[Closed] £40 for a tube!

Its not just the weight, do a bit of research and you'll find out.

Some bad reports on reliability are all that's stopped my buying 2 for the dh bike tbh. Still waiting and watching.

They've been around for years, nothing new.

Expensive compared to a standard tube but I can't think of many cheaper ways to save that much weight off your wheels.

I'm tempted and I'm sure they'll eventually come down in price a bit once more shops start stocking them.

Cheaper to stop eating pies.

Cheaper to stop eating pies.

True. But that won't make your wheels lighter 😉

Lols as if making your wheels 50g lighter makes a difference.

More like 100g, or 66% and saving 66% off every part really does make a difference...

That said, they've been around for years, and haven't got any cheaper, not sure that's about to change!

But it's still 100g saved for £40, so 2.5g/£, which isn't bad. Although Conti Supersonics are 100g and £8, so 6g/£. Depends how mad you want to go!

stevewhyte - Member

Lols as if making your wheels 50g lighter makes a difference.

Comparing them with a 100g tube doesn't really make sense, as they're also more durable- realistically you're saving 200g, 250g an end over a tough tube.

That's assuming they work as claimed anyway, some reports say not.

Just the same as with tubeless- people miss the point and say "it's only slightly lighter than my weightweenie tube"

Wow 100g well if you put it like that i will get 20 of them, then i will be saving a whole 2kg.

I assume your bike is 80lbs and uses solid steel bars, rather than tubes? 🙄

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole to make you look a numpty eh. 😆

Just please stop claiming it make a difference to lose 100g when it just doesnt make a blind bit of difference. Lose more after going to the toilet for free.

Total waste of money.

Are those the ones you can repair by warming up with a lighter?

stevewhyte - Member

Lose more after going to the toilet for free.

I don't keep my poo in my tyres.

Northwind - Member

I don't keep my poo in my tyres.

WTF am i the only one, its the only way to ride a 29er.

Just please stop claiming it make a difference to lose 100g when it just doesnt make a blind bit of difference. Lose more after going to the toilet for free.

I've not made any such claim, point is that no, saving 100g will not make an [i]appreciable [/i]difference (although it will make a difference), but saving 100g off loads of parts really will. Look at all the threads asking about lighter wheels - these tubes for £80 will save more weight than many folk buying new £400 wheels!

If anyone's looking like a numpty here, it's you. Well done.

I struggle to justify spending that much on a tyre, so to spend it on a tube seems ridiculous to me. I find that tubes need replacing, not just because they're punctured or sliced but because the valve breaks/ snaps or something else, so unless they're after-sales is amazing and they can guarantee puncture resistance, they're not worth the money.
despite what others have said, they've only just got a UK distributor which is why most of us haven't seen them before and why they're being reviewed by mags/ websites.

Savings in rotational weight are more more noticeable than off the total weight of the bike+/rider. According to the old formula [an Oz off the [EDIT- oops] wheel is like a pound off the bike], 100g saved on wheel will feel like the bike's 1.6kg lighter.

I always buy folding tyres for the same reason.

Try it, try swapping a pair of steel-beaded for a pair of folding tyres [maybe 100g saved], same tread, save pressure etc - try it - you'll be impressed 🙂

So, if you have £40/tube and you want to go faster....

Savings in rotational weight are more more noticeable than off the total weight of the bike+/rider. According to the old formula [an Oz off the frame is like a pound off the bike], 100g saved on wheel will feel like the bike's 1.6kg lighter.

I had this debate with someone on BR last week... on what basis? There's scientific and real world studies out there showing that it makes little difference, and that saving weight is good regardless, targeting it on the wheels doesn't really make much more difference.

Fit those folding tyres, then add the weight saved back onto the bike elsewhere.

16 times more improvement from lighter wheels. No way, that's mental.

I had this debate with someone on BR last week... on what basis? There's scientific and real world studies out there showing that it makes little difference, and that saving weight is good regardless, targeting it on the wheels doesn't really make much more difference. 16 times more improvement. No way.

