michelin tubes.....latex or ultralight?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by encomium, Jan 19, 2007.

  1. encomium

    encomium New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    what's the difference? which is better in terms of performance, comfort and lasting longer?

    thanks again...
     
    Tags:


  2. daveryanwyoming

    daveryanwyoming Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    97
    In general Latex tubes are lighter and some claim they have lower rolling resistance and higher puncture resistance. I haven't seen a good study that backs up the last two claims but lots of folks swear by them. Latex tubes also lose air faster than butyl tubes so you have to pump them up more frequently.

    I used to religiously use latex tubes and talc them well when installing them. They sure seemed to ride nice in a high end clincher but I don't have any science to back that up. These days I use latex or light butyl tubes in racing tires and plain old butyl tubes in everyday tires.

    To be honest I doubt there's that much difference in real world terms, especially after following some of the threads about how insignifigant small weight, even rotating weight, changes really are. A little time over at analyticcycling.com can convince you that the 30 grams or so difference between latex and an average 700x23 butyl tube is meaningless. If you really want to shave the last gram, check out: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=innertubes according to these measurements there are 700c tubes lighter than the latex Michelins out there.
     
  3. bobbyOCR

    bobbyOCR New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want a light tube get conti supersonics at 50g each, thats what I use and they are Butyl. There have been studies, and latex has a lower rolling resistance and 'rides nicely' because it confors with less energy to imperfections. It is a hassle to install and use though, with all the talcing and pumping before every ride.
     
  4. jstock

    jstock New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe I'm just lucky but I've never had any problems installing latex tubes. But I am familiar with the pumping. And they do seem to ride nicer, but of course that could be my imagination (but imagination is powerful...).
    /J
     
  5. Vanquish

    Vanquish New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had a slime tyre in the back because of having a real bad run with punctures, but after switching to Michelin Lithion tyres (they dont seem to be glass magnetic) i havent been having the problem, so a few guys pointed out the poor rolling efficency with these tubes.. so I have pulled them out in favor of a Michelin aircomp ultralight, It will be interesting to see if will be able to feel any difference.
     
  6. dhk2

    dhk2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    39
    Here's a link to tire test data. Most of the readings were taken with latex tubes, but as you move down the listings, you'll see a few tires which were tested with butyl. http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf

    The test description talks about an SRM-equipped bike on TACX rollers. Would be interested in comments as to whether this is a realistic way to evaluate RR, or if at least the relative ratings would apply on real roads.

    Appears in general about a 2 watt savings per wheel from latex. This result surprised me, as that appears to be a noticeable reduction in RR (had thought latex was only for the weight-weenie crowd). Also was surprised at the relatively "poor" showing for GP4000s which are the tires I run. Combining the GP4000s with Bontrager buytl tubes, it's no wonder why I'm struggling to keep up all the time :)
     
Loading...
Loading...