You aren't going to notice a difference in speed. I can't tell the difference in ride quality either (air pressure makes a far bigger difference).

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

What size tire and pressure do you normally run? I personally feel latex really shines with a lower pressure. Regardless of “feel” there’s plenty of research showing the advantages of latex (Silca comes to mind).

Usually 23mm 100psi. I couldn’t really fit 25’s in my rear brake (Felt B10). I’ve read tons of research. But everything I’ve read has been lab based. So I’m not so sure it actually makes that big a difference in the wild. I HAVE noticed differences in speed and comfort by changing tires. Or helmets. Even different kits. None of it was in a controlled environment but I tried to even out the data through using Strava segments and repeated use seeing if there were trends.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Did you really expect you would be able to feel a difference of 3-4 watts lower rolling resistance? You've got to trust the data, not your spidey senses.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

That’s just it there was no difference in velocity. Nothing consistent anyway, sometimes I was faster in butyle. Also I don’t have a PM so I cant really measure watts. Going forward latex is going to be more for special occasions. A races such as IM, AG Nats, maybe world’s if I do aquabike and take the back door in. But for local races and training not worth the hassle for me. Just wondering if I’m alone in that feeling.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

yeah, you're not going to notice that difference unless you can correlate power to velocity, and also control for other factors.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Is your testing method precise enough to detect changes on the order of a twentieth or a tenth of a mph? Careful coastdown testing could do it, but usually not just eyeballing Strava speed data across multiple like-for-like-ish rides.

Anyway, the biggest benefit of latex is the superior acoustics.

No but you're kind of proving my point. I said overrated and not worth it. Not that the advantage doesn't exist. For example if I traded out my Synth for my A2 and did a like for like there's a clear benefit, same if I put on my way too old Pearl Izumi PRO tri jersey and shorts. The one with all the ripples. It always ends up just being a little bit faster. It's pretty consistent too. Same with switching from a slow set of training tires such as Vitttoria Zaffario (came on the bike lasted FOREVER) vs my (older version) Attack Force combo.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Yeah, you go ahead and keep on using butyl tubes. You ain't going to notice a difference during your daily rides, but controlled field tests will show the difference. I can see a noticeable delta between the two on my own rollers.

How are latex tubes lower life span? I actually flat less now that I run latex all the time.

Why latex?
https://www.youtube.com/...XUpq27mG2CM&t=3s

I 100% think latex is not overrated. It's one of the biggest bang for your bucks to get "free speed".

How much do you weight, what tires and wheels are your running? 100 psi seems on the high side personally but highly depends on your setup and road surface.

---

blog

So you said you do not have a power meter, but you have tested things and measured meaningful differences, but cannot detect a difference for the tubes.... Your power could be fluctuating 15 watts EASILY from test to test on the same RPE. 300% of the difference you are hoping to see with the tubes. And probably more than you are seeing with your helmets. On top of that, from day to day, temperature and pressure changes will mean the air density is different between tests, not to mention wind speed, tire pressure, etc. This is an exercise in imparting meaning to entirely random numbers.

Even if you were able to control ALL factors perfectly and all your sensors had 0% error, a 4 watt rr improvement for latex tubes would give you about 0.15 mph improvement. You might find that insignificant. But it's 2 minutes in an ironman. For some people that is worth it.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Curious what the hassle is other than a few $$ a tube? Maybe I am doing it wrong, but I don't notice much more hassle installing them and I think the pair I currently am riding are over 2 years old. Ridden during the summer, hang in the freezing garage all winter. I do need to top them off before every ride, but I do that as a habit anyway regardless of the tire/tube set up.

I have never noticed a difference in feel or power either - I just assume it's there.

---

"It's good enough for who it's for" - Grandpa Wayne

If you don’t think that $10 additional per tube ($20 total) is not worth 3-4 watts, then by all means, don’t use them.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to justify your reasoning with personal experience that is purely anecdotal and has no testing protocol. Especially when all the testing has already been performed many times.

And to put that 4 watts into perspective... there is about a 4 watt difference between those two tires. As RowToTri says, for some that's worth it. 2 latex tubes are cheaper than a lot of other items to save that.

