# New Foss tubes



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

From the pointer given in an adjacent thread about Eclipse tubes.



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.


Foss "completed production line" on Jan 16.

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










Anybody has more information? Test reports?


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Forget the test reports... how about price/availability!


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

Ditto dat


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

I e-mailed them to get availability and pricing in case no one else did.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

the german weight-weenies are a bit faster...

here's some info direct from Foss:
"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!

So the weight will be more like 100g for a slim sized MTB tube and is not even close to what Eclipse will be offering (56g for a real MTB inner tube!)


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


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


Well, they claim to have started production, which takes a while. We will see how long it will take Eclipse to ramp up.

Good, we will have a couple new products to compare. About time to have some innovation.

I wonder if Foss can be used with sealant, like Eclipse tube. And we will be waiting for more technical information about Eclipse.


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

here's what was replied from FOSS about the release:

Thank you for appreciating our product.
We are looking for a reliable distributor in the US, hope can serve you in the future.
We still adjust our product – the EFT, so it hasn’t start a mass production.
Thanks for taking time writing us, if you have any further questions, pls let me know.

Best Regards,

Angel


Probably doesn't matter if the FOSS weighs 100+ grams for the 26'er. I won't be going that route like many others.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

protocol_droid said:


> Probably doesn't matter if the FOSS weighs 100+ grams for the 26'er. I won't be going that route like many others.


If it is close to 100g for 2.1" size (which sounds reasonable from a 120g 2.3"-2.6") and indeed pinch resistant and puncture resistant more then a 150g+ bytyl tube, I would certainly consider using it when I do not want to mess with sealant: like in the case when i want to be able to switch a tire at the last moment and do not have a spare wheelset. A 60g Swiss made tube would be even better, of course.

We should keep in mind that Nino was riding what he described as a hand-made prototype. There is a substantial gap between a hand-made prototype and a reliable mass produced product, so some margins in weight may appear. I am sure Eclipse will do a good job.

I am just glad there are two companies innovating.


----------



## reformed roadie (Mar 30, 2008)

Nino again slamming a competing product...yeah, I get it's not yours, but a 'friend's'...whatever. 

If the Eclipse is so superior to Foss, then it will dominate the market and Foss will be short lived. 

I agree with Curmy - God that hurt - that it is good to have the two options competing, which will most likely keep costs reasonable (it's a tube!) and make both available sooner.

If you can get tubeless performance w/o burping, sealant mess and easy swapping of tire...bring it on!


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

Curmy said:


> If it is close to 100g for 2.1" size (which sounds reasonable from a 120g 2.3"-2.6") and indeed pinch resistant and puncture resistant more then a 150g+ bytyl tube, I would certainly consider using it when I do not want to mess with sealant: like in the case when i want to be able to switch a tire at the last moment and do not have a spare wheelset. A 60g Swiss made tube would be even better, of course.
> 
> We should keep in mind that Nino was riding what he described as a hand-made prototype. There is a substantial gap between a hand-made prototype and a reliable mass produced product, so some margins in weight may appear. I am sure Eclipse will do a good job.
> 
> I am just glad there are two companies innovating.


Yeah, if you're using 150g tubes. I'm already using 95-100g forte/performance tubes so having savings and puncture resistance is more important than just puncture resistance for some of us.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

protocol_droid said:


> I'm already using 95-100g forte/performance tubes


They did not work too well for me around here. I oscillate between using latex goop and heavy tubes. As far as the new tubes go, it is all speculation, until it is mass produced and available for broad testing. Let's leave it at that, until more data appears.


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

Curmy said:


> They did not work too well for me around here. I oscillate between using latex goop and heavy tubes. As far as the new tubes go, it is all speculation, until it is mass produced and available for broad testing. Let's leave it at that, until more data appears.


oh boy, goop. sorry to hear that.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Foss Worldwide Inc. said:


> 2009/3/4
> Available size of EFT's
> The production line is completed now, FOSS welcome our customers to place a trial order.
> Please note that the order must conform to the size as below:
> ...


So they claim to have the production line up. I wonder when I could grab one to try out.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

And now the company site went dim - all links are disabled. Dang.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Company gone?

With Eclipse nowhere to be found and relying on handmade manufacturing, and this thing gone - no new tubes for us?


----------



## jmartpr (Jun 16, 2008)

We placed a small sample order with them this week but wont be delivered well into May according to FOSS.....will see when we get them.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jmartpr said:


> We placed a small sample order with them this week but wont be delivered well into May according to FOSS.....will see when we get them.


O, nice, site is back from the dead.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello everybody !
Have you news about foss new innertube ?
Thanks


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Ask Curmy!
those guys presented the tube over a year ago and you still can't get them...i mean - what's up man?


----------



## Bends But Doesn't Break (Jun 23, 2008)

Why are you guys so worried about nitpicking grams when so many of you are overweight by many tens of pounds/kg?


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Bends But Doesn't Break said:


> Why are you guys so worried about nitpicking grams when so many of you are overweight by many tens of pounds/kg?


178cm and 64Kg.

I am a fat boy.


----------



## jmartpr (Jun 16, 2008)

FOSS is pushing delivery to end of June....something about "improving" the conatct area between the tube and the valve.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Ask Curmy!
> those guys presented the tube over a year ago and you still can't get them...i mean - what's up man?


I guess they had been setting up a modern production line to produce those for pennies. 

Somebody here mentioned they had placed an order.



Bends But Doesn't Break said:


> Why are you guys so worried about nitpicking grams when so many of you are overweight by many tens of pounds/kg?


Because neither part is your business, I would guess.


----------



## Strong like Bull (Jan 15, 2004)

I received a pair of the tubes today from my countries distributer. They received them in the middle of March to evaluate in local conditions. The pair i received has done a world cup XC race already and are therefore not brand new. They feel very rubbery - i was expecting a plastic feel probably because they are clear.

The bad news for people on this forum:
tube 1: 148.5g
tube 2: 152.5g (i confirmed the weight on another scale)

The tubes seem quite big ( i have been running tubeless for a couple of years so my recollection of size may be incorrect) so are perhaps the 2.3 - 2.6 size i saw mentioned somewhere.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Ouch!*



Strong like Bull said:


> tube 1: 148.5g
> tube 2: 152.5g (i confirmed the weight on another scale)


I hope some people finally realize that these tanks have nothing to do with the Eclipse tubes - thanks!


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Bends But Doesn't Break said:


> Why are you guys so worried about nitpicking grams when so many of you are overweight by many tens of pounds/kg?


lol...not me. I made sure my body matched my bike first. Being 70 pounds lighter with a 19 pound bike is like riding on AIR now!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> I hope some people finally realize that these tanks have nothing to do with the Eclipse tubes - thanks!


Sure they do not have anything to do with Eclipse tubes. Unlike Eclipse tubes, they do ship to distributors, likely for a reasonable price. 

If this works with a 2.5" tire at 150g and it is sturdier then a regular tube it is an interesting option to have.


----------



## Strong like Bull (Jan 15, 2004)

Further feedback

Price: the local distributer indicated a price which converted to roughly $20.
Size: lying the tube down flat, they measure 20mm wide compared to 50mm for a 2.1 tube.

I mounted the tubes in my wheels (stans 355 + conti race king 2.2 world cup) last night. The front was fine but the back lost pressure so I removed it. I pumped it up a bit to find the hole and about 1 minute later, while washing the tube, I noticed a section of the tube starting to bulge out quite rapidly. I managed to squeeze the tube in that location and released air from the valve before it burst. I did not think that the pressure that I had pumped the tube up to was excessive. 

The tube did seem to have a slight self-sealing property as it retained its shape when I left it slightly inflated overnight. I couldn’t find anything in my tyres that could have punctured the tube so I concluded that the hole was there when I received them (they were second hand.) If my tyres had punctured the tubes and the object had remained embedded, I think that they may have lost air quite slowly.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

nino said:


> Ask Curmy!
> those guys presented the tube over a year ago and you still can't get them...i mean - what's up man?


Look yourself in the mirror. Where are tubes promised in April ?


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

I no longer want these tubes(Foss, Eclipse, etc.)....I'm very satisfied with Stans NoTubes.

Nino, you just about ruined your credibility by posting that useless thread in January...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Zachariah said:


> I no longer want these tubes(Foss, Eclipse, etc.)....I'm very satisfied with Stans NoTubes.
> 
> Nino, you just about ruined your credibility by posting that useless thread in January...


Huh? What has some waiting to do with credibility? It's not even my product i'm talking about. Anyway - just wait....


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

nino said:


> Huh? What has some waiting to do with credibility? It's not even my product i'm talking about. Anyway - just wait....


 Funny you say that... Some time ago about the yumeya cableset, which didn't toke that long to get out by the way...



nino said:


> 4. oh - Shimano has you waiting too?


 But hey! To each their own. :thumbsup:


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Zachariah said:


> I no longer want these tubes(Foss, Eclipse, etc.)....I'm very satisfied with Stans NoTubes.


I am switching to CaffeLatex brew for now - and will keep using regular tubes on a bike where I do not care about weight, puncture resistance and traction. If it lives to its promise of longer service over Stan's goop that would be nice.


----------



## amillmtb (Jun 24, 2005)

Curmy said:


> I am switching to CaffeLatex brew for now - and will keep using regular tubes on a bike where I do not care about weight, puncture resistance and traction. If it lives to its promise of longer service over Stan's goop that would be nice.


How you like that stuff? They just sent us a demo bottle, but we have not opened it yet.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

amillmtb said:


> How you like that stuff?


Do not know yet. I filled a tire that I scraped from old Stan's goop, and it holds air so far, which is hardly surprising. Did not try to do a fresh setup. I do expect it to work - real test would be in a couple months when I check how quickly it dries out. WIll need to check how well it seals.

