Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769

    Conti Trail king 2.2 vs 2.4, huge difference

    I've been running a Conti Trail King in 2.4 with the Apex sidewalls for a little while now. Love the tire so wanted to throw one onto a second bike. I didn't want quite the volume as the 2.4 so went with a 2.2 Protection version. Got the tire today and mounted it up. This thing is tiny small. It looks like a 2.0 with really small volume.

    What gives? How can these two tires be so different in size? Did the tire carcas get smaller when they went to Protection version?

    I'm actually having second thoughts keeping it. My Specialized Captain in 2.2 is much bigger as is the Eakar in 2.3, not so much diff in width but more so in volume.

    I'll post a pic in a few.

  2. #2
    Committed
    Reputation: 1soulrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,610
    The Trail Kings run small for some reason. The Mountain Kings run big, the 2.4 is freaking huge and the 2.2 is not a lot smaller than the Trail King 2.4.
    The rubber compound on the MKs is better as well, stickier and last much longer.
    Try the Baron 2.3 as a nice alternitive to the TK also using the better rubber.

    Edit- I had the MK and TK switched in my above post.
    Last edited by 1soulrider; 11-27-2012 at 09:19 AM.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    Thanks soulrider. The volume on the TK 2.4 is big and I like it but don't need that kind of volume for the trail bike. I'll look at the mountain king and maybe throw that on in a 2.2.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,772
    From all reports on the MK vs TKs is the MK's durability sucks big hair donkey balls. I run TK/RQ's (2.4s) exclusively tho so take what I say w/ a grain of salt. The MK exp is from a riding buddy.
    But if you consider the weights:
    A 2.4 TK/RQ UST is 1110g
    vs
    A 2.4 MK2 UST is 880g
    How does a tire close to 1/2lbs lighter last longer? Just sayin'...

    So, I actually shot some pics for another thread. It's not exactly precise, but should give you an idea of what's what in terms of actual width vs what it looks like.

    TK 2.4 Folding on 23mm internal width rim (29er). It does match up to a 26er's width.


    TK 2.2 UST on 19mm internal width rim (26er)
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( . )╭∩╮

  5. #5
    Committed
    Reputation: 1soulrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,610
    Sorry, double checked and I had the MK and TK mixed up. The MK is smaller and does not have much durability.
    I find the TK 2.2 to be big for it's stated size, bigger than some 2.3 tires. As I mentioned above the 2.4 TK is a monster.
    The 2.3 Baron is a under rated trail tire imo.

  6. #6
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,046
    I found it to be the opposite. I have a set of the 2.2 TK chili mix and I picked up a set of the 2.4s and was disappointed with how much bigger they were then the 2.2. Did you get the made in Germany style on both of them? The BC casting is big time different then the non BC casting since the German made tires use a different mold then the non BC mold. SO alot depends on if they were made in Germany or not. My 2.2 are almost the same width but not as tall as my 2.4.

    Also the mountain king is the one that runs small and the trail king/rubber queen is the one that is true to size just fyi. The above poster has it backwards.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    OK. I do have the made in Germany models. The 2.4 is not the protection version but the one with black chili and apex sidewalls. The 2.2 version I have is a protection version.

    I was expecting a small drop in volume but not quite as much. The TK 2.4 has massive volume and that's what I was going off of when ordering it.

    For reference, my Specialized Purg & Captains both in 2.2 have considerably bigger volume that the TK in 2.2 but the TK in 2.4 is much larger than both of these Speci tires. Maybe I'll just keep it but once you are used to large volume tires it's tough to go backwards. I'm 195# and need the extra volume to keep my rims off the rocks.

  8. #8
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,046
    Maybe it will need some "break in time" or they did something silly with the protection version since the 2.2 TK is what replaced my spesh purg in the rear of my bike and it is bigger. Either way if it smaller then that then that sucks!! Maybe you can sell it off and at least get back some of what you paid so its not a total loss.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,772
    Throw up some pics?
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( . )╭∩╮

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    I can always return the tire. Didn't use any sealant since it looked small out of the box and I had reservations. I'll post some pics of it along with a few other tires for comparison.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    OK, here are some pics. The Motolite has the TK 2.2 on the front and a 2.3 Eskar on back. Other tires are the TK 2.4 folding Apex version on front of El Guapo and a Purgatory 2.2 on the rear. Rims are Flows on the El G and Oozey Evo on the Moto. I think the Oozey have a 21mm internal width.
    TK 2.2 vs 2.4






    TK 2.2 vs a Purg 2.2

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    106
    Hmm, so the TK2.4 is a Black Chili UST version and TK2.2 is Black Chili Protection(=non UST) version?

