Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

review

Eclipse Road Tube 20/25mm

8
£21.00

VERDICT:

8
10
Very good cost-effective and seemingly durable upgrade for lighter wheelsets
Light
Durable
Retain pressure well
Repairable
Removable valve stems
Pricey compared with traditional butyl
Require dedicated patches and long curing time
Weight: 
32g
Contact: 

At road.cc every product is thoroughly tested for as long as it takes to get a proper insight into how well it works. Our reviewers are experienced cyclists that we trust to be objective. While we strive to ensure that opinions expressed are backed up by facts, reviews are by their nature an informed opinion, not a definitive verdict. We don't intentionally try to break anything (except locks) but we do try to look for weak points in any design. The overall score is not just an average of the other scores: it reflects both a product's function and value – with value determined by how a product compares with items of similar spec, quality, and price.

What the road.cc scores mean

Good scores are more common than bad, because fortunately good products are more common than bad.

  • Exceptional
  • Excellent
  • Very Good
  • Good
  • Quite good
  • Average
  • Not so good
  • Poor
  • Bad
  • Appalling

The Eclipse Road 20/25 Tube is not only a very cost-effective way of shedding grams from your bike, it also makes for a surprisingly compliant ride and palpably lower rolling resistance than a butyl tube when accelerating or climbing.

The tubes are made from thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and welded rather than bonded like some TPU tubes, which theoretically gives them an edge on the durability/longevity front. I've certainly been pleasantly surprised by their pressure retention and durability, and should they succumb to the dreaded hiss they can be repaired using dedicated patches – though I'd keep a butyl spare snoozing in the seat pack since the patches have a long curing time.

The Eclipses also pack down remarkably compactly compared with traditional butyl, which is another draw.

> Buy now: Eclipse Road Tube 20/25 for £21 from E.Dubied & Co

The patches, also made from TPU, are of the peel and stick genre, employing a polyurethane adhesive. They do demand that the affected area is surgically cleaned, ideally with an alcohol-based wipe, and left to cure overnight.

The removable 40mm valve stem permits extenders for deep-section aero rims; though 70mm options are listed on the website (for £1 more), they're currently out of stock.

I decided to pair the tubes to my arguably quaint road bike, built in 1991. This features a period-typical wheelset based around Mavic MA2 rims, running a set of 25mm Vee Rain Runner tyres which give a supple, grippy ride, although mine are becoming less resistant to flints and other sharps these days...

Fitting was very straightforward using my standard technique of inflating slightly to 15psi to avoid pinching, and feeding into the tyre. As the Eclipse felt a very snug fit, and light to the point of fragility, I was careful to double check the seating at various points of inflation, 60, 90 and 120psi – no issues with pinching or similar mischief.

From the outset I noticed an increased zip to the bike compared with the mid-range butyl tubes the Eclipses had replaced, most palpable when climbing or accelerating. And although there was no discernible difference in ride quality to other TPU models I've used, including Pirelli's SmarTubes (albeit in bigger section tyres), they felt smoother than decent quality butyl and latex – and without the latter's need for almost daily inflation. In fact, pressure retention is level pegging with premium quality butyl from the likes of Schwalbe and Michelin.

Over rougher tarmac the ride quality was similarly compliant, and I also noticed some improvement in my fatigue at the close of longer rides of 50-70 miles, compared with using butyl.

The rougher roads didn't induce any subtle rattling from the threadless valve stems either – another pleasant surprise.

Experimenting with the pressures a little during this period, between 100 and 125psi, had negligible impact upon ride quality or acceleration.

Around 200 miles into our test period – during which I'd deliberately whizzed through silty, gritty stuff with the odd bead of glass – and about 20 miles from home, I saw that one of the Rain Runners' casings had finally succumbed to fatigue and was beginning to peel away – ordinarily not great, but in this instance an ideal opportunity to test the tube's potential vulnerabilities... We made it home on time, no hiss.

After consigning the Rain Runner to landfill, I switched to a chunkier tyre – a 25mm Freedom ThickSlick Sport – which confirmed my hypothesis that the Eclipse's qualities were best appreciated with lightweight race rubber. Neither tube missed a beat in the following 250 miles – I've not punctured or noticed any structural weakness – but the sprightly, responsive properties were somewhat muffled; save for shaving a few grams, acceleration and climbing prowess felt little different than running a typical mid-range butyl.

