the lightest of all... my cellphone, as life limits my ability to go that far from home. And for the few rides i do requiring a spare, i take latex so when i swap, i can just leave it in until the next replacement. I am going to test some superlight challenge latex tubes however. But i suspect they will be another “too close to the sun” option.
if the description says "not suitable for rim brakes", then it's not a reliability issue at all.
it just means that it's not designed and made for rim brakes

same as a normal road bike that says "not suitable for jumps over 1 meter", it doesn't mean that there's a reliability issue or a disc brake specific rim and then used on a rim brake bike

it will be a reliability issue if there is significantly more punctures compared to other tube types when used according to manufacturers specifications

by Weenie


jlok
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:30 am

by jlok

RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:37 am
zinedrei wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:25 am
RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:20 am
My issue is one of reliability of the superlight version... especially related to rim brake generated heat.
is there a reliability issue for the superlight version?
if there is, is it only for those used bikes with rim brakes?
Who knows, but the s-tubo road (that performs close to latex, better at low pressures if you trust the data) is advised for disc brake only. Tubolito states: “.Specifically made for disc brakes (not suitable for rim brakes).” In my mind suggesting the product does not like heat.

The regular version is still pretty light, but vs latex, the inferior crr in the realm of 4-5w is just a no go if overally performance is your goal (and it is for me).

They would be great for instagram weight weenie bikes however, and make a solid spare. My spare is the lightest of all... my cellphone, as life limits my ability to go that far from home. And for the few rides i do requiring a spare, i take latex so when i swap, i can just leave it in until the next replacement. I am going to test some superlight challenge latex tubes however. But i suspect they will be another “too close to the sun” option.
Tubolito is 5W slower than latex? I see butyl is <3W slower than latex at 60psi. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... s-clincher

So tubolito is slower than butyl?
Litespeed T1sl Disc / BMC TM02 < Giant Propel Advanced SL Disc 1 < Propel Adv < TCR Adv SL Disc < KTM Revelator Sky < CAAD 12 Disc < Domane S Disc < Alize < CAAD 10

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post