tubeless

[Major Softie]

Great debate! Do you guys always wrestle like this?

DUH!

As Ken points out, it often gets much more volatile. We've kind of worked our way through this one, and Vanzen and I are on opposite ends, but I think we both understand the reasoning of the other side (although Ken may have had to point that our to him). To elaborate on the point Ken and he just spoke on:

No, not all unknown risk are alike, and, more importantly, one must always weigh all risks against their benefit. As I think I made very clear, the benefits Vanzen listed are quite measurable, and of value. The risk is catastrophic, but of completely unknown likelyhood. So, one is making a choice between known benefits, and known risks, but the benefits are of measurable likelihood, while the risks are not. One must make one's own decision. Just don't pretend the issue is different than it is.

[wirewrkr]

The snowflake wheels were never designed for tubeless.
PERIOD. There's no debate about it.

True, the flake is not designed or approved for tubeless use
but functions quite well in that capacity none the less.
Three experienced benefits of the conversion:
1.) Tubeless tires can be repaired (plugged) at roadside without removing
the wheel from the MC or the tire from the wheel.
2.) Tubeless tires virtually eliminate the trauma and loss of control often associated
with the experience of a tubed-tire losing air, and
3.) The elimination of tubes reduces unsprung weight to the advantage of handling.

MAYBE someone has pulled it off, but it makes for a very unsafe motorcycle.

Since the mid 1970s the conversion of flakes to tubeless has been a popular owner modification –
and a popular controversy.
To say that "MAYBE someone has pulled it off"
patently ignores the valid experience of countless BMW riders and over 30 years of history.
The claim "makes a very unsafe motorcycle" is most often speculation
based upon hearsay and/or blind acceptance of the validity of legislation,
rather than the result of experience, research, or empirical study –
and patently disregards the reality of the situation.

No testing on record has ever been conducted by our legislators or BMW
to conclude that the tubeless use of flakes is unsafe.
The primary danger cited for the use of tubeless flakes echoes verbatim
the DOT reasoning to redesign MC cast wheels:
'In the event of rapid deflation, a tubeless tire on a non-approved rim may come loose from the rim.'

To which I will respond:
1.) Rapid deflation of a tubeless tire is an extremely rare occurrence.
2.) A deflated tubeless tire rarely comes off the rim, and
3.) Riding on a deflated tubeless tire is no more dangerous than riding on a deflated tube tire.
(there will be no "safety bead" to keep that tubed-thing on the rim either)

Even if you are silly enough to want to try it,

"Silly" ?
Why reduce your presentation to the intimidation or belittlement of those who would not agree ?

...you will need to have the stem hole machined to a larger size ...

Not true.

... and have it squared to accept the stem.

A few licks with a bastard file does it nicely.

Disclaimer:

Definite real-world road advantages exist with the use of a tubeless tire / wheel.
Those advantages can be realized using the tubeless / flake combo.
However, to do so disregards the LAW as mandated by the D.O.T. (USA)
which requires a certain profile rim (having safety beads) to be marketed for tubeless-tire operation.
and the official WORD of BMWcorp. –
which cannot recommend an activity contrary to the D.O.T. mandate
without the consequences of litigation and liability.
To do so also involves RISK on behalf of the operator should a situation
(such as sufficient impact) where the tire is forced from the rim be encountered.

My conclusion is that this potential risk is minimal
and that the every-day, every-time-you-ride advantages are worthwhile.
In consideration of my well-being, the law AND the corporate word are quite secondary
to my studied and experiential determination as to which is the safer mode.
My choice results in nearly 100,000 miles on a Type247 with tubeless flakes
without the least of detrimental consequence.

I will not presume to tell you what to think or how to proceed.
In the absence of "empirical evidence" or "definitive case study"
(no such evidence or study exists relative to the tubeless use of the BMW snowflake cast wheel),
ultimately, you "play at your own risk".

Controversy is likely to continue due to an inability to objectively quantify that "risk".

My answers pretty much mirror the attitude we had at the BMW dealers I worked for for 17 years.

Blind leading the ignorant, always make for cheap entertainment. ( and interesting lawsuits)

[ME 109]

My answers pretty much mirror the attitude we had at the BMW dealers I worked for for 17 years.

Blind leading the ignorant, always make for cheap entertainment. ( and interesting lawsuits)

wirewrkr, I am willing to learn from those in the know.

What information/evidence did your dealership have, on which to base conclusions?
Do you know of a case where a tubeless snowflake has caused an accident due to the tyre coming off the rim?

Where this issue becomes important to me, is a higher speed blowout. Big spike, sharp rock etc, etc.
A tyre on a snowflake with a tube or without a tube that loses its air in seconds, will suffer the same consequence, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm considering a tube for my upcoming ride due to the likelihood of big hits, where a tube may push the tyre back onto the rim should it be forced off.
These 'big hits' are not encountered in my normal touring.

