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

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

> 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
7:41 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

> > 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

> 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 Undenia

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...
 
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 Devit

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
> I bought some only because I got a good deal on them. They
> puncture

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

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
 
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
 
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
 
D

David Damerell

Guest
Thomas Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (H) wrote :
>>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).
>A long discussion in this forum a couple of years ago
>pushed the conclusion that, while your statement is
>technically correct,

Not even that, since of course the weight of an inner tube
is not on the very outer circumference of the wheel.

[I suppose you could argue that the statement is correct but
irrelevant.]
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?