    I have 2.2 BC UST and it is really big for a 2.2" tire, could it be that the protection model has smaller casing than the UST version..? Could you check what are the printed ETRTO values on each tire, reported values would be 60-559 for 2.4" version and 55-559 for 2.2" version... so there would be 5mm difference in the casing width...

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,015
    tagged for future reference
    roccowt.
    rocnbikemeld

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    The tire is supposed to be 55-559. I don't have a micrometer but after I remove the tire I measured the width of the entire casing, bead to bead. It came to 15cm. I'm getting a bit over 16cm for the Captains in 2.2. Whatever the case, my guess is that it is the profs toon casing.

    FYI, the TK 2.4 is not a UST tire. It is a made in Germany, black chili with Apex reinforced sidewalls.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Whip Chop!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    244
    Weird. I'm running 2.4 Apex in front tubeless and the 2.2 UST rear and the rear is pretty damn big for a 2.2. More like a 2.3+. Perhaps the Protection version is different animal. I am hoping to switch to the protection versions of both sizes for weight reduction but not if I lose volume. Half the reason to run these tires is the huge ass size.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    subscribed

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    Here is an update. Needing to replace a few tires this spring I grabbed a few more Conti. Picked up the x-king in 2.2 and 2.4 Protec. Still have the 2.2 Protec Trail king and the 2.4 TK in Apex casing. Also grabbed a 2.2 TK In Apex version just to compare sizes for different casings. The 2.4 X King has similar volume to the 2.4 TK. All the 2.2 have similar casing size regardless of model. Even the non Protection TK in a 2.2 is the same as all the other 2.2 in protection versions. They just run smaller than I expected after owning the 2.4 TK. It sounds like only the 2.2 UST TK is a truly large 2.2. If I have a chance to compare that 2.2 to the protection version I'll do so and post pics.

    Hope this helps.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilsonblur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,116
    I have the TK 2.4's black chili with apex and when riding my buddy has the 2.4's UST's and my tires are bigger than his UST version. I think using the tubeless ready that its possible that the casings stretch after a while. They are a big tire and I just bought TK's tubeless ready black chili with apex in 2.2's to replace my 2.4's because I don't think I need a tire that big.

    I really like the TK's, after 700 miles they've held up really well to the sandstone we have on the front range in CO and a trip to Curt Gowdy and Moab. I don't know that I have found a tire that I like as well that works in so many different conditions.
    Narrow is the path to life, few are those who find it.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    123
    It would be nice if companies gave us ACTUAL sizes. I picked up a set of Butcher Controls 2.3 (730grams), and they measure 2.125, this is just too narrow for NW tech. Great tire, but deflects quite a bit. Might be a good for dry conditions.

    I Was considering TK's , but the 2.4 is too big and heavy for AM. And the 2.2 look pretty small? If the 2.2 UST (800grams) is actually 2.3+, I may give them a try. Has anyone measured these?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    I'm not sure how heavy the TK is in 2.4 protection. I know the Apex casing is heavier though. I'd like to see a 2.2 UST mounted up just for comparison.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,431
    How tall are those 2.4 TK?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    Will need to measure but I believe they are right between 26.5 and 27.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,431
    This looks like a good rear tire, I like 2.5 DHF but it's not near as tall.

    Muddy Mary 2.35 folding FR casing is 26.5", and little extra height would be nice. Plus TK tread looks like it would roll like a DHF

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,769
    I'll measure for you after the walking dead!!!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,950
    The Conti's are narrow, but tall in the 2.2. I have run the 2.2 and 2.4 and actually find the 2.2 has more traction, but the 2.4 offers more rim protection. It seems as though the 2.2 and 2.4 have the same knob count despite the bigger casing on the 2.4.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •