# Eclipse - Innertube: 56g !!!!



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Ok-here we go:
i was telling you about those secret prototypes i was using since about past september. Now i am allowed to tell you some details. These tubes still aren't into production and what i show here is still a prototype although already very close to what the public will get later. it's only some minor details that get changed but the main features like weight and performance will remain untouched.

Eclipse Tube: 26" x 1,8 -2,3 = 56g !!

No this weight doesn't come along with all the usual weaknesses you would expect out of a lightweight inner tube. We all know how prone ultralight innertubes are. Tubes like Conti Supersonic or Maxxis Flyweight (both about 90-95g) suffer big time offroads. These inner tubes however have almost half the weight and in-house tests showed that the resistance to pinchflats is 30 times higher than regular butyl tubes. Also A LOT,lot better than any latex tube out there...

I also reported about how many flats i got using Conti Supersonic tubes inside my Conti Race King Supersonic 2,2 tires. I got a flat almost every second ride!! I had 8 patches on the tubes before i changed them with these prototypes. Now i have done at least 1500km with these tubes and still haven't got a flat. I use them with the exact same Conti tires at the same pressure on the same trails...I don't even use the Eclipse sealant which is suggested to use. Since i am tester No.1 i am trying to get the best out of them without any sealant so i can really see how good they hold up. So far there hasn't been a single flat. Tire changes are a breeze. They mount as easy as any regular innertube. No fuss, no sealant, no compressor needed...just install and go.

The inner tube is so thin it also offers the same ride quality than the tubelesskits do. There is a huge difference in the ride between regular tubes and these tubes! They really offer a much suppler ride and they definitely roll a lot faster too...it's like all the benefits of tubelesskits in a inner tube.

I know that you guy out there will have a hard time to belive me but in about 2 months they should be available to the masses and rest assured they will have a huge impact on the cycling scene! 

Planned are 29"er tubes (i expect those to weigh about 60g), roadbike (i expect about 25-30g) and also Freeride/DH which shouldn't be much more than 65g.

I will post better pics as soon as i get the pre-series tubes which i should get in the next couple of days.


----------



## Cranked (Jun 1, 2006)

The weight alone is pretty incredible, the other benefits sound great too. Have you heard anything about what kind of pricing these will carry? Will these be available in the US, or through European outlets only? I'm looking forward to hearing more on these, as they sound like a major break-through, if they hold up to your mini review.


----------



## jetta_mike (Feb 26, 2007)

Presta only? or are schraeders available too?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jetta_mike said:


> Presta only? or are schraeders available too?


Presta only. you can use an adapter if you want the "big" valve.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

how long are the valves for the various tube variants?


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

As someone who's not very excited to go tubeless, these look great!


----------



## JMK331 (Mar 9, 2008)

This is great news. I am still trying to get my new Race Kings completely sealed. 

Thanks!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Valve lenght...*



Cheers! said:


> how long are the valves for the various tube variants?


what you see is the valve lenght for all tubes. that's standard valve lenght.no different than on any other inner tube!


----------



## Andy13 (Nov 21, 2006)

Nino,
What kind of pressures were you running these at? You mentioned at one point running over curbs trying to pinch flat them. Any idea on goathead thorn resistance? or would that be where the added sealant is recommended? 
TIA


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

nino said:


> Presta only. you can use an adapter if you want the "big" valve.


I am assuming these are removable presta valve cores if the option to add sealant is available, correct?

BB


----------



## ~ScaryFast~ (Jan 22, 2004)

Awesome - if the price on these is remotely reasonable, this could be a revolution in the $/gram department for weight weenies who use tubes


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

If they're that puncture proof, even if they cost 4x what the Conti Supersonics do it would still be a bargain. :thumbsup:


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

and... what is the material is manufactured of?? I don't see it...


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

awesome!!! 

No more liquid yuck needed.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

And is there a ribbed version for more tire pleasure?  :ihih:


----------



## Thierry (Apr 1, 2007)

Looks great...
What is bes for you: no tubes or this new tube (for the same tire, pressure without taking in account the mounting of no tubes)

Do they loss air like a latex tube? 

What about price?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

These look awesome Nino. Question ; doesn't it seem unusual that this product is planned to be made available for purchase in 2 months, when currently there's only 1 "beta" tester? I guess for me whether I want to be an early adopter based on limited field use (much as I respect your own personal testing) will be very dependent on price. The higher the price, the more likely I will be to let other people shake these down for a couple of months and then watch for feedback and experience from these early adopters.

Also, just for curiousity, are you able to tell us what your relationship with this product is? In the past it's been unclear at times what is or is not "your" product i.e. are you an investor or somehow officially involved in another capacity? Not that this would keeep me from buying a good product at a reasonable price. It just helps to know where you are coming from.

Is the product going to be available through standard distribution channnels (e.g. local bike store, etc.) or be a more of an eBay/specialty type of distribution?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Eclipse is a tubeless kit manufacturer in Switzerland. They appear to make the tubeless conversion kits for DT Swiss and Scott. These will likely be a mainstream LBS product as they become available.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Certainly interresting.

They would be the exact same weight as my tubeless setup - Yellow tape and valve + Sealant is 55grams for me. But then again they wouldn't seal any puntures etc.


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

Polyurethane ??? (loss air)


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Circlip said:


> when currently there's only 1 "beta" tester?


I would think there is a difference between "#1" and "only one"...

Interesting. Are they designed to be used with sealant?

I like how sealant helps with thorns around here, but I do not like to deal with mess. I was thinking about experimenting with getting some narrow, light tubes (like for 1" 26" tires) and adding some sealant inside, for still less weight, but more puncture resistance, but never got around experimenting. You can buy Slime tubes, but I found that they do not work as good as Stan's.

I would think that a drawback will be that once sealant dries out (depends on permeability of the material how soon that happens) you would need to throw the tube out. Can not scrub and refill.

Looking forward to try those out. I was always surprised nobody tried many new materials for MTB innertubes. Tons of interesting stuff out there, and many folks will pay a premium.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

I'd like to know how well patches work on them, for the unexpected punctures.

Also, will the 26" version stretch comfortably around a 29" rim? That would save me time waiting for the 29" version, I run 26" all the time anyway.
I hope they'll offer a good gram price, I'll probably step in for all of my stable then


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Circlip said:


> These look awesome Nino. Question ; doesn't it seem unusual that this product is planned to be made available for purchase in 2 months, when currently there's only 1 "beta" tester? I guess for me whether I want to be an early adopter based on limited field use (much as I respect your own personal testing) will be very dependent on price. The higher the price, the more likely I will be to let other people shake these down for a couple of months and then watch for feedback and experience from these early adopters.
> 
> Also, just for curiousity, are you able to tell us what your relationship with this product is? In the past it's been unclear at times what is or is not "your" product i.e. are you an investor or somehow officially involved in another capacity? Not that this would keeep me from buying a good product at a reasonable price. It just helps to know where you are coming from.
> 
> Is the product going to be available through standard distribution channnels (e.g. local bike store, etc.) or be a more of an eBay/specialty type of distribution?


Rest assured i'm not the only tester! BUT i am very close (best friend) to the main man behind Eclipse...and i am the one getting the news first. However i have nothing to do with Eclipse and this is not my product at all. I am however involved in the development stages...Besides many other local racers Eclipse has one of the worlds BEST XC-rider as their tester and you will most likely will see him use this product in the future....he became worldchampion using the Eclipse tubelesskit before and is now at the forefront again.

It will once again take some time to get people convinced. We had the same happen with the tubelesskits before where only slowly and over the years the advantages got known and accepted.

Yes- it will be available through distributors worldwide.

answers to some questions above:
-no air loss! These tubes keep the air thight for a long time.

-the valve is removable just like you have it on tubelesskits too to be able to add some sealant

-for the eventual pucture you have the sealant which should be able to take care of that.the tube comes with Eclipse-sealant so it's your choice if you run them with sealant right away or if you add it in case of a puncture. I haven't used any sealant so far...and never had a puncture until now.

-i am using them inside my Conti RaceKing 2,2" at 1.9-2,0 bar pressure (ca. 28 psi)


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Looks like the tubes they had on display at Interbike '07. I'll have to dig up the pics.


----------



## jmartpr (Jun 16, 2008)

Looking forward to the road bike tubes.....any ETA on those?


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Nino, PM me when these are ready for market. I will buy a case!


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Eclipse is a tubeless kit manufacturer in Switzerland. They appear to make the tubeless conversion kits for DT Swiss and Scott. These will likely be a mainstream LBS product as they become available.


Yes, I know the history. I bought an Eclipse kit directly from Nino in 2003 way before it was licensed to DT as Eclipse's first corporate customer, and also before Stan's had commercial kits.

I always appreciate the information from Nino as he truly does have some great connections and dedication to spreading the word about very cool parts. At the same time, when someone is introducing the latest and greatest and asking his observations and experiences to be treated with some validity, I believe it's also important to understand any relationship between the person and the product/company. While Nino is stating that he has nothing to do with Eclipse, many of his early posts on the topic several years ago had a distinct "we" tone that seemed to include him when talking about the company. With the cassette products Nino has frequently showed, and the I-Link housing systems, it's also been unclear at times who the product is actually being developed and marketed by, whether that's Nino or someone else.

I'm very excited about the potential of these tubes, along with everyone else. It seems that it has always been held as an assumption that people wouldn't pay several times the cost (???) of a standard tube for a design in a newer material with huge advantages, and so no R&D was done in this area. Hopefully this will prove that assumption wrong.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

palmix said:


> Polyurethane ??? (loss air)


By the way - anybody is using those Panaracer green polyurethane tubes? How do they hold up?


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Hmmm.... guess I could live with a 20.66 lb FS bike instead of a 20.83 lb one.... 

Especially seeing how I've had great luck with the Maxxis tubes. If these are that much better overall I'll be pleased though. I'll certainly grab 3 or 4 of them myself right away.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Curmy said:


> By the way - anybody is using those Panaracer green polyurethane tubes? How do they hold up?


I used them for years and never had any problems with them that I didn't have with regular tubes. They held up just fine. I'm running tubeless now though. I don't know if I'll consider these new tubes or not. With the Stan's rims I'm using now (Olympic rear, Race7000 front) I'm running 25/23 psi with the Race King 2.2s, and I love the traction. I don't know if I could go that low without worrying about pinch flats using the Eclipse tubes.


----------



## OilcanRacer (Jan 4, 2008)

hurry up with the 29er version please.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Circlip said:


> Yes, I know the history. I bought an Eclipse kit directly from Nino in 2003 way before it was licensed to DT as Eclipse's first corporate customer, and also before Stan's had commercial kits.
> 
> I always appreciate the information from Nino as he truly does have some great connections and dedication to spreading the word about very cool parts. At the same time, when someone is introducing the latest and greatest and asking his observations and experiences to be treated with some validity, I believe it's also important to understand any relationship between the person and the product/company. While Nino is stating that he has nothing to do with Eclipse, many of his early posts on the topic several years ago had a distinct "we" tone that seemed to include him when talking about the company. With the cassette products Nino has frequently showed, and the I-Link housing systems, it's also been unclear at times who the product is actually being developed and marketed by, whether that's Nino or someone else.
> 
> I'm very excited about the potential of these tubes, along with everyone else. It seems that it has always been held as an assumption that people wouldn't pay several times the cost (???) of a standard tube for a design in a newer material with huge advantages, and so no R&D was done in this area. Hopefully this will prove that assumption wrong.


I am no employe of Eclipse but since the main man at Eclipse is my best friend i am very close to what happens there. We both share our passion with bikes and it's only logical that things get discussed over and over together although i am not an employee. Therefore i can't tell you in all details what it's all about with this tube since i know only "the main line".

The cassettes on the other hand is MY thing! I am the weight-weenie and it is me looking for ways to get light parts for bikes. It seems i have a good hand in finding/selecting parts and often i am offering them as one of the first worldwide. This however has nothing to do with Eclipse and is also not what i do for a living. I am a sculptor and a very passionate cyclist with interest in lightweight parts. It just happened i got into this over the years.

The inner tube is now something that is VERY light and it gets made by my friend so sure i am excited about it. I had the opportunity to use them and they do perform even better than what we had expected. When i am so excited it is the weight-weenie inside me that is all happy because this inner tube is really offering great weight savings and makes life so much easier. I still can't see how this tube can be made in masses as by now every single tube is hand made and it takes quite some time to do so...so i am really interested how things get started and how he manages to get masses made. That's where i have no idea ....but the tubes perform great and that's what counts for now.


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

If they can make a "DH" tube that will stand up to that kind of abuse for 65gr, that would be unbelievable.


----------



## philvert (Nov 16, 2007)

Is there an Eclipse website?


----------



## f3rg (Aug 29, 2007)

I currently run Forte Lunar Lite tubes @ 86g each. This is going to be a huge weight savings.


----------



## Kris (Jun 15, 2004)

Curmy said:


> By the way - anybody is using those Panaracer green polyurethane tubes? How do they hold up?


They actually work OK. I've gotten 2 flats on them during the later half of last season, both were super small pin pricks that I didn't even notice until the next day. They are easily fixable with Park glueless patches which I can't say for Michelin latex which I usually use.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

Curmy said:


> By the way - anybody is using those Panaracer green polyurethane tubes? How do they hold up?


I've used them. I had one tube last for over a year, maybe two years. i had another one go flat at the end of a race. The Conti Supersonic tubes I tried were terrible.
I would try these but not if they cost three times as much as a regular tube.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



limba said:


> I've used them. I had one tube last for over a year, maybe two years. i had another one go flat at the end of a race. The Conti Supersonic tubes I tried were terrible.
> I would try these but not if they cost three times as much as a regular tube.


...buying 3 tubes because you got flats isn't any cheaper and it is heavier and slower all the time!

It's that common thinking that ultralight tubes equals weak tubes and many flats...this is wrong here! this tube is way superior in every aspect.

I'd say most guys in this forum also buy the lighter, foldable version of a tire which costs 3 times as much as the heavier wire-version, right? that's because the performance is definitely< better while the tire is also lighter at the same time. But since this is a well known fact people just accept the steeper price tag.

Same here - as soon as people will see the real benefits i'm sure they will be willing to accept its higher price. Time will tell. I know it sounds weird and unreal that such a light tube is actually better but this is how things are.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

bholwell said:


> Looks like the tubes they had on display at Interbike '07. I'll have to dig up the pics.


Correction: It was actually at the '08 Cycle Show in Taipei where I saw something similar. They performed a demonstration that showed punctures leaked very slowly as long as the object was still in the tire/tube. They also showed that by using a lighter it was possible to soften/melt the material at the site of the puncture, one could then pinch the material together and effectively repair the tube. No patch needed- just a lighter.

Nino, is this possibly the same product? Perhaps Eclipse bought the patent?


----------



## diziq (Nov 7, 2008)

Is the valve aluminium?


----------



## eliflap (Dec 13, 2007)

looks like ... a rim flap... not a tube ....

but the weight is so incredible


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

bholwell said:


> Nino, is this possibly the same product? Perhaps Eclipse bought the patent?


NO - that's not the same and has nothing to do with the Eclipse tube.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

diziq said:


> Is the valve aluminium?


yes - the valve is aluminium.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

what kind of material are the eclipse tubes made of?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Material...*



sergio_pt said:


> what kind of material are the eclipse tubes made of?


some kind of rubber 
sorry - more details when it's available.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> NO - that's not the same and has nothing to do with the Eclipse tube.


Well, it is some new transparent plastic, and they are somewhat puncture resistant. Glad to see that Eclipse are not the only ones trying to innovate a bit. (I would bet on Taiwan companies being able to bring it into mass production if it works)

About time. I want light, puncture resistant tubes and no more sealant mess and maintenance. If they last for a long time I would not mind paying a good fraction of a new tire cost for a tube.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

would love to put these (700c version) in my cyclocross tubulars, maybe they'll be available for next season.


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

nino said:


> some kind of rubber
> sorry - more details when it's available.


Kinda out of subject but Nino could you please get contact me back. I've sent you emails and PMs last week and haven't heard from you since. Thanks


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

I'm sick of the teasing. Just let us know when/where we can buy them, and we'll review! 

Also do these require talc-ing
B


----------



## Hardtailforever (Feb 11, 2004)

FTM said:


> would love to put these (700c version) in my cyclocross tubulars, maybe they'll be available for next season.


I imagine that would be quite difficult, no? Unless you're running "open tubulars" on clincher rims.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

Not really, you would put the new tube in just like when you replace a flatted latex tube: Remove base tape, unsew tubular, remove latex tube, install new tube, re-sew, glue down base tape. I've done it, although lately I pay a guy in Florida to do it for me for $20.

If available in time, I'd just have mine made with the new innertubes to begin with, can't see why Dugast and FMB wouldn't oblige if I supplied the tubes.


----------



## sir_crackien (Feb 3, 2008)

very interesting. i will be lurking on this thread.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

sir_crackien said:


> very interesting. i will be *lurking* on this thread.


Too late, you are already actively participating.


----------



## reformed roadie (Mar 30, 2008)

*Any word on who these guys are?*



bholwell said:


> Correction: It was actually at the '08 Cycle Show in Taipei where I saw something similar. They performed a demonstration that showed punctures leaked very slowly as long as the object was still in the tire/tube. They also showed that by using a lighter it was possible to soften/melt the material at the site of the puncture, one could then pinch the material together and effectively repair the tube. No patch needed- just a lighter.


Any info on who these guys are? Have they brought them to market? Under what brand?


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

reformed roadie said:


> Any info on who these guys are? Have they brought them to market? Under what brand?


I can't recall the name of the company, but at the time they were still in the testing phase. I'll look for them again next month.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Apparently it was a company called Foss

http://cyclingview.com/2008/03/21/taipei-cycle-show-2008/

http://www.foss.com.tw/products/products_show.php?cid=2&pid=1


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Apparently it was a company called Foss


Interesting.



Foss Worldwide said:


> Our EFT are a* highly polymerized un-vulcanized rubber composite*. When punctured, the material forms and air-tight seal retarding the leak speed giving the rider extra time to make safe repairs.
> *30% lighter* than the competition, EFT have a density if only 0.88 g/cc compared to that traditional tubes which can have densities up to 1.3 g/cc.
> The elasticity of EFT make them *resistant to punctures and pinches* providing added safety for riders.
> Made from *modified thermoplastic elastomer compounds* (TPE), EFT can be recycled with other TPE products protecting the environment by minimizing waste.


I wonder what this magic Eclipse tube is made from and how it compares.

Anybody sells this Foss thing? I bet it will be much cheaper then anything from Switzerland.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Interesting coincidence.

Foss "completed production line" on Jan 16.

And passed standard reliability test on January 20, clearing it for being sold from Taiwan.

And a couple weeks later our Swiss friends go public with something that oddly resembles that product (at least in the claimed performance benefits and appearance).


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Curmy said:


> Interesting coincidence.
> 
> Foss "completed production line" on Jan 16.
> 
> ...


Can't get much closer looking than that, huh? :thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Interesting coincidence.
> 
> And a couple weeks later our Swiss friends go public with something that oddly resembles that product (at least in the claimed performance benefits and appearance).


*sorry - but once again these china-tubes have nothing to do with the Eclipse tube from SWITZERLAND!!*

we had this exact same debate in the german ww-forum and even Foss replied that they have nothing to do with Eclipse at all:
"The product from the company Eclipse is not FOSS's product [...]

The weight of our product the EFT is depending on the size, around 60g (20/25C-32C) - 120g (26/2.3-2.6) "

They use some sort of Thermoplastic rubber.Repairs can be done using a lighter and a screwdriver to melt a possible hole together....no kidding! this can be found on their flyers instructions on how to repair.

release date: "soon"...strange since they already showed up on the 2008 Taipeh show last spring!

I'd say it's pretty obvious that with this weight it has nothing in common with the 56g Eclipse tube.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> sorry - but once again these china-tubes have nothing to do with the Eclipse tube from SWITZERLAND!!


There is no need to shout, as we all just learned about both of the products and asking questions. If you do not want us speculating, then quit playing hard to get and hinting and just provide solid data.

And, frankly, I find nothing special about Eclipse being from Switzerland, besides the usual expectation of being overpriced and heavily hyped. Taiwan is more then capable of producing quality products, and that particular product is obviously not targeted directly to weight savings. If it is durable, close to 100g for 2.0", and cheap, it will have its place.

As far as having nothing in common - we will see when we know more about the material used by Eclipse and its other properties. So far, no data is available.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> There is no need to shout, as we all just learned about both of the products and asking questions. If you do not want us speculating, then quit playing hard to get and hinting and just provide solid data.
> 
> And, frankly, I find nothing special about Eclipse being from Switzerland, besides the usual expectation of being overpriced and heavily hyped. Taiwan is more then capable of producing quality products, and that particular product is obviously not targeted directly to weight savings. If it is durable, close to 100g for 2.0", and cheap, it will have its place.
> 
> As far as having nothing in common - we will see when we know more about the material used by Eclipse and its other properties. So far, no data is available.


It's made inesclamation since people seemed to believe i was presenting the Eclipse tube when in reality it was just a relabelled Foss...not so!

sorry-at the specifications of the diameter of the Eclipse tube i doubt you can find a cheap source in asia. Rest assured that Eclipse has done their homework and so far only very few are able to extrude such thin material with constant thickness and quality.

I can only provide the data i am sure of which is the weight, the ride and the looks. i am not involved in the manufacturing and actually didn't care of the details too much. I got the tubes and ride theem since a couple of months without any issues. That's it.

I think Eclipse will tell the details when the tubes get released. Maybe i can get more info before that but i really don't care as long asthey perform as they do.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> It's made inesclamation since people seemed to believe i was presenting the Eclipse tube when in reality it was just a relabelled Foss...not so!


I was not suggesting that. I just found it to be an interesting coincidence that two products innovating in a visibly similar direction (for the lack of better data) are coming to market at the same time, after years of little progress in this technology. I am sure Eclipse will provide better quality - judging by their previous work.



nino said:


> I can only provide the data i am sure of which is the weight, the ride and the looks. i am not involved in the manufacturing and actually didn't care of the details too much. I got the tubes and ride theem since a couple of months without any issues. That's it.


I understand. That's why I (and I am sure a lot of other people on this board) am looking forward for further details as they come out.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Curmy said:


> I was not suggesting that. I just found it to be an interesting coincidence that two products innovating in a visibly similar direction (for the lack of better data) are coming to market at the same time, after years of little progress in this technology. I am sure Eclipse will provide better quality - judging by their previous work.
> 
> I understand. That's why I (and I am sure a lot of other people on this board) am looking forward for further details as they come out.


Oh, come on! Normally, I stay out of these "discussions," but I'm calling total and complete BS on this latest comment of yours. You were OBVIOUSLY suggesting that this new Eclipse tube was the same as the Foss product. At least have the guts to own up to it, eh?

Even if not--and I doubt that you were not--you were, at the very least, trying to bully Nino into telling us more information. I'm sure more info will come out when it's available. If you really just want to know more, I'm pretty sure that there are better ways to "ask.'


----------



## ecoast (Nov 7, 2008)

*Well...*

Well Curmy was drawing our attention to a VERY similar product, releasing @ the same time...I mean as far as weight, '30%'less could mean 100gms minus 30% = 70gms...

A lot of parallel; no?

Oh, and more free adverts for possible distrubution....


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

ecoast said:


> Well Curmy was drawing our attention to a VERY similar product, releasing @ the same time...I mean as far as weight, '30%'less could mean 100gms minus 30% = 70gms...
> 
> A lot of parallel; no?


no - if the main purpose of that other tube would be minimal weight they would clearly state it...they don't. Instead they just say it's 30% lighter which for me means 30% lighter than a conventional tube which usually is about 150g.

It seems i'm right since they even confirmed the weights as following:
"The weight of our product the EFT is depending on the size, around *60g* (20/25C-32C) - *120g* (26/2.3-2.6) "

So a 20" BMX tube is 60g, a real MTB tube is 100-120g. Still light but nowhere near as light as the Eclipse tube.

Then that other tube was presented already last spring at Taipeh cycle show while Eclipse still hasn't showed their product officially.


----------



## celestequattro (Nov 29, 2008)

Nino

Following this thread and the RK thread. I am new to ghetto tubeless (have been using it for only 1 month) and have not even fitted my own tyres yet.

Are you saying that once these tubes are out you will be using them and ditching a Stans tubeless set up altogether?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*uuuuh!*



celestequattro said:


> Nino
> 
> Following this thread and the RK thread. I am new to ghetto tubeless (have been using it for only 1 month) and have not even fitted my own tyres yet.
> 
> Are you saying that once these tubes are out you will be using them and ditching a Stans tubeless set up altogether?


I never used Stans!
I am using Eclipse only!!!

yes - i already converted all my bikes back to these tubes! They offer all the advantages of the tubelesskits without the hassle of installation, possible leaks and allow for quick and easy tire changes...


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

I don't see the problem people have here, great product. Nino do I order them from you when they're available?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

saga said:


> I don't see the problem people have here, great product. Nino do I order them from you when they're available?


It's not about me selling them!

They will be sold through distributors worldwide.


----------



## celestequattro (Nov 29, 2008)

Nino

Thanks for the reply.

These tubes will be an answer to my prayers! Please let us know when they are out. Will make switching tyres dead easy and saves another 45g on the spare in my back pocket.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Weeno,

So how did you come up with 30 times more resitant to pinch flats than normal tubes number? How was this measured?

How are you testing these in the middle of winter? What type of riding was done to test?

What test was used to measure rolling resitance?

How many miles do you have on these tubes?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

JaLove said:


> Oh, come on! Normally, I stay out of these "discussions," but I'm calling total and complete BS on this latest comment of yours. You were OBVIOUSLY suggesting that this new Eclipse tube was the same as the Foss product. At least have the guts to own up to it, eh?


No, I was not. I would not bother quoting my own posts - I suggest you improve your reading comprehension.



JaLove said:


> you were, at the very least, trying to bully Nino in to telling us more information. '


Yes, I was.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

I have a question, and I'm surprised it hasn't been asked yet. I ride through goathead/tumbleweed/cactus country, so flat prevention is essential.

Before going tubeless, I tried using sealant-filled tubes. After the inevitable thorn, sealant would _puddle_ between the tube/tire... Air pressure is what forces sealant into a puncture, and is the whole idea behind tubeless actually working. When you use sealant-filled tubes, the pressure to force sealant into a thorn puncture is no longer there. *It will instead just leak gobs of sealant out and not have a boundary of air to dry.

How can it take the place of tubeless in conditions where deciduous spikes make their home?*


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

nino said:


> Rest assured that Eclipse has done their homework and so far only very few are able to extrude such thin material with constant thickness and quality.


Sure they have. They are called condoms. Millions are made a year.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Cheers! said:


> Sure they have. They are called condoms. Millions are made a year.


Good point. Now we need a glow-in-the-dark ribbed version of Eclipse tubes.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Cheers! said:


> Sure they have. They are called condoms. Millions are made a year.


There's likely more than a few kids born every year because of small holes in condoms. :skep: :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Curmy said:


> No, I was not. I would not bother quoting my own posts - I suggest you improve your reading comprehension.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Just sad, eh?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

JaLove said:


> Curmy said:
> 
> 
> > No, I was not. I would not bother quoting my own posts - I suggest you improve your reading comprehension.
> ...


 :???:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Kyle2834 said:


> I have a question, and I'm surprised it hasn't been asked yet. I ride through goathead/tumbleweed/cactus country, so flat prevention is essential.
> 
> Before going tubeless, I tried using sealant-filled tubes. After the inevitable thorn, sealant would _puddle_ between the tube/tire... Air pressure is what forces sealant into a puncture, and is the whole idea behind tubeless actually working. When you use sealant-filled tubes, the pressure to force sealant into a thorn puncture is no longer there. *It will instead just leak gobs of sealant out and not have a boundary of air to dry.
> 
> How can it take the place of tubeless in conditions where deciduous spikes make their home?*


Finally a good point:
The whole idea is to have a tube so thin that mimicks the skin which sealant usually forms inside tubeless conversions. Such a thin "skin" is really attached to the inside of the tire and less of an individual part inside the tire. It is much softer and more flexible...by the way - this is what reduces the rolling resistance! We all know that sealant inside a regular tube isn't doing too good. Only minor holes can be sealed (only using good sealants that is!). The constant movement/flex inside the tire makes holes re-open and leak again. Also a streched Butyl tube has a tendency to rip open once there is a cut or hole. There is so much strech on the material and the material itself isn't too elastic. That's why minor holes or cuts end up bigger in regular tubes.

So the idea was to get a really thin skin inside the tire. Now this skin is out of an extraordinary rubber which is far more resistant than any other tube out there.It is extremely elastic yet extremely resistant to cuts. So far it seems the concept is working. We had Thomas Frischknecht riding it in Tuscany /Italy where you have lots of thorns and sharp rocks.I know that place, i go there every spring too and usually you get a flat about every hour when riding in a group! Everyone has to carry at least 1 spare tube because of this and often we found ourselves fixing flats because we run out of tubes....in 2000 i started riding "tubeless" with sealant and didn't get punctures anymore....now Frischi never got a flat using the Eclipse tube as well...for me this is like the ultimate test. If it does withstand riding down there it s really doing extremely well.

Basically the tube is just acting as a sealant skin yet there is still sealant inside if ever you get a puncture from a thorn. The material of the tube is so resistant it is almost impossible to get a snakebite. Sure you still can get a flat. There is no such thing like 100% protection but so far for me they come very close.

The advantage over Tubeless conversions is it is airthight right from the beginning ! No possible airleaks, no fiddling with compressors or adding more selant or having the tire half flat the next day, no messy sealant...the tube is handled like any other tube, mounts easy with EVERY tire and you don't need any practice to set it up unlike tubeless conversions where too many people stay away because of all the hassle that is involved. You often need a compressor, some tires are simply too porous and won't seal or will do so only after serious treatment...anyway - with this inner tube you will get the same benefits but with a much easier setup. Tire changes are easy and can be done minutes before a start...no special kits for specific rims. No guidelines to follow, no restrictions at all. This tube just fits. The whole things is just that : it is EASY, LIGHT and WORKS.

Important note : tubeless conversions do work great if set up right!! If you did it a couple of times you get accustomed to it, you know the tricks and know how to act whenever there is a problem. I used tubelesskits since 8 years and i can seal almost every tire (important note: almost) But there's many,many people that still have their fare share of problems when trying to set up a tire using sealant. And we all know - It can be a mess. I doubt there is riders that didn't have their fare share of problems while setting up some tires. Only experience helps in getting some tires to seal 100%...no wonder you see so many questions asked about tubelesskits: "Is tire XY ok to be used with sealant?...."Is setup XY going to work'"..."What pressure do you use with sealant?"...."Will tire XY inflate using a floorpump?"....

...you all know what i mean.

This should come to an end with the Eclipse tube. EVERYONE, even your grandmother, knows how a inner tube works. No explanation needed. No instructions to follow. It fits and works. If you use sealant is up to you. Those looking for best flat-protection might add some right away. Others might use it without any sealant and just pour some in in case of a flat (like myself).

I hope i could explain a bit better what it is all about. Don't ask me about chemical details etc. ...i don't know which exact material or other detailed specifications. I just told you what i know and so far it works.

Only time will tell if it is really that good. It will still take some time to be available...once available rest assured you will know about it.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

Wow. Well that's a cool idea. If it works. Can't wait to give it a try.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> . EVERYONE, even your grandmother, knows how a inner tube works. No explanation needed.


Yeah, that's explains people complaining about $25 flat repair bills in an LBS in the "beginner" area of this forum. 

All in all, prod your friend to ship us some finished product, or at least some more technical data on the material.

By the way, as far as tubes and sealant - thick glycol sealant, such as Slime's stuff already works somewhat. I could imagine that sealant for the new tube should also be designed in tandem with tube's properties.


----------



## acunha (Dec 31, 2008)

Maybe you will have to test it in humid weather, i mean, different conditions from USA.... I suggest to test it in Brazil !! Just tell me, I will be happy to help  lol


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

So, does Frischi already have Dugasts with these tubes? That should be the ultimate of ultimates?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Cloxxki said:


> So, does Frischi already have Dugasts with these tubes? That should be the ultimate of ultimates?


nah - not yet.he wants but there's some hurdles to overcome...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

condoms also have these kind of properties nino decribed  maybe its a similar material.

whats the estimated price for one innertube nino?


----------



## whybotherme (Sep 12, 2008)

hey nino... when are these going to be available? what is the projected price? seems like you have lots of people salivating over them....


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*2-3 months...*



whybotherme said:


> hey nino... when are these going to be available? what is the projected price? seems like you have lots of people salivating over them....


As i already wrote in my initial post it might take another 2-3 months go get them. Although i doubt that there will be masses available seeing how thing progress over here...Pricing is still in the air since it was planned to sell them together with sealant only. So not just a tube but rather a "system" just like a tubelesskit. But from the reactions it seems most won't use sealant anway so the tube might be available just individually as well.

Anyway -it will definitely cost more than your typical Latex-tube. It is not made in asia and there's quite a lot involved in doing it...made in Switzerland!


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

*Chasing windmills?*

Wow, 4 pages on something that isn't even known if it can be mass produced yet?

Looks great, but call us back in a few months when it's on the shelf.


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

If a product isn't available, people aren't allowed to talk about it?


----------



## fernandoj (Mar 19, 2008)

What a pity it wasn't released before! :yikes:


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

:crazy:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

fernandoj said:


> What a pity it wasn't released before! :yikes:


1st time i would like to see some tubes explode


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Amazing looking woman. Too bad see seems to know she is.


----------



## ecoast (Nov 7, 2008)

I wonder how she rides tubeless....:thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*48g !*

well - yesterday was the 8th birthday of my son and since the main man at Eclipse is his godfather he got 2 tubes for his next 24" bike that i am already building. It will get summer before he can throw a leg over it...he is still to small.

anyway - these tubes weigh 48g!!

easily saved 100g per wheel. i tried hard to find lightweight inner tubes in this particular size but found only some Schwalbe tubes at 145g or so.Still 15g lighter than the tubes i already got with that bike... The weight-weenie i am i still ordered those Schwalbes and was happy about the 30g savings total....but now i see them collect dust in my basement

I just realized that my BMX Cruiser also has 24" wheels...hmmm...so 4" lenght weigh ca. 8g.....if i'm right BMX bikes have 20"...so we would be looking at around 40g for a 20" BMX inner tube...not bad.

Same for 29" wheels....if you add a couple of inches we would look at 29" tubes of ca. 65g !


----------



## Feideaux (Jan 14, 2004)

nino said:


> well - yesterday was the 8th birthday of my son and since the main man at Eclipse is his godfather he got 2 tubes for his next 24" bike that i am already building. It will get summer before he can throw a leg over it...he is still to small.


Sounds cool - post some pics of the junior bike build


----------



## Feideaux (Jan 14, 2004)

Cloxxki said:


> Amazing looking woman. Too bad see seems to know she is.


Too right.

Nothing wrong with a girl with confidence, though...I just wish Australian magazine editors would have the confidence to SHOOT SOME OTHER FEMALE MODEL OTHER THAN GUDEX once in a while. C'mon guys, what about Nikki Fisher?? :thumbsup:

Anyhoo, wow, can't wait for those Eclipse tubes


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Nino, any projected sale dates?


----------



## ash240 (Jun 2, 2007)

How much does the sealant weigh?
How easy are they to fix?
How hot can I run them?

I ride in 44c + (in the shade). Will they handle this?
What's the max psi for them? 

Who, what and how were they tested to be 30x less to puncture? 
You should be able to provide information if you post the claims


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



ash240 said:


> How much does the sealant weigh?
> How easy are they to fix?
> How hot can I run them?
> 
> ...


-I don't add any sealant at all---->0g
For those wanting to use sealant i'd say 30g will be sufficient for best protection. The tubes are completely airthight so unlike in tires where you always have some slight airloss these tubes remain inflated. no need for re-inflation on a constant basis therefore less of a humidity loss and less chance the sealant dries out inside.

-They can be fixed using Park Tool patches for example.

-about 400 degrees celsius or even more if you like --->no problem inside bicycles rims.So yes for sure they will handle your riding temperatures.

-Max. psi is definitely more than your tires can handle...or have you ever had a tube explode inside your tire??? I don't.

-Tested under a hydraulic press using a 10mm wide steel shaft which mimicked the contact area of a rim hitting the ground. Pressure was applied until the shaft cut through. The material was approx. 30 times more resistant than your typical butyl tube.

i think that's all you asked


----------



## PlasticBike (Sep 27, 2008)

nino said:


> -Tested under a hydraulic press using a 10mm wide steel shaft which mimicked the contact area of a rim hitting the ground. Pressure was applied until the shaft cut through. The material was approx. 30 times more resistant than your typical butyl tube.
> 
> i think that's all you asked


That's quite a test! However, it sounds like that's more applicable to a pinch-flat situation than a puncture situation - a cactus thorn or goathead will not be 10mm wide. What sort of puncture dangers are you facing in your daily riding? The fact that you've gone so long without a flat is (to me) more impressive than the testing, and also more informative.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*correct...*



PlasticBike said:


> That's quite a test! However, it sounds like that's more applicable to a pinch-flat situation than a puncture situation - a cactus thorn or goathead will not be 10mm wide. What sort of puncture dangers are you facing in your daily riding? The fact that you've gone so long without a flat is (to me) more impressive than the testing, and also more informative.


correct - that's pinch-flat testing.

Thorns are for sure a different story and for sure such a thin tube is not bombproof against them but as mentioned i did 1500 km without any flats where i had a flat every second outing before using the supersonics. It's hard to judge the resistance when you still haven't flatted. Frischi was using them in Tuscany/Italy where there are LOTs of thorns as well and didn't get a flat...so rest assured they do perform better than your usual tube.


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

Zachariah said:


> Nino, any projected sale dates?


post#88


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

Zachariah said:


> Nino, any projected sale dates?


post#88

2-3 months


----------



## paulbu (Feb 17, 2004)

Well, it sounds like they are better than regular tubes but to put them in the same class as tubeless is probably overstating it a bit. Yeah they have less mess but that isnt a big deal. It isnt like you have sealant all over the garage after mounting a tire. With tubeless you are basically flat free with the exception of large tears in the tire casing. Tubes dont do well with those either. Sealant is going to work better for punctures from thorns. Weight is the same or better with sealant.

I'd probably still opt to carry one of these as a spare but quite frankly i have never had to use a spare tube since switching to Stan's. 

I will use these in my kid's bmx bike though. Tubeless isnt too easy to mount on 20" rims.

Funny thing, a few months ago i used my spare on my Mom's bike. Turns out that my spare had a puncture from being in my tool bag. So maybe these tubes will be more resistant to puntures while sitting in the tool bag?


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

Most important is the ability to change out tires easily, especially for racing. Tubeless doesn't make this very easy.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Feideaux said:


> Too right.
> 
> Nothing wrong with a girl with confidence, though...I just wish Australian magazine editors would have the confidence to SHOOT SOME OTHER FEMALE MODEL OTHER THAN GUDEX once in a while. C'mon guys, what about Nikki Fisher?? :thumbsup:
> 
> Anyhoo, wow, can't wait for those Eclipse tubes


I'd like to see Gunn-Rita or Irina wearing TUBELESS!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

There's always this calendar


----------



## gixer7 (Jul 26, 2007)

FTM said:


> Most important is the ability to change out tires easily, especially for racing. Tubeless doesn't make this very easy.


And even more important it means no longer having to tear my hair out trying to inflate a rogue tyre that just point blank refuses to.

Have lost countless hours of my life to these innocent looking spawns of the devil.

This new tube I will definitely try.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It never fails with tubeless, one tire mounts up with a floor pump and the other takes a trip to the gas station to use their air compressor. :skep: :madman:


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> It never fails with tubeless, one tire mounts up with a floor pump and the other takes a trip to the gas station to use their air compressor. :skep: :madman:


Or your Crappy Tire 7 gallon air tank with the tire chuck cut off the hose. The tubing fits the Presta valve stem quite nicely. A small hose clamp, and you can open the valve on the tank to air them up with 120 psi of air!