I think others here have adequately explained the whole data vs. subjective impression thing. I've never noticed a subjective difference but I always run latex for races as I trust the data. While some people claim latex is less reliable that hasn't been my experience. A couple of years ago in Miamiman someone threw down thumbtacks and a ton of people flatted. After the race I found a thumbtack stuck in my tire, I'd ridden half the race with it and didn't lose any air pressure. Now maybe a butyl tube would have held air in that situation but as for me I'll keep using latex.

First off, I didn't generally put in a latex tube when I was younger and used them only for races. With that being said, I don't hesitate to put in a latex for training these days for three big reasons:

1) They are way more comfortable than butyl. For anyone that says you cannot tell the difference, break your foot in a couple of places and still ride on it outdoors. It will become obvious very quick that the ride is much forgiving. Unfortunately it did take a fall down the stairs for me to find this out.

2) You are less likely to flat with latex. Although I patch my buytl tubes many don't and less flats might make the $$$ neutral.

3) You could potentially save your self from a crash with sealant. Butyl and sealant doesn't work, but in the event of a high-speed flat, preferably while bombing down a steep descent. In the ideal scenario the latex might allow you to come to a controlled stop.

With that being said, latex is not for everyone. You need to install them correctly otherwise IMHO you are going the other way in terms of dangers, costs, etcs. I wrote up my own personal pros and cons of latex with some more details here.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Ok, that's just dumb. Seriously dumb. You can't measure the difference that these make by randomly looking at strava segments and trying to "see if there were trends". You can't control the conditions needed to tease out 1/10th of a mph from random data. And you sure as hell can't do it AT ALL without a power meter.

Almost every other speed improvement in triathlon costs more per watt than latex tubes. Its a delta cost of ~$10 over butyl.

I don't see this as true. I've had more flats since switching. Maybe that's just been bad luck, which I think is more likely than some major difference between butyl and latex properties. But, I patch my latex, just as butyl. I've also taken to bringing a bead-jack with me on all rides---its much faster, and WAY safer for the tube.



Potentially, yes. But, I've had many more sealant failures than successes. Honestly for daily use, I'm moving away from sealant. Its more cost, it very rarely works, and often it ruins the tube so I can't patch it (even more cost). So, I just carry a spare tube, patch kit, and CO2 on daily stuff. But, I will still use sealant on race-day on the off-chance that it DOES work.

ETA: Most often I find that sealant will hold about 60psi, but the seal blows out above that. 60psi will get you home, but its hard to control a CO2 shot. On several occasions, I've given the tube a short burp of CO2, which initially holds. Then I spin the tire to ensure sealant gets fully into the "hole". Wait a bit, and listen for any leaks. Then give it a good blast of CO2, and spin the tire again. Often on the second blast it will blow-out.

In the grand scheme of “buying performance”, latex tubes are kind of a must have for me, and good bang for the buck. But then i am not a power rider, so 5w for me is something I want/need. If i was averaging 400w i might care less, but then i would be competative... and would care more.

And i use carbon clinchers! Take that! (But i am light and most descents are more big hills)

For what it’s worth I already said I’d run them for an A race. But the more proponents of latex argue its virtue the more many of them say you won’t notice a difference in the wild. I’m well aware of scientific method and how to properly use it but there’s also lab results and real world results. Since we do not live in a controlled environment real world results are also important. Plus even by proponents estimation we’re talking 2 minutes in an Ironman. Now I realize that people on the Kona bubble that 2 minutes is a long time but that’s a fraction of the athletes on slowtwich and I’m personally not among them.

Also it’s not as cheap as one might think. $10 per a tube, let’s say 3 tubes a year, that’s $30 a year. Over the course of 5 years that’s $150. I picked up an A2 last year on clearance for $75. $150 is on or around the price of some of the most expensive clinchers out there. A wheel cover is $100. All cheaper and save maybe the tires all > 4 watts.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Anyway all and all I’ll be switching back. Tried it, only thing I felt go faster was my paycheck. Probably only use it for really big races. Training and local I’m not particularly impressed.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Over rated?

