Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • even lighter than tubeless……..
  • Rorschach
    Free Member

    25g lighter and 5 times the price of continental supersonics….hmmmmm.

    oxym0r0n
    Full Member

    Looks like April 1st joke!

    BearBack
    Free Member

    There is presumbaly some room for technological innovation in inner tubes.. they’ve always been rubber.

    ‘Gentlemans riding coats’ have been through huge innovation, why not inner tubes!

    mtbmatt
    Free Member

    25g lighter and 5 times the price of continental supersonics….hmmmmm.

    Except one is supposed to be more puncture resistant than a heavy butyl tube, the other explodes just by looking at it.

    Keen to try one.

    PiknMix
    Free Member

    £49 per tube? Is that actually for real?

    packer
    Free Member

    cheaper than converting to tubeless!

    Rorschach
    Free Member

    1 litre of art latex,£10
    2 24″ innertubes £10
    1 roll double sided tape £3
    Total tubeless cost £23. 😀

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Rorschach – Member

    1 litre of art latex,£10
    2 24″ innertubes £10
    1 roll double sided tape £3
    Total tubeless cost £23.

    Plus the cost of the other inner tubes you need to carry around in case you have a puncture. 🙂

    Rorschach
    Free Member

    Which you still have to carry even if you run toobs!
    Tubeless fight

    kimbers
    Full Member

    pricey now but there will be an on one/ superstar copy along soon…..

    zilog6128
    Full Member

    The weight saving vs cost over tubes is well over the £1/g ratio that people often talk about so in that sense they are actually good value for weenies.

    They are also lighter than tubeless and potentially a lot less faff. So the only drawback is actually the cost (although I spent more than that going tubeless!)

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    pricey now but there will be an on one/ superstar copy along soon…..

    At that price they must have a patent!

    At £98/pair I can’t see the point, OK it’s under £1/gram when compared to ‘normal’ ~150g tubes, but only just. And unless you run thinner tyres than you would otherwise have done I reckon gheto tubelss is probably lighter. With maxxis high rollers (so not tubeless tyres) I added 25g of tape, 50g of sealent and the valve must be about 5g? So it’s only 10g lighter than something I know doesn’t puncture. Ok so you save more over a tubeless tyre, but plenty of ranges now only have tubeless ready tyres (bontranger, schwalbe, specialized).

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    would be interested to see a report but I am not paying that to find out ho good they are

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Yeah, same here, will be watching for more reviews and hopefully price drops. Most of my bikes are fine on tubeless but impervium tubes for the dh bike would be worth a little extra.

    bwaarp
    Free Member

    If I went to some non-tlr Bonrager XR4’s and these I could knock almost 1 lb of rotating weight off my all-mountain bike if they are resistant to flats and don’t burp like lightweight tubeless setups do or pinch flat.

    WANT.

    The price is a bit dear though.

    With maxxis high rollers (so not tubeless tyres) I added 25g of tape, 50g of sealent and the valve must be about 5g?

    Stans setup? My High Roller 2.35’s didn’t inflate very well, squirmed and burped. Not only that, I wouldn’t like to use a light single-ply tubeless setup near sharp rocks – stopping to put a tube slashed tyre is irritating beyond belief especially when the ghetto setup took you ages to setup in the first place. I rather like the idea of this.

    mudshark
    Free Member
    zilog6128
    Full Member

    The price is a bit dear though.

    Is it? What cheaper way is there to get almost half a kilo of weight off? (part from iDiet!!)

    mafiafish
    Free Member

    cheaper than converting to tubeless!

    £100 per bike? Seems a fair bit pricier to me.

    bwaarp
    Free Member

    Tubeless is a pain in the arse for all-mountain/dh – for all mountain tyre’s if you don’t want to burp and run UST tyres you save no weight at all and for downhill although tubeless does save weight because the UST dual ply’s are no heavier…they still arn’t quite as reliable as a good old heavier tube + dual ply on the rear and a lighter tube at the front.

    Tubeless has benefits – lower tyres pressures and less rolling resistance – not weight unless you go ghetto.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Is it? What cheaper way is there to get almost half a kilo of weight off? (part from iDiet!!)

    Just swapping tyres? The tubes are only ~100g lighter than half decent normal tubes for the pair.

    bwaarp
    Free Member

    Ok so my next wheel setup is going to be a set of Syntace MX35’s (35mm wide tyre’s at 1600 grams for the set)….600 gram Bonty XR4’s and these tubes.

    That way with the uber wide rims I’ll get less squirm from the single plys and will hopefully be able to run stupidly low pressures with these tubes and save a bit of weight over normal tubes!

    Oh yes, I’ll be the space monkey for you guys.

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)

The topic ‘even lighter than tubeless……..’ is closed to new replies.