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

I have an air compressor and there are still those times when I want to smash my head into the ground.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> There's always this calendar


Thanx Rocky....[SLURP]...that will tide my impatience!!!


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

nino said:


> correct - that's pinch-flat testing.
> 
> Thorns are for sure a different story and for sure such a thin tube is not bombproof against them but as mentioned i did 1500 km without any flats where i had a flat every second outing before using the supersonics. It's hard to judge the resistance when you still haven't flatted. Frischi was using them in Tuscany/Italy where there are LOTs of thorns as well and didn't get a flat...so rest assured they do perform better than your usual tube.


Did Frischi use sealent in Tuscany? Do you have any updates as to when these will be available? I cant wait to try them out!


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> There's always this calendar


That just proves once again that Ergon green color doesn't go with anything.


----------



## JB. (Feb 9, 2008)

Any news here?


----------



## zach.scofield (Feb 18, 2009)

Nino,
Is there a way you could find out who the distributor will be? I would like to get that info so that I can carry these tubes. Feel free to PM / email me anytime w/ whatever specifics you may get.
Thanks,
Zach


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*it's still too early*



zach.scofield said:


> Nino,
> Is there a way you could find out who the distributor will be? I would like to get that info so that I can carry these tubes. Feel free to PM / email me anytime w/ whatever specifics you may get.
> Thanks,
> Zach


Hi Zach,
you didn't mention where you are and i am the wrong guy to ask anyway.Just get in touch with Eclipse direct...they will know. I don't. Usually i think it might be those who carried the Eclipse-tubelesskits before.

bye
nino

@JB:
latest news is that Thomas Frischknecht, Nino Schurter (silver medaillist at the '08 olympics) and Florian Vogel ('08 european champion,silver medaillist at the '08 worldchampionships) and many other top-racers are/were testing these tubes under severe conditions in Tuscany/Italy.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

So when are we going to find out pricing?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

mtbnozpikr said:


> So when are we going to find out pricing?


in front of the counter?

c'mon guys.the parts are not out yet.you will know soon enough. But anyway - it will be one of the cheapest weight savings on our bikes!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> But anyway - it will be one of the cheapest weight savings on our bikes!


Given that $1/g may be considered a good ratio, and those tubes save 50g+, I just hope they will be cheaper then a decent set or tires.


----------



## JB. (Feb 9, 2008)

nino said:


> in front of the counter?
> 
> c'mon guys.the parts are not out yet.*you will know soon enough.* But anyway - it will be one of the cheapest weight savings on our bikes!


Now isn't soon enough


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

JB. said:


> Now isn't soon enough


i have them since september '08...so i don't really care


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

Not trying to beat a dead horse or anything, but considering that most companies with new products (magura marta sl magnesium, formula r1) have an announced price, or at least an idea of what their new product is going to cost well in advance, I just thought that there might be something more known about these tubes.


----------



## catnash (Jan 14, 2004)

Just stumbled upon this thread and will keep an eye out for them.


----------



## zach.scofield (Feb 18, 2009)

Nino, 
Any updates on the tubes?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

zach.scofield said:


> Nino,
> Any updates on the tubes?


Not really. Production is on the way so release will be sometimes this summer. I don't think they can produce enough for the demand at first so there will only be a limited number of tubes available. These are HANDMADE over here in Switzerland. Unlike the production on a regular butyl inner tube these actually need to be assembled completely by hand.

BTW - just yesterday i went for a training ride with young racers over here in Switzerland and on a very steep DH-section we had two nice blow-offs of tires mounted with a tubeless conversion (not Eclipse- another famous one). At the base of that really steep section we had 2 guys having to re-inflate their tires.... and one having to mount a inner tube, the other one could air up his front tire again.
...it won't happen again with a inner tube.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino But anyway - it will be one of the cheapest weight savings on our bikes![/QUOTE said:


> Unless these tubes are lighter than Sealant, no saving to be found.


----------



## norcom (Feb 22, 2007)

nino said:


> ...there will only be a limited number of tubes available. These are HANDMADE over here in Switzerland...


I'm betting they'll cost more than a new set of tires.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

nino said:


> BTW - just yesterday i went for a training ride with young racers over here in Switzerland and on a very steep DH-section we had two nice blow-offs of tires mounted with a tubeless conversion (not Eclipse- another famous one). At the base of that really steep section we had 2 guys having to re-inflate their tires.... and one having to mount a inner tube, the other one could air up his front tire again.
> ...it won't happen again with a inner tube.


i've seen the difference in performance between an ECLIPSE system and NOTUBES... No wonder eclipse is going to be making tubes.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

snowdrifter said:


> Unless these tubes are lighter than Sealant, no saving to be found.


These things weigh less less than most rim strips or cut-up tubes needed to convert to tubeless. Then you add the weight of sealant on top of that


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> . These are HANDMADE over here in Switzerland.


Beside the obvious cost issues, I fail to see any advantages of manual labor or the geographical location for something as straightforward as a rubber tube.

If it is not ready for production - it is not ready for production, simple as that.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> Unless these tubes are lighter than Sealant, no saving to be found.


sorry - you are wrong!

sealant: ca. 50-80g
valve: ca. 10g
rimstrip of any sort 5-30g

do the math - thanks!

oh and while you are at it maybe also take into account the duration of a tire change....1 minute with innertube VS sometimes a couple of days for tubeless conversions.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

kevbikemad said:


> i've seen the difference in performance between an ECLIPSE system and NOTUBES... No wonder eclipse is going to be making tubes.


And i have seen how Notubes performs just yesterday

Reading in this forum alone reveals that many,many people are having issues getting their tires to seal properly with tubelesskits....if you have read the main purpose of this tube and all it's advantages you will see that there are many benefits.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Beside the obvious cost issues, I fail to see any advantages of manual labor or the geographical location for something as straightforward as a rubber tube.
> 
> If it is not ready for production - it is not ready for production, simple as that.


Problem is you can't produce them mechanically/automatically! The material it is made of is pretty specific and they need to be made by hand.

They aren't as straightforward as you think. But they are about to be released soon.:thumbsup:


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Problem is you can't produce them mechanically/automatically! The material it is made of is pretty specific and they need to be made by hand.


I fail to see how it is a good thing. If this technology is to have any long-term feature, automation issues need to be solved. I guess that where production capacity and capital for equipment helps large Asian producers.

We know how good are hand made tubulars, but for pretty much everybody who does not ride for a living that is utterly irrelevant.



nino said:


> And i have seen how Notubes performs just yesterday


Yeah, and we all know very well how unbiased you are. NoTubes performs just fine.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*what's your problem?*



Curmy said:


> I fail to see how it is a good thing. If this technology is to have any long-term feature, automation issues need to be solved. I guess that where production capacity and capital for equipment helps large Asian producers.
> 
> We know how good are hand made tubulars, but for pretty much everybody who does not ride for a living that is utterly irrelevant.


The production problem is not yours. You will buy one if you like if not let it be. How they are going to be produced is pretty much irrelevant.

Do you like your frame handmade in the US or Italy etc... or mass produced by an asian company? It's pretty much the same here. I personally don't care as long as the quality of the part is ok.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> How they are going to be produced is pretty much irrelevant.


Cost and availability are not irrelevant. People can do one off prototypes, brag about them and nobody cares. As of right now Eclipse tubes as a product do not exist. Product means something one can order.



nino said:


> Do you like your frame handmade in the US or Italy etc... or mass produced by an asian company? It's pretty much the same here. I personally don't care as long as the quality of the part is ok.


I like my frame to be well made and perform well. If not for mass produced frames the sport of mountain biking would be non-existent.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

everything can be automated with the right machines. If It is a new process maybe it needs new machines to be invented to the task....


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

sergio_pt said:


> everything can be automated with the right machines. If It is a new process maybe it needs new machines to be invented to the task....


That is a good point, but how many companies would invest in inventing a new machine for a product without any _proven_ market? That takes guts, deep pockets, or a thick skull


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

boomn said:


> That is a good point, but how many companies would invest in inventing a new machine for a product without any _proven_ market? That takes guts, deep pockets, or a thick skull


Lets have Eclipse do the maths correctly. Hopefully they will to keep the costs and the final price as low as possible. I think producing this part all by a very complicated manual labour in SWITZERLANL is a part of an excuse to release the innertube with a very high price tag.
Again Eclipse should do all the studies to release this as cheap as possible.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

boomn said:


> would invest in inventing a new machine


It is certainly possible to study market - and extruding rubber tube is not exactly the newest thing in the world. Condom making comes to mind.

I will certainly pay extra for a quality product with the declared characteristics - but I would not pay an extra cent for the "Handmade in Switzerland" stamp on it. Rubber tubes should be made by political prisoners in Asia, that's just makes sense.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

I agree with both of you. I hope as well that Eclipse does their homework on this one. I would probably pay more for this special tube than for a normal tube simply based on the reviews that I have read in this forum but it has to be within reach hopefully for more than just professional racers with sponsors. I think that we all agree that the more reasonable they are (to a point), the more the company will make, even if they are "handmade in Switzerland."


----------



## zach.scofield (Feb 18, 2009)

Handmade should not warrant a hugh increase in price but I will pay a premium price for a quality handmade product. For example: Schwalbe and Conti tires that carry a handmade in XXXX logo only cost slightly more than the comparable machine produced units. If Eclipse plans to continue making these tubes they will release them at a market value similar to the difference in tire pricing. Its basic economics. Everyone knows that handmade quality items always cost more but Eclipse also knows that if they plan to sell these tubes they will have to come in at a reasonable cost compared to the rest of the industry.

I patiently await the release of these tubes. I may not sell a hugh amount of them to customers but I will use them.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

boomn said:


> These things weigh less less than most rim strips or cut-up tubes needed to convert to tubeless. Then you add the weight of sealant on top of that


Who needs rimstrips ?? Get some Stans Rims, or Some UST rims, and get out stone ages of ghetto tubeless.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

snowdrifter said:


> Who needs rimstrips ?? Get some Stans Rims, or Some UST rims, and get out stone ages of ghetto tubeless.


Can we stay within the same topic please? Stans and UST aren't relevant because we are talking about products to use with your _existing_ non-tubeless rims. These tubes are being advertised as a cheap and easy way to lose weight and gain reliability versus either a regular tube or a tubeless conversion with rim strip and sealant. Rim strips came up because they are necessary on normal rims. Assuming that these tubes actually work like claimed, I would rather buy some of these than two new wheel builds along with $80 rims.

Second, I thought we were arguing about which one is lighter? In that case you shouldn't bring UST into this, haha. The difference in weight for a UST tire is more than any rim strip or sealant (and I wouldn't run UST without sealant personally)


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

mtbnozpikr said:


> I would probably pay more for this special tube than for a normal tube simply based on the reviews that I have read in this forum


Just remember that the review in this forum was made by the the manufacturer's best friend


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

*Omg...*

2.5 months passed, coming


----------



## sghound (Sep 24, 2008)

Atmos said:


> 2.5 months passed, coming


VAPORWARE?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

lol ninoware


----------



## ettore (Nov 13, 2004)

I don't see how these tubes would have to be made by hand compared to a normal tube. I mean, they LOOK the same as a normal tube (large tube, melted at a junction with a valve melted to it). Admittedly garbage bags, shopping bags and the like are not watertight, but they're also orders of magitude thinner than these tubes will ever be. When was the last time you saw a garbage bag with a visible hole in it? My current garbage bags are so thin they're transparent ... they hold like 25lbs of garbage and weigh like 6 grams.

All I am saying is that IF they wanted to mass produce these for a reasonable price, they could. However, they would likely rather melt their fancy valve on there for a tube made in Asia and charge exorbitant prices; I have more faith in machine made asian copies to be completely honest. Whoever said condoms result in more than a few babies in a year due to random holes ... probably ... however a large portion of those are not "name brand"; I happen to know that Trojan has VERY stringent quality control (it's on their website, they take their reputation very seriously). Oh, and trust me, more than "a few" of these light tubes will explode on first inflation.

At $25/tube, assuming they work, I would try them at least. However, I don't generally go for the $1/gram on a disposable item (unless, of course, the tubes end up not being disposable really).

Good they are trying to make a better version of the asian one though, lets just see if they can actually do it.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Nino, you have effectively teased us all about these tubes for THREE MONTHS now. Are you blowing smoke at us? This better be gut!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*hahaha...*

No vaporware!
I just enjoyed a 1 week vacation in Italy (Tuscany) where the 56g inner tubes did pretty well. 
It just needs time and they also have to pass some DIN-tests before they are beeing released.

And no - they can't be "melted" together just like your regular tube.That's why they need to be made by hand piece per piece. Also the valve can't be melted into them.

Anyway - soner or later they will be released. It seems i was just too fast in passing out some info


----------



## eliflap (Dec 13, 2007)

nino said:


> No vaporware!
> I just enjoyed a 1 week vacation in Italy (Tuscany)


oh really ???    

sorry for the OT ...


----------



## jp3d (Oct 9, 2004)

nino said:


> I just enjoyed a 1 week vacation in Italy (Tuscany) where the 56g inner tubes did pretty well.


What is this _"pretty well"_ !?!? I thought these things were supposed to be made from magic fairy dust: shouldn't they have done _unimaginably amazingly well_?


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

nino said:


> No vaporware!
> I just enjoyed a 1 week vacation in Italy (Tuscany) where the 56g inner tubes did pretty well.
> It just needs time and they also have to pass some DIN-tests before they are beeing released.
> 
> ...


I am trying to keep from drooling on my keyboard when this thread comes up. Imagine, potentially no more latex goop to have to deal with! Low pressure goodness and enhanced flat protection with no mess? I'm sold, your people just have to deliver!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*"pretty well..."*



jp3d said:


> What is this _"pretty well"_ !?!? I thought these things were supposed to be made from magic fairy dust: shouldn't they have done _unimaginably amazingly well_?


Pretty well in this case means riding a superthin tire with a hyperlight inner tube on trails filled with sharp rocks and spines.

As every year i just spent 1 week of mountainbiking in Italy (Massa Marittima/Tuscany). It's basically the second home of Frischi (Thomas Frischknecht) and many other top shots go there every spring to get in shape for the upcoming season.The trails are technical and the terrain is definitely a hard test for your equipment, especially tires and logically also the inner tubes."Eliflap" just bought a house down there so he might tell you guys about the terrain/trails as well. It is really singletrail heaven!! On the same trails there was the "Maremma-cup" just a couple of weeks ago:
http://lnx.maremmacup.com/

Here's a video i just found on Youtube:





We had almost the same bad weather during the past week...

And some more singeltrail impressions from down there:












 (That's me riding behind.That was in 2006)

Those living in Europe should consider this destination for a next biking vacation...its really superb for crosscountry riding!!

I decided to do the ultimate test using my Conti Race King 2,2" Supersonic tires although we all know that they are pretty bad protected, both against rocks and spines as well. I paired these tires to the 56g Eclipse-Tubes and didn't use any sealant. I just wanted to test them and in case of a flat wanted to know what caused it and if it could be fixed using sealant etc...

So i started the first day definitely with mixed feelings as down there you usually get several flats in a group ride every day. i was sure to have the wrong "shoes" on my bike! I was using tubelesskits for the last 8 years successfully and only once had a flat when my Schwalbe tires got a long cut from the sharp rocks. Anyway - the ride started and after just 30 minutes we had the first flat: UST gone flat because of a spine. That guy had some sealant in the tires so a couple of spins and some shaking and re-inflating took care of that. A couple minutes later the hole was sealed and we continued. We then had a major crash of our guide who hit a rock with his pedals and endoed hard. He had to take care of his knee and we stopped by a restaurant which we were lucky to find just ahead of us. we spent about 20 minutes there cleaning his blooding knee and when we re-started i discovered a soft front tire. I had a slow airleak...i already started to pull out the inner tube and wanted to put in a spare tube but then decided i give it a try using some sealant first. so i put the Eclipse-Tube back in, filled in about 30g of sealant and re-inflated the tire again. It sealed almost immediately so we continued the ride. No airloss at all. I rode on for the next 2 days and never had any airloss. Since the weather was pretty bad all the time the trails became muddier and slipprier from day to day. so on the 4th day i decided to put a brandnew tire on the front. The tires i had mounted were still the very first RaceKings from last fall...the rear was basically 50% worn so i put the front on the rear and a new one in the front for better control. when i took out the front tube i finally discovered the reason for my slow airleak: a pretty big spine was still stuck in the tire and also sticking into the tube!! As you can see by the pics below the sealant took care of the hole. I have to say i was pretty much impressed by that. I then mounted a new tire, put a Park-Tool patch on the hole to fix it and rode the remaining days without a single problem.

Back home i inspected the inner tubes once again and there is no additional hole neither front or back.We had up to 3 flats each day...i only had that slow airleak which got sealed by the sealant. so if i would have used sealant from the beginning i might have come away without even having to re-inflate. It seems the tubes , even if penetrated, loose air much slower than regular butyl or latex tubes.

I came away both impressed by tires (the RKs once again proved to be superb tires, especially in the wet over the rocks it seems i was the only one enjoying it when all others complained bitterly about any lack of grip) and by these inner tubes. They have shown to withstand really intense use. They're not 100% flatfree but that has been expected the way i was using them down there.But seeing the amount of flats others got and to see mine held up fine even with a spine sticking in the tire makes me feel even more secure for the future. I am definitely sold and will use them from now on. As i already told the ride also feels pretty much the same as using a Tubelesskit. the tires are much more supple than compared to regular tubes. it's really just like using converted tires with sealant but you don't have to mess with sealant and compressors anymore.


----------



## p_shep (Jan 12, 2005)

I've seen things that look a lot like that discarded on the side-walk...


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

p_shep said:


> I've seen things that look a lot like that discarded on the side-walk...


You're thinking about used condoms. What neighborhood are you from?


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

Sorry my bad english, but i need to make this question:
If a sharp rock cuts the tire sidewall, will this tube survive? or will it be cutted easily?
This is the main diference that would make me leave tubeless.
Thanks.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



shaggy.gpd said:


> Sorry my bad english, but i need to make this question:
> If a sharp rock cuts the tire sidewall, will this tube survive? or will it be cutted easily?
> This is the main diference that would make me leave tubeless.
> Thanks.


well - in case of a cut in the tire chances that you can ride on with a inner tube are much better than without...


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

nino said:


> well - in case of a cut in the tire chances that you can ride on with a inner tube are much better than without...


Of course


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

If you do not want to use sealant how this type of tube would be patched?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Eclipse-patches*



sergio_pt said:


> If you do not want to use sealant how this type of tube would be patched?


Easy - just use some adhesive patches also available from Eclipse !

These are similar style as Park-Tool patches. These are specially formulated to fit on the Eclipse tubes but will work on any regular tube as well. Regular patches don't work! You can't vulcanize this material!

As you can see things are progressing...at least the patches are already available


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

OK, in the meantime while I wait for this product to be readily available, what is a lightweight but durable tube that will work with Race King SS 2.2 tires?


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I've had good luck with Panaracer Greenlite tubes and terrible luck with Continental Supersonics. Your results may vary.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> Easy - just use some adhesive patches also available from Eclipse !
> 
> These are similar style as Park-Tool patches. These are specially formulated to fit on the Eclipse tubes but will work on any regular tube as well. Regular patches don't work! You can't vulcanize this material!
> 
> As you can see things are progressing...at least the patches are already available


cool, now bring the things cheap!


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

So attractive! Not...


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

So attractive! Not...


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Eclipse innertube is a non-starter for me, unless they make a patch kit for it. Glueless patches are temporary. I'm not interested in sealant either. Holding a cigarette lighter up to the tube? No thanks.


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

Unless they're stupid expensive, I imagine I'd just replace the tubes when I have a puncture. That's what I do with my current tubes. That said, it sounds like the eclipse will be far more durable than standard tubes based on what Nino has been saying.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Buster Bluth said:


> Unless they're stupid expensive


I'm guessing this product may challenge the definition of _*stupid expensive*_, at least compared to regular tubes. However if they are reasonably durable, then even much more expensive than regular tubes may in fact be a reasonable amount for the functionality.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

One aspect that you guys are missing is ride quality. The reason we use rubber compounds for tubes is also because of their ability to deform and expand under pressure and impacts. This tube that nino is testing looks like it might "feel" a little rigid once pumped up and on the trails. Maybe Nino can chip in about this. For the Race King which is a soft compound it might not be a problem.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Circlip said:


> I'm guessing this product may challenge the definition of _*stupid expensive*_, at least compared to regular tubes. However if they are reasonably durable, then even much more expensive than regular tubes may in fact be a reasonable amount for the functionality.


Compared to $120CDN for a Stan's kit?


----------



## B R H (Jan 13, 2004)

"Glueless patches are temporary."

Really? I've never had one fail yet but I've had many vulcanized patches crack & rot. Park glueless patches work great for me!


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Compared to $120CDN for a Stan's kit?


Who's using a full Stan's kit? The magical yellow tape is where it's at. Then a jug of Stan's sealant or equivalent will do quite a few tires. If a small batch of Eclipse tubes is cheaper than a jug of sealant then you may be on to something, unless people are going to be satisfied putting Eclipse patches all over them when required (time will tell).


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

Well, this is progress. How much for the patch kit?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Who's using a full Stan's kit?.


They sure offer it for sale... I would guess there are buyers.



Circlip said:


> The magical yellow tape is where it's at.


Tape at $12 a roll as an example of a sensible price?

(Disclosure - I have bought both.. Shame does not keep me awake at night.)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Feel...*



saga said:


> One aspect that you guys are missing is ride quality. The reason we use rubber compounds for tubes is also because of their ability to deform and expand under pressure and impacts. This tube that nino is testing looks like it might "feel" a little rigid once pumped up and on the trails. Maybe Nino can chip in about this. For the Race King which is a soft compound it might not be a problem.


As mentioned at the very beginning these tubes are so thin they really mimick the feel of a tire run "tubeless". There is a big difference compared to regular inner tubes. They make the ride much more supple, and it also seems they roll much faster just like converted tires do. This should be verified soon when the DIN-testing is all done.

I never had any problems using glueless patches as well. So far Park-Tool patches have served me well. Best is that you can just put them on the hole and ride on where with regular patches you need some time, clean..wait for the vulcanization...etc. That's what you can do back home in your garage but not if you are on a nice ride. I never have some regular patches with me on my rides but i always had Park-Tools just in case. Eclipse just wants to offer the best possible patches so people can do repair just in case. The sealant is protecting against smaller penetrations but if the hole is too big sealant might not be able to close it. And the response showed that most guys won't use sealant anyway so you need to offer patches that actually work. After all - this is not a inner tube you throw away after a flat! They're not 5$ a piece. The advantages of low weight, low rollingresistance and better flat resistance are well worth the investment.

Pricing is still unknown but seeing the amount people spend in tires and tubelesskits rest assured it is in reasonable limits. Just don't compare it with your 5$ butyl tube. It will offer a 40-100g weight reduction PER wheel at better performance in rollingresistance and puncture protection as well. It allows the use of ANY tire (unlike tubeless conversions where some tires aren't really suggested), no more mess with sealants and compressors, fast tire changes right before races, tires stay firm on EVERY rim also at lowest pressures without burping.....i think that's some pretty good advantages to start with and well worth a couple of bucks.

And here's some more weights for the other sizes that will be available:
BMX 20"x1,5-2,125: 
BMX 24"x1,5-2,25: 49g
XC 26"x1,5-2,25: 56g
AM 26"x2,25-2,6: 59g
Road 28"x18-25C: 29g
Trekking 28"x28-42C: 58g
29er 29"x1,5-2,25: 58g

I'd say these are pretty impressive weights


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

Hey Nino,

You mentioned earlier that the patches are available. I can't seem to find them anywhere to find a price but am hoping that you know: about how much is a patch kit going to run?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

mtbnozpikr said:


> Hey Nino,
> 
> You mentioned earlier that the patches are available. I can't seem to find them anywhere to find a price but am hoping that you know: about how much is a patch kit going to run?


sorry - I have no idea when exactly nor what they will cost. But they are already made in masses to be ready when the tubes get sold.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

> at least the patches are already available


Sorry Nino. I'm not trying to plaster you with questions you don't know or can't answer.


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

nino said:


> And here's some more weights for the other sizes that will be available:
> BMX 20"x1,5-2,125:
> BMX 24"x1,5-2,25: 49g
> XC 26"x1,5-2,25: 56g
> ...


No kidding I love how the AM is a whopping 3g more than XC


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Curmy said:


> They sure offer it for sale... I would guess there are buyers.


We're on the Weight Weenie board here, which (in some ways) is a more enlightened - pardon the pun - audience. I really don't give a rat's ass about the viability of the full Stan's kit with rubber strips, or who is buying them. Not even on the radar screen here as far as I'm concerned.



Curmy said:


> Tape at $12 a roll as an example of a sensible price?


Probably a buck worth of tape, but the value proposition for me of a roll of tape and jug of sealant is pretty attractive for me, so I have no problem with paying it.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Probably a buck worth of tape, but the value proposition for me of a roll of tape and jug of sealant is pretty attractive for me, so I have no problem with paying it.


Neither do I; I just was not sure it is a best example of frugality.  But you are right, this is a WW forum - for people with more money then common sense.


----------



## Robin v Berkel (Aug 19, 2008)

damn cant w8 to get them in my scalpel BBQ but i think i need wait a very long time to see them in shop :cryin:


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Neither do I; I just was not sure it is a best example of frugality.  But you are right, this is a WW forum - for people with more money then common sense.


I can only answer the question for myself, but there would be a price point for the Eclipse tubes beyond which I would just stick with sealant and yellow tape. $20 per tube, no problem since even Michelin latex tubes aren't far off this. $30 probably still a go, $40 starting to think pretty hard about it, $50+ maybe a total non-starter me, as the cost of tubes across multiple bikes, plus spares would cost hundreds of dollars. Even then I'd be faced with potentially running patched/repaired tubes anytime they are damaged. For the relatively low number of times I switch from my fave tires, I'd just stick with my current tape & sealant setup, with which I can equip a large number of bikes for about $30.

So, if anyone at Eclipse is listening, $20 sounds like a winner to me as a price for a premium product (compared to standard tubes) that may offer more convenience. Above $20, value propostion starts to decline rapidly for me, although others who don't have nicely functioning sealant setups already may find better value even at a higher price point.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Yep, I agree that $20 would be a reasonable price.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

there is people that would pay 100$ like Robin v Berkel and other really really rich weeeenies.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

They can make a version with gold plated valve for Robin v Berkel.


----------



## jtack (Sep 23, 2004)

Are the valve stems going to be colored?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Valve stems*



jtack said:


> Are the valve stems going to be colored?


Valve stems are red just like the one below

No- not available in pink,gold or green

just red.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

Circlip said:


> So, if anyone at Eclipse is listening, $20 sounds like a winner to me


+ 1

And hopefully we see black valve stem versions. That red annoys me, and would look ugly on many builds.


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

Kyle2834 said:


> + 1
> 
> And hopefully we see black valve stem versions. That red annoys me, and would look ugly on many builds.


Sharpy it!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Kyle2834... and would look ugly on many builds.[/QUOTE said:


> man - i had this colour debate already on the german forum. You guys complain about a tiny bit of red but ride along with mud-green stanchions on suspension forks??? No-one complains about that. Rainbow colours on every Ritchey WCS part...or colour xy on your bikes tires....Sorry - the colour is red as it has to be noticed. Michelin has green, most others are silver or golden...which leaves blue or red as the only "trademark" colour. Live with it or put some black duct tape on it if you can't stand the red. I for my part will proudly show it's a 56g Eclipse tube inside.
> 
> Sometimes i think people do look to make their life a problem:madman:


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Red is OK for me. I prefer threaded valve stems though. The little nut keeps the stem from going into the tire when you attach the pump to inflate it.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sfer1 said:


> Red is OK for me. I prefer threaded valve stems though. The little nut keeps the stem from going into the tire when you attach the pump to inflate it.


no nut!
a fixed valve will make for ripped-off valves in case the tire moves on the rim. you shouldn't use a nut there!


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

nino said:


> You guys complain about a tiny bit of red but ride along with mud-green stanchions on suspension forks??? No-one complains about that. Rainbow colours on every Ritchey WCS part...or colour xy on your bikes tires....Sorry - the colour is red as it has to be noticed.


Stanchions are that color for a functional reason, not advertisement purposes. :madman:

A red valve stem stands out like a dildo in a fourth grade science fair, and for no reason other than to advertise. You can't really justify that by saying it NEEDS to compete with the 'loudness' of other parts.

No it's not a big deal at all, I can obviously just sharpie it like I did the rest of my bike.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

nino said:


> no nut!
> a fixed valve will make for ripped-off valves in case the tire moves on the rim. you shouldn't use a nut there!


I've never had that problem with threaded valve stems. I did happen to me a few times using Torelli X-Lite tubes, which have unthreaded valve stems.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The red valve stem will go nicely with red alloy nipples...


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I'm fine with red. It looks cool to me.


----------



## waldojr (Nov 23, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> The red valve stem will go nicely with red alloy nipples...


Even nicer with red spokes!  :thumbsup:


----------



## ratmac (Jun 13, 2008)

it could have the rainbow
flag in the valve stem ... as long as it works and it loses weight i dont care what colour it is.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Kyle2834 said:


> Stanchions are that color for a functional reason, not advertisement purposes. :madman:


ahhh i see - if there's a reason mud-green or rainbows or whatever colours are ok. Maybe tell Conti that Nino from Switzerland doesn't like the orange letters on their tires.

Well - if you need a reason then it's the swiss can only anodize in red Maybe they'll do you a swiss army knife in pink....have you sent them a request too? Wait - stars and stripes? or a red dot in white for all the japanese guys...

ahhh - i'm in a good mood today.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Maybe they'll do you a swiss army knife in pink....have you sent them a request too? Wait - stars and stripes?








Victorinox does not seem to be as uptight about it.


----------



## collideous (Jul 1, 2006)

There's always colored heat shrink. Some even use it on brake lines and shifter cables.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello Nino.
Have you news. I can't wait.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*not really...*



MTB for ever said:


> Hello Nino.
> Have you news. I can't wait.


Material for the first batch is ready but the DIN-testing needs to be done first and the assembling also will take some time.Anyway.... things are progressing


----------



## yuths (May 15, 2006)

Hi Nino, I don't care about the DIN testing, can I buy sample now. 10 pairs please..


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no samples*



yuths said:


> Hi Nino, I don't care about the DIN testing, can I buy sample now. 10 pairs please..


no

Thre is no need to hurry. You guys will be the first to get the news when they are finally available. so don't ask....you will know soon enough!


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

nino said:


> no
> 
> Thre is no need to hurry. You guys will be the first to get the news when they are finally available. so don't ask....you will know soon enough!


Nino if you notice deflated tires and tubes missing you have a full list of suspects


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Bender said:


> Nino if you notice deflated tires and tubes missing you have a full list of suspects


Haha - So does my son with his 24" Bike. He too has some 46g Eclipse-tubes


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

_MTB for ever_ and _yuths_ have only 1 post each. Are you creating secondary user IDs to bump this topic? It's really not necessary.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

sfer1 said:


> _MTB for ever_ and _yuths_ have only 1 post each. Are you creating secondary user IDs to bump this topic? It's really not necessary.


You only have 87 posts, how can I trust you either?


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Posting 87 times on a secondary accounts seems like too much effort. And what exactly would be the point of that?


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

sfer1 said:


> Posting 87 times on a secondary accounts seems like too much effort. And what exactly would be the point of that?


I was mostly kidding.

There is a point to be made that you can't judge anything about a person based on post count and that people on this forum are very quick to assume conspiracies (both of which are pet peeves of mine). Sure Nino could be creating secondary accounts, but I have no reason to doubt him at this point either; there have been enough posts from older accounts anyway.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

boomn said:


> I was mostly kidding.
> 
> There is a point to be made that you can't judge anything about a person based on post count and that people on this forum are very quick to assume conspiracies (both of which are pet peeves of mine). Sure Nino could be creating secondary accounts, but I have no reason to doubt him at this point either; there have been enough posts from older accounts anyway.


Yuths join date is 05-15-2006. Three years seems kind of long for a sock puppet.

I guess those tubes brought out some lurkers.

I was actually reading the board for several years before registering while working on assembling a couple new bikes. Probably should have resisted the temptation to speak up.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

I lurked for a while too


----------



## AZ-X (Feb 16, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Yuths join date is 05-15-2006. Three years seems kind of long for a sock puppet.
> 
> I guess those tubes brought out some lurkers.
> 
> I was actually reading the board for several years before registering while working on assembling a couple new bikes. Probably should have resisted the temptation to speak up.


You live and you learn...:thumbsup:


----------



## AZ-X (Feb 16, 2004)

As usual, Nino is killing us all with anticipation...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Yuths join date is 05-15-2006. Three years seems kind of long for a sock puppet.


Sleeper cells! :shocked:


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

rockyuphill said:


> Sleeper cells! :shocked:


:yesnod:


----------



## yuths (May 15, 2006)

sfer1 said:


> _MTB for ever_ and _yuths_ have only 1 post each. Are you creating secondary user IDs to bump this topic? It's really not necessary.


No, I have only one ID but never post. But this tube is something I have been looking for a long time. It's hard to find such a good product from Thailand. I have a project to make a
light wheelset, alex rim XCR scandium no eyelet + tune prince,princess + pillar TB 1422 spokes + pillar nipples + Maxxis Maxlite 285 + this Eclipse Tubes... ah... good match.
I am waiting for it. Thanks Nino.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

yuths said:


> No, I have only one ID but never post. But this tube is something I have been looking for a long time. It's hard to find such a good product from Thailand. I have a project to make a
> light wheelset, alex rim XCR scandium no eyelet + tune prince,princess + pillar TB 1422 spokes + pillar nipples + Maxxis Maxlite 285 + this Eclipse Tubes... ah... good match.
> I am waiting for it. Thanks Nino.


hhhmm
I think you should post more and share more thoughts and PICTURES of your bikes and not being in the shade for 3 years! (!?!?!?) 

nino and eclipse are pushing the release date of the tubes and people are going crazy!  
this guys would pay 100EUR for one tube right now. thats not good for the others waiting patiently. Can this be some kind of speculation?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Ot*



yuths said:


> No, I have only one ID but never post. But this tube is something I have been looking for a long time. It's hard to find such a good product from Thailand. I have a project to make a
> light wheelset, alex rim XCR scandium no eyelet + tune prince,princess + pillar TB 1422 spokes + pillar nipples + Maxxis Maxlite 285 + this Eclipse Tubes... ah... good match.
> I am waiting for it. Thanks Nino.


Off Topic: DON'T get the non eyeletted Alex scandiums!! I did get a set through Ebay which i had to replace after just 1 ride! These rims seem to be faulty/defective and i really have the impression that these are rims that Alex sorted out before the got eyeletted. Instead of trashing them someone actually sells them through Ebay...as we all know it's hard to blame a seller on Ebay in case something isn't correct.

Anyway - Alex is offering these rims with eyeletts only and those are really, really good. The non-eyeletted versions aren't good and mine came apart during the very first ride!!

I also bought them because i thought that they would be at least 15g per rim lighter BUT that wasn'tt the case. Mine weighed 305 / 314g and the others with eyeletts were 315g each.


----------



## yuths (May 15, 2006)

I started MTB for about 12 years and 2 months for road. From 14KG bike to 6.2KG.
My target is 8KG MTB and 5.5KG Road.

My MTBs









My Road


----------



## SelfPropelledDevo (Oct 2, 2005)

i'm interested in a 29er version!
waiting....


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

If they're as good as Nino says they would be great for cyclocross too.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

This is nuts. The suspense here is killing us.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Are they ready yet?? :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: they should have made enough number of tubes by now just for the mtbr ww guys.


----------



## LeonOfBristol (Oct 4, 2006)

I'd been looking for somewhere selling these, and found this thread. Guess they're not out yet then.

Look fantastic though.

Any idea how resistant they are to the sorts of things that necessitate binning a tube: holes at the valve stem, large tears, abrasions...?


----------



## Bikemonkeys (Dec 3, 2005)

Will they be available in 20x1.75?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Bikemonkeys said:


> Will they be available in 20x1.75?


Yes!

These are the sizes that should be available:
BMX 20"x1,5-2,125:
BMX 24"x1,5-2,25: 49g
XC 26"x1,5-2,25: 56g
AM 26"x2,25-2,6: 59g
Road 28"x18-25C: 29g
Trekking 28"x28-42C: 58g
29er 29"x1,5-2,25: 58g


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Nino, when running sealant in the tubes (if you have?) does it dry ? 

Im really keen on these like everyone else but running a little bit of sealant in them would be good. Having never run UST does sealant dry when in a proper air tight application like it does in tubeless converted tyres ? 

If they do come out id give them a go with 15 grams of sealant i reckon.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*sealant*



Tiffster said:


> Nino, when running sealant in the tubes (if you have?) does it dry ?
> 
> Im really keen on these like everyone else but running a little bit of sealant in them would be good. Having never run UST does sealant dry when in a proper air tight application like it does in tubeless converted tyres ?
> 
> If they do come out id give them a go with 15 grams of sealant i reckon.


Well-these tubes are airthight so no need to re-inflate constantly. The constant re-inflating is what causes any sealant to eventually dry out as fresh, dry air gets in there and picks up the water in there...the more dry air the faster the sealant dries...easy explained. Since you don't have to re-inflate the sealant will remain fluid much,much longer.

BUT we found out that while the sealant does indeed give you some protection it works only with smaller holes. If you do get a bigger one you need to put a patch on the inner tube and then the sealant inside is hindering the patch from sticking well. The sealant is coming out through the hole and can loosen the patch from the inside. Also getting the tube dry to apply the patch is not so easy as the sealant will always come out a little bit. So for repairs it is much easier if there is no sealant in the tube. Anyway - i never used any sealant before and never had a flat for well over 1500km. I did get that slow airleak from a spine in Italy and was able to fix it with sealant. The tube was airthight even with the spine still in there! But putting a patch on the tube afterwards wasn't easy. It took me two patches as the first one wouldn't stick. That's when i learned about the problems associated with the sealant inside and trying to put a patch.

---> I personally won't use sealant anymore for protection. I'd rather put a self-adhesive Eclipse-patch in the rare case of a flat which is done in 30 seconds.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

nino said:


> XC 26"x1,5-2,25: 56g
> AM 26"x2,25-2,6: 59g


I would frequently run a wider tube than necessary to help prevent flats, and with butyl it works great. Would there be any issue doing that with these tubes? I wouldn't mind an extra 3 grams per wheel for a tube which isn't as stretched.

Again, when will these be available?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> I would frequently run a wider tube than necessary to help prevent flats, and with butyl it works great. Would there be any issue doing that with these tubes? I wouldn't mind an extra 3 grams per wheel for a tube which isn't as stretched.
> 
> Again, when will these be available?


There is no need to run a wider tube! the material isn't comparable with butyl where lightweight tubes are streched to the maximum and the tiniest bit gets you a flat. But if you want you can do whatever you like.


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

So if this Eclipse is as good as the hype in this thread suggests, and the price is reasonable, Stan's is in a heap load of shiznit. Oui?


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

If they are cheap enough I might try getto tubeless with these


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Buster Bluth said:


> So if this Eclipse is as good as the hype in this thread suggests, and the price is reasonable, Stan's is in a heap load of shiznit. Oui?


I'd instead say that several very well-known companies that have spent oodles of R&D money and tooled up their manufacturing to produce all sorts of expensive, high-end pre-built wheels without spoke holes in the rim bed have a lot more to lose, as does any maker of UST tires, which means virtually all makers of tires. Stan's seems to have made a pretty good business for themselves in rims and wheels now. That won't change. Plus, anyone who is riding Stan's sealant because of frequent punctures from thorns and similar will continue to do so, since a new tube won't solve their problems.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

biketuna said:


> If they are cheap enough I might try getto tubeless with these


What? That makes no sense at all. They will surely be more expensive than a regular tube, and not a ton lighter for the little you have in ghetto tubeless. Plus they're supposed to be sort of self sealing right? Doesn't do anything on the rim

They sure sound great. I'd like to hear some reviews that aren't coming from nino or through him (no offense nino, just like to hear it from more than one person).


