# Light/Latex Tubes - Worth it?



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

I need to answers. 

My experience with them so far is, whenever I install them, I get a flat within 48 hours. 

So far I've used Michelin Latex tubes, Michelin ultralight butyl, and Bontrager Race X Lites butyl tubes. Do any of these "ultralights" tubes last more than a couple days? 

Am I so stupid I don't know how to install tubes? I have two patched tubes in my commuter that I run in rain, gravel, dirt, glass, and whatever else that I haven't changed in over a year. 

Are these tubes so undurable they shouldn't even be bought? Or is there a trick or bad manufacture series or something?


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

They're a money pit in my opinion. 

I've tried most brands of latex tubes, and like you, have gotten flats within a very short time.

I'll stick with black tubes and only fill my water bottle 3/4 full to make up weight difference


----------



## uncle (Dec 27, 2007)

I have used the Michelin A1 Air Comp latex tubes for many years with excellent results. I get fewer flats than my friends who use standard black tubes. 4000 mi. so far in '08 with Campy Shamal rims / Michelin Pro Race tires and only 1 flat. (smacked a chuckhole on a gravel road). 

One nice feature is that they're bright green making them easy to see when tucking them under the tire bead when mounting. 

Tip: Coat them with Johnson's baby powder and even rub some inside your tires before mounting. This keeps them from sticking and grabbing when mounting so they seat nicely and evenly inside the tire.

I find them to be as durable as anything and I ride on an array of road surfaces. And you don't need any special patches or cement. 

In the end, some people just plain have better LUCK avoiding flats than others. Being extra attentive for road hazards helps too.


----------



## JBF (Feb 6, 2002)

*Maxxis flyweight tubes*

I have been using Maxxis flyweight tubes with Vittoria CX clinchers for the last 5+ years with great results. I use lots ot talc so they are free to move around. No problem in 10K miles of riding. I've had more tire related flats than tube related flats over that time.


----------



## unit (Jun 11, 2008)

For gram counters? I do not know if latex is worth it.

For quality of ride, Latex is worth it to *me*. 

I see no difference in flat frequency with latex compared to butyl. I would not expect more or less flats with latex.

Latex has been demonstrated to reduce rolling resistance.

Ultralight butyl tubes are something I have little experience with. What I do know is they are very unforgiving to those who do not use lots of talc when installing tubes.


----------



## andulong (Nov 23, 2006)

I have had terrible luck with any type of lightweight tube. I figure they would be worth it if I could change a flat in under 5 seconds.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*What's proven*



unit said:


> Latex has been demonstrated to reduce rolling resistance.


Except where's it's not. I've looked high and low for definitive studies on this, and for every test that shows lower rolling resistance, there's one that shows no difference or higher rolling resistance. When I see data like that, my first conclusion is that the test parameters must be determining the outcome, not what is being tested. Just saying.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

I prefer them. I rarley get pinch or regular flats with them. My first commute in months on butyl and I get a flat. :cryin: :mad2:

I fell latex tubes give a nicer ride. Just MO and sticking with it.

Make sure they are installed properly and use some baby/talcum powder.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

if you use gold bond, rather than talc, the minty, antiseptic scent makes my tires faster than baby powder


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

10 years ago we used the mountain biking. If you stopped on long, heavy braking decents, you'd have two flats within 30 seconds (V-brakes). These things do not like heat build up from rim brakes.

Save your flat fixing time and go tubeless.


----------



## the rat (Jan 2, 2008)

CleavesF said:


> I need to answers.
> 
> My experience with them so far is, whenever I install them, I get a flat within 48 hours.
> 
> ...


Latex tubes are porous, that is, they have tiny holes throughout. Unfortunately this means they will always lose pressure over time, and pumping them up before each ride is simply something that has to be done. Some say its worth it due to better feel and lighter-weight, but I cant really be bothered. 
At least this means you're not installing them incorrectly.....


