Michelin innertubes worth the price?



B

Bruce W.1

Guest
Michelin makes a latex innertube, for slightly more than double the
price of a generic innertube.

Is it worth it? It's thinner, lighter, more flexible and all that. But
is it any more puncture resistant than a plain old rubber innertube?
Would one stand less of a chance of getting a flat with this innertube?

Thanks for your help.
 
K

Kenny Lee

Guest
Bruce W.1 wrote:
> Michelin makes a latex innertube, for slightly more than double the
> price of a generic innertube.
>
> Is it worth it? It's thinner, lighter, more flexible and all that. But
> is it any more puncture resistant than a plain old rubber innertube?
> Would one stand less of a chance of getting a flat with this innertube?
>
> Thanks for your help.


I bought some only because I got a good deal on them. They puncture just
as easily as the butyl types but are lighter and sexier. I only use them
for race events that don't last more than 5 hours. After 5 hours or so
you may notice your tires going a little low on pressure. That's because
they leak air faster due to their thinness. You also have to pump them
up each ride day. And if you ride everyday that gets pretty crummy
especially at 6 in the morning. FWIW, I like them and think they have
less rolling resistance than when using the butyl tubes. OTOH, it may
all be in my head.

Kenny Lee
 
S

sittingduck

Guest
Kenny Lee wrote:

> Bruce W.1 wrote:
>> Michelin makes a latex innertube, for slightly more than double the
>> price of a generic innertube.
>>
>> Is it worth it? It's thinner, lighter, more flexible and all that. But
>> is it any more puncture resistant than a plain old rubber innertube?
>> Would one stand less of a chance of getting a flat with this innertube?
>>
>> Thanks for your help.

>
> I bought some only because I got a good deal on them. They puncture just
> as easily as the butyl types but are lighter and sexier. I only use them
> for race events that don't last more than 5 hours. After 5 hours or so
> you may notice your tires going a little low on pressure. That's because
> they leak air faster due to their thinness. You also have to pump them
> up each ride day. And if you ride everyday that gets pretty crummy
> especially at 6 in the morning. FWIW, I like them and think they have
> less rolling resistance than when using the butyl tubes. OTOH, it may
> all be in my head.
>
> Kenny Lee
>


The weight difference is 1.3 ounces between a normal 26x1.75 tube and the
Michelin latex. (5.82 and 4.52) The price difference is around 16 dollars.
($18 and $2.16)
While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight, I
can't really see one ounce making a whole lot of difference. Might try em
anyway though.




--
6/12/2004
12:41 AM [GMT-8]
 
B

Bert L.

Guest
"sittingduck" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
> Kenny Lee wrote:
>
> > Bruce W.1 wrote:
> >> Michelin makes a latex innertube, for slightly more than double the
> >> price of a generic innertube.
> >>
> >> Is it worth it? It's thinner, lighter, more flexible and all that.

But
> >> is it any more puncture resistant than a plain old rubber innertube?
> >> Would one stand less of a chance of getting a flat with this innertube?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your help.

> >
> > I bought some only because I got a good deal on them. They puncture just
> > as easily as the butyl types but are lighter and sexier. I only use them
> > for race events that don't last more than 5 hours. After 5 hours or so
> > you may notice your tires going a little low on pressure. That's because
> > they leak air faster due to their thinness. You also have to pump them
> > up each ride day. And if you ride everyday that gets pretty crummy
> > especially at 6 in the morning. FWIW, I like them and think they have
> > less rolling resistance than when using the butyl tubes. OTOH, it may
> > all be in my head.
> >
> > Kenny Lee
> >

>
> The weight difference is 1.3 ounces between a normal 26x1.75 tube and the
> Michelin latex. (5.82 and 4.52) The price difference is around 16 dollars.
> ($18 and $2.16)
> While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight, I
> can't really see one ounce making a whole lot of difference. Might try em
> anyway though.
>
>
>


the puncture resistance seems to be about equal, but for some reason it is
easier to get a snake bite with butyl tires.

Bert L.
 
A

Arthur Harris

Guest
"sittingduck" wrote:
> While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight


Oh really? Could you quantify that "MUCH higher penalty"?

Art Harris
 
L

Larry Fieman

Guest
"Bruce W.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Michelin makes a latex innertube, for slightly more than double the
> price of a generic innertube.
>
> Is it worth it? It's thinner, lighter, more flexible and all that. But
> is it any more puncture resistant than a plain old rubber innertube?
> Would one stand less of a chance of getting a flat with this innertube?
>
> Thanks for your help.


Bruce,
There is no performance advantage with a lighter weight inner tube. Try a
google search of the archives for "rotating weight" and "bicycle" -- to
debunk the myth.

Regards,
Larry
 
W

WooGoogle

Guest
"Bruce W.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Michelin makes a latex innertube, for slightly more than double the
> price of a generic innertube.
>
> Is it worth it? It's thinner, lighter, more flexible and all that. But
> is it any more puncture resistant than a plain old rubber innertube?
> Would one stand less of a chance of getting a flat with this innertube?
>
> Thanks for your help.


Not unless latex technology has improved a lot in the last ten years.
I used a few way back and they tended to just disintegrate when you
finally did get a flat. Airing up your tires all the time was a pain,
too. I also tried tubulars with latex inner tubes and those stank and
flatted more easily.
 
J

Jeff Starr

Guest
Kenny Lee <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I bought some only because I got a good deal on them. They puncture just
> as easily as the butyl types but are lighter and sexier. I only use them
> for race events that don't last more than 5 hours. After 5 hours or so
> you may notice your tires going a little low on pressure. That's because
> they leak air faster due to their thinness. You also have to pump them
> up each ride day. And if you ride everyday that gets pretty crummy
> especially at 6 in the morning. FWIW, I like them and think they have
> less rolling resistance than when using the butyl tubes. OTOH, it may
> all be in my head.
>
> Kenny Lee


> I like them and think they have

less rolling resistance than when using the butyl tubes. <

Hi, why do you think this is possible and how can you tell?

Even with tires, I find that there are way too many variables to
determine changes in rolling resistance, with any certainty.
I should clarify, I am sure that there are riders with the experience
to judge these things with reasonable accuracy, but I doubt that most
of us have that level of experience.

Life is Good!
Jeff
 
A

Alex Rodriguez

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>Michelin makes a latex innertube, for slightly more than double the
>price of a generic innertube.
>Is it worth it? It's thinner, lighter, more flexible and all that.


If you don't mind having to pump up your wheels for every ride and you don't
mind paying extra, then yes. Otherwise no.

>But
>is it any more puncture resistant than a plain old rubber innertube?
>Would one stand less of a chance of getting a flat with this innertube?


In my limited experience, about 2 years riding latex tubes, they don't
puncture any less than regular tubes. They do loose air much slower.
Sometimes it is hard to tell if the air loss is due to a puncture or just
the natural loss of air that latex tubes experience. I got tired of pumping
up my tires for every ride, so I put regular butyl tubes back on the bike.
I noticed no difference except that I could get out of the house faster.
-------------
Alex
 
Z

Zog The Undeniable

Guest
Larry Fieman wrote:

> There is no performance advantage with a lighter weight inner tube. Try a
> google search of the archives for "rotating weight" and "bicycle" -- to
> debunk the myth.


There is an advantage when you accelerate, unless Newtonian physics has
changed...
 
S

SMMB

Guest
"Jeff Starr" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]
> Kenny Lee <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > I bought some only because I got a good deal on them. They puncture just
> > as easily as the butyl types but are lighter and sexier. I only use them
> > for race events that don't last more than 5 hours. After 5 hours or so
> > you may notice your tires going a little low on pressure. That's because
> > they leak air faster due to their thinness. You also have to pump them
> > up each ride day. And if you ride everyday that gets pretty crummy
> > especially at 6 in the morning. FWIW, I like them and think they have
> > less rolling resistance than when using the butyl tubes. OTOH, it may
> > all be in my head.
> >
> > Kenny Lee

>
> > I like them and think they have

> less rolling resistance than when using the butyl tubes. <
>
> Hi, why do you think this is possible and how can you tell?
>
> Even with tires, I find that there are way too many variables to
> determine changes in rolling resistance, with any certainty.
> I should clarify, I am sure that there are riders with the experience
> to judge these things with reasonable accuracy, but I doubt that most
> of us have that level of experience.


Experience, some, and expertise, definitely not. However, with thousands of
(mindless) loops of the Longchamp training circuit, I find that latex is
more comfortable at the same inflation ; allows for even lower than usual
inflation with no loss in speed ; is less responsive to steering inputs at
equal inflation ; results in faster lap times, at equal inflation. But it
does require daily pumping to start at the same pressure as the day before,
or in the evening from the morning. I also end up with fewer flats over a
long time (just invoked the jinx, I guess !). I tend to use latex only when
I can find a very low price, as the differences are not enormously large,
since I now only do cyclosportives (longer events, demanding comfort more
than knife-edge performance). Half a bar less on butyl pressure, and you
get very close to latex.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR
 
H

H

Guest
Arthur Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

> "sittingduck" wrote:
> > While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight

>
> Oh really? Could you quantify that "MUCH higher penalty"?
>


If the weight is along the tire it takes twice as much energy to get it
going under acceleration (basic physics). In other words saving one
ounce on the inner tube will "feel" the same as adding 2ounces to the
frame in terms of inertia (resistance to acceleration), Same goes for
braking.

At a steady pace, rotating weight is the same as fixed weight as all
your energy goes into drag, friction and climbing and non into
acceleration.

H
 
B

Bruce W.1

Guest
I appreciate all the input. I've decided, for my purposes, to use plain
old rubber innertubes. You see I'm trying to put together a bulletproof
wheel. I consider durability to be more important than feather weight.

FYI, the new tires are Michelin Carbon.

If I was racing I'd probably go with the Michelin innertubes, but I'd
also have a support team. 8^)
 
J

Jeff Starr

Guest
"SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Experience, some, and expertise, definitely not. However, with thousands of
> (mindless) loops of the Longchamp training circuit, I find that latex is
> more comfortable at the same inflation ; allows for even lower than usual
> inflation with no loss in speed ; is less responsive to steering inputs at
> equal inflation ; results in faster lap times, at equal inflation. But it
> does require daily pumping to start at the same pressure as the day before,
> or in the evening from the morning. I also end up with fewer flats over a
> long time (just invoked the jinx, I guess !). I tend to use latex only when
> I can find a very low price, as the differences are not enormously large,
> since I now only do cyclosportives (longer events, demanding comfort more
> than knife-edge performance). Half a bar less on butyl pressure, and you
> get very close to latex.


Hi, thanks for the reply, I'm curious about a few things. What is the
distance of the Longchamp training circuit? And, when you say,
"results in faster lap times, at equal inflation", how much faster?

For the kind of riding I do, I need durability over speed. I suppose
if I was commuting and rode daily, no matter what, then daily
inflation, might be bothersome. But, as a recreational rider, one who
tries to ride daily, weather and season permitting, I check and top
off my tires before every ride. I seem to lose a few pounds a day,
whether I am using Conti Race Light 76g tubes or whatever the current
brand of 100+g, 700 x 18-25 tubes that my LBS is selling[Kenda,
Bontrager,?]. I do notice ride differences, as far as bumps go, with
different inflation, but not speed differences.
I seldom get flats and I believe it is partially due to riding in
known areas, but also because of my vigilance with pressure and
regular inspection. More than once, I have found something, a piece of
wire,a shard of glass, that left in would most likely have resulted in
a flat.

I think as an enthusiast, I see inflation as part of my pre ride
preparations.

Life is Good!
Jeff
 
S

SMMB

Guest
"Jeff Starr" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]
> "SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...

> What is the distance of the Longchamp training circuit?


3.65 km

> And, when you say,
> "results in faster lap times, at equal inflation", how much faster?


Well, typical mindless training (not cmpeting) laps on mild, not windy days
= 32-34 with butyl, and 34-37 with latex. But I'm old and fat !!
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR
 
F

Francesco Devittori

Guest
SMMB wrote:
> "Jeff Starr" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]
>
>>"SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
>>What is the distance of the Longchamp training circuit?

>
>
> 3.65 km
>
>
>>And, when you say,
>>"results in faster lap times, at equal inflation", how much faster?

>
>
> Well, typical mindless training (not cmpeting) laps on mild, not windy days
> = 32-34 with butyl, and 34-37 with latex. But I'm old and fat !!


sorry for the stupid question, 32-34 means km/h? I'm a bit tired...

Francesco
 
Z

ZeeExSixAre

Guest
Arthur Harris wrote:
> "sittingduck" wrote:
>> While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame
>> weight

>
> Oh really? Could you quantify that "MUCH higher penalty"?
>
> Art Harris


I believe it's the second moment of inertia... look it up.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
 
Z

ZeeExSixAre

Guest
> I bought some only because I got a good deal on them. They puncture
> just as easily as the butyl types but are lighter and sexier.


As well they should be... they're just one big long endless condom!

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
 
D

David Damerell

Guest
sittingduck <[email protected]> wrote:
>While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight,


"Much" higher in the sense of making no difference at steady speeds on the
flat, a factor of less than two under acceleration, and counting exactly
the same as frame weight on ascents, that is.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
 
T

Thomas Reynolds

Guest
[email protected] (H) wrote in message news:<1gf9zdu.191oqzs159kq2cN%[email protected]>...
> Arthur Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "sittingduck" wrote:
> > > While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight

> >
> > Oh really? Could you quantify that "MUCH higher penalty"?
> >

>
> If the weight is along the tire it takes twice as much energy to get it
> going under acceleration (basic physics). In other words saving one
> ounce on the inner tube will "feel" the same as adding 2ounces to the
> frame in terms of inertia (resistance to acceleration), Same goes for
> braking.
>
> At a steady pace, rotating weight is the same as fixed weight as all
> your energy goes into drag, friction and climbing and non into
> acceleration.
>

A long discussion in this forum a couple of years ago pushed the
conclusion that, while your statement is technically correct, the
amount of acceleration on a bike is very small and the different
moments of inertia between different tires/wheels is also very small.
As a result, the extra rotating weight makes no practical difference.
The extra weight is best considered just static weight.

A google search may dig up these threads. Or you may be able to
demonstrate it yourself at analyticcycling.com.

Tom