[Sunbeem]

"There's no debate about it."
Sorry wirewkr, but I'm not convinced. (4 pages and counting ...).

It's in the detail, for example, where you say the valve hole would have to be machined.
How would one machine a rim hole ?
Aren't you overcomplicating things to suit your case ?
If the hole is too small, (which I doubt), the action of opening it out with a file is hardly a machining operation.

Some of your comments seem intended to terminate the discussion, rather than to lead it forward; but blind and ignorant as I may be, I enjoy and learn from the discussions here.
It would be a shame if your 17 years of experience were to impede your further enlightenment.

Sunbeem.

PS. And Ken --- what if she would be seriously disappointed if you didn't ? You have indeed a dangerous example there.

[Ken in Oklahoma]

PS. And Ken --- what if she would be seriously disappointed if you didn't ? You have indeed a dangerous example there.

Now that's a funny twist! Well, if the wife of the mafia wiseguy would be seriously disappointed if I didn't, and the wiseguy himself didn't want me to, well, under that much pressure I don't think I could.

Hell, even if wiseguy did want me to, I still don't think I could. When it doesn't have to do with business I suspect most wiseguys are kind of volatile.



Ken

[vanzen]

...
No, not all unknown risk are alike, and, more importantly, one must always weigh all risks against their benefit...

Or, as stated in not so succinct terms,

...
In the absence of "empirical evidence" or "definitive case study"
(no such evidence or study exists relative to the tubeless use of the BMW snowflake cast wheel),
ultimately, you "play at your own risk".

With all due respect, Major, we are on opposite sides of the same page.

I will uphold any person's (rational and calculated) choice in this matter.
However, I will find the supporting logic problematic
if it compromises the ability to choose,
resorts to ad hominem as a means to dismiss a choice,
distorts the reality of the controversy,
presumes that legislators are better equipped than riders to determine the fate of motorcycling,
or regurgitates as evidence a corporate policy that was in place solely to avoid litigation.



Acrimony ? Acrimony ?
The X-wives get all of that !

[vanzen]

...
Where this issue becomes important to me, is a higher speed blowout. Big spike, sharp rock etc, etc.
A tyre on a snowflake with a tube or without a tube that loses its air in seconds, will suffer the same consequence, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm considering a tube for my upcoming ride due to the likelihood of big hits, where a tube may push the tyre back onto the rim should it be forced off.
These 'big hits' are not encountered in my normal touring.

I have read anecdotal evidence of a case where a flake was grossly distorted by a road-hit
but the tube was not punctured.
The rider's claim was that the aired-tube was solely responsible
for allowing the MC to come to a stop without further trauma.

If my regular riding expectations involved high speeds, marginal road surfaces, and / or off road conditions ...
and I was riding an airhead w/ flakes (as unlikely as that scenario should be) ...
the flakes would be fitted tubes.

[wirewrkr]

The snowflake wheels were never designed for tubeless.
PERIOD. There's no debate about it.
MAYBE someone has pulled it off, but it makes for a very unsafe motorcycle.
Even if you are silly enough to want to try it, you will need to have the stem hole machined to a larger size and have it squared to accept the stem. iirc

So wirewrkr, have you read vanzen's ideas on the subject? He does put together a well thought out counter argument. If you're familiar with his argument, where do you think he went wrong?

Ken

The facts are the facts.
BMW Never meant for that wheel to be run without tubes.
That is fact.
If someone decides to change their own perception of a given reality, they are welcome to do so. BUT
When you give similar advice to a generally broad audience such as on the internet, you are taking on a serious responsibility. You don't know or cannot presume to know the mechanical aptitude of the people who may decide they want to run tubeless tires on their tube type rims. There are lots of folks out there that believe they are very adept at the use of tools and the adaptation of mechanical systems, but in reality have no business picking up a wrench and a screwdriver at the same time. I have witnessed this many many times in my 35 years working in various mechanical businesses.
Giving advice on the internet is a tricky business. I try to refrain from giving advice that could damage their machine or worse, get someone seriously injured.

[Major Softie]

The facts are the facts.
BMW Never meant for that wheel to be run without tubes.
That is fact.

That is absolutely true. I am not, however, sure exactly how important that fact is. BMW never meant to still be building Boxers into the second decade of the 21'st century, and yet, they are. BMW built machines that were never meant to be ridden in a country with a 55 mph speed limit, but they were.

Intent is not an absolute signifier of feasibility, and sometimes isn't even a factor.

[Major Softie]

...Since the actual risk is unknown, I feel more comfortable not engaging the unknown and unmeasurable risk. ...

Could the activity of motorcycling even exist, let alone be enjoyed,
without the tacit and comfortable acceptance of "unknown risk" ?

Actually, Vanzen, there are more available statistics defining our risk in riding a motorcycle than any of us even want to have to think about. So that risk is quite definable and quantifiable.