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

bhsavery said:


> What? That makes no sense at all. They will surely be more expensive than a regular tube, and not a ton lighter for the little you have in ghetto tubeless. Plus they're supposed to be sort of self sealing right? Doesn't do anything on the rim
> 
> They sure sound great. I'd like to hear some reviews that aren't coming from nino or through him (no offense nino, just like to hear it from more than one person).


They are not self sealing. They would be lighter than regular getto and stans rim strips. I hope they are cheap enough to try it.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Buster Bluth said:


> So if this Eclipse is as good as the hype in this thread suggests, and the price is reasonable, Stan's is in a heap load of shiznit. Oui?


I don't see how it competes with Stans or tubeless at all in the ability to run low tire pressures because of pinch flat resistance.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> I don't see how it competes with Stans or tubeless at all in the ability to run low tire pressures because of pinch flat resistance.


well-we still didn't get a single snakebite out of many,many testers and many thousand miles!!!!
these babies seem pretty well protected against snakebites and allow for very,very low pressures without ever the tiniest burping ever.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> well-we still didn't get a single snakebite out of many,many testers and many thousand miles!!!!
> these babies seem pretty well protected against snakebites and allow for very,very low pressures without ever the tiniest burping ever.


Yes, but do they cure hemorrhoids?


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

MikeDee said:


> I don't see how it competes with Stans or tubeless at all in the ability to run low tire pressures because of pinch flat resistance.


See Nino's response. It sounds like everybody who's got something to gain in the tubeless and/or ust market will be affected assuming the Eclipse is indeed as good as Nino says and they can find a way to produce a lot of them quickly and for reasonable $.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Buster Bluth said:


> produce a lot of them quickly and for reasonable $.


I do not see how any of those two points can possibly be compatible with "Handmade in Switzerland" approach.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



Curmy said:


> I do not see how any of those two points can possibly be compatible with "Handmade in Switzerland" approach.


Performance and light weight always comes at a price.

Once again - how many $$ do you guys spend in your tires? And how long do those last?

How many guys spend hundres in Schmolke bars/seatposts to save about 10g over cheapo taiwan competition?

--->the weight gain is one point, the other is the better performance and ease of use. Sorry- i for my part wouldn't have to think about it twice even if they cost a bit more.


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

If they last way longer than the typical tube, are able to run at very low psi without pinch flatting, and are way lighter than a standard tube I see no problem in paying several times what I pay for a standard tube.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

Circlip said:


> I'd instead say that several very well-known companies that have spent oodles of R&D money and tooled up their manufacturing to produce all sorts of expensive, high-end pre-built wheels without spoke holes in the rim bed have a lot more to lose, as does any maker of UST tires, which means virtually all makers of tires. Stan's seems to have made a pretty good business for themselves in rims and wheels now. That won't change. Plus, anyone who is riding Stan's sealant because of frequent punctures from thorns and similar will continue to do so, since a new tube won't solve their problems.


i would agree with this. notubes will be just fine. they make great rims and have a large market. their rims are pretty much the lightest going, don't need a rim strip and burp less than any other rims available. those than have not used them, may not think their is a difference in performance, but it is NOT the same as some other rim with a rim strip, BST works much better. as well, you can go much lower pressure with their rims. i can run tires on a mavic rim tubeless and then run it on my ZTR race rims and the difference is huge, way more stable feeling and NO burping.

nino got one thorn and had to add sealant anyway... so why bother with the tube then if you have to add sealant? specially since then the tube is VERY difficult to patch once sealant is added. then the tube and sealant now add up to more than just sealant and a tubeless valve. i wonder, if this tubes is so great, will eclipse get out of the sealant or tubeless kit business? probably not, cause there is a market for both options.

the new tube is a great idea and I am all for it - good products usually do well over time. did notubes or other tubeless conversion put UST out of production, no. even though both setups work.

there are pros and cons to each. that's great we have more choices. those that want to change tires often, will now have a good lightweight option, that's great. but others who ride with thorns will probably stay with sealant. use what works for you.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Performance and light weight always comes at a price.


Anything comes at a price. "Handmade in Switzerland" comes at a higher price and lower availability.



> Once again - how many $$ do you guys spend in your tires? And how long do those last?


I still have a good stash of Schwalbe that I got around $20 a tire. I would not want to double the cost of a wheel with a tube.



nino said:


> How many guys spend hundres in Schmolke bars/seatposts to save about 10g over cheapo taiwan competition?


Very few I would bet, and you will certainly not find me among them. I am perfectly happy with Thomson/Shimano/Easton/Ritchey/FSA/KCNC/Shimano.. bits.

You keep bashing Taiwan, but in my experience they do produce things as good as it comes - and I will certainly trust a well running production line there distributed by a reputable company.



nino said:


> --->the weight gain is one point, the other is the better performance and ease of use. Sorry- i for my part wouldn't have to think about it twice even if they cost a bit more.


You did not argue with my point, did you? 

Personally, I will definitely order a pair of your tubes when they come out. I will see then how it goes and whether it is worth it.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Anything comes at a price. "Handmade in Switzerland" comes at a higher price and lower availability.
> 
> I still have a good stash of Schwalbe that I got around $20 a tire. I would not want to double the cost of a wheel with a tube.
> 
> ...


You could run 5$ supermarket tires and huffy parts......got my point?performance comes at a price.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> You could run 5$ supermarket tires and huffy parts......got my point?performance comes at a price.


You did not get my point, did you? Performance can come at an unreasonable price, and non efficient manufacturing methods and overpriced workforce can certainly cause that.

I do not ride Huffy parts - but I would not touch Ax-Lightness or similar crap with a ten meter stick even if they are handmade in Shangri-La by pet unicorns.


----------



## equinox (Oct 31, 2007)

I cant wait!

Gimme gimme gimme


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> You did not get my point, did you? Performance can come at an unreasonable price, and non efficient manufacturing methods and overpriced workforce can certainly cause that.
> 
> I do not ride Huffy parts - but I would not touch Ax-Lightness or similar crap with a ten meter stick even if they are handmade in Shangri-La by pet unicorns.


The price might sure be higher but not even close to some carbon parts...i still have no idea what the price is going to be.Might be around the price of a nice tire? The performance gains though will be there unlike a seatpost or saddle where you only have 10g less on your scale. Got my point now?

Leave the manufacturing to those who know, ok? The tube is not your common rubber thing that you can have produced for 0.20$ somewhere in asia. We will see what the future brings but so far these get handmade step per step, each one after another.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

equinox said:


> I cant wait!
> 
> Gimme gimme gimme


ut: ut: ut:


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

the price of a nice tire is expensive for a innertube.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

That's what i was thinking too. As nice as they may be i wouldn't pay that much.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*hmm*



sergio_pt said:


> the price of a nice tire is expensive for a *REGULAR* innertube.


we will see


----------



## f3rg (Aug 29, 2007)

I can't find the price in the thread. How much are they charging again?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

f3rg said:


> I can't find the price in the thread. How much are they charging again?


So far they are indeed made in Shagri-La by pet unicorns, thus priceless. Nino was a bit early with his guerrilla marketing effort.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

Curmy said:


> So far they are indeed made in Shagri-La by pet unicorns, thus priceless. Nino was a bit early with his guerrilla marketing effort.


I also heard that they will come standard with shiny-special-fairy-dust to use as talc medium...

6 months later, and NOTHING. I'm still waiting to hear from someone in the industry, or from Eclipse. No offense Nino - but the 2009 race season is 1/2 over and still not a peep.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

glenzx said:


> I also heard that they will come standard with shiny-special-fairy-dust to use as talc medium...
> 
> 6 months later, and NOTHING. I'm still waiting to hear from someone in the industry, or from Eclipse. No offense Nino - but the 2009 race season is 1/2 over and still not a peep.


There's some serious blabla going on right now...there's still no news so no need to constantly post some rubbish.

Guys - they need some time, they will be available sometimes this year but please, don't start asking when or why or how much...i have no idea.

In the meantime - Why don't you ask the SRAM guys about the availability date of the X.X gruppo?...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> In the meantime - Why don't you ask the SRAM guys about the availability date of the X.X gruppo?...


SRAM guys do not post on this forum gushing over their upcoming products.


----------



## barrows (Jul 6, 2004)

*WOW, maybe*

folks here should just take a deep breath. Nino posted the news about these tubes as a service to MTBR visitors, and to express his genuine excitement over a new, viable, option to tubeless setups. It is absurd for anyone here to criticize a product they have not yet tried. As a rider who has enjoyed the benefits of running regular tires tubeless with sealant (lower pressures without the risk of pinching, and lower rolling resistance) but who has also been somewhat frustrated with the difficulty of sealing some tires with sealant, and the inconvenience of switching tires when running sealant, I am very excited to try these tubes when they become available.
Until we try these tubes for ourselves, we cannot possibly offer any kind of valid criticism of them, so lets just chill until that time. I applaud Eclipse, for pushing the limits and trying to provide another high performance option for MTB enthusiasts, and look forward to testing these for myself.


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

ah curmy vs nino what a stand off we have here. 
There is no point arguing over price right now, as no price has been listed. I have a price in my head which I would consider reasonable, and I'll wait until I find out he real price before I express my outrage. Seeing as how people are already willing to shovel out 20 bucks a pop for Stan's rim strips (Which I refuse to pay for, ghetto tubeless for me), the prospects of these being cheap is looking slim.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

barrows said:


> folks here should just take a deep breath. Nino posted the news about these tubes as a service to MTBR visitors, and to express his genuine excitement over a new, viable, option to tubeless setups. It is absurd for anyone here to criticize a product they have not yet tried.


My apologies, but I did not criticize the product - I am really exited about it and I will probably buy'em even at unreasonable price. I have criticized (in a friendly way, I hope) Nino's marketing efforts and his insistence that products produced outside of his home country are somehow inheritably inferior.

But indeed, let's wait for this gizmos to appear.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> My apologies, but I did not criticize the product - I am really exited about it and I will probably buy'em even at unreasonable price. I have criticized (in a friendly way, I hope) Nino's marketing efforts and his insistence that products produced outside of his home country are somehow inheritably inferior.
> 
> But indeed, let's wait for this gizmos to appear.


I never said that products made elsewhere are inferior! NEVER. It seems you got that wrong then. I do like and appreciate high-end coming from whereever it got made on the planet!! I like my asian-made Scale frameset, my Woodman seatpost,Alex rims,....whatever it is! Innertubes usually get mass produced somewhere in asia for next to nothing. Believe me - there's more money beeing made with regular tubes than we think.

In this case i am so excited since i am kind of involved in a process. I am already using the product and it performs great. I can see what goes into such a simple item and i can tell you that it is not just a "simple tube". I also said i have no idea what the future brings but so far the production will basically be "in house" , not outsourced.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Curmy said:


> SRAM guys do not post on this forum gushing over their upcoming products.


Sram does monitor the MTBR forums FYI.


----------



## liam2051 (Apr 19, 2008)

Ok, Ive been steadily floating around this thread... nine in ten of these posts are $hit. Production is a long, hard and arduous process, some of the greatest companies in the world have waiting lists spanning several years! And really, look at the posts here, you see two trends.

1. Im major excited I cannot wait to get some! They post interested in any updates, slightly irritated production is taking so long. 

2. Others are posting, who have no intentions on buying, and are merely here to hang $hit on Nino and those involved in producing the product. Theoretically even if these tubes had a retail of $200 each there would still be people who would want to save the 30-40 grams these tubes can apparently save. And that is my point, if these tubes were expensive and YOU couldnt justify buying them, what gives YOU the right to badmouth them? 

Look at the bikes in the WW section, some bikes are worth thousands, some people have more invested in their bikes than they do their cars, are they to be frowned upon because of that? I dont think so! It will all come down to gram to $ ratio.


----------



## zburt (Jun 9, 2007)

Look at it this way! Someone will buy the tubes and find out how and what their made of and have some asian company make a knock off for half the price one day any way! Just like stans, someone will copy and sell it for less or show you how to make it for almost free. I run stans Olympic wheels with stans sealant, works great. helped a friend do the ghetto tubeless and it sealed easier and works just as good and cost less then half the price atleast. So don't worry how much it will cost, just worry how long it will take for someone to produce the knock-off. Sorry Eclispe, but it will happen. Goodluck


----------



## equinox (Oct 31, 2007)

The thing that interest me is the light weight coupled with the ability to run low pressures without the pinch flat nightmares


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

zburt said:


> So don't worry how much it will cost, just worry how long it will take for someone to produce the knock-off. Sorry Eclispe, but it will happen. Goodluck


...right: if the product will deliver, this will happen for sure. 
And don't be sorry - Eclipse was one of the first to offer a Stan's knock-off!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*uuuuh - WRONG!!*



Ausable said:


> ...right: if the product will deliver, this will happen for sure.
> And don't be sorry - Eclipse was one of the first to offer a Stan's knock-off!


Eclipse was the first to offer a Tubelesskit with rubber rimstrip when Stan was still selling his "DIY" tape and sealant!! It was Stan who copied the rubber rimstrip-idea, the removable valve core, the "injection" thing to ease adding the sealant....

anyway - he has great products and as described above form other posters tubelesskits will still have their place for sure.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Tiffster said:


> Sram does monitor the MTBR forums FYI.


really? so btw SRAM sucks


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> Eclipse was the first to offer a Tubelesskit with rubber rimstrip when Stan was still selling his "DIY" tape and sealant!! It was Stan who copied the rubber rimstrip-idea, the removable valve core, the "injection" thing to ease adding the sealant....
> 
> anyway - he has great products and as described above form other posters tubelesskits will still have their place for sure.


But I dont see any eclipse products for sale in any store. whats wrong?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> But I dont see any eclipse products for sale in any store. whats wrong?


Isn't the DT Swiss tubeless kit a rebadged Eclipse?


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

You can get it at sears.com for $80.



sergio_pt said:


> But I dont see any eclipse products for sale in any store. whats wrong?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Isn't the DT Swiss tubeless kit a rebadged Eclipse?


correct - there's DT Swiss and also Scott offering Eclipse- Kits under their name


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

Andy at Eclipse said 2-3 months wait.


----------



## slyboots (Sep 16, 2005)

Damn, I hoped it was closer. Nino definitely started firing early, I'm too tempted already. :madman:


----------



## Bikemonkeys (Dec 3, 2005)

$20 to $25 for tubes seems fair for BMX tubes.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

nino said:


> There's some serious blabla going on right now...there's still no news so no need to constantly post some rubbish.
> 
> Guys - they need some time, they will be available sometimes this year but please, don't start asking when or why or how much...i have no idea.
> 
> In the meantime - Why don't you ask the SRAM guys about the availability date of the X.X gruppo?...


Constantly post rubbish? WTF? Seems funny to suggest I'm constantly posting rubbish - especially in this thread! Then throwing SRAM in the mix...



Anyhow, I asked Eclipse directly, and got a quick answer - as noted above, so no worries. Or was posting relevant information directly from a mfr. representative rubbish too?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

glenzx said:


> Constantly post rubbish? WTF? Seems funny to suggest I'm constantly posting rubbish - especially in this thread! Then throwing SRAM in the mix...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow, I asked Eclipse directly, and got a quick answer - as noted above, so no worries. Or was posting relevant information directly from a mfr. representative rubbish too?


That wasn't aimed at you personally but more in general.

X.X....you didn't get the point then

You asked directly but got no different news, right?

----->Just wait as all others do - thanks!


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

Thanks for the tip! :thumbsup:


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

nino said:


> That wasn't aimed at you personally but more in general.
> 
> X.X....you didn't get the point then
> 
> You asked directly but got no different news, right?


Well, thank you for setting me straight - not sure what'd I'd do otherwise in my abject ignorance. How can somone be so stupid, blind, and ignorant - not to mention mis-informed as I?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

please LOCK THIS THREAD till the tubes are out! enough crap talk


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

as far as i know we will wait some time to get it - middle july propably. it's rather sure. 
i know also that It's not eclipse invention... soo clever people will understand


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

Could heavy Clydesdales use these tubes?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

zarr said:


> Could heavy Clydesdales use these tubes?


How? They would need the new Eclipse power titanium horseshoes for their hoofs instead.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> i know also that It's not eclipse invention...


It is-rest assured!


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

Curmy said:


> How? They would need the new Eclipse power titanium horseshoes for their hoofs instead.


Funny.  Seriously though. Maybe with tires like Schwalbe Big Apples?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> It is-rest assured!


I thought pneumatic bicycle tires had been invented by Dunlop in 1888? 


P.S. I had just been reminded how much of a hassle tubeless conversion really is. I would get the Eclipse ones as soon as they come out..


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I thought pneumatic bicycle tires had been invented by Dunlop in 1888?
> 
> 
> P.S. I had just been reminded how much of a hassle tubeless conversion really is. I would get the Eclipse ones as soon as they come out..


Correct - But there's enough left to get patents on....


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

nino- no it isn't. For this kind of tube/material other company have rights to it, and that is whole problem ask your friend from eclipse.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> nino- no it isn't. For this kind of tube/material other company have rights to it, and that is whole problem ask your friend from eclipse.


sorry - not true.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> sorry - not true.


If that is not true - there must be a public U.S. /international patent application by now?

As far as I understand, one can not patent a chemical compound (only a manufacturing method), nor, obviously, a concept of a tire tube. Things like manufacturing process are often protected as a trade secret, instead of a public patent..

Interesting..


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*patents*



Curmy said:


> If that is not true - there must be a public U.S. /international patent application by now?
> 
> As far as I understand, one can not patent a chemical compound (only a manufacturing method), nor, obviously, a concept of a tire tube. Things like manufacturing process are often protected as a trade secret, instead of a public patent..
> 
> Interesting..


There's several patents pending but don't ask me where you can look at them or what exactly. Once again, i'm not the man behind this tube! But rest assured there's enough left to be patented.


----------



## saiko (Oct 8, 2008)

About a month ago there was a mountainbike race in my country (Belgium-Houffa).
I spoke with some people there witch I hoped to know more about these tubes.
After some asking around they offered me a box of 10 tubes for 800€ (witch i had to refuse because I'm poor  )
I Asked if I could buy only one for testing but they said that I really needed a box of 10 and with some luck there would be 1 or 2 good tyres in the box. They were not really confident in the product and there racers didn't use them anymore.
They tought that the production process was not "finetuned" yet and that the tube would not come on the market this season.

I was dissapointed to hear all that because I was really hopeing on an(other) good DT-swiss/Eclipse product.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

eclipse have no rights to this kind of tube and i know that - that is why they are not at shops right now. This tube was patented by Taiwan company


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

saiko said:


> About a month ago there was a mountainbike race in my country (Belgium-Houffa).
> I spoke with some people there witch I hoped to know more about these tubes.
> After some asking around they offered me a box of 10 tubes for 800€ (witch i had to refuse because I'm poor  )
> I Asked if I could buy only one for testing but they said that I really needed a box of 10 and with some luck there would be 1 or 2 good tyres in the box. They were not really confident in the product and there racers didn't use them anymore.
> ...


There is no products for sale available at all !!!
The tubes that are out are prototypes and testing-samples only! And i don't believe there is someone who has 10 available to give away...And it is even possible that they were talking about the first version. The latest edition got changed quite a bit.It has a completely different valve than the first editions that got tested.

Production items will defintely be perfect.The tubes now used are still testing samples!

and DT Swiss has NOTHING to do with these tubes!

These are made by Eclipse


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> eclipse have no rights to this kind of tube and i know that - that is why they are not at shops right now. This tube was patented by Taiwan company


c'mon - stop that bullsh!t!

You are talking about FOSS but those have nothing to do with Eclipse!


----------



## saiko (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm just writing down wat they told me.
I'm also not really happy because I wanted to buy these tube's as soon they where availeble. After the comments I heard from different riders I think I will wait till some other people have been using them.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

soo as we started talking about names... yes Foss has a patent pending for that kind of tube in U.S, Asia and Europe. Soo don't write that it's eclipse invention. 
I know what i know, and you know what you know, and let it stay in that metter. I just wrote that for people to know, that they will have to wait some time to get these tubes.
I don't want to argue with you nino. Soo we will see.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> soo as we started talking about names... yes Foss has a patent pending for that kind of tube in U.S, Asia and Europe. Soo don't write that it's eclipse invention.
> I know what i know, and you know what you know, and let it stay in that metter. I just wrote that for people to know, that they will have to wait some time to get these tubes.
> I don't want to argue with you nino. Soo we will see.


would you please read again:
Foss is a different thing! I don't care what they do as they do a different thing.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

saiko said:


> I'm just writing down wat they told me.
> I'm also not really happy because I wanted to buy these tube's as soon they where availeble. After the comments I heard from different riders I think I will wait till some other people have been using them.


please read again - they were using prototypes.Rest assured that the production units will have a perfect finish. The valve got completely redesigned as it indeed caused some problems in the early versions. All solved now.


----------



## zburt (Jun 9, 2007)

Who would have thought tubes for mtb would start such a sh1t storm...lol I'm already sick of them and I haven't even used them!

I say go tubeless. Me and a buddy used the ghetto tubeless rim strip trick and some stans and for under $20 we made a very easy and cheap tubeless conversion to his spinergy wheel set with schwalble none ust tires. It was easier to do two of his wheels then one of my stans wheels. Took about 10 mins a wheel and that is only because we had to drive to the gas station for an air compressor. So screw the tubes 

I can already tell their going to be way to expensive! That should be another good argument.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

nino said:


> There is no products for sale available at all !!!
> The tubes that are out are prototypes and testing-samples only! And i don't believe there is someone who has 10 available to give away...And it is even possible that they were talking about the first version. The latest edition got changed quite a bit.It has a completely different valve than the first editions that got tested.
> 
> Production items will defintely be perfect.The tubes now used are still testing samples!
> ...


man, if I owned Eclipse, I would be upset with all this product leaking. i understand wanting to let others know of a good new potential product, but arguing about patents and who did what when stuff. seems kinda catty.

you guys can all just settle down anyway, if they are REALLY good, we all know that the patent doesn't mean anything as there is always someone who is willing to make knock offs


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*---->*

it goes all around:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=5725345&postcount=264


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

nino as always... trying to make money from anything.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

MaLoL said:


> nino as always... trying to make money from anything.


Well, despite what people think about Nino (I don't know much for myself but have read many people's opinions), I am very interested to see what becomes of these tubes. Keep us posted Nino.:thumbsup:


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

mtbnozpikr said:


> Well, despite what people think about Nino (I don't know much for myself but have read many people's opinions), I am very interested to see what becomes of these tubes. Keep us posted Nino.:thumbsup:


me too.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Neato!*

Sign me up, as long as they aren't like $100 a pair.

That said, I have not had any real problems with my ultralight butyl tubes. I've been on them for years, and I only really get a flat once or twice a year. I also use 26" tubes on my 29ers with no issues. Hard to beat at 90 grams, $6 each, and available locally.

Nino, were you and your folks working on mylar tubes? I thought I remembered something about that. Seems that it would be pretty cheap to do, and would be pretty effective. I think of the mylar helium balloons I get for my kit to play with, that seem to last about two months.


----------



## f3rg (Aug 29, 2007)

/unsubscribed





who gives a sh!t anymore...


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Epic thread....

IMHO, these are going to be very similar to the Panaracer Greenlights that have been around forever...lol.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

They better be a lot better than the Greenlites or I won't buy them.


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

Thanks nino! :thumbsup: I know I can't put my fat bahine on these, but my wife and my step mom can. :thumbsup: Thanks for the teachin'.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Panaracer Greenlight is 150g....


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*sorry*



sergio_pt said:


> Panaracer Greenlight is 150g....


Not true - here's mine at just 107g.

No - i don't sell them. The one pictured developed a hole where it is vulcanized togther...:nono:

BTW - why is it always me to post pics to verifiy some weights?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> Not true - here's mine at just 107g.
> 
> No - i don't sell them. The one pictured developed a hole where it is vulcanized togther...:nono:
> 
> BTW - why is it always me to post pics to verifiy some weights?


thats right. wrong info on the website I saw the weight.

You are one of the biggest weight wenies arround.


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

so any confirmed price per tube yet?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

24,146 views of the thread. Not too shabby for a free marketing campaign on a well rated web site with a perfect target audience.

And it ain't even out yet.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

Does any one have any further info on these "Miracle" tubes? and do the green Panaracers present many problems with leakage?


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I had a Panaracer Greenlite that lasted for well over two years. I also had one that flatted on my first ride. Mine didn't leak any worse then any other tube. Try them out and see what you think.


----------



## SelfPropelledDevo (Oct 2, 2005)

GMUGNIER said:


> "Miracle" tubes?


soy chorizo?


----------



## Limon (Jan 26, 2004)

MaLoL said:


> nino as always... trying to make money from anything.


your back  :madman:  :thumbsup:


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

Ok I have confirmed beyond any doubt that the two products are identical and Eclipse is the manufacturer for both DT swiss and Foos - I have been in direct contact with the marketing contacts and when the product is available it will be available to both companies...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

will the eclipse tubes be present at eurobike? Probably the tubes will be out by then. 2 months to go.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> will the eclipse tubes be present at eurobike?


No Eurobike for Eclipse.

I might be there but i'm still not sure.Last year i passed on the ocasion and it seems i didn't miss too much.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Nino, any news?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

saga said:


> Nino, any news?


No - no news.

The tube is here but they still are trying to figure out a way to get it mass-produced in lage quantities. For now these are still all handmade, one by one. There is no way they can be made automatically but at least certain steps need to be automated to allow quanties to be made.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> No - no news.
> 
> The tube is here but they still are trying to figure out a way to get it mass-produced in lage quantities. For now these are still all handmade, one by one. There is no way they can be made automatically but at least certain steps need to be automated to allow quanties to be made.


I would gladly buy a 20% heavier version - just outsource it to Taiwan.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Curmy said:


> I would gladly buy a 20% heavier version - just outsource it to Taiwan.


sure. thats the way to go if they want mass production.


----------



## fernandoj (Mar 19, 2008)

Months of delay and there is nothing new under the sun. I've run out of patience waiting for the tubes so I will go homemade tubeless again.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

Well thats better anyway!!



fernandoj said:


> Months of delay and there is nothing new under the sun. I've run out of patience waiting for the tubes so I will go homemade tubeless again.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

biketuna said:


> Well thats better anyway!!


correct answer! you win


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

fernandoj said:


> I will go homemade tubeless again.


I just received a liter of CaffeLatex. Will see how it works when I have time. Presumably it lasts much longer then Stan's.


----------



## fernandoj (Mar 19, 2008)

If someone is interested in homemade tubeless and speaks spanish I wrote time ago a review for 16€/pair of wheels here --> http://fernandoj.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tubeless-casero-fernandoj.pdf

In Spain there is a product based on acrylic latex called Lateprem rx505 that works perfect for painting and sealing wheels


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

fernandoj said:


> If someone is interested in homemade tubeless and speaks spanish I wrote time ago a review for 16€/pair of wheels here --> http://fernandoj.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tubeless-casero-fernandoj.pdf
> 
> In Spain there is a product based on acrylic latex called Lateprem rx505 that works perfect for painting and sealing wheels


thanks for the instructions and review mate :thumbsup: 
I thought about doing some DIY tubeless solution and that can help a lot, I can read some spanish too.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

Let us know. My 2 scoops of stans only lasts a couple mounths.



Curmy said:


> I just received a liter of CaffeLatex. Will see how it works when I have time. Presumably it lasts much longer then Stan's.


----------



## Happy Trails (Jun 29, 2004)

*Give her a donut*



nino said:


> 1st time i would like to see some tubes explode


Huummmm just a tad on the I'm starving side, a couple of jelly donuts and i'm in !


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

How many months has it been? Even if these are handmade one by one, they should have plenty of them finished by now. It seems to me they're inefficient.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

nino said:


> I know that you guy out there will have a hard time to belive me but in about 2 months they should be available to the masses and rest assured they will have a huge impact on the cycling scene!


Well, it's been two months times three almost. Anyway, any news at all or estimates on when these things will be available. If they never are going to be available, is there any announcement on a failure to mass produce the product? Anything...? So far the only impact that these things have had on the cycling scene is the drool factor.


----------



## SmilMick (Apr 9, 2006)

nino said:


> There's some serious blabla going on right now...there's still no news so no need to constantly post some rubbish.
> 
> Guys - they need some time, they will be available sometimes this year but please, don't start asking when or why or how much...i have no idea.
> 
> In the meantime - Why don't you ask the SRAM guys about the availability date of the X.X gruppo?...


xx is available.

Where are your tubes?

What was the point of this thread? There are tons of products that get EXTREMELY close to production, but simply fall through due to complications in production. Happens every day. Posting a thread like this before confirmed production/availability seems to be a HUGE waste of EVERYONES time. Your speculations have already postponed REAL users from altering their bicycle for the better in hopes that this miracle tube will come out soon.

I hope the original poster has taken a lesson from this sh!t storm of stupidity.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

SmilMick said:


> I hope the original poster has taken a lesson from this sh!t storm of stupidity.


Not at all - the original poster will just let you know when there's new important info

Meanwhile it's kindergarden time for all the rest


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

Thanks again, nino.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

Anyone with any news???


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

Aw don't get me all excited by bringing the thread up again.


----------



## OilcanRacer (Jan 4, 2008)

seems like the product is either too heavy or not reliable or able to be made at a cheap enough cost to sell.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

Here is the link they say they are available lets see if anyone can get more of a response or possibly a ship date for a order...

http://www.foss.com.tw/

and just to clarify dt swiss does NOT have their own version of this there is only one and this is it. Foos makes it for everybody...


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

GMUGNIER said:


> Here is the link they say they are available lets see if anyone can get more of a response or possibly a ship date for a order...
> 
> http://www.foss.com.tw/
> 
> and just to clarify dt swiss does NOT have their own version of this there is only one and this is it. Foos makes it for everybody...


This was hashed out earlier. The Foss product is it's own thing, and it as heavy has a standard tube. The product Nino is talking about is apparently hand made by Eclipse.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

These silly tubes are vaporware just like Diablo 3.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

whats the weight of the foss tubes?


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

bad mechanic said:


> This was hashed out earlier. The Foss product is it's own thing, and it as heavy has a standard tube. The product Nino is talking about is apparently hand made by Eclipse.


Incorrect! Early test tubes were made in limited production runs - By FOSS - do the research and you will answer yourself.......

And if you are still in doubt contact the factory - FOSS makes them for every one - PERIOD...

quit the bickering and finger pointing show me the hard facts........ I believe I have shown you mine.


----------



## slyboots (Sep 16, 2005)

bad mechanic said:


> This was hashed out earlier. The Foss product is it's own thing, and it as heavy has a standard tube. The product Nino is talking about is apparently hand made by Eclipse.


As far as I can see, there is no product "hand made by Eclipse" yet. Nobody can buy it = it doesn't exist as a "product".


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

GMUGNIER said:


> quit the bickering and finger pointing show me the hard facts........ I believe I have shown you mine.


What "facts" have you shown me? Nothing. All you're giving me to go on is your word, and frankly, your word isn't worth anything to me, especially since you're saying DT Swiss when we've been talking about Eclipse.

Slyboots, you don't need to be able to buy it for there to be a product. There have been plenty of products which were delayed by production issues, or which never even say the light of due to unforeseen problems. We might not even ever see these tubes released, but it's not reason to start claiming they never even existed.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

These tubes are so light, they don't even exist!


----------



## slyboots (Sep 16, 2005)

bad mechanic said:


> Slyboots, you don't need to be able to buy it for there to be a product. There have been plenty of products which were delayed by production issues, or which never even say the light of due to unforeseen problems. We might not even ever see these tubes released, but it's not reason to start claiming they never even existed.


I'm glad the possibility that a magic zero-flats tube exists somewhere in the universe gives you comfort.
If the thing is not accessible by general public then it makes no difference to me if it exists or not. As of today, it's not a product (i.e. mass-produced product), but just a "wonder".


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

slyboots said:


> I'm glad the possibility that a magic zero-flats tube exists somewhere in the universe gives you comfort.
> If the thing is not accessible by general public then it makes no difference to me if it exists or not. As of today, it's not a product (i.e. mass-produced product), but just a "wonder".


Hah! If you have issue with this, you should try working in the IT field. I guess I'm just desensitized to it.


----------



## slyboots (Sep 16, 2005)

If I have issues with what?
I'm working in IT, btw.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

slyboots said:


> If I have issues with what?


Vaporware and heavily delayed products.


----------



## slyboots (Sep 16, 2005)

Ah, not really. I don't care for it anymore (until it's released... if it is) and just have fun around here.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

GMUGNIER said:


> Here is the link they say they are available lets see if anyone can get more of a response or possibly a ship date for a order...
> 
> http://www.foss.com.tw/
> 
> and just to clarify dt swiss does NOT have their own version of this there is only one and this is it. Foos makes it for everybody...


Well - you obviously haven't read the FOSS-thread then where those guys say explicit that they don't have anything to do with Eclipse...

Eclipse tubes are already used in the worldcup! They just aren't out in shops yet as mass production isn't as easy as thought. They will hit the market sooner or later though.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> They just aren't out in shops yet as mass production isn't as easy as thought.


Maybe your friend should give a call to Taiwan.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

nino said:


> Well - you obviously haven't read the FOSS-thread then where those guys say explicit that they don't have anything to do with Ecllipse...
> 
> Eclipse tubes are already used in the world cup! They just aren't out in shops yet as mass production isn't as easy as thought. They will hit the market sooner or later though.


What a TOOL this NINO cracker is - just because he says so it's true - NINO - you need to stop riding bikes and go into politics, MAYBE you could get more people to believe you - But based on your posting record here - i doubt it - I am a engineer in the plastics and rubber field, and I have been in DIRECT contact with these companies for possible distribution of their product - I HAVE THE FACTS! - stop with the diarrhea of the mouth/keyboard and get your INFORMATION straight! When you are ready for the truth let me know -- until then stop being such an ignoramious living in your own little farcical world..........


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

funny thing is that my package from Foss also delays - they even stoped responding me on emails.:madmax: 

26" x2.0 tube will weight about 110g - They assure me that will do lighter. 
It's with steel valve. I tried to negotiate with them to do alu version- will see.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

GMUGNIER said:


> What a TOOL this NINO cracker is - just because he says so it's true - NINO - you need to stop riding bikes and go into politics, MAYBE you could get more people to believe you - But based on your posting record here - i doubt it - I am a engineer in the plastics and rubber field, and I have been in DIRECT contact with these companies for possible distribution of their product - I HAVE THE FACTS! - stop with the diarrhea of the mouth/keyboard and get your INFORMATION straight! When you are ready for the truth let me know -- until then stop being such an ignoramious living in your own little farcical world..........


Well-fact is that FOSS has no idea about making a light tube

I am the closest guy to that Eclipse tube besides the man behind Eclipse so i do know a thing or two about where it's made. So far each and every prototype has been made by hand by my friend, all on his own.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

nino said:


> Well-fact is that FOSS has no idea about making a light tube
> 
> I am the closest guy to that Eclipse tube besides the man behind Eclipse so i do know a thing or two about where it's made. So far each and every prototype has been made by hand by my friend, all on his own.


Maybe the installation of the aluminium valve not the manufacture of the tube - you moron!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

GMUGNIER said:


> Maybe the installation of the aluminium valve not the manufacture of the tube - you moron!


There's more to it than just a valve my dear...but you know better anyway - you might take over from now on:thumbsup:


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

nino said:


> There's more to it than just a valve my dear...but you know better anyway - you might take over from now on:thumbsup:


What a NINOcompoop - now thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

Foss has official patent for whole world on their "rubber compound" - it's the same material in Eclipse tube and Foss tube. Soo it's rather obvius that Eclipse won't show up their tube before Foss in the market.
From what i know, F. have problems with mounting valve to the tube - thats why they are late.

Lets face it - Foss has rights to material, E. just assembly tubes.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

THANK YOU TEHAN - now that we have confirmed what is going on maybe the little ninocompoop will shut his BIG PIEHOLE!!


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

I just re-visited this thread for the first time in a few months' time, and I've got to say, GMUGNIER, you seem to be a very special person!

Good karma for all!


Ole.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

GMUGNIER said:


> What a TOOL this NINO cracker is - just because he says so it's true - NINO - you need to stop riding bikes and go into politics, MAYBE you could get more people to believe you - But based on your posting record here - i doubt it - I am a engineer in the plastics and rubber field, and I have been in DIRECT contact with these companies for possible distribution of their product - I HAVE THE FACTS! - stop with the diarrhea of the mouth/keyboard and get your INFORMATION straight! When you are ready for the truth let me know -- until then stop being such an ignoramious living in your own little farcical world..........


Sure, and we'll just take your word that you're an engineer as well. 

Seriously, stop calling people names. There's no need for it.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

Ole said:


> I just re-visited this thread for the first time in a few months' time, and I've got to say, GMUGNIER, you seem to be a very special person!
> 
> Good karma for all!
> 
> Ole.


Takes one to know...


----------



## Diamondhead (Nov 2, 2007)

GMUGNIER said:


> What a TOOL this NINO cracker is - just because he says so it's true - NINO - you need to stop riding bikes and go into politics, MAYBE you could get more people to believe you - But based on your posting record here - i doubt it - I am a engineer in the plastics and rubber field, and I have been in DIRECT contact with these companies for possible distribution of their product - I HAVE THE FACTS! - stop with the diarrhea of the mouth/keyboard and get your INFORMATION straight! When you are ready for the truth let me know -- until then stop being such an ignoramious living in your own little farcical world..........


Hey GMUGNIER, (I can't help but notice the ALL CAPS in your handle  ) 
you've got to chill man, hang out in the beer forum awhile. :thumbsup:

Cheers


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

So... where are the tubes? or do we have to wait a cople years? is this just smoke again or it's real?


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

bad mechanic said:


> Sure, and we'll just take your word that you're an engineer as well.
> 
> Seriously, stop calling people names. There's no need for it.


Well you dont have to take my word - thats what sheepskin is for - but I will take your handle desciption that you ARE a bad mechanic..........


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

MaLoL said:


> So... where are the tubes? or do we have to wait a cople years? is this just smoke again or it's real?


The tubes themselves have been available for some time - the problem is in the mating of the valves to the tubes.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

GMUGNIER said:


> Well you dont have to take my word - thats what sheepskin is for - but I will take your handle desciption that you ARE a bad mechanic..........


Yeah, as though I've never heard people rag on my nick name before. 

It's pretty sad that _tubes_ brought you back after two and a half years. Sad.

Either way, while I'm still hoping to see these tubes this year, I'm quite done with you.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

GMUGNIER said:


> The tubes themselves have been available for some time - the problem is in the mating of the valves to the tubes.


No-that's not the problem at all. This has been solved long ago-------patent pending by Eclipse!

Anyway - it is pretty obvious that we are talking about 2 different tubes.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> Foss has official patent for whole world on their "rubber compound" - it's the same material in Eclipse tube and Foss tube.


Tehan, you still insist here....it's still not true.

again - Foss and Eclipse have nothing in common other that they do tubes.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

nino said:


> No-that's not the problem at all. This has been solved long ago-------patent pending by Eclipse!
> 
> Anyway - it is pretty obvious that we are talking about 2 different tubes.


OK - so where's the patent pending, and whats the number?? So far the only thing that is obvious - is that you cant back up any of what you say with hard evidence..


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

*unsubscribes from thread*


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> . So far each and every prototype has been made by hand by my friend, all on his own.


hey does he needs help over there? He could hire a bunch of impantient MTBikers hare and make a good batch of tubes.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

btw I'd like to see the patents for eclipse and foss tubes. Anyone has them?


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

Yes Foss have there international patents published at there wesite which can be found at http://www.foss.com.tw/

Patent desciption and numbers are posted there...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

GMUGNIER said:


> with hard evidence..


need proof - here you go

if you can show me a similar thing feel free to do so...


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

nino said:


> Tehan, you still insist here....it's still not true.
> 
> again - Foss and Eclipse have nothing in common other that they do tubes.


Nino, i'll change my mind if you show me patent pending on material holding by Eclipse. But not a patent "how to" mold the valve into the tube.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

nino said:


> need proof - here you go
> 
> if you can show me a similar thing feel free to do so...