Value

At £21 apiece, they're expensive compared with bog-standard butyl but pretty good value alongside other TPU tubes. Pirelli's P Zero SmartTube, for instance, which is available in road, mountain bike and gravel sizes, will set you back £27.99, and Schwalbe's Aerothan – also available in several sizes – is £24.99, and though it offers an excellent ride quality, our test suggests there are question marks over its repairability.

> Buyer’s Guide: 10 of the best inner tubes

Tubolito's Tubo Road inner tubes also come in various sizes, but at £27.99-£29.99 they're getting on for a tenner more than the Eclipse.

Conclusion

There's a lot to consider here. I've been suitably impressed by the Eclipses, which do offer some tangible performance benefits over traditional tubes. They are also competitively priced, by genre standards. I wouldn't say I'm universally converted to TPU, and will happily continue running butyl on my tourer and fixed gear winter/trainer, but for those with already feathery bikes who want some additional performance gains without massive outlay, these are a very good way to go about it.

Verdict

Very good cost-effective and seemingly durable upgrade for lighter wheelsets

road.cc test report

Make and model: Eclipse Road Tube 20/25mm

Size tested: 20/25mm

Tell us what the product is for and who it's aimed at. What do the manufacturers say about it? How does that compare to your own feelings about it?

Eclipse says: "Looking for a top quality inner tube that doesn't weigh you down? The Eclipse Road 25 is perfect for cyclists who want the best of both worlds - a super lightweight tube that's still durable and long lasting. This tube is made from premium TPU material, with a 40mm valve length and metal valve stem. The removable valve core means you can easily change out the valve if needed or use valve extenders to fit your rim height. Plus, the small package size makes it easy to take with you on the go. The Eclipse Road 25 fits tire size 622x20/25 and only weighs 35g - making it one of the lightest tubes on the market! 100% recyclable too, so you can feel good about your purchase."

My feelings are it's a lightweight and seemingly rugged tube that can drop the grams and improve ride quality without pressure loss or similar drawbacks.

Tell us some more about the technical aspects of the product?

Eclipse lists:

tire size 622 x 20-25mm

weight 35g (40mm valve)

valve length 40mm, 70mm with valve extender

removable valve core

100% recyclable

Material TPU

Rate the product for quality of construction:
 
8/10

Despite feeling feathery, dare I say, slightly delicate, standards of construction are very high. The replaceable metal valve stem is a definite plus, ditto the ability to repair, though this is more involved than a traditional butyl tube, so not the most practical option by the roadside.

Rate the product for performance:
 
10/10

Provides a quick and surprisingly compliant ride while offering lower rolling resistance, which (all things being equal) is quite palpable when accelerating or climbing.

Rate the product for durability:
 
8/10

Early days, but no apparent weaknesses so far.

Rate the product for weight (if applicable)
 
10/10

32g each – a generous saving over traditional butyl.

Rate the product for comfort (if applicable)
 
10/10

The Eclipse delivers a surprisingly compliant ride quality.

Rate the product for value:
 
7/10

Pricey compared with a standard butyl tube, but competitive alongside similar tubes.

Tell us how the product performed overall when used for its designed purpose

Overall, I've been pleasantly surprised by the Eclipse. Paired with a traditional rim they haven't required valve extenders, and with a relatively light, high thread count tyre, rolling resistance and the general ride quality have been impressive. Unlike latex tubes, pressure loss has been minimal and, to date, no punctures.

Tell us what you particularly liked about the product

Removable valve core, low weight, and ease of fitting.

Tell us what you particularly disliked about the product

Though repairable (which is a definite plus), the long curing times mean it's best done at home. Not that carrying a spare is a hardship.

How does the price compare to that of similar products in the market, including ones recently tested on road.cc?

At £21 apiece, they're pretty good value alongside others such as the £27.99 Pirelli P Zero SmartTube and Tubolito Tubo Road inner tubes at £27.99-£29.99. Schwalbe's Aerothan is also available in several sizes and offers excellent ride quality, but at £24.99 they're also a bit dearer than the Eclipse, and there are question marks over its repairability.

Did you enjoy using the product? Yes

Would you consider buying the product? Yes

Would you recommend the product to a friend? Yes

Use this box to explain your overall score

They're very good: light yet seemingly durable, and offer tangible performance gains.

