RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Lighweight butyl tubes? Performance LunarLights?(5 posts)

Lighweight butyl tubes? Performance LunarLights?Tahoe Gator
May 5, 2003 8:15 AM
The mountain version of Performance's LunarLight butyl tubes get good marks in a recent mountain biking article, but wondering how the road versions perform. They weigh only 49 grams. I have always used the standard light weight tubes common in most bike shops (70 g, blue box, forget brand) with few flats, so I wonder if lightweight butyl tubes are reasonably reliable.
Terribly for me.getoffmywheel
May 5, 2003 8:26 AM
However, have excellent results with Michelin lites and Conti Race Lites. It just wasn;t worth the 30 grams for lunar lites. If I lose it's not becuase of my tube weight, I have bigger issues I need contend with in terms of my training. Also, I would ditch the lunar lites if you mtbike race and opt for Stan's tubeless-lighter, more reliable, better rolling with decreased rolling resistance. The mtbike tubes were even worse in terms of reliability, maybe things have improved.
Lunar Lites = Garbagebiknben
May 5, 2003 10:02 AM
I tried the Lunar Lights and each one I used in the rear tire developed a puncture along a seam. They were like mystery flats.
no garbage bags!!!the bull
May 5, 2003 3:31 PM
I think they are made from recycled Hefty bags!!!
Durability = ca. 70 gm, fragile = ca. 50 gmKerry
May 5, 2003 5:01 PM
People (including me) have great luck with the 70 gm Michelin tubes and all kinds of problems with various 50 gram tubes. To save 40 gm you go into the region of "just to light to be functional."