Thats not proof - please tell me you aren't as ignorant as that.... Honestly! If you have proof - provide national or international patent numbers and descriptions of your miracle tubes - You can't - Do you know why? - It is because Eclipse has no patents - either pending or otherwise - check for yourself here is the website for the US Patent office - http://www.uspto.gov/ - further more - if you do a little homework - you will see that Foss does in fact have national and international patents for a product that looks similar - no that not the right word - try IDENTICAL - the only thing that Eclipse is doing is putting there valves on the Foss tubes - now quit with the battle of the wits - this is clearly a matter of fact..........


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

hey-you enjoy that, right?
feel free to do so while i ride swiss made tubes.

Besides that it gets boring in here-too much of a kindergarden! I said i'll report when i have news.... that's what i'll do-thanks.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Dec 5, 2006)

nino said:


> hey-you enjoy that, right?
> feel free to do so while i ride swiss made tubes.


The only thing that is even remotely Swiss is the aluminum stems on your Taiwan tubes - and that isn't even Swiss - the aluminum valve stems are from foreign stock as Switzerland isn't really known for there vast bauxite reserves - probably from Russia and milled locally - or the more probable deduction is that - maybe Eclipse just buys bulk valves from Taiwan - JUST LIKE THE TUBES!!!!!! And then just puts em together... DUHHH - try using whats between your ears................


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)




----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

If these are just Foss tubes rebranded, how come there half the weight of said Foss tubes we've already seen.... ?


----------



## henrymiller1 (Apr 25, 2008)

Maybe his scale is about 50 grams off.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

henrymiller1 said:


> Maybe his scale is about 50 grams off.


It would need to be 100g off since 1st verified Foss-weights were 150g per tube....


----------



## Kitakeng (Oct 29, 2006)

who cares which manufacturer makes what and who owns the patent.

i am sure we will all end up buying the tube which is lightER!!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

A german weight-wheenie did an inquiry long ago and got this reply direct from Foss:
http://www.forum.light-bikes.de/showpost.php?p=83920&postcount=21

If you look closely on the given weights you'll see that the MTB size was announced to weigh 120g. But as mentioned 1st verified weights for the Foss MTB-sizes were 150g....Only their Kid-bike sizes are lighter.

Below a 24"-Tube from Eclipse...That's the ones my son uses in his 24" Scott


----------



## mattkock (Mar 19, 2009)

Where are these tubes? My 14.4lb Ti SS is starting to feel like a pig with 100g tubes on it. I NEED more light weight!!!


----------



## henrymiller1 (Apr 25, 2008)

Show us the tubes. No, we don't want to see the tubes, we want to install the tubes. When might that happen? Thanks


----------



## josliver (Oct 5, 2007)

Come on.... Nino was the messenger for this new product.
We should not insult, call bad names or kill the messenger.

Long time ago he was the first informing us about the existence of this product and that he was testing some samples of very light tubes. Expectation was that they would be available in short time.

It is meaningless if they are produced or are like the Foss tubes or in any way related with the Foss tubes. 
I can not care less about the Foss tubes if they are like the samples that exist so far.
So far Foss samples are a bit on the heavy side.
The tubes that Nino has were delivered to him by someone (that is very close to him) from Eclipse and weight less that 60 gr. 
This is what some of us are waiting for: very light and robust tubes, like the ones Nino is evaluating with excellent results, let´s call them according to the samples Nino has - Eclipse tubes.

Important for me is that Eclipse can solve the problems they may have to make the tubes available for me, performing like the ones Nino describes, so that I can use them.
I would appreciate if Nino could keep us updated with fresh news about this product and a provable data for release. 

If later on, the Eclipse tubes do not perform like Nino described, we may discuss that with him but so far there is nothing to argue with him, he is just the messenger.

Hope everyone understands my point and this thread becomes more oriented to information and not a batle field.:thumbsup: 

Regards .... JO


----------



## Diamondhead (Nov 2, 2007)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ditto ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cheers :thumbsup:


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Hear, hear!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

recap:

-I showed a prototype-version of a very light MTB-inner tube: 56g

-Final weights won't differ from the ones of the prototypes shown. The material is many times more resistant yet still much lighter than regular tubes.

-This tube is made by Eclipse in Switzerland and has nothing (read 0%!) to do with any other inner tube on the planet!

-Release date was expected to be much earlier but as is the mass-production is still not finalized and therefore there is still no release-date available.I'm sorry for that but there is nothing we all can do about that. And we all want tubes that are airthight instead of a certain percentage leaking because of variances in the production process, right? If it was so easy to do we would have these damn things already in shops all around the globe...but it isn't.

-So far every inner tube made is hand-made and a couple of swiss-riders are testing them. Some in the world-cup, some in the swiss championships and some just on local trails.

-Rest assured that as soon as i have news i will post here. I am VERY close to Eclipse and will now it first when theres something new to tell.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

josliver said:


> Come on.... Nino was the messenger for this new product.
> We should not insult, call bad names or kill the messenger.
> 
> Long time ago he was the first informing us about the existence of this product and that he was testing some samples of very light tubes. Expectation was that they would be available in short time.
> ...


Nino is not just a "messenger". He is related to the manufacturer, and just like with other wares he sells he is using this forum as a free marketing and advertising tool. So when folks criticize him it is also fair game.

Also, when discussing a product it is absolutely relevant to know who manufacturers it, who designed it, how it is related to other products, where it is done, when it will be available, how much will it cost etc. It is all interesting, and we do not owe anything to Nino to keep the discussion on topics that he deems acceptable.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> relevant to know who manufacturers it, who designed it, how it is related to other products, where it is done, when it will be available, how much will it cost etc. It is all interesting, and we do not owe anything to Nino to keep the discussion on topics that he deems acceptable.


There is no advertizing for a product that you can't get, that i don't sell. I was trying to share good, interesting news with you guys - that's it.

Manufacturer: Eclipse Microsystems Switzerland
Designer: Eclipse Microsystems Switzerland
Related to other products? It is made by the same guys doing the Eclipse Tubelesskit...
Where it is done: Zurich-Switzerland
When it will be available: no release date yet
How much it will cost: No finalized price yet (since production is still not finalized)

anything else you want to know?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> There is no advertizing for a product that you can't get, that i don't sell.


That is why I said advertising _and_ marketing. Heard about marketing? That is what you are doing, before you or your friend would be selling it. That's fine with me, and apparently with moderators, but do not expect some people not to care. Especially people, like myself, who would be buying your products.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Curmy said:


> That is what you are doing, before you or your friend would be selling it. That's fine with me, and apparently with moderators


If the moderators don't care, why do you insist upon doing so?



Curmy said:


> Especially people, like myself, who would be buying your products.


If it bothers you so much, then don't buy the product.

I really don't understand why people continue to have an issue with this. :madman:


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> If the moderators don't care, why do you insist upon doing so?


Why not? Anything wrong with having an opinion?



bad mechanic said:


> If it bothers you so much, then don't buy the product.


How is that related?



bad mechanic said:


> I really don't understand why people continue to have an issue with this. :madman:


Because there is nothing else to discuss.


----------



## whybotherme (Sep 12, 2008)

jeez, quit with the teenage girl stuff already. nobody cares! now if i could get some of these magic tubes that would be great... but they are vaporware.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> recap:
> The material is many times more resistant yet still much lighter than regular tubes.
> 
> -.


How did you come to this conclusion? Why do you need to add sealant inside the tube if they're that much better?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

snowdrifter said:


> How did you come to this conclusion? Why do you need to add sealant inside the tube if they're that much better?


Uh...you don't? The only time Nino said he added sealant was to try and do an easy fix with a puncture flat.


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

Show up at Eurobike???


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Atmos said:


> Show up at Eurobike???


Well present on Eurobike:

Mounted on Sebastian Roths Cannondale Flash at the Tune booth...


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Niiice...

Sorry the offtopic, but are those ceramic discs are very intriguing... I wonder how do they perform.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Batas said:


> Niiice...
> 
> Sorry the offtopic, but are those ceramic discs are very intriguing... I wonder how do they perform.


those are coated aluminium...they promise you the heaven on earth...didn't we have this before?


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Got it. "Same" as scrub then... When I saw ceramic written and the white colour I thought they were...Well... Ceramic.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Wonder if they arrive bent out the packet like Scrub rotors :nono: 

Wonder what Sebastian does with these bikes he builds, id be very suprised if they ever get ridden.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

If the performance of those Ceradure rotors is anything like the Scrubs that I am using (160/140) that certainly would not be a limiting factor to riding/not riding this bike.

I really don't see anything truly outrageous about that build that would scare me about riding it. I would really like to see what he's done to get the pedals below 140g.


----------



## eliflap (Dec 13, 2007)

Tiffster said:


> Wonder if they arrive bent out the packet like Scrub rotors :nono:
> 
> Wonder what Sebastian does with these bikes he builds, id be very suprised if they ever get ridden.


i think same thing.... no meters done ....

i guess he's in partnership with Cannondale and Scott and many manifacturers of lightweight parts ... otherwise how can he be with his bike inside Eurobike DE or Eicma IT every year ... ?

i'm paying for my parts ... :madman: and i cannot have a Flash to tune *BEFORE * its launch on the market

long work for building a bike , doing some pics , a pic on scale and desmount all ....

however ... professionally done


----------



## Pat2A (Jan 20, 2008)

Eclipse??


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

Pat2A said:


> Eclipse??


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

That one looks green in the section that is not overinflated. I'd say Panaracer Greenlite. I once had pretty much the same thing happen to me. Riding along on the road on my MTB, going pretty fast on a downhill section of road, maybe 45-50 kph when BLAM! the front tire is blown right off the rim. I swerved to the left before regaining control and moving back to the right. I managed to stay upright and get things slowed down and stopped without bailing. I was using the Greenlite with a Continental semi slick (don't remember the name of the tire). Don't know for sure how it happened.


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

BlownCivic said:


> If the performance of those Ceradure rotors is anything like the Scrubs that I am using (160/140) that certainly would not be a limiting factor to riding/not riding this bike.
> 
> I really don't see anything truly outrageous about that build that would scare me about riding it. I would really like to see what he's done to get the pedals below 140g.


I think they are basicly 5Tis. Shortest spindle and Ti spring.

http://www.fotos.light-bikes.de/main.php?g2_itemId=13452


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

*where's the eclipse inner-tubes BTW?*


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

don't even ask


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

This Flash could even use my chainrings and shave at least 25 grams.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Is the Eclipse inner tube very elastic as latex ? Or similar to Greenlite.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> *where's the eclipse inner-tubes BTW?*


Vaporware.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> Vaporware.


OK then someone block this thread.


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

smoke


----------



## fernandoj (Mar 19, 2008)

*another unsubscribed*

haha ;-)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Guys - i know you think this Eclipse inner tube will never see the light, that it is vaporware or some copied asian look-a-like...

Anyway - i just got this nice new PROTOTYPE. Don't ask me about when it will be available nor do send mails or sms to Eclipse nor do a search in the net.THIS is the only info you will find and if you are interested look at the pictures and have a smile, you will shake your head at the same time thinking those swiss-guys are all idiots. If you don't like what you see have a good laugh. For the others just enjoy and remain curious on what might be soon.

Inner tubes for MTB tires up to 2,25" ! Enjoy:thumbsup: 

By the way-things are progressing. This is just showing that they are still going ahead.


----------



## saiko (Oct 8, 2008)

whow hope its true and that it will come on the market someday.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

I'm cautiously optimistic.


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

Does it really work?
I want to see it mounted on a tire?


----------



## Slim83 (Nov 2, 2006)

Mattias_Hellöre said:


> Does it really work?
> I want to see it mounted on a tire?


I want to see them in a package for sale to other people.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mattias_Hellöre said:


> Does it really work?
> I want to see it mounted on a tire?


A year ago people would have wondered if the 56g version would be usable on a MTB as well...i can't tell you how it will perform in the dirt yet.It definitely will hold the air but maybe it needs the sealant to be sturdy enough against tiny holes? Once inflated the wall thickness is so thin it really mimicks the sealant skin inside sealed tires. So all we might need to add is a little sealant to have the same ride than converted tubeless tires but without the hassle of first installation, without the mess when changing tires...you know what i mean. Maybe it works, maybe it's just a little too light and over the edge...we will see.

Anyway - i will have it mounted within the next couple of minutes


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mounted - inflated to 2 bar/ 29 psi - holds air 

I'll let you know how things progress.Too bad we have dark night already and on top of that awful rainy weather otherwise i might have gone for a quick spin already.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

nino said:


> i can't tell you how it will perform in the dirt yet.It definitely will hold the air but maybe it needs the sealant to be sturdy enough against tiny holes? Once inflated the wall thickness is so thin it really mimicks the sealant skin inside sealed tires. So all we might need to add is a little sealant to have the same ride than converted tubeless tires but without the hassle of first installation, without the mess when changing tires...you know what i mean. Maybe it works, maybe it's just a little too light and over the edge...we will see.


this is cool - i like progress and innovation, but I really fail to see any real benefit if they are so light you also need sealant. what will a sealant with ammonia do to this condom? i mean tube. adding sealant will probably defeat the weight benefit entirely and how do you remove any stans latex balls from inside the tube?

anyway, i do see the benefits if it works as just a tube. but with sealant - why?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

kevbikemad said:


> this is cool - i like progress and innovation, but I really fail to see any real benefit if they are so light you also need sealant. what will a sealant with ammonia do to this condom? i mean tube. adding sealant will probably defeat the weight benefit entirely and how do you remove any stans latex balls from inside the tube?
> 
> anyway, i do see the benefits if it works as just a tube. but with sealant - why?


I see benefits, and would be happy to run the tube with sealant (though I'd rather use the 56g tube without). I like that it would keep the tire from burping, it would take trail side repairs easier, it would make installation a LOT easier, it would allow you to run just about any type of tire. The list of reasons is substantial.

Nino, I thought you got rid of the DT Swiss fork?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> I see benefits, and would be happy to run the tube with sealant (though I'd rather use the 56g tube without). I like that it would keep the tire from burping, it would take trail side repairs easier, it would make installation a LOT easier, it would allow you to run just about any type of tire. The list of reasons is substantial.
> 
> Nino, I thought you got rid of the DT Swiss fork?


Correct - You got the benefits right.
We all know that it is the first installation, the sealing process of all those conversion kits that makes it a hassle and sometimes also a big mess. With this inner tube you would have a 100% airthight seal right away. you can mount any tire you may like....

anyway - we will see how things progress


----------



## alm80 (Jun 16, 2006)

I for one cant wait to get my hands on these or something similar thanks for pointing these Nino


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

I guess the most interesting question is how it will withstand pinch flats when run with lower pressure - with or without sealant.


----------



## Kitakeng (Oct 29, 2006)

So these tubes weigh 1/4 of what we call "light-tubes"!!

For those uberlight show bikes, I guess it is the weight that counts, but will be interesting to see how Nino rates them.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Interesting! So we should expect a 56g eclipse innertube and a second version for half the weight? and maybe for a premium price.
Can you show us the valve stem and how it is attached to the 'rubber' nino ? 
UltraLight innertubes tend to rip at the base of the valve stem, so I suspect this could happen to this tubes quite easily also.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> Interesting! So we should expect a 56g eclipse innertube and a second version for half the weight? and maybe for a premium price.
> Can you show us the valve stem and how it is attached to the 'rubber' nino ?
> UltraLight innertubes tend to rip at the base of the valve stem, so I suspect this could happen to this tubes quite easily also.


No i won't show or tell you any details. I don't know much details at all anyway since i am not the manufacturer and you will be able to see them soon enough. Once again-these tubes have nothing in common with regular tubes we all know. It is a bicycle tube but made completely different and also from different material.

We already expected the 56g version to be fragile. After all-it's for decades that lightweight tubes were much more prone to defects than thicker ones...that's what is in our brains. But as it turned out this was not the case here.

We will see how things progress with that evolution. For now this is just a "playground" and just about looking what's possible.


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

Oh boy, now the deleted the girl!
I think I have to leave this place, I can't take it no more.


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

Good.


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

"Offensive content"


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I guess the most interesting question is how it will withstand pinch flats when run with lower pressure - with or without sealant.


I can only repeat what i have said already early in this thread:
under a press simulating a pinchflat the material showed to be about 30 times more resistant to cuts than your usual butyl tube. That said - we still have to get a pinchflat!!

Sealant is not beeing used anymore in the 56g tubes. But we will see how things go with that superthin tube...


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

It is magic tube. Can I inflate with Helium ? LOL


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

Way to much drama in weenieville








​


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Jake Pay said:


> Way to much drama in weenieville


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Wow!, yet another magic tube that's never going to be mass produced. This one looks made of celophane.


----------



## stevesbike (Feb 26, 2009)

does it come ribbed for better trail feel?


----------



## Epic-o (Feb 24, 2007)

Nino,

Have you add sealant to this new protoype? How much?


----------



## louisssss (Jun 24, 2009)

think they're just making it thinner and thinner just to show us a low-weight picture. I doubt it will have anywhere near the puncture resistence of regular "lightweight" tubes. 

If this is true, whats the point of having a light tube if half the time you're going to be off your bike fixing flats.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

louisssss said:


> think they're just making it thinner and thinner just to show us a low-weight picture. I doubt it will have anywhere near the puncture resistence of regular "lightweight" tubes.
> 
> If this is true, whats the point of having a light tube if half the time you're going to be off your bike fixing flats.


Considering we don't know the material it's made of (and it's obviously not a standard tube), that's quite an assumption you're making there. Nino ran the 56g examples without issue, and the ultra light ones shown might just be a viable alternative, and there's always the option to run them with sealant.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

bad mechanic said:


> Nino ran the 56g examples without issue.


Or so he says.

The truth is we're yet to hear one unbiased evaluation of their perfomance and durability.

The only person who has tested the tubes is Nino and forgive me but I don't trust the guy. He's always trying to push the products that he sells (or is going to sell) and talking trash about the competition's products.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sfer1 said:


> Or so he says.
> 
> The truth is we're yet to hear one unbiased evaluation of their perfomance and durability.
> 
> The only person who has tested the tubes is Nino and forgive me but I don't trust the guy. He's always trying to push the products that he sells (or is going to sell) and talking trash about the competition's products.


First of all - again you start talking in a manner that has not much to do with the product-prototype i show.

Talking bad about the competition? I guess you are referring to the FOSS tubes though. Correct - there i had a good time BUT that's just because you guys constantly said that other tube would be the same, that they were delivering faster, that it would be almost as light, that it is already available,that it costs a fraction,.....

Correct - you got me mad so i fought back showing you guys the reality on that other tube. Is this talking bad? No i don't think so.This is getting all your claims and assumptions straight.

Correct - i'm the only one telling you about this new Eclipse innertube. So why don't you just sit back and enjoy the progress of things rather than make all these negative statements? After all - i'm talking about prototypes and rest assured that once they're out people will post hundreds of comments as well. So for now you could have a smile and be curious to what might be in the future. There's some crazy swiss guys that care about lightweight innertubes - a part that has been unchanged for decades. It's about time something happens.It can't be we use 100 year old techology in our high-end carbon bikes


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Back on topic:
The tube still holds the air perfect - no air loss!

Hopefully i can do an easy spin today but i'm still suffering from a slightly cracked rib from my 1 week vacation riding a KTM 450 Enduro in Sardinia/Italy...

And i still hope these inner tubes may show up for motorcycles as well as changing tubes on a motorcycle is still a much bigger hassle than it is on our bikes


----------



## SelfPropelledDevo (Oct 2, 2005)

soy chorizo?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Talking bad about the competition? I guess you are referring to the FOSS tubes though.


No, we are talking about pretty much any item that you do not use or sell.

As far as FOSS, I do not remember posting anything whatsoever in that thread I started about any relation of them to your Eclipse friends for you and your posse do bump in with irrelevant drivel and your usual wild exaggerations and assertions..


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> No, we are talking about pretty much any item that you do not use or sell.


No-you talk about an item YOU said would do better than what i don't sell

sounds good ey? Anyway - You are the prime man when things go off in a thread,when a thread goes in another direction.I would really like to see some posts of you showing valuable info for the WW-community-thanks!

Stop - back on topic-thanks!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> No-you talk about an item YOU said would do better than what i don't sell




Whatever.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

Really Nino, why'd you instigate things by posting an update? Just let this subject die until something is actually available for purchase.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Wheelspeed said:


> Really Nino, why'd you instigate things by posting an update? Just let this subject die until something is actually available for purchase.


Because there was a new prototype to show off?

Look, we all new this product is still in development and isn't available yet; it might never be. But, personally, I think it's sweet I get to see a new weight weenie product which is in development and is still only prototyping. It's something I'm usually not privy to.

*How about, if it bothers you so much, you just stay out of this thread, and leave to those of us who are enjoying it?*


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> Because there was a new prototype to show off?
> 
> Look, we all new this product is still in development and isn't available yet; it might never be. But, personally, I think it's sweet I get to see a new weight weenie product which is in development and is still only prototyping. It's something I'm usually not privy to.


For one, I am very much interested in this development. The only thing that occasionally annoyed me was Nino's opinionated attitude towards many other products, given that he is not a neutral party, but I think Internets can tolerate an occasional spat like that.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

bad mechanic said:


> Because there was a new prototype to show off?
> 
> Look, we all new this product is still in development and isn't available yet; it might never be. But, personally, I think it's sweet I get to see a new weight weenie product which is in development and is still only prototyping. It's something I'm usually not privy to.
> 
> *How about, if it bothers you so much, you just stay out of this thread, and leave to those of us who are enjoying it?*


Because I'd love to have a pair and am irritated I can't get any! I stay out awhile, but seeing a bunch of new posts makes me pop in to see if I can buy them yet. But it's always the same thing... "not available yet, don't know when or how much..." and then a bunch of bickering.


----------



## TheDon (Oct 18, 2005)

SelfPropelledDevo said:


> soy chorizo?


Reminds me of when the gf is on the rag and feeling horny...

I feel so dirty and used...


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

there not available yet
there goes christmas 
always next year or....


----------



## SelfPropelledDevo (Oct 2, 2005)

SlowerJoe said:


> there not available yet
> there goes christmas
> always next year or....


another virtual stocking stuffer


----------



## mikesnowdon (Sep 25, 2009)

Nino, Ive lost the url to your website....


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

mikesnowdon said:


> Nino, Ive lost the url to your website....


http://tinyurl.com/yzztufd


----------



## mikesnowdon (Sep 25, 2009)

Cheers dude!


----------



## moto367 (Nov 20, 2006)

nino said:


> Back on topic:
> The tube still holds the air perfect - no air loss!
> 
> Hopefully i can do an easy spin today but i'm still suffering from a slightly cracked rib from my 1 week vacation riding a KTM 450 Enduro in Sardinia/Italy...
> ...


Nino, you should be using Michelin inserts riding in those rocks!:thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

moto367 said:


> Nino, you should be using Michelin inserts riding in those rocks!:thumbsup:


well - it wasn't my bike i rode there.I rented it and there were motocross tires installed which have a softer carcass than real Enduro tires and to make matters worse that morning i tried to control tire pressure with a digital pressure gauge only to realize that it wasn't working properly.Until i realized this i already let out a little too much pressure. So i wanted to put some air at the next gas station but by then we had already forgotten about it...Soft tires,a little low pressure,dried out river bead, a mx-er twisting the throttle...it had to happen


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Test report for the new 28 g ?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

MTB for ever said:


> Test report for the new 28 g ?


No - i'm still not riding. I will re-start this weekend.My broken rib enabled me to do any riding lately. But the 28g is not of interest anyway. That's just a playground to see what's possible.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

nino said:


> No - i'm still not riding. I will re-start this weekend.My broken rib enabled me to do any riding lately. *But the 28g is not of interest anyway. That's just a playground to see what's possible*.


Hello.

Are you serious ? Is it the end of our dream to use super-mega-ultra light tube ? If it is not very very very strong, it's not so important for me if I have to change every month.

Thanks.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

MTB for ever said:


> Hello.
> 
> Are you serious ? Is it the end of our dream to use super-mega-ultra light tube ? If it is not very very very strong, it's not so important for me if I have to change every month.
> 
> Thanks.


No-that's not the end but Eclipse is concentrating on the 56g for now....that's already A LOT lighter than anything else.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Yes. It's normal. The 28 g is in test-phase for a several months. But I hope that the 28g will also go out one day. It would be great.


----------



## Cezex (Oct 16, 2009)

Hey nino, it's been almost a year since you've started this thread. Do you know any planned release date ?


----------



## trelgne (Feb 9, 2006)

The Eclipse tube has seen the light in two German online-shops. And are sold already.
http://www.tuning-bikes.de/product_info.php?products_id=1120&osCsid=60768c55e064573f4517d30939ae5040


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

trelgne said:


> The Eclipse tube has seen the light in two German online-shops. And are sold already.
> http://www.tuning-bikes.de/product_info.php?products_id=1120&osCsid=60768c55e064573f4517d30939ae5040


Ohh I was expecting nino to give this news. Anyway good news! EXPENSIVE

nino is this true?


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

Finally! but 50 euros per tube is really expensive!! :nono: 

I'll stay with tubeless


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

54,80 Euro or $78.57 us dollars

...not a problem as its sold out already

"Article momentarily no more in stock"


----------



## WindWithMe (Apr 17, 2008)

$80.00 for a tube!!!! :eekster: ut:


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

it's a musical tube?? (when you ride the bike sounds a song?)


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

WindWithMe said:


> $80.00 for a tube!!!! :eekster: ut:


If the tubes are as tough as Nino says, I'd pay $80 each. They'll save me 150 grams of rotating weight at a dollar a gram. I'm good with that.


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

SelfPropelledDevo said:


> soy chorizo?


más bien sobrasada parece, no?

cachondo que eres un cachondo... :thumbsup:


----------



## Da Rider (May 30, 2008)

palmix said:


> it's a musical tube?? (when you ride the bike sounds a song?)


YES! With Ipod 80Gb + A2DP Bluetooth headset for free 

Realy CRAZY price! I want to buy, But I can pay no more 25$ for one, not 80 :madman:


----------



## WindWithMe (Apr 17, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> If the tubes are as tough as Nino says, I'd pay $80 each. They'll save me 150 grams of rotating weight at a dollar a gram. I'm good with that.


I run tubeless with 1 scoop stans (~50grams) cut valve stem (~4.8grams) and tape (~20grams) for a cost of ~$7.00 so I don't see the benefit. Each to their own.


----------



## louisssss (Jun 24, 2009)

bad mechanic said:


> If the tubes are as tough as Nino says, I'd pay $80 each. They'll save me 150 grams of rotating weight at a dollar a gram. I'm good with that.


except tubes have higher chances of needing replacement then say... a new handlebar or seatpost or crank that will save weight. But i guess if you're already upgrading on the margin then saving 150g for $1/g is not a bad deal. Except that tubes can go flat anytime during a ride, wait i said that already


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Yes-there are a handful on sale in germany.

The advantage of the tubes are that EVERY tire is airthight right away! No mess with sealant,no compressor,no fiddling for days on some tires to get them airthight, easy tire changes in no time,...

The weight is on par to lightweight tubeless-conversions.

Right now they get tested in germany.They already passed the vital DIN-testing and right now they should get tested against the competition so we will have scientific readings on rollingresistance,puncture resistance and snakebite resistance. That's some numbers black on white not just my constant praising. From what i was told the snakebite resistance is already 3 steps higher than it is on a 200g Butyl inner tube!

The price is indeed high. But we have to change the way we look at these inner tubes.Inner tubes have been unchanged for 100 years.The fact until now was the lighter a tube the weaker. It is a throw away item.

BUT this tube might change the way we look at this item:

IF a inner tube makes for lower rollingresistance,less chance to pinchflat and offers more resistance to spines all combined with about 80g less weight than your usual Butyl- or or Latex-tube...wouldn't this change your mind a bit? This is one item that not only saves weight at the rotational mass but also makes you faster yet offers better protection as well.

And also if you should get a flat they still can be repaired.

We all use foldable tires instead of the cheaper steel wired versions and by doing so we all get tires with lighter weight, usually lower rolling resistance and better grip BUT all these foldable tires usually wear faster, offer less puncture protection and once worn you throw them away. No way to repair them. Yet everyone accepts the higher price tag because there is actually a performance gain at lighter weight.

We see Schmolke seatposts on some bikes that are just 30g lighter than some asian seatposts that cost 400 Euro less.What's the advantage of such a seatpost? It's just 30g lighter. These inner tubes are about 70-80g lighter than your typical Latex-innertube while also offering better performance.

There will always be those who swear about tubeless conversions. In riding areas with lots of spines this probably is still the way to go. But a major part of bikers hasn't looked into tubeless conversions just because of all the hassle that is involved. Many have gone back to tubes because they didn't want all that mess anymore. Now you have an option to run superlight innertubes without any risk. The choice is yours.

I was one of the first to use tubelesskits, way before they were available to the masses. I used "tubeless" only on my MTBs for about 8 years now but these tubes make life so much easier. The ride is very similar to tubeless conversions.Those who ride converted tires know that they offer a smoother ride, the tires seem to be more compliant, they roll faster...this is very similar to what these inner tubes feel like yet i never had to start my compressor anymore. I never had air-loss again and i don't have to worry if i install let's say a Conti Supersonic tire which is famous for sealing very bad with sealant...


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

When will it be available to the public? $80 a pc i'm on. :thumbsup:


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

I'd give them a try


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

I like the idea of having lightweight/compliant tubes to use with tires that don't work well tubeless, but those tires also tend to have weak sidewalls. Would hate to lose an $80 tire _and _an $80 tube all at once with a sidewall failure!


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Stans rims + a tire that works well for tubeless, is way better than $80 tubes. Tubes are for Boobs!


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

snowdrifter said:


> Stans rims + a tire that works well for tubeless, is way better than $80 tubes. Tubes are for Boobs!


For you maybe. I don't like tubeless because of the hassle, mess, and maintenance; it's just not worth it to me. However, if a tube can give me the ride quality and weight savings, I'm all over it.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> Stans rims + a tire that works well for tubeless, is way better than $80 tubes. Tubes are for Boobs!


see-you're limited.
Limited in the way you apporach a new item you haven't tried nor seen and limited to tires that work with sealant or limited in the equipment you need to make it work best.

I remember when tubelesskits came up.It took years to establish them, to get people convinced that all the work and hassle is well worth it. And it was a german test which showed the decrease in rollingresistance which finally made the racers try this new way of riding tubeless. I guess it will be the same again: as soon as some numbers actually proof the performance gains i think people will see the benefit.

I can only speak for myself but i'm riding Conti RaceKing Supersonics on both my MTBs and from what we have learned in this forum those tires are a pain to get sealed using sealant. I have maybe more experience with tubelesskits than any other here and i did appreciate the way such conversions perform ONCE everything is well sealed but sometimes that's not as easy. And those having just 1 wheelset sometimes wish they could change tires just prior to the ride...forget that with tubelesskits. However the performance of a well sealed tire is great-no doubt about that!

Anyway-as mentioned already tubelesskits have their place.If you know the tricks and have experience you can get almost every tire to seal soner or later.But there's just too many that don't want to mess with all this. If you do a search on various forums you will find thousands of questions if tire X will seal, how people could get tire Y to inflate at all, how it's done in general...etcetc. You won't find such questions regarding this innertube as everyone already knows how a inner tube handles, how it's going to be mounted. No special instructions are needed nor any special equipment (i don't know many guys using tubelesskits that don't have their own compressor at home...).


----------



## Marreiros (Dec 20, 2009)

With these Eclipse innertube do you use any sealant like No Tubes inside? Or is just the only the tube?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Marreiros said:


> With these Eclipse innertube do you use any sealant like No Tubes inside? Or is just the only the tube?


It's suggested to be used without sealant.

We have found out during testing that sealant still helps in sealing minor holes BUT once it does not get a hole sealed you can't do repairs anymore. The sealant will come out of the hole and hinder the patch from sticking. I have found it works so well it was better to use it without sealant and put a patch just in case.

But the valve can be opened for those who still want to use some sealant. You will need very little though as the tube is completely airthight. So it will remain fluid much longer than inside converted tires where the water content evaporates with time.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

At 56gms that's about 65-70gms lighter than a typical light rubber tube like a Conti Supersonic or Maxxis Ultralight so $70 extra for a 65-70gm saving is only $1.00-$1.07/gm cost, that's right in the game. If they prove to be as durable as they claim, it might just pay for itself since the light rubber tubes are about $8 - $14 each. 

They're 34gms lighter than the Panaracer Greenlights at 90gms and $17. So that's an extra $63/tube so the incremental cost/weight benefit is $1.85/gm. That's getting pricier if you're already happy with 90gm tubes, it might not be worth the difference. 

I'm certainly going to give them a shot on my weight weeniest bike, not sure I'd do a fleet deployment.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Nino, any rumours floating around that DT Swiss might pick up the Eclipse tubes the way they did the Eclipse tubeless kits?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Nino, any rumours floating around that DT Swiss might pick up the Eclipse tubes the way they did the Eclipse tubeless kits?


no such rumours.


----------



## slinky182 (Apr 23, 2009)

*Inner tubes*

Well I for one will be buying them as soon as they are available. Big thanks to Nino to introducing me to these, and I hope some of you will learn to have a bit more patience in future :nono:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Does anyone know if _www.tuning-bikes.de_ ships to North America?


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I've messaged them through their website and am still waiting to hear back. Maybe we should combine our order to save on shipping.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

BlownCivic said:


> I've messaged them through their website and am still waiting to hear back. Maybe we should combine our order to save on shipping.


I'm down with that idea, at 56gms a tube, the cost difference to ship a couple of extra in a box shouldn't be that huge compared to the base shipping cost. I had to use Google to translate my question into German, I likely just asked them if they'd like to stick a tube in their ear. :skep:


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

That's great news that they are semi-available to the public. I would love to try them out as well. They might even come down in price if they really take hold like tubeless did. Any word on when they will become more widely available?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

I'd go in on a order.


----------



## philvert (Nov 16, 2007)

WindWithMe said:


> $80.00 for a tube!!!!


Please note that some european bike shops are able to sell without VAT to international buyers.
In my case VAT is 19.6%. Actual rate change is 1.43, so price for international buyers is 65USD.


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Thank you for your inquiry.
Basically this is no problem. I just checked the shipping costs. It will be
26 Euro for 1kg (+5,00 Euro for each additional kg).
If you like to pre-order the Eclipse tubes, please let me know how many I
should reserve.
We should get the first ones on 07/01/2010, but have a lot of pre-orders
yet. So we have to see if we get enough for all pre-orders.
If you have any further question, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,
Marcus

This is what tunning bikes sent in regards to my ? On obtaining tubes


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Thank you for your inquiry.
Basically this is no problem. I just checked the shipping costs. It will be
26 Euro for 1kg (+5,00 Euro for each additional kg).
If you like to pre-order the Eclipse tubes, please let me know how many I
should reserve.
We should get the first ones on 07/01/2010, but have a lot of pre-orders
yet. So we have to see if we get enough for all pre-orders.
If you have any further question, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,
Marcus

This is what tunning bikes sent in regards to my ? On obtaining tubes


----------



## Marty W. (Jan 12, 2004)

I'd go in on an order. Is Marcus saying 7/Jan./2010 or July/01/2010?


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

I believe January


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

Will there be a US distributor at some pont?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

miles e said:


> Will there be a US distributor at some pont?


You will have distributors worldwide for sure.But so far production is still very slim so don't expect them to hit the showrooms worldwide next week already...


----------



## marty_hd (Oct 26, 2005)

So can the 26" tube work inside a 29er tire? Or is this tube pretty wheel size specific?


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

Please put me down for 2 tubes. 

One question.......

Are we the guinea pigs for testing or has there been enough testing to know they are good to go? I like new parts but HATE being the guinea pigs especially for pricey items. Pricey items that work as they should I have NO problems paying for.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

marty_hd said:


> So can the 26" tube work inside a 29er tire? Or is this tube pretty wheel size specific?


There will be a 29er version soon.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Do the tubes ship with the special patch kit they need, or is that a separate item you have to purchase?


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> see-you're limited..


Not at all. I run the tires I want, on the rims I want, no problems burping, or flats. No need to run $80 tubes.


----------



## dream4est (May 21, 2003)

This product could be an advantage even used with tubeless. Instead of 2 tubes at 6.5oz apiece in the pack or seatbag- you have 2 Eclipse tubes- a savings of 9oz!!. 

That is pretty neat right there. For $150 or so- you save weight in the gear kit- and get stronger than normal tubes that if you use you can simply take out and redo the tubeless kit at home. The 2 tubes would last forever.

I think that is what I will do for both day rides and multi-day bike rides/races next year. I cant think of a better way to save 9oz for $150 unless I compromise my gear choices for sleep, rain or warmth.


Also, If one switched from tubeless tires with 2 tubes spare, to Eclipse-tubed tires with 1 tube as a spare, the weight savings would be 1 lb (5oz rotational-11oz in gear). If the tubes work as well as advertised, I may just buy three and try this for multi-day racing.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Do the tubes ship with the special patch kit they need, or is that a separate item you have to purchase?


No-the patches aren't included


----------



## louisssss (Jun 24, 2009)

so how much is 1 tube in USD?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

louisssss said:


> so how much is 1 tube in USD?


May i copy philverts post from above:

"Please note that some european bike shops are able to sell without VAT to international buyers.
In my case VAT is 19.6%. Actual rate change is 1.43, so price for international buyers is 65USD."


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Unfortunatley Nino Tunning Bikes has not confirmed that US citizens or non European residents will not have to pay the vate. But I hope that dies occur.


----------



## a.m (Jun 15, 2009)

Whei you have theese tubes avalible through you, Nino?


----------



## philvert (Nov 16, 2007)

nikoli8 said:


> Unfortunatley Nino Tunning Bikes has not confirmed that US citizens or non European residents will not have to pay the vate. But I hope that dies occur.


I don't know for TuningBikes, but in my case, I confirm that I will not charge you the VAT.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

dream4est said:


> ....
> - and get *stronger* than normal tubes ....


Do you know more ?

Up to now it is only a *paperfeature*. 
Honestly: I cannot believe in this wondertube (but wish it is true). 
Hope this year brings some clearness if it is only promotion or real ... or simply a light tube for the scale and showcase.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> Do you know more ?
> 
> Up to now it is only a *paperfeature*.
> Honestly: I cannot believe in this wondertube (but wish it is true).
> Hope this year brings some clearness if it is only promotion or real ... or simply a light tube for the scale and showcase.


Checky-we soon will get verified numbers from german labs...


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

Which lab ? Which test method ? Any certification on lab and method ?
Who make this order (I hope not Eclipse themselves) ?

We both know, that the german papermagazines test such things with sponsored equipment and the test results are often "very confusing", or more to say: conditioned from their own clients.
e.g. tires: there are much faster tires out there as the tests in germany showes. They test only stuff which they get sponsored and also on sponsored equipment.
So sometimes is Schwalbe the best, and Oh what a surprise: on Schwalbe test equipment. Next test is Conti the best and the test equipment was from Conti.
Any questions.

From my point of view the testresults out of papermagazines are nearly worthless (and also testresults from a manufacturer itselve, except from accredited labs). See e.g. the QR Test. If they are right a DT Revolution spoke is more than enough for an QR axle. HarHar.
Often showes the practice the opposite. Therefore I believe in endcustomer reviews much more as in any test from an commercial conditioned magazine.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> Which lab ? Which test method ? Any certification on lab and method ?
> Who make this order (I hope not Eclipse themselves) ?
> 
> We both know, that the german papermagazines test such things with sponsored equipment and the test results are often "very confusing", or more to say: conditioned from their own clients.
> ...


Checky-c'mon!

It is no magazine.No sponsored source! You will know once the numbers are out.This could be next week already.We will see.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

We will see.
Thats exciting like Ottfried Fischer's underwear ;-)


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

They should arrive in January - Sorry, we're using the format DD/MM/YYYY in
germany instead of MM/DD/YYYY, I forgot about that.
The VAT for goods will not be charged, only the VAT for the shipping, but
this one should not be charged from your Customs then.