Overall rating: 8/10

About the tester

Age: 48  Height: 1m 81cm  Weight: 70kg

I usually ride: Rough Stuff Tourer Based around 4130 Univega mtb Frameset  My best bike is: 1955 Holdsworth Road Path and several others including cross & traditional road

I've been riding for: Over 20 years  I ride: Most days  I would class myself as: Experienced

I regularly do the following types of riding: cyclo cross, commuting, touring, fixed/singlespeed, mtb,

Shaun Audane is a freelance writer/product tester with over twenty-eight years riding experience, the last twelve (120,000 miles) spent putting bikes and kit through their paces for a variety of publications. Previous generations of his family worked at manufacturing's sharp end, thus Shaun can weld, has a sound understanding of frame building practice and a preference for steel or titanium framesets.
Citing Richard Ballantine and an Au pair as his earliest cycling influences, he is presently writing a cycling book with particular focus upon women, families and disabled audiences (Having been a registered care manager and coached children at Herne Hill Velodrome in earlier careers)

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
jevans636 | 2 years ago
1 like

Hi Shaun, I imagine you and other road cc testers get through a lot of tires & tubes, not to mention the site's readers. So I was a bit surprised by the casual reference to landfill. It's good to be aware of the options for recycling these items: https://www.velorim.co.uk
Cheers

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to jevans636 | 2 years ago
0 likes
jevans636 wrote:

Hi Shaun, I imagine you and other road cc testers get through a lot of tires & tubes, not to mention the site's readers. So I was a bit surprised by the casual reference to landfill. It's good to be aware of the options for recycling these items: https://www.velorim.co.uk Cheers

It's a shame that velorim need a contribution for recycling them - in my opinion, recycling costs should be built into products (especially expensive tubeless tyres) which the recycling company could then recoup from the manufacturer.

(Not intended as a criticism of velorim)

Avatar
OnYerBike | 2 years ago
0 likes

Schwalbe's Aerothan [...] our test suggests there are question marks over its repairability.

Out of interest, did you attempt to repair this tube (or the Pirelli/Tubolito tubes)? Or is the Aerothan given a black mark because it happened to get a puncture in the test which couldn't be easily repaired, but the same problem could in fact exist with any other TPU tube and/or repair kit?

Avatar
TheFatAndTheFurious | 2 years ago
0 likes

Is this the same Eclipse road tube as from 2013?
https://www.rutlandcycling.com/content/all/testing-eclipse-world-s-light...

£45 RRP back then!!

Avatar
Mathemagician | 2 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

From the outset I noticed an increased zip to the bike compared with the mid-range butyl tubes the Eclipses had replaced, most palpable when climbing or accelerating.

Horseshit. BRR (which actually does some proper scientific testing), found that TPU tubes save you maybe 1 watt at 29 km/h at a pressure of 100psi over Conti Race 28s. These tubes might not have been included on their test, but it's very unlikely they'd be significantly different. And you're telling me this somehow equates to a "palpable" increase in "zip"? 

The amount of times this website peddles Emperor's new clothes claims like this without doing any kind of fair testing is staggering. Inner tubes should be the one thing on a bike that could be easily blind tested, so if the difference is palpable then do a blind test and prove it. 

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Mathemagician | 2 years ago
0 likes

The BRR testing was just rolling resistance though, wasn't it, not rotational weight? I would certainly share your scepticism that you can't feel a single watt difference in rolling resistance, but a 40g difference in rotational weight might well make a wheelset feel "zippier". BRR does say "In our opinion, the ~ 40 grams TPU tubes clearly perform better as they are lighter, roll faster, and air retention should be at least equal or better."

(I should say this is all purely theoretical for me, £30 in my world is more what one spends on a tyre, not a tube!)

 

Avatar
IanEdward replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
1 like

The tube is 40g, which is almost a 100g saving over a Butyl tube isn't it? (too lazy to check). Saving 100g per wheel or 200g in total might feasibly be something you could feel, especially right at the outside of the wheel?

Avatar
Mathemagician replied to IanEdward | 2 years ago
1 like
IanEdward wrote:

The tube is 40g, which is almost a 100g saving over a Butyl tube isn't it? (too lazy to check). Saving 100g per wheel or 200g in total might feasibly be something you could feel, especially right at the outside of the wheel?