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I haven't had a flat yet on the green Michelin tubes. ( I hadn't had a flat in many years BTW, I am careful and look at the road ahead for debris and glass etc )

But they lose air quicker, I have to pump air more often on them than on the standard ones.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I wouldn't place a latex and butyl tube in the same category.


----------



## unit (Jun 11, 2008)

*Sort of a moot point*



Kerry Irons said:


> Except where's it's not. I've looked high and low for definitive studies on this, and for every test that shows lower rolling resistance, there's one that shows no difference or higher rolling resistance. When I see data like that, my first conclusion is that the test parameters must be determining the outcome, not what is being tested. Just saying.


I will grant you a lot on this topic. And when you get right down to it the small reduction in CRR that I find in my testing is hardly significant when you factor in other forms of resistance that dwarf tire CRR (such as aerodynamics).

I would add however that roller data is what it is (perhaps not a good test for real road riding), but if you own a power meter and a set of rollers, you can see for yourself. I was shocked at the difference between latex and butyl (on *rollers*).

Not arguing with you on this at all. I have no doubt that what you say is true. That said, could you PM me with the data sources show higher rolling resistance for latex? For that matter, I would be interested in seeing any data sources you care to share (tires/tubes are a bit of a hobby of mine).

Thanks in advance.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

You should talk a diabolical friend of yours into setting you up on a blind test of latex vs. butyl.



unit said:


> I will grant you a lot on this topic. And when you get right down to it the small reduction in CRR that I find in my testing is hardly significant when you factor in other forms of resistance that dwarf tire CRR (such as aerodynamics).
> 
> I would add however that roller data is what it is (perhaps not a good test for real road riding), but if you own a power meter and a set of rollers, you can see for yourself. I was shocked at the difference between latex and butyl (on *rollers*).
> 
> ...


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

FWIW I have weighed a Michelin Air Comp Latex tube that was advertised at 75g and it tipped the scale at 100g. An ultra-light Bontrager butyl tube tipped the scale at 94g, so I do not consider them particularly "light". I do like the feel however and have had good luck resisting flats.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Kerry Irons said:


> Except where's it's not. I've looked high and low for definitive studies on this, and for every test that shows lower rolling resistance, there's one that shows no difference or higher rolling resistance. When I see data like that, my first conclusion is that the test parameters must be determining the outcome, not what is being tested. Just saying.


AFM and Tour show a significant reduction in rolling resistance with latex... which makes sense considering that butyl has very high hysteresis and latex doesn't. 

What tests have shown no benefit?


----------



## steven ward (Feb 26, 2007)

Beware when descending from altitude.....these innertubes go with a bang when the rims heat up. And i found i was always cheacking the pressure due to them losing air all the time.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

steven ward said:


> Beware when descending from altitude.....these innertubes go with a bang when the rims heat up.


Oh, come on! Is this your personal experience? Never happened to me... or the thousands of other riders who use them. All the good tubies use very thin latex tubes, and that is what most of the pros ride.

I have a feeling that people who report problems with light butyl or latex tubes are getting the tube pinched by the tire bead, and this pops after a short time. Just make sure you install the tube with enough air in it to hold it's shape, then check the bead before inflating all the way.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*No major flat issues.*

I run 'em in race clinchers. They don't feel like they flat a whole ton more than heavier tubes, and they "feel" like they feel nicer in a very supple tire like an open corsa CX.

No reason at all to use them for training / JRA.

I can definitely feel the clunkiness of heavy, thornresistant tubes in training tires compared to regular ones, so I think I'm not just imagining the latex / butyl difference. But, who knows?


----------



## steven ward (Feb 26, 2007)

Oh, come on! Give me credit to be able to put a tyre on without pinching the tube.....Yes this is personal experience and not made up jargon. I'm not stating this will happen to everyone who uses latex tubes i'm just stating beware, it happened to me.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Sources*



rruff said:


> AFM and Tour show a significant reduction in rolling resistance with latex... which makes sense considering that butyl has very high hysteresis and latex doesn't.
> 
> What tests have shown no benefit?