If that's OK for you, I will inform you as soon as we have the tubes in
stock and send you a proforma invoice then. Please just let me know how many
tubes I should reserve for you. You can pay via T/T or PayPal, if that's
easier for you.

Best regards,
Marcus

Tuning Bikes MH e.K.
Marcus Hebinger
Bahnhofstr. 21
67146 Deidesheim
Internet: http://www.Tuning-bikes.de
http://www.bremsen-entlueften.de

eMail: [email protected]


----------



## dream4est (May 21, 2003)

checky said:


> Do you know more ?
> 
> Up to now it is only a *paperfeature*.
> Honestly: I cannot believe in this wondertube (but wish it is true).
> Hope this year brings some clearness if it is only promotion or real ... or simply a light tube for the scale and showcase.


No I do not know more- but I take this sport pretty seriously and Nino has my respect and I feel that given his experience that these tubes are the real deal. The data will probably show what he has been saying all along.

Even if Nino is wrong and the tube only works like a normal tube it is still a pimp product IMO. It will defintely be the worlds lightest slime-filled tube regardless of the to be released data. I can still save 7oz out of my multi-day kit with 2 of these tubes filled with 1oz of slime.

I have been running some form of ghetto tubeless for 10 seasons- starting with elec. tape and condensed milk. The time has come for space-age technology tubes. This is just the start IMO. I can see a future where tubular setups and superlight tubes on clinchers (or something like Tire Balls) rule the mtb world and tubeless becomes the third option.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

so how do the tubes perform in low psi as tubeless? Do they pinch flat?


----------



## carbs79 (Sep 8, 2009)

nino said:


> No-the patches aren't included


Are they special patches or are they the same as Park Tool patches?
Any idea when the road tubes are coming out?


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Hi Nino,

Glad to see the tubes are finally reaching the market.

From my experience with them which was a very interesting one, I still have questions which were unanswered (appart from the weld problem which has been solved now I'm sure) :
- the tube works very well against pinch flat like tubeless --> I agree 100%.
- sealant inside doesn't dry fast --> don't agree, the sealant inside my tube dried even faster than inside a tire sealed tubeless and would fill the valve very often making inflation difficult so I had to clean the valve very often. Do you have an updated version of the sealant that works better inside the tube ?
- my third remark is a consequence of my first two --> eclipse tubes user are well protected from pinch flats and can use light tires like Conti Supersonic since there is no sealing problem BUT these tires are very prone to having thorns going through them and since as I mentionned sealant was a pain to use how do you deal with thorn punctures ?

To me, the big + of tubeless with sealant is that you are protected from both pinch and thorn flats at the cost of sometimes painful sealing and the need for two wheelsets if you want to be able to switch quickly from dry to mud tires. But when you are on the bike you don't have to worry about punctures unless you cut the tire. With these tubes, I feel like you loose one of the main advantage of tubeless + sealant.
I agree that these tubes have a high thorn perforation resistance but still I did have thorn flats with them that sealant inside wouldn't seal... and I had tubes ruined by sealant becoming fully dry after a month only.

Did you answer all those problems with final production version of the tube ? If you did, I'm ordering many of them tomorrow for 2010 racing season ;-)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

xc-rider said:


> Hi Nino,
> 
> Glad to see the tubes are finally reaching the market.
> 
> ...


Hello,
i have no idea which prototype stage you got but anyway - If it was airthight by then there is not much changed until now besides it has a much nicer finish at the weld and valve now.

You must have used old or no good sealant then! It is logical that if a tube is airthight you do not need to inflate fresh air every so often so the sealant inside remains fluid much longer as the water contect doesn't dry out as fast. What you describe does sound like something was wrong then.

BUT anyway - as mentioned already these tubes are suggested to be run WITHOUT sealant at all. The sealant would seal only smaller holes and repairs would become almost impossible with the sealant coming out of the holes...

Correct - i mentioned before that those riding in areas with lots of spines might still use Tubelesskits.Those are doing great in such areas with almost instant sealing of smaller holes. I have found these tubes to be much more resistant to thorns as well BUT they sure get flats as well. So those riding in areas with lots of spines might still opt for tubelesskits. I personally don't have too many big spines around here. There's those tiny ones in the bushes, out in the forest which made for many flats when i used regular innertubes. After switching to the Eclipse i never had a flat around here, doing the same trails on and on. So i can definitely say that they are much better against smaller spines than regular tubes. And all year long we didn't get any reports of a snakebite except ONE guy that used these tubes on his freerider with 2,5" tires on a skislope downhill...he was the only one that managed to get a snakebite with these tubes! But that was really just exagerrated use of a XC-tube on a "DH-like" aplication...But otherwise there were many guys using these tubes and none got a snakebite. So the chances to snakebite seem really slim, punctures from thorns might still happen but at least for me are much less likely to happen still than with other tubes. It is difficult to tell by "feel" how much better they are.That's why there should be some verified numbers which compare these tubes to let's say 0815 Butyl and Latex innertubes which we all know, so everyone can judge for themselves if that's good or not sufficient for the riding you do. For my riding they proved to be all i need. I even tested them "hardcore" down in Tuscany/Italy which has lots of spines and lots of sharp stones using Conti Supersonic tires which are well known to offer the least protection against....during one week riding all day long i did get 1 flat from a thorn. I added some sealant and it got sealed 100%. Now i have to say that even people using UST tires flatted on the same rides, we had tubelesskits gone flat from cuts in tires, several guys got multiple flats on the same day and several flatted on several days as well...(interesting to see that a friend of mine using Dugast Tubulars had to call up his wife to bring him a spare rear wheel by car as he had no way to fix it and would have to walk home for several miles...).

So: i'd say those who really suffer from spines in their riding area might better use Tubelesskits, all the rest can opt for this innertube which should offer better performance in all aspects than other tubes on the market.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

Great, thank you XC-rider! Thats the first independent review I see.



nino said:


> You must have used old or no good sealant then! It is logical that if a tube is airthight you do not need to inflate fresh air every so often so the sealant inside remains fluid much longer as the water contect doesn't dry out as fast. What you describe does sound like something was wrong then.


 Of course: something other is the reason, never this tube. XC-rider say, that he had lots of thorns in the tires/tubes. With thorns he had also new & fresh air and thats may the reason for the fast drying of the sealant ?
We know, that sealant in tubes is suboptimal, because the very small holes became always untight at thorns because the tubes moved in a other way as the tire.



Nino said:


> I have found these tubes to be much more resistant to thorns as well BUT they sure get flats as well.


 Thanks



Nino said:


> we didn't get any reports of a snakebite except ONE guy that used these tubes on his freerider with 2,5" tires on a skislope downhill...he was the only one that managed to get a snakebite with these tubes! But that was really just exagerrated use of a XC-tube on a "DH-like" aplication...


 At what tires ?

Exciting continous.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> Great, thank you XC-rider! Thats the first independent review I see.
> 
> Of course: something other is the reason, never this tube. XC-rider say, that he had lots of thorns in the tires/tubes. With thorns he had also new & fresh air and thats may the reason for the fast drying of the sealant ?
> We know, that sealant in tubes is suboptimal, because the very small holes became always untight at thorns because the tubes moved in a other way as the tire.
> ...


Well - there is nothing new in here.

It would be interesting to know if the leaks are indeed from thorns or if there were still some joints/welds leaking since he still had prototypes. Only the very latest generation is free of faulty units...So if some other leakage was the problem no wonder the sealant dried out and no wonder the tubes leaked.

I always said the sealant would only seal small holes.If he had big ones that didn't got sealed it is only logical that the sealant eventually will dry.But that's just telling us that the sealant was not able to seal those holes. The same drying would happen in a Tubelesskit...nothing different here. But if the tube is airthight it will stay fluid much longer though. I had that flat in Italy and my tube was sealed by the sealant 100% for the next couple of days.No air loss at all. But i was not using sealant anymore after that since over here in Switzerland we do not have those kind of thorns. And after all i was basically looking to get flats just to see how the tube would perform...

I never said these tubes would not get flats at all ! I already told about my flat in Italy long ago...BUT the tubes resist penentrating objects better than others do (at a fraction of the weight!)

I have no idea what those guys were using.Those are hardcore freeriders going for DH-rides in the swiss ski-resorts using lifts for the uphills and going down fast...i don't know what exactly happend but i know this was the only snakebite so far.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Are the European stores that sell these tubes also selling the Eclipse patches? I didn't find the patches on neither of the two websites mentioned above.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

Nino,
right, nothing new in here: no suitable answer, only circumventive blubber. Do you read and understand my post ? --> of course! But rft:

btw: with which sealants did Eclipse their tests ? Only with their own ? May there is another sealant out there which will work also with the patches and doesnt dry that fast.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> Nino,
> right, nothing new in here: no suitable answer, only circumventive blubber. Do you read and understand my post ? --> of course! But rft:
> 
> btw: with which sealants did Eclipse their tests ? Only with their own ? May there is another sealant out there which will work also with the patches and doesnt dry that fast.


No suitable answer? There is all you need to know written already in this or in the previous thread already.

Yes sure the Eclipse sealant was used for tests. Maybe XC-racer used a different one? Or maybe a different one might be better suited? Who knows. I know it isn't needed for my riding over here.

BTW Checky-interesting to see the difference between the international biker-community and the german one....some reactions in the german thread were just ridiculous.


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Nino,

I used Eclipse sealant.

My goal was not to criticize, just to give my oppinion on the +++ and --- of this tube.
I think that next season I'll still have two sets of wheels but instead of having different tires set up tubeless on the two sets, I'll have one set tubeless + one set eclipse tubes. I'll use the lighter and "softer" non tubeless tire + eclipse tube (NO SEALANT) when there are no thorns 

I'm looking forward to seeing the results from the german magazines !!!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> If the tubes are as tough as Nino says, I'd pay $80 each. They'll save me 150 grams of rotating weight at a dollar a gram. I'm good with that.


For me an advantage of using those tube is that you do not have to fiddle with goop to switch tires, but at $80 a piece I would rather have a spare Hope/ZTR wheelset at the price of a couple of this handmade magic dust pieces.

Properties of the new material should be useful for non weight-weenie show-off purposes as well, but for that I will wait for some mass produced version of the material, even if it is more then twice heavier.


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

I'm confused - spend a lot of $ on a very light weight tube and then add sealant to it? Why would you add the weight back? Why not just go tubless on Stan's (or similar) rims, add the sealent inside the tire and save the weight and $$ of a tube.

In my thinking the whole point of going to the trouble of adding sealant is to go tubeless  SO the tube is a light weight "container" for the sealant? Geez, they aren't THAT messy  What am I missing?

Maybe this has already been covered, forgive if I did not read every thread on this post... it's getting to be a Loooooong one!

I may be bias, but it's been 2 years on tubeless without fixing a flat... and we live it goat head and black berry country!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

CactusJackSlade said:


> I'm confused - spend a lot of $ on a very light weight tube and then add sealant to it? Why would you add the weight back? Why not just go tubless on Stan's (or similar) rims, add the sealent inside the tire and save the weight and $$ of a tube.
> 
> In my thinking the whole point of going to the trouble of adding sealant is to go tubeless  SO the tube is a light weight "container" for the sealant? Geez, they aren't THAT messy  What am I missing?
> 
> ...


Geee - please read the whole thread before making such stupid posts...thanks!


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

CactusJackSlade said:


> What am I missing?


What you're missing is that they're not run with sealant. 

Nino, will they require special patches or not?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> What you're missing is that they're not run with sealant.
> 
> Nino, will they require special patches or not?


Yes they require special patches.Eclipse offers them but i think the Park-Tool patches work too if you can't locate the Eclipse ones.But those who sell the Eclipse tubes also sell the special patches.


----------



## xalex (Oct 6, 2008)

any idea when the 2,5 version will be available?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Guys - i will tell you that so far really only a handful of tubes made it to the showrooms.Those are long gone by now and it will take about 2-4 weeks until a 1st real production run is available.But that's still a very limited number.The REAL production hasn't started yet.Eclipse is just starting now and it all has to come into gear. This will take some time.

Other sizes will come for sure but that's still up in the air and i can't tell you when other sizes will be available. I will definitely tell you as soon as other sizes are in the making but so far the standard MTB-tube is what is made.

bye
nino


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

*Nino:

If my question was stupid, what did you post this: (see in red bold)*

YOUR Post #24:

Rest assured i'm not the only tester! BUT i am very close (best friend) to the main man behind Eclipse...and i am the one getting the news first. However i have nothing to do with Eclipse and this is not my product at all. I am however involved in the development stages...Besides many other local racers Eclipse has one of the worlds BEST XC-rider as their tester and you will most likely will see him use this product in the future....he became worldchampion using the Eclipse tubelesskit before and is now at the forefront again.

It will once again take some time to get people convinced. We had the same happen with the tubelesskits before where only slowly and over the years the advantages got known and accepted.

Yes- it will be available through distributors worldwide.

answers to some questions above:
-no air loss! These tubes keep the air thight for a long time.

*-the valve is removable just like you have it on tubelesskits too to be able to add some sealant*

*-for the eventual pucture you have the sealant which should be able to take care of that.the tube comes with Eclipse-sealant so it's your choice if you run them with sealant right away or if you add it in case of a puncture. I haven't used any sealant so far...and never had a puncture until now.*
-i am using them inside my Conti RaceKing 2,2" at 1.9-2,0 bar pressure (ca. 28 psi)
__________________
ATTENTION - i may be showing you an item i sell, my comments may be biased because of this


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

CactusJackSlade said:


> *Nino:
> 
> If my question was stupid, what did you post this: (see in red bold)*
> 
> ...


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

nino said:


> CactusJackSlade said:
> 
> 
> > *Nino:
> ...


----------



## louisssss (Jun 24, 2009)

noob question: just came across the Continental 700c tube @ 50g, how do those stack up compared to other lightweight tubes? http://www.pricepoint.com/detail/18...s/Continental-Tube-Presta-700x18-25-Light.htm


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

louisssss said:


> noob question: just came across the Continental 700c tube @ 50g, how do those stack up compared to other lightweight tubes? http://www.pricepoint.com/detail/18...s/Continental-Tube-Presta-700x18-25-Light.htm


I used such a Supersonic ROAD tube once...it lasted 5 miles before i had a flat on the ROAD. Those simply get streched waaaaay too much and don't work in MTB tires.

Even used on a Roadbike they don't do too good.Those were my favourite tubes when i still used clincher tires but you really get a lot of flats using them.

@Cactus-guy:
please-you come in this thread, post a stupid resumee not knowing what it's all about and ask me to be gentle? Please- do us a favour and read better before you cite things out of the context - thanks!

I respond to EVERY single question if it's serious. You came in with just critics about an item you obviously don't know. You didn't even care to read what it is all about so what do you expect?

I'm sorry if i hurt your feelings though!
bye
nino


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

Hi Eric,

Thank you for your inquiry.

We expect the next ones to be delivered in about 2 weeks. I will let you know as soon as we have them in stock again. 

Best regards,
Marcus


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Atmos said:


> Hi Eric,
> 
> Thank you for your inquiry.
> 
> ...


Sorry - it is as i wrote above already:
Don't expect a new delivery before the end of this month! And then again it will be a very limited quantity.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

$65 a tube hahaha what kind of idiot would buy these???? have fun 1st time you flat. i never even think of flatting with tubeless. tubes are not the future and are barely used in any other kind of tire in sport or recreation.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

What kind of idiot would post such a comment on a thread made up of supporters/those interested in this tube.


----------



## dr13zehn (Jun 20, 2009)

mtbnozpikr said:


> What kind of idiot would post such a comment on a thread made up of supporters/those interested in this tube.


The kind of idiot that feels big and bad enough on the webbernets to call out a bunch of people anonymously. 
He's a real man you know. 

I actually believe those tubes are a great idea if they work as intended. I think I'll give them a try myself once they are more readily available.


----------



## marko (Jun 14, 2004)

I'd like to know if there will be a 20x2.0 or 20x2.5(19"rim) version, or if it's possible to custom make a order of 50+50. That would be a great weight saver. if puncure ressistance is supperior, thats important too. I always try shavin off some weight from the trials bikes I build.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

marko said:


> I'd like to know if there will be a 20x2.0 or 20x2.5(19"rim) version, or if it's possible to custom make a order of 50+50. That would be a great weight saver. if puncure ressistance is supperior, thats important too. I always try shavin off some weight from the trials bikes I build.


Rest assured these sizes will be available sometimes too....meanwhile my son already had 20" in his BMX and now 24" in his MTB (he's 8 years old). I have one 20" prototype left over since we just sold the BMX...if you're interested drop me a PM!

Planned sizes are:
BMX 20"x1,5-2,125: 44g
BMX 24"x1,5-2,25: 49g
XC 26"x1,5-2,25: 56g
AM 26"x2,25-2,6: 59g
Road 28"x18-25C: 29g
Trekking 28"x28-42C: 58g
29er 29"x1,5-2,25: 58g


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

A 26x3.7 for snow bikes would kill! You'd drop a good pound of rotating weight vs. Surly tubes _per wheel_, and flats (pinch or puncture) aren't typically a concern on snow so it would be easier to justify the cost. :yesnod:


----------



## Dan Gerous (Feb 18, 2004)

Hummm, I may be interested in some for my road bike... on the mountain bikes, I'll stay tubeless.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

MiniTrail said:


> +1
> Been following this thread with that same thought. Looks promising


I was even thinking for those tubes to be mounted on my motocrosser! There you sometimes use Michelin Airstop innertubes that weigh 750g.They don't do any better than regular butyl ones though and seeing the Eclipse can do better than butyl anyway i think it should be possible to save let's say 550g of weight easily.

I see a huge market for all those offroad bikes...


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

Dan Gerous said:


> Hummm, I may be interested in some for my road bike... on the mountain bikes, I'll stay tubeless.


My thoughts exactly (even though I'm stupid)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

CactusJackSlade said:


> (even though I'm stupid)


@Cactus:
You're not - but your first couple of posts were.


----------



## xc71 (Dec 24, 2008)

nino said:


> I was even thinking for those tubes to be mounted on my motocrosser! There you sometimes use Michelin Airstop innertubes that weigh 750g.They don't do any better than regular butyl ones though and seeing the Eclipse can do better than butyl anyway i think it should be possible to save let's say 550g of weight easily.
> 
> I see a huge market for all those offroad bikes...


Nino, the best way to go on the dirt bike is Neutech tubliss system,I've raced with it front/rear all season in Enduro/cross-country & its excellent, no comparision to tubes.Its approx. 2 pounds lighter per wheel if you are running super heavy duty tubes,no chance of flats,runs cooler,much better traction on wet roots/rocks-I've run as low as 3 psi,you can also run sealant in the tire also,the cost is reasonable @ $99.00 USD per wheel.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

xc71 said:


> Nino, the best way to go on the dirt bike is Neutech tubliss system,I've raced with it front/rear all season in Enduro/cross-country & its excellent, no comparision to tubes.Its approx. 2 pounds lighter per wheel if you are running super heavy duty tubes,no chance of flats,runs cooler,much better traction on wet roots/rocks-I've run as low as 3 psi,you can also run sealant in the tire also,the cost is reasonable @ $99.00 USD per wheel.


I believe you but not the 2 lbs savings!
I once measured a Michelin Airstop inner tube which is one of the heaviest you can get and it weighed 750g = 1,6 lbs . So the savings can't be that much

But anyway- tubeless in a offroad wheel sure is a big plus. I also used those Michelin Bib-Mousse things in the 90s when doing the world and european championships but man those were a pain to install and heavy as well.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

I hope Nino hires a bodyguard for the first guy that goes bezerk after flatting his $65 tube.:eekster:


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

nino said:


> @Cactus:
> You're not - but your first couple of posts were.


No they were'nt na, na, na-na, na  Hey I was a HARD CORE tube person until I was "forced" into tubless on a used bike I bought... I've never gone back and wouldn't (for MTB)

I am interested in them for my road bike however...


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

nino said:


> Planned sizes are:
> BMX 20"x1,5-2,125: 44g
> BMX 24"x1,5-2,25: 49g
> XC 26"x1,5-2,25: 56g
> ...


NIIIIIICE: I want the AM version! I have been back to tubes for 3 years after getting sick of tubeless and sealant but I am really ready to try the eclipse, save a good bunch of grams and hopefully go back to the wonderful feel of tubeless ...


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2010)

I was wondering if anyone had experience combining a tubed setup with sealant used between the tube and the tire? I realize this is only tangentially related but since tubes and sealant are being discussed I'll claim I'm not threadjacking. 

It seems to me that doing so might solve two problems, sealant in the valve and sealant drying out. The sealant between the tube and tire would have very little exposure to air. Some may force through the tire so more sealant will likely be needed.

Such an approach would probably weigh more than sealant inside the tube but probably not more than a tubeless setup given the weights of the tube here. It may seal punctures less effectively but maybe not. It may need a less chunky or different kind of sealant. I could easily see how such a setup might be just as puncture and pinch proof as tubeless if these tubes work as advertised.

It's conceivable that such an approach combined with this tube could offer all the benefits of tubeless and solve some problems at the same time, namely sealant dry-out, rim and tire compatibility, burping, and valve clogging but at the cost of messier tire changes than a conventional tubed setup. I avoid tubeless due to the ongoing maintenance but this intrigues me. I would rather not have a goop-filled tube with a limited number of weeks on the bike regardless of mileage. I like the idea of putting a tire on the bike and not messing with it again until I change tires or do a repair. Sealant doesn't offer that now.


----------



## philvert (Nov 16, 2007)

Weight of tubes received today are between 53.8g and 57.1g:


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

questionable idea for a bunch of reason, but quickly.
1. the sealant needs to able to slosh around in the tire, to spread itself out. pretty tough when there is a tube in there.
2. most people who are considering this eclipse option DON'T want to use sealant (some due to the "mess") this option would be even messier in my books.
3. as you pointed out, added weight. (just skip the tube and you get the benefits of just the sealant.
4. i am guessing, but i bet the sealant would not work nearly as well, as not it has to seal a tube and the tire. less chance of success.

why don't you try it with a normal type, see how it works out?


----------



## Dan Gerous (Feb 18, 2004)

Rotation pulls the sealant toward the outside of the wheel and when you puncture, air helps the sealant get into the hole. With sealant not able to move much and air not bringing the sealant into the hole but actually pushing the sealant away from it, I think having sealant between the tube and the tire might be the least effective use of sealant possible.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2010)

Yeah, those are issues.

1. Maybe, but a different type of sealant may address this. Gotta get it distributed.
2. agreed. I don't think messier than tubeless tho.
3. Maybe, but I don't think heavier than tubeless with an eclipse tube. Added weight compared to straight tube, yes.
4. Maybe but that depends on how well controlled the leak is. Same as 1.

I am interested in trying this but since I don't run tubeless I'm not sure I'm a very good judge. I do have some stan's rims to play with. Just thought I'd throw it out and see if anyone has thoughts or experience. Your are thinking the same as me, but I like the idea of a sealant that doesn't dry out. 

Anyway, since this is an Eclipse tube thread, hopefully these tubes work as advertised and my interest in sealant "dries up" instead.

Dan Gerous,

Yes, I agree, just as kev said. However, consider that a puncture may be controlled by sealant in the tire such that air cannot leak quickly from the tube. In this case, it's possible that sealant might seep back into the tube. Sealant takes a bit of time to work, the question is how different it would be. May need a different formula or it may not work well at all.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

I want to buy!


----------



## fernandoj (Mar 19, 2008)

I don't pay sticker. This is why I wonder how much does it cost to produce an unit of this tube versus a conventional butyl one???

And I don't get the prices.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

fernandoj said:


> I don't pay sticker. This is why I wonder how much does it cost to produce an unit of this tube versus a conventional butyl one???
> 
> And I don't get the prices.


They cost MUCH,MUCH more to produce than a regular butyl tube. These tubes are handmade. Each one. Right here in Switzerland.There is no way to get this done automatic so far.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Great sounding new product, unfortunate price....

I'll have to wait for Magicshine to come out with their version


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

NINO:

Interesting, more new threads on sealant still going on, but those are not stupid?? Why just call me stupid and no one else?

Do you see why someone reading the first two or three pages of posts then the last 2 pages of posts might wonder and ASK about why using sealant in these tubes?

Hummmm


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

CactusJackSlade said:


> NINO:
> 
> Interesting, more new threads on sealant still going on, but those are not stupid?? Why just call me stupid and no one else?
> 
> ...


well-it's a different approach if soemone is looking for a costructive way to improve things compared to your way of coming in, no knowing what it's all about yet still bash a product.

anyway - it seems you took it waaaay to personal.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

You'd be suprised at how much hand labor goes into butyl tube production.


----------



## Kris (Jun 15, 2004)

What something costs to produce means nothing in regards to what it sells for. Prices are set by the market, and the number one rule of business is "charge what the market will bear." $65 for a tube is a lot of money, but I must admit to being tempted. Once they are more widely available I might just bite the bullet for a pair to be used only for my AAA races.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

bholwell said:


> You'd be suprised at how much hand labor goes into butyl tube production.


Maybe more than we think BUT that's in asia and the cost there is just minimal.I know OEM prices of butyl tubes and it's pretty much ridiculous, next to nothing.

Now these Eclipse tubes are completely made over here, from the raw material to assembly, even the production tools...all swiss made.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

nino said:


> Maybe more than we think BUT that's in asia and the cost there is just minimal.I know OEM prices of butyl tubes and it's pretty much ridiculous, next to nothing.
> 
> Now these Eclipse tubes are completely made over here, from the raw material to assembly, even the production tools...all swiss made.


Then I guess you should move production to Asia, right next to those Scott frames you love so much or are you worried about the theft of intellectual property? :nono:


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

Kris said:


> What something costs to produce means nothing in regards to what it sells for. Prices are set by the market, and the number one rule of business is "charge what the market will bear." $65 for a tube is a lot of money, but I must admit to being tempted. Once they are more widely available I might just bite the bullet for a pair to be used only for my AAA races.


That's not entirely true at all, cost plays a factor. Nobody stays in business to produce an item for a loss. You either get profitable or you get out. Nino may not be making a dime on these tubes because he may have produced a batch of ten pieces.


----------



## bad robot (Jul 24, 2008)

Curmy said:


> Interesting coincidence.
> 
> Foss "completed production line" on Jan 16.
> 
> ...


FOSS doesn't seem to have anything similar with Eclipse except the look.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

bad robot said:


> FOSS doesn't seem to have anything similar with Eclipse except the look.


175g ??????????        

i wouldn't want to ride my bike with these tubes even if they PAID ME 65$ per tube


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Does anyone online sell both the tubes and the patches currently? I'm interested. 

Even if one were to use tire liners, these would be lighter than any tube out there--but I'm only interested in being able to source the tubes and the patches at a reasonable cost. Selling the tubes without the special patches is almost worthless at this price.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

JaLove said:


> Does anyone online sell both the tubes and the patches currently? I'm interested.
> 
> Even if one were to use tire liners, these would be lighter than any tube out there--but I'm only interested in being able to source the tubes and the patches at a reasonable cost. Selling the tubes without the special patches is almost worthless at this price.


You will still have to wait about 1 month to see a bigger production run out in the shops.Those who sell tubes will sell patches as well.


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

nino said:


> You will still have to wait about 1 month to see a bigger production run out in the shops.Those who sell tubes will sell patches as well.


are these tubes intended for non-Clydesdale riders or can Clydesdale riders use them as well?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

zarr said:


> are these tubes intended for non-Clydesdale riders or can Clydesdale riders use them as well?


These are innertubes...just lighter and better material.
So definitely NO RESTRICTIONS !


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

nino said:


> These are innertubes...just lighter and better material.
> So definitely NO RESRTRICTIONS !


I thought about heavy weight and pinch flatting. If the material is strong, then I can use them too. Will be waiting to hear more about the patches. Thanks again Nino! :thumbsup:


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Zarr, the information OS pretty buried, but Nino said normal Park patches will work.

Nino, it might be worthwhile to have this thread locked and to start a new one.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad robot said:


> FOSS doesn't seem to have anything similar with Eclipse except the look.


I would guess that the target market for them are not the poseurs and top-shelf racers who are ready to fork out $80 for a hand-made Swiss tube. Similar material, just drawn thicker.

If that material is more durable then regular butyl I would be very happy to replace my current 150g+ tubes that I use on all my bikes (except for one) - just like pretty much everybody else on the planet does. It is lighter then a 60g strip + 100g sealant as well. Would be great for an AM bike, if it works.

And here is the thing - neither of those are available in any meaningful quantities for any price. Once they are, then we can test. So far all we can do is listening to Nino's shilling, that's all.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Curmy said:


> I would guess that the target market for them are not the poseurs and top-shelf racers who are ready to fork out $80 for a hand-made Swiss tube. Similar material, just drawn thicker.
> 
> If that material is more durable then regular butyl I would be very happy to replace my current 150g+ tubes that I use on all my bikes (except for one) - just like pretty much everybody else on the planet does. It is lighter then a 60g strip + 100g sealant as well. Would be great for an AM bike, if it works.
> 
> And here is the thing - neither of those are available in any meaningful quantities for any price. Once they are, then we can test. So far all we can do is listening to Nino's shilling, that's all.


Is the EFT available ? Google-search : nothing.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I would guess that the target market f or them are not the poseurs and top-shelf racers who are ready to fork out $80 for a hand-made Swiss tube. Similar material, just drawn thicker.
> 
> If that material is more durable then regular butyl I would be very happy to replace my current 150g+ tubes that I use on all my bikes (except for one) - just like pretty much everybody else on the planet does. It is lighter then a 60g strip + 100g sealant as well. Would be great for an AM bike, if it works.
> 
> And here is the thing - neither of those are available in any meaningful quantities for any price. Once they are, then we can test. So far all we can do is listening to Nino's shilling, that's all.


sorry-but no tubeless conversion beats the weight of these FOSS tubes. Those are really just ridiculous.

The rolling resistance of such a thick material will be much more as well.More than a regular butyl tube and MUCH more than a tubeless conversion. As said already, never ever would i install such tanks on my bikes.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MTB for ever said:


> Is the EFT available ? Google-search : nothing.


No, nothing.



nino said:


> sorry-but no tubeless conversion beats the weight of these FOSS tubes. Those are really just ridiculous.


That is correct, yellow tape on some Stan's rims is lighter. But then I use it with tubeless ready tires, like Geax TNT, that have a significant weight penalty. I am not willing to run regular tires tubeless on a bike that I take on something like Downieville - not after I blew up a few beads in the past..

But it is not all about the weight (yeah, I know, wrong forum). For my light bike I will be likely to cough up for Eclipse, if they are proven to be reliable in the field, but for my AM bike, that i use with 650g to 900g tires, I will be perfectly happy with a robust 150g+ tube. If it actually exists and is actually robust.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> No, nothing.
> 
> That is correct, yellow tape on some Stan's rims is lighter. But then I use it with tubeless ready tires, like Geax TNT, that have a significant weight penalty. I am not willing to run regular tires tubeless on a bike that I take on something like Downieville run..
> 
> But it is not all about the weight. For my light bike I will be likely to cough up for Eclipse, if they are proven to be reliable in the field, but for my AM bike, that i use with 650g to 900g tires, I will be perfectly happy with a robust 150g+ tube. If it actually exists and is actually robust.


Curmy,
It seems i have to repeat once more that these tubes are not only superlight but also MORE resistant to flats than your heavy duty butyl tube! The detailed numbers from the DIN-tests still aren't all in but at least in the snakebite test the 56g Eclipse beats a 200g (!) butyl tube by a long margin.

With these tubes we have to learn that ultralight is not synonymous with fragile! It's the other way round.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Curmy,
> It seems i have to repeat once more that these tubes are not only superlight but also MORE resistant to flats than your heavy duty butyl tube! The detailed numbers from the DIN-tests still aren't all in but at least in the snakebite test the 56g Eclipse beats a 200g (!) butyl tube by a long margin.
> 
> With these tubes we have to learn that ultralight is not synonymous with fragile! It's the other way round.


I know, you have already said that. All I have mentioned is that I am waiting on some more widespread testing and availability of those new materials.. Tests are tests - but I would wait for some Arizona and California folks to ride them around, maybe snag a pair myself..


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2010)

nino said:


> The rolling resistance of such a thick material will be much more as well.More than a regular butyl tube...


Given this is a comparison of two tubes of similar weight, I'm curious why this is so. Is this material worse than butyl gram for gram? If so, why accept it at face value that an Eclipse tube matches tubeless for rolling resistance? If FOSS and Eclipse are different materials, then why assert any claims on the FOSS tube at all? I love it when propagandists make claims on rolling resistance. Nino needs to stick to the Eclipse tube and stop trashing competitors IMO.

I believe it is a mistake to go for the home run of lightest tube ever with superior performance and durability. Better to establish superior durability even if it means following the product with a lighter weight version. Perhaps that _is_ the Eclipse strategy but at 60g it would be surprising. It's harder to market a product as better at everything than it is a product revolutionarily better at one thing. Perhaps FOSS is doing that by offering DH robustness at XC weight. Follow that with XC function at revolutionary weight and you can avoid the stigma of a product that may not be bombproof at 60g (which has happened before). Just my opinion.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

craigsj said:


> Perhaps FOSS is doing that by offering DH robustness at XC weight.


My guess is that their strategy is to develop a mass production process at a reasonable price point first. I doubt they had any intention of competing with Eclipse for the weeinie market - maybe they are going after a piece of the Slime tube market - every store around has a shelf full of 300g slime filled tubes at $10+ a piece. I would guess that is a much larger market $$ wise...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Given this is a comparison of two tubes of similar weight, I'm curious why this is so. Is this material worse than butyl gram for gram? If so, why accept it at face value that an Eclipse tube matches tubeless for rolling resistance? If FOSS and Eclipse are different materials, then why assert any claims on the FOSS tube at all? I love it when propagandists make claims on rolling resistance. Nino needs to stick to the Eclipse tube and stop trashing competitors IMO.
> 
> I believe it is a mistake to go for the home run of lightest tube ever with superior performance and durability. Better to establish superior durability even if it means following the product with a lighter weight version. Perhaps that _is_ the Eclipse strategy but at 60g it would be surprising. It's harder to market a product as better at everything than it is a product revolutionarily better at one thing. Perhaps FOSS is doing that by offering DH robustness at XC weight. Follow that with XC function at revolutionary weight and you can avoid the stigma of a product that may not be bombproof at 60g (which has happened before). Just my opinion.


lighter follow-up?
well - if you would have read he whole thread you would have already seen it: 29g !

sorry-if the FOSS is really better than let''s say a Latex innertube is not known as well.All we know is that the weight is ridiculous. There is no self sealing as well so you will get flats as well.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Nino, +1 on starting a new thread so you don't have to rehash old data. Also, even though it's probably nice of you, why continue answering these inane questions?


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2010)

nino said:


> lighter follow-up?
> well - if you would have read he whole thread you would have already seen it: 29g !
> 
> sorry-if the FOSS is really better than let''s say a Latex innertube is not known as well.All we know is that the weight is ridiculous. There is no self sealing as well so you will get flats as well.


I have read the whole thread.

Yes, we don't know if FOSS *or* Eclipse is better than a latex tube. We do know that the FOSS weight is comparable to butyl tubes---far from ridiculous. There is no self-healing in an Eclipse tube either.


----------



## Feideaux (Jan 14, 2004)

*In agreement here...*



craigsj said:


> I have read the whole thread.
> 
> Yes, we don't know if FOSS *or* Eclipse is better than a latex tube. We do know that the FOSS weight is comparable to butyl tubes---far from ridiculous. There is no self-healing in an Eclipse tube either.


The FOSS tube is being dismissed too prematurely, IMO.

If the FOSS EFT offers better puncture resistance and decreased RR to regular tubes, which it *may* do as it appears to use a similar type of material to the Eclipse, then 175 g might actually be considered as being in the WW zone, particularly for AM riders. Could be the ultimate Super-D setup? :thumbsup:

Also, wasn't there frustration from the OP about the time consumption and mess of conversions? Now it appears to be acceptable again. Why should we turn away from a potential sub-500 gram tyre/FOSS set-up that could be supple, quick, resists flats, and can be installed in seconds? The fact that Eclipse themselves are making a product that competes with their own conversion kit seems to underscore that FOSS are on to something with their own tube.

Apologies if these points has been made. Feel free to turn me over to the only authority authorised to deal with such a crime: http://www.icj-cij.org/


----------



## JB. (Feb 9, 2008)

Any idea of when the AM tubes are going in to production?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Feideaux said:


> The FOSS tube is being dismissed too prematurely, IMO.
> 
> If the FOSS EFT offers better puncture resistance and decreased RR to regular tubes, which it *may* do as it appears to use a similar type of material to the Eclipse, then 175 g might actually be considered as being in the WW zone, particularly for AM riders. Could be the ultimate Super-D setup? :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Sorry-think again:
The terms "supple" and "lower rollingresistance" can't be true with a tube as fat as the Foss.You know what supple means if you ever rode converted tires. The difference is that they basically have just the tire and a skin of sealant to deform. That's similar to what you will have with the Eclipse: just tire and a super-thin skin.

By the way - we are in the WW-message board.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

nino said:


> Sorry-think again:
> The terms "supple" and "lower rollingresistance" can't be true with a tube as fat as the Foss.By the way - we are in the WW-mesage board.


Of course they can. Compared to what? Are you claiming that "fat" is the sole determiner of rolling resistance?

Just what thickness threshold determines "supple" and "low rolling resistance"? What threshold yields the same as tubeless?

The more you talk, nino, the more you prove you are all hype and bias.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

craigsj said:


> I have read the whole thread.
> 
> Yes, we don't know if FOSS *or* Eclipse is better than a latex tube. We do know that the FOSS weight is comparable to butyl tubes---far from ridiculous. There is no self-healing in an Eclipse tube either.


175g is pretty much ridiculous! I have never used such heavyweights in my bikes.NEVER!

You too seem to forget that we are in the WW-message board.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

...and you seem to forget that some people expect a product to work first and foremost.

I could care less what what the heaviest tube you've used is. There are plenty of tubes on the market heavier and for good reason. The FOSS tube isn't even on the market yet and it's only you that insists that you know how much it weighs. That appears to be for the sole purpose of trashing a competing product.

If the Eclipse tube is so great and the FOSS tube is such a loser then you have nothing to worry about, nino. Why so worried? A little more objectivity on your part would go a long way to improving the credibility of your posts.


----------



## Kitakeng (Oct 29, 2006)

i wonder when the 28.5g prototype will be out.

thats like another 50g saving...


----------



## dr13zehn (Jun 20, 2009)

craigsj,

I have not followed the whole discussion between you and nino. However, one thing nino keeps repeating and is right about, is that we are in the WW forum here. Therefor the heavy foss can and should be dismissed in this particular case. No regular poster in this sub forum will ever want them because of the weight. No matter how good or bad they are.

I'm not taking sides here, but this just really stood out to me.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

Nino and I are aren't having a conversation. Nino has said twice now that this is a WW board, but the whole discussion about the FOSS tube being too heavy comes entirely from him. We don't know yet what the product will weigh. There are weights ranging from 120 to 180g being tossed around. Three points, though. First is that we don't know what the Eclipse product will weigh either since neither can be purchased. Second, 120-180g for a tube isn't necessarily heavy or uncompetitive, and third, a tube has to work or its weight is meaningless. I realize this is WW and _work_ for some is defined as holding air while it's on a scale. I think there's broader interest though.

One thing is clear; two companies are trying to bring very similar tech to market and both are very late. I wouldn't hold my breath on either one, or that nino will say anything remotely objective about either one. Personally I doubt the Eclipse can possibly live up to nino's hype since he's so shamelessly unobjective. I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised (and may be if it simply ships). It's not as though we _need_ these tubes, after all, so if either ships it is pure upside. Yes, a superior tube that saves no weight may disappoint the WW board but so what?


----------



## dr13zehn (Jun 20, 2009)

craigsj said:


> Yes, a superior tube that saves no weight may disappoint the WW board but so what?


I see where you're coming from, but the above quote is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. 
It _does_ matter that it disappoints the WW board, since nino only posted about the tubes in the WW board and no other.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

What is the typical weight added by a tube or tubeless setup and what would a new tube have to weigh in order to compete? 180g probably isn't it but 120g may be and it's nino that insist it's the former and not the latter. Then there's the pure speculation on rolling resistance that nino states as though it is fact.

