In this article, we use so-called affiliate links. With every purchase through these links, we receive a commission from the merchant. All relevant referral links are marked with . Learn more.
When IT makes itself felt, mountain bikers have a problem. The inner tube normally does its job inconspicuously and out of sight. But it is actually what keeps the bike running. If it loses air, everything comes to a standstill. The gears? Useless. The suspension? Useless. The bicycle system, knocked out by the prick of a thorn or the blow of a root. Tubeless systems increase puncture protection, save weight and reduce rolling resistance. But many bikers shy away from the Effort involved in tubeless conversion or the mess when the milk doesn't seal properly and a hose has to be inserted on the way.
Tubes made of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) are now set to replace the traditional butyl and not only improve puncture protection while being significantly lighter, but also reduce rolling resistance. Of course, such pioneering properties also have a disadvantage: TPU tubes are on average almost three times as expensive as the butyl or latex alternatives. Is the investment worth it? We wanted to find out in extensive laboratory and practical tests and compared four lightweight, two standard and two freeride inner tubes with four plastic models.
Why not free of charge? Because quality journalism has a price. In return, we guarantee independence and objectivity. This applies in particular to the tests in BIKE. We don't pay for them, but the opposite is the case: we charge for them, namely tens of thousands of euros every year.

Editor