The foaming concept did sound to me as an interesting idea so did the lack of ammonia.

Things that people do when there are no Eclipse or Foss tubes anywhere in sight.


----------



## G-Live (Jan 14, 2004)

amillmtb said:


> How you like that stuff? They just sent us a demo bottle, but we have not opened it yet.


GT from 29inches dot com raves about the caffelatex solution I believe.

G


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Batas said:


> Funny you say that... Some time ago about the yumeya cableset, which didn't toke that long to get out by the way...
> 
> But hey! To each their own. :thumbsup:


Eclipse is not Shimano,
And the Yumeya hasn't proven to be what you were looking for so you better stop this topic...

The Eclipse tubes are ready and perform (also in the worldcup!!) but the production method for mass-production is not finalized.That's it.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Nope. Yumeya are great, powercordz are not. You got it all wrong in the first place and kept charging.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

And now ? 3 months later...


----------



## jmartpr (Jun 16, 2008)

We received an e-mail recently that the first batch would be ready by mid-october...will see as the product is well behind schedule. I already had fogot about it!


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

I will get them in 10 days!!!!! They sent me them few days ago 
But sad is that they will weight about 125g - i got this info. I Ordered lighter versions already, but will not get them before march.

I will test those ones and we will see.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

125g


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

soo? i will get in the near future tubes below 80g. - they said that it is hard to do safety tube about 65g ( they told me they can do it, no problem, but it won't pass safety demands) 

that's why eclipse still has a problem At least i will have them - and what about Eclipse???


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> soo? i will get in the near future tubes below 80g. - they said that it is hard to do safety tube about 65g ( they told me they can do it, no problem, but it won't pass safety demands)
> 
> that's why eclipse still has a problem At least i will have them - and what about Eclipse???


They say....they say a lot it seems yet tubes are 125g (or even 148g like we saw elsewhere)

Anyway - i don't care too much for tubes this heavy.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

we will see what new year brings

Up till i know for sure that i have nice 125g tubes, and Eclipse 65g is still a myth.

anyway i don't want to argue - it's obvius that 65g tube which is bombproof is better than 125g, but there is no 65g at the moment.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> 125g


So? If that is as robust as a 200g tube, or much more robust then a typical 120 - 140g light tube, what is so funny about that?

I forgot - are Eclipse shipping anything? Not hard to do a one off lightweight product - get back to us when they have a mass production running.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> get back to us when they have a mass production running.


rest assured i will !

I don't care about 125g tubes even if they are as durable as a 200g one (not that i have ever found a 200g to be more durable anyway...)

But i would NEVER put this much weight on my wheels!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> rest assured i will !


Thank you, I hope it will less then another year.



nino said:


> I don't care about 125g tubes even if they are as durable as a 200g one (not that i have ever found a 200g to be more durable anyway...)
> 
> But i would NEVER put this much weight on my wheels!


I will, and I guess so will a majority of users who now use ~140g lightweight tubes. Lighter then a tubeless ready tire and sealant. I would not ride lightweight tires anymore, enough experimentation, I am above 85kg and there is a lot of rocks and fast descends around here. Not that it matters much to me - last Saturday I had identical lap times on a 20lb hardtail with 2.1 tires, and on 26lb full suspension I switched to after 4 hours, setup with 2.25 heavy tires. For me it is not about a 100g on the wheels, especially on a very rocky course.

If this new material indeed protects against flats, that is a very nice alternative to sealant. Nothing funny about that weight whatsoever. If they do get it down to ~80g for a different version as they say, then even under 60g Eclipse tubes (or whatever the final production weight would it be) will not be as enticing, especially as it will most likely be seriously overpriced.


----------



## alm80 (Jun 16, 2006)

nino said:


> They say....they say a lot it seems yet tubes are 125g (or even 148g like we saw elsewhere)
> 
> Anyway - i don't care too much for tubes this heavy.


For a guy who keeps repeating how much he doesn't care for / about for something, you sure do post alot in a thread about it. :skep:


----------



## reformed roadie (Mar 30, 2008)

Curmy said:


> I will, and I guess so will a majority of users who now use ~140g lightweight tubes. Lighter then a tubeless ready tire and sealant. I would not ride lightweight tires anymore, enough experimentation, I am above 85kg and there is a lot of rocks and fast descends around here. Not that it matters much to me - last Saturday I had identical lap times on a 20lb hardtail with 2.1 tires, and on 26lb full suspension I switched to after 4 hours, setup with 2.25 heavy tires. For me it is not about a 100g on the wheels, especially on a very rocky course.


EXACTLY!!!!
The heavier bike is faster. A lot of people swear they are faster on their super light hardtail...and that may be true on a smooth, buff course. (Where's the fun in that? Go road race.)
But they only feel faster because they are bouncing around, with less control.
Suspension performance trumps lightweight on all but the smoothest, less technical course.

I know I'll catch flack, since this is a weight-weenie forum, but the truth can hurt.
When they start having races where you show up and put your bike on the scale...:thumbsup:


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

alm80 said:


> For a guy who keeps repeating how much he doesn't care for / about for something, you sure do post alot in a thread about it. :skep:


He needs to derail every post that is not part of his agenda.

I'm all for Nino posting interesting weight weenie news, sharing ideas, but queer'n out other User's posts is really Trashy.:yesnod:


----------



## SmilMick (Apr 9, 2006)

reformed roadie said:


> EXACTLY!!!!
> The heavier bike is faster. A lot of people swear they are faster on their super light hardtail...and that may be true on a smooth, buff course. (Where's the fun in that? Go road race.)
> But they only feel faster because they are bouncing around, with less control.
> Suspension performance trumps lightweight on all but the smoothest, less technical course.
> ...


My times on a 24lb hardtail and a 30lb enduro are the same. Like you stated though, the hardtail is closer to its handling/traction limits and it makes it more exiting and risky. I ride that 24lb like a bat out of hell though. In fact, I get tossed over the bars more on my hardtail simply because its so easy to go beyond its capabilities on the trails that I know like the back of my hand. My full squish takes it all in stride and begs for more but its not as exciting.

I like playing the weight game because its something my legs appreciate, but the pseudo mountain biker weight weenies that often frequent this forum arent riding to test their capabilities. They are spending money and getting exercise. Im 135lbs and have enough problems with durability in wheels and frames. I cant imagine how dainty some of the 165-200lb dudes with 20lb bikes must ride. Whats the point?

b!tching aside, if these tubes were to offer more flexibility of the casing than a standard tube without sacrificing DURABILITY then I would be allllllll over it.

What kind of size range could we expect and how strict are the limitations? I would assume its pretty critical to stay well within the tubes intended range. More so than a tube.


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

snowdrifter said:


> He needs to derail every post that is not part of his agenda.
> 
> I'm all for Nino posting interesting weight weenie news, sharing ideas, but queer'n out other User's posts is really Trashy.:yesnod:


You nailed it :thumbsup: It's all about Nino's ego...​


----------



## reformed roadie (Mar 30, 2008)

SmilMick - I'm with you. I have a light XC FS bike that I tend to ride more like an All Mountain bike. 
Re: the tubes, I think the ability to easily swap treads for whatever terrain / conditions is what I'd like most. That and durability w/ low - but not silly low - pressure.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

SmilMick said:


> I cant imagine how dainty some of the 165-200lb dudes with 20lb bikes must ride. Whats the point?


Nah, ~20lb is not too fragile. Gets you a durable titanium frame, reasonable wheelset with no weight limit and somewhat sensible ~2.1 tires.. And no extra funky carbon bits anywhere. About a gear faster uphill, and a gear slower downhill then on a FS for me.. Different kind of fun.



SmilMick said:


> b!tching aside, if these tubes were to offer more flexibility of the casing than a standard tube without sacrificing DURABILITY then I would be allllllll over it.


I am itching to test those, or Eclipse tubes for this whole year now.


----------



## alm80 (Jun 16, 2006)

tehan said:


> we will see what new year brings
> 
> Up till i know for sure that i have nice 125g tubes, and Eclipse 65g is still a myth.
> 
> anyway i don't want to argue - it's obvius that 65g tube which is bombproof is better than 125g, but there is no 65g at the moment.


Exactly, tangibility trumps ideology any day in most people's book.

Now where can i get my hands on these 125g, highly puncture resistant tubes.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

We have more real weights:
Foss tubes 2.3"-2,6": 185gr and 163gr.
Sounds like they have pretty good quality when a single tube differs that much...
http://www.light-bikes.de/forum/showpost.php?p=129175&postcount=128

Besides that that poor guy got the offer for free samples from Foss direct. He would just have to cover the shipping fees.....that cost him 150 Euro for 4 overweight inner tubes:thumbsup:

Now who's going to order more samples?

@tehan:
3 weeks ago you posted you would get some....so what's up?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Now who's going to order more samples?


Their quality is infinitely better then Eclipse - that is not available in any form or shape. Vaporware and hot air from Nino as usual.

It is easy to claim a light product - that you are not able to actually produce.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

May i repeat the initial Foss statement which drew the attention:
"The weight of our product the EFT is depending on the size, around 60g (20/25C-32C) – 120g (26/2.3-2.6) "

Am i having serious eye-problems or is that a misprint of some form? C'mon-they are not even worth to be mentioned in this forum at all.

It is easy to claim a light product - that you are not able to actually produce----very true


----------



## jmartpr (Jun 16, 2008)

We have tested the road version.....80 grams
But the product still need lots of developemnt...out of 8, 7 developed serious air leakage in the valve or tube union.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

If Eclipse fails to release their "much touted" tubes by January, 2010..then our friend Nino successfully got us all salivating for one year over absolutely nothing.