Since when does every new part have to be lighter than anything that has come before and since when do WW's only choose the absolute lightest solution? Weight Weenies aren't solely dedicated to one priority.

I don't consider 180g a light tube but I don't consider a 120g a heavy one either. None of us, expecially nino, knows what it will be if it ever ships at all. That's true of Eclipse as well. Sometimes a heavier part does something we think is worthwhile. Keep an open mind.


----------



## dr13zehn (Jun 20, 2009)

Again, I am not taking sides here. It just really stood out to me that you seemed to not give enough importance to which board you're in. Nothing else! 

Being closed minded has nothing to do with it, but thanks for putting that out there...  

I see what you're trying to say. There's nothing more to add to this and I didn't try to get you all riled about it either!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

craigsj said:


> and it's nino that insist it's the former and not the latter. Then there's the pure speculation on rolling resistance that nino states as though it is fact.
> 
> Since when does every new part have to be lighter than anything that has come before and since when do WW's only choose the absolute lightest solution? Weight Weenies aren't solely dedicated to one priority.


What are you talking about??

Tubeless conversions weigh from 60-110g per wheel depending of the amount of sealant used or if you use them with just tape or rubber rimstrips.

For me a still decent weight for a tube is 120-absolute maximum 140g (honestly - 140 is aready too much for my taste). That's about the weight the Michelin Latex and most used race tubes fit in. So far any lighter usually meant more prone to get flats. But 175g for me personally is just unacceptable. And the fatter the material the more rollingresistance it will have.There is no rocketscience to understand this and more than one test has shown this. What does this Foss tube offer then? Better puncture resistance? Well - this still has to be verified. I just now had the detailed numbers of the DIN-Test in hand and the Eclipse beat the competition even in the penetration puncture test! Verified data from a german lab = Comparable numbers black on white!

As a true weight-weenie I am constantly looking for the lightest parts that still offer the performance i need. If i can get better performance out of 56g why should i go with 175g??? ...i mean if you can accept 175 you are in the wrong forum - definitely!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

dr13zehn said:


> craigsj,
> 
> I have not followed the whole discussion between you and nino. However, one thing nino keeps repeating and is right about, is that we are in the WW forum here. Therefor the heavy foss can and should be dismissed in this particular case. No regular poster in this sub forum will ever want them because of the weight. No matter how good or bad they are.
> 
> I'm not taking sides here, but this just really stood out to me.


Nonsense. There are weight concerned DH and AM riders out there, and most people here bikes have more then a single setup. Robust 150g tubes would complement nicely some lightweight 750g enguro tires on 160mm travel lightweight bikes. If Nino does not like that - sucks to him, that's all. This is not his personal marketing forum.


----------



## dr13zehn (Jun 20, 2009)

Curmy said:


> Nonsense. There are weight concerned DH and AM riders out there, and most people here bikes have more then a single setup. Robust 150g tubes would complement nicely some lightweight 750g enguro tires on 160mm travel lightweight bikes.


Fine... I was only going by the assumption that WWs were going for ultra light parts on lightweight XC bikes. That is all I seem to see in here. But if that was wrong of me then of course my post was nothing but nonsense. :thumbsup: 
I will freely admit that I do not lurk in the WW very frequently, so I may miss the occasional DH and AM WW bike post.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Nonsense. There are weight concerned DH and AM riders out there, and most people here bikes have more then a single setup. Robust 150g tubes would complement nicely some lightweight 750g enguro tires on 160mm travel lightweight bikes. If Nino does not like that - sucks to him, that's all. This is not his personal marketing forum.


Curmy-hello!

there will be a AM-version for fat tires as well...around 60g:thumbsup:

Manwhile a nice pic of a german customer who was lucky to get his hands on a pair


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

craigsj said:


> We don't know yet what the product will weigh.


Craigsi-it seems you missed a post from yesterday then:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6488631&postcount=597

The whole discussion about these Foss tubes came up again because of this VERIFIED weight.

I won't go too much into details but seeing the weight of the Foss tells me it has 4 times (!) the thickness of the Eclipse ...therefore DEFINITELY more rollingresistance. I don't need no lab data to know this already. If it's better in puncture resistance than other tubes still has to be verified.


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Nino,

I remember you talking about test in german magazins...
Well it seems the new Bike that hits the market today talks about tires 

http://bike-magazin.de/?p=3012

Who knows, maybe the Eclipse tube test is in there ???


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

A german papermagazin also set the rumor, that the weight of tires is the most important reason for low rolling resistanse. 
Some mounth later, during an test of XC race HT's with SRM and some stopwatch studies they looked a little bit stupid, as they measure a 20Watt power safing with a 500g Bontrager tire compared with a 400g Schwalbe Tire. 20Watt without any additional training and with a much more durable tire in any way.
Think about it :thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> A german papermagazin also set the rumor, that the weight of tires is the most important reason for low rolling resistanse.
> Some mounth later, during an test of XC race HT's with SRM and some stopwatch studies they looked a little bit stupid, as they measure a 20Watt power safing with a 500g Bontrager tire compared with a 400g Schwalbe Tire. 20Watt without any additional training and with a much more durable tire in any way.
> Think about it :thumbsup:


Checky,please-that's a completely different topic!

I have never read such a stupid assumption about the weight beeing important for low rollingresistance.Not even in the german magazines

You know well that a tires rollingresistance is not only determined by the weight or carcass but also by compound, thread , size, tire pressure AND most important by the soil it is ridden on.

With innertubes there is no such variables.All that counts is the amount of friction and force used to deform them inside a tire.No other "outsides" variables. So a certain amount of resistance is there. Always. On pavement or in deep mud. In a skinny tire or a fat one. In a semislick or in a DH tire.

Here's a article of a german magazine on tires rollingresistance:
http://www.mountainbike-magazin.de/.../alles-ueber-rollwiderstand.35972.2.htm?skip=

I already posted these graphs looong ago in a specific thread about rollingresistance elsewhere. There's HUUUUUGE differences on different soil....here you go:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=77503&highlight=rollingresistance

No wonder my favourite tire right now is the huge Conti Race King 2,2" SS paired to Eclipse tubes....that's a superfast setup!


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

Nino,
you don't understand the message behind my post (or you don't want understand, like all to often).


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Personally, I'm tired of reading posts about the Foss innertube in a thread called "Eclipse - Innertube". If you think the Foss tube merits discussion in the WW forum (which I personally don't think it does), then just please start a new thread for it.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

checky said:


> Nino,
> you don't understand the message behind my post (or you don't want understand, like all to often).


With a tire there a lot of variables involved regarding it's rolling resistance, including the compound and the thread. With a tube the only variable is the interaction between it and the tire. Therefore, it's much easier to make a general statement regarding them.

There have also been a couple who posted in this thread regarding how the tubes ride, and it seems the consensus the roll better than normal tubes.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> Nino,
> you don't understand the message behind my post (or you don't want understand, like all to often).


No it seems i didn't get it then.
What's your point?


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

nino said:


> Tubeless conversions weigh from 60-110g per wheel depending of the amount of sealant used or if you use them with just tape or rubber rimstrips.


That would be more a best case estimate, not a range. Then there's the ongoing maintenance. Adding sealant adds weight. Who gets a functional tubeless conversion on a standard size, non-UST tire for 60g? A classic WW exaggeration that is.



nino said:


> For me a still decent weight for a tube is 120-absolute maximum 140g (honestly - 140 is aready too much for my taste). That's about the weight the Michelin Latex and most used race tubes fit in. So far any lighter usually meant more prone to get flats.


So says you but we already know your objectivity. Many would say that 120g is already too prone to flats. Where did you pull that "flat standard" from and can we assume that standard for your Eclipse product?



nino said:


> And the fatter the material the more rollingresistance it will have.


Can you refer us to a test that shows this? I know of one that concluded it is a myth. Regardless, it's irrelevant because thickness doesn't means rolling resistance regardless of material. Is a thick latex tube worse than a thin butyl one? How is the FOSS unacceptable and the Eclipse immeasurable? Through a double standard, that's how.



nino said:


> What does this Foss tube offer then? Better puncture resistance? Well - this still has to be verified. I just now had the detailed numbers of the DIN-Test in hand and the Eclipse beat the competition even in the penetration puncture test! Verified data from a german lab = Comparable numbers black on white!


Show us those numbers. It isn't verified if we have to take your word for it. What's the competition, sub 120g butyl?

It remains to be seen what the FOSS tube offers. Affordability? Reliability? It's less ambitious so more likely to be delivered.



nino said:


> If i can get better performance out of 56g why should i go with 175g??? ...i mean if you can accept 175 you are in the wrong forum - definitely!


You shouldn't but you can't. You can't get either 56g or 175g. Also, stop stating either of these numbers as fact. Neither product exists.

If you want to go through the mental masturbation of declaring one imaginary product better than another because you are a "true weight weenie" then enjoy your imaginary bike.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

craigsj said:


> That would be more a best case estimate, not a range. Then there's the ongoing maintenance. Adding sealant adds weight. Who gets a functional tubeless conversion on a standard size, non-UST tire for 60g? A classic WW exaggeration that is.
> 
> So says you but we already know your objectivity. Many would say that 120g is already too prone to flats. Where did you pull that "flat standard" from and can we assume that standard for your Eclipse product?
> 
> ...


craigsj:
sorry-it seems you are either completely blind or don't want to accept some facts.

-A suggested Notubes setup weighs just 55g (see attached pic below with all parts included!). Tubelesskits with rubber rimstrips weigh more.I just gave the range and these are honest numbers from 9 years experience using tubelesskits!

-The most commonly used Latex tube from Michelin ranges from 120-135g.It is a proven performer and much better protecting you from flats than butyl tubes also of heavier weight. A simple fact.Undeniable.

-Both Foss and Eclipse are available now

-Weights are already verified: Eclipse 54-56g / Foss 175g

-Eclipse will provide the test data on the web themselves.Rest assured i have seen it just today and the competition ranged from 95g up to 165g or even more.I don't remember all the competition they tested but it was about 10 different tubes of different manufacturers.

-I definitely say the Eclipse will have less rollingresistance than the Foss by just looking at the material thickness. I have my off-the-pants riding impression which showed me a definite advantage the Eclipse has over lightweight butyl innertubes let alone conventional tubes...This can be felt just like riding tubeless conversions which also offer a distinctive feel. They're much suppler and faster rolling. Again - rest assured these numbers will be verified later on.

-Affordability? If you want a cheap tube get it from Walmart.We are talking about a different kind of performance part.

-You are correct that with Foss there is not a single review available.All you say about it is based upon their statements.But i remember very well their initial statements telling about lightweight MTB tubes at 125g which now got verified at 175g...so their announcment was not worth the paper it was written on.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

nino said:


> Craigsi-it seems you missed a post from yesterday then:


I have not missed any posts. I don't consider one anecdote in an openly biased discussion to be evidence. Where is proof that's actually production? What product is that really? Is that truly the representative weight? Until I can buy the product I reserve judgement. It's one data point of unknown value. I am not questioning the integrity of anyone, though, except for nino's.

One that can be said: if that truly is a production FOSS tube then it is better than an Eclipse that doesn't exist.



nino said:


> I have never read such a stupid assumption about the weight beeing important for low rollingresistance.Not even in the german magazines


There is a strong correlation between tire weight and rolling resistance but that doesn't imply cause and effect. Weight doesn't mean rolling resistance unless, of course, you are nino and you are arguing the superiority of your tube. 



nino said:


> You know well that a tires rollingresistance is not only determined by the weight or carcass but also by compound, thread , size, tire pressure AND most important by the soil it is ridden on.


Whether "soil" is a factor depends on how you define "rolling resistance". If the "soil" consisted of meter-high steps the "rolling resistance" of all products would be infinite. Terrain and rolling resistance are two different things lumped together out of convenience and optimizing for both is impossible. Optimizing for terrain is most important, even on the road.



nino said:


> With innertubes there is no such variables.All that counts is the amount of friction and force used to deform them inside a tire.No other "outsides" variables. So a certain amount of resistance is there.


Friction is a myth, the tube doesn't shift inside the tire as is popularly believed. There is additional resistance added by the tube but since the tube isn't structural it isn't great. How large is it compared to overall resistance and how much does additional thickness increase it? Different tube materials effect this and none of these issues are addressed by nino. I have never personally noticed a change in rolling resistance between tubes. I've noticed a change in feel due to the weight. I realize this contradicts the claimed experiences of others but it doesn't contradict the results of tests I have read.

Nino has a very convenient and limited view of rolling resistance here. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the rolling resistance of FOSS vs. Eclipse couldn't be distiguished in blind testing (assuming they eventually exist). The ability to roll over terrain is, by far, the most important factor in "rolling resistance". Tube contributions are "eclipsed" by that.

If nino's "logic" had any merit, there would be no such thing as a DH tube.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

craigsj, both tubes are available and had their weights verified:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6480884&postcount=582
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6488631&postcount=597

Also, the Eclipse isn't a downhill tube, so saying the Foss might be acceptable as a downhill tube really doesn't relate. For the market the Eclipse tube is aiming for, a 175g tube is heavy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

nino said:


> -A suggested Notubes setup weighs just 55g (see attached pic below with all parts included!). Tubelesskits with rubber rimstrips weigh more.I just gave the range and these are honest numbers from 9 years experience using tubelesskits!


Suggested by whom? Stans suggests 2oz of sealant which, alone, weighs more than that. In your picture the tape, valve, and cup must weigh nothing!



nino said:


> -The most commonly used Latex tube from Michelin ranges from 120-135g.It is a proven performer and much better protecting you from flats than butyl tubes also of heavier weight. A simple fact.Undeniable.


User comments vary on that.



nino said:


> -Both Foss and Eclipse are available now


Through what retailers?



nino said:


> -Weights are already verified: Eclipse 54-56g / Foss 175g


Yeah, this is beaten to death. Stomping feet doesn't change anything. Wait til people can buy it.



nino said:


> -Eclipse will provide the test data on the web themselves.


Pardon me for not taking your word for it then.



nino said:


> -I definitely say the Eclipse will have less rollingresistance than the Foss by just looking at the material thickness....Again - rest assured these numbers will be verified later on.


Pardon me for not taking your word for it then.



nino said:


> -You are correct that with Foss there is not a single review available.All you say about it is based upon their statements.But i remember very well their initial statements telling about lightweight MTB tubes at 125g which now got verified at 175g...so their announcment was not worth the paper it was written on.


How is Eclipse different?

Repeating misinformation doesn't make it more believable. The problem isn't my blindness, it's that I see too well.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> craigsj, both tubes are available and had their weights verified:
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6480884&postcount=582
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6488631&postcount=597
> 
> Also, the Eclipse isn't a downhill tube, so saying the Foss might be acceptable as a downhill tube really doesn't relate. For the market the Eclipse tube is aiming for, a 175g tube is heavy.


Yes, I've seen those pictures. I want to see a retailer that anyone can order from. Until then it's all academic, as are weights without performance.

I think you misunderstand my point about DH tubes, but if you believe nino's claims of puncture and pinch heroism then the Eclipse certainly _could_ be a DH tube. My point was simply that different applications justify different products. Thicker tubes aren't always bad.

The pricing and weight of each product reflect the manner in which each company is going about entry. Eclipse is offering a premium, prestige product and is gambling on delivering a vastly superior product out of the gate. FOSS is targeting existing products and price points with higher volumes and a more conservative approach. One is more risky than the other, One is more appealing and expensive than the other. I suspect Eclipse's ambitions go way beyond the WW crowd but they may have to overcome a boutique reputation and quality issues. Meanwhile, FOSS may be better positioned to get into the door at your LBS.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

craigsj said:


> My point was simply that different applications justify different products....Meanwhile, FOSS may be better positioned to get into the door at your LBS.


Then why the **** are you arguing this point of yours in a thread dedicated to *one specific product*? This isn't a thread about tubes options, or light weight tube options, it's a thread about the 56g Eclipse tube.

I don't care about a 175g Foss tube or how it may be better positioned to get in my LBS, it's too heavy for my bike (this is the weight weenie forum), and the reason I'm in this thread is to find out when I can get my hands on some 56g tubes. You're arguing points about the Foss which people here don't really care about.

Also, in case you didn't notice, this thread was started before the Eclipse ever went into production, and offered us a first look at a *pre-production* product. Yes, we get you don't trust Nino, now would you please stop continuing to complain about it?


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> Then why the **** are you arguing this point of yours in a thread dedicated to *one specific product*?


For the same reasons nino does. If he didn't I would never have posted to begin with.

There is no such thing as a thread dedicated to *one specific product*.


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

Boy this thread has got a bit *****y at times.
All i want to know is, does any one know of an English speaking site where i can order a couple of these tubes & see for myself if they're any good?:thumbsup:


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Curmy-hello!
> there will be a AM-version for fat tires as well...around 60g:thumbsup:


That would be nice - especially if the price comes down a bit.

Nino - I am not ragging on your friend's product in any way. I think it is a great development and I am waiting for it to become widely available.

The only reason that I have started a FOSS thread in this forum (probably new products forum would be more appropriate - and I was not bringing it into this thread, somebody else did by quoting my post from elsewhere) is that there are obvious similarities in the material. Anybody with rudimentary math skills understands that 150+g is not 60g, and knows the difference it makes. With FOSS tubes I will be looking for added durability and convenience (if it materializes) without any weight savings over my current setup. With Eclipse tubes I would be looking for weight savings at an added cost and most likely reduced durability (by how much - I do not have a slightest idea until many people try).

No need to sneer at a product that is perfectly functional, geared towards mass production, and not even widely available yet.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello.
About Eclipse all OK. But for Foss where can I purchase the EFT ?
Thanks.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

WOW!!
650 posts and counting about firggin inner tubes??


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> Then why the **** are you arguing this point of yours in a thread dedicated to *one specific product*? This isn't a thread about tubes options, or light weight tube options, it's a thread about the 56g Eclipse tube.


Did not stop Nino from coming over to FOSS thread to poo-poo them.

This is a discussion, not a cheerleading session. It is taking that long since the product is still not widely available.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Curmy said:


> Did not stop Nino from coming over to FOSS thread to poo-poo them.


And I have zero issue if someone called him out on that. With all the thread-jacking, it becomes much harder to find the good information. Yes, it's a discussion, and all I'm asking is the discussion stay on topic.


----------



## tileman (Nov 1, 2006)

*English site....*

_All i want to know is, does any one know of an English speaking site where i can order a couple of these tubes & see for myself if they're any good?_

http://www.jpracingbike1.com/www-jpracingbike1-com-english-bbxaaaiBa.asp

this site has a english part at the top right.......


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2010)

So I went to that site in order to purchase a few to test. 4 tubes plus shipping to the US...$400. I'm not sure why they need nearly $75 to ship 4 _ultralight_ tubes but I'll wait. I can't help but recall how someone said how unhappy I should be for paying that much shipping for eval tubes.  Imagine a $100 tube in a $50 tire.


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Did they charge you VAT on the order and shipping?

Does he have them in stock or does that just put you in the line up?


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2010)

VAT was not removed through their billing system AFAIK. It's possible it would be refunded. The real killer was the absurd shipping charge for what amounts to a box of air.

Can't tell if they just put you on a waiting list as I didn't complete the order. I will not pay $75 for shipping of 4 tubes.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2010)

I was contacted by a rep for the jp racing site with updated pricing and shipping costs to the US. VAT was removed and the shipping was reduced. I suspect it's just a limitation of their online ordering system. Shipping is still a bit high but in line with what I've paid from Europe and the tube price is roughly the no-VAT price discussed before. I'll complete the order once we can overcome the timezone difficulties.

I've been told that initial stock is gone but that additional shipments are due quickly. It appears to be a short backorder situation, not a waiting list.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Craig, having previously had joy with the "feel" of Michelin latex tubes over regular butyl ones (and a reduction in pinch flats, I look forward to your independant impressions.

I don't personally doubt that Nino speaks the truth on the matter, but he is certainly close to the manufacturer and that does cloud people's perceptions of what he says.

For me, even shelling out 4 times the cost of normal tubes for the Michelins is enough of a stretch. I'd want a fair number of reviews out there before I'd be spending over double that again.

I do like the advantages of not having to stuff around with getting beads seated, pouring in tubs of gloop, needing compressors and co2 cartridges to fit tyres that this potentially offers over a tubeless setup.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2010)

Nino says what he believes to be true; it's his comments on FOSS that do the damage. There is no reason to talk bad about another upcoming product. Competition is good, enthusiasm for Eclipse will be just the same regardless. Everyone agrees they are different products.

The cost is high but the promises are great. I figure it's worth it to test them out. I'd buy some FOSS samples too if I could.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Nino says what he believes to be true; it's his comments on FOSS that do the damage. There is no reason to talk bad about another upcoming product. Competition is good, enthusiasm for Eclipse will be just the same regardless. Everyone agrees they are different products.
> 
> The cost is high but the promises are great. I figure it's worth it to test them out. I'd buy some FOSS samples too if I could.


Foss is no competition. It's other guys like you that bring it up which makes me talk bad about them. I personally don't see a reason i should buy them. They don't belong in this forum and we don't need to talk about them anymore.

Anyway- all my talk is now unerlined by indipendent,scientific studies from a german lab. you will see those numbers soon enough.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2010)

nino said:


> Foss is no competition.


Just gotta take another shot, right nino?



nino said:


> Anyway- all my talk is now unerlined by indipendent,scientific studies from a german lab. you will see those numbers soon enough.


If you can't provide a link to the test and the results, no it isn't.

Just the usual exaggerations and distortions from nino. He just can't stand when others insist on objectivity.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Foss is no competition. It's other guys like you that bring it up which makes me talk bad about them. I personally don't see a reason i should buy them. They don't belong in this forum and we don't need to talk about them anymore.


Your arrogance is appalling. That is a related product that most definitely belongs to this forum. It is not up to you to decide anyway. It was in a separate thread and nobody asked you or other shills to bring it up here or to go over there to sneer.

There is nothing bad that can be said about that product so far except that is costs less and weights more. Yes, we know that, Sherlock. If you do not want it on your bike, that's fine - but then I do not want your bike on my trails.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

God forbids me from agreeing with Nino, whose sole reason for being here is pushing the stuff he sells, but he's right about the FOSS tubes. 175g isn't light, no matter how you wanna spin it.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

sfer1 said:


> God forbids me from agreeing with Nino, whose sole reason for being here is pushing the stuff he sells, but he's right about the FOSS tubes. 175g isn't light, no matter how you wanna spin it.


When that thread was created, they had promised 120g range, which is light if they are indeed more durable. From what one can understand from an announcement on their web site they are having production problems, so no final product is available. There is no need to spin - there is a need to wait. Since that is a clearly similar material used for the same purpose - who is Nino to say that we can not discuss it in a civilized manner. I did not sign up to cheer for Nino's overpriced wares. Did you?


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Well, 175g (a seen on the scale) isn't 120g. And while I think Eclipse tubes are overpriced, I wouldn't pay a dime for a 175g tube.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

sfer1 said:


> Well, 175g (a seen on the scale) isn't 120g. And while I think Eclipse tubes are overpriced, I wouldn't pay a dime for a 175g tube.


No sh.t, Sherlock.  I guess that is why they have posted an apology for delay of a production run.

And why that can not be a subject of civilized discussion in a dedicated thread on this forum without Nino's guerrilla marketing efforts interjecting?

On one bike I do run Stan's strips, and 100g+ of sealant. I would rather have a 170g tube from this new material.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Has it been established by anyone that the reduction in rolling resistance is due to the material alone and not the thinness of the tube?

Rolling wise, latex tubes seem better than regular butyl. Is this down to material or flexibility?

Is the rolling advantage with the Eclipse the material, or is it just the thinness?

Will the Foss not have the advantage due to increased wall thickness, or will it still be there due to material (we don't even know if it is the same material, it just looks similar because it's a clear tube).

at 170g, it's the same weight as a regular tube, but potentially cool due to resistance to pinch flat/puncture and possibly improved rolling, but it's no weight weenie.

Too many unknowns for anyone to comment on much aside from the claimed weights.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Is it just me or do you guys think Nino yells at his computer while he types? For someone pushing a product that they are so obviously benefiting from the sale of, you sure are hostile towards interested customers. I'd never even heard of FOSS before this thread, and I'd buy one of their tubes in a second instead of an Eclipse just because you sound like a schiester everywhere in this thread.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

mightymouse said:


> Is it just me or do you guys think Nino yells at his computer while he types? For someone pushing a product that they are so obviously benefiting from the sale of, you sure are hostile towards interested customers. I'd never even heard of FOSS before this thread, and I'd buy one of their tubes in a second instead of an Eclipse just because you sound like a schiester everywhere in this thread.


Okok-i will stop as there is no news anyway.

Best of all is i am in no way related to Eclipse other than the main man is my best friend and godfather of my son. Therefore i was the first to get some and i am using them for almost 1 1/2 years now. I don't get a cent out of these tubes! But as a fanatic weight-weenie and since beeing able to follow the evolution of this project i am sure enthusiastic. Now that the riding impressions and benefits get reflected in scientific tests and now that the tube is finally available i sure have just positives to say.

That other tube was brought up long ago.Some people thought Eclipse were just re-badging asian tubes, just buying them from overseas and so on... That's where i started defening the Eclipse tubes as they don't have nothing to do with the other product.I also got attacked personally because Eclipse took their time to develop these tubes and it took them for sure longer than they thought it would since the production is pretty complicated to say the least. People would still attack me getting personal about that delay although i don't have anything to do with them other than being a testrider.They would attack me up to now not believing my words even though we do have verified tests on hand.

So can we get back on topic? Although there's no news to tell anyway


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

+1 for that. 
I visit the wieght weenies forum for 1 reason & 1 reason only, to discover what products are out there & how people are using them to create the lightest rides possible. 
I would never consider fitting 2 tubes at 170 gm each as thier combined wieght is aslmosts as much as my rear tyre especially as they have no advantages over the tubless set up I allready have in place, so IMO they have no value to a wieght weenie & therefore no place on this thread. 
As for the Eclipse tubes. This is a product that offers the a similar performance to my tubeless set up but without the mess & olso the possibility of reducing the wieght of my bike, as far as I'm concerned a bonus. As with most things like this they are not mass produced at first ( if ever) & will allways take time to trickle out to the masses. It's only a couple of years ago I had to wait over 6 months for a set of clavicula cranks & only last year I waited nearly as long for a cannondale super 6 frame both of which were already in production. 
What Nino did was to inform us of this product & it's proposed benefits way before it reached the masses, ok admittedly WAY before it reched the masses. Yes it may be a product that is manufactured by his best mate & sold by himself, I don't see this as a problem in fact it helps me becouse it makes it easier for me to buy some now I know where they're sold. 
As for waiting to see test results, not interested. It's an innertube. Price wise, don't care I want 1. If it fails then it will be an expensive lesson I will not forget, I'm sure all true wieght weenies out there have had a few of those. 
Yes Nino probably has been a little aggressive at times but if I was in his shoes I think I wouldn't have been half as polite. Who wouldn't defend thier best friends products if they were or were not selling it. I don't recall Nino ever mentioning a price throughout this thread & if people don't bring stuff like this to our attention then we are the ones that ultimatley lose out. 
Now has anybody out there ridden thiers yet & what are they like?
Rant over. 
Cheers & happy riding.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

karl711 said:


> This is a product that offers the a similar performance to my tubeless set up but without the mess & olso the possibility of reducing the wieght of my bike, as far as I'm concerned a bonus.


And you know that how? Because Nino said so?  Does it protect against thorn punctures as well as tubeless?

Do you know the final production weight of those Taiwanese tubes? We know the initial samples - have you seen the final version for sale?

Should we bar people who ride on 850g tires and consider them lightweight from this forum?

Just asking..


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Are you trying to be more annoying than Nino?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

lol the most annoying is the price! 
I'd like to see this tube protecting against big thorns and nails that I frequently find in my area, and I'd like to see the tube protecting so well as a tubeless system. My rear RK SS as been pierced by a nail from top to side, made two 5mm holes and the tire sealed with the latex goop It had inside. I haven't done anything else to the tire and it's still air tight.
nino you have the tubes for some months now, why don't you make a video review where you make some puncture tests. I think it's a good idea.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

sfer1 said:


> Are you trying to be more annoying than Nino?


Yeah, I should probably lay off.

Waiting for a year got annoying. 



sergio_pt said:


> I'd like to see this tube protecting against big thorns and nails that I frequently find in my area


That's the image that got me interested in FOSS - I hope uber-light Eclipse has similar properties:










Yeah, yeah they are heavy and should not be mentioned here...


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

Is an 850gm tyre considered a wieght weenie tyre? No it is not. Does it have a place on this forum? No it does not. Are there other forums for tyres of this nature? Yes there are. 

Would I buy the other tube even if it came in at under 170gm as the manufacturers origionally stated? No i would not. Still way too heavy & from a company I have never heard of. 

Will I buy the Eclipse tube just becouse Nino said so? No i will not. 
Will I buy this product becouse they are made by a company who's products I have used before & had good results from? Yes I will. 

Is Ninos opinion one I trust regardless of his relationship to the manufacture? Yes it is. 

Does this innertube stop thorns like tubless? Only time will tell. 

Will I still buy this product no matter how much you moan about it?
OH HELL YEA!!!


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> That's the image that got me interested in FOSS - I hope uber-light Eclipse has similar properties:
> (snip so as not to repeat image)


I've seen the same trick done (in front of me) with Michelin Latex tubes at better than 50g less per tube. Puncture resistance is not weight weenieness. (Although the michelin scores on both counts due to being puncture resistant as well as substantially lighter than a regular tube)


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

karl711 said:


> Is an 850gm tyre considered a wieght weenie tyre? No it is not. Does it have a place on this forum? No it does not. Are there other forums for tyres of this nature? Yes there are.
> 
> Would I buy the other tube even if it came in at under 170gm as the manufacturers origionally stated? No i would not. Still way too heavy & from a company I have never heard of.
> 
> ...


Best post in this Thread!


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

Cheers. 
I was gonna finish the last bit with: becouse Nino said so!!!!
But I thought that was taking the p**s.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

karl711 said:


> Is an 850gm tyre considered a wieght weenie tyre? No it is not. Does it have a place on this forum? No it does not. Are there other forums for tyres of this nature? Yes there are.


It is your opinion and I disagree with it.

(And do not forget to go and complain to "Lets talk about AM tires" thread.  )



Fullrange Drew said:


> I've seen the same trick done (in front of me) with Michelin Latex tubes at better than 50g less per tube.


We do not know yet what would be the final weight of mass produced versions of either product. Latex has its drawbacks, as you well know. I also do not know where you got your 50g from as Michelin latex tubes I use did weight around 145g last time I have weighted them.



Fullrange Drew said:


> Puncture resistance is not weight weenieness.


Sure it is. The whole point is to get the lightest setup that still does its job. Puncture resistant tube could allow me to use tires with thinner sidewalls and without tubeless bead, which would save me more then 100g.

If Eclipse tubes had not been (or will not be) puncture resistant - nobody will care how little they weight.

It is about saving weight, not about the absolute minimum that happened to be robust enough for the particular riding you do or just looking for ways to save weight on an impractical show off bike.

P.S. Crap, I said I should ignore all this. Just send me some new tubes, dammit..


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Curmy said:


> If Eclipse tubes had not been (or will not be) puncture resistant - nobody will care how little they weight.


Actually, yes they will care. If it (Eclipse) is a sub 60g tube--even with no more than the exact same puncture resistance as a standard 140g butyl tube--it will still be a revolutionary product just due to the weight. A lot of people still race/ride with tubes and standard tires.

If it's _more_ puncture resistant, that will be icing on the cake.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

JaLove said:


> If it's _more_ puncture resistant, that will be icing on the cake.


It got to be more puncture resistant then butyl to be usable in half of regular tube thickness.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Curmy said:


> It got to be more puncture resistant then butyl to be usable in half of regular tube thickness.


I'm not talking about the material being the same puncture resistance. I was talking purely in terms of the tube itself relative to the weight. Maybe we're getting our wires crossed here.

If the same size tube weighs only 56g for Eclipse and proves to have the same puncture resistance as a 140g standard butyl tube, then it's already a win. If that same 56g tube proves to be _more_ puncture resistant _and_ have better (less) rolling resistance than the same size 140g butyl tube, then it's an all out revolution. We'll have to wait for test results to see.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

JaLove said:


> If that same 56g tube proves to be more puncture resistant and have better (less) rolling resistance than the same size 140g butyl tube, then it's an all out revolution.


That's exactly what it is!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

JaLove said:


> Maybe we're getting our wires crossed here.


Yeah.

My only point was that a light product that blows is useless. Well, maybe except for some people here.  My other point was that those new materials (whether they are similar I do not know) are claimed to be exceptionally robust, which is music to my ears.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Yeah.
> 
> My only point was that a light product that blows is useless. Well, maybe except for some people here.


Curmy-how many times do i have to tell you that the 56g tube does better than the competition puncture-resistance-wise? What is it exactly that you don't understand??


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Curmy-how many times do i have to tell you that the 56g tube does better than the competition puncture-resistance-wise? What is it exactly that you don't understand??


Where did I say that they are not? Could you quote - if you had bothered to read?

What competition?


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> My only point was that a light product that blows is useless.


Forks with much of the damping system removed to cut weight, ultra light but low strength or low comfort saddles, more fragile seatposts, maxxlite 310 tyres, frames or rims with rider weight limits... We could go on... Personally I see no point in a bike or parts on a bike that will collapse under me or that has minimum grip on most trails, or that isn't comfortable to ride, but for many weight weenies, that's not the issue.

Horses for courses. For some folks, low weight in its own right is an end goal. For many folks it's not practical, I count myself amongst them. For some folks, a bike or component that will not last but that will give them that little extra edge over the competition in a brief sprint is exactly what they're looking for.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> We do not know yet what would be the final weight of mass produced versions of either product. Latex has its drawbacks, as you well know.


Again Curmy - what exactly is it that you don't know? What is your problem??

I don't know for that other tube (which to me seems pretty obvious to be 175g in production version) but for Eclipse it seems 56g is the maximum they got weighed so far. That's the final product.

Some pictures of customers that got these tubes...those are all lighter than announced!


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

At last. Some has got the point of this thread!!
A product that in wieght terms alone blows 99% of the copetition out of the water & if it does what is says on the tin, then double bonus.
I suppose you could say the same thing as an 850 gm AM tyre, but I have no interest in something like that so I see no point or benefit in making a comment. 
If you disagree with something then that's fine & perfectly acceptable, but for sanitys sake stop banging on about it. You boys have beaten your chest long enough now, move on & take up space somewhere else, you never know there may be a 400 gm downhill tyre somewhere out there that you can rip to pieces just becouse there's another one that looks the same but weighs 550 gm & promises the same thing.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

The black thingie pointed with a green arrow is a rubber seal and it goes on the inside of the rim, correct?


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2010)

karl711 said:


> Will I still buy this product no matter how much you moan about it?
> OH HELL YEA!!!


The problem here, Karl, is that you treat this as a personal fight just as nino does. You care about the argument, not the product.

I've read these threads all the way though and the only complaint about Eclipse from anybody is the delay. No one is moaning about Eclipse tubes but about the trashing of FOSS. This is a matter of sticking to facts rather than making them up to satisfy an agenda.

Regardless of how this works out, the fact is that nino's propaganda on the subject is public record. He's consistently fueled positive rumors on one product and negative ones on another while flying loose with facts. This speaks to his character and to yours for endorsing it. Who cares what a partisan has to say?

As for your extreme definition of WW, show me where it says that we can't care about how a product works, only how much it weighs. If you don't want a 170g that's fine with me, but if that tube provides superior protection then it IS lightweight for what it does. Not everyone rides their bike exclusively on a gram scale.


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

craigsj said:


> The problem here, Karl, is that you treat this as a personal fight just as nino does. You care about the argument, not the product.
> 
> I've read these threads all the way though and the only complaint about Eclipse from anybody is the delay. No one is moaning about Eclipse tubes but about the trashing of FOSS. This is a matter of sticking to facts rather than making them up to satisfy an agenda.
> 
> ...


Yup. You've got me bang to rights. At the moment i do care about the argument more than the product becouse myself & several other readers of this thread have constantly said we are not interested in the foss innertube or any other tube of that kind of wieght as we consider them to be too heavy for this particular thread. 
If you wish to discuss the foss tube then what is stopping you from starting a your own thread dedicated to it & leave this one to the people that want to discuss the Eclipse? Probably the fact that such a thread wouldn't give you so many people to disagree with.

As for us ( partisans ) take a look at the numbers generated by this thread, I would say plenty of people care.

I fully appreciate that not eveyone rides thier bikes on a gram scale but as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, THIS IS THE WIEGHT WEENIES FORUM. By it's very definition a forum dedicated to to the ultimate in lightwieght bikes & components. A place where we marvel at the innovations out there & how far the boundries can pushed.

It seems to me you are using this thread as a means to berate Nino & anybody who dares to agree with him.

I'm sure you will have plenty to say, so fill your boots my friend. Unfortunatley you will no longer get a response from me. My time is far too valuable to waste butting heads with people who refuse to listen to common opinion. From this point I will only join in to discuss the Eclipse tube as this is what this thread is all about. :madman:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sfer1 said:


> The black thingie pointed with a green arrow is a rubber seal and it goes on the inside of the rim, correct?


No-not a seal.
This rubber prevents the thin tube material to get stuck between valve and valve hole. during the last year we've learned that this could cause problems when rimtrips weren't fully covering the sharp edges of the valve hole.This rubber shim prevents the tube from beeing cut.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2010)

karl711 said:


> If you wish to discuss the foss tube then what is stopping you from starting a your own thread dedicated to it & leave this one to the people that want to discuss the Eclipse?


Where have you gotten the impression that I wish to discuss the FOSS tubes? Your posts are guided by your emotions, not reality.



karl711 said:


> THIS IS THE WIEGHT WEENIES FORUM. By it's very definition a forum dedicated to to the ultimate in lightwieght bikes & components. A place where we marvel at the innovations out there & how far the boundries can pushed.


Show me that "very definition".



karl711 said:


> It seems to me you are using this thread as a means to berate Nino & anybody who dares to agree with him.


That comment doesn't surprise me. It's a tactic used by people who wish to make an argument personal rather than objective.



karl711 said:


> I'm sure you will have plenty to say, so fill your boots my friend. Unfortunatley you will no longer get a response from me. My time is far too valuable to waste butting heads with people who refuse to listen to common opinion.


Let's hope so. Your common opinions have been so enlightening so far.


----------



## marktomin (Mar 14, 2007)

Is there are FAQ I could read about these tubes? Is there road version?


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

Nino. Do you have any proof that these rubber thingys actually work & where is it?

Sorry mate just being akward for the sake of it:thumbsup: 

I will be looking to order a pair at the end of the month, do you have any info on who is likley to have these in stock?

Cheers.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

craigsj said:


> The problem here, Karl, is that you treat this as a personal fight just as nino does. You care about the argument, not the product.
> 
> I've read these threads all the way though and the only complaint about Eclipse from anybody is the delay. No one is moaning about Eclipse tubes but about the trashing of FOSS. This is a matter of sticking to facts rather than making them up to satisfy an agenda.
> 
> ...


Grandiose post !
Thank you


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

karl711 said:


> Nino. Do you have any proof that these rubber thingys actually work & where is it?
> 
> Sorry mate just being akward for the sake of it:thumbsup:
> 
> ...


I wouldn't even answer this if I was Nino.:nono:


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

karl711 said:


> Yup. You've got me bang to rights....From this point I will only join in to discuss the Eclipse tube as this is what this thread is all about. :madman:


+1.

It's time to stop feeding the troll.


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

checky said:


> Grandiose post !
> Thank you


Both Lame posts!

The bottom line is that the FOSS tubes look like the Eclipse, are way heavier and totally uninteresting, so no wonder Nino doesn't want that in any way resembled to Eclipse.