I'd assert they're the most under-rated and under-utilized technical performance piece available and have the highest bang-for-the-buck.

I've seen this sort of comment fairly frequently and I think on most occassions its incorrect.
If the suggestion is that the lab testing is not a sufficiently good model of reality to produce representative data - there may be a valid argument. But, to say we don't live in a controlled environment and therefore tests in a controlled environment are less informative than field testing is a mis-understanding of the entire purpose of controlled testing.

4W latex tubes, 10W good tire vs mediocre tire, 5W dry chain lube vs factory grease, 5-15W for a good aero helmet, etc... all of these are "overrated" on their own but next time you do an Ironman just go push an extra 30-40W to go the same speed and see what happens.

---

What's your CdA?

What about tubeless

I get your point. Also I would like to note that latex tubes are the lowest amount of watts for (in the course of a lifetime) probably the most money. Paraffin is super cheap, like super super cheap (but like latex tubes I’d personally only do right before an A race). Helmets can be found cheap if you’re not picky. Tires it gets tricky but bit good sales and use training tires. To me personally, after getting a 3rd mystery flat in one year at $13 a piece I decided I was done. Latex is an Ironman only deal for me. I’m actually a little surprised I’m the only one.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

I don’t mean to say that lab results are useless but more that they’re exaggerated. Even if the data is 100% spot on that result is not going to carry all the way to the real world. If I find a way to make a car 50% more efficient on a closed track taking it out into the Wild you’re never going to get close to those results. It’s the same with everything we use on the course. If you’re getting 15W in the wind tunnel you’re getting <15W in the wild.

I studied a lot of science in college. One of the drawbacks of a controlled environment is that we don’t live in a controlled environment therefore our real world results will always be deminished. Whether it’s the amount of theoretical watts gained by a new piece of gear or the training effect of a new technique. Once you start including real life scenarios the effect is always deminished. The real world where we face wind, and hills, and traffic. Where the road isn’t always even. That’s what I mean. Any lab results are inflated by the controlled environment. Especially rolling resistance and aero properties. Particularly because of velocity.

Prime example... look at Garmin battery or car MPG. Most people, unless they go specifically out of their way don’t get anywhere close to what was advertised because of too many factors.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Lab testing may always have some bias, but that bias isn't always in the same direction vs. "the real world". A case could be made that smooth roller testing underestimates the benefits of latex tubes. The purported mechanism of benefit is that latex takes less energy to deform. So the more deformation taking place, the more benefit vs. butyl. And the real world likely has much rougher surfaces, on average, than a roller drum. So possibly more benefit in the real world.

Some people have done bumpy roller testing, but I couldn't immediately find it.

So you're right, in general, about lab testing vs. reality often having some bias or error, but possibly picked a bad example.

I’m happy to grab 4-5 watts in 6-7 areas (not the least of which is training) which suddenly adds up and is very noticeable. And, Unless your butyl tubes are free, your math is fuzzy....are latex more expensive? Yes, but butyl costs money too.

I believe if you’re not too picky on helmets, you might find yourself in one that is SLOWER

If you would’ve said “i am cheap, I don’t want to buy latex” instead of “latex doesn’t generate cheap $/w benefit” this would be relevant

But now, you’re just digging deeper and deeper

Why do you ride 100psi?

I certainly felt faster riding them, but that could be confirmation bias, I suppose. The only trouble I have is that I kept popping my front tire. I thought I was cleaning the rim enough, I also might have been over-inflating?! I don't know...I did get pretty good at changing a tire by the side of the road, so they were good for that.

---

Dan Mayberry
Amateur a lot of things, professional a few things.

 
A couple of things:

* You do need to inflate the latex tubes before every ride. If you don't, you'll be riding them with ~10psi less pressure, which will likely be much slower.

* Trying riding with latex/butyl on rollers. Spin them up to the same speed. I guarantee you won't even need a powermeter to tell the difference. You'll know within a minute or two.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

I guess I don't understand the hassle you're referring to. Hassel of inflating tires before each ride? Don't you check your tires often anyway? What am I missing?

