2stroke4stroke

You are right, it is not acceptable, but if a replacement tyre is not forthcoming, for whatever reason, then the tube offered is better than not using the tyre. Most trials riders don't want to get in to extended wrangling over consumer issues. The more common reason was to cure the leaking spoke nipples on earlier rim designs.

You can't beat Elbow Grease, £1 for 500ml. Good for getting chain marks etc off jeans too.

This is in danger of becoming dragged out but, to explain my post. The facts seem to be that some folk successfully use a tube with a tubeless rim and tyre and others don't. We all know that, regardless of security bolts, a tubed tyre on a tube type rim does eventually creep and take the tube with it so we keep an eye on the valve and straighten things up every so many events. As a tubeless tyre gets a really good grip on the rim, once properly blown on, it should not creep, certainly not any faster than a conventional tubed setup with its relatively poor grip on the rim. The puzzle is, leaving aside faulty manufacture which normally is not the problem, why should some tyres happy at 4psi without a tube move so rapidly at 4psi with a tube that the rider does not get a chance to notice it and the valve tears out, but others stay put?

My observation was in the general, not particularly the current Sherco/Dunlop issue, context of tubeless rims and tyres where the pressure is the same as without a tube thus the tyre gets the same grip (designed to be airtight unlike a conventional tubed setup) on the rim as it would normally so security bolts are not a consideration?

So, people have mixed experiences with tubes in tubeless tyres, though I have heard no problems reported from the Pre'65 Scottish where, I am told, the rules demand that if a tubeless tyre is used then a tube must be fitted. I'm intrigued with ND's apparent experience that a correctly made and fitted tubeless tyre will creep despite the much greater grip such a tyre has on the rim than a conventional tubed setup. I have not been aware of this happening and will be marking my tyre to check movement for my own interest. Good to see that Leeky got sorted out with a new tyre. Notwithstanding consumer law my understanding was that Dunlop refused to acknowledge a problem thus dealers would have to bear the cost from an already narrow margin with some being more willing than others to do so.

Dog turd not much use if the bike is sitting in the garage not being used 'cause the tyre does not fit the rim ? Can't see why the tyre should move on the rim such as to drag the tube then consequently the valve? I know someone who used a tube for years with no problem.

Personally I don't care if anyone uses "unapproved fuel" in a trials bike, provided it is not producing hazardous emissions, as we all know that, in trials, the fanciest of fuel does not a winner make. But, as suggested above, it is perhaps time that the rules reflected reality.

Both tyres and rims are supposed to be built to Standards to ensure compatability so it looks lika a QA problem somewhere. A newcomer out on his brand new Sherco on Saturday had been through the Dunlop/Sherco loops but the problem was solved by another dealer fitting a tube. Better than junking a new tyre and I doubt whether many regulars on here could tell the performance difference between the tubeless and tubed setup on a blind testing.

There are a number of things I have not seen an SACU official check in a long time John eg noise, approved tyres, ball end levers but I nonetheless comply with the rules. However I would suggest that the rule on pump petrol did not foresee the current situation but was really intended to outlaw "performance enhancing" fuels, though must have an environmental aspect too.

If you remove the exhaust pipe you should be able to get a sufficently accurate measure on the bore size. Failing which take the head off and measure it. I can't see the picture on the system I am on at the moment.

I can jump in here on the Doblo question. The bike goes in diagonally with no seats out (front wheel to the left of the single rear seat). If you take out a seat then you can drop the front wheel in to the rear footwell and get the bike fore and aft against the side of the car (or remove both seats and fit two bikes like this). Seats are held in by two bolts so it does not take long to undo them, once you have initially removed and greased them.

Apart from such stuff probably being hard to find in the UK, its use is not permitted under ACU rules which, if I recall correctly, only allow the use of standard pump petrol.

I used acrylic model paint on plastic stickers and it worked OK.

"Well fabricated" but doesn't come near fitting the bike? Send it back.

Tyre = correct Tire = two nations separated by a common language

I think "Location: Northern Ireland" is a clue to where "over here" might be.?

I didn't see any reference to sales volumes but 250cc was the lower limit for the first period then to include sub 250s later.

I was at my FLD looking at the new Bonnie and said dealer mentioned that, as of next year, all motorcycles must have anti lock braking. A quick Google seemed to confirm this. Can anyone in manufacture/import say how this will affect the ability to register a trials bike or will the SSDT become "used bikes only"? Is the ACU aware of this one?

I don't know if many ran their trials bikes on Cleveland Discol which seemed to be the main culprit but I don't know how the percentage compares with the new stuff. But you are right, it should not be beyond the wit of man to produce ethanol proof fuel systems on vehicles.

It hasn't just become a problem. See those alloy Bultaco tanks, they were used because legislation was brought in outlawing non- metal tanks on motorcycles in the UK. This was brought about by the effects of ethanol on glass fibre tanks commonly fitted to cafe racers allegedly resulting in weakness that caused fires in a crash. Who knows how much of a problem it really was but once the press got their teeth in to it with "ton up fireball" type headlines something was done about it.

Very interesting article by Jim Snell in the latest issue of On the Pegs - he visited the factory for the start of production and saw/photo'd details of the bike both internal and external. The bike seems to be not only built to last but also designed to be easy to work on. Perhaps worth sacrificing a few bhp for? There is also a simple means of softening the delivery for slippery going.

Ah well.....I'm afraid it was the analogue version I was reading in Tesco.

I see Motorcycle News, that well known authority on trials, reckon it would be competitive in a National. Maybe if Toni was riding it.

Maybe not, but it still has to be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose to comply with trading law, which is a bit stronger than a warranty. If it is sold as a competition motorcycle then it has to be suitable as a competition motorcycle.

Not so. One bike fits in a Doblo without any seats needing to be removed. This may also be the case with the later, longer, Berlingo. And even if you removed one seat in the Doblo that would still leave four seats.