Nino is not involved with Eclipse but he is one of the founders and testers of the Eclipse tubeless system, so of course his heart and soul is in the product and the company even though he doesn't get paid.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

HaHa dogday, lots of naive dreamers here, unbelivable  
This way of militant promotion is a shame for Eclipse (for Nino of course too, but we know him only in that profit oriented way).


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> HaHa dogday, lots of naive dreamers here, unbelivable
> This way of militant promotion is a shame for Eclipse (for Nino of course too, but we know him only in that profit oriented way).


One more post about me, not about the product.You too are one of those guys just writing stuff of no interest.

Checky-you still can't get over it that the tubes finally made it into production,that they are for real and they beat the competition by a loooong margin.

I'm so sorry but that's how it is now exactly as it was back then when the tubelesskits hit the market (with me at the forefront just like now) and almost everybody thought those guys using just sealant in regular tires are all freaks...there were guys like me "promoting" the tubeless-revolution over and over again. until people finally realized that this stuff is for real,that it has it's benefits, that it indeed works.

I am half italian, i'm an emotional guy, i am a hardcore weight-weenie and i was there when these tubes got born.i saw them grow and now they are for real. I am for sure emotional and i am glad and proud that they finally hit the market. i was able to follow the way and hard work it took to get them done and i know how hard it was to succeed.

So they are here-we are not talking about any sales or making profit here, you try to turn threads always into this direction just like other members here do. We are just talking about revolutionary inner tubes. So please get over it-thanks!


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Foxtrot Foxtrot Sierra guys! 

I for one am well over all of the back and forth biatching and just want to know what the tubes are like once the final release get in the hands of a regular rider who is independant of the manufacturer.

The potential of the product seem great, but the behaviour here is like kids in a sandpit.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Again Curmy - what exactly is it that you don't know? What is your problem??
> 
> I don't know for that other tube (which to me seems pretty obvious to be 175g in production version) but for Eclipse it seems 56g is the maximum they got weighed so far. That's the final product.


What part of "mass produced" in that sentence did not you understand? Your reading comprehension skills look to be lacking.

There is no "mass production" version of Eclipse, by your own admission. They are hand made in small batches and cost more then a good tire, aren't they? And, yes, we know its weight, as you have repeated it probably 55 times by now - and still feel compelled to jump in on every occasion.

If you do not like that some people are discussing this product not in the manner that you approve - sorry, can not help.


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

I'm expecting a pair of Eclipse tubes in a couple of weeks but it looks like there's already some leaking issue:

http://veloptimal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22395&start=390


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

wrxsti08 said:


> I'm expecting a pair of Eclipse tubes in a couple of weeks but it looks like there's already some leaking issue:
> 
> http://veloptimal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22395&start=390





> Une vrai merde!!!
> J'ai monté mes deux chambres Eclipse hier et ce matin surprise, le pneu avant était a plat!
> Après démontage je viens de m'apercevoir que la jointure de la chambre fuit! Tu parle d'une chambre revolutionaire! Détruite avant meme d'avoir rouler avec.


My French is poor - is it the same problem with valve attachment (la jointure de la chambre) that had reportedly delayed the product release?

I guess I will wait a month or two before ordering, maybe for the next iteration... "Détruite avant rouler" would be a bummer.


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

nino said:


> Again Curmy - what exactly is it that you don't know? What is your problem??
> 
> I don't know for that other tube (which to me seems pretty obvious to be 175g in production version) but for Eclipse it seems 56g is the maximum they got weighed so far. That's the final product.
> 
> Some pictures of customers that got these tubes...those are all lighter than announced!





nino said:


> Chambres pesées entre 53.8g et 57.1g pour 56g annoncés:


Apparently, the weight of the Eclipse tubes varies from 53.8g to 57.1g.


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

Curmy said:


> My French is poor - is it the same problem with valve attachment (la jointure de la chambre) that had reportedly delayed the product release?


Looks like it but i hope it's an isolated issue...


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

I'm sorry but nobody here as well as nobody over at the ibc mtb would even know about these tubes if not because of nino!
They are not even on the eclipse website and only very few shops sell them.
So all the guys who gave him ****, said these would never see the light almost owe him an apology and the others should just thank him that they even know about it.

Seriously, if I were nino I wouldve simply left here and probably the ibc mtb as well.
I can't believe his patience and even still replying to curmy (don't bother replying you're on my ignore list).


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

wrxsti08 said:


> Looks like it but i hope it's an isolated issue...


I am sure as those start to trickle out people would find some issues - or just screw up installation - let hardcore weenies be our beta testers first.


----------



## ohadamirov (Jun 26, 2008)

yellowbook said:


> I'm sorry but nobody here as well as nobody over at the ibc mtb would even know about these tubes if not because of nino!
> They are not even on the eclipse website and only very few shops sell them.
> So all the guys who gave him ****, said these would never see the light almost owe him an apology and the others should just thank him that they even know about it.


:thumbsup: 100% with you!


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

nino said:


> .....
> Checky-you still can't get over it that the tubes finally made it into production,that they are for real and they beat the competition by a loooong margin.
> ....!


Nino,
I dont know if you are that stupid, or you would not understand.
As I wrote more than one times: I hope the tube had the performace you said (but can't believe up to now, I guess we know more in some weeks).

You and your attitude against others and their opinion or experiences is the point. 
But what should I blubber, you are not able to understand this as you demonstrate during the last years.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

checky said:


> But what should I blubber


better nothing


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

Nino. 
Would you recommend installing these tubes with a coating of talcum powder as with standard tubes?


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

nino said:


> No-that's not the problem at all. *This has been solved long ago*-------patent pending by Eclipse!
> 
> Anyway - it is pretty obvious that we are talking about 2 different tubes.


And now, wich is the difficult to mass production ? (After 5 months)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

karl711 said:


> Nino.
> Would you recommend installing these tubes with a coating of talcum powder as with standard tubes?


personally i always put talkum powder.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

MTB for ever said:


> And now, wich is the difficult to mass production ? (After 5 months)


Why do you care?
If a guy from SRAM would have posted about the new XX group the moment they started with it it would have been let's guess about 3 years ago...so what was the problem with SRAM? Why did it take them so long?...

You forget that it was ME showing off these tubes, not Eclipse themselves. They don't even have them on the web yet. So as others already stated above without me you would not even know about them. Rest assured that there's enough obstacles to overcome to produce these tubes. Eclipse would have been happy to sell them a year ago already but it is not so easy.


----------



## Cezex (Oct 16, 2009)

Nino I think you should stop answering them. For me, it's great that you've gave us a hint about these tubes and I hope that this thread will not stop you from doing it again in the future. We would love to hear about next weight weenie product.

As for these tubes... I would gladly try them, but unfortunately not for this price. If they turn out to be as good as you say, I'm sure they will be in mass production in next few years and then probably the price will drop. If it will, we most likely all will be riding them (with few excepitons which will use Foss' products .

So for now I suggest to stop shouting at each other and wait till we see some numbers from the test Nino is talking about and first hand opinions from people who use them daily.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> personally i always put talkum powder.


Would not it defeat the feature that those tubes cling so tightly that they can be used with sealant - and move together with tire decreasing rolling energy losses?

From my experiment with putting sealant into regular tubes that does not work because sealant gets in between the tube and a tire when punctured - would not talkum make it easier to happen?


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2010)

Talc in the tire serves no useful purpose. Others have put it better than I can, for example read http://yarchive.net/bike/tire_talc.html Cyclists are gullible.

Tubes, given long enough, will stick to the tire carcass. That wouldn't happen if there was relative movement between the tube and tire. This is not a source of rolling resistance.

No doubt the Eclipse tube clings tightly and moves with the tire. So does every other tube. That's what air pressure does.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That's likely where the silicone mold release that Conti and Nokian use on the inside makes a bigger difference than talc would.


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

*Talcum*

Talcum reduces the chance of pinch flats, but increases the escape speed of the air once you get a flat. If your main cause of flats are thorns or glass, leaving the talcum out makes sense, because you might only get a very slow leak and still make it home. But if you suffer from pinch flats, use talcum.

Ole.


----------



## Epic-o (Feb 24, 2007)

Nino, what happened to your 28gr tubes?? Are still holding air?? Are you using them regularly?


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

yellowbook said:


> I wouldn't even answer this if I was Nino.:nono:


You should extract Nino's junk from your mouth, it's unbecoming.


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

just got my tubes in, one weighs 55.0g, the other weighs 56.0g. they came from jpracingbike1.com, took only 11 days for shipping from france to california!

and btw, he did refund the VAT (about $25) after i had bought them


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

I know it's still early but I would be really interested to hear some reviews from those who have these tubes and are using them now.


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

I just have a hard time pushing the buy button when it's $288 delivered for 3 tubes.


----------



## tazducks (Jun 11, 2008)

when will the 29er tubes be available???


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Glad they're on the market. I'm ready to try.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

mtbnozpikr said:


> I know it's still early but I would be really interested to hear some reviews from those who have these tubes and are using them now.


Yes I'd like to read some reviews too. Anyone that has the tubes already tried sticking a nail on them to see what happens?


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> just got my tubes in, one weighs 55.0g, the other weighs 56.0g. they came from jpracingbike1.com, took only 11 days for shipping from france to california!
> 
> and btw, he did refund the VAT (about $25) after i had bought them


Jordan, did you get your tubes from the first or second batch? I also ordered a pair from jpracing 2 weeks ago but the first batch was already gone.


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

Is it just me or what, i can't seem to check out from jpracingbike1 after adding the tubes to my cart  But its not stated its sold out or something.:madman:


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

They are sold out, he is takn preorders.. Contact him directly


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

wrxsti08 said:


> Jordan, did you get your tubes from the first or second batch? I also ordered a pair from jpracing 2 weeks ago but the first batch was already gone.


i don't know, how do i tell? i don't have my main computer with me so i can't see the exact day i bought them


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> i don't know, how do i tell? i don't have my main computer with me so i can't see the exact day i bought them


By the day you bought them. I placed my order on January 5 and Philippe told me the second batch is due to arrive by the end of the month. I hope i'll get mine soon...


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

ok i guess i got the end of the first batch then


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

just put them in... they are holding air perfectly at 27 psi, first ride tommarrow


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> just put them in... they are holding air perfectly at 27 psi, first ride tommarrow


Did you update your bike weight in your signature?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> just put them in... they are holding air perfectly at 27 psi, first ride tommarrow


I am very eagerly awaiting the ride report.


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

Curmy said:


> Did you update your bike weight in your signature?


yup!


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

oops double post


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

So who do I contact inorder to order three of these? Wont mind if it is a preorder, this would be going to US.

Thanks


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

Ok, just got back from my ride, it was 25 miles, 3500 feet of climbing on rocky (really rocky) Mt. Tamalpais in Northern California, there was lots of rain, mud, small jumps, a few small drops, so pretty much everything except thorns.

The tubes did excellent, they held the air overnight and didn't lose any during or after the ride either. I was running greenlites (90g+90g) before and I could DEFINITELY feel the loss of weight immediately. I had zero flats or loss of air on the ride. A couple things that I did notice about these that is different than butyl is when your letting air out, it comes out a lot slower, and the seam goes horizontally rather than vertically, so its only in one spot. When you hold these in your hand they feel like nothing, which is cool to show off to your friends


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> Ok, just got back from my ride, it was 25 miles, 3500 feet of climbing on rocky (really rocky) Mt. Tamalpais in Northern California, there was lots of rain, mud, small jumps, a few small drops, so pretty much everything except thorns.
> 
> The tubes did excellent, they held the air overnight and didn't lose any during or after the ride either. I was running greenlites (90g+90g) before and I could DEFINITELY feel the loss of weight immediately. I had zero flats or loss of air on the ride. A couple things that I did notice about these that is different than butyl is when your letting air out, it comes out a lot slower, and the seam goes horizontally rather than vertically, so its only in one spot. When you hold these in your hand they feel like nothing, which is cool to show off to your friends


90g ??? My all greenlite are all from 107g to 109g.


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

my mistake, i was thinking of the performance lunar lights that i have also, my greenlites actually weigh from 94g to 100g, and i'm 99% sure that the scale i use is accuarte, especially because the eclipse tubes weigh very close to what they say on the box, and the ones that nino have


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Did you feel like you had more traction with these?


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

well in the corners it felt nicer, because of the weight i guess, but other than that no, they felt like any other tube


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> my mistake, i was thinking of the performance lunar lights that i have also, my greenlites actually weigh from 94g to 100g, and i'm 99% sure that the scale i use is accuarte, especially because the eclipse tubes weigh very close to what they say on the box, and the ones that nino have


You want to say that you do not own a set of calibration weights?



I think you are disqualified from using Eclipse tubes. I will pick them up tomorrow from you.


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

Curmy said:


> You want to say that you do not own a set of calibration weights?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are disqualified from using Eclipse tubes. I will pick them up tomorrow from you.










​
:lol:


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Has anyone got their hands on the road bike versions of these tubes?


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> Ok, just got back from my ride, it was 25 miles, 3500 feet of climbing on rocky (really rocky) Mt. Tamalpais in Northern California


Since when is Mt Tam rocky? You got to be kidding me.


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

snowdrifter said:


> Since when is Mt Tam rocky? You got to be kidding me.


towards the top, on the fire roads, it is very rocky, you are literally riding on rock, there is no solid dirt. i dont know where you ride on mt. tam but next time ill take a picture


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowdrifter said:


> Since when is Mt Tam rocky? You got to be kidding me.


I do remember a few of very rocky roads. Not the sharp kind of rocks though.


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Tunning bikes .de said the second batch will arrive a few weeks late...


----------



## Da Rider (May 30, 2008)

Very Like this foto








75 usd for piece of Sh....... Hahaha


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

ouch....damage control should be here soon.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Da Rider said:


> Very Like this foto
> 
> 75 usd for piece of Sh....... Hahaha


Why are you inflating the tube outside of the tire? This doesn't happen inside and it has absolutely no effect once mounted inside a tire.

Just use some common sense-please!

These tubes have passed rigorous DIN-testing.They passed a "burst-test" where they get inflated until the tire explodes off the rim and they have been durability tested worth 10'000km of offroad riding. No one is going to use the tubes outside the tire though...

BTW I: a Latex tube will form a similar bulb if inflated out of the tire.

BTW II: we inflated these tubes up to CD-diameter already without any damage!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jbsteven said:


> ouch....damage control should be here soon.


On cue..


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

That photo shows nothing but miss-use.
It's not rubber or latex so it reacts differently to inflation.
It's not made to inflate equally without any support from the rim and/or tire.
Therefore, why inflate it when it's not inside a tire?

You don't testride your rims on the car without a tire on first!?


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

Any tube will do this when inflated outside the tire. Take your trolling somewhere else.


Ole.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

hey nino where are the test results?


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

I personally don't care about the test results.....as I think of it.........there's not a single piece on my bike that I bought because I read a test result or even a review......not even the frame, even though there I checked member reviews......


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

yellowbook said:


> I personally don't care about the test results.....as I think of it.........there's not a single piece on my bike that I bought because I read a test result or even a review......not even the frame, even though there I checked member reviews......


too bad... there is always something you can learn from other users opinions and reviews. It's not just what you can learn but the hassles you can avoid by choosing the right product based on user reviews. ok now go learn something. 

as the test results been put online yet?


----------



## fernandoj (Mar 19, 2008)

sergio_pt said:


> as the test results been put online yet?


do you mean this year?   



yellowbook said:


> I know where to get enlargement pills!





Rivet said:


> You're fat and 29" tires are not going to change that.





Curmy said:


> uʍop ǝpısdn sı ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ɹnoʎ sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı


LOL


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Here is a picture from O2 Bikers magazine (https://www.o2bikers.com), it is an Belgium magazine.

Looks like they "stole" a pic. off Nino....


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Dex11 said:


> Here is a picture from O2 Bikers magazine (http://www.o2bikers.com), it is an Belgium magazine.
> 
> Looks like they "stole" a pic. off Nino....
> ]


Hey cool.
Could you/someone send me a translation of that article?

----> [email protected]

thanks!


----------



## L3X (Jun 26, 2009)

The Tube is back.

After months of research and development for series production, the Swiss Eclipse company announced the new revolutionary inner tubes will finally hit the market. Thanks to the materials used (a special kind of latex, the composition is kept secret) the new tubes offer the advantages of tires sealed with latex (like Notubes/Eclipse) but not the disadvantages. When used, this means that users can expect a exceptionally good combination of souplesse/strenght/weight, but on top of that the ease of use of a regular innertube/tire combination. The tube is supposed to weight 56g but will cost 55e, about 10 times as much as an 'oldskool' tire.

There you go


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

L3X said:


> the new tubes offer the advantages of tires sealed with latex (like Notubes/Eclipse) but not the disadvantages.


Does it seal punctures now?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

quax said:


> Does it seal punctures now?


It also cures hemorrhoids.


----------



## L3X (Jun 26, 2009)

quax said:


> Does it seal punctures now?


Its the translation of the article obv.


----------



## Jan (Mar 8, 2004)

How flexible are these tubes compared to butyl tubes? Is it possible to use the 26" version on a 650b rim?


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

L3X said:


> The Tube is back.
> 
> After months of research and development for series production, the Swiss Eclipse company announced the new revolutionary inner tubes will finally hit the market. Thanks to the materials used (a special kind of latex, the composition is kept secret) the new tubes offer the advantages of tires sealed with latex (like Notubes/Eclipse) but not the disadvantages. When used, this means that users can expect a exceptionally good combination of souplesse/strenght/weight, but on top of that the ease of use of a regular innertube/tire combination. The tube is supposed to weight 56g but will cost 55e, about 10 times as much as an 'oldskool' tire.
> 
> There you go


 Hey guy , what do you expect for a new product coming... cheap?
:nono: 
You want it now , test it for me and pay and then in 5-6 months il pay for it if good and cheap 
Thats all , thanks .


----------



## tazducks (Jun 11, 2008)

When will the 29er tubes be available????


----------



## hobiesmith (Mar 1, 2008)

so i missed it? are these available somewhere? i really want a set. i am sick of using an air compressor to air my tires up


----------



## egebhardt (Nov 16, 2004)

Find them at www.jpracingbike1.com
Here, to be exact..http://www.jpracingbike1.com/Chambres-ECLIPSE-cbxaaaaaa.asp
56 Euros is $76 US Dollars per tube! Until there is a massive US distrubutor with a lower price, I'm out.
I still won't go tubless either.
Performance Lunar Lights for now at 95g and $10 each.

Eric in California


----------



## scoutcat (Mar 30, 2008)

thats an awesome price for a tube, lol.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

scoutcat said:


> thats an awesome price for a tube, lol.


Ha! That made me laugh. It's funny because it's true. 

But then, I saw your avatar and realized you burn away $12.00-?? per cigar too. So, it's all about what you choose to spend your hard-earned money on.

EDIT- (I could quit beer-drinking for a few weeks and pay for the tubes too, so I'm no preacher).


----------



## leugene (Jun 20, 2008)

http://www.bike-components.de/products/info/p24330_Ultralight-Schlauch.html


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

this is a long thread, so forgive me for not reading every post. but aside from nino, has anyone else tried these tubes with good success?


----------



## tazducks (Jun 11, 2008)

broken record here again...........
when will the 29er tubes be ready to go??????


----------



## rarekin (Mar 4, 2009)

leugene said:


> http://www.bike-components.de/products/info/p24330_Ultralight-Schlauch.html


 :nono:

Note this: "Lieferstatus: verfügbar in 20 Tagen oder später "

Given my (and others) experience with that online shop I would safely assume that you might wait several months, before you get what you paid for. Better ask before you buy and even then it is not sure .......


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

How long are the valve stems? Will these fit my Edge rims?

Thanks


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

Valve extenders should work well.


Ole.


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

Can't seem to find them anywhere yet


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've finally got a set on the way from JP Racing as of today.


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> I've finally got a set on the way from JP Racing as of today.


Same here. Finally! Been waiting for over a month now!


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

It would be nice to finally get some real, independent reviews.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I ordered a patch kit too, being a pessimist and all.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

I'll buy one when the price drops to 10€,


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

Shipping is 30euros to my country for 2 tubes :eekster:


----------



## 3Ronin (Feb 4, 2010)

i hate to say it but i cant wait till another company copies these and sells them for less.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

3Ronin said:


> i hate to say it but i cant wait till another company copies these and sells them for less.


And i can tell you this won't happen too soon!
There's just too much involved and too much patents as well to get around it:thumbsup:

This is not your standard 0815 rubber tube.There's a lot involved to get them made that's why it took so long to get them made.


----------



## supersleeper (Feb 9, 2008)

Question to Nino: Would you be riding the Absa Cape Epic with these in two weeks time? In combo with the Race King Supersonics?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

supersleeper said:


> Question to Nino: Would you be riding the Absa Cape Epic with these in two weeks time? In combo with the Race King Supersonics?


I don't know what terrain that race has...i have used the tubes in the italian Tuscany last spring also paired to Conti RK supersonics. Those who know that area (Eliflap knows it well!) can tell you that there's plenty of thorns and sharp stones. I had 1 slow airleak that was sealed when i inserted some sealant. In our group of about 8 riders we had a minimum of 2 flats per day. UST tires as well as tubelesskits...regardless of the setup. I went there with a setup you usually wouldn't even think about for this kind of terrain: a superlight 56g innertube and a tire that is well known for it's weak resistance against flats. I did it on purpose thoughand i would say i had success. Maybe just luck? Who knows.

BUT - If you are riding in an area with lots of spines there is usually no better than tubelesskits with sealant.

We all know what innertubes can take. The Eclipse can take just more than all the competition....and in case of a flat the self adhesive patches are applied easily and fast so just in case repairs can be done in a minute.


----------



## tazducks (Jun 11, 2008)

Any production dates of the 29er tubes?


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

I wonder how many condoms they emulsified to obtain the right rubber formula.


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

*Eldridge Grade trail?*



Curmy said:


> I do remember a few of very rocky roads. Not the sharp kind of rocks though.


Hey. Just chiming in about Mt. Tam and rocks. They're there all right. Just got a nice pinch flat coming down Eldridge Grade. This trail descends the NE flank of Tam near the East Peak, and it's rocky -- lots of baby heads in spots, and lots of nice triangular pointed rocks sticking up in the middle of the trail.

Then again, I've made it down this trail lots of times with regular tubes and Specialized Super Thin tubes, but always on a FS bike. Now riding my hard tail, the flat happened.

Whether this trail is "Rocky" or "too rocky for light tubes" is perhaps not ultimately measurable.

Peace.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Atmos said:


> Shipping is 30euros to my country for 2 tubes :eekster:


uhhh-that's waaaaay to much!


----------



## 3Ronin (Feb 4, 2010)

Nino, how come you dont become a supplier/seller for these ? i figure that would bring the cost down, i dont see any other US retailers online.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

3Ronin said:


> Nino, how come you dont become a supplier/seller for these ? i figure that would bring the cost down, i dont see any other US retailers online.


Easy - Because there aren't any at the moment.


----------



## marko (Jun 14, 2004)

what I need for the trials bikes I build is 20x2.0" tubes and 19.5x2.5". I read that there will be a 20x2.0 tube but how can I have the other size. I think it should be possible to downsize a 26x2.5" tube to 19.5 diameter if someone give me the right glue... The prototype 20" eclipse tube also had such simple type of joint and it held up well for about 20 rides...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

marko said:


> what I need for the trials bikes I build is 20x2.0" tubes and 19.5x2.5". I read that there will be a 20x2.0 tube but how can I have the other size. I think it should be possible to downsize a 26x2.5" tube to 19.5 diameter if someone give me the right glue... The prototype 20" eclipse tube also had such simple type of joint and it held up well for about 20 rides...


That's why it was a prototype.The actual ones are totally different.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

And now 64.90 euro. ???


----------



## tazducks (Jun 11, 2008)

29er tubes?????????? any word?


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Really interesting inner tube, maybe after some more ride-reports I can justify the price....
I mean 64.90 Euro for an inner tube...WOW !


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm already feeling nostalgic that I bought them at the old price and I haven't even received them yet. :skep:


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

Finally got my tubes!


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

wrxsti08 said:


> Finally got my tubes!


cool, now get lots of miles on them & let us know how they hold up!


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

scant said:


> cool, now get lots of miles on them & let us know how they hold up!


Will do!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They just arrived and the weight is on target. Unfortunately not off to a superb start, of the first pair I installed, one had a leak at the heat sealed joint so it wouldn't fill outside the tire, and there's enough of a ridge on the joint that I don't think the patch will seal down on the joint to fix the hole.

Luckily I bought two pair of tubes but the second wheelset will have to wait to have 65gms shaved off each Maxxis Ultralight tube. I sent a note and these photos to JP Racing so we'll see what Eclipse does for warranties.

The bike is down to 19.97 pounds with these tubes and the RK SS tires. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

At that price you'd damn well better be getting a refund!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> They just arrived and the weight is on target. Unfortunately not off to a superb start, of the first pair I installed, one had a leak at the heat sealed joint so it wouldn't fill outside the tire, and there's enough of a ridge on the joint that I don't think the patch will seal down on the joint to fix the hole.
> 
> Luckily I bought two pair of tubes but the second wheelset will have to wait to have 65gms shaved off each Maxxis Ultralight tube. I sent a note and these photos to JP Racing so we'll see what Eclipse does for warranties.
> 
> The bike is down to 19.97 pounds with these tubes and the RK SS tires. :thumbsup:


You'll get a new one for sure.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

nino said:


> You'll get a new one for sure.


That's some great quality control, don't the Swiss know what a hole looks like? :thumbsup:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Already have an email from Eclipse indicating they're mailing a replacement out today. :thumbsup:

The pair of tubes knocked 130gms off the wheelset, that's a pretty effective $100 wheel diet. .


----------



## principiamacb (Dec 13, 2009)

I love the idea of filling them with helium! Would that make them minus weight? Maby they could start producing airtight frames and we would have to tie our bikes down so they dont float off!:thumbsup:


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Nice, any chance you will ride them soon ? Can't wait for an other review, hope they are worth the price....


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm just waiting for the temps to get out of the windchill territory (it's about 2C right now) this morning and I'll take it out for a blast over the roots and rocks. I mounted up a newer set of RK 2.2 World Cup tires at the same time, so I will have a bit more tread depth too.


----------



## 1415chris (Mar 21, 2009)

Yea, please do, the whole world of crazy people believing or keeping their finger crossed in the name of 'holly light grail', waiting for some more 'prove', so far it's like The Da Vinci Code :aureola:


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

I can read in the box 'DIN TESTED', where are the test results? 

Anyone else sells this tube beyond JPRacing?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> I can read in the box 'DIN TESTED', where are the test results?
> 
> Anyone else sells this tube beyond JPRacing?


Eclipse has not even put up the website...if they would do the demand would be even higher than it is already and already now they can't produce enough....

The DIN-test has been done successfully as well as all those comparisons i told about...


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Wow...a DIN test for holes !


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Ok, my first impression in a loop with a combo of pavement, hard pack, loamy dirt and lots of roots and rocks. 

The tubes definitely feel like they have lower rolling resistance compared to the Maxxis Ultralight (127gms) or the Conti Lights (122gm) I've been running. I think that comes from two things, the inflated tube bladder has a much higher resonant frequency and does not have the same sort of hysteresis that rubber has. If you inflate one of these tubes outside the tire it rings like those inflatable Shimano applause sticks that seemed to be everywhere around World Cup races a couple of years ago. Rubber tubes have a self damping quality that absorbs energy when it's deformed where this tube material doesn't have that quality, so no lost energy while rolling. I'm guessing that means the material stores more energy in the stretching of the material than a rubber tube does so it has a higher spring rate than rubber when stretched.

The other thing I noticed is that I found them a little bouncy when I started off at the same pressure as I ran in the regular tubes: 30psi, I dropped the pressure a couple of pounds to get them to have a more similar feel to the RK's with regular tubes. Still no rim hits. The tires squirm less and have less tendency to roll over at lower pressures with these Eclipse tubes than rubber tubes. The Race King tire feels a bit more like a UST ( a bit stiffer in the sidewalls) compared to the RK Supersonic with light rubber tubes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's still stupendously light, even compared to a tubeless conversion. We'll see how they hold up in use.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

It seems that all of the first impressions (minus the hole on the seam out of the box) are very good so far. I am really excited to hear reviews on these after the season really kicks off in full swing. Hopefully the novelty wears off eventually and/or Eclipse produces them faster/more efficiently so the price drops somewhat. I would love to try them out as they become more widely available.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd also extrapolate that a smaller tire volume than a 2.2 Race King would mean less stretch in the tube so they'd remain a bit less sproingy feeling. It could be that they might actually have a narrower optimum range of tire size, like maybe 1.9-2.1 instead of 1.95-2.25 and then maybe they'd really want another one that was 2.2-2.4 optimized.


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Great ! thx for the review....:thumbsup:


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> the inflated tube bladder has a much higher resonant frequency and does not have the same sort of hysteresis that rubber has.


Dang. I thought I was overthinking things.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm a bike geek, and not ashamed to admit it. :thumbsup:


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

r2-bike is selling the eclipse tube for a bit lower value:
https://r2-bike.com/eclipse-fahrrad-schlauch


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Not only cheaper but lighter too.


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

Just a little update. I mounted the tubes during the weekend only to found a small leak not only on one but both tubes!! This really sucks! I was told the tubes were from an old batch. 

Anyway, it looks like Eclipse is taking care of it and i should hear back from them shortly...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

That is very very bad for such an expensive item!...


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

Twice this past weekend I talked myself out of jumping on the bandwagon.........
Thanks for the heads up!!!


> Just a little update. I mounted the tubes during the weekend only to found a small leak not only on one but both tubes!!


This is a real good reason to take another long look at this product







quality control is scoring a big *ZERO*...


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

wrxsti08 said:


> Just a little update. I mounted the tubes during the weekend only to found a small leak not only on one but both tubes!! This really sucks! I was told the tubes were from an old batch.


So Awesome. Another "high quality" product from Eclipse, what a joke.

*quality-control* qual'i·ty-con·trol' (kwŏl'ĭ-tē-kən-trōl') adj.
A system for ensuring the maintenance of proper standards in manufactured goods, especially by periodic random inspection of the product.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Early adopter syndrome. I won't do it with computers and software but I always gamble on bike stuff. Like the early Race Face Next crackable cranks. So far the warranty replacement cranks have survived, I'm guessing the warranty replacement tube will do better too.


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

*Update*

well after 2 months of riding these both have flatted:madmax: one on 2/2/10 after the rim strip moved slightly over exposing a spoke hole (the hole in the tube was very small, it took 6 hours to from 28 psi to 10) and the other happend yesterday at the first race of the season during the first 3 minutes. I am still not sure what happend. i included some photos to show the hole.

i ordered two tubes from jpracing on 2/2/10 and they still havent shipped, so after the race yesterday i cancelled the order. i decided that i am going to use sealent now.


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

sorry, forgot to say that the long line on the tube looks like it got stretched or something. the actual hole is on the end of the scratch. pic #3 is the best because you can see the hole on the left side of the scratch. 

i definitly regret being an "early adopter," on this one


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> well after 2 months of riding these both have flatted:madmax: one on 2/2/10 after the rim strip moved slightly over exposing a spoke hole


That's why i use Stan's yellow tape on all rims. Does not move.

That second flat looks like a pinch flat - on both edges of the rim, doesn't it? What rim and tire do you use?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> sorry, forgot to say that the long line on the tube looks like it got stretched or something. the actual hole is on the end of the scratch. pic #3 is the best because you can see the hole on the left side of the scratch.
> 
> i definitly regret being an "early adopter," on this one


Ok-you used these tubes for 2 months:

You got a flat from a moving rimstrip which isn't the tubes fault.

The second one pictured above seems really strange. The pics are too unsharp to get an idea but obviously something caused that "wrinkle".Maybe as Curmy said a snakebite? Maybe that was a snakebite taken a while ago but one that didn't cause a flat yet. As mentioned several times these tubes withstand snakebites really good but it might be that yours was cut "almost" through before. So that pinched section of the tube would later on get streched to the point where it failed. At least that would be a explanation to what i can see on the pics.
OR it might have been a big spine penetrating the tire at a lean angle and just scratching the sides of the tube before it finally went through?


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

Just heard back from Eclipse and they're sending a replacement today! :thumbsup:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I think that's something worth mentioning, Eclipse is backing the tubes like a component and not something disposable like a rubber tube. I had a tracking number for my replacement first thing Monday morning.


----------



## ericpulvermacher (Nov 1, 2008)

I know a few unicyclists who would pay $100 for a tube like this in 36x2.25. considering how they are built a 36" loop of your AM tube shouldn't be too hard to do. 

36" tubes are massively heavy and stretched 29" tubes are not exactly ideal.


----------



## Atmos (Oct 20, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> I think that's something worth mentioning, Eclipse is backing the tubes like a component and not something disposable like a rubber tube. I had a tracking number for my replacement first thing Monday morning.


They have to with that kind of price


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

Curmy said:


> That's why i use Stan's yellow tape on all rims. Does not move.
> 
> That second flat looks like a pinch flat - on both edges of the rim, doesn't it? What rim and tire do you use?


the rim was a ZTR olympic and the tire at the time was a nevegal 2.1. The tape was what came with the wheels when i bought them, but its definitely not stan's tape.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> the rim was a ZTR olympic and the tire at the time was a nevegal 2.1. The tape was what came with the wheels when i bought them, but its definitely not stan's tape.


You buy 60g tubes and run Nevegal?  (j/k, I know tires are personal preference, but that particular one, at ~620g does not fit easily into a weight weenie mode...)

Olympic should not be very prone to pinch flats, and that is not a flimsy tire. Odd failure.


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

Curmy said:


> ....Olympic should not be very prone to pinch flats, and that is not a flimsy tire. Odd failure.


Quality control or lack there of


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

At least they stand behind there product,good to hear about the service.


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

Curmy said:


> You buy 60g tubes and run Nevegal?  (j/k, I know tires are personal preference, but that particular one, at ~620g does not fit easily into a weight weenie mode...)
> 
> Olympic should not be very prone to pinch flats, and that is not a flimsy tire. Odd failure.


yes i kno its heavy, but there were lots of rocks this race, plus some areas that had a ton of mud and deep sand, so i figured i would run the nevegal for extra protection plus i think its one of the best tires for these conditions.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jordanrosenbach3 said:


> yes i kno its heavy, but there were lots of rocks this race, plus some areas that had a ton of mud and deep sand, so i figured i would run the nevegal for extra protection plus i think its one of the best tires for these conditions.


Did you swap tires? Could you possibly pull the tube out roughly or pinch it with a tire lever? I am not trying to invent excuses for Eclipse - just trying to understand what could be some pitfalls with this new material - if it is robust when installed, but not so forgiving when handled...

Of course the whole frigging point of running those tubes over the sealant would be to easily swap tires.. 60g of sealant with yellow tape work just as fine, or better, otherwise..


----------



## tazducks (Jun 11, 2008)

Since no word of any 29er tubes???????? Has anyone tried squeezing the 26ers onto a 29er to see if they work?
i know pretty expensive test but interesting idea.. know lots of people doing it with regular tubes.
Nino got a 29er to run em in???


----------



## brassnipples (Feb 26, 2006)

I didn't see this when I skimmed the thread, so i apologize if it's been asked or addressed already, but do we know what these tubes are made out of? The reason I ask is it seems like the opportunity is ripe for a DIY version if the material can be purchased in sheets or even rolls of tube. It's unlikely that Eclipse is brewing up the raw material on their own so it's highly likely that we could get our hands on this stuff.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

brassnipples said:


> I didn't see this when I skimmed the thread, so i apologize if it's been asked or addressed already, but do we know what these tubes are made out of? The reason I ask is it seems like the opportunity is ripe for a DIY version if the material can be purchased in sheets or even rolls of tube. It's unlikely that Eclipse is brewing up the raw material on their own so it's highly likely that we could get our hands on this stuff.


Believe me-there is NO WAY you can do it on your own.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Believe me-there is NO WAY you can do it on your own.


Why would that be not possible? It is a rubber tube with a valve. It is hard to mass produce economically, but I would guess people have fabricated things that are far more complex.

Of course if you check your hourly rate such a DIY project would hardly make any economic sense.


----------



## brassnipples (Feb 26, 2006)

nino said:


> Believe me-there is NO WAY you can do it on your own.


I had no doubt that *you* would say that nino but you are wrong (well maybe you are right that *I* can't do it but someone can). They aren't using black magic to make these tubes, it's a process that can be replicated, perhaps not easily, but it can be replicated. The DIY community is surprisingly good at figuring out how to do stuff like this.

I'm just curious if anyone watching this thread and familiar with this genre of materials may have some insight as to what they are using.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

brassnipples said:


> I had no doubt that *you* would say that nino but you are wrong (well maybe you are right that *I* can't do it but someone can). They aren't using black magic to make these tubes, it's a process that can be replicated, perhaps not easily, but it can be replicated. The DIY community is surprisingly good at figuring out how to do stuff like this.
> 
> I'm just curious if anyone watching this thread and familiar with this genre of materials may have some insight as to what they are using.


Believe me-just forget about it.


----------



## brassnipples (Feb 26, 2006)

Curmy said:


> Why would that be not possible? It is a rubber tube with a valve. It is hard to mass produce economically, but I would guess people have fabricated things that are far more complex.
> 
> Of course if you check your hourly rate such a DIY project would hardly make any economic sense.


It's obvious that nino has some tie to the company and has an interest in seeing Eclipse succeed, that's fine but it means his advice is tainted if you are looking for advice on how to subvert Eclipse.

The rubber they are using looks to be joined with a heat, probably a relatively low temp too so it seems reasonable to work with. Valves can be had from old tubes. If the material is flexible enough it's possible a tube could be made from a flat sheet, rolled over and a long seam 'welded' around the circumference. I'm sure it's not as simple as that but it doesn't look like there are an overwhelming engineering challenge here as long as the material could be acquired. It could be a fun project.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Believe me-just forget about it.


Why would we believe you? Are you a material scientist - or an engineer? Are you an independent expert of any sort?

Is not it just some TPE film - like this: http://www.taipoltpe.com/style/cont...ng=2&customer_id=1858&name_id=70121&rid=33858 or http://www.taipoltpe.com/style/cont...mer_id=1858&name_id=70121&rid=36243&id=198950 ? I have absolutely no idea what it actually is, but it is definitely not some magic dust.


----------



## brassnipples (Feb 26, 2006)

nino said:


> Believe me-just forget about it.


And why should we believe you? Can you give us any reason as to why you think it is foolish to even consider trying to figure out how these tubes are made?

If you have nothing to contribute then let us have our fun.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

brassnipples said:


> And why should we believe you? Can you give us any reason as to why you think it is foolish to even consider trying to figure out how these tubes are made?
> 
> If you have nothing to contribute then let us have our fun.


ok - Have fun


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> ok - Have fun


Your condescending attitude is repulsive. It does appear that you do not know much to back your assertions.


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 24, 2004)

The material it's made of should be easy enough to figure out if Eclipse has patented these tubes. 
For the people that bought them, is there a patent number on the box?


----------



## ericpulvermacher (Nov 1, 2008)

Brass, I like the way you think.

Considering



nino said:


> So far each and every prototype has been made by hand by my friend, all on his own.





nino said:


> So far every inner tube made is hand-made and a couple of swiss-riders are testing them.


If his friend can make them by hand why would it be impossible for us eh?

*dreaming of a lightweight 36" tube*


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> I think that's something worth mentioning, Eclipse is backing the tubes like a component and not something disposable like a rubber tube. I had a tracking number for my replacement first thing Monday morning.


At that price it IS a componenant!  and I would certainly hope they'd back it up.

I'm sorry, *I know I'll get flamed *but I still cannot wrap my head around going with tubes at that price. I'm getting a chuckle at the dude selling his used ones that have flats. I wish him well and hope he sells them and gets his money back out of them...

I've been tubless for going on two years now with NO unridable flats, the worst has been add air and keep on going. I ride rock infested nasty goathead, star thistle, black berry bush country... I simply cannot run tubes...

Plus I like the ride at 22-24psi... :thumbsup:

This 65,000+ hit thread is awesome...


