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

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Hexsense
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

I recall that the old original tubolito is slower than butyl tube, despite advantage in weight.
But they seems to develop and improve overtime. I don't know about the current thin one (if we ignore Tubolito's claim but looking for 3rd party test instead).

Pierre86
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 3:53 pm

by Pierre86

Hexsense wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:34 am
I recall that the old original tubolito is slower than butyl tube, despite advantage in weight.
But they seems to develop and improve overtime. I don't know about the current thin one (if we ignore Tubolito's claim but looking for 3rd party test instead).
Material matters far more that weight.
I'd imagine the lightweight tubo being faster than the regular one, but still slower than a regular tube and nowhere near latex
S6 Evo
S5 Aero

by Weenie


RocketRacing
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 am

by RocketRacing

zinedrei wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:15 am
RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:37 am

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
Did i say there was a reliability issue? I said who knows. But i infer that the “disk brake wheels only” label is a reference to heat intolerence. Which i guess one could classify as reliability... under heat stress.

But i did just watch a long term review of the tubes and the reviewer basically had patches on patches with these tubes after 7 or so months use. Not scientific... but he felt he had more punctures with these than standard tubes. The “twice as puncture resistant” or whatever is claimed seems like marketing speak... likely twice as puncture resistant with the same thickness of material or something, But they are much thinner. It stinks of shwalbe saying the new addix compounds were “20% lower rolling resistance” when in fact rolling resistance went up across the board vs the pacestar compounds.

And what is the difference between tubes made for rim brakes wheels, vs disc brake wheels? Heat conditions aside, i dont see the diference.
Last edited by RocketRacing on Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

RocketRacing
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 am

by RocketRacing

jlok wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:23 am

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?
To Clarify, I said the difference is in the realm of 4-5w. And i always double the numbers because we run two tubes.

Results may vary between tubes, pressure, rider weight and distribution, speed, etc, etc.

My 4-5w refers to a pair of latex tubes vs the standard tubolio road tubes... the ones that compare closer to butyl tubes for crr (assuming you believe the data linked in this thread). I admit i did not pull a calculator out so my numbers were soft. Point is, i will take even a couple of watts over 50-100g weight saved. Physics proves the watts will be the faster choice.

Here is what josh portinier (formally of zipp, now of silca and marginal gains podcast) had to say of the tubes:

“These are comparable (from the data shared with me paid for by somebody else) to a light butyl tube which makes them fractionally better than a heavy butyl tube, but far from a latex tube.

I recommend using these as your spare as 2 of them will fit in the space of 1 butyl tube which seems like the perfect use for them.

Josh ”

Not sure which version of the tubolito he saw data for. For me to use them right now, they need to produce equal Or better crr vs latex, and be rim brake compatible.

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

by zinedrei

RocketRacing wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:18 am
Did i say there was a reliability issue? I said who knows. But i infer that the “disk brake wheels only” label is a reference to heat intolerence. Which i guess one could classify as reliability... under heat stress.

But i did just watch a long term review of the tubes and the reviewer basically had patches on patches with these tubes after 7 or so months use. Not scientific... but he felt he had more punctures with these than standard tubes. The “twice as puncture resistant” or whatever is claimed seems like marketing speak... likely twice as puncture resistant with the same thickness of material or something, But they are much thinner. It stinks of shwalbe saying the new addix compounds were “20% lower rolling resistance” when in fact rolling resistance went up across the board vs the pacestar compounds.

And what is the difference between tubes made for rim brakes wheels, vs disc brake wheels? Heat conditions aside, i dont see the diference.
please read your post that i quoted earlier and that's why i asked if you are aware of any reliability issues.

again, using things the way manufacturers didn't intend them to be has nothing to do with reliability.
refer to my road bike sample with a manufacturer note that it's not intended for jumps higher than 1 meter.

did the user with "frequent" punctures say how much miles he rode during that period?
if it's a lot or these are on different terrain/route that what he normally rides into, then we cannot really say if it's "frequent".

don't get me wrong. i am just trying to understand if there is indeed a "reliability issue".
if there is no factual basis, then using the appropriate term like "reliability concern" is better since it's understandable for people to have doubts on a lightweight product

lastly, heat tolerance may actually be the reason why it's not intended for rim brakes
perhaps the manufacturers thought that creating a tube for rim brakes will not make it as light as expected due to the additional material needed

Eraser92
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:35 am

by Eraser92

Pierre86 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:49 am
Hexsense wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:34 am
I recall that the old original tubolito is slower than butyl tube, despite advantage in weight.
But they seems to develop and improve overtime. I don't know about the current thin one (if we ignore Tubolito's claim but looking for 3rd party test instead).
Material matters far more that weight.
I'd imagine the lightweight tubo being faster than the regular one, but still slower than a regular tube and nowhere near latex
Image

Suggests that the rolling resistance of the standard (tubo road) is comparible to light butyl tubes and the s-tubo is comparible to latex. This is the companies own test so take with a grain of salt but it doesn't appear that there has been any independant tests yet.

talltales
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:43 pm

by talltales

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?
There is no "except". What I quoted was in reference to tubolito vs butyl, quoted from tubolito them selves. Im sure there are other tubes that are both lighter and roll better than butyl. However the tubolito vs butyl example was just an example to exemplify the point I was trying to make. - That if light products come bundled with some other perfomance penalty, the net gain is very likely to be NEGative because weight is not Thath important in the grand scheme. I dont particularly care about tubolito, i was commenting on the unreflected hunt for ever lighter this or that bike part.