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

Okay, let's use this example.
Since Garmin watches neither store the same amount of usable energy, nor use the same amount of power in all configurations and conditions, any single figure can only be representative and based on a bunch of assumptions. That's not a weakness in controlled testing, it's simply the world not being as simple as you may like. There's a difference.
The same goes for car fuel economy figures. In both cases you can assume the manufacturer selects test cases for advertisements that provide favourable figures and cast the product in a positive light. You are therefore likely to see worse figures in your own use. That's selective data use by manufacturers, not a weakness in controlled testing.

I really think you're misinterpreting incorrect application of the data from controlled testing, as a flaw in test methods. This is inaccurate. In fact what you're observing is a flaw in application.

It is certainly not possible to determine the veracity or applicability of controlled test data for variables of this scale via uncontrolled field testing, especially when you don't have a means of measuring the more critical parameters.

It’s a bit more of a hassle to put them in. At least for me it was. They’re floppy and have to be powedered. I can’t just throw them on race wheels because I don’t have race wheel money. For me and a couple others we had an increase in flats, I also change my tires before a race. Even if I did use all alrounders there’s still the hassle of changing regular flats. But hey different strokes for different folks.

To some of us if we spend even $1 more dollar there had better be a clear and present difference. I’m one of those people. I can’t afford a visit to the wind tunnel, or at the moment a power meter. So I work with what I have. I personally feel that if I can’t see a difference in real world velocity, or feel a difference in road feel that I guess it’s probably not worth the extra money. It’s also why I run a 10speed. It’s why I bought an A2 when I needed a new helmet. It’s why I’m not buying more expensive latex tubes when the butyl ones work just fine. They’re not making my ride anymore enjoyable, and they’re not earning me a PR, and they’re not earning me a podium. So in my estimation why bother?

When I put on race tires as oppose to heavy training tires by the time I’ve ridden around the corner I can feel and see I’m faster. Same with my A2. I can confirm it through strava segments and a faster overall velocity. If I rode that same ride 10 times the 5 on each the stats would be lopsided.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

I've never flatted. Still on the original latex tubes I bought. I actually am now wondering how long are they good for. I probably need to change my rim tape at the very least.

On price, I see a site selling latex for 7.99 right now. That's like 2 dollars more than butyl at best. Even at full price, it's still not fair to say 15 a piece. It's really the cost difference that's the factor. And it's more like 7-8 bucks more than butyl per tube. And for maybe 1 or 2 flats a year (that was my rate with butyl, again no flats in 2 years on latex), that's not a huge cost.

I haven't switched back to butyl in a long time, but do recall the first ride with latex feeling significantly different (for a inner tube change that is). We have a paved brick section leaving my neighborhood and the tires just reacted differently under me. Nothing that I can feel speed wise, but research shows it's there. So with less flats, better feel, and minimal cost difference......I just dont see the reason not to.


Never powdered them. On the same tubes, but changed tires like 3 times on HED jet+ rims that are notoriously difficult to get tires on. It does take more patience than butyl, but certainly no a show stopper. I was actually pretty anal about checking my butyl tubes before inflating too. With latex, I just take a little more time. Nothing special, just time and spot checking to make sure there is no tube pinched under the bead before inflating.

Haven't tried latex tubes but I have to say that picking up even just 5W for (almost) free sounds intriguing. I am mostly concerned about the - allegedly - reduced puncture resistance. It would take a lot of watts to regain the time I might lose when changing a flat. Then again, I wonder how big an effect the tube has on puncture resistance. After all: Once something punctures your tire it should easily be ably to puncture a much thinner tube or am overlooking something here?

I used latex for a couple of years and have returned to butyl because I am lazy and I like an 80mm stem. :-)

All my spare tubes that I carry on the bike for long self-sustained training courses are also butyl with 80mm stem (Flo 60s front and rear) so that if I flat I can change it roadside much faster. Once I ran out of latex tubes from my first order I simply went back to buying butyl from local stores. None of the bike shops that I visit carry latex. Again most of my choice is out of laziness and convenience.