I dunno, as soon as I went tubeless I noticed a huge difference to how the bike felt. I felt it was a lot more responsive and quick to pick up, and it seemed to skip over rocks/roots, rather than plough through them.
These tubes seem to save as much weight as going tubeless, but without all the faff of sealant! Looks like a winner to me.
A standard £5 mtb tube weighs around 170g, while an Eclipse MTB tube weighs in around 69g, resulting in over 100g an end saved. If you find another way of saving that amount of weight, without spendin several hundred quid, I'd be keen to see it!

As with anything high end, this is aimed at people who want the lightest product on the market- not at average Joe Bloggs who doesn't really care how much his wheels weigh.
As usual, these people are very quick to say "not worth the money" without giving them a chance. Well, no-one's going to force you to buy them. If you do fancy giving them a go, that's how much they cost. I personally like the idea, and will certainly be giving them a shot next time my tyre sealant's due to be changed.

They need a better logo. Maybe I should contact them.
The last thing they look is Swiss!

Well, the estimates of ratios vary, maybe 16* is over egging it

But from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ARolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.ogv

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

you'll see where the weight IS, is extremely important. And weight on the outside of the wheel matters most.

I'm just thinking through the 'ounce on the frame = a pound on the bike' thing... My Powertap wheelset adds about 1.5lbs over my very modest Race X Lites, therefore by fitting the Race X Lites I save the equivalent of 24lbs, so the bike actually weighs -6lbs. If I went for a light set of tubs I could save an additional 1.5lbs, so then it would be like saving 48lbs off the bike, so I'd lose 2 stone.

What a brilliant weight loss concept!

As with anything high end, this is aimed at people who want the lightest product on the market- not at average Joe Bloggs who doesn't really care how much his wheels weigh.

I'm definitely the former, just saying that there's plenty of evidence out there that suggests the benefit comes from saving the weight, not from saving 'rotating' weight specifically. Ie if you can save 200g on your saddle and 100g on your wheels you will go faster with the lighter saddle.

I agree that when I switch wheels on the MTB the bike feels incredibly different, but that doesn't necessarily translate into big speed differences, and I don't know what happens if I use my race wheels and stick some weights on the frame.

Edit: [url= http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/ ]here[/url] is some real world testing (rather than theoretical models), which shows that it doesn't make all that much difference. The lighter bike is 4% faster, but moving that weight to the wheels only makes you another 0.9% slower, which suggests there's about a 20% benefit in saving rotating weight over weight elsewhere, not double, triple or 16 times.

Just sayin...

I dunno, as soon as I went tubeless I noticed a huge difference to how the bike felt.

I wonder how much difference you'd have noticed if somebody told you they'd converted your wheels to tubeless but they'd only actually changed the valve caps...

Actually you might have noticed the difference from going tubeless rather than the weight saving, as that does make a real difference to tyre compliance.

No idea where you got that 16x formula from - not one I've seen anywhere, and doubtless only used by those who are full to bursting with cycling folklore. Did they also suggest you should change your steel frame after a few years because they go soft?

Well, the estimates of ratios vary, maybe 16* is over egging it

No maybe about it. At the very most it's only 2x, and that's only if you only consider the effect upon acceleration to be important - if you're actually bothered about lifting the weight up climbs, then it's only 1x wherever you put the weight.

I'm kinda curious as to how it can improve rolling resistance?! Surely that's down to your tyre?

These sort of products give me hope, if something this utterly overpriced and with marginal benefits can get into production, surely some of my own stupid ideas have a good chance too...

What do I really want from a tube?

I'm most interested in it holding air, not getting holes in it when pinched or poked with pointy object, costing a sensible amount, low weight is far down the list TBH...

The "Lighter than Tubeless" claim is an interesting one, I mean tubeless isn't really about weight saving but this £40 tube would basically replace 2 ounces of Latex sealant in a tyre right?
2 ounces = 56.7 grams, so a lightweight tubeless setup could still deliver similar weight (it's all about tyre selection really)....

Saving an estimated 100g on a couple of tubes is great, but if it's more likely to pick up a flat then where is the real race advantage?

The figures might well be less than 16x, but it's what I have heard from several beardy old racers.

From my own personal experience, it makes much more difference than non-rotating weight. Tubeless has other changes, it's not such a fair experiment.

Just try it, it's easy with tyres as you might well want to buy two versions for training and racing, for example.

