# Latex tube?



## evs (Feb 18, 2004)

On my clinchers, are latex tubes really worth it? Tubes are twice as much as regular rubber. What about latex vs butyl? I heard latex was pretty cool but never tried them. Also I heard they lose air quick. don't mind paying extra if it's really worth it. Any info on them would be greatly appreciated. TIA

evs (looking to ride on air  

ps Don't say put helium in my tubes. I tried it and had a Hindenburg experience lol  joking.....like I even have to say that


----------



## JSWhaler (Nov 25, 2009)

The ride is a little bit nicer, but not enough for the cost IMO. Also when you do flat, you can't really patch them and yes, you'll be pumping them pre every ride. I'd stick with butyl.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Defining worth*



evs said:


> On my clinchers, are latex tubes really worth it? Tubes are twice as much as regular rubber. What about latex vs butyl? I heard latex was pretty cool but never tried them. Also I heard they lose air quick. don't mind paying extra if it's really worth it. Any info on them would be greatly appreciated. TIA
> 
> evs (looking to ride on air
> 
> ps Don't say put helium in my tubes. I tried it and had a Hindenburg experience lol  joking.....like I even have to say that


Some will claim reduced rolling resistance but if there is any (open to debate) it is something on the order of a few seconds per hour. This is important if you are racing time trials and the outcome is important. Otherwise, not so much.

Regards "the ride" of latex tubes, tire design will have a MUCH greater impact than tube choice. Again, some people can perceive significant improvements with latex while others cannot. Perhaps a version of the Princess and the Pea, but it's pretty hard to prove anything on this topic.

What do you mean "about latex vs butyl"? Those are your only two choices in practice.

RE: the Hindenburg. That was hydrogen. Helium is an inert gas. It can form plasmas under extreme conditions. See also: nuclear fusion.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

use 50g inner tubes. they have the same feel as latex. Talc the tubes no matter what you use. Keep in mind latex has the tendence to find flaws in the rim/rim strip setup and get punctured as a result.


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

*Huh?!*



JSWhaler said:


> The ride is a little bit nicer, but not enough for the cost IMO. Also when you do flat, you can't really patch them and yes, you'll be pumping them pre every ride. I'd stick with butyl.


I've had punctures with latex innertubes, they patched up just fine.


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

cmg said:


> use 50g inner tubes. they have the same feel as latex. Talc the tubes no matter what you use. Keep in mind latex has the tendence to find flaws in the rim/rim srip setup and get punctured as a result.


I've found this to be the case personally, as well. They do seem to pick out flaws in the rim, and fail upon installation as a result. Also, I learned the importance of heavy talc use for mounting them (I use something with corn starch, but that's just me). I had an exploding tube from being pinched, but the same thing happened with butyl tubes inside the tires I used. (Veloflex tires tend to be very grippy on the inside), in both cases it was user error. One thing I will say that seems to be an advantage of latex tubes is that, where an exploding butyl tube will render the tube useless, as the rupture runs a long length, when latex tubes explode the rupture tends to remain quite localized, so [at least in my experience] I've been able to repair a fully ruptured latex tube with an oversized/'extra large' patch. YMMV


----------



## Ironbutt (Nov 30, 2001)

*Latex tubes*

The latex tube debate has gone on for years on this forum. There are those who swear by them and those who swear at them. I have used them for years; I got used to latex tubes when the only decent tires available were sew-ups and they all had latex tubes. I have been able to patch the latex tubes successfully when they flatted, but I don’t get many flats. I ride on fairly decent roads, try to ride lightly, and am a bit of a maintenance freak so I check my tires carefully and frequently for anything imbedded in the tread that could eventually cause a puncture. As far as rolling resistance or ride is concerned, it’s how they feel to you; truly empirical data is almost impossible to generate in a real world riding situation. If latex tubes feel good to you and they are worth the extra cost, use them. If they don’t feel any better or if the difference isn’t worth the cost, don’t use them. Just ride and be happy you’re riding.


----------



## evs (Feb 18, 2004)

Just ride and be happy you’re riding. 


IHEEYA on that one. Thnaks for all the replies. I try to ride light so I might give them a try and bring a regular spare tube with me just in case.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Helium would leak through your tube really fast, latex or otherwise. You'd probably have to "air-up" every half hour.