Same with wheels. 0.5W additional power loss in the bearings easliy negates the 100g you saved buying a new wheel, but no one seem to care and many are actively dismissive of the concept.

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

by zinedrei

talltales wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:42 am
That if light products come bundled with some other perfomance penalty, the net gain is very likely to be NEGative because weight is not Thath important in the grand scheme. I dont particularly care about tubolito, i was commenting on the unreflected hunt for ever lighter this or that bike part.

Same with wheels. 0.5W additional power loss in the bearings easliy negates the 100g you saved buying a new wheel, but no one seem to care and many are actively dismissive of the concept.
this is the troll in me replying :D

the "grand scheme" is actually to have less weight (this is a ww forum after all).
of course there are compromises and tradeoffs when using lighter materials which may include higher rr etc.

oh and btw, i will be happy to lose .5W if it can shave off 100g from my bike :D

floriansantana
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:57 pm

by floriansantana

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 just wrapped black electrical tape around the end of the valve before installing the Tubolitos. Valves are black and the slightly wider diameter stops the valve from rattling against the rim. Win-Win.

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

by Terrordact

talltales wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:42 am
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?
There is no "except". What I quoted was in reference to tubolito vs butyl, quoted from tubolito them selves. Im sure there are other tubes that are both lighter and roll better than butyl. However the tubolito vs butyl example was just an example to exemplify the point I was trying to make. - That if light products come bundled with some other perfomance penalty, the net gain is very likely to be NEGative because weight is not Thath important in the grand scheme. I dont particularly care about tubolito, i was commenting on the unreflected hunt for ever lighter this or that bike part.

Same with wheels. 0.5W additional power loss in the bearings easliy negates the 100g you saved buying a new wheel, but no one seem to care and many are actively dismissive of the concept.
The except is that the conversation was centered around the S-tubo tube, not the standard. Your statement made misleading implications, being based on the standard (and was still incorrect according to the only published data available, albeit not from an independant source). I agree that if weight is down but rolling resistance is up, it's useless. However, that is not the case here, weight is down AND rolling resistance is down, so should be a no brainer if you're running discs right?

dooglehead2
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:24 am

by dooglehead2

Tubilito didn't mention the speed that they tested the rolling resistance with, but I'm guessing that it was around 20mph / 30-35kph. If you are racing up a steep hill, you might be going a third of that speed, so the difference in rolling resistance would be about a third of what they tested.

The best solution (in the context of a hill climb race) might be to use a light weight but higher crr tube on the front wheel and a latex tube on the rear because a lot of weight will shift to the rear when climbing. If tubilitos data on the S-tubo can be believed then it would be better to just use those if you are okay with the likely increase in the risk of punctures (and you don't need to decend afterwards if you have rim brakes). Of course, we are also only talking about differences of a few seconds in long hill climbs.

BmanX
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:31 pm

by BmanX

I always use Conti Race Light tubes for training but fo racing it has to be latex.
BIG DADDY B FLOW
AERO & LIGHT is RIGHT

Cervelo SLC 5960g/13.13 lbs

Eraser92
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:35 am

by Eraser92

dooglehead2 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:28 pm
Tubilito didn't mention the speed that they tested the rolling resistance with, but I'm guessing that it was around 20mph / 30-35kph. If you are racing up a steep hill, you might be going a third of that speed, so the difference in rolling resistance would be about a third of what they tested.

The best solution (in the context of a hill climb race) might be to use a light weight but higher crr tube on the front wheel and a latex tube on the rear because a lot of weight will shift to the rear when climbing. If tubilitos data on the S-tubo can be believed then it would be better to just use those if you are okay with the likely increase in the risk of punctures (and you don't need to decend afterwards if you have rim brakes). Of course, we are also only talking about differences of a few seconds in long hill climbs.
It says right there on the graph I posted - 28.8km/h

Kumppa
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:05 am

by Kumppa

Just saying I have now used rim brake Tubolitos for 2000km. Zero problem and zero puncture with 25mm Michelin power competition. And we have lot of gravel on roads. 60mm came with orange valve but used permanent marker on them. Friend bought 80mm valve ones and those were black. Atleast these doens't feel any slower than Conti 28 light tubes. 22,5€ was decent price from R2bike.

JoO
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:30 am

by JoO

I use vredestein latex 50 grs.
cost 8 eur at Van Eyck Sports in Belgium.
very few punctures and I repair them with standard glue patch.

I saw that wolfpack offers 24grs TPU inner tires.
https://wolfpack-tires.com/produkt/tpu- ... ell-40-mm/
possibly the same as Tubolitos?
Perhaps nice for a ww project but I will stick to Vredestein.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post