I have a decent array of stem extenders, but do wish someone made a latex with 80mm stems.
To anyone reading, If there are some on the market now please let me know.

This!! We need an answer to this question. I read this whole thread baffled as to how that early comment was ignored.

I ride them everyday and cry if for some reason I have to put a butyl tube in.
They simply ride way nicer and if you don't feel this I can only imagine you are numb.

The only disadvantage to latex is that if you store one for a couple of years in a saddle bag waiting to be used is that they can dry out and crack.
Inside a tyre they can last many years and because there are no seams they are extremely easy to patch should you have too.

has it occured to you yet that maybe you lack the talent, brains, and manual dexterity needed for latex tubes?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Totally has. In which case it would still make sense to switch back.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Because I’m fat

https://www.bicycling.com/...-bike-tire-pressure/

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

I understand where you are coming from. I've had the same thoughts as well.

Yes, CRR gains are small from latex tubes but it's just a part of everything you do to be faster. 4-5 watts is what I've seen out of both tires combined, is it worth it? I can see where some would decide it's not.

I'm not aware of any evidence that the puncture more easily, except as a result of careless installation (rim tape issues or caught between rim and tyre). In fact I'd expect them to resist punctures much better than butyl under some circumstances and I'm not alone in that belief. I've been using latex on my tri bike for over 2.5 years. The original tubes are still in there and have never punctured. I don't use sealant. My road bike is fitted with butyl since the one disadvantage I know of for latex is decreased heat resistance. I used my road bike for an Alpine sportive a while back that had some massive descents on it. I'm a bit over 80kg and wasn't sure if I'd find myself dragging my brakes for long periods (I generally don't but on an unfamiliar route with lots of other bikes, it was a bit of an unknown). next time I change tyres, I'll put latex on there too.

I feel like you’re just seeking attention / trolling

Optimal PSI isn’t only based on weight. And that article doesn’t contemplate different psi for different tires, wheels, road conditions, etc

One of the benefits of latex is you can run lower psi, which makes a smoother ride, with similar / better crr

Besides your nonsensical testing protocol, illogical arguments and lack of using data over gut feel - you might not be “feeling” the benefit due to thin tires, probably narrow wheels if i had to guess and high psi

I use butyl for training. Several reasons:

• I train almost every day and I prefer not to pump my tyres every day or every other day - butyl usually lasts at least a week.
• As I train most days, I happen to also flat when the weather sucks. Latex requires more nursing when installing, which I don't have the patience for (or the finger warmth before they go numb!) when it's snow or 2C and rain.
• I usually use CO2 to fill up my tyres after I flat, which doesn't work well with latex.

For racing I always use latex.

Wow thank you for at least understanding my POV. Maybe I just suck at installing, maybe it’s because I’m fat, maybe it’s because I live in New England where the roads are pure shit. But I get flats no matter what I do. So I feel the extra money isn’t worth 4-5 watts save for special races. I also just use T-9 or *gasp* finish line on my chain. For a special race I’ll clean it off and wax it. But as a MOPer/BOPer I won’t see measurable difference so I’ll just do whatever is cheap and convenient. That’s my style.

---

I still lapped everyone on the couch!

Man I feel like I’m a latex salesperson ! Jeesh

Most don’t keep latex as spare tube on the road. For all the reasons you said, butyl stays in my saddle bag (even on race days)

That is reassuring, thank you very much for pointing this out to me. How serious is the heat issue? I am almost 2m tall and weigh in at around 77kg. I am too old to risk larger patches of my skin so I tend to brake quite a bit on the descent (okay, I might just be a sissy...). I ride light aluminum wheels on my road bike (Mavic Ksyrium Pro Exalith SL WTS) and 50mm carbon clinchers with aluminum brake surfaces (Oval Concept 950) and my next race will be IM70.3 Marbella - with almost 1700m ascent/descent more or less packed into two long descents. Probably not the smartest idea to use latex on these then?

I didn't write that. You selectively omitted what I did write.

It’s a direct quote from your post

No it isn't quoting me, you replied to post #52 and edited it to make it look like I wrote it.

Go back and look at what I wrote on post #48.

