Inner Tube Size vs. Weight and Durability
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Inner Tube Size vs. Weight and Durability
I've got 700x28 wheels, and am looking for spare inner tubes. I'm looking at ones that range from 25-32mm, and ones that range from 28-47mm.
I assume the ones rated for up to 47mm will be slightly thicker, and therefore should protect against flats more than the smaller one (assuming use in a 28mm tire).
Will the added weight from the slightly heavier tube be noticeable, either during acceleration or braking? I'm not riding at breakneck speeds here, but I'm working up my Strava leaderboards...
I assume the ones rated for up to 47mm will be slightly thicker, and therefore should protect against flats more than the smaller one (assuming use in a 28mm tire).
Will the added weight from the slightly heavier tube be noticeable, either during acceleration or braking? I'm not riding at breakneck speeds here, but I'm working up my Strava leaderboards...
Last edited by TheAsterix; 09-29-16 at 01:17 AM. Reason: units
#2
Senior Member
"cc"?
Do you mean "c"? A 700c tire is one where the tire's bead has a 622mm diameter. The "28" (and the other 2-digit numbers) refer to the inflated width of the tire, in millimeters.
A 28-47mm tube isn't thicker-walled than a 25-32mm tube, it's just a wider tube made for wider tires. Since your 28mm tire is within the spec of the 28-47mm tube you could probably make it work just fine, but personally I'd recommend erring on the small side; tubes that are well-matched or a little too small are easier to mount than tubes that are too big.
If you want to achieve puncture resistance through inner tubes, the course of action would be to get puncture-resistant tubes and put tubeless sealant into them. Note that this would add some weight to your wheels and probably slightly worsen rolling resistance.
Other options for reducing punctures:
1-Puncture-resistant tires.
2-Puncture-resistant tire insert.
3-Tubeless conversion.
4-Using extremely wide tires at moderately low PSI.
Do you mean "c"? A 700c tire is one where the tire's bead has a 622mm diameter. The "28" (and the other 2-digit numbers) refer to the inflated width of the tire, in millimeters.
A 28-47mm tube isn't thicker-walled than a 25-32mm tube, it's just a wider tube made for wider tires. Since your 28mm tire is within the spec of the 28-47mm tube you could probably make it work just fine, but personally I'd recommend erring on the small side; tubes that are well-matched or a little too small are easier to mount than tubes that are too big.
If you want to achieve puncture resistance through inner tubes, the course of action would be to get puncture-resistant tubes and put tubeless sealant into them. Note that this would add some weight to your wheels and probably slightly worsen rolling resistance.
Other options for reducing punctures:
1-Puncture-resistant tires.
2-Puncture-resistant tire insert.
3-Tubeless conversion.
4-Using extremely wide tires at moderately low PSI.
Last edited by HTupolev; 09-29-16 at 01:04 AM.
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ah, thanks for clearing the units up.
Well, with the wall being the same thickness, if you have a smaller tube inflated to the same size as a slightly larger tube, the smaller one will be stretched more thinly than the larger tube -- probably making it easier to pop.
A balloon comes to mind; the more air you put in, the easier it is to pop it with a pencil.
Well, with the wall being the same thickness, if you have a smaller tube inflated to the same size as a slightly larger tube, the smaller one will be stretched more thinly than the larger tube -- probably making it easier to pop.
A balloon comes to mind; the more air you put in, the easier it is to pop it with a pencil.
#4
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 44,804
Bikes: everywhere
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12636 Post(s)
Liked 7,528 Times
in
3,989 Posts
I often put 23-25 tubes in 28mm tyres.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
OP, not exactly. You could be right, but so is HTupoley. Combining a tube with the smallest tire for which it is speced will make mounting extremely difficult. There will be so much excess, you will have a devil of a time cramming all the tube into the tire. And when you are done, some of the tube may be folded up on itself inside the tire. Also tubes for bigger tires are generally heavier with thicker walls than tubes for smaller tires. This is because larger tires are generally used for rougher terrain and weight is not usually an issue with larger tires. After all theybare not intended for lightweight road racing bikes. If you mount your tires properly and ride the right way, you shouldn't have much of a puncture problem even with light tubes. I strongly recommend you use the SMALLEST tube speced for your tires, not the largest.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 947
Bikes: 2011 Trek FX 7.3 | 2015 Trek FX 7.4 | Lotus Classique
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times
in
16 Posts
I bought 2 bontrager xxx race lite tubes for the new 25mm tires I put on my hybrid trek fx 7.4. Both of the tubes popped while trying to install them!!!!!