----------



## yellowbook (Aug 21, 2005)

This feels like GT5 for the PS3.....


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> It is easy to claim a light product - that you are not able to actually produce----very true


So what is the production weight of Eclipse tubes?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> So what is the production weight of Eclipse tubes?


The weight is still unchanged. But it seems obvious that Eclipse has no hurry.

@tehan: 
where's the news?


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

nino said:


> The weight is still unchanged. But it seems obvious that Eclipse has no hurry.
> 
> @tehan:
> where's the news?


What's obvious is that Eclipse is unable to mass produce the magic tubes.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sfer1 said:


> What's obvious is that Eclipse is unable to mass produce the magic tubes.


just wait


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> The weight is still unchanged. But it seems obvious that Eclipse has no hurry.


You mean it is still the hot air as it was for the last year? There is no production version.

Kinda of sad how you do not see how obnoxious is your criticism of a competing product.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Kinda of sad how you do not see how obnoxious is your criticism of a competing product.


Well- i see it kind of the other way round:
You guys were full of good words for the Foss tubes when they are delivering even later (remember they were presented 1 year earlier in 2008) and are MUCH,MUCH overweight AND on top have quality issues as well....

Eclipse has just 1 problem and that was ME telling about them too early. They didn't show up the tubes anywhere, they don't had a press release or a booth at a bike show...nada. It was just me beeing unpatient in letting out the news too early.


----------



## kiatkiat (Sep 21, 2008)

Has anyone try this tube?

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=931


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

kiatkiat said:


> Has anyone try this tube?
> 
> http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=931


Hello.

Yes I have greenlite tubes since 3 years. Hold air longtime.


----------



## kiatkiat (Sep 21, 2008)

Thanks, while waiting for those super tubes to start production. I think I will get those already in-production first


----------



## mattkock (Mar 19, 2009)

I still run the Performance branded Forte' Lunar Lite 95g tubes on my 14.65lb Ti SS and I've only had one flat this year. I will definitely be running the Eclipse tubes whenever they become available on all of my Singlespeeds including my soon (March 2010) to be built 14.4lb. Niner Carbon Air 9 Singlespeed. I've built this bike on paper with a few different build specs and it's been between 13.97lbs and 14.84lbs. We shall see in March!:thumbsup:


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

nino said:


> just wait


Another 8 months?

Is your friend from Eclipse handicapped? Even if he was hand making the magic tubes one by one, he should have finished thousands by now.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

I got them - it took me soo long, because my "customs department" !"£$$ charged me for my 10 samples and i had to wait for them.

I will post some pictures this week. Weight is confirmed 125g. tube is quite nice - but what i don't like is method of "gluing" 2 ends of this tube together. They told me already that they are changing it now, but i got those "uglier"tubes.

Performance- rode on them only 30-40miles and they holds up till now.

Nino- is there same problem with Eclipse tubes : while influating foss tubes outside the tire, the tube is soo unregular with dimension- like after hiting the bump with regular tube you have such "bubble".


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> I got them - it took me soo long, because my "customs department" !"£$$ charged me for my 10 samples and i had to wait for them.
> 
> I will post some pictures this week. Weight is confirmed 125g. tube is quite nice - but what i don't like is method of "gluing" 2 ends of this tube together. They told me already that they are changing it now, but i got those "uglier"tubes.
> 
> ...


No- i already told you they have nothing in common other than beeing bicycle tubes.

Also: which size tubes did you get?


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

tehan said:


> I got them - it took me soo long, because my "customs department" !"£$$ charged me for my 10 samples and i had to wait for them.
> 
> I will post some pictures this week. Weight is confirmed 125g. tube is quite nice - but what i don't like is method of "gluing" 2 ends of this tube together. They told me already that they are changing it now, but i got those "uglier"tubes.
> 
> ...


Same problem about Panaracer Greenlite ?


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

1.75 

I still think it is same material used to produce both tubes, soo i'm pretty sure that same thing will ocure in E. tubes. Can you post the picture of inflated E. tube for eg to 10-20psi ?


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

1.75 - but they stretch much.

I still think it is same material used to produce both tubes, soo i'm pretty sure that same thing will ocure in E. tubes. Can you post the picture of inflated E. tube for eg to 10-20psi ?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> 1.75 - but they stretch much.
> 
> I still think it is same material used to produce both tubes, soo i'm pretty sure that same thing will ocure in E. tubes. Can you post the picture of inflated E. tube for eg to 10-20psi ?


ok - so that's the "slim" size for MTBs weighing already 125g...


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

I have to agree with the vaporware promoter on this one. 125g for a 26x1.75 tube, isn't light.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

remember it is still prototype. They promised me to sent in march tube below 100g in 1.75. - anyway i use such size with my 2.2 race king tyre and it works!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> remember it is still prototype. They promised me to sent in march tube below 100g in 1.75. - anyway i use such size with my 2.2 race king tyre and it works!


Even if it's still a prototype it is still overweight. When they say they will offer you a 100g version it means no other that they have to reduce the material thickness by 20%...and 100g is still overweight and with the thinner material i'm not so sure if all their puncture-resistance claims are still true...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Even if it's still a prototype it is still overweight. When they say they will offer you a 100g version it means no other that they have to reduce the material thickness by 20%...and 100g is still overweight and with the thinner material i'm not so sure if all their puncture-resistance claims are still true...


And we are not sure that anything that you claimed is true. Eclipse is clearly not able to produce anything so far. Anybody can hand made a few prototypes - at least Foss is gearing up for mass production, not one off vaporware.

125g, if it is robust, is light enough. Not everybody is riding on manicured bike paths on a fragile bike.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> And we are not sure that anything that you claimed is true. Eclipse is clearly not able to produce anything so far. Anybody can hand made a few prototypes - at least Foss is gearing up for mass production, not one off vaporware.
> 
> 125g, if it is robust, is light enough. Not everybody is riding on manicured bike paths on a fragile bike.


No- it is not light enough when they announced 120g for real size MTB tubes. 1,75" is a miniscule size and not what most need. Besides that they are 1 year in advance yet still show up with "prototypes" only and they even suffer from bad quality and overweight. I don't see what should make them any better.

Eclipse just wants to make sure they get their things straight before ruining their reputation (just like Foss is doing now). In the meantime they could have done hundreds of tubes...they have no hurry though. The ones that they did are all running still. And that's over 1 year now !

On the other hand - Foss "prototypes" got sent out just now so durability and performance is still unknown. All we know by now is that their weight-claims are completely false.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> No- it is not light enough when they announced 120g for real size MTB tubes.


What part of pre-production sample did not you get?

And, yes, it is light enough.

Get back to us when your friend is actually capable of producing anything. Your guerrilla marketing efforts and FUD about competition are pathetic. Foss never had been catering to overpriced weenie market anyway.


----------



## Kwik (Aug 7, 2007)

My michelin aircomp latex 26x2.1 weight 134 gram, and have a perfect punture resistence. Only you have to re inflate them every ride.

So 120 gram ain't very light, only if they were better then the michelin it would be interesting to use.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

i used some time ago latex tubes and can say it is similar feeling to those foss tubes.

I'm out of home at the moment but to the end of this week will post pictures of those foss tubes. 

If someone intrested i have 2 tubes left (26x1.75 but can stretch to 2.1 easly) soo can share (unfortunately after tax and customs they are not cheapest:/) live in UK.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

tehan said:


> i used some time ago latex tubes and can say it is similar feeling to those foss tubes.
> 
> I'm out of home at the moment but to the end of this week will post pictures of those foss tubes.
> 
> If someone intrested i have 2 tubes left (26x1.75 but can stretch to 2.1 easly) soo can share (unfortunately after tax and customs they are not cheapest:/) live in UK.


Hello.

Where can I buy EFT tubes ? I live in France and Finland.

Thanks.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

I've ridden skinny tubes of all kinds, latex and butyl, they're all a trade off, less material = more pinch flats and punctures. 

Don't kid yourself.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

this tube is not skinny. 
For eg Bontrager mtb RXL tube is 0.6mm thick, and those tubes look pretty the same thickness - that is why they weight 120g instead 60g
(skinny is when the tube is below 0.45mm like Btr XXXL)

Nino how thick are those Eclipse tubes??? and i still didn't get that picture with inflated tube outside the tire from you. Can You provide us with such picture to confirm your words???


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> this tube is not skinny.
> For eg Bontrager mtb RXL tube is 0.6mm thick, and those tubes look pretty the same thickness - that is why they weight 120g instead 60g
> (skinny is when the tube is below 0.45mm like Btr XXXL)
> 
> Nino how thick are those Eclipse tubes??? and i still didn't get that picture with inflated tube outside the tire from you. Can You provide us with such picture to confirm your words???


The Eclipse are very thin. But the material is factors more resistant than anything out there. No better pictures since mine are all mounted.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

it really look like thinner material. I will ask foss to produce for me such thin tubes - will test it.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

I see Nino can not resist plastering the wares he peddles all over the place. Would look less stupid if those were actually available.


----------



## crankmeister (Sep 4, 2008)

Curmy and Nino seem to have a few little issues i wonder if they will be exchanging christmas cards this year lol 
So if nino sells lightweight parts where is the website so i can view the goods?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Curmy said:


> I see Nino can not resist plastering the wares he peddles all over the place.


Um, how is he peddling them when they're not, obviously, available? I know you like ragging on him, but this doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> Um, how is he peddling them when they're not, obviously, available? I know you like ragging on him, but this doesn't even make sense.


Sure it does not. But he still can not resist badmouthing anything that competes, or will compete with what he sells and what his friends makes (or trying to make).