No it's not. It's a quote from Jloewe's post but you attributed it to jaretj.
Inadvertent error I think since it looks like the bit attributed to Jloewe is your own comment.
Just screwed up the quote formatting.

I am a heavy rider (210 lbs but have weighed much more in the past...); that 4-5 watts of Crr that is getting mentioned in this thread is for 42.5kg load per wheel (4 watts @ 188lb for rider + bike). Power consumed by rolling resistance is proportional to the load, so heavier riders will save more watts than a lighter rider. This power is also proportional to velocity meaning Crr savings benefit you even at low speeds (e.g., climbing, when bigger riders need the most help...) unlike aero gains which are proportional to the velocity cubed.

I'm with you, brother. I don't see the point in latex tubes on my training wheels either, not when I'm using Gatorskins or similar heavy training tyres.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Just curious... how much extra work would you have to put in to gain an extra 4(ish) watts of power on the supply side of the equation? What is the opportunity (heck, what is the actual) cost of that?

I know how much I would have to do to be that much stronger over an Ironman distance. The difference in cost between butyl and latex tubes is a total bargain compared to the hours I'd need to put in to move my FTP that much.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Considering that he’s already stated that he uses them for his big races, I’m not sure what you’re arguing here?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

If you're going to demand that level of logical rigor, the base argument of the OP gets nuked on post one. "I'm going to do this on special occasions because it's clearly worthwhile, but I don't think it's actually worthwhile"
So let's just say I'm responding to the latter part of the argument while ignoring the former in order to preserve the illusion that this isn't a ridiculous conversation.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

OK. Carry on, good sir.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Which is precisely why I've stepped out of the discussion---except to watch the trainwreck. I could no longer preserve that illusion.

I'm curious as to your testing protocol where you can determine latex to have little to no effect, but you can tell the difference with tires and your helmet.

I personally have a 4.5 mile hill that I train on all the time. Probably did the full climb over 500 times with a power meter, and have done hundreds more power intervals in the middle over the climb. It's relatively sheltered from the wind, and a steady 6% so it mitigates things like your position, or how aero your kit is so you can test things like rolling resistance and weight differences.

I've got this hill so dialed in, that I can pretty much predict my time knowing what kind of tires/tubes I have on, how much I weigh (person, bike, gear), and how many watts I put out average. I can say that over many tests, that latex is indeed about 4-5 watts faster for me. I've also confirmed that Gatorskins roll about 15 watts slower than GP4000S tires on this climb.

Maybe I have a magic pair of latex tubes...or you inadvertently bought a fake pair. Or maybe...just maybe...you need a much better way of quantifying what latex is or isn't doing for you.

Latex tubes have better resistance to most punctures, like pinch flats, and small things like thorns and staples. Many times I've had these puncture the tire, but not go through the tube. The tube will simply stretch around the object.

Latex tubes can be bad if you get little cuts that go all the way through the tire casing but no further. Eventually the latex tube will stretch out of the hole and pop, while a butyl tube usually won't.

I've been using latex tubes exclusively on the road for ~50k miles now. MTB also.

I do carry butyl spares to address your 2nd and 3rd points.

"Mystery flat" means you didn't figure out the cause. That's on you.

Latex is much less likely to pinch flat or puncture. And it's easy to patch, so the cost difference is essentially a wash.

Out of laziness I use butyl on a commuter bike and on the trainer. Otherwise all latex, all the time. I race cyclocross with 18-24 psi, bottoming out routinely. Trust me, latex is not delicate.

Keep in mind that installation is the riskiest part of using latex tubes. If you really do suck at installing, switching to latex just before your big race might be a recipe for disaster.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned through the thread already but Cam Wurf doesn't run them in Kona and he has done all the tunnel and associated testing. People can say trust the data but as someone that had worked with Contador in a thread the other week said that the Zipp wheel tested faster but he still felt the Hed H3 was faster and always used it. The same goes for me with clinchers and tubulars. I have tried clinchers with and without latex but I still like the feeling to tubulars and to me they feel faster despite what data says. It's all minimal gains so I use what is most practical, I enjoy and and sometimes economical.