I think for lighter weight, durability will take a big hit. It depends on what you value most. For me, I couldn't believe both got damaged while installing them. I have installed tubes over the years and this has never happened before!!!!
This is probably the reason they were (and still are) on sale on the trek site.
I wound up buying two new regular bontrager tubes and installed them without issue! Yes they're heavier but I know for a fact they will last much longer than the thinner performance ones.
Fwiw.
I think for lighter weight, durability will take a big hit. It depends on what you value most. For me, I couldn't believe both got damaged while installing them. I have installed tubes over the years and this has never happened before!!!!
This is probably the reason they were (and still are) on sale on the trek site.
I wound up buying two new regular bontrager tubes and installed them without issue! Yes they're heavier but I know for a fact they will last much longer than the thinner performance ones.
Fwiw.
#8
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times
in
1,369 Posts
I don't think tube thickness has a whole lot to do with puncture resistance. Once the thing is through that thick tire, it's going through the tube. I run 19-26 tubes in tires which measure 32mm all the time. Works fine.
It's true that there are faulty tubes out there, but I've seen about as many heavier ones as lighter ones. Usually it's a seam failure.
And I don't like tubes which make it difficult to get the tire on either.
It's true that there are faulty tubes out there, but I've seen about as many heavier ones as lighter ones. Usually it's a seam failure.
And I don't like tubes which make it difficult to get the tire on either.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for all the input -- I suppose it probably makes sense to go with the smaller ones then, and look into using the larger ones only if there seems to be a good reason to.
#10
post-ironic
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 802
Bikes: CAAD 12, Lemond Maillot Jaune
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Yeah I switched to the ultralight (~65 g) butyl tubes. No difference in punctures, though they lose more air overnight.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sin City, Nevada
Posts: 2,879
Bikes: Catrike 700, Greenspeed GTO trike, , Linear LWB recumbent, Haluzak Horizon SWB recumbent, Balance 450 MTB, Cannondale SM800 Beast of the East
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 521 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 227 Times
in
179 Posts
It is a heck of a lot easier to get the tube in the tire and the tire back on the rim if the tube is the right size or slightly smaller. For example I use 700C X 23 for the rear wheel on my trike. I've purchased two different brand tubes in the past. One is marked 700C X 19-23 and the other 700C X 23-25. Both are the "correct" tube for my tire but the smaller one is quite a bit easier to install. It wouldn't seem like much difference but it is. In the future I will only order 700C X 19-23.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
The bigger ones seem to hold air better than the smaller ones, especially light-weight smaller ones.
I'd rather have the smaller range, even though I could live with harder to put in I am convinced that I can feel a difference riding with the thicker heavy tubes. It might be just the extra rubber bending rather than the weight itself, but regardless the lighter tubes seem to feel better.
I'd rather have the smaller range, even though I could live with harder to put in I am convinced that I can feel a difference riding with the thicker heavy tubes. It might be just the extra rubber bending rather than the weight itself, but regardless the lighter tubes seem to feel better.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I've got 700x28 wheels, and am looking for spare inner tubes. I'm looking at ones that range from 25-32mm, and ones that range from 28-47mm.
I assume the ones rated for up to 47mm will be slightly thicker, and therefore should protect against flats more than the smaller one (assuming use in a 28mm tire).
Will the added weight from the slightly heavier tube be noticeable, either during acceleration or braking? I'm not riding at breakneck speeds here, but I'm working up my Strava leaderboards...
I assume the ones rated for up to 47mm will be slightly thicker, and therefore should protect against flats more than the smaller one (assuming use in a 28mm tire).
Will the added weight from the slightly heavier tube be noticeable, either during acceleration or braking? I'm not riding at breakneck speeds here, but I'm working up my Strava leaderboards...