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Sure it does not. But he still can not resist badmouthing anything that competes, or will compete with what he sells and what his friends makes (or trying to make).


There's nothing to be bad mouthing about here: the numbers and reports speak for themselves. It's YOU that brought up this thread and it was you that tried to make people believe it was some sort of competition for Eclipse in the other thread. Well - it turns out this isn't the case.

Anyway - this is the save some weight forum. Initial reports promised a lightweight inner tube but this is obviously not the case. As i mentioned already these tubes don't belong in this forum anyway. Tubes with size 26x 1,35"-1,75" (what size is this anyway??) weighing 125g for most aren't to be considered light.


----------



## Slim83 (Nov 2, 2006)

> I see Nino can not resist plastering the wares he peddles all over the place. Would look less stupid if those were actually available.


I am pretty sure nino was asked to post pics of the tubes not once but several times.

Nino how long have you been running them? And how many flats if any have you had riding them? This would be a great option for me if I would not have to worry about flats.


----------



## alm80 (Jun 16, 2006)

crankmeister said:


> Curmy and Nino seem to have a few little issues i wonder if they will be exchanging christmas cards this year lol
> So if nino sells lightweight parts where is the website so i can view the goods?


Don't quote me on this but i do believe that the powers that be on this site required him to either pay for an ad or remove the link in his signature.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Slim83 said:


> I am pretty sure nino was asked to post pics of the tubes not once but several times.
> 
> Nino how long have you been running them? And how many flats if any have you had riding them? This would be a great option for me if I would not have to worry about flats.


There is a separate infomercial topic just for that. Search is your friend. It has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> There's nothing to be bad mouthing about here: the numbers and reports speak for themselves. It's YOU that brought up this thread and it was you that tried to make people believe it was some sort of competition for Eclipse in the other thread. Well - it turns out this isn't the case.


You are a shill.


----------



## louisssss (Jun 24, 2009)

nino needs to stop trolling these forums, maybe a vacation for his actions in this thread.
all he is doing is derailing. 

people come to these forums to learn, not to hear bias opinions, when you obviously have a motive to make this foss product look bad (imo, it looks very good) and to promote your own favorite product. 

it sucks when beginners come to this forum and all they get are bought out responses from people who have an alternative motive other than to have an unbiased, unpaid for response.

___

back on topic, anybody know the stock weight of my Specialized tubes? they came on my RH SL Pro and had Fast Track 2.0 Tires on them.

if 125g is significantly (defined by me) lighter than my stock tubes, i will shoot for them.

what about a guess at a price per tube? can we hope ~$10 each or less?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

louisssss said:


> nino needs to stop trolling these forums, maybe a vacation for his actions in this thread.
> all he is doing is derailing.
> 
> people come to these forums to learn, not to hear bias opinions, when you obviously have a motive to make this foss product look bad (imo, it looks very good) and to promote your own favorite product.
> ...


Exactly you as a beginner learn that for the the miniscule size of 26x1,35-1,75" 125g is NOT light.

0815 inner tubes usually weigh 150-180g but those are also much bigger size.

Here's a listing with inner tubes sorted by weights:
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=innertubes&sortby=real

There's tons of lighter inner tubes available already,Conti,Schwalbe,Ritchey,Performance Lunarlites,Maxxis etcetc...and there's the Latex inner tubes from Michelin that also are in this region.

I personally see this just like someone would make a new thread about a new taiwanese suspension fork weighing 1700g. So what? there's already many,many lighters available----->wrong forum!


----------



## louisssss (Jun 24, 2009)

nino said:


> Exactly you as a beginner learn that for the the miniscule size of 26x1,35-1,75" 125g is NOT light.
> 
> 0815 inner tubes usually weigh 150-180g but those are also much bigger size.
> 
> ...


it looks like this tube is more than just lightweight, it has anti-puncture protection + is lightweight.

you need to stop spreading fud, bad-mouthing pre-production samples, and making your pre-production sample look all-mighty.

its like taking beta software and crying about it because you installed it and relied on it for your critical work. then crying about it when it doesn't work.

they were off by 5g, do you know how minuscule that is? their target was 120g, if its 125g, i'm not going to count them out of the game.

let me try to play your own game, your lightweight tube looks like a balloon, maybe its even thinner than one. it looks like it'd puncture if i dropped a quarter on it. @ 55g, i wouldn't even care because i'd likely have to walk home.


----------



## Slim83 (Nov 2, 2006)

Curmy said:


> There is a separate infomercial topic just for that. Search is your friend. It has nothing to do with this thread.


I know how to use the search feature, but nino is the only person with info on these tubes because eclipse seems to only be able to make 2 a year.

There are a bunch of times I don't agree with the way nino does things, but, he was asked by another member of this thread for pictures which he posted. I am interested in both brands of tubes that is why I am on this thread. It seems to right now both companies are having their issues and when they get it right it will be better for all of us because competition will drive the prices down.

This thread has everything to do with both brands of tubes, as in other threads people compare products and if there is possibly something better it will be known.

As for you Curmy, you should look at having that stick surgically removed from you ass, after all this is a weight weenie forum and you could easily loose a pound or more.

I seem to recall someone asking what is the best carbon frame and someone posted titanium. (you know who you are) So lets not talk about what should and should not be posted in these threads.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

louisssss said:


> their target was 120g, if its 125g, i'm not going to count them out of the game.


no - their target was:
60g (20/25C-32C) - 120g (26/*2.3-2.6*)

Now we found out that this bigger size weighs 163-185g and the super-skinny size of 1.35"-1,75" is still 125g

that's roughly *+50% *- BIG difference!


----------



## louisssss (Jun 24, 2009)

okay, so they're off. what are you crying about? you sound awfully defensive about a product that is so bad that it is in a whole other league thats behind your eclipse ****.

you sound awfully scared that this product will be better than yours. it makes me more confident in choosing (maybe) this product when it comes out because a "lightweight guru" such as yourself is so scared that this tube is better than your 50g tube.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Slim83 said:


> I know how to use the search feature, but nino is the only person with info on these tubes because eclipse seems to only be able to make 2 a year.


Then why did not you use that search function to find Nino's advertisement thread to ask question about his prototypes?

He just can't stop blabbing about a pre-production version of a different product. It provides no information.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

nino take in account that this skinny tube stretch to 2.2!!!! without the problem!! because they are over 0.7mm thick. Soo compared to skinny eclipse which are signifficaly thiner!! you have to use proper size but with those foss tubes you dont

This tube is soo thick that it is almost bomb proof!! that is why they are haveir than Eclipse - taht is the only difference. Foss wrote me that they want to produce bomb proof tubes with resonable weight instead ultra light, weak tubes. 

I found that soo thick wall on foss tubes is really great.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> nino take in account that this skinny tube stretch to 2.2!!!! without the problem!! because they are over 0.7mm thick. Soo compared to skinny eclipse which are signifficaly thiner!! you have to use proper size but with those foss tubes you dont
> 
> This tube is soo thick that it is almost bomb proof!! that is why they are haveir than Eclipse - taht is the only difference. Foss wrote me that they want to produce bomb proof tubes with resonable weight instead ultra light, weak tubes.
> 
> I found that soo thick wall on foss tubes is really great.


That's why they offer different sizes...

In the past i also used 49g Conti Supersonic road inner tubes in my MTB tires...Go figure-those too strech this much!


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

louisssss said:


> okay, so they're off. what are you crying about? you sound awfully defensive about a product that is so bad that it is in a whole other league thats behind your eclipse ****.
> 
> you sound awfully scared that this product will be better than yours. it makes me more confident in choosing (maybe) this product when it comes out because a "lightweight guru" such as yourself is so scared that this tube is better than your 50g tube.


Louisssss, you need to relax. Nino is right in that a 125g tube really isn't very light weight, and as such the reason to have a thread devoted to one in the weight weenie forum is questionable. I also question if a new rider and a new member on MTBR should be so quick to vehemently rag on a very long time contributor to this forum.


----------



## Slim83 (Nov 2, 2006)

Curmy said:


> Then why did not you use that search function to find Nino's advertisement thread to ask question about his prototypes?
> 
> He just can't stop blabbing about a pre-production version of a different product. It provides no information.


I used the search function and looked over that thread and saw it quickly degrade to a retarded argument over who has what patents and who invented the inner tube much like the direction this thread is heading in.

I asked a simple question about a tube, I would have asked it about the Foss but someone already posted on it. I was curious on what Nino had to say because it would be nice to have some feedback on both tubes after people have ridden them for a while.

Also, most of us on here have been around long enough to know when only one person has a product and they are directly related to the company producing the product the views of that product might be skewed. I take what he says for a grain of salt and move on, but the info is still good to have.

Just relax and go back to arguing about who created the rubber and owns the patents or whatever floats your boat. When someone has used the Foss tubes for a while I will ask them the same question.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

what is the cross section of Eclipse tube?? (width)
I'll measure mine, but am almost sure that there is not big difference while watching your photos.


----------



## crankmeister (Sep 4, 2008)

Oh a new comer to this forum, reading this threading would be inclined to think its members are a bunch of jumped up chimps arguing over a piece of rubber / latex or whatever there made of .i think its all getiing out of hand now.we all want whats best for our bikes and our hobby....so lets all try to pull in the same direction.yes its a weight weenie section.although not everything needs to be the ultimate in lightness just light.and reliable,remember that there are new peaple coming to the weight weenie forum every day so lets help it grow!
And if you cant manage that just book a flight meet up and raise your dukes boys and be done with this boring escapade.
good evening and good night just in case you dont reply before then


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Why Foss's URL is not available since 2-4 days ?