You don’t have a power meter and are going on gut feeling about your speed. That’s all that needs to be said here. You have not made a valid case. Latex is marginal gains, in the first place. It’s not a gross change that you will be able to discern by your disconnected human senses.

But that’s ok. You’re free to roll your butyl anytime we’re in the same race.

Latex is used in high-end tubulars as well, so they're not exclusive.

I am running Continental tubs no latex at the moment and they are as fast as any tub I've run. My point was though if it feels just as fast it most probably is. The data says a clincher with latex tubes is faster than a tub but I personally don't find it to be the case. No data just race times and more based on feel.

Cause pro cyclists and pro triathletes have never made bad equipment choices.

---

blog

Is your point about Wurf making a bad choice? If so I would do some research on him and what goes into his bike and testing...

It's fine to say you prefer it, or that it feels faster. Which is fine. But it doesn't sound like you can claim that it *is* faster.

That is true so what do you believe? The data where you are unsure the specifics of how tested or what feels faster as my point was with Contador and my original post. I like to ride what feels faster or as in the OP post at least as fast.

Yes he's making a bad choice and I know who Wurf is. You state he's done tunnel testing and associated testing. Define associated testing because tunnel testing has nothing to do the gains made from latex tubes.

---

blog

Yes I am aware of that tunnel testing has no bearing on rolling resistance. He has done every test, he even swum in a flume testing swim skins ffs. He said he didn't see the point in the higher risk of puncturing for such minimal gains. He was well aware of chosing a latex over a butyl tube.

That's fine. I don't put much stock in Contador. Awesome cyclist and genius tactician, and I would certainly hesitate to question his choices for himself. Nor do I have any issue with you making choices for yourself. Use butyl! But I would certainly hesitate to use Contador's or your choices for myself.

I prefer testing where I get a number. I have a local velodrome, so I do a lot of ABABAB testing, Chung testing, etc. If the numbers are ambiguous, I got with what feels or looks best. If they're not ambiguous, I go with the faster thing. Of course not being a blind test (single, much less double) I could be subconsciously favoring things, even when using constant power or Chung, in which case I could be right back to where you are (going by feel). But generally I think when there's a significant difference, the truth will often emerge. Latex tests faster for me. And if feels better.

So he admits that latex tubes are actually faster just like all the data has shown and 98% of the people are saying on here. He just chooses not to run them.

---

blog

Again, latex has a lower risk of puncturing. Whether or not it feels like it.

Very overrated. I prefer to go bareback.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

And this is where our "feelings" can lead us to make less than optimal choices. I missed the other thread on Contador, but I remember reading an interview about Contador and the H3. He'd test both wheels and would be faster on the H3. Then they'd check the power meter and Contador went harder when he used the H3. That makes it look like using the H3 motivated him. I think that can work for TTs where you have an hour or less effort for a day. But I wonder if pushing a few watts too hard on the bike can lead to a blow up on the run. Minimal gains aren't really minimal. They add up. It's fairly easy to do the math on the savings on latex clincher vs. non-latex tubulars over a half or full bike leg. If you placed second by less than that amount, would you still be comfortable with your choice?

Full disclosure: I like the feeling of tubulars, too. I'm on tubulars with latex. My wheels "supposedly" tested faster than 808s and were only available as tubulars and I'm not willing to buy new wheels. Also, I only do TTs on them. I use clinchers with latex for my other road races.

I'm sure Wurf is short of good advisors. Could you pass that on to him?

Seems that way for such minimal gains

Depends who's wearing it.

Lol only on ST do you have guys who know more than ex tour and Kona record holders...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


Bring data. Opinions don't count.


...or does someone have to rattle off all the ridiculously terrible equipment choice the pros have used in the past? These repeated threads are so tedious.

I really don't think that point is defensible. Certainly not when we're talking about small margins like this and when the component in question likely effects sensations of road vibration and road noise which are integral to your perception of speed. I don't think you can have any confidence whatsoever in your ability to "feel" small differences in how fast a setup is.