I'd go with the 25-32 mm tubes. This is the road bike subforum and it's difficult to imagine a 28-47 mm tube for a road bike. Cyclo-cross, gravel or mountain bike sounds more likely.
However, a deeper consideration of your question depends on your goals, the kind of riding you do, the kind of road surfaces you ride on, and the tires you use. My perspective is that of a long-distance endurance road cyclist and I ride on asphalt roads in mostly-good condition over rolling hills (most of the hills are low). However, because of the distance that I ride, which can place me many miles away from help, flat tires are a major consideration. There are several ways I can go:
1 - Use an armored tire and a light tube. In this case, the tire provides all the puncture protection. For example, Continental Gatorskin tires with Continental Race 28 tubes. For best quality and lightest weight, use the folding tire version (it's handmade in Germany---the cheaper steel bead non-folding version is made in China). The disadvantage is that the best armored tires (the Gatorskins are always near the top of puncture resistance tests) will usually have mediocre rolling resistance. This is a compromise that I'm usually willing to make and I typically get 3,000 to 4,000 miles per rear tire and double that for the front tire with no more than one or two punctures per tire during their lifespan. The punctures are usually from small wire fragments left on the road by truck tire steel belts that shred when a truck tire blows. These little wires are as stiff as piano wire and extremely sharp---almost nothing stops them and they are virtually impossible to see on the road.
2 - Use a non-armored tire with a heavier puncture-resistant tube (the tire and tube combine to provide mediocre puncture protection). I don't like this option. The only time I use puncture resistant tubes is when I cannot get good quality puncture resistant tires. For example, there are no really good puncture-resistant tires for the small wheels of my bicycle cart so I use thick thorn-resistant tubes for it.
3 - Use a non-armored tire and a tube with internal sealant. I hate messing with messy sealants---that's why I also don't use tubeless tires on my road bikes---pinch flats never happen to me because of the care I take when installing new tubes/tires and because of the high pressure I'm required to use and because the sealant makes changing a tubeless tire a major mess. Plus, the sealant has a limited lifespan before it begins to coagulate in the tube/tire and throws off the balance of your wheel as well as diminishes its effectiveness at sealing punctures. But to be fair, some cyclists don't mind the mess and they value the self-sealing nature of this setup highly (its been a godsend for mountain bikes due to their lower tire pressure and higher risk of pinch flats). But for road use---I avoid sealants except in emergencies.
Of the three options above, I usually find that Option 1 provides the lightest weight. Is this important? It depends on your terrain and cycling goals. If you want to accelerate fast (I do) and you climb hills (I climb a few small ones every ride) then keeping the wheels as light as possible (within your budget) can save you several watts of power. This means you can accelerate a little faster and climb hills with a little less effort compared to heavier wheels. But if you mostly ride flat terrain or have lots of downhills without having to return uphill, then the minor weight savings doesn't amount to much.
Except for sprinting and hill-climbing, the weight of the bike doesn't matter as much as you would think. The biggest impediment to your forward motion is resistance---not weight. The biggest resistance you face (75% usually) is wind resistance. The rest is mostly rolling resistance (which is primarily the rolling resistance of the tires against the pavement). Weight comes after that---except for sprinting and hill-climbing where weight can overshadow resistance (unless you are travelling at high speeds). However, the weight of the wheel is the most significant location. So, if you need to reduce your weight, if you can reduce the wheel weight, it will have a bigger positive effect (one possible exception would be reducing your body weight if your current body weight is adversely affecting your athletic performance on the bike).
But what if puncture resistance is less important to you than speed? Then you might consider Option 4 below. I'm very tempted to go this direction and my switch to it in the near future.
4 - Use an armored racing tire with a light tube. Like Option 1, the tire provides all of the puncture resistance but, because it is a racing tire, the puncture resistance will be less in order for the tire to have a low rolling resistance, improved cornering traction and lighter weight. For example, Continental Grand Prix 4000 S II tires with Continental Race 28 tubes. These tires will have above-average puncture resistance but it won't be as good as the Gatorskins. But they are among the fastest tires with respectfully low rolling resistance and light weight. You can lower the rolling resistance further with latex tubes but I don't recommend them because they are much more fragile and do not hold air as well which means your tire pressure will slowly fall during a long endurance ride (latex rubber has a higher permeability to air than butyl rubber).