From Bicycle Quarterly Vol. 5 No.1: Tires rolled slightly slower with Michelin's relatively thick latex tubes than with butyl tubes. Other rolldown tests have confirmed this result (www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf). 

Note that these are rolldown tests, not roller tests. I believe that AFM and Tour tests are on drums as well. Real road roughness can significantly impact tire testing, and this is one reason that test results can vary widely. Roller/drum tests may significantly amplify differences (or just amplify noise). If you Google this topic, you'll find few studies, but those studies do conflict. The jury is still out on this topic.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

steven ward said:


> Oh, come on! Give me credit to be able to put a tyre on without pinching the tube.....Yes this is personal experience and not made up jargon. I'm not stating this will happen to everyone who uses latex tubes i'm just stating beware, it happened to me.


The issue is that the tube has no reason to pop unless it's enclosure (tire and rim) has a hole in it. If you put the tube/tire on correctly, then maybe there was a rim tape problem... thin tubes are more susceptible to this.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

The combination of Michelin green latex tubes and Vittoria open corsa evo-CX
tires has a superb road feel and handling and rolls incredibly fast. Inflating the
tires every day is worth the luxury of that ride. If a foreign object is going to
go through the tire and into the tube, I doubt very much a butyl tube would present
a significant barrier any more than latex, once the tire is penetrated.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

rruff said:


> The issue is that the tube has no reason to pop unless it's enclosure (tire and rim) has a hole in it. If you put the tube/tire on correctly, then maybe there was a rim tape problem... thin tubes are more susceptible to this.


I'll be honest here, my latex tube, blew up, as I was taking a dump, and my rear wheel was heating up in the sun at 120 psi. I was reading bike porn monthly, and I heard a loud pop, and I said outloud: "hale no." 

Lo-and-behold. Rear was flat. I took the tube and tire off out, looked for punctures, nothing. The latex tube had a big hole, ~2mm in diameter. I have no clue why it popped.

I had ridden it just prior to taking my dump for ~25 miles.


----------



## unit (Jun 11, 2008)

CleavesF said:


> I'll be honest here, my latex tube, blew up, as I was taking a dump, and my rear wheel was heating up in the sun at 120 psi. I was reading bike porn monthly, and I heard a loud pop, and I said outloud: "hale no."
> 
> Lo-and-behold. Rear was flat. I took the tube and tire off out, looked for punctures, nothing. The latex tube had a big hole, ~2mm in diameter. I have no clue why it popped.
> 
> I had ridden it just prior to taking my dump for ~25 miles.


You took a dump for 25 miles!?

Seriously though. What tires were on your bike while you were dumping? Have you reinstalled them with some other tubes since this incident?

That does sound pretty strange though. From the story you tell, I was expecting a shredded tube consistent with a tire blow off.

I have heard of some really strange holes in the Michelin PR3s that are about the size you mention.


----------



## steven ward (Feb 26, 2007)

Thank you.....beware those latex tubes.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I ride latex tubes and carbon bars and frame. I like livin' on the edge baby. I just know any minute my bike will spontaneously flat and grenade in one fail swoop. Shush...Listen ... tick, tick, tick...it's gonna blow!!!!


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*I totally aree. .*



DIRT BOY said:


> I prefer them. I rarley get pinch or regular flats with them. My first commute in months on butyl and I get a flat. :cryin: :mad2:
> 
> I fell latex tubes give a nicer ride. Just MO and sticking with it.


I've been running Michelin latex tubes for a number of years, and I reflect exactly what you are saying. No problem with flats and IMO there is a significant difference in how the tire "feels" the road, meaning I get better feedback from the road with latex.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

I use the Performance brand butyl lightweight tubes which are a true 75g. No difference in flat frequency over regular 100g tubes. Note however that most will agree the super ultralights that come in at 50-60g are the ones to avoid.