Here's what Schwalbe says about latex vs butyl: Tire Tube | Schwalbe North America


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

I bought some Michelin latex tubes at Ribble on a lark and used them in a bike I was building up. I don't feel any magical difference. Then again, they're the only tubes I've ever run in this wheel set. There's a big negative IMO -- they lose air really fast. Most of my riding is commuting. With a butyl tube, I can get by for a couple days without topping off the tires. That's kind of nice since I drive to a trail and prefer to leave my bike in the car at night when I commute on consecutive days. If I ride the bike with latex tubes, I have to top them off every day. They lose that much air. For that reason alone, I won't replace them when they go.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Latex for the races here. Lowers rolling resistance*, and also gives a more supple ride than standard butyl.

Worth noting that Hutchinson now have latex as sealing layer on their tubeless tires. The first two generations were butyl. 

*Independent rolling resistance tests show significanly lower resistance with latex.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

JSWhaler said:


> Also when you do flat, you can't really patch them


They are very easy to patch.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

fwiw, I'm currently paying $0.90 / cu ft for breathing-grade helium.

daily top-ups might get expensive over the course of a year.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Jun 20, 2006)

JSWhaler said:


> Also when you do flat, you can't really patch them


Sure you can, no problem with Rema patches.


----------



## AM999 (Jan 22, 2007)

kbwh said:


> Latex for the races here. Lowers rolling resistance*, and also gives a more supple ride than standard butyl.
> 
> Worth noting that Hutchinson now have latex as sealing layer on their tubeless tires. The first two generations were butyl.
> 
> *Independent rolling resistance tests show significanly lower resistance with latex.


A latex inner tube will save you ~ 30 sec in a 1 hour time trial which can be very significant if you race but very insignificant otherwise. Handling, cornering, ride quality might be better with latex but that's a subjective judgment kinda thing IMO.

Interesting that Hutchinson is now using latex as the inner sealing layer. The IRC Top Secret was previously the only tubeless tire to use natural rubber (latex) and it's Crr on par with the best clinchers coupled with a latex tube. IRC tubeless tires using butyl rubber inner sealing layers rolled much worse. I did a test (longer story) using a Top Secret with a light weight Specialized butyl tube in it - the Crr was ~ 25% higher.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Testing*



kbwh said:


> *Independent rolling resistance tests show significanly lower resistance with latex.


While other independent tests (Bicycle Quarterly magazine) show no difference. The problem with tire rolling resistance tests is that they are done on smooth rollers. This does not represent the road because both the smoothness and the contact angle are different on the road. Significantly lower rolling resistance would, to most people, suggest something that would be meaningful in everyday riding. The most optimistic numbers I have ever seen suggest saving 30 seconds in 25 miles.


----------



## AM999 (Jan 22, 2007)

Kerry Irons said:


> While other independent tests (Bicycle Quarterly magazine) show no difference. The problem with tire rolling resistance tests is that they are done on smooth rollers. This does not represent the road because both the smoothness and the contact angle are different on the road. Significantly lower rolling resistance would, to most people, suggest something that would be meaningful in everyday riding. The most optimistic numbers I have ever seen suggest saving 30 seconds in 25 miles.


But the measurement error bands in the BQ tests are larger than the differences in the data points as we have discussed many times before. Roller tests can be corrected from the small diameter rollers to a flat surface using methods outlined in the book "Bicycling Science." Additionally field testing using the Chung method have shown that the smooth roller results have the same slope as real road testing when comparing different tire pressures. Those results documented over on Slow Twitch by Tom Anhalt indicate an optimum pressure of ~ 120 psig IIRC for a bike and rider weighing ~ 200 lbs to achieve a minimum Crr on a very good road surface. The data also indicate that it is much better to be slightly under that optimum pressure than over because of the slope of Crr vs. pressure. The difference can be significant in the racing world - 30 sec can and has been the difference between on and off the medal podium at the Olympic Games.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

Buy a few latex tubes, ride them and see for yourself.

I used to ride latex, but eventually gave them up for regular butyl tubes. I didn't feel the difference in cost was worth it. But, to each his own.

The only way you will truly know is to try it for yourself. Asking others on a forum will only get you so far. People tend to exaggerate the performance benefits/disadvantages on most components to make a point.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

I've ordered a pair and will resurrect this thread when I can report my findings.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

Couple things I noticed over the years when using Latex:
1.) Try not to use tire levers when you put the tire back on the rim with the latex tube. The tubes pinch easy. So use your hands only and make sure the tube is not pinched under the tire.
2.) Use talc or baby powder on your latex tubes. It helps them move around inside the tire.
3.)Lastly, check your rim tape and make sure it is perfect. Latex are less forgiving than butyl about edges of spoke holes showing through, or a rough seem on the valve stem area of the rim.