Finally, I would not worry about braking. The weight of the tires and tubes should have no noticeable affect on braking. Rather, the tire/tube quality that will usually have the biggest effect on braking is the tire's traction. In this case, a racing tire will usually be best for braking because it will be formulated with rubber compounds that offer better traction. Don't be deceived by the tread---often the best traction on smooth roads in both dry and wet weather comes from tires with smooth or nearly smooth rubber. They may have a little tread along the edges to help bite when cornering but that may be all.
Kind regards, RoadLight
#16
Senior Member
I think the lightweight ~70g butyl tubes are apt to fail next to the stem valve because of the movement caused by regular maintenance inflation. Has anyone else noticed this? To me they're not worth it. I use medium weight tubes now like the misnamed super light Q tubes which run ~100g
Last edited by Clem von Jones; 10-01-16 at 02:44 PM.
#17
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hi TheAsterix,
I'd go with the 25-32 mm tubes. This is the road bike subforum and it's difficult to imagine a 28-47 mm tube for a road bike. Cyclo-cross, gravel or mountain bike sounds more likely.
However, a deeper consideration of your question depends on your goals, the kind of riding you do, the kind of road surfaces you ride on, and the tires you use. My perspective is that of a long-distance endurance road cyclist and I ride on asphalt roads in mostly-good condition over rolling hills (most of the hills are low). However, because of the distance that I ride, which can place me many miles away from help, flat tires are a major consideration. There are several ways I can go:
1 - Use an armored tire and a light tube. In this case, the tire provides all the puncture protection. For example, Continental Gatorskin tires with Continental Race 28 tubes. For best quality and lightest weight, use the folding tire version (it's handmade in Germany---the cheaper steel bead non-folding version is made in China). The disadvantage is that the best armored tires (the Gatorskins are always near the top of puncture resistance tests) will usually have mediocre rolling resistance. This is a compromise that I'm usually willing to make and I typically get 3,000 to 4,000 miles per rear tire and double that for the front tire with no more than one or two punctures per tire during their lifespan. The punctures are usually from small wire fragments left on the road by truck tire steel belts that shred when a truck tire blows. These little wires are as stiff as piano wire and extremely sharp---almost nothing stops them and they are virtually impossible to see on the road.
...
4 - Use an armored racing tire with a light tube. Like Option 1, the tire provides all of the puncture resistance but, because it is a racing tire, the puncture resistance will be less in order for the tire to have a low rolling resistance, improved cornering traction and lighter weight. For example, Continental Grand Prix 4000 S II tires with Continental Race 28 tubes. These tires will have above-average puncture resistance but it won't be as good as the Gatorskins. But they are among the fastest tires with respectfully low rolling resistance and light weight. You can lower the rolling resistance further with latex tubes but I don't recommend them because they are much more fragile and do not hold air as well which means your tire pressure will slowly fall during a long endurance ride (latex rubber has a higher permeability to air than butyl rubber).
Finally, I would not worry about braking. The weight of the tires and tubes should have no noticeable affect on braking. Rather, the tire/tube quality that will usually have the biggest effect on braking is the tire's traction. In this case, a racing tire will usually be best for braking because it will be formulated with rubber compounds that offer better traction. Don't be deceived by the tread---often the best traction on smooth roads in both dry and wet weather comes from tires with smooth or nearly smooth rubber. They may have a little tread along the edges to help bite when cornering but that may be all.
Kind regards, RoadLight
I'd go with the 25-32 mm tubes. This is the road bike subforum and it's difficult to imagine a 28-47 mm tube for a road bike. Cyclo-cross, gravel or mountain bike sounds more likely.