----------



## jmlapoint (Sep 4, 2008)

I tried the latex tubes as well as the ultra light butyl tubes and seemed to get more flats with very little improvement, in my opinion, in function/performance.
I now use only Michelin AirComp A1 smooth stem butyl tubes that weigh 75-77 gms and have had minimal flats with no loss in performance.
I also use talcum powder to install tubes at home.


----------



## tanhalt (Nov 9, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> From Bicycle Quarterly Vol. 5 No.1: Tires rolled slightly slower with Michelin's relatively thick latex tubes than with butyl tubes. Other rolldown tests have confirmed this result (www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf).
> 
> Note that these are rolldown tests, not roller tests. I believe that AFM and Tour tests are on drums as well. Real road roughness can significantly impact tire testing, and this is one reason that test results can vary widely. Roller/drum tests may significantly amplify differences (or just amplify noise). If you Google this topic, you'll find few studies, but those studies do conflict. The jury is still out on this topic.


Kerry...care to comment on the possible confounding factors of those BQ rolldown "experiments"?

Oh yeah, what material property of tires/tubes would change the hysteresis losses based on whether the continuous flexing of the contact patch is either of constant amplitude (i.e. smooth rollers) or varying amplitude (i.e. rough surface)?

Time to get your head out of the sand...


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Here we go again*



tanhalt said:


> Kerry...care to comment on the possible confounding factors of those BQ rolldown "experiments"?
> 
> Oh yeah, what material property of tires/tubes would change the hysteresis losses based on whether the continuous flexing of the contact patch is either of constant amplitude (i.e. smooth rollers) or varying amplitude (i.e. rough surface)?
> 
> Time to get your head out of the sand.


Look, we've had this conversation before. You have all kinds of reasons why you don't believe the BQ data, but you never address your concerns to them. I am not a tire testing expert, and theoretically arguments about why things "should" be one way or another are sometimes interesting but don't offer much insight in light of data to the contrary.

If you want to think I have my head in the sand, that's fine. I'm just reporting some of the data that are out there. You can find conflicting information in several sources. The key things I take away from these discussions are that it is very hard to generate good data and that road tests appear to not confirm roller tests. You can argue with me all you like, but as I have said before, you need to take these issues up with BQ, and apparently you choose not to do that. Res ipsa loquitur.


----------



## tanhalt (Nov 9, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> Look, we've had this conversation before. You have all kinds of reasons why you don't believe the BQ data, but you never address your concerns to them. I am not a tire testing expert, and theoretically arguments about why things "should" be one way or another are sometimes interesting but don't offer much insight in light of data to the contrary.
> 
> If you want to think I have my head in the sand, that's fine. I'm just reporting some of the data that are out there. You can find conflicting information in several sources. The key things I take away from these discussions are that it is very hard to generate good data and that road tests appear to not confirm roller tests. You can argue with me all you like, but as I have said before, you need to take these issues up with BQ, and apparently you choose not to do that. Res ipsa loquitur.


The fact that there are one or two sources of data out there conflicting with the KNOWN rolling resistance reduction of latex tubes (in a high quality tire) says more about the methods of data collection in those rare cases than anything about the rolling resistance.

The advantages of latex tubes can be easily MEASURED by ANYONE with a power meter by either hopping on a set of rollers or doing a simple hillclimb test. You claim there's no "definitive test" out there...so, again, get your head out of the sand and grab a powermeter and check it for yourself. Until you do so, stop spreading the misinformation that because some people don't know how to make the measurements properly, that there isn't a difference. Road tests DO confirm roller tests. I've done it myself on numerous occasions and so have others. In this modern day of mobile power meters, it's really not that difficult.

I have no reason to personally take issue with the BQ folks. I've looked at their methods and results and I understand the possible pitfalls of their technique and I've taken the results in the proper context. That's something you might want to consider before using it again as "proof" of whether or not latex giving a Crr advantage over butyl has been demonstrated or not.