Nothing like the loud sound of a latex tube flatting if you get it trapped under a tire. Sounds like a shotgun going off.


----------



## AM999 (Jan 22, 2007)

nightfend said:


> Couple things I noticed over the years when using Latex:
> 1.) Try not to use tire levers when you put the tire back on the rim with the latex tube. The tubes pinch easy. So use your hands only and make sure the tube is not pinched under the tire.
> 2.) Use talc or baby powder on your latex tubes. It helps them move around inside the tire.
> 3.)Lastly, check your rim tape and make sure it is perfect. Latex are less forgiving than butyl about edges of spoke holes showing through, or a rough seem on the valve stem area of the rim.
> ...


Good points - latex is very supple and will "flow" into any small crevice available (such as a small gap between an off center rim strip and spoke access hole). What I and many others do after installing a tire and latex tube is to pump ~ 5 psig into the latex tube and then go around each side of the tire pushing in the bead to make sure that the latex tuve is not trapped/pinched between the bead and the rim. It only takes a minute but can save you $15.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

I just ordered a pair of Vredestein Fortezza Tri Comps and decided to try latex tubes also. Lets see how they compare to my Michelin Pro 3 Race with butyl tubes. :skep:


----------



## AM999 (Jan 22, 2007)

redondoaveb said:


> I just ordered a pair of Vredestein Fortezza Tri Comps and decided to try latex tubes also. Lets see how they compare to my Michelin Pro 3 Race with butyl tubes. :skep:


But you are changing 2 things at the same time. What do you want to achieve by making the switch from the Pro Race 3 to the Tri Comp ?? OK to just want to try out the Vreds. FWIW the Crr of the Pro Race 3 with butyl tube is very close to the Tri Comp with latex tube. The ride, durability, and handling will depend on the tire. I don't know how to quantify those performance parameters although Tour Magazine has published some data on selected tires.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

AM999 said:


> But you are changing 2 things at the same time. What do you want to achieve by making the switch from the Pro Race 3 to the Tri Comp ?? OK to just want to try out the Vreds. FWIW the Crr of the Pro Race 3 with butyl tube is very close to the Tri Comp with latex tube. The ride, durability, and handling will depend on the tire. I don't know how to quantify those performance parameters although Tour Magazine has published some data on selected tires.


Pro 3's are all I have ridden on since I started road biking about a year ago, just wanted to try a different tire. Heard positives and negatives on latex tubes, thought I would give them a try also.

Easy enough to switch back if they don't work out. :thumbsup:


----------



## Mark Kelly (Oct 27, 2009)

+1 for being able to patch latex, I've had precisely one puncture in latex and it patched no problems.

That one puncture was my fault (missed the bead on install). Other than this they appear to be less prone to puncture than butyl in my setup (A23 rims, Conti 4000s tyres, veloplugs, 600 - 650 kPa). My experience, YMMV yada yada.


----------



## AM999 (Jan 22, 2007)

redondoaveb said:


> Pro 3's are all I have ridden on since I started road biking about a year ago, just wanted to try a different tire. Heard positives and negatives on latex tubes, thought I would give them a try also.
> 
> Easy enough to switch back if they don't work out. :thumbsup:


No problem with trying different things out. That's some of the fun of cycling. 

The Tri Comps are nice tires - I have one on my road bike now. I think the tire will mask the tube effect unless you first try the latex tube in the Pro Race 3 or switch tubes in the Tri Comps. If you don't race (against the clock) latex tubes are arguably not worth the extra $ but some claim a better ride. I train on heavy duty clinchers with heavy duty butyl tubes but race time trials on latex tubed tubular tires.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> While other independent tests (Bicycle Quarterly magazine) show no difference. The problem with tire rolling resistance tests is that they are done on smooth rollers. This does not represent the road because both the smoothness and the contact angle are different on the road. Significantly lower rolling resistance would, to most people, suggest something that would be meaningful in everyday riding. The most optimistic numbers I have ever seen suggest saving 30 seconds in 25 miles.


That's 2 minutes in 160 km, or somewhat fresher legs towards the end of those typical big double paceline races we do. You're proving my point.


----------



## P911 (May 31, 2011)

hmm...nice topic


----------