Maybe...maybe not. I know when I swapped my butyl inner tubes for latex I couldn't really tell the difference. I know that when I rode tubeless and had a puncture that wouldn't seal, and I put a butyl tube in to get home, I wasn't bugged by the feeling that my rear wheel was "palpably" less "zippy". But then maybe I'm just some kind of cycling troglodyte. I've no doubt some other readers will be certain than they can tell the difference, and I'm equally certain they'll have never tested that claim with a blind test. 

It's so ridiculously easy to actually do an unbiased test the claim of whether the inner tube give the benefit of

Quote:

palpably lower rolling resistance than a butyl tube

 

that it's almost negligent not to do it. The cycling industry in general is full of "journalists" parroting manufacturer's claims verbatim, without any kind of actual analysis, and here we are with the simplest test possible and it's not done at all. We're instead to believe in the "expertise" of the journalist in question, whose experience in testing equipment can be summed up to "I ride bikes a lot". The bike felt "palpably zippier"? That could be anything, from what the reviewer ate that morning, to how much the sun was shining.

The lack of willingness from the journalist to remove the potential for their own unconcious bias is a joke, and without some actual evidence to back up this rolling resistance claim, it's just...horseshit. Sorry, but it is. 

Avatar
Chris Hayes replied to Mathemagician | 2 years ago
0 likes

I guess the percentage of total wheel or rim weight is a factor, i.e. these would have more impact on a set of 1200g wheels than a set of 1600g deep section carbons, but I take your point: Road.cc. tends to spin out these unscientific reviews that try to substantiate lab-tested marginal gains on the gravel-chipped roads surrounding Bath. Still...I'm reading it!

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Mathemagician | 2 years ago
3 likes
Mathemagician wrote:

 

some kind of cycling troglodyte

Wouldn't they spend all their time in their 'pain cave'?

Avatar
John Stevenson replied to Mathemagician | 2 years ago
2 likes

Kraig Willett's post on the non-importance of rotational weight has vanished, along with his old site, but is still available here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190119221729/http://www.biketechreview.com...

The TL;DR is that wheel rotational inertia is far less important than aerodynamics and overall mass. With a 70kg rider and 10kg bike, you're looking here at saving 140g for two tubes - that's less than 0.2% of the total system weight, which is not going to make a difference you can feel.

I visited Finnish tyre test lab Wheel Energy a few years ago. They said they'd found that the most sensitive riders could detect a five-watt difference in resistance between set-ups, and most riders could detect a 10-watt difference.

I agree that it's very unlikely the small difference in rolling resistance between this tube and a standard butyl tube could be detected while riding.

Confirmation bias is a massive problem in product reviews. One of these days I'll get round to doing some double-blind tests to find out if our reviewers actually can detect a weight difference between wheels or whether they're just fooling themselves.

Avatar
IanEdward replied to John Stevenson | 2 years ago
1 like

I do know that latex tubes make a nicer noise, my buddy even asked why my wheels sounded like that so it can't be confirmation bias 😎

Avatar
ktache replied to IanEdward | 2 years ago
0 likes

When I was running Michelin's latex in my conti 2.1semislick supersonics it sounded as though I was riding on balloons.

I think that you feel the benefit of the latex tube when running quality and supple tyres.  Or maybe it's all marketing nonsense, of course my ti frame doesn't feel any better than a bso assembled very badly from a supermarket.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to ktache | 2 years ago
2 likes
ktache wrote:

Of course my ti frame doesn't feel any better than a bso assembled very badly from a supermarket.

Don't assemble a BSO from a supermarket - it'll be too large to ride, and people won't have anywhere to get their groceries.

Avatar
mark1a replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
1 like
mdavidford wrote:
ktache wrote:

Of course my ti frame doesn't feel any better than a bso assembled very badly from a supermarket.

Don't assemble a BSO from a supermarket - it'll be too large to ride, and people won't have anywhere to get their groceries.

Still, better that than assembling a BSO from the internet, this website would go offl.........

Avatar
John Stevenson replied to IanEdward | 2 years ago
1 like
IanEdward wrote:

I do know that latex tubes make a nicer noise, my buddy even asked why my wheels sounded like that so it can't be confirmation bias 😎

 1

I've long suspected that a lot of what people characterise as bikes and in particular wheels and tyres feeling 'nice' is acoustic and reflects the type of noise that gets through to the rider as vibration you can feel and as actual sound. Certainly the 'whoosh' that some deep-section wheels make as you whiz along is rather pleasing. On the other hand I seem to recall Josh Poertner of Silca (and formerly Zipp) pointing out that to make a noise wheels have to be losing energy so whooshing wheels may not be desirable.