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

CactusJackSlade said:


> 'm sorry, I know I'll get flamed but I still cannot wrap my head around going with tubes at that price. *I'm getting a chuckle at the dude selling his used ones that have flats.* I wish him well and hope he sells them and gets his money back out of them..:


That add will go down as a classic






Wonder why the thread got locked down








https://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=602792

.


----------



## brassnipples (Feb 26, 2006)

HA!, I hadn't seen that, it's more evidence that either his friend is a sorcerer or this can be done by mortals. There's got to be a forum out there where materials pros gather, I bet a plastics guy could quickly steer us in the right direction.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Replicating the tubes wouldn't just be a materials technology issue, they are currently formed as an extruded tube and then joined at a circumferential seam. Since they aren't rubber-sheet stretchy, the trick would be in finding a way to hold the two ends of the joint in place from the outside of the tube and then heat, ultrasonic or glue bond the entire circumference of that butt joint together. I'm not so surprised that the problem appeared at the joint, I'm more curious how they managed to make it work at all.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Done by hand as well-maybe this would help

At least you have nice dreams about doing a inner-tube on your own


----------



## Jerome (Dec 21, 2003)

tazducks said:


> Since no word of any 29er tubes???????? Has anyone tried squeezing the 26ers onto a 29er to see if they work?
> i know pretty expensive test but interesting idea.. know lots of people doing it with regular tubes.
> Nino got a 29er to run em in???


Remember that 29ers are not so popular in Europe and Eclipse is a swiss company. Then, they have to make sure that 26" production tubes are working allright (which is not the case, based on the above testimonies) before even thinking of producing 29" tubes.


----------



## brassnipples (Feb 26, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> Replicating the tubes wouldn't just be a materials technology issue, they are currently formed as an extruded tube and then joined at a circumferential seam. Since they aren't rubber-sheet stretchy, the trick would be in finding a way to hold the two ends of the joint in place from the outside of the tube and then heat, ultrasonic or glue bond the entire circumference of that butt joint together. I'm not so surprised that the problem appeared at the joint, I'm more curious how they managed to make it work at all.


Obviously some experimentation would be needed but i can think of a few ways this might be done. The edges could be rolled slightly outward on the joining ends, pinched by a ring made of a hot wire, it would be really tedious though. Or perhaps one end could be slid into the other so there is an overlapping male/female interface, which would create a wider and possibly better seam, and then heat applied from the outside while air is pumped into the tube to keep it round. Depending on the valve or when it in the process it is attached perhaps a bladder could be used to keep the tube shape as heat is applied.

Using heat for the seams could be really challenging, if the joining could be done with a bonding agent it would be less complicated overall.


----------



## ericpulvermacher (Nov 1, 2008)

nino said:


> Done by hand as well-maybe this would help
> 
> At least you have nice dreams about doing a inner-tube on your own


 I have no idea what you are trying to show me.

I am generally not a weight weenie, my only bike is a cargo bike and I have mountain unicycles heavier than you guys' bikes but loosing weight on the outside of a 36" wheel has a huge benefit that I can not deny.

The idea has gotten into my head so now I am going to have to see if I can make it work.

Even if I don't use your fancy dancy material it should not be hard to improve on the 700g weight of a standard 36" tube.

If I can build a 36" tube then I can build a 48" tube. Building my own pneumatic 48" wheel is one of my long term goals. The tube is one of the things I had not figured out yet.

Sorry for getting off topic but what can I say, your product and this discussion has sparked my imagination. :thumbsup:

ERIC


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Have you tried going tubeless on the 36" wheel?


----------



## ericpulvermacher (Nov 1, 2008)

sergio_pt said:


> Have you tried going tubeless on the 36" wheel?


Now I am going to really get off topic 

Mostly I used a 29" tube stretched to fit in there. Works great until you get a flat. If you patch them the patch makes a noticeable dimple since the tube is stretched so far. Trail repairs and replacements are also tougher since you have to stretch them so much and it is really easy to pinch them on installation.

I know of others who have gone tubeless with their 36 with good results and approximately the same weight loss as going with a 29" tube.

Part of the reason I did not go tubeless is because I was not sure if it would work when commuting in the winter. I e-mailed Stans and they told me that the sealant stops being effective around -5 and will start to freeze around -15. We can get weeks at a time at -35 to -40 and I don't like the idea of riding around with frozen chunks of sealant in my tire with that same frozen sealant being the only thing keeping the air in my tire.

The other issue is the 32 and 48" wheels which are *slowly* coming to shape. I have to build tires for them and am unsure if I could build it in a way that will be suitable for going tubeless. The test tire I built for the 26 worked better than i expected so you never know. I might give it a try. They will probably only be used in the summer. I am hoping to have the 32 finished this year and perhaps build the 48 in summer 2011 depending on what else I am doing at the time.

Perhaps I should just call eclipse and see if they would make some oddball sizes for me. Probably not though since generally I am a DIYer.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

ericpulvermacher said:


> If his friend can make them by hand why would it be impossible for us eh?


It would not be. Nino is just posturing. Pick up the right TPE, or whatever it is, film and apply some elbow grease and glue. Not that I would ever waste my time on that, it would be right up there with dremeling out chainrings.


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 24, 2004)

ericpulvermacher said:


> The other issue is the 32 and 48" wheels which are *slowly* coming to shape. I have to build tires for them and am unsure if I could build it in a way that will be suitable for going tubeless. The test tire I built for the 26 worked better than i expected so you never know. I might give it a try. They will probably only be used in the summer. I am hoping to have the 32 finished this year and perhaps build the 48 in summer 2011 depending on what else I am doing at the time.


Now this is taking the thread completely off topic but I for one would be interested to see and hear about how you make your own tires!


----------



## ericpulvermacher (Nov 1, 2008)

Surestick Malone said:


> Now this is taking the thread completely off topic but I for one would be interested to see and hear about how you make your own tires!


http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=471896

It is a pretty crude technique but with good materials I think I could do a much better job.

Now if I could make a 700g 36" tire and a 100g innertube I would drop something like 2kg off a standard 36" wheel.


----------



## Mr.SJ (Mar 4, 2009)

Sorry guys, this is no contribution to the latest discussion. 

Meanwhile some riders seem to be happy with this tube, some are disappointed with the puncture protection and the price-performance-balance and went back to the roots, using latex tubes or a pricy light weight butyls with some latex milk filled in, fed up with messing around with the tubeless stuff. 

I think I should wait a little bit more.


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

looks like some production delays are going to be announced. Stay tuned.


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Just got this email...

Unfortunately I have some bad news.
upon making inquiries about the delivery date of the Eclipse tubes, we just received the answer that the tubes will not be available before midyear.
Of course we did not assumed that it would take so long when we ordered the tube in the end of 2009, particularly we were given a delivery date in 1-2 weeks again and again.
I'm really sorry for this, but we can't do anything to speed up the delivery at the moment.
*
Best regards
*Marcus
*
Tuning Bikes MH e.K.
Marcus Hebinger
Bahnhofstr. 21
67146 Deidesheim
Internet: http://www.Tuning-bikes.de
*


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

As mentioned before production is really difficult and too slow at the moment.Eclipse decided to stop delivering small quantities which again makes more people wanting them in the process...at the moment they simply can't produce enough for the demand and will have to speed up the process. This again takes some time.


----------



## Mr.SJ (Mar 4, 2009)

Puh, pretty bad message and what a disgrace in my eyes. :skep: 

Some may think, the great demand for it and the difficult production process may not fit together at the moment, but will in the upcoming future. 
Others like me just think: The whole product seems to be immature. Avoid.

As I read meanwhile, Schwalbe is testing a new tube type right now. Perhaps they are more capable in producing and delivering a new product...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> As mentioned before production is really difficult and too slow at the moment.Eclipse decided to stop delivering small quantities which again makes more people wanting them in the process...at the moment they simply can't produce enough for the demand and will have to speed up the process. This again takes some time.


Eclipse needs to hire more people to build the tubes faster! If they pay well I'll go over there and give a help.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Mr.SJ said:


> Schwalbe is testing a new tube type right now.


I hope Eclipse generated enough buzz for companies with real manufacturing capabilities like Schwalbe, Continental, Michelin or Kenda to jump into the game.

I had some hope for that Taiwan Foss outfit, but apparently they are after the Slime tube market segment, if they ever figure out production themselves.

Should not be too hard for them to order some TPE, or whatever it is, film and test. For me the acceptable price point would around what I pay for Latex tubes...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Curmy said:


> For me the acceptable price point would around what I pay for Latex tubes...


I can only speak for myself, but if the price point was a bit more than latex tubes (fair enough, since theoretically a superior product) at say $25 each then I would probably buy a dozen or more to fit all my bikes plus some spares. At $60+ each I buy zero. I'm sure I'm not the only one with that rationale. Of course, it's not all about higher total revenue because the product has to be profitable unit by unit, but with a larger revenue base one would expect that would give them the capital to explore refining production methods, and/or increasing capacity to bring down unit costs. Oh well...


----------



## Mr.SJ (Mar 4, 2009)

Circlip said:


> At $60+ each I buy zero. I'm sure I'm not the only one with that rationale.


You are right, mate.


----------



## wrxsti08 (May 29, 2008)

Got my replacement tubes this afternoon! :thumbsup: 


I will try them out this weekend...


----------



## mk00 (Jul 30, 2008)

how much peoples pay for carbon rims, lightest wheels for save some rotational weight?...60$ for 50g (compare with lightest tratitional tubes) saving is not bad, if forget that it is only for tube...


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Good point Curmy ! 

Maybe the " big " companies are working on it too. The buzz is enormous, on the German forum there is also a big thread......


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

mk00 said:


> how much peoples pay for carbon rims, lightest wheels for save some rotational weight?


Most people pay nothing. MTB carbon rims cost an arm and a leg, and either have weight limits or bring no weight savings.


----------



## egebhardt (Nov 16, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> Eclipse needs to hire more people to build the tubes faster! If they pay well I'll go over there and give a help.


All I can imagine is....... this is not a profitable venture for Eclipse.

If it was just matter of hiring some people, they would have done it long ago.
OR
It pays so little, no one will do it.
OR
The materials or process is too expensive.


----------



## flash01 (Apr 4, 2010)

Dex11 said:


> Good point Curmy !
> 
> Maybe the " big " companies are working on it too. The buzz is enormous, on the German forum there is also a big thread......


Anyone know if the issue at the joint of the tube has been resolved? I have a pair coming soon and i hope there's no leak.

By the way, if anyone still looking i saw a couple of Eclipse tubes on ebay a couple of hours ago.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

So, from my own experience, Park patches don't really work very well on the tubes. Unlike a conventional tube where the patch can kind of fuse into the butyl, and where you can sand the tube, on the Eclipse it's simply the stickiness of the glue keeping it in place, and unless it's in a place where it's nicely sandwiched between the tire and the tube, there's a good chance air will slowly push itself past the glue and you will start to leak.


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

flash01 said:


> Anyone know if the issue at the joint of the tube has been resolved? I have a pair coming soon and i hope there's no leak.
> 
> By the way, if anyone still
> 
> looking i saw a couple of Eclipse tubes on ebay a couple of hours ago.


Didn't see on eBay anywhere


----------



## flash01 (Apr 4, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> So, from my own experience, Park patches don't really work very well on the tubes. Unlike a conventional tube where the patch can kind of fuse into the butyl, and where you can sand the tube, on the Eclipse it's simply the stickiness of the glue keeping it in place, and unless it's in a place where it's nicely sandwiched between the tire and the tube, there's a good chance air will slowly push itself past the glue and you will start to leak.


Maybe we have to use only Eclipse patches


----------



## flash01 (Apr 4, 2010)

nikoli8 said:


> Didn't see on eBay anywhere


http://cgi.ebay.com/Eclipse-Inner-T...Cycling_Parts_Accessories?hash=item1c117ccc57


----------



## XgreygOOse (Sep 8, 2007)

I've done over 100km on these tubes ( mostly on trails ) and I can say I'm very happy with them.:thumbsup: 
They do feel a wee bit bouncy but I was told to drop the PSI abit. Anyway nice abit of kit especially if (like me)you don't like tubeless.


----------



## Broseph (Nov 9, 2006)

i love tubeless. guess i wouldn't like these.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello Nino.
Have you tested the 28 or 29 gramms version ?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

MTB for ever said:


> Hello Nino.
> Have you tested the 28 or 29 gramms version ?


Yes i did. But it was a prototype only and of no interest at the moment. They are still trying to get the production up of the 56g version and have no plans to do an even lighter one in the near future.


----------



## Mr. IROC-Z (Aug 24, 2006)

If you guys think Eclipse has production problems, try ordering a Saevid saddle from Spain. I have been trying to order one for months, but each time I go to their website, their order form is closed. This last time, their order form closed within 15minutes of opening! They told me to log on to their site at 10am three days ago. I logged on at 1030 and they had closed it again! The **** is ridiculous!


----------



## XgreygOOse (Sep 8, 2007)

Mr. IROC-Z said:


> If you guys think Eclipse has production problems, try ordering a Saevid saddle from Spain. I have been trying to order one for months, but each time I go to their website, their order form is closed. This last time, their order form closed within 15minutes of opening! They told me to log on to their site at 10am three days ago. I logged on at 1030 and they had closed it again! The **** is ridiculous!


Off Topic...
Funny that, I order one for my friend a couple a weeks ago with no problems. Not from there website but from Robert at r2
http://www.r2-bike.com/Saevid-Sattel-schwarz
I don't know if he has in stock but check it out anyway:thumbsup:


----------



## Mr. IROC-Z (Aug 24, 2006)

XgreygOOse said:


> Off Topic...
> Funny that, I order one for my friend a couple a weeks ago with no problems. Not from there website but from Robert at r2
> http://www.r2-bike.com/Saevid-Sattel-schwarz
> I don't know if he has in stock but check it out anyway:thumbsup:


Thank you for that link. Unfortunately, I am trying to order a custom painted one. 
It seems like they are a great saddle.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Mr. IROC-Z said:


> Thank you for that link. Unfortunately, I am trying to order a custom painted one.
> It seems like they are a great saddle.


If you like to sit you ass on a uncomfortable super stiff carbon plate then the saddle is good for you. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

nino said:


> As mentioned before production is really difficult and too slow at the moment.Eclipse decided to stop delivering small quantities which again makes more people wanting them in the process...at the moment they simply can't produce enough for the demand and will have to speed up the process. This again takes some time.


Well, they seem to be making enough to send me this nice load. If you ever wonder what 100 boxes of Eclipse tubes look like, here you go: :thumbsup:










Ole.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Ole said:


> Well, they seem to be making enough to send me this nice load. If you ever wonder what 100 boxes of Eclipse tubes look like, here you go: :thumbsup:
> 
> Ole.


Cool - i knew you would be getting these

But i wonder how long it will take until the usual ranting starts from D8 and the likes as those guys will say this is prohibited Spam....i on the other hand like to see the tubes get distibuted for real and start to be available to the masses.


----------



## COLINx86 (Apr 8, 2009)

Ole said:


> Well, they seem to be making enough to send me this nice load. If you ever wonder what 100 boxes of Eclipse tubes look like, here you go: :thumbsup:
> 
> Ole.


You should send me a couple for testing!
:thumbsup:


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

COLINx86 said:


> You should send me a couple for testing!
> :thumbsup:


No need, all I intend to use them for is to roll around in them and laugh maniacly.

Ole.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Ole said:


> No need, all I intend to use them for is to roll around in them and laugh maniacly.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Ole said:


> No need, all I intend to use them for is to roll around in them and laugh maniacly.
> 
> Ole.


I'd inflate them all first, it'll be more comfortable.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Did you buy 100 to select the lightest 2 for your bike?


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

sfer1 said:


> Did you buy 100 to select the lightest 2 for your bike?


Yes, the mere thought that there might be a 2g lighter tube out there is unbearable. Besides, 100 tubes is a small price to pay for a couple grams weight savings. The rest will be used as prophylactics, after I'm done rolling around in them. 

Ole.


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

Ole said:


> The rest will be used as prophylactics, *after *I'm done rolling around in them.


Be sure to get that sequence right..........


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

Ole said:


> Yes, the mere thought that there might be a 2g lighter tube out there is unbearable. Besides, 100 tubes is a small price to pay for a couple grams weight savings. The rest will be used as prophylactics, after I'm done rolling around in them.
> 
> Ole.


you will have to let us know if the 'ride' is as good as promised & also how your home made sealant works


----------



## yamapro (Aug 9, 2009)

I apoligize but I cant find where these are available? Is there an online store or store in the US?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I bought mine from http://www.jpracingbike1.com/


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Ditto for JPRacing, no VAT , great shipping.. He had two left.. Earlier this week..I'll by my innolites from hi'm in July..


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Came today Ones 55g and the others 58g


----------



## SDK^ (Nov 3, 2006)

Are these available in the UK?


----------



## Sprout (Jan 30, 2004)

Holy cow - 65 Euros! Thats $85.

http://www.jpracingbike1.com/Eclipse-Ultralight-Innertube-bbyaaaiBa.asp

Is this the normal price?

-Mark.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Sprout said:


> Holy cow - 65 Euros! Thats $85.
> 
> http://www.jpracingbike1.com/Eclipse-Ultralight-Innertube-bbyaaaiBa.asp
> 
> ...


Welcome to 1 year ago 

(yes, that's the normal price)


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Well I've been running a pair on one bike for a while now. I discovered that they do stretch a bit after they've been filled so I ran them up to 50PSI in a couple of large volume 2.4" tires and they seem less bouncy now in the Race King 2.2's at normal pressures, but they still roll very fast compared to rubber tubes. No more problems with leaks or joint failures. So despite the early hiccup I'm liking these.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Well I've been running a pair on one bike for a while now. I discovered that they do stretch a bit after they've been filled so I ran them up to 50PSI in a couple of large volume 2.4" tires and they seem less bouncy now in the Race King 2.2's at normal pressures, but they still roll very fast compared to rubber tubes. No more problems with leaks or joint failures. So despite the early hiccup I'm liking these.


How would you categorise their feel against say, a Michelin Latex?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I haven't tried the Michelin Latex so I can't offer an opinion.


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

Managed to get a pair from Dulight in France €144 delivered but I had them within 4 days of placing the order. 
Haven't been able to test them out as yet as a back problem is keeping me off the bike at the moment. 
They both came in at 56 gms & are holding air fine so far. 
I'm gonna risk a ride tomorrow so Ill keep you posted how they hold up.


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

karl711 said:


> Managed to get a pair from Dulight in France €144 delivered but I had them within 4 days of placing the order.
> Haven't been able to test them out as yet as a back problem is keeping me off the bike at the moment.
> They both came in at 56 gms & are holding air fine so far.
> I'm gonna risk a ride tomorrow so Ill keep you posted how they hold up.


managed to get out & test the tubes. After holding air for 2 full days the front tube developed a slow leak after only 40 minutes of easy riding. Turns out I'm another victim of the seam demon. I've emailed Dulight about swapping the tube so far no reply. 
Before this happened I was real impressed with how they rode I was just thinking how I could finally ditch the time consuming & messy tubeless kits.
:madman:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Actually that would be a personal fact, that's where I bought them from. :skep:


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

I've just recieved an email from Bastien at Dulight saying a new tube is on the way without even seeing the faulty one first. 
That's what I call customer service:thumbsup:


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

If their tubes fail consistently then I don't think good customer service makes up for it.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

crap expensive tubes so far.
For those who used it, how's the puncture resistance?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

So far no punctures or snake bites, and no issues with the warranty replacement I received. I like the way they feel better after they're stretched out a bit, at least with the RK2.2's. Maybe there'd be less bounciness in a 2.1" tire.


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

I have 250 mile on mine so far. I tried them with Conti Mountain King 2.4 f&r, Conti Race King 2.2 f&r, and now Specialized Captains 2.0 f&r. So far they are working as a tube should, no problems. I like the ride at 30 psi front 35 psi rear.


----------



## erik$ (May 16, 2006)

My brother and I have had one flat each. None of them were sudden deflations, the tires just slowly lost pressure in about 20-30mins after a ride. There were some very minor cuts, barely visible. Seems like the material is more resistent against tearing than regular tubes.
The ride seems a bit more bounce than running tubeless, but I think the tubes stretch a little so they may "break inn" after some use. At least they seem a bit bigger now than when they were new.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Whacked the rear rim hard on a rocky climb today, hard enough I was expecting to see a mark in the carbon rim, and no pinch flat.  :thumbsup: I was running them at lower pressure to get some grip on a rooty trail today, and I noticed that they do squirm less than a rubber tube with the Race Kings at low pressures.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

*Do not inflate!*

this has just been posted by someone in the German forum. Fresh out of the box, first time inflation. At about 15psi the valve said bye-bye to the tube. There seems to be quite some variation in quality.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

lol
people still buy this tubes?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

quax said:


> Fresh out of the box, first time inflation without being installed. At about 15psi the valve said bye-bye to the tube.


Just curious - why would one inflate a tube to 15psi outside of a tire?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Curmy said:


> Just curious - why would one inflate a tube to 15psi outside of a tire?


Agreed. 15 psi is a fair amount for a tube outside a tire.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

I guess the guy wanted to check if it holds the air since he wanted to use them as spare tubes for his tubeless set up. He couldn't inflate it to more than 15psi because there the valve got loose.


----------



## Robin v Berkel (Aug 19, 2008)

hope i get my in week or 2/3 i orde 4 of them see if thy are good 

hope so then my bike get close to 8kg


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

o.k., my bad, there is no mentioning of inflating it outside of a tire. Got it wrong with another posting there.


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

quax said:


> this has just been posted by someone in the German forum. Fresh out of the box, first time inflation. At about 15psi the valve said bye-bye to the tube. There seems to be quite some variation in quality.


damage control should be here soon.


----------



## Robin v Berkel (Aug 19, 2008)

my are on there way hope i get them for weekend start


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

the story goes on. A second guy reports of something similar there. He had gotten two of those tubes and noticed, after riding for two weeks, that they were leaking air slowly. The standard holding-under-water-approach identified the the valve-tube-interface as culprit. So basically the same as the first guy.

He checked with Eclipse customer service and was told that they are aware of that issue. 1 in 100 of those tubes has this problem. Now tell me what are the odds that this one guy gets two of those 1 in 100 and a second guy on the same forum has exact the same issue.

He has returned to tubeless again.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

quax said:


> 1 in 100 of those tubes has this problem.


Internet really made it harder for manufacturers to get away with this sort of bullcrap.

Even for most glaring flaws it was always a blank stare and "you are the first one to have any problem". At least now one can check on that before making a call.


----------



## nathanbal (Jan 30, 2007)

I'm not trying to defend the company but not everyone who bought these tubes visits and posts on mtbr. even if they do visit mtbr, they may not post up good feedback. internet forums always attract negative experiences.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nathanbal said:


> I'm not trying to defend the company but not everyone who bought these tubes visits and posts on mtbr. even if they do visit mtbr, they may not post up good feedback. internet forums always attract negative experiences.


It is easy to adjust for the selection effect.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

nathanbal said:


> internet forums always attract negative experiences.


now simply look at the very first posting of this thread and you'll see that you get the whole spectrum of opinions.

In the end it's up to you only.


----------



## Robin v Berkel (Aug 19, 2008)

54/55/55/54 gr now see how thy hold up in time


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

Only a few problems is reported with my first batch of 100. Now let's see how this batch holds up:









Anybody who can guess how many there are?


----------



## Robin v Berkel (Aug 19, 2008)

Ole said:


> Only a few problems is reported with my first batch of 100. Now let's see how this batch holds up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if so wil we get 2 for free


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Ole said:


> Only a few problems is reported with my first batch of 100. Now let's see how this batch holds up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


173


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Yep, 173.


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

That's not guessing, that's counting, multiplying and adding. :nono: 

You are way off, BTW.  

Ole.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

OK, I guess 1,000 then. And you have the other 827 tubes stored in your safe.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

147 (and counting)


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

*Dark Side of the Moon*


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Backstage always looks different :skep: :ciappa: :bluefrown:


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

mirror effect ?


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

*No mirrors.*



MTB for ever said:


> mirror effect ?


No, no, I just took the picture from the other side, so you can't see that half the pyramid is missing.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Ole said:


>


you got me. :thumbsup:


----------



## 1415chris (Mar 21, 2009)

That explains why they are so hard to get


----------



## jordanrosenbach3 (Jan 6, 2007)

Ole said:


> Only a few problems is reported with my first batch of 100. Now let's see how this batch holds up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Im guessing 153


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

100 tubes, just like the first batch.


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

So far I've had 2 leaks with these tubes. The first was the seam failure as I've reported & the second was a tiny hole in the tube after I accidently rode over some broken glass. 
Both of these problems have been fixed with some wheel milk from just riding along, & no further problems so far. 
One question I do have though: what happened to the Eclipse sealant that was supposed to be supplied with the tubes?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I did have a thorn puncture from a sizable blackberry thorn that penetrated the thin carcass on the Race King and stayed embedded in the tire, but it took several hours for the tire to go flat after I was already home. The tire was flat the next morning. Used one of the Eclipse patches to fix it and it's been solid for over a week. Usually with a rubber tube and that size of thorn it's an instant flat and sometimes a blowout on the superlight tubes.


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

karl711 said:


> So far I've had 2 leaks with these tubes. The first was the seam failure as I've reported & the second was a tiny hole in the tube after I accidently rode over some broken glass.
> Both of these problems have been fixed with some wheel milk from just riding along, & no further problems so far.
> One question I do have though: what happened to the Eclipse sealant that was supposed to be supplied with the tubes?


Am I hearing/reading correctly? There is sealant being used with these tubes?... at least by some?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

There was some talk about using sealant early on, but it went away at some point. Likely because it would have made it a mess to do an actual patch repair.


----------



## ettore (Nov 13, 2004)

egebhardt said:


> All I can imagine is....... this is not a profitable venture for Eclipse.
> 
> If it was just matter of hiring some people, they would have done it long ago.
> OR
> ...


... or, the process is rediculously simple (albiet, time consuming) with extremely cheap materials, and they don't want anyone else in on the project who might spill the beans to the DIYers. That would be my theory, and given the tubes' track record of reliability, I am thinking I am pretty close to the mark. I mean, having unreliable products is the essence of DIY: do something yourself seemingly saving money, do a crappy job and have to re-do it many times before getting something that works.


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

I have 3 of these tubes now & all have latex in them. After the initial issues all 3 tubes are working better than expected now. 
I really can't see myself going back to tubless now these are available. I know they're expensive, but I personally think that cost is offset against the time fannying about changing tyres with the stans/eclipse ect tubless set ups. :thumbsup:


----------



## morati (Mar 25, 2004)

Where are you guys buying these?


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

I get mine from Dulight in France. 
http://www.dulight.fr/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=92_83&products_id=1318


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

After a few weeks of use all 3 tubes now have leaks that the latex can't seal, I'm going to try a diy repair using an old roofing trick using gaffer tape & contact adhesive. 
It's a shame becouse they did ride really well but for the moment I have gone back to tubless. 
I'll keep you informed on the cheap repair.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Did you get the Eclipse patch kit?


----------



## pipeline (Apr 15, 2008)

karl711 said:


> I get mine from Dulight in France.
> http://www.dulight.fr/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=92_83&products_id=1318


I must of blinked a million times at the price. About $101 U.S. Ouch!


----------



## karl711 (Mar 26, 2009)

No. I'm not a big fan of patching tubes up which is 1 of the reasons I switched to tubless in the first place. 
According to the blurb on these punctures were supposed to be a thing of the past. 
I can't remember the last time I had a flat with tubless & I've been running it for about 4/5 years. With these tubes I would say I've had arbout 12 problems in the short time I've been using them. 
Maybe I'm just unlucky with the tubes I have but i won't spend any more money on them. If the diy fix doesn't work then they're skip fodder. 
Like I said it's a shame becouse I really did like the tubes but for the me at the moment the performance doesn't justify the price.


----------



## Motomatt (Sep 8, 2007)

I been running tubless for over 10yrs and have had less than 5 flats,I will stay tubless.


karl711 said:


> I can't remember the last time I had a flat with tubless & I've been running it for about 4/5 years.


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

Any longterm experience with these eclipse tubes guys? I've been running stans tubeless on my Rocket Rons and they seem to ruin my tires pretty fast. It starts with small cracks on the surface then out comes the milk then now my rear tire has a bump. And these are from 2-3 month old tires that aren't ridden that hard! So I'm thinking I'm better off with these eclipse tubes. What do you guys think?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Been using the Eclipse tubes extensively for several months now. After the initial warranty issue was taken care of I've had no issues. I had one puncture from a very big blackberry thorn that was embedded in the carcass of a Race King, it took almost 12 hours to leak down flat. I bought the Eclipse patch kit when I bought the tubes, the patch has worked perfectly.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Does anyone know if someone is the USA is selling the Eclipse tubes and patch kits yet?


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

Thanks rocky. Just the kind of thing I wanted to hear. I just hope the tubes I get won't get issues too. I lost the point of using stans on my rocket rons. I get cracks on them and the sidewalls wont hold up that long and I end up putting tubes in them on some rides. I even got a pinch flat before using Furious Freds which put twin holes on the sidewalls making them throwaway tires. Thanks again.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

a lot of negative feedback in the German forum. Mostly with microleaks.

Don't know if Google Translator makes some sense: http://translate.google.at/translat...wthread.php?p=7439657#post7439657&sl=de&tl=en


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

Thanks for that quax. So I guess these tubes are a hit or miss item. Anything to say about this guys? Nino? I plan to run them with RK 2.2 with my ZTR Alpine rims.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

quax said:


> a lot of negative feedback in the German forum. Mostly with microleaks.
> 
> Don't know if Google Translator makes some sense: https://translate.google.at/transla...wthread.php?p=7439657#post7439657&sl=de&tl=en


Interesting photo:


----------



## diver160651 (Jun 18, 2007)

*Sometimes, things aren't for me *

This is only my experience. I will not venture to say everyone will find the same. I spent about $300.00 usd on a few of theses tubes. I ride everyday, have the money to spend on parts, but at some point I often end up with light "solid" parts rather than crazy light parts I originally installed 

I put maybe 500 a month on my MTB. Somebody has pointed out that is not many miles, thats fine, but I want to put my numbers in perspective. BTW the MTB miles of course, doesn't include my road bike, at times I put that many in in a week. I weight between 68 & 69 Kilos. I am not a beast, and tend not to break stuff. Other than loosing rear hubs, I have only had one rim failure in the last 10 years.

I am trying to put in perspective my personal dilemma when it comes to these tubes. On one hand the first Ellipse I installed was under a RK SS in the rear of a s-works epic on carbon hoops. I grew tired of the RK burping when running tubeless. The other day, the rim exploded. It unpeeled at the clincher, leaving sharp pieces exposed to the tube. Somehow the tube survived! To me this was simply amazing.... At that point I would have told everybody that these tubes are worth every last penny.

OK - fast forward a few days -- feeling that these tubes were the way to go, I converted another wheel set to Ellipse (front and rear) -- slow leaks in both wheels. The seams in both, had leaks!

I put some $7.00 95 gram tubes in and have been back on the road with no leaks -

I think Ellipse is on to something, but until Ellipse gets their quality control, under control, I can not recommend these..

Again just my 2 cents --


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They will warranty those leaky seams, that was the problem I had with the first pair I received.


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

I bit the bullet and ordered these tubes and some RK SS 2.2s. We'll see what happens.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

You have nerve,
or to much money.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I tried them in the Race King 2.2 SS as low as 20PSI on some technical trails yesterday and that's at least 6 PSI lower than I could ever make the RK's work with lightweight rubber tubes. It was a bit squirmy on the pavement on the ride home but off road it was great. They'd have come close to rolling off the rims with rubber tubes at that pressure while cornering on pavement.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

This foto is from Germany. 5 punctures since 2 weeks.


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

Anyone know where to get these in the US? I searched but found nowhere


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They don't list any distribution outside of Europe

http://www.eclipse.ch/new/Distributors.html

maybe send them an email and ask them about North America.

http://www.eclipse.ch/new/Contact.html


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> They don't list any distribution outside of Europe
> 
> http://www.eclipse.ch/new/Distributors.html
> 
> ...


I asked them and Eclipse said they currently have no distributor in the USA. However, all it takes is a minimum order of 100pcs to become one, which probably comes out to about $4,000. I have to admit, I'm considering doing it, though am afraid of liability.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

bad mechanic said:


> I have to admit, I'm considering doing it, though am afraid of liability.


From a legal liability point of view it can't be any riskier than any other $4000 stack of tire tubes, they don't do anything worse than any other tube when the air comes out rapidly or unexpectedly. As long as they will replace any duds, that's not the big issue.

The biggest risk is whether or not you can find at least 50 weight weenies that would buy a pair.

I have two pair in use on two bikes now, I've had one go flat about 12 hours after being pierced by a huge blackberry thorn, and I had the original two with warranty issues at the joint, but since they were replaced they have been great.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> From a legal liability point of view it can't be any riskier than any other $4000 stack of tire tubes, they don't do anything worse than any other tube when the air comes out rapidly or unexpectedly. As long as they will replace any duds, that's not the big issue.


Problem is, anyone can sue anyone around here. If someone has a flat and then crashes, they could sue me just because, and then I need to shell out the money for a lawyer. Considering I wouldn't really be doing it for the money, it's definitely something to consider, and something which will probably keep me from doing it.



rockyuphill said:


> The biggest risk is whether or not you can find at least 50 weight weenies that would buy a pair.


I think there are plenty of people in the USA who'd buy them, considering we're such a huge market.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Hey, what happened to the OP? they need to get these down to about $20 per tube. The Swiss made part is funny, it's just an inertube, not a watch.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Unfortunately, he was banned.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

bad mechanic said:


> He was banned.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Tongolés (Jan 30, 2011)

Time goes on... Can anyone talk about more experiences with these tubes? Anything new?


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

The term "one hit wonder" comes to mind.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

caca means sh`t in PT.. so that's it... caca product!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've been really happy with them, I'm using two pairs on two bikes now.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Tongolés said:


> Time goes on... Can anyone talk about more experiences with these tubes? Anything new?


Dude, there's 21 pages to this thread, start reading!


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

how many flats and what kind of riding do you do?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

One flat from a giant blackberry thorn, it took almost 12hours to leak down.. 90% of the miles are off road on trails that look like this....


----------



## XgreygOOse (Sep 8, 2007)

Tongolés said:


> Time goes on... Can anyone talk about more experiences with these tubes? Anything new?


Still very happy with mine. Both are on my two bikes and have been using them just under a year now. I've had about 6 punctures with both sets. Mostly with the rear one. Easily fixed with the patches that you get. 
I ride XC and single tracks with them. 
I do plan to use another set on my new AM bike. Not a fan of tubeless tires only because I've had a very bad experience with them plus I like to swap my tires alot.
I did get one that had a small rip but was replace free of charge and didn't have to send the old one back.:thumbsup:

Nothing new but I am still very happy with them. Just a bit heavy on the wallet


----------



## captncolorado (Mar 4, 2011)

bad mechanic said:


> Does anyone know if someone is the USA is selling the Eclipse tubes and patch kits yet?


http://www.eclipse.ch/new/Distributors.html


----------



## captncolorado (Mar 4, 2011)

GTR2ebike said:


> Anyone know where to get these in the US? I searched but found nowhere


http://www.eclipse.ch/new/Distributors.html


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

J&B? Nice. This means they'll be available through just about any bike shop.

I wonder what the price will be.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Go figure, my Stans kit arrived on Monday! May get a set of these tubes when I get around to building up another set of wheels (next fall).


----------



## SamL3227 (May 30, 2004)

so....i got to wait all summer before i can nix the DH tubes and loose some weight. getting sick of choosing between light tires/tubes and pinch flats or just lugging the extra weight around.


----------



## mtbnozpikr (Sep 1, 2008)

SamL3227 said:


> so....i got to wait all summer before i can nix the DH tubes and loose some weight. getting sick of choosing between light tires/tubes and pinch flats or just lugging the extra weight around.


Why? What's going on? Are these tubes coming to the U.S. finally?


----------



## SamL3227 (May 30, 2004)

i just went to their site and it said august 2011. 

dunno anymore after that. i just want.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

JP Racing has the 29" in stock

http://www.jpracingbike1.com/Eclipse-29er-Ultralight-Innertube-bbCaaakZa.asp


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Have you news about the prototype at 28,5 g.


----------



## jesse101 (May 23, 2011)

I just read through the 21 some odd pages..seems like many had quality issues? I am just wondering if people are still having issues with these tubes? Seem very pricey, my current tubes weigh 89 grams...not sure if the 60 gram total savings is worth the switch...I can probably **** 100 grams in the am before a ride. But I will say I can't run less than 30 psi with my current setup, so there is an advantage with running lower pressures, but durability comes to mind considering all the posts showing problems with the seams and the tears by the valve stem.


----------



## collideous (Jul 1, 2006)

Lots of problems here in Europe with the tubes developing micro-leaks after a few months of usage. I've had more flats with them in three months than in several years running butyl.


----------



## jesse101 (May 23, 2011)

thank you for the heads up.


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Just had major blow out.. Tore tube.. Sux!!!


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Have you (Nino or other...) news about the 29gr version ?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

the 56g version sucks and you want one half the weight? lol


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> the 56g version sucks and you want one half the weight? lol


Lol! I was thinking the same. Isn't that one reason for going tubeless?


----------



## Veda (Dec 17, 2009)

I used the Foss 80gr similar looking tubes and they were a nightmare. Kept losing air and problematic setup. Not sure about this Eclipse brand, but it's way lighter... anyway I've moved to tubeless which has better thorn resistance and is still lighter


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

"Hello.

Can you produce for me special version of the tube ? I need 2 pieces (559) 26" X 1.00-1.40 because my Michelin XCR Road is 1.40 X 559."

3 times asked : never answered. Bad comunication with Eclipse. :ciappa:rft:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I expect that's just the corporate short hand way of saying "No we can't produce a special version just for you." 

But then I'd expect you'd get the same lack of response from any tube manufacturer if you asked for a pair of special versions of a tube for yourself. :skep:


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

rockyuphill said:


> I expect that's just the corporate short hand way of saying "No we can't produce a special version just for you."
> 
> But then I'd expect you'd get the same lack of response from any tube manufacturer if you asked for a pair of special versions of a tube for yourself. :skep:


Forgery. Panaracer and Foss always answered me. Eclipse has a severe communications problem. They hate his customers.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Are people still willing to pay big money for this crap?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I have run two pairs with no problems for 18 months. Still only $1/gm for the weight saving.


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

Both my front and rear tubes has developed micro leaks now that are too many to patch up after about a year of use. Don't think I want to throw some serious $ on tubes every year. Any other alternatives out there aside from running tubeless?


----------



## Joza (Jun 4, 2010)

I was really tempted to try a pair of these myself, but after what I've read about them (not just here), I guess I better stay away. I'm currently running Maxxis Flyweights, they came in @ 97 grams/pc and with a lightweight rimtape (15 grams/pc).
I've found Continental Race Supersonic, that should be about the same weight (93 grams). I know, it's almost twice the weight of the Eclipse tubes, but the price is around 10 USD or so (I got mine for about 8 USD). And I guess, the price still counts for someone.

Btw, the eclipse tubes are around 80 USD??? that's insane.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

I just won two of them on eBay for $6.01 shipped, so I'll see how long they last first hand.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

For gods sake, just let this thread die man. ^ Good find though!


----------



## kiteboardkid (Feb 20, 2008)

*Eclipse tubes die*

Well, it would seem these incredible tubes have died a death, no one in the UK sells them anymore. 
I wonder why?? I'll tell you, they were rubbish!! One big con!! 
The rear tube failed when micro holes appeared, caused by the tube pressing against the Rim Tape!! 
Clearly these were never tested properly before being released onto the open market. I managed to get my £40 back from the retailer for the rear tube, when it failed within the first 3 weeks of use. The front one failed after 6 months without even being ridden, (unable to ride due to broken leg), same problem, micro holes appeared where the tube was pressing against the smooth rim tape!! This time the bike had been sat stationary!
They even claimed "they offer massively improved puncture resistance over conventional tubes"
The Swiss manufacturer should be ashamed!!


----------