----------



## jmartpr (Jun 16, 2008)

The FOSS tubes wont stretch that much...you really need to use the correct size for your tire. The material feels and looks very strongh. We are still waiting for a response on how they will fix the air leaks in the tube junction. So far our MTB tubes have worked but the Road tubes all have fail probably because of the higher pressure


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Is the EFT definitively stopped ?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

FOSS website said:


> 2008/7/10 Foss Company apologizes for the late of Foss EFT.
> 
> We are improving the performance of EFT; it is going to take some time to make EFT perfect.
> 
> ...


Looks like this new material is not easy to reliably produce, be it in the Eclipse hand made uber-light incarnation, or FOSS's regular thickness version.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Curmy said:


> Looks like this new material is not easy to reliably produce, be it in the Eclipse hand made uber-light incarnation, or FOSS's regular thickness version.


Has anyone confirmed that it is, in fact, the same material?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> Has anyone confirmed that it is, in fact, the same material?


Have not seen that. They do sound awfully similar - and apparently have some similar problems. We will see, I guess.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

And now. Why is it not available ? After 2 years.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Let's FORGET about all these "imaginary" superlight tubes...we all know tubeless is far superior. Close thread!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MTB for ever said:


> And now. Why is it not available ? After 2 years.


I guess mass production is a bitсh. Doubt they could have sold them for $80 a pop.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> oubt they could have sold them for $80 a pop.


They do and will...just wait.
There was ONE tube with a failure in France which caused a production halt.Eclipse can't afford to have a potential production problem when they ask a steep price.All tubes had passed rigorous testing before they got sold yet there still was one faulty unit so the production process got refined even more and you will soon see the tubes back on sale again.

As mentioned before the production process for the Eclipse tube is really intense and a lot of hand labour is involved. They just have to find ways to eliminate any possible failures in manufacturing so that the consumer gets a perfect item.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> As mentioned before the production process for the Eclipse tube is really intense and a lot of hand labour is involved. They just have to find ways to eliminate any possible failures in manufacturing so that the consumer gets a perfect item.


I was talking about Foss - my assumption is that they wanted to set up a production of that new material - without a goal of boutique weight and corresponding price. I would guess that is an entirely different goal that Eclipse has.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I was talking about Foss - my assumption is that they wanted to set up a production of that new material - without a goal of boutique weight and corresponding price. I would guess that is an entirely different goal that Eclipse has.


At 80$ a pop i sure think you were talking about Eclipse.

Anyway - They sure have a different goal and that's why i still wonder this thread is alive in the weight-weenie section of mtbr-forums???


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> At 80$ a pop i sure think you were talking about Eclipse.
> 
> Anyway - They sure have a different goal and that's why i still wonder this thread is alive in the weight-weenie section of mtbr-forums???


I was talking about Foss not being able to offer whatever they can mass produce at such a price - as it would not be a boutique weight weenie product by a long stretch.

This thread is alive here since this new material has a potential of increased reliability - DH tubes durability at XC weight in this case. Would not mind that at all. We still have no idea though what weight they will be able to mass produce though - and where it will end up. Hand made $80 tubes are not a item for a widespread use.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I was talking about Foss not being able to offer whatever they can mass produce at such a price - as it would not be a boutique weight weenie product by a long stretch.
> 
> This thread is alive here since this new material has a potential of increased reliability - DH tubes durability at XC weight in this case. Would not mind that at all. We still have no idea though what weight they will be able to mass produce though - and where it will end up. Hand made $80 tubes are not a item for a widespread use.


well-DH durability and XC weight...both seems streched here:

DH durability so far is only announced but not verified.
And XC-weight for me is definitely lower than the numbers we have seen so far.

BTW-Euro prices for the Eclipse are 55 Euro which includes 19% TAX which you don't have to pay...so we are looking at a price of around 60$ per tube.Just to get the numbers a bit straight.

Me on the other hand i have no doubts that the Eclipse tube will be a widely used item once the production is up. For the amount of money there is no other item that saves this much weight while offering better performance in all aspects compared to comparing products. But only time will tell.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> For the amount of money there is no other item that saves this much weight while offering better performance in all aspects compared to comparing products. But only time will tell.


Wrong.

Tubeless is lighter, cheaper, and if you're not a moron, setup is no big deal.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Tubeless is lighter, cheaper, and if you're not a moron, setup is no big deal.


Wrong-it's not lighter and it's not really a comparable item.I was thinking about other inner tubes...

If you're not a moron you know exactly that certain tires are a pain to seal, that a lot of people stay away of the tubeless-craze because of all the hassle that is involved, that tire changes are a pain, that you better have a compressor at home, etcetc...

I used tubelesskits longer than anybody in here, i really appreciate the benefits once a tire is sealed but sometimes this can be just a pain and a mess ( those using Conti Race King Supersonics know what i am talking about for example...).

Anyway - for areas with lots of spines there is no better than a well prepped set of wheels with sealant! But for the vast majority of riders the Eclipse will cover all the benefits of a tubeless setup without the involved hassle.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> well-DH durability and XC weight...both seems streched here:
> 
> DH durability so far is only announced but not verified.
> And XC-weight for me is definitely lower than the numbers we have seen so far.


Thank you Captain Obvious. Yes, those tube are not in mass production yet. We know that. Anything else?

Until this new material is on some mass production line, we can only wait for its benefits to be widely available.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Is it a joke ? It is not available.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MTB for ever said:


> Is it a joke ? It is not available.


Yep, not available. I doubt it is a joke though. Eclipse stopped even their hand made production as well.

Something not right with this material.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Yep, not available. I doubt it is a joke though. Eclipse stopped even their hand made production as well.
> 
> Something not right with this material.


huh?? I have no idea about Foss....BUT maybe you haven't seen these pics posted just lately by "Ole" and "r2-bikes"...i'd say this pretty much looks like Eclipse is into production, right?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

..dup


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> huh??... .i'd say this pretty much looks like Eclipse is into production, right?





> 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.


Not available until midyear means production is up, Nino?



nino said:


> 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.


So is it up, or did you lie in the other thread just a week ago?



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.


 I just quoted you, and you barged in objecting. Kind of odd.  Why do you argue with yourself?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Interesting - looked on the web again, maybe something moved with those guys, found a Russian version of their website.. Nothing new there.. Claim on the page is that they are 30% lighter and 70% stronger then a regular tube. No idea what "regular" means in this context and how they measure "stronger".

https://fosseft.ru/products.html


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

I understand nothing. Why they have a russian version for their website ? Is it available or not ? Or only by "black market".


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MTB for ever said:


> I understand nothing.


http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translat....ru/products.html&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Nothing new or interesting..


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Have they mass production difficult ?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Not available until midyear means production is up, Nino?
> 
> So is it up, or did you lie in the other thread just a week ago?
> 
> I just quoted you, and you barged in objecting. Kind of odd.  Why do you argue with yourself?


As you can see the tubes are available NOW. But production is still rather slow.What is it that you don't understand?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> As you can see the tubes are available NOW. But production is still rather slow.What is it that you don't understand?


I do not understand why you are contradicting yourself.



nino said:


> They are still trying to get the production up





nino said:


> Eclipse decided to stop delivering small quantities


Just could not resist posting pictures of your friend's product? Do not you have a separate marketing thread for that?

If you wish to correct *your* mistake - you can do it there - this thread does not need your advertising. Just go in your advertising thread and post - "Eclipse has that product available now and production is at full swing, I was wrong a week ago to suggest otherwise.". And let people comment at that. I am sure many will be glad to hear that - myself included - as I would be happy to buy those items once the real world testing confirms durability and quality claims.

I do not have any insider knowledge, just discussing a topic of interest.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Do not you have a separate marketing thread for that?


I just posted as a reply to your post here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6822104&postcount=133


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> I just posted as a reply to your post here:
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6822104&postcount=133


Yeah, sure. Full spread of marketing material for a product you promote was also required. I still do not understand which one of you posts is correct - as they are mutually exclusive. Never mind, it is not relevant here anyway.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

lol you 2 are funny. 
so what's the weight and price of the foss tubes?


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

Now avaible here Bicimarket , 115g +- 10% for 15e .
I can see how many people buys them until realize you can go lighter many other ways , i will not try this tube coz im not blind about its weight .


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> Now avaible here Bicimarket , 115g +- 10% for 15e .
> I can see how many people buys them until realize you can go lighter many other ways , i will not try this tube coz im not blind about its weight .


If it is indeed 115g at 1.95-2.25" then it would be better then Aircomp latex for 2.2" tire I use (~140g), and I had bad luck with lighter butyl. Price is in the latex ballpark. If it is indeed more robust, that would be a nice option to have. Not the 170g as was claimed here. Would be nice to actually test...


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

You just wait 3-4 days to see verified weights i bet there wil not be 115g tubes and a lot +130g .
Its not an option for me any of thouse tubes , i prefer going tubeless . Ninos talking about some tires need tubes but solution is easy dont use them .
There are people that is confusing about this forum weightweenies or others like this means and thats a lot frustrating for anyone that understand it , there are way many post claiming to be talking about light components . This is one confusing post , imo .


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

xcatax said:


> You just wait 3-4 days to see verified weights i bet there wil not be 115g tubes and a lot +130g .
> Its not an option for me any of thouse tubes , i prefer going tubeless . Ninos talking about some tires need tubes but solution is easy dont use them .


Even though I run a tubeless setup with sealant, I very much like the specifications of these Foss tubes for the spares (1 spare for standard XC races, sometimes 2 for long endurance/marathon races) that I carry. The spares I carry now are generally heavier tubes anyhow, since if I have to do a flat repair in a race, I want it to be the last and only flat repair for that event. If the Foss tubes are equally or more reliable than my heavy spares, then it is a good weight savings for me at a very good cost of grams<->cost, when taking whole "system" of rider + bike + gear into account.

