Suitable for Tubless Tires Poll

[BA80]

twice in one trip? That is incredible bad luck! I once tried to get the rear tire off the rim of one of my 78's I finally gave up. There is no need for rim locks on the back tire.

Skids, I spent a lot of time on a response telling the story behind that but my computer gliched and I lost the whole #ucking thing. I'll tell you in person sometime.

It's a funny story.

[motoman]

Front/rear tubeless, Conti Go front/rear.......both 42psi.

[Blank Slate]

Where does it say on the rim suitable for tubeless tire?

[DiverRay]

Look on the spokes, as it's stamped VERY LIGHTLY on one of them. Looks like someone took a stamp kit and put it in as an afterthought.

[Blank Slate]

Look on the spokes, as it's stamped VERY LIGHTLY on one of them. Looks like someone took a stamp kit and put it in as an afterthought.

Every time I look for it I can't find it and give up.

Maybe my rims are dirty...

[DiverRay]

'78 and early '79 didn't have them. I think it was about May '79 when they started putting them on the XS11. IF you have early rims, then no, you will not have them. The rear rim had the bead locks, so there will be two 8mm holes across from each other on the rear rim, with the air valve between them. The tubeless rims still had the boss for the holes on the rim, but they were not drilled.

[TomB]

The tubeless rims still had the boss for the holes on the rim, but they were not drilled.

I have a straight spoke 16" rear with the tyre clamp boss's cast on but not drilled, it doesn't have the etched/engraved "Suitable for tubeless tires" that my XJ1100 Maxim wheels have though.

[Eveready1100]

these pics are from my SF. Appears that the date of manufacture was the 2nd month 1979


and it's got this stamped on one of the spokes of both wheels, the rear being a 16 incher with the rimlock bosses cast in but undrilled



I've run this setup for most of the 344,000 klms I've put on the bike with no major issues ( at one stage, I had to replace the valve stem rubbers which had perished causing slow pressure loss but was no biggie, just a nuisance) minus about 12,000 where I'd fitted a 17 inch rear wheel to try to improve economy a bit (That was a waste of time!)

[motoman]

I'm running stock SG tubless rims and tubless tires. Was runnig cheap Shinkos all around but wasn't getting good miles out of those on the rear. Anywhere from 3000 to 6000, fronts not so bad. Got a Dunlop E3 on the rear now and it's doing real well. Got about 5000 on it so far and it's barely showing any wear.

The only incidents I've had were the rear went flat on me twice on the way to the Lost Rally last year. Both times I was able to plug it and get down the road within a half hour. That would be tough to do with a tube.

You seem to be plagued with aquiring flats on LD rides. Just try and avoid front tire immediately going fflat like I remember you having a few yrs. back.

[motoman]

IIRC, that front flat incident was at Interstate speed.

[Blank Slate]

these pics are from my SF. Appears that the date of manufacture was the 2nd month 1979


and it's got this stamped on one of the spokes of both wheels, the rear being a 16 incher with the rimlock bosses cast in but undrilled



I've run this setup for most of the 344,000 klms I've put on the bike with no major issues ( at one stage, I had to replace the valve stem rubbers which had perished causing slow pressure loss but was no biggie, just a nuisance) minus about 12,000 where I'd fitted a 17 inch rear wheel to try to improve economy a bit (That was a waste of time!)

I was beginning to think this stamp did not exist! After seeing your post I checked again and found my stamp that says suitable for tubeless. Whew what a relief. My SF was made jan 79 according to frame stamp.

[Eveready1100]

Glad you found it! Knowing what to look for and where exactly to look helps somewhat.

[hamjam]

Metzeler ME880 size 150/80X16 for the front and a Metzeler ME880 size for the rear I used 160/80-16. Little narrower, but taller and it came very close to fixing the speedo error.
:-)