Or he could run a tube in his tube tire....which he doesn't want, I guess, that's why the whole thread.
-
Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password. If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?
-
Beginning April 1st, and running through April 30th, there is a new 2024 BMW MOA Election discussion area within The Club section of the forum. Within this forum area is also a sticky post that provides the ground rules for participating in the Election forum area. Also, the candidates statements are provided. Please read before joining the conversation, because the rules are very specific to maintain civility.
The Election forum is here: Election Forum
Tube Type Tires Run Tubeless
- Thread starter WooDmEn
- Start date
Or he could run a tube in his tube tire....which he doesn't want, I guess, that's why the whole thread.
Not much "engineering" here, so you'd have to talk to a tire engineer or someone who stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night. Maybe the MOA should see if a tire engineer could give a seminar at the St. Paul National??
Here's what I found. Makes a bit more sense to me.
1) The IRC website mentions the use of Universal System Tubeless tires: http://www.irc-tire.com/en/bc/tech/tl-mtb.html. Note also on this page, they recommend "IRC UST tubeless tires are only compatible with tubeless rims. Do not mount tubeless tires on non UST compatible rims unless also installing a standard type inner tube."
A bit here on the UST tire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubeless_tire
2) This Pirelli website shows the tube-type rim profile (WM) versus the tubeless profile (MTH2):
http://www.tayar.com.my/Tyres-tips/6/The-Motorcycle-Tyre.html
3) Snowbum's webpage has been mentioned before and when read in context to the above info from Pirelli, makes a bit more sense:
http://bmwmotorcycletech.info/section6.htm
4) Continental has a bit on tube-type and tubeless rim profiles:
http://www.conti-bike.co.uk/default.asp?pid=27
I can't say I fully understand how these types of shapes work best with the specific profiles, but there is clearly a difference.
Funny how the OP has not chimed in after his follow up to a responce to the initial ?
Just an observation. A similar scenario occurred in my past when a friend of mine invented a system of converting sea water (plain old ocean H2O) into a fuel to power his 1978 Ford Bronco with very few modifications or side effects. My goodness that was a nifty and convenient idea as we all lived on Cape Cod right next to the Atlantic ocean and sea water was all around us. He took his Bronco and idea and moved to Iowa to share his idea with family and old friends but then realized he had no way to get sea water.
I hope the tires will work without tubes and I hope the first flat results in a safe departure from traffic and to the side of the road. I also hope he smart enough to have packed a tube for his tires as that may very well be the only way he can get back on the road.
Just an observation. A similar scenario occurred in my past when a friend of mine invented a system of converting sea water (plain old ocean H2O) into a fuel to power his 1978 Ford Bronco with very few modifications or side effects. My goodness that was a nifty and convenient idea as we all lived on Cape Cod right next to the Atlantic ocean and sea water was all around us. He took his Bronco and idea and moved to Iowa to share his idea with family and old friends but then realized he had no way to get sea water.
I hope the tires will work without tubes and I hope the first flat results in a safe departure from traffic and to the side of the road. I also hope he smart enough to have packed a tube for his tires as that may very well be the only way he can get back on the road.
Kurt,
I read very carefully the articles you mentioned
If I read those articles correctly, the rim profile difference that has been used to argue the point HERE was developed, NOT for the purpose of pressure sealing, but for the purpose of helping the tire hold position and shape AFTER a puncture to avoid rapid tire deflation (the exact scenario that is true of ALL tube-type mountings which you are proposing). The primary issue wasn't tire seal, but safety in case of tire deflation. The discussion there also mentioned that this was the motivating purpose in the development of tubeless tires to begin with. It is interesting (as I remember) that the several rim profiles aren't called "Tube-type" profile and "tubeless" profile. That is because the rim profile wasn't done for tube vs. non-tube application. There was an inherent safety problem with the then-standard tube-type mounting of tires. Following this line of reasoning, IF one can switch the tube-type rim to a tubeless tire w/o a tube, AND get the proper seal (which is possible and has been done many times!), then he is actually SAFER than what you propose - i.e. using the older setup which had inherent deflation problems that also resulted in control problems. This inherent danger still exists in tube-type applications (which I still also use). I am just thankful that I personally have never had a tire go flat while riding.
I am not suggesting that the rim profiles developed weren't done so without ANY concern for seal, but that wasn't the primary concern for their development. It seems obvious to me that the 5 Deg. angle was put in there to allow a tubeless tire to seat tighter on the rim when more air pressure it applied inside - thus insuring a better seal. In fact the "lip" that was also put in there was done because of the inherent problem that could happen when pressure was released - i.e. that the tire would then slide back into the middle of the rim and thus cause rapid deflation and serious control problems.