The Eclipse tubes don't seem to have enough integrity (too fragile) for carrying around in my bag, or strapped to bike for extended periods of time. It's not very good in racing to go to repair a flat with a tube, then discover your spare has been damaged and won't hold air.


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

Circlip said:


> Even though I run a tubeless setup with sealant, I very much like the specifications of these Foss tubes for the spares (1 spare for standard XC races, sometimes 2 for long endurance/marathon races) that I carry. The spares I carry now are generally heavier tubes anyhow, since if I have to do a flat repair in a race, I want it to be the last and only flat repair for that event. If the Foss tubes are equally or more reliable than my heavy spares, then it is a good weight savings for me at a very good cost of grams<->cost, when taking whole "system" of rider + bike + gear into account.
> 
> The Eclipse tubes don't seem to have enough integrity (too fragile) for carrying around in my bag, or strapped to bike for extended periods of time. It's not very good in racing to go to repair a flat with a tube, then discover your spare has been damaged and won't hold air.


 ... and your rply is talking about materials that arent mounted in the bike maybe you should post this in XC forum .


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> You just wait 3-4 days to see verified weights i bet there wil not be 115g tubes and a lot +130g .


Maybe, or even quite possibly. But my Aircomps do not weight the claimed weight either. Until a lot of people ride this new material, we just do not know. Nothing bad with guys trying to offer yet another choice. If they are no more robust then latex or polyurethane, then they are indeed pointless.



xcatax said:


> ... and your rply is talking about materials that arent mounted in the bike maybe you should post this in XC forum .


I am not sure I am following your objection here. A heavy spare tube is just another weight attached to a bike.

Of course you take it off for a photoshoot, and if that is the only thing you ever care about, I would understand. But I usually regard tools and spares - and shoes etc. as part of the bike to be a weenie about..


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

ok lets try this ,
Noone post his bike with the things you try add a bike , mate its only a bike you make photo and post here . You dont add shoes , bag , water inside the bottle , tools .. etc . You ride with thouse things but thats apart from the bike if you ride tubeless who cares about you ride with 1 tube or 2 tubes in ur bag ?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> ok lets try this ,
> Noone post his bike with the things you try add a bike , mate its only a bike you make photo and post here . You dont add shoes , bag , water inside the bottle , tools .. etc . You ride with thouse things but thats apart from the bike if you ride tubeless who cares about you ride with 1 tube or 2 tubes in ur bag ?


Two 150g tubes in the bag have exactly the same effect as a 300g heavier seatpost or bottom bracket. More weight to push around for many many hours. It does add up just the same.

A reliable set of tubes that allows you to carry one spare for a 24h adventure race and not two saves you much more then fancy pulleys on your derailleur.

If you think people on this forum have it bad, you should see some of the mountaineering gear. Holes drilled in titanium sporks etc..


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

This is my bike , Do you see my shoes , bottle , 2x tubes , tools ..etc? ... No , because noone cares here ... its called offtopics . I hope images working for you


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> This is my bike , Do you see my shoes , bottle , 2x tubes , tools ..etc? ... No , because noone cares here ... its called offtopics . I hope images working for you


Most obviously, quite a lot of people here do care about tools(http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=607656), shoes (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=592573) , bottles, spare parts, packs(http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=513658), gloves(http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=524476), where to carry all that (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=485976). So your assertion seems to be baseless.

Circlip obviously cares, and have some very sound reasons to do that. I do not care about your nice bike on a picture or your color matching shirt, I care how much my not very fit legs of an office worker have to carry around for many hours when I get out for a race or two . Not everybody cares only about the showroom weight.


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

Curmy said:


> Most obviously, quite a lot of people here do care about tools(http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=607656), shoes (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=592573) , bottles, spare parts, packs(http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=513658), gloves(http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=524476), where to carry all that (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=485976). So your assertion seems to be baseless.
> 
> Circlip obviously cares, and have some very sound reasons to do that. I do not care about your bike on a picture, I care how much my not very fit legs of an office worker have to carry around for many hours when I get out for a race or two . Not everybody cares only about the showroom weight.


Oh sure you can make post about many things around this weightweenie world but its only *the bike* <---- Lightweight . The one thats on the pics without bottle , 2xwheels , a saddle etc . Dont try now to sell me the foss tube like spare thingie in my bag , i like others .


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> Oh sure you can make post about many things around this weightweenie world but its only *the bike* <---- Lightweight . The one thats on the pics without bottle , 2xwheels , a saddle etc . Dont try now to sell me the foss tube like spare thingie in my bag , i prefer others .


Your assertion seems to be unfounded. You could have also noticed that this thread is not about "the bike".

I am most definitely not trying to sell you anything whatsoever. That's nino's territory. For all I care you should ride your bike with a load of bricks in your pack.


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

Curmy said:


> Your assertion seems to be unfounded. You could have also noticed that this thread is not about "the bike".
> 
> I am most definitely not trying to sell you anything whatsoever. That's nino's territory. For all I care you should ride your bike with a load of bricks in your pack.


 This thread is about tubes and thats a bike component that people use in the bike , its in the photo , in the total weight only if you use to ride with tubes , agree please its not that hard :thumbsup:


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

My fathers had a little shop of fruits and vegetables in my village . 
Does my father try to only make profit selling good products or he did helps people nutrition to be better ? 
Maybe both , think about
Salu2 
Juan


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> This thread is about tubes and thats a bike component that people use in the bike , its in the photo , in the total weight only if you use to ride with tubes , agree please its not that hard :thumbsup:


I have no idea what a photo of your bike has to do with what Circlip, or myself carry during a race. Last I checked neither of us carried your bike with us, but we certainly carry spare tubes. You argumentation does seem bizarre. I guess I should leave that at that.



xcatax said:


> My fathers had a little shop of fruits and vegetables in my village .


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

xcatax said:


> ... and your rply is talking about materials that arent mounted in the bike maybe you should post this in XC forum .


If we're going strictly by the title of the forum, it isn't "light bikes" it's "weight weenies" so that can include all other gear we have to ride with, as evidenced by the many threads over the years asking about light weight shoes, tools, etc. that many forum regulars respond to.

There are some people who are concerned about ultimate light weight only (i.e. show bikes), and others who are concerned about light weight that is functional for a given purpose. Your purpose may be different than mine, but we are both still concerned with weight. World Cup downhill riders are notorious weight weenies even on bikes that are 35-40lbs. Being weight conscious isn't only for people with 17lb bikes. It's about being creative in pushing the limits of weight that will still meet your functional purpose.

In summary, I don't give a rat's ass about where you think I should be posting. Not interested in this discussion? Simple answer - get the hell out of the thread.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

xcatax said:


> This is my bike , Do you see my shoes , bottle , 2x tubes , tools ..etc? ... No , because noone cares here ... its called offtopics . I hope images working for you


Wha? We don't care about shoes? What's the point of spending money for light pedals if we're going to clip heavy shoes onto them?


----------



## OUTSIDER08 (Sep 30, 2008)

Here you have a pic. Pretty good weight IMO

Xcatax: Pero mira que te gusta tocar los cojones, colega


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

112 g. Wich size ?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MTB for ever said:


> 112 g. Which size ?


Also what version. Do we know by now that they ship "production" versions?


----------



## OUTSIDER08 (Sep 30, 2008)

The size is 26 x 1.95 - 2.25

There is no doubt it´s a production version, I´ve purchased the tube at a shop here in Spain www.bicimarket.com
It seems that the shop has bought a certain volume to FOSS, and then named "BMK" (I suppose those letters stands for BiciMarKet). Even they´ve used the pics of the FOSS´ website...


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

http://shop.bikeavenue.de/product_i...selbstheilend-26---Mountainbike-26x2-25-.html

and

http://www.actionsports.de/de/Kompo...Friendly-Tube-Schlauch-26x195-225::28827.html


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

112g is a very bad weight IMHO.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MaLoL said:


> 112g is a very bad weight IMHO.


Its an excellent weight. Better and cheaper then the latex tubes I am using. You are welcome to the $80 ones.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

My Performance Lunar Lite tubes
are 90g each, and knock on wood,
not a flat in over two years.

Best, John


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

John Kuhl said:


> My Performance Lunar Lite tubes
> are 90g each, and knock on wood,
> not a flat in over two years.
> 
> Best, John


I went through a bunch of Lunarlights before abandoning them. Latex lasts much, much longer for me - hope to test this new material soon.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

Can you get those anywhere in America?


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

Facts :
There were lighter tubes and cheaper
There are better systems than tubes see taponess or stan notubess
You can even compare this tubes with eclipse , foss tubes are a mediocre product overpriced
This product lives because you compare it with eclipse big brother
I dont like tubes , i ride stan notubes with 2xkenda blue groove
Tubes should be in a museum
bye


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

xcatax said:


> Facts :
> There were lighter tubes and cheaper
> There are better systems than tubes see taponess or stan notubess
> You can even compare this tubes with eclipse , foss tubes are a mediocre product overpriced
> ...


The fact that you're always in this thread shows that if the right tube came around, you may change back to tubes. Otherwise, why would you keep reading up on them?


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

Wheelspeed said:


> The fact that you're always in this thread shows that if the right tube came around, you may change back to tubes. Otherwise, why would you keep reading up on them?


We do improvements with 120g tubes in a weightweenie forum ?
Please dont say ...... yes :madman: 
bye


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

xcatax said:


> We do improvements with 120g tubes in a weightweenie forum ?
> Please dont say ...... yes :madman:
> bye


People like you are the entire reason weight weenies are a joke to most riders and not taken seriously.