Avatar
jaymack | 2 years ago
0 likes

Anyone spending £21 on an inner tube probably thinks Hans Christian Andersen wrote a best selling bicycle repair manual.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to jaymack | 2 years ago
3 likes
jaymack wrote:

Anyone spending £21 on an inner tube probably thinks Hans Christian Andersen wrote a best selling bicycle repair manual.

Hans On Repairs?

Avatar
jaymack replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
0 likes

Very good, chapeau!

Avatar
John Stevenson replied to jaymack | 2 years ago
1 like

To play devil's advocate, IF you're just trying to shed grams, £21 to save 70g over typical butyl tubes is 3.3g/£. That's not bad at all.

Avatar
Simon E replied to jaymack | 2 years ago
3 likes

It's double the price of a latex tube with similar ride quality and rolling resistance but without the fragility and rapid loss of pressure.

While £21 is expensive compared to other tube types, it's small beer in the scheme of things. And it's not as if that's a recurring cost (like Strava, Zwift, smartphones, GCN+, Netflix and a hundred other subscriptions people have nowadays).

I'd like to think that the price will come down once they've been around a while. After all, moulded polyurethane is not a rare material or difficult to work with.

In the end if someone feels the benefits are worth the cost then what's the problem?

Avatar
wtjs | 2 years ago
0 likes

I can't decide what to do to make my cycling significantly worse: going back to rim brakes for the excitement of the uncertainty of stopping in time, going tubeless so that I can happily pass away oodles of time when a squadron of hawthorns defeats the gloop or adopting these radical revolutionary tubes so that the Hawthorn Menace attacking you out of the sun banzais the rear tube, then the replacement and they can both only be repaired at home. Or I might just make it easy for myself and stick with the disks, and the Marathon Plus on the 6 hour horror through the heat to the Lakes tomorrow and just take a spare butyl.

Avatar
Sriracha | 2 years ago
0 likes

With normal butyl inner tubes I only need to carry a repair kit. With this tube I need at least a spare inner tube. Bang goes the weight saving.

Avatar
John Stevenson replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
3 likes

I think I have decent tube-patching skills, but out on the road swapping for a known-to-be-good tube is pretty much idiot-proof. Tubes should be patched in a nice cosy workshop.

The weight savings here is totally inconsequential though, and if you're bothered about extracting every last skerrick of performance from your tyres, you're using latex tubes.

Avatar
Simon E replied to John Stevenson | 2 years ago
2 likes
John Stevenson wrote:

if you're bothered about extracting every last skerrick of performance from your tyres, you're using latex tubes.

Aerocoach and BRR found that some TPU inner tubes are pretty close to latex for rolling resistance:

https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/inner-tube-rolling-resistance

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/tpu-inner-tubes

I agree re. swapping tubes at the roadside, save the repair for when you get home.

Avatar
ktache replied to John Stevenson | 2 years ago
0 likes

You cannot carry around the coconut abrasion device for use by the side of the road.

I would like one of these fancy tubes as my carry around spare, now that I've gone tubeless, but the chances of them making a 3 inch 27.5 are low, the butyl is just so big and heavy.

When running latex I'd always carry a spare, and a quick patch kit, with a proper kit at work (just in case, and another spare tube) and my full kits at home because it should take an evening, in a comfy chair, dry and warm helps, its not always going to be summer. Too many times in my youth trying to use rubber solution at the side of the road in the dark, trying to get shelter from the wind and rain.

Avatar
John Stevenson replied to ktache | 2 years ago
1 like
ktache wrote:

You cannot carry around the coconut abrasion device for use by the side of the road.

Exactly!

Actually, I tend to run quite a large saddlebag so I probably could. Maybe I'll make a lightweight version  3

Avatar
Sriracha replied to John Stevenson | 2 years ago
1 like

By the roadside I find it quicker & easier to patch than replace, especially the rear, so long as I can locate the source of the puncture (i.e. most times). No need to remove the wheel, and only unseat enough tyre to access the hole in the inner tube.

And if you can't locate the source of the puncture then replacing the inner tube is anything but proof against idiots.

Avatar
ktache | 2 years ago
0 likes

Ohhh, transparent...

Avatar
Steve K replied to ktache | 2 years ago
8 likes
ktache wrote:

Ohhh, transparent...

Yes - then you can see the air in it.

Pages

Latest Comments