Latex Sealant does also slop around and add frictional losses from it's viscous interaction with the inside of the tyre. I have to go now, conducting some experiments actually, scientific and repeatable ones. Maybe I can re-use the method here 🙂

Toodles, I'm off riding [to get there, that is]

it's what I have heard from several beardy old racers.

Exactly who I'd go to for physics advice.

From my own personal experience, it makes much more difference than non-rotating weight

Have you tried changing the valve caps?

I have no valve caps 😉

Maybe you should try putting some on then. You do realise how much a nice smooth valve cap improves the airflow compared to a bare valve? I hear red ones are faster.

Do the same people who think rotational weight is important also think fat tyred bikes in multitubed steel frames are great too. Add the weight of mud flicked up onto your bike and clothing and you still end up heavier anyway (whatever you ride) unless you just ride in the summer on dry dusty trails. I'm not saying who,s right or wrong just wondering thats all. 😕

Even if you can justify the g/£ ratio, surely this is not valid for a consumable part like a tube. How many repairs can these tubes take and each repair must add weight. And who can be arsed patching tubes anyway or be bothered with tubes full stop.

If you've spent £40 on a tube you'll damn well patch it I suspect!

Easier to repair than a tub, perhaps if they're kept for racing use only. As Northwind said they're meant to be a lot tougher than butyl tubes.

They also don't leak for fun like latex tubes.

But no matter how tough they are, they will still puncture, unlike tubeless. Yes I know tubeless can burp or puncture if you slash your tyre but it still will cost you a lot less than £40 to sort out.

Most people won't spend out for an XTR cassette to save less than 100g but plenty who race do and these are the people products like this are aimed at.

I think if you race and don't want the hassle of tubeless then I don't see why you wouldn't consider them. If the claims are true they're a fair bit lighter and more puncture resistant than regular tubes. Compared to buying new wheels or fancy titanium and carbon bits they seem like a relatively cheap way of reducing weight.

thinking about it, the mountain of punctured tubes sitting at the bottom of my cupboard must have a replacement value of £40-60... at £4/5 a pop.
So if they are truly durable (including the blinking weak presta valves) then maybe they are worth a punt if you can never be bothered repairing tubes.

But no matter how tough they are, they will still puncture, unlike tubeless. Yes I know tubeless can burp or puncture if you slash your tyre but it still will cost you a lot less than £40 to sort out.

Tubeless can still puncture, and if you slash your tyre you slash your tyre, you can repair this tube, and you have to replace the tyre regardless. What an odd analogy 😕

Oh no the old rotational weight chestnut is rearing its head, some of you guys need to stop reading internet forums.

You really have to wake up to the fact that when you save weight on a bike of a few hundred grams its make sod all difference, regardless of the weight being on the wheels or grips or tyres etc.

Looks at the weight of the fatty who is riding the bike, even at 70kgs the rider is a much bigger influence on the bike than anything. By a factor of 350 when talking about these tubes.

How many on here could still lose at least 5kgs. Do that before you start spending £40 on a tube just to save weight.

Most sensible rider buy gear on its function and durability not weight.

If you read the thread you'll see that the claims are that these tubes are more durable than butyl. Although that's questionable.

Should someone buy some Halfords £20 wheels rather than Enve carbon ones, because the lighter Enves are not functional or durable? Is lighter never better? Again, I assume your bike weighs 70lbs? Shouldn't have wasted your money on that Cervelo eh? You'd do better to ride an Apollo and stay off the pies.

You're commenting on stuff that you have no idea about, and looking silly.

If you didnt have tubless ready rims and tyres im guessing the cost to swap them to tubless ready would be way more than a set of these tubes?

Well they're hardly likely to tell you they're more delicate than Butyl are they, for £40 I'd be hoping for them to be as near as damnit bulletproof... But they are still rubber tubes, they will inevitably pick up more flats than UST.

I think it comes down to the old "cost benefits" thing, if after spending £80 on two magic inner tubes (Stiil sound ridiculous) you've not actually managed to significantly reduce the likelihood of punctures occuring (and punctures cost far more time in a race than lugging about 200g more rotational mass) then that reduced weight advantage is pretty easily negated by a thorn or two...

