[amit_purohit20]

Dear Alpha1 - if I am not mistaken, it is the width of the wheel rim from bead center to bead center in inches. I have not deep dived in this area so please Google this and check this out. If you put a 3.00*18 on a 1.4, the tire sidewalls will naturally bulge out and it will affect performance / safety.

A short research on google and with my own little logic I comeout with this:

RTR 180 has 2.15j x 17" rims. It means 2.15 inches width of the rim measured between inside of the walls of the rim where the tyre beads sit.
RTR 180 has 110/80 x 17" tyre size.
Pulsar 220 has 2.5j x 17 rims. It has tyre size: 120/80 x 17".

So if you fit a 120 section tyre of Pulsar 220 in RTR 180 it is being made to sit on a rim having narrower width. This will lead to make the tyre to take the form of a U which has a very less crossectional radius. I mean the Tyre will bulge and it will nearly have no flat patch at the centre of the tyre. So the contact patch of the tyre with the ground will be reduced inspite of we having fitted a more broader tyre. This will defeat the whole purpose of going for a broader tyre. Now all this is theoretical and practically it also does happen which I have confirmed from a guy who has actually fitted a 120 cross section tyre in his RTR180. But practically we need to measure the contact patch of 110 section tyre and 120 section tyre and then only we can conclude which really has a more bigger contact patch. I still feel that the 120 section tyre will have a more wider contact patch but it could have been more wider if we had used a rim size of 2.5j instead of 2.15j.
Also a tyre with more bulge will have more probability of it coming out of the wheel rim.
I referred to some wheel rim and tire size tables and found that some tire manufactures specify the wheel rim size on which they can be fit. Further googling led me to come with contradictory results. As per some calculators it is not recommended to fit 120 section tyre on 2.15j rims, whereas some tyre manufacturers allow 120 section tyre to be fit on 2.15j rims. But even the tyre manufacturing companies specify which particular tyre model can be fit on what type of rim.
Refer this link as an example
DUNLOP TYRES : HONG KONG

It clearly shows that for this particular rear tyre model having 120/80 x 17 61S the standard rim size should be 2.75j. Pulsar fits same tyre size on 2.5and now we are trying to fit 120 section on 2.15 in RTR180.Although its allowed by the tyre manufacturer but we are already on the limit.

Why are the Indian tyre manufacturers not specifying the rim widths on which these tyres can be fit? Not even Michelin mentions it.

So shivank now your rear tyre coming out of the rim has a lot to do with this matching of rim size and tyre size is it?
Or it has to do with your rim being bent and so the tyre could not grip it anymore. Hmm it still remains a big question for me.
Although many persons here have used Tube type tyres as tubeless and didnot face any problem or for those who use tubeless tyres, I feel the situation will remain the same when the rim bends. The tyres will leak air all of a sudden beween the bead and the rim. Only difference will be that the tubeless tyre will be slightly more resistant to leaking of air for minor deformations of the wheel rim due to the special structure of the tyre at the beads. Also if a nail penetrates the tubeless tyre which has a soft non permeable inside layer it will allow less air to leak between the nail surface and the tyre surface. This will not be the case with Tubetype tyres. So better to go with tubeless tyres.
In Indian conditions there are high chances the rims will bend,also the quality of rims are poor (OEM as well as after-market) so I feel Michelin has not introduced a Tubeless tyre yet in the market. They want to play safe.

[Shivank]

Originally Posted by amit_purohit20

A short research on google and with my own little logic I comeout with this:

RTR 180 has 2.15j x 17" rims. It means 2.15 inches width of the rim measured between inside of the walls of the rim where the tyre beads sit.
RTR 180 has 110/80 x 17" tyre size.
Pulsar 220 has 2.5j x 17 rims. It has tyre size: 120/80 x 17".

You did quite a lot of homework on that. Thanks for sharing.

Some of theory above has definitely gone to my head but most of it is still debatable. Only a tire manufacturer can throw more light on this subject now. Practically it may be possible to run a tubeless or tube type tire on any kind of rim, but when there isn't any tire-manufacturer officially backing up that theory, it's best to stick with the stock size. Or, if you plan to deviate from it make sure of the tire type atleast.

Also, I have to agree that I chose the wrong size rubber as the puncture-waala demonstrated today. He just pressed the tire hard with that pointy tool, and in just 2 minutes the tire was back in shape and was running smooth. As per his explanation, which seems valid, it was a 100 running on a 110 size rim, when the air-pressure inside drops by some psi it leads to sidewall contraction, and then we hear a BADA BOOM with all of the air escaping in one go! However, none of that happened to my friend running the R15 100-spec rubber on his RTR for more than a year now. So, it's either the bent rim (which I am not certain about) or this particular tube-type, which played the spoilsport.

After fixing the issue, I straightway headed for the dealer. On telling my woeful experience with the tire, even he suspected if using a Tube-type tire makes sense on a Tubeless. Albeit, he gave me full crap on how none of the other customers ever complained of such thing happening. Also, the best part was, as per him it's a tubeless tire but Michelin is promoting it as Tube-type tire. Just because in India it's a trend using a Tube-Type rubber. So, if that's true, Michelin, you are actually confusing us. And if it's not, then send some representative to teach these dealers.

Good news is he didn't argue much. He took full accountability that he did wrong by selling a Tube-type for a Tubeless. And that, IMO, is a full U-turn by the dealer. That proves that even he's not sure about the physics behind. Anyway, he is ready to replace the rubber now. Which is commendable, so I spare the poor soul here.

Going for the Zapper C as it comes with the same stock size. It's 400 bucks dearer than the Michelin. But I pay him 600-bucks (200 bucks extra for the depreciation on the older tire). He has asked me to bring the bike tomorrow as he didn't have the Zapper in stock today. Lets see how it turns out...

[amit_purohit20]

Shivank I think there is no harm in using a Tubetype tyre on a tubeless rim with tubes inside. I have learnt from net many people do this. Also many off-roaders are doing this because of a chance of air leaking from bent rim. But if you are getting a new tire why not!
I do not agree that just because you are using 100 section tyre on RTR 180 it came out. As per the various tables showing tyre and rim size relations. Its very normal to use a 2.15j rim for a 100/80 tyre. Many manufacturers are also using 80/90 tyre for 2.15j rim.

I fully doubt your rims and before that I doubt the actual tire pressure before the tire came out. You were riding double seat and if the tire pressure was low and that too with a bent rim then it became a receipe for disaster. I also feel that if you want to use a tubetype tire as tubeless then one should increase the tire pressure to compensate for the reduced ability of the tubetype tire to grip the rim edges tight enough to form a leak proof seal.
One more thing i noticed is that those persons who are happy about using a tubetype tire as tubeless one is that many of them are running on hard compound heavy tires like Sirac. Michelin Pilot is a light tyre and also having very soft compound so I think its beads might not be strong enough to hold the air pressure.Its just my thought.
For your information purpose Michelin Pilot sporty without tube is costing 1900 in pune and MRF Zapper C (Tubeless) is costing 2200.

[Shivank]

Originally Posted by amit_purohit20

Shivank I think there is no harm in using a Tubetype tyre on a tubeless rim with tubes inside.

I second that. I have heard and seen people use a tube inside a tubeless. But for me, the purpose of having a 'tubeless' is actually lost doing that. And when the dealer is ready to change it for a dismal amount, why bother? ;-)

Originally Posted by amit_purohit20

I fully doubt your rims and before that I doubt the actual tire pressure before the tire came out. You were riding double seat and if the tire pressure was low and that too with a bent rim then it became a receipe for disaster.

Now I have no idea if the rim is the culprit in all this mess. The last time I did proper off-roading was about 8-10 days before the incident. Only this comes to my mind as a possible reason for the rim going out of shape. I am 90% of the time riding with a pillion (since the tire swap) and can't remember hitting a pothole that hard in last 4-5 days of riding.

Still, lets assume this is all because of the bent rim. Wheel balancing is going to be a headache anyway. Can't for my life believe in a blacksmith and his hammer for this purpose. So, rather than playing my bets on the rim I will rather go get a new tire.

Also, I have found a very interesting answer to some of the FAQs on JKtyre webpage. Quoting it directly from the manufacturer page.


Can I use tube type tyre without tube as tubeless tyres or vice versa?

By virtue of their construction and design , a tube type tyre must not be used without tube as tubeless. However use of tube in tubeless tyre for limited period in case of emergencies is permissible.

What is a tubeless tyre and what are its advantages?

