Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: Tube Type Tires Run Tubeless

  1. #16
    Registered User melville's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Posts
    113
    Tubeless tires have an additional layer of butyl rubber on the inside to hold air. Tube-type tires do not, and may be somewhat porous as a result. This is what Krpntr was getting at.

    There was a guy on a GS on his way to the MOA rally three years ago who bought a new tire locally. It was a tube-type tire that was installed without a tube by the shop. He made it about 30 miles north before it gave up and was rescued by my local Airhead mechanic. Just a constant slow leak.

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    931
    How many of you guys that reply to threads such as this....with your overwhelming knowledge , particularly when it's negative,...actually have a background in the subject ? Or specified education, training on the subject ? Have any of you ever ventured to try ? Or dared to even think outside the box / color outside the line ? Now I'm not talking about some quip of wisdom that your mother's uncle's, dog walkers. plumber happen to mention over a beer. Or what your wife might have heard on Oprah......I mean actually know something ? have any experience? !

    Just curious

  3. #18
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    4,867
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmylee View Post
    Kurt,

    This discussion is slightly different than any I have seen. Here, the person wants to use TUBE TYPE tire without a tube on a TUBE-TYPE rim. the similar threads were directed at using TUBELESS tires on a TUBE-TYPE rim.
    No, you've got that wrong--his GSPD has tubeless rims.

    He just made a mistake and bought tube-type tires and is now looking for "permission" to run them without tubes.
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  4. #19
    Registered User krpntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mt Vernon WA
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by 71243 View Post
    How many of you guys that reply to threads such as this....with your overwhelming knowledge , particularly when it's negative,...actually have a background in the subject ? Or specified education, training on the subject ? Have any of you ever ventured to try ? Or dared to even think outside the box / color outside the line ? Now I'm not talking about some quip of wisdom that your mother's uncle's, dog walkers. plumber happen to mention over a beer. Or what your wife might have heard on Oprah......I mean actually know something ? have any experience? !

    Just curious
    Why, yes, actually I do. As a teenager working in my dad's gas station/garage. That was about 50 years ago. Back then, a rim was a rim. Tubeless tires were new and the differences were evident in the way the bead met the rim and sealed. We had a hand operated tire machine and I was elected chief operator. The edge of the tire bead on tubeless types were a major pia to mount. And if you screwed it up in any way, it would not hold air. Also, the rims had to be clean and free of any rust or pitting. If necessary, a tube was installed. I put a lot of tubes in tubeless tires for one reason or another, but never had any luck running tube types without tubes.
    The problem with the snowflake wheel, as I understand it,is the porosity of the cast aluminum. If it is sealed, I don't see a problem. But I would rather err on the safe side and run tubes. But that is not the current discussion. Running tube type tires without tubes might work. But I would not want to ride a bike in that configuration. To attempt such an exercise is putting yourself in contention for a Darwin award. In my opinion.

  5. #20
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    4,867
    Again, the guy has a GSPD. It does NOT have snowflake wheels.

    It has wheels perfectly fine for tubeless tires.

    Melville above explains succintly why you can't use a tube-type tire without a tube.

    Original poster needs to send mistakenly purchased tire back for exchange for a proper tire.
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  6. #21
    No longer a member here
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
    Original poster needs to send mistakenly purchased tire back for exchange for a proper tire.
    Or he could run a tube in his tube tire....which he doesn't want, I guess, that's why the whole thread.

  7. #22
    Administrator 20774's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    13,408
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmylee View Post
    Can someone please point out the detailed engineering differences like seat angle, or distance, or anything. No one has other than speculation. I would venture that if I could get both of these style rims side by side on a comparetor and compared there would be very little difference and that would be, if there were a difference, due to convenience for mounting, not seating.
    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...ycle-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.
    Kurt -- Forum Administrator ---> Resources and Links Thread <---
    '78 R100/7 & '69 R69S & '52 R25/2
    mine-ineye-deatheah-pielayah-jooa-kalayus. oolah-minane-hay-meeriah-kal-oyus-algay-a-thaykin', buddy!

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    558

    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.

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,032
    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.
    Last edited by jimmylee; 09-20-2013 at 08:15 AM.

  10. #25
    Administrator 20774's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    13,408
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmylee View Post
    Why don't you call that company whose name keeps coming up in these discussions and ask about it?
    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!!
    Kurt -- Forum Administrator ---> Resources and Links Thread <---
    '78 R100/7 & '69 R69S & '52 R25/2
    mine-ineye-deatheah-pielayah-jooa-kalayus. oolah-minane-hay-meeriah-kal-oyus-algay-a-thaykin', buddy!

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by 20774 View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •