nikasil bores and tube/tubeless tires

[Alex Sfakianos]

A buddy of mine is currently rebuilding an aeroplane engine, The company supplying the new cylinders, pistons and rings give you a choice: 1. Nikasil bores with cast iron rings 2. Steel bores with steel rings They say that the nikasil is so hard that regular rings will not bed into the cylinder properly, hence the softer rings needed. Bear in mind that this is in an engine rated at 2000 hours of use for either variant, That equates to an awful lot of miles. I'd say it's probably easier to keep it as is, a rebore is so simple on the KLR and I'm not sure what advantage you'd get from the Nikasil. Other than having an excuse to spend a bunch of money of course. I also remember from years ago talking to a 'plane rebuilding place about doing the same on my R65/100 and being told that there were heat transfer problems with Nikasil. They recommended against it. TUBE?LESS debate Several bikes are available with tubeless tyres, the Ducati/Cagiva Dual Purpose whose moniker escapes me, the monster moto-Guzzi D/P as well as the BMW's. The two Italians use a sealing system around the spoke holes, the BMW's an offset for the spokes. Safety is a big issue here, never mind the convenience of fixing flats. Tubeless tyres do not blow-out the way tubes do, nor do they come off the rim as easily when they lose air. I have thought about trying to find some tubeless rims for my KLR for the big safety advantages alone. If anyone does the digging and finds some, let me know! Alex