Thread Hijack
Totally agree, but do any of you feel like you're having a really bad day when the chain sounds bad? :-)
A day when the power numbers read about the same as when it is freshly lubed or waxed, but the sound alone all the sudden makes you feel like you are pushing against a wall. Such a mental thing for me is that drive train sound. Ugh! Anyone else relate? Don't need to answer. It was me thinking out loud about mental or perceived things on the bike.

Well, the folks on ST are undoubtedly not nearly as good athletes, no one is disputing that. But the question here is not if they're better athletes, but if they "know" more, i.e., have better technical knowledge. And yes, it's quite possible (although no certainty) that SOME of the folks here have better technical knowledge than world class athletes. There's not necessarily a correlation between athletic ability and technical knowledge. Now, usually world class athletes have access to people with that kind of technical knowledge, but even those people are sometimes wrong or prone to believing long-held myths, and if they are right sometimes the athlete doesn't listen to them.

Probably the issue here is that latex is more prone to installation error and also potentially more susceptible to equipment issues such as a bad rim strip, etc. That gets conflated with being more prone to puncturing. The installation errors are really not that hard to avoid, and in conjunction with routine inspection of the wheel when you change tubes, in my experience latex can be extremely reliable. And I did earlier post the anecdote about riding half of a 56 mile bike leg with a tack in my tire using latex tubes, so I'm sold. Of course, none of that applies to latex tubes in tubular tires; the only reason I can think of not to use a tubular with a latex tube is if your choice of tire isn't available with latex tubes.

No, you aren't the only one. I've been running latex 100% of the time for around 5 years now. Looking at my orders on Amazon, that has required buying 17 tubes (4 currently in bikes and 2 currently as spares). So figure about 2 flats a year using latex riding almost every day (last few years winter is Zwift land or MTB, but prior to that almost entirely outside). In terms of speed, they both feel faster to me and measure faster. So for me, they are great. That said I've tried to talk some friends into using them with mixed success at best. One super experienced cyclist friend tried them and after a few unexplained flats bailed. Not sure whether they are just bad at install, have bad rim tape, or just bad luck, but their experience is very different from mine. But from their perspective they are expensive and troublesome. So YMMV. Sounds like you largely understand the issue and at least aren't just choosing butyle out of ignorance. Seems fair to me.

ETA: When reviewing my Amazon orders, I just noticed them selling the Silca bundle that includes a tube, valve extender and speedshield. Since one of my failure modes for my tubes is them breaking at the valve stem due to stress from daily pumping, this seems like a nice improvement. That plus the free .5w from the speedshield. But if you are skeptical about latex benefits, I'm betting you won't care about the speedshield. For me, I also want to support Josh@Silca.

I've had a vasectomy, so no need for latex here.

With or without anaethesia?

Do we need to go over all the bad decisions by professionals? Trust me, the ST collective is far smarter than the pro collective when it comes to nerdy science and engineering stuff. For the one methodical pro that obsesses about equipment choices (like Rapp) you have five dumbasses like Andy Potts.

Edit - I’m talking about Potts’ equipment intellect and not his actual intellect before someone quotes me his SAT scores or something. 😁

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Without. And some liquor afterwards.

Dumbass only in a narrow sense. If you ask who, overall, is the most intelligent, best-prepared athlete, I'm not sure what the answer would be between Rapp and Potts.

Sometimes we here get so caught up in the minutae of bro-tech that we lose sight of all the really important things it takes to win races. And Potts knows how to win races.

And I use "we" because I'm fully guilty.

Fair point but race intelligence doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive of equipment intelligence. He could’ve easily had and done both. Ride a pair of Conti race tires (and latex tubes) instead of Gatorskins and butyl and Kona 2015 might have been a different race. That’s not even getting into the piece of shit bike he was using as I understand sponsor commitments and all that.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I don't think they're over rated at all... the benefit is known and the cost for them is relatively down in the mud. My tubes will generally last me a full season(replace tubes with tires)... the extra few $ for a couple of watts isn't that big of a spend vs. some other things for $$$. You can score Vittoria's every now and then on a good sale for less than $10.

Just picked up a pair of Conti 5000's and a latex tubes for around $130.... pretty good IMO.