Road Cycling - Ultra Lite Tubes Does it Really Matter

Do ultralight tubes make a difference? Example regular
performance 117g vs Michelin Ultralight at 70 gms for
a net saving of 94g for both wheels. You are supposed
to get the most benifit from saving rolling weight but
will it just be canceled by having flats more often?

I don't really see the tube causing a greater amount of flats. Once glass, metal, etc. gets past the outer tire layer, I don't think any tube (aside from those really heavy slime ones or whatever) is going to prevent a flat. I'm running Performance Lunar Light Butyl tubes and haven't had a flat in 800 miles (only had them on for 800 miles, so I can't say anything about longer lengths of time.)

My regular tubes are only like,80g.

The weight savings of a lightweight tube are maybe not the most in the amount of grams saved. But, those grams are in the most important place you can save them. People bay big $$$ to lighten a wheel set.

If you are into racing every gram can count. Otherwise get the heavier/cheaper tubes!
70 grams is like 2 1/2 ounces and every ounce of rotating weight (like on your wheels) is the equivalent of taking twice that amount (or 5 ounces in this case) off the weight of your frame.
Does that really matter to you? Is it cost effective? Will you be faster?
Hey, you control the purse strings; you decide!

I don't think lightweight tubes flat any easier than standard tubes but they will lose (seep) air a little quicker.

Also need to be alot more carefull when putting them on.

Also need to be alot more carefull when putting them on.

We're still talking about latex bicycle innertubes right? :D

I use ultralight 65grm tubes from Specialize and don't have any problems except you need to fill them with air more often. As one poster said, once an object gets pass the tire no tube is going to stop it. BUT if you use tire liners then don't use the ultralight thin tubes because the liners have a tendancy to rub against the tube and eventually rub a hole in the thinner tube. ALSO do not use the Slime tube on a road bike, they do not seal leaks above 60-65psi and when they leak they leak green crap all over the inside of your rim and tire.

i have conti race lite tubes on both wheels. ive only had one flat ever.

The lower the mass of the tubes the lower the polar moment of inertia to accelerate the wheels. It's not about the weight.
Larry

Should have said not about weight alone

Larry

http://www.rickdenney.com/october_1999.htm

Another one of those "is a lighter bike a better bike" articles -- talks a bit about rotational mass, etc

I bought Continental Supersonics, mainly because the thinness of them made it much easier to mount my 20mm tires. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized I'd made a 130g weight saving on both wheels (Conti 55g each, IRC 120g each).

No probs here with my 70g Michelin tubes.

In the Masters races I've run a lot of people run clinchers. I've seen many explosive flats and then heard the rider say he/she was running some sort of "unobtanium" light weight tube. Not for me thank you. I'd rather just try to loose some fat.

Rotating mass isnt rotating much when your on the side of the road fixing flats or going to your 2nd ot 3rd tube at your house because they tear so easy. Regular tubes for me thanks.

Well, to take an extreme example, I had done a little fully loaded touring. A fully loaded bike then can easily weigh 60+ lbs or over 3 times that of a normal bike. That sort of extra weight really affects acceleration and climbing. But once you get up to speed, it really is not that much harder to maintain it. Of course, accelerating up to the speed is tough so you seldom get up to high speeds in fully loaded touring (except in downhills).

I really do not think that 100 grams plus or minus is really going to have a noticeable effect on performance. Having the latest technology and a well known pricey bike does impress people at the local rides though. But I have been in many fast groups and the fast rider is often the guy on one of the cheapest machines. Conditioning and talent are far more important then the minor effects that you get from a decent bike to a superlative one. Let me put it another way. If you could chose, which would you go with Lance Armstrong's cycling ability and power on an entry level road bike or you ability and power on the finest bike made by humans?

Now professional racers go with expensive bikes for good reason. In the Tour de France, 30 seconds (.5 min) often will make the difference between a place or three and given the fact that the duration of the race (on the bike) is something like 100 hours or 6000 minute that means a difference of .01% can mean the difference in standings. A great bike costs what? $5000? That is cheap compared to the cost of paying a pro athelete and his support into the Tour de France. So even if the effect of the bike is really small, well it makes sense to pay that price at that level.

Does it make sense to pay that price for very small performance advantage in a club ride where ability and training levels usually vary much more then the effect of the bike? I don't think so, but apparantly other people vary on this one.

Of course, there are other reasons then performance to buy a top bike. They are beautiful and often are works of art. They impress your friends. Shoot they can make you feel good. If any of those matter to you, then having a top level bike can well be worth it. It is a heck of a lot cheaper and healthier then a fancy car.

Well, to take an extreme example, I had done a little fully loaded touring. A fully loaded bike then can easily weigh 60+ lbs or over 3 times that of a normal bike. That sort of extra weight really affects acceleration and climbing. But once you get up to speed, it really is not that much harder to maintain it. Of course, accelerating up to the speed is tough so you seldom get up to high speeds in fully loaded touring (except in downhills).

I really do not think that 100 grams plus or minus is really going to have a noticeable effect on performance. Having the latest technology and a well known pricey bike does impress people at the local rides though. But I have been in many fast groups and the fast rider is often the guy on one of the cheapest machines. Conditioning and talent are far more important then the minor effects that you get from a decent bike to a superlative one. Let me put it another way. If you could chose, which would you go with Lance Armstrong's cycling ability and power on an entry level road bike or you ability and power on the finest bike made by humans?

Now professional racers go with expensive bikes for good reason. In the Tour de France, 30 seconds (.5 min) often will make the difference between a place or three and given the fact that the duration of the race (on the bike) is something like 100 hours or 6000 minute that means a difference of .01% can mean the difference in standings. A great bike costs what? $5000? That is cheap compared to the cost of paying a pro athelete and his support into the Tour de France. So even if the effect of the bike is really small, well it makes sense to pay that price at that level.

Does it make sense to pay that price for very small performance advantage in a club ride where ability and training levels usually vary much more then the effect of the bike? I don't think so, but apparantly other people vary on this one.

Of course, there are other reasons then performance to buy a top bike. They are beautiful and often are works of art. They impress your friends. Shoot they can make you feel good. If any of those matter to you, then having a top level bike can well be worth it. It is a heck of a lot cheaper and healthier then a fancy car.

Gee,we were talking about regular vs light tubes and you went off on pricey bikes like we all ride them or something. At 60 pounds of course 100g wont make a difference but under normal riding,you bet 100g for each wheel,even to a slug like me will make a difference. 200g is what, just under a half pound so figure turning an extra 200g 90 times a minute for 3 hours and i think you can see it could it might be a factor how you end that 3 hour ride or make it up that last hill.

The year I tried lite tubes I went from pumping up every couple of weeks to pumping every ride. For a racer every gram counts. For me, every convenience counts.

Do ultralight tubes make a difference? Example regular
performance 117g vs Michelin Ultralight at 70 gms for
a net saving of 94g for both wheels. You are supposed
to get the most benifit from saving rolling weight but
will it just be canceled by having flats more often?

What kind of riding do you do?

Think of it as another way to ask the lightweight rim vs. deep section aero rim question. If you're doing a flat time trial, aero is better even if it weighs more. The extra weight, once you get it up to speed acts as a flywheel to help you maintain that speed. If you're raceing criteriums and sprinting out of every corner, reducing your wheel weight by even a tiny amount would be a good thing.

Lots of people seem to think there has to be one "best" that fits everybody. That's hardly ever true.