Rim rims rims...

[22900013A]

That is not generally a problem so far as I am aware, but I am not aware of any tubeless 900x16s anyway.

[garry666]

Getting a bit pricey the 900 tyres
Was maybe thinking about 235/80/16 or 750/16
Or is there somewhere that does 900 tyres at a decent price?

[DasLandRoverMan]

There's a sticky post somewhere on here about 9.00x16 equivalents.

[garry666]

Hi
Just checked threat,very interesting.
The 255 bf muds look pretty nice
Anyone have problems with the tubes with these sort of tubeless tyres?

[JPC]

Kind of daft how a tiny difference in offset of less then the width of a little finger can make such a difference on price.

Do you have fat fingers?

I have both types of 2B rims and they measure as 2mm and -3mm offset. What is the offset of dinkum 1-Ton rims? 20.6 mm?

[22900013A]

Both types of IIB rims???

569204 and 569203 were found on IIBs and 1-Tons, we think the rim with the older part number 5..... was IIA FC.

[JPC]

Both types of IIB rims???

http://****.createaforum.com/technical- ... -130-rims/

After reading this rather crude thread, I went and measured all my 2B rims, and confirmed the 2 offsets on the 265203 rims. My 2A rims all have an offset of 23mm.

What is the offset on the 569204 rim?

[22900013A]

I can only suggest that any variation in offset must be due to minor variations in the production process. A 569203 rim would have the inner section back enough to be flush with the outer band, the 569204 has the inner section more central. The 569203 with XXXXXX over the top should in theory be identical to 569204 rims. The problem is that by describing them as IIB rims it implies they were only ever fitted to IIBs, which is incorrect, they were fitted to 1-Tons also and even some otherwise normal Landrovers such as fire tenders and other special bodies.

Mr Wit admits himself that that thread on a lesser forum is not quite 100% correct but is the best one written so far, I have asked him to write an updated version for this forum but at the moment he has not yet completed it.

[JPC]

I can only suggest that any variation in offset must be due to minor variations in the production process. A 569203 rim would have the inner section back enough to be flush with the outer band, the 569204 has the inner section more central. The 569203 with XXXXXX over the top should in theory be identical to 569204 rims. The problem is that by describing them as IIB rims it implies they were only ever fitted to IIBs, which is incorrect, they were fitted to 1-Tons also and even some otherwise normal Landrovers such as fire tenders and other special bodies.

Mr Wit admits himself that that thread on a lesser forum is not quite 100% correct but is the best one written so far, I have asked him to write an updated version for this forum but at the moment he has not yet completed it.

You sound a lot like Tuvak. Isn't your avatar on another forum Spock?

I stand corrected and shall endeavour in future to refer to my 2B rims as 2B/1=Ton rims.

Live long and prosper. I favour 7 of 9.

For the 3rd time, what is the offset of the most common 1-Ton rim? If you do not know, please then just say so.

[22900013A]

I don't know specific measurements off the top of my head but hoped my descriptions can go some way to differentiating the two types.

I find it easier to refer to part numbers regarding the rims rather than what vehicle they were fitted to, as we know there were no hard rules with Land-Rover.
Generally IIBs seem to have had the 569203s, and 1-Tons had 569203s or 569204s. I don't think we can get any more specific than that.

I was hoping Mr.Wit would be along with some more info as he has looked into this more than I have...