Tubeless tyres, as the name suggests, are tyres without the tube. The tubeless tyre is built in such a way that it can contain the air by itself without tube. In Tubeless construction tyre and rim assembly form an air container, to “Seal” and “Contain” the compressed air inside the assembly

Here's the original link- FAQs : In the News : Corporate : JK Tyre


Also, more on the construction difference here-
mountain bike - Can you run a standard tyre on a tubeless rim? - Bicycles

Concept of Tubeless Tyres

Excerpts from the last link-

Instead of the inner butyl tube present in the traditional tyres, tubeless tyres are solely filled with air. To seal the air inside the tyre, the inner wall is lined with an airtight and impermeable membrane composed of materials like halo butyly/chloro-butyl. Butyl lining helps reduce air permeation.


After going through the above posts, running a tube-type tire as tubeless is a strict no-no for me. And will suggest everyone to be wary of the dangers involved in such kinda practice.

[sharanvenu]

You can use a tube inside a tubeless tyre and ride it safe. This practice is followed when we are unable to fix a puncture in a tubeless tyre and we are forced to ride on. Just put a tube inside, remove the neck of tubeless tyre, fill air and ride on. The whole process takes less than 15 minutes. But as somebody stated earlier, the purpose of having a tubeless tyre is beaten.
I assume that we prefer a tubeless tyre beacause of the following reasone
--> Lesser weight because of lack of tube
--> safer as in the event of a puncture, air doesnt escape quickly through the gap b/n tyre & wheel, giving us time for stopping safely.
--> More robust construction and higher speed & load ratings available.

These advantages are lost, but its still safe enough to ride with a tube inside.
But, the inverse case is disastrous. The major constructional difference between the tubed tyre and a tubeless tyre is in the shape of the contact point with the wheel. Do whatever, the tubed tyre cannot run without a tube inside, simply because, it is not designed to accommodate the neck between the wheel and tyre. It is risky, it is dangerous and it has been discussed 'n' number of times various threads, various forums. I have seen a lot of guys riding with tubed tyre in tubeless configuration safely though. But still this is not advisable.

I believe that for shivank's case, the neck would have taken a beating earlier and may be it would have given up and shifted position slightly to leave out a little air and once the process started, it would have given away totally, eventually dislocating the tyre from the wheel.

And as far as I know, michelin is yet to launch a tubeless 2 wheeler tyre in India. Their version is, tubeless tyres are not suited for our kind of terrain (??). This is still not digested very well by me. Michelin says that even the slightest dent on the wheel makes life difficult for the tubeless tyre (which we all know is very easy to happen. It can happen even on city roads with a fair sized pot hole) and hence they are hesitating to launch the tubeless variety in India.
So, this is a lesson to be learnt by all of us bikers - to go by the tyre manufacturer's specification.

[sharanvenu]

Originally Posted by Shivank

Tubeless tyres, as the name suggests, are tyres without the tube. The tubeless tyre is built in such a way that it can contain the air by itself without tube. In Tubeless construction tyre and rim assembly form an air container, to “Seal” and “Contain” the compressed air inside the assembly

I think you missed the neck of the tubeless tyre here. Tubeless tyres have a neck between the wheel and the tyre which seals the gap between the wheel and the tyre. I have seen this in all TL tyres. So, the placement of this makes the TL tyre an air container. Normally, when we have a puncture in a TT tyre, 99% of the air escapes through the gap b/n the wheel & tyre. So, in TL tyre, this gap is sealed by the neck and this is the reason why air doesnt go out quickly in the even of a puncture. Think about this, the neck has to be there. Otherwise, where do u keep the valve for the tyre? I hope the picture is clear now.

[Bookkeeper]

Originally Posted by sharanvenu

You can use a tube inside a tubeless tyre and ride it safe. This practice is followed when we are unable to fix a puncture in a tubeless tyre and we are forced to ride on. Just put a tube inside, remove the neck of tubeless tyre, fill air and ride on. The whole process takes less than 15 minutes. But as somebody stated earlier, the purpose of having a tubeless tyre is beaten.
I assume that we prefer a tubeless tyre beacause of the following reasone
--> Lesser weight because of lack of tube
--> safer as in the event of a puncture, air doesnt escape quickly through the gap b/n tyre & wheel, giving us time for stopping safely.
--> More robust construction and higher speed & load ratings available.

These advantages are lost, but its still safe enough to ride with.

