Page 2 of 2

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:58 am
by Hunsta
Duane Ausherman wrote:
Hunsta wrote:Very interesting thread. I had often thought about this, but on advice Ive had from others the snowflake is just not safely capable of holding a tubeless tyre properly. In my opinion the Snowflake is a far better designed wheel for dirt road use than later models, as it seems to be a better braced pattern. Its just a pity they didnt evolve into a tubeless wheel.
Snowflake......... off road? Just look at one and it has a dent in the rim. I would keep it on smooth pavement.

We straightened so many of them where the owner had no clue as to what he hit.
I think I`d much rather hit an aussie dirt road in the snowflake myself than the later model. Yes they all dent, but here in oz we`re made of tougher stuff. :lol:
Image

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:56 pm
by vanzen
Hunsta wrote:Very interesting thread. I had often thought about this, but on advice Ive had from others the snowflake is just not safely capable of holding a tubeless tyre properly. In my opinion the Snowflake is a far better designed wheel for dirt road use than later models, as it seems to be a better braced pattern. Its just a pity they didnt evolve into a tubeless wheel.
The controversy, tubes vs no tubes on a flake, is as old as flakes and tubeless tires.
Justification presented by credible sources can be found to support either position.
For example, Dr. Curve says yes, Oak vehemently says no ...

"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),
controversy is likely to continue due to an inability to objectively quantify that "risk".

One undisputed fact will be that the flake is an obsolete 1st gen. cast wheel.
As such, it is actually much heavier than necessary for street use –
and absolutely too heavy for any actual "off-roading" as defined in a literal sense.
Important on-road, and critical off-road,
superfluous unsprung mass will be detrimental to handling performance in both scenarios.

Although proven sturdy enough for regular pavement work,
but for the exception of the random behemoth pot hole or curb encounter,
contemporary cast wheels (read: lightweight) are still not the usual choice for off-roading,
and for a number of good reasons !

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:39 pm
by chasbmw
Especially in aus I would be carefull of using tubeless snowflakes, I hit a bulldust cavered pothole in NT at around 50, managed to dent both the front and the rear rims on a spoked R90, but stayed on the bike and the tyres stayed inflated.

Some serious insurance implications in running snowflakes against manufacturers advice, especially in the US where lawyers rule the land

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:45 pm
by vanzen
chasbmw wrote:...
Some serious insurance implications in running snowflakes against manufacturers advice, especially in the US where lawyers rule the land
Food for thought, indeed, but as for myself ...

Circumstances that justify this fear as motivation are certainly plausible if not probable.
Yes, ultimately, the law is the law, and money follows that well greased path, blah, blah, blah –

However, there is not one government official, lawyer, insurance executive, agent, or adjuster
who's knowledge or experience of this specific issue and it's potential consequences
surpasses my own ...

Will I define or compromise my concept and choice of a safer daily riding scenario
to satisfy an ignorant bureaucrat or an irrational fear of litigation ?

No way !