It is possible to use a 26" tube on a 29er, though it seems (IMO) to shorten the life of the tube somewhat. Most of the guys concerned about weight on here have gone tubeless. It really is the way to go, and the weight is the least of the reasons to do so.poll said:Hi guys
Which kind of 29's light tubes use on your wheels?
Thank a lot
Poll
I really don't want to get into a typical craigsj argument, but I will offer a counterpoint. I bought a set of Flows and took one ride with them with tubes. I had three flats, two of them pinch flats running about 28 psi.craigsj said:26" Latex tubes, either Michelin or Challenge, work great. Challenge is thinner and lighter. Wouldn't say they are better.
Interestingly, I recently converted a set of wheels to tubeless that had used Challenge tubes. One of the tires wouldn't air up until I noticed and repaired a fairly large sidewall puncture. That puncture failed to damage the tube but would never have sealed had I been tubeless at the time. So much for tubeless solving the flats problem. I have no problem running low pressures with latex tubes nor do I have problems making tubes work with any rim and tire combination.Tubes always work.
You are off-topic for the second time. The OP asked for info on tubes and you promote tubeless.xjbaylor said:I really don't want to get into a typical craigsj argument, but I will offer a counterpoint.
Nice strawman. I implied nothing. Furthermore, tubes are not an "alternative", tubeless is.xjbaylor said:Tubeless may not be for everyone, but to imply that tubes are simply the best alternative is simply incorrect.
Apparently you speak for the vast majority with your anecdotes while mine are of no importance since they conflict with your world view. It seems you do want to be drawn into a "typical craigsj argument".xjbaylor said:Finally, your anecdotal evidence that runnin low pressure with tubes and having no issues is contrary to what the vast majority of riders see as one of the main flaws of tubes. Not saying it isn't true, but it is an exception to the rule.
I agree with you that my post did lean towards tubeless as the best option, while also stating that the easiest way to buy light 29er tubes is not to buy them at all, but to run 26" tubes. I should have left it at that.craigsj said:You are off-topic for the second time. The OP asked for info on tubes and you promote tubeless.
Nice strawman. I implied nothing. Furthermore, tubes are not an "alternative", tubeless is.
Apparently you speak for the vast majority with your anecdotes while mine are of no importance since they conflict with your world view. It seems you do want to be drawn into a "typical craigsj argument".
We are largely in agreement then. I am not arguing against tubeless, my experience was in regards to my own tubeless conversion after all, my intent was to say that tubeless isn't a universal solution to all flats on the trail. Nothing is perfect. I just thought it odd and noteworthy that I experienced a sidewall puncture, most likely a cut, that didn't phase my tube yet Stan's wouldn't seal. I certainly wouldn't say it is common.xjbaylor said:I agree with you that my post did lean towards tubeless as the best option, while also stating that the easiest way to buy light 29er tubes is not to buy them at all, but to run 26" tubes. I should have left it at that.
...
I think we do agree, and while I have limited experience on latex tubes, I approve of the idea. I will gladly inflate my tubes before each ride if it means not replacing them on the trail.craigsj said:We are largely in agreement then. I am not arguing against tubeless, my experience was in regards to my own tubeless conversion after all, my intent was to say that tubeless isn't a universal solution to all flats on the trail. Nothing is perfect. I just thought it odd and noteworthy that I experienced a sidewall puncture, most likely a cut, that didn't phase my tube yet Stan's wouldn't seal. I certainly wouldn't say it is common.
I am totally sold on the latex tubes, though, provided you don't mind the daily pump-ups.