----------



## unit (Jun 11, 2008)

Kerry Irons said:


> From Bicycle Quarterly Vol. 5 No.1: Tires rolled slightly slower with Michelin's relatively thick latex tubes than with butyl tubes. Other rolldown tests have confirmed this result (www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf).
> 
> Note that these are rolldown tests, not roller tests. I believe that AFM and Tour tests are on drums as well. Real road roughness can significantly impact tire testing, and this is one reason that test results can vary widely. Roller/drum tests may significantly amplify differences (or just amplify noise). If you Google this topic, you'll find few studies, but those studies do conflict. The jury is still out on this topic.


Sorry to jump in again...

That link does not seem to work. I am very interested in reviewing these tests and results being discussed. I find it really easy to believe that roller data and road data would show different results (perhaps differences are magnified on rollers since CRR is a large component of resistance on the rollers, but a smaller component on the road where factors related to wind resistance/CDA are large compared to tire CRR), but I can not rationalize in my head how they could conflict one another.

May be I am wrong (It has certainly happened before), but I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what I could be missing.


----------



## tanhalt (Nov 9, 2005)

unit said:


> Sorry to jump in again...
> 
> That link does not seem to work. I am very interested in reviewing these tests and results being discussed. I find it really easy to believe that roller data and road data would show different results (perhaps differences are magnified on rollers since CRR is a large component of resistance on the rollers, but a smaller component on the road where factors related to wind resistance/CDA are large compared to tire CRR), but I can not rationalize in my head how they could conflict one another.
> 
> May be I am wrong (It has certainly happened before), but I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what I could be missing.


No...you're not missing anything. Absolute magnitudes of Crr (and thus the differences) are magnified on rollers as compared to a flat surface in proportion to the roller size. This is a well documented fact (and follows analytic evaluations based on "first principles") and is because for a given pressure and wheel loading, the deflection in the contact patch is greater on a curved surface than on a flat. That's why I like to refer to rollers as "Crr amplifiers". Although the magnitudes are greater, the percent differences observed on the rollers are the same percent differences one would observe on a flat surface. In other words, if a tire/tube combination is 20% lower Crr on a roller, that same tire/tube combo would be 20% lower Crr on a flat surface of similar surface roughness.


----------



## unit (Jun 11, 2008)

tanhalt said:


> if a tire/tube combination is 20% lower Crr on a roller, that same tire/tube combo would be 20% lower Crr on a flat surface of similar surface roughness.


That is the way I understood it also.

You seem to be familiar with the tests that Kerry Irons mentions. Do you have any links, or references I might review? Thanks for any information you might provide.

I especially like the term "CRR amplifier". I was having a discussion the other day attempting to explain my findings regarding rollers and that terminology would have saved me a bunch of talking.


----------



## tanhalt (Nov 9, 2005)

unit said:


> That is the way I understood it also.
> 
> You seem to be familiar with the tests that Kerry Irons mentions. Do you have any links, or references I might review? Thanks for any information you might provide.


Yes I'm familiar with the test...I actually have a copy of the BQ issue with that test in it. Unfortunately, I don't think that info is directly available anywhere on the 'net. However, I do recall that there was quite a bit of discussion about it, including the publisher, on the usenet group rec.bicycles.tech. Do a search there on "Bicycle Quartely" and "rolling resistance" and I'm sure you'll get WAY more than you bargained for...



unit said:


> I especially like the term "CRR amplifier". I was having a discussion the other day attempting to explain my findings regarding rollers and that terminology would have saved me a bunch of talking.


Yes...I came up with that one at a time I was trying to convince a long-time tubular using friend to switch his race wheels from tubular to clincher. Since he didn't have a power meter, I just told him to get on his rollers with his Conti clad tubular wheels and then with his training wheels with some Vittoria Open Corsas and latex tubes. The effort difference between those 2 options was "amplified" greatly on the rollers and it didn't take much to convince him to give the clinchers a shot...he now races on clincher wheels. :thumbsup:


----------