I'm sure you will just keep living inside your own narrow and ignorant box, even when there are other "flavors" of weight weenies that may not be exactly like you or have exactly the same requirements.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> Facts :
> There were lighter tubes and cheaper
> There are better systems than tubes see taponess or stan notubess
> You can even compare this tubes with eclipse , foss tubes are a mediocre product overpriced
> ...


1) True. But the cheaper tubes are butyl, and the whole point is to learn whether this new material is more robust. If they are as reliable for me as latex, its a win.
2) Those are completely unrelated systems
3) You have no idea how robust (or not) foss tubes are
4) No, I do not compare it to Eclipse. I do will not be using $80 tubes any time soon.
5) Nobody cares what you like and what you ride. It is irrelevant to this topic. If you ride Blue Groove - you are not a weight weenie either.



xcatax said:


> We do improvements with 120g tubes in a weightweenie forum ?


Yes, if they are a possible robust replacement for 150g ones.


----------



## wreckedrex (May 2, 2007)

$80... For a bloody inner tube? You're yanking my chain, right? I'm not a weight weenie, but I can usually at least relate. This is more than a little over the top though. I would be interested in a road version of the "heavy" tube though. That is if they are really as durable as claimed. The only thing I can get to last around here are expensive and extremely heavy puncture resistant tubes. If these really are only a few bucks more and hold up well the considerable weight savings would be great... Seriously though, $80 for a bicycle inner tube :skep:


----------



## xcatax (Mar 26, 2009)

Curmy said:


> 1) True. But the cheaper tubes are butyl, and the whole point is to learn whether this new material is more robust. If they are as reliable for me as latex, its a win.
> 2) Those are completely unrelated systems
> 3) You have no idea how robust (or not) foss tubes are
> 4) No, I do not compare it to Eclipse. I do will not be using $80 tubes any time soon.
> ...


1- So true .... blah blah blah no weight improvements and 15e per .... joke?
2-Sorry unrelated¿?¿?¿  explain yourself  
3- I dont need to know , stan notubes or taponess depends your rim .
4- You *cant* of course beacuse your tubes weight +100g and that names its price , call it business .
5-This topic is like one spanish song "Por el mar corren las liebres , por el mar corren las liebres , por el monte las sardinas tralara ..........." .

*"If you ride Blue Groove - you are not a weight weenie either" * 
Memorable phrase , rofl you are :crazy:
Foss tubes is not weightweenie stuff


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

xcatax said:


> 1- So true .... blah blah blah no weight improvements and 15e per .... joke?
> 2-Sorry unrelated¿?¿?¿  explain yourself
> 3- I dont need to know , stan notubes or taponess depends your rim .
> 4- You *cant* of course beacuse your tubes weight +100g and that names its price , call it business .
> ...


Cool story, bro.


----------



## jp3d (Oct 9, 2004)

I found this thread to be highly entertaining. I wish someone would hurry up and invent magical fairy tubes already though. Flat tires are a real bummer!


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

I ride the *82g* 26x1,3-1,75" Foss tube in 2,0" tires: surprisingly without any problems so far. Some little dents do not kill them and no puncture up to now.

Got them from here: http://shops.venditio.com/peters-on...1_1273061942008_1273062101250/Schlaeuche.html


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Nice. I love this slippery plastic. LOL

I have 21 g difference with Outsider08. ???


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MTB for ever said:


> Nice. I love this slippery plastic. LOL
> 
> I have 21 g difference with Outsider08. ???


I guess they still tweaking production? Seen weight quoted from 120g to 180g. Will wait until there is some broader distribution and get a few to test against Michelin latex I run.


----------



## tintin40 (May 27, 2007)

I use FOSS tubes they weigh between 77 grams to 84 grams for 1.75 size


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Where are Foss tubes available?


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

bad mechanic said:


> Where are Foss tubes available?









As mentioned earlier: 
https://shops.venditio.com/peters-o...1_1273061942008_1273062101250/Schlaeuche.html​


----------



## mike49 (Jun 25, 2009)

I have the 125g version of the Foss-Tubes and they work great even with my 299g FF in 2.0 so far.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Jake Pay said:


> As mentioned earlier:
> https://shops.venditio.com/peters-o...1_1273061942008_1273062101250/Schlaeuche.html​


Nothing in North American yet?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> Nothing in North American yet?


There was a Spanish language page quoted somewhere here..


----------



## tintin40 (May 27, 2007)

They now sell glue-less patches for these tubes


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

The patches are the same sort used for water bed repairs. Albeit in smaller/thinner sizes.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

Park Tool Patches works also without problems.


----------



## pipeline (Apr 15, 2008)

Price is much better than the Eclipse. I've been running the lunars as well with no issues for the past 4 months knock on wood.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

pipeline said:


> Price is much better than the Eclipse.


Which makes sense considering they weigh 2.5 times as much.


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

Do the FOSS tubes come pre-holed?








​


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Foss : 13 € for 133 g = 97,74 € / 1000 g
Eclipse : 60 € for 56 g = 1071,42 € / 1000 g


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Foss factory equipped without leaks. Eclipse factory equipped with leaks. Gee... which to choose.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The warranty replacement Eclipse tubes I received have had zero issues, they hold air and really do have very low rolling resistance. The Eclipse patches work nicely when you do poke a big thorn hole in them. Still only $1/gm for weight savings over standard light rubber tubes.


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> Foss factory equipped without leaks. Eclipse factory equipped with leaks. Gee... which to choose.









Which way do I go.....







...I'm so confused...


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

DeeEight said:


> Foss factory equipped without leaks. Eclipse factory equipped with leaks. Gee... which to choose.


First, none of my Eclipse tubes leaked.

Second, from what I read, they've replaced all the ones that did.

Third, Foss tubes weigh 2.5 times as much. They aren't actually light. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Choose the tubes that suit your needs and wallet.

We got rid of the moron who bashed products without having tried them. We don't need you to replace him.


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

Order a tube that cost way to f'in much...And it leaks....Send it back....They replace it..

2 months later your either riding or sending the second one back.....

So are you the new sheriff in town?








​


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

sfer1 said:


> They aren't actually light.


They are lighter then latex tubes that I am using. That is light in my books. Hope they will be just as reliable - still have not ordered any, waiting on US distributor to appear.


----------



## ACMI (Dec 16, 2009)

I've been using these tubes for the past 2 months and I just want to share my experience.

Initially I was very happy with them -- reasonably light but a lot heavier than listed - I weighed all the ones on display at our LBS and they all weighed 125 grams or so. Even when using low pressures, my tires seemed to hold their shape well - no pinch flats. I didn't get any punctures either during my rides. 

Cons:
- when deflated, they don't shrink like regular tubes - they remain in a partially stretched state so when you change tires, you have to be very careful that they don't get pinched when mounting your new tire. 

- I did get a pinch flat (while mounting a new tire) so I said to myself "what the heck - might as well practice repairing the hole with a lighter as advertised. It was hard as heck. I know that it could have been lack of skill on my part but it sure isn't as easy as it looks in the video - especially outdoors under the bright sun. In the video they repaired the punctures in the bathroom - but I don't think you'll find any out on the trail. The wind will wreak havoc on your attempts to precisely heat the puncture site. After 30 minutes I was finally able to seal the leak - but overnight, my tire lost air - and the leak came from my previous repair. - Maybe it was just me -  

- I bought a new FOSS tube to use on my other wheel (I had been using just one for the rear tire) - and it exploded while I was just at 40psi. After the ringing of my ears stopped, I inspected the damage and the sidewall of my tire was warped, and my brand new rim was bent. :madman: . 

- I won't be using these tubes again - I don't want to risk getting a tire blowout out on the trail.

- Not slamming the brand - just wanted to share what happened with you guys.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

ACMI said:


> - I bought a new FOSS tube to use on my other wheel (I had been using just one for the rear tire) - and it exploded while I was just at 40psi. After the ringing of my ears stopped, I inspected the damage and the sidewall of my tire was warped, and my brand new rim was bent. :madman: .


There is no possible way that a type of tube could have caused a tire blowout - and a bent rim. Tube could not possibly have anything to do with it.

125g was heavier then advertized? What was the advertized weight - and for what size?


----------



## ACMI (Dec 16, 2009)

Well, it happened so I don't know what else could have caused it. The tube had a big rip where the blowout happened. I was using a Park Tool floor pump.

It says on the box - "ultra lightweight.... out weight is .88" - I may have misinterpreted this but I thought it meant 88 grams or something. The weight isn't the main issue - 125 grams is a decent weight for a tire tube but it's still on the expensive side (local price is around 8 dollars per tube).

The indicated size is 1.95 to 2.25 tires - I was mounting it on a Bontrager Rhythm Elite 28mm rim using Continental Race King SS 2.2 tire. The rim wasn't THAT bent - had a bit of a wobble - maybe it just became untrue but our local wrench told me the rim was a little bent. 

Like I said - just sharing what happened.


----------



## checky (Jan 13, 2006)

ACMI said:


> Well, it happened so I don't know what else could have caused it. The tube had a big rip where the blowout happened.


That is also very typically when the tube clamps between rim and tire (1-2 cm are enough) and you increase the pressure. 


ACMI said:


> It says on the box - "ultra lightweight.... out weight is .88" - I may have misinterpreted this but I thought it meant 88 grams or something. The weight isn't the main issue - 125 grams is a decent weight for a tire tube but it's still on the expensive side (local price is around 8 dollars per tube).
> The indicated size is 1.95 to 2.25 tires


88g is only for the 26x1,35"-1,75" tube. Yours -2,25" are full in spec


----------



## ACMI (Dec 16, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback, checky. I always "ease in " my tubes whenever I mount tires however. I make sure they are seated well when the tube is partially inflated but the tire is still freely moving. I even put a little talcum powder inside my tires to avoid pinching. This never happened to me before - and I change tires a LOT. 

