why black is the cheapest?

[wildeone]

The same screw would have punctured your tubed tire. I rode most of my life on tubed tires as well because it was all that was available. I used to run tubed tires in my cars for the same reason. On dirt bikes and bikes for overland travel, I can even agree that they are still the best choice. With hard terrain, desert, and river crossings you are talking overland travel. While I agree that a 21 inch tubed tire would be best for that, I also think that the Africa Twin as spec'ed here would be a bad choice for overland travel. You are free to see it differently or buy one and go beating it across the Congo.

By the way Heidenau makes a 21 inch K60 Scout in Tubeless configuration if you wanted to run a tubeless conversion wheel. But, I personally would not want the 21 in the first place whether tubed or tubeless.

of course matter of personal preference. I guess you think AT would be bad choice for overland travel because of weight only because all other specs are right on I believe.
Well, I can manage throwing around 220kg of my nc750x so I guess I can do the same with 13 kg heavier AT although I agree, 20kg less would be ideal. If you don't ride heavy off-road
no wonder you prefer 19" over 21" but for overland riding why would you?

 

[L.B.S.]

In an emergency where the supposed benefit of being able to put a new or repaired tube back in a tube type tire because the tire itself has severe damage, you can also put a tube in a tubeless tire, for the same benefit that you would gain by having a tubeless tire in the first place. Simply swap out the valve stem.

I wouldn't consider not getting an Africa Twin just because Honda equipped it with tube type tires, (I think it is a silly move just like Lee says) I would grumble, but then source out either new tubeless rims, or have the existing ones modified to be able to fit tubeless tires.

 

[Beemerphile]

of course matter of personal preference. I guess you think AT would be bad choice for overland travel because of weight only because all other specs are right on I believe.
Well, I can manage throwing around 220kg of my nc750x so I guess I can do the same with 13 kg heavier AT although I agree, 20kg less would be ideal. If you don't ride heavy off-road
no wonder you prefer 19" over 21" but for overland riding why would you?

Yes. Personal preference, and yes, weight only. For overland travel, throwing it around sometimes literally means throwing it around. Turning around on a dead-end trail might require laying it on its side, pulling the front wheel around and standing it back up. You might have to load it on a small boat or hoist it up onto a pickup truck to get a friendly ride to Jose's house where he has a welder. You might have to pull it up an unrideable slope with a rope. A light reliable bike would be a much better choice. A KLR 650 is dang heavy about the second time you pick it up - the first time if it fell pointed downhill. But at least you wouldn't feel bad about beating the hell out of it. The mission profile doesn't need 90 hp nor the weight and fuel it takes to provide it. For a desert bike, sure. For a desert racing bike, absolutely. For boulder strewn stream beds and steep tight trails, I'll stay home and wait for your ride report. For the Darian Gap, you'd never be heard from again. I'd say to start with the definition of overland travel. None of the other liter plus bikes are built for it either. But if it is going to be used like the vast majority of heavy liter plus adventure bikes, which I'd bet that it will, then I'd also bet that the average owner would be better served with tubeless 19/17 wheels - which was the answer independently arrived at by KTM (1190 Adv), BMW (R1200GS), Yamaha (XT1200Z Super Ténéré), Moto Guzzi (Stelvio 1200), Triumph (Tiger 1200 Explorer) and Suzuki (V-Strom 1000 ABS Adv). Probably some more. Would you really ride "heavy off-road" on such a bike?

I think it is either a Starbuck's pretender overland bike or an otherwise very nice adventure bike with an unfortunate choice for wheels.

 

[ricksride]

This thread went from the color black to tubeless vs. non tube tires.

 

[wildeone]

This thread went from the color black to tubeless vs. non tube tires.

why are you surprised, tyres are black...

 

[Ed Up]

Yes. Personal preference, and yes, weight only. For overland travel, throwing it around sometimes literally means throwing it around. Turning around on a dead-end trail might require laying it on its side, pulling the front wheel around and standing it back up. You might have to load it on a small boat or hoist it up onto a pickup truck to get a friendly ride to Jose's house where he has a welder. You might have to pull it up an unrideable slope with a rope. A light reliable bike would be a much better choice. A KLR 650 is dang heavy about the second time you pick it up - the first time if it fell pointed downhill. But at least you wouldn't feel bad about beating the hell out of it. The mission profile doesn't need 90 hp nor the weight and fuel it takes to provide it. For a desert bike, sure. For a desert racing bike, absolutely. For boulder strewn stream beds and steep tight trails, I'll stay home and wait for your ride report. For the Darian Gap, you'd never be heard from again. I'd say to start with the definition of overland travel. None of the other liter plus bikes are built for it either. But if it is going to be used like the vast majority of heavy liter plus adventure bikes, which I'd bet that it will, then I'd also bet that the average owner would be better served with tubeless 19/17 wheels - which was the answer independently arrived at by KTM (1190 Adv), BMW (R1200GS), Yamaha (XT1200Z Super Ténéré), Moto Guzzi (Stelvio 1200), Triumph (Tiger 1200 Explorer) and Suzuki (V-Strom 1000 ABS Adv). Probably some more. Would you really ride "heavy off-road" on such a bike?

I think it is either a Starbuck's pretender overland bike or an otherwise very nice adventure bike with an unfortunate choice for wheels.

I ride a fair amount of off road (single track, not fire roads), but near as much as I did 30 years ago. I do like a 21" front tire and I agree completely on the weight issue. Lighter the better. If you want to putt around on fire roads the bigger bike would be fine. But after 5-6 hours on hard single track most of us would never finish. I think a 250-350 2 stroke would be way more bike that most of us could handle in the tight woods, over rocks and creek beds, climbing hills... I've rode with guys that thought bigger was better, I got tired of waiting on them.

 

[bamamate]

Totally agree......lighter is better, for adventure bikes 19/17 tubeless is more practical and fits the vast majority of actual riding.......but from all of the ride reports I've read, when outside of north America/west Europe, 21/18 tube tires are a lot easier to find. Especially in an aggressive pattern. I would like to think that was part of Honda's decision but it was probably a marketing decision. The general public perception tends to be that you can't go on a gravel road without 21/18 tubes.

 

[wildeone]

Totally agree......lighter is better,

that's true but to a degree, at least for me. I don't want to ride bike lighter then 200kg wet.
Been riding in the mountains in very windy days and I was thrown all over the road like a baby on my 240 kg bike with luggage.
Very scary experience trying to balance on edge of the cliff.