If one chooses to keep the tube in a tube-type rim (as I do), to me, the safest way is to make sure that all the rubber is good, install a new tube each time the tire is replaced and then . . . pray that you don't hit anything like a nail or sharp piece of glass - especially at high speed.
I will readily agree that the TIRE profile is different and required. I still don't see how the rim profile (as already exists) makes much difference at all (for sealing purposes). You still have to explain how hundreds of thousands of miles have been given testimony and without a failure. How can that be? Except that it works! Why don't you call that company whose name keeps coming up in these discussions and ask about it? I would bet that they have hundreds of examples of those who have switched over to tubeless tires on tube-type rims (of course properly sealed - i.e. spokes, proper valve stem, no porosity, etc.) to their credit. Has there been even one example of failure due to tire-to-rim seal?
This particular thread started because the questioner wanted to use a tube-type TIRE without a tube - a situation which there is ample evidence that it doesn't work and is not advisable - in my opinion.
I read very carefully the articles you mentioned
If I read those articles correctly, the rim profile difference that has been used to argue the point HERE was developed, NOT for the purpose of pressure sealing, but for the purpose of helping the tire hold position and shape AFTER a puncture to avoid rapid tire deflation (the exact scenario that is true of ALL tube-type mountings which you are proposing). The primary issue wasn't tire seal, but safety in case of tire deflation. The discussion there also mentioned that this was the motivating purpose in the development of tubeless tires to begin with. It is interesting (as I remember) that the several rim profiles aren't called "Tube-type" profile and "tubeless" profile. That is because the rim profile wasn't done for tube vs. non-tube application. There was an inherent safety problem with the then-standard tube-type mounting of tires. Following this line of reasoning, IF one can switch the tube-type rim to a tubeless tire w/o a tube, AND get the proper seal (which is possible and has been done many times!), then he is actually SAFER than what you propose - i.e. using the older setup which had inherent deflation problems that also resulted in control problems. This inherent danger still exists in tube-type applications (which I still also use). I am just thankful that I personally have never had a tire go flat while riding.
I am not suggesting that the rim profiles developed weren't done so without ANY concern for seal, but that wasn't the primary concern for their development. It seems obvious to me that the 5 Deg. angle was put in there to allow a tubeless tire to seat tighter on the rim when more air pressure it applied inside - thus insuring a better seal. In fact the "lip" that was also put in there was done because of the inherent problem that could happen when pressure was released - i.e. that the tire would then slide back into the middle of the rim and thus cause rapid deflation and serious control problems.
If one chooses to keep the tube in a tube-type rim (as I do), to me, the safest way is to make sure that all the rubber is good, install a new tube each time the tire is replaced and then . . . pray that you don't hit anything like a nail or sharp piece of glass - especially at high speed.
I will readily agree that the TIRE profile is different and required. I still don't see how the rim profile (as already exists) makes much difference at all (for sealing purposes). You still have to explain how hundreds of thousands of miles have been given testimony and without a failure. How can that be? Except that it works! Why don't you call that company whose name keeps coming up in these discussions and ask about it? I would bet that they have hundreds of examples of those who have switched over to tubeless tires on tube-type rims (of course properly sealed - i.e. spokes, proper valve stem, no porosity, etc.) to their credit. Has there been even one example of failure due to tire-to-rim seal?
This particular thread started because the questioner wanted to use a tube-type TIRE without a tube - a situation which there is ample evidence that it doesn't work and is not advisable - in my opinion.
Last edited:
Jimmy -
I have no dog in this hunt...I have other things to do. I would certainly suggest that you put out those feelers and find out the bottom line...then report back here!!
I know, and I, again, don't want to "pick" a fight with any one - especially you, because you have been super-nice and an invaluable source of great information to me. I am in your debt.
I have said my last word on this as well. I still use, as you do, the original set up as the bike had when new: Tube-type tires or tubeless BUT I still use a tube and I will continue that way. I just don't see the need to go tubeless as I have never, not once, had a failure. My operating advice to myself has been since 1965 when I started riding was to keep good tires on the bike and put new tubes in each time. If I did get a slow leak due to a nail or something, I always thought it cheaper (i.e. safer) to simply replace the tube - even when it was the "norm" to patch the tube and put back in.
My only desire is to get a Michelin Pilot Activ (tubeless tire, but with a tube!) on my drive wheel. I like my rear tire now (Dunlop retro in correct original size) but I don't like the tread for the kind of riding I do now - mostly all paved roads or interstates. I prefer more "smooth" tread like the Pilots are.
Hey - thanks for the stimulating conversations. I may disagree, but I strongly respect your views and I certainly am grateful for your input - to ALL of us!
JimmyLee
Similar threads