I'll just consider this as a freak occurence -


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Curmy said:


> There is no possible way that a type of tube could have caused a tire blowout - and a bent rim. Tube could not possibly have anything to do with it.


Not entirely true, years a go a buddy of mine had a tube explode on his road bike when it was sitting still just after he mounted up a new high pressure clincher and set the pressure, and it put a serious bend in the rim when it let go, it wouldn't even roll through rear seat stay.  Hard to imagine a MTB tire/tube at typical MTB pressures doing that much damage though. Although it's a good indication why wearing safety glasses when mounting up tires and getting the beads to seat is a good idea.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Stan's rims have max pressure numbers on them for a reason. The reduced height sidewalls are less resistant to high pressures and will lead to blow outs easier.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Not entirely true, years a go a buddy of mine had a tube explode on his road bike when it was sitting still just after he mounted up a new high pressure clincher and set the pressure, and it put a serious bend in the rim when it let go, it wouldn't even roll through rear seat stay.  Hard to imagine a MTB tire/tube at typical MTB pressures doing that much damage though. Although it's a good indication why wearing safety glasses when mounting up tires and getting the beads to seat is a good idea.


What I was trying to say - it is hard to fathom that the material of the tube would have anything to do with this ocurrence. Whether it is butyl, latex, or this new plastic - unless, as checky noted, you have caught it under the bead - it will just apply pressure to the tire from inside, would not it? 
I have blown a few tires when experimenting with tubeless - not a very funny thing to do.


----------



## tintin40 (May 27, 2007)

ACMI said:


> It says on the box - "ultra lightweight.... out weight is .88" - I may have misinterpreted this but I thought it meant 88 grams or something. The weight isn't the main issue - 125 grams is a decent weight for a tire tube but it's still on the expensive side (local price is around 8 dollars per tube).
> 
> The indicated size is 1.95 to 2.25 tires -


I wighed my 1.75 tubes and the were 84 grams down to 77 grams. I read that the 2.25 tubes were 115 grams.


----------



## 1415chris (Mar 21, 2009)

> Stan's rims have max pressure numbers on them for a reason. The reduced height sidewalls are less resistant to high pressures and will lead to blow outs easier.


Indeed :shocked:


----------



## nathanbal (Jan 30, 2007)

especially the race and mmx podium rims...

max 30psi from memory.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Which is just stupid since many times when trying to run something other than stan's tires, which are officially the only tires actually made to be compatible with their rims, you'll need more than 30psi inflation to get the beads to lock into place right and stop leaking. And as anyone who's ever left their bike sitting in direct sunlight knows... black tires heat up... and that causes the air pressure to rise inside the casing.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

I received my new Foss tubes today. The weight is roughly equal to a light weight tube at 121-122g. Hopefully, they'll prove too be more durable and maybe ride better. The tube looks nice, and they now have a blue anodized aluminum valve stem, and comes with a stem boot to use when mounting.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> I received my new Foss tubes today.


Where from?


----------



## pldreamer12 (Dec 20, 2010)

maybe from here.... www.foss.daveo.pl 
:thumbsup:


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

If you're in the US, here's a good place to buy them from:
http://www.xcracer.com/shop/viewproduct.php?productid=189


----------



## pldreamer12 (Dec 20, 2010)

Yep, basically the same price...
When you buy FOSS tubes just pay attention to the version of the tubes some on-line shops sell. To get the newest versions of the tubes look if it has logo printed on the valve, road tubes are thicker, etc.. If you need some more information about the tubes, manual how to install them, feel free to contact me or download pdf version:
http://daveo.pl/manualen.pdf


------
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving."
www.foss.daveo.pl


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

The latest version : 158g !
Is it light ? For me it is heavy.


----------



## OUTSIDER08 (Sep 30, 2008)

Mine lost pressure suddenly. Couldn´t find any hole, except the 2 pinches. (First version, brass valve).


----------



## Salt Cycles (Sep 25, 2004)

J & B is now distributing these in the US.


----------



## curiously-coherent (Nov 2, 2009)

Just showed up on Deal Extreme too ( here ). $19.30 / free shipping worldwide. (But like anything from DX, they'll take 3-4 weeks to get to you via airmail. No taxes or duty though.

Looks like new versions with logo on blue anodized stem.

Cheers, CC


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

curiously-coherent said:


> Just showed up on Deal Extreme too ( here ). $19.30 / free shipping worldwide. (But like anything from DX, they'll take 3-4 weeks to get to you via airmail. No taxes or duty though.
> 
> Looks like new versions with logo on blue anodized stem.
> 
> Cheers, CC


Item: FOSS Presta Explosion Proof Inner Tube for Bicycle (26x1.95-2.25)

Dimensions: 31.50 in x 2.17 in x 0.12 in (80.0 cm x 5.5 cm x 0.3 cm)
Weight: 6.74 oz *(191 g)*

191 = :madmax:


----------



## Veda (Dec 17, 2009)

LOL. This got to be the funniest thread ever. 191gr? Why don't you just use normal Maxxis tubes as they're lighter and not as problematic as Foss. I had 5 of these Fosses in the past. They were the 120gr version. Horrid! Exploded once during a regular on asphalt trip to the trail, constantly losing air, easily pinched during installation if not careful, holes can be repaired using a lighter but then the tube is deformed. I paid $10 each where I'm at, I'd rather get the Maxxis Ultralight for $3. In the end I gave away all those fusses err... Fosses and took the plunge at tubeless ready which was the best move I ever made in terms of upgrading performance and actually making my tires stronger. I don't know why anyone's still using tubes except during emergency flats...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Veda said:


> LOL. This got to be the funniest thread ever. 191gr?


They are not 191g. They are lighter then Michelin latex - the version I used, and the material could be more durable and does not leak air overnight. As far as the heavier versions, believe it or not, but there are people out there who value reliability over weight. 
They are not as easy to handle though, especially for initial installation. And not as easy to patch.


----------



## ionutph (May 10, 2009)

I have used the smaller size (1.35-1.75) of new Foss tubes at 80g with Continental Race King 2.2 Supersonic. After a first ride I reinflate them and then they leaked air from small hole in inner region (the region that sit on rim). I patched one of them and reinflated again. In few minutes the tube blowed and it has made a huge hole on inner region that was unpatchable. The same happened with the second tube. 
*Conclusion/Avertisment:* The smaller Foss tubes 1-35-1.75 are no good and dangerous for high volume tires. The inner part of tube that sits on rims is fragile and will blow.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

That doesn't entirely surprise me, as the RK 2.2 has a massive volume for a 2.2 tire.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

ionutph said:


> I have used the smaller size (1.35-1.75) of new Foss tubes at 80g with Continental Race King 2.2 Supersonic. After a first ride I reinflate them and then they leaked air from small hole in inner region (the region that sit on rim). I patched one of them and reinflated again. In few minutes the tube blowed and it has made a huge hole on inner region that was unpatchable. The same happened with the second tube.
> *Conclusion/Avertisment:* The smaller Foss tubes 1-35-1.75 are no good and dangerous for high volume tires. The inner part of tube that sits on rims is fragile and will blow.


So, you did put 1.75" tube in a largest volue 2.2" tire (close to many 2.4" tire casings) and act surprised that it blew?


----------



## Veda (Dec 17, 2009)

Curmy said:


> As far as the heavier versions, believe it or not, but there are people out there who value reliability over weight.


You can get both by using tubeless ready tires. Why compromise?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Veda said:


> You can get both by using tubeless ready tires. Why compromise?


Because tubeless has many drawbacks as well.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Curmy said:


> Because tubeless has many drawbacks as well.


Enough compromises that I choose not to use it.


----------



## pauster (Sep 27, 2011)

Has anyone tried the Panaracer R'AIR tubes yet? Around 150g not the very lightest, but if you get durability, too ...


----------



## Veda (Dec 17, 2009)

Curmy said:


> Because tubeless has many drawbacks as well.


You sure those drawbacks are still applicable to the newer 2011 stuff out there?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Veda said:


> You sure those drawbacks are still applicable to the newer 2011 stuff out there?


Yes.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Veda said:


> You sure those drawbacks are still applicable to the newer 2011 stuff out there?


Yes.


----------



## MTB for ever (Apr 18, 2009)

Curmy said:


> They are not 191g. They are lighter then Michelin latex - the version I used, and the material could be more durable and does not leak air overnight. As far as the heavier versions, believe it or not, but there are people out there who value reliability over weight.
> They are not as easy to handle though, especially for initial installation. And not as easy to patch.


And this ? 175G FOSS > 135G MICHELIN

And it's not elastic.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

MTB for ever said:


> And this ? 175G FOSS > 135G MICHELIN
> 
> And it's not elastic.


I have three (in size accommodating 2.1 and 2.25" tires) that all weight less then Michelin latex ones and they work fine. As with any material you can make it thinner or thicker.

It is quite elastic. Does its job just fine.

But I gave up on them, as latex is easier to find and works fine for me.


----------



## B.Trimble (Oct 26, 2011)

I tried using these tubes for many months. but they are just to delicate and puncture to easy. Maxxis Flyweight are 15 grams (95 grams compared to 80g) heavier but safer old style rubber. 
Will have to hope are longer lasting x fingers


----------



## JoshW (Jan 7, 2012)

i switched to foss from tubeless and love it! no more messy sealant. i'm in sydney and got mine from biggride.com for only $21.

the foss material is definitely tougher than latex. as for it not being as elastic as latex, imho - i have never had issues with the foss material interfering with my rolling resistance. it works great, tougher than a normal tube.


----------

