RoadLight

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.

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