However, a deeper consideration of your question depends on your goals, the kind of riding you do, the kind of road surfaces you ride on, and the tires you use. My perspective is that of a long-distance endurance road cyclist and I ride on asphalt roads in mostly-good condition over rolling hills (most of the hills are low). However, because of the distance that I ride, which can place me many miles away from help, flat tires are a major consideration. There are several ways I can go:
1 - Use an armored tire and a light tube. In this case, the tire provides all the puncture protection. For example, Continental Gatorskin tires with Continental Race 28 tubes. For best quality and lightest weight, use the folding tire version (it's handmade in Germany---the cheaper steel bead non-folding version is made in China). The disadvantage is that the best armored tires (the Gatorskins are always near the top of puncture resistance tests) will usually have mediocre rolling resistance. This is a compromise that I'm usually willing to make and I typically get 3,000 to 4,000 miles per rear tire and double that for the front tire with no more than one or two punctures per tire during their lifespan. The punctures are usually from small wire fragments left on the road by truck tire steel belts that shred when a truck tire blows. These little wires are as stiff as piano wire and extremely sharp---almost nothing stops them and they are virtually impossible to see on the road.
...
4 - Use an armored racing tire with a light tube. Like Option 1, the tire provides all of the puncture resistance but, because it is a racing tire, the puncture resistance will be less in order for the tire to have a low rolling resistance, improved cornering traction and lighter weight. For example, Continental Grand Prix 4000 S II tires with Continental Race 28 tubes. These tires will have above-average puncture resistance but it won't be as good as the Gatorskins. But they are among the fastest tires with respectfully low rolling resistance and light weight. You can lower the rolling resistance further with latex tubes but I don't recommend them because they are much more fragile and do not hold air as well which means your tire pressure will slowly fall during a long endurance ride (latex rubber has a higher permeability to air than butyl rubber).
Finally, I would not worry about braking. The weight of the tires and tubes should have no noticeable affect on braking. Rather, the tire/tube quality that will usually have the biggest effect on braking is the tire's traction. In this case, a racing tire will usually be best for braking because it will be formulated with rubber compounds that offer better traction. Don't be deceived by the tread---often the best traction on smooth roads in both dry and wet weather comes from tires with smooth or nearly smooth rubber. They may have a little tread along the edges to help bite when cornering but that may be all.
Kind regards, RoadLight
I went with the smaller tubes, but when I replace tires, either (1) or (4) sound like good options -- I'll to look into the Gatorskins and the Grand Prix when it's time for tire replacements.
#18
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times
in
127 Posts
Ah, thanks for clearing the units up.
Well, with the wall being the same thickness, if you have a smaller tube inflated to the same size as a slightly larger tube, the smaller one will be stretched more thinly than the larger tube -- probably making it easier to pop.
A balloon comes to mind; the more air you put in, the easier it is to pop it with a pencil.
Well, with the wall being the same thickness, if you have a smaller tube inflated to the same size as a slightly larger tube, the smaller one will be stretched more thinly than the larger tube -- probably making it easier to pop.
A balloon comes to mind; the more air you put in, the easier it is to pop it with a pencil.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times
in
3,338 Posts
There are some things like those radial tire wires that will penetrate thin or thick tubes alike.
Other things like glass shards seem to barely scratch the surface of the tube, and might take longer to work through a thick tube than a thin tube.
I've started going for the largest tube that is rated for the tire. The reason is that I believe a small stretched tube opens up holes more, and one gets faster leaks. The larger tube would be less likely to open up as much, and one is more likely to get a slow leak, and sometimes one can ride home on the leaky tire/tube.
Other things like glass shards seem to barely scratch the surface of the tube, and might take longer to work through a thick tube than a thin tube.
I've started going for the largest tube that is rated for the tire. The reason is that I believe a small stretched tube opens up holes more, and one gets faster leaks. The larger tube would be less likely to open up as much, and one is more likely to get a slow leak, and sometimes one can ride home on the leaky tire/tube.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked 1,197 Times
in
758 Posts
I always use a tube one size "smaller" than the tire. They're lighter and easier to install. I've never found them to be less durable - every flat I've ever had involves something that punctures the tire first - which is much thicker and tougher than even the most heavy duty tube.
I usually choose the "light" or "extra light" version of the tube too.
So for a 28mm tire, I'd get a tube labeled something like 21-25 rather than the two options you mentioned.
I usually choose the "light" or "extra light" version of the tube too.
So for a 28mm tire, I'd get a tube labeled something like 21-25 rather than the two options you mentioned.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
prairiepedaler
General Cycling Discussion
7
11-20-16 02:26 PM