UST being 90% (My own estimate) less likely to get a flat in a race looks the more sensible investment then, simply because the rider that gets to the end of a race without having to stop and fix a flat will almost certainly finish first, even if he's had to lug a whopping 200g more around the whole time...

Gambling on reliabilty for marginal weight loss is a Mugs game, "to finish first, first you have to finish" and all that...

I definitely think that if I lost 100g off the tyres/ tubes I'd notice it more than if I left the bag of Haribo in my pocket at home.
IF accelerating/ decelerating a rotating object requires more effort if there is more mass at the edges of the object then it will make a difference as mountain biking requires a lot of accelerating and decelerating of the wheels.

stuff that you have no idea about, and looking silly.

take it easy chief.

But they are still rubber tubes, they will inevitably pick up more flats than UST.

But UST is heavy, people will be prepared to make that trade off, again I'll use the tub analogy - these are half the price of a reasonable tub, and should be more puncture resistant.

But they're an unknown quantity, you can't just say "they're worse than butyl tubes", you don't know! They've been making them for years, so they're obviously on to something! If you read the blurb they're tougher than a DH tube for thorn punctures, which probably makes them more puncture resistant than a lightweight tubeless tyre.

I wouldn't go back to UST again, Stan's conversions are vastly superior IMO.

From
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ARolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.ogv

which is on the right of the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

[as I already stated]

"This final result reveals that the mass and radius of the object are irrelevant, and what determines the rate of acceleration is the geometric distribution of their mass, which is represented by the value of k. Additionally, we observe that objects with larger values of k will accelerate more slowly."

i.e. if you place the same mass on the outside of a wheel as on the body of non-rotating part [or in the very center, pretty much the same] it will have more effect on acceleration.

In other words, the tubes will reduce the F[orce] required to A[ccelerate] the total M[ass] of the bike and ride as the F is F=MA and the A is both the Linear and the Rotational Acceleration. The Rotational acceleration is a function if Rotational Inertia, which has a non-linear relationship with the distribution, and value of,the mass. It is infact GREATER than linear, buy a substantial margin, and so this is why the 100g saved, will reduce the total F required for a given A more in the location in the outside of the wheel/tyre than in the frame/rider/pies.

For my next trick I will prove Black=White and likely get killed on a zebra crossing.

Whatever you say Njee20 as long as it make you happy.

I'd rather buy those tubes than a top end cassette to be honest.

[url= http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=91007&gclid=CKz7iZblx7UCFZDKtAodWUcAAg ]http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=91007&gclid=CKz7iZblx7UCFZDKtAodWUcAAg[/url]

(I love that the 9 speed XT one I use is lighter than that anyway 🙄 )

Depending on where you're riding, tubes can last for years.

As soon as light, expensive components start getting spoken about, every quickly changes the topic to fat people and poo.

Whatever you say Njee20 as long as it make you happy.

It does! But why are you still here? I'm struggling with your useful contribution!?

Love that as soon as light, expensive components start getting spoken about, every quickly changes the topic to fat people and poo.

Indeed, and anything light = fragile and silly!

These [i]could [/i]be a step too far, but equally they could be rather good! IIRC the problems I've heard about are failures on the joins rather than 'normal' punctures.

I definitely think that if I lost 100g off the tyres/ tubes I'd notice it more than if I left the bag of Haribo in my pocket at home.
IF accelerating/ decelerating a rotating object requires more effort if there is more mass at the edges of the object then it will make a difference as mountain biking requires a lot of accelerating and decelerating of the wheels.

That 100g is 0.1% of the mass of a typical rider/bike combo. If it's all at the outer edge of the wheel then taking into account rotational inertia it means you'll accelerate 0.2% faster. I very much doubt you could notice 0.2% difference in acceleration in a proper double blind test (IIRC a difference has to be at least 5% for the average human to be able to detect it).

gofasterstripes - we're not disputing that rotational inertia of your wheels has an effect on how fast your bike accelerates, just that it's not 16x and whether it's actually at all significant.

aracer, not worth the bother, it clear is worth it to some folk. That 0.2% gain just turns you into wiggins. 😆

Hopefully common sense will prevail for the majority. Being STW i dont hold my breath.

So many ways of blowing £40 for far less savings. Titanium anything for a start, QRs/pedal axles/saddle rails/bolts.