How safe is it exactly? I own a Unicorn Dazzler which comes fitted with MRF Nylogrip tubeless tires. The rear tire had a real nasty cut which could not be fixed and hence the tire repair guy told me that the only way to salvage the tire would be fix a screw inside to hold together the cut in the tire and equip the tire with a tube. I asked him to go ahead with it and it has been more than an year now without any trouble. However, is there anything that can go wrong with the setup? The cut was a little more than an inch or two.

[amit_purohit20]

So if you fit a 120 section tyre of Pulsar 220 in RTR 180 it is being made to sit on a rim having narrower width. This will lead to make the tyre to take the form of a U which has a very less crossectional radius. I mean the Tyre will bulge and it will nearly have no flat patch at the centre of the tyre. So the contact patch of the tyre with the ground will be reduced inspite of we having fitted a more broader tyre. This will defeat the whole purpose of going for a broader tyre.

I got the proof of the above point from the Xbhp member who has fitted the 120 section tyre on RTR 180 with 2.15j rim. Fitment of the 120 section tyre does not increase the contact patch when compared to stock 110 section tyre.

So RTR owners: a) Please dont go for 120 section tyre it wont help much to increase the contact patch. b) Instead go for stock 110 section tyre but with a better compound. I found out that moving from 110 to 120 section tyre of the same make increases the cost by about 600-800 Rs.Why waste this extra moolah on the size of the tyre, better invest in good quality rubber.

I was just going through my Vista's manual and it says that the tubeless tyres should not be scrubbed from inside because it is coated with a soft impermeable to air layer. If scrubbed it will affect the tyres ability to retain air for a longer period of time and more importantly it will also affect the ability to retain tyre when it gets punctured.

So practically a tubetype tyre might work as a tubeless but you never know when the disaster will occur. Inshort stay away from such stunts.
We can also understand how safe Michelin wants to play when they say they dont want to sell tubeless tyres because Indian rims can bend due to potholed filled roads. But I feel one day looking at the competitors they would also start selling Tubeless tyres.

[sharanvenu]

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper

How safe is it exactly?

I don't think it is going to give you any kind of problems. But owing to the extent of damage happened to the tyre, it is better to change it atleast some 5k kms before a change is due. So, if it has clocked some 20k kms already, Its ready for a change. It should run normally otherwise.

[Shivank]

Thanks for all your inputs, guys! It will surely help others on the this forum and beyond to take care of these small details the next time they find themselves in a tyre shop.

I have replaced the Michelin with the Zapper C that comes in the stock size without any hassle. Will retrieve back to this thread if I face any issues with the rim or tire.

[amit_purohit20]

Shivank, I would want to thank you for starting this thread and giving us a chance to delve deeper and come out with important points. As now you have fitted the Zapper C tubeless tyre with 110/80 x 17 dimensions, I would like to know its grip levels in wet,dry,gravel,slush etc. More specifically I would like to know its grip levels in wet on tarmac as most of the time people drive on tarmac and the lowest grip condition is when the road is wet. So expecting your rich comments here.

[amit_purohit20]

Originally Posted by Shivank

Thanks for all your inputs, guys! It will surely help others on the this forum and beyond to take care of these small details the next time they find themselves in a tyre shop.

I have replaced the Michelin with the Zapper C that comes in the stock size without any hassle. Will retrieve back to this thread if I face any issues with the rim or tire.

Guys one great piece of information from the dealer and I saw it with my own eyes:

Tube type tyres (TT) have totally different tyre seating surface with the rim as compared to the tubeless ones (TL).
Some TT tyres had staggered radial lines of 1 mm thick all through out the tyre -rim seating surface.
Now how can we even think of this type of tyre which has a uneven tyre-rim seating surface to retain air pressure with the rim.

Tubeless tyres had smooth tyre-rim seating surface and the compound used was different.

Also the inner layer of TL tyre was coated with a special compound of rubber and it seemed non porous where as the TT tyre inner layer was coarse (read not-coated with any compound and so more chance of leaking air).

This dealer in pune never fits a TT tyre as TL unless some mad customer demands for it.

[Bibin]

Im also planning to change my present rear tyres- TUBELESS MRF Zapper 100 - 90 R18 on my HH CBZ Xtreme with a Michelin Sirac Steel TUBE TYPE without a tube as recommended by the retailer where I replaced my front tyres with SIRACs some 6months ago (even they were TT and I got it fitted without a tube).], seems Michelin TT tyres are good to go without Tubes on these wheels.
MRF is always prone to punctures and not that happy with Zapper's performance

Look forward for a good experience with MICHELIN.