Results 1 to 31 of 31
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,020

    New question here. Conti Mountain King II or Trail King on HD?

    Anyone have experience with these two tires on their HD? I do a fair bit of road riding to my Trails so I'm looking for a good rolling tire that's grippy for the wet season. Generally I run Weirwolfs due to my drier and hardpack conditions in the summer. In the winter it gets kind of mucky, clay, shale and wet sand conditions.

    Was thinking Contin Mountain King II in 2.4 or TRail King in 2.2 since the 2.4 is huge.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,949
    I think mountain kings are worthless pieces of garbage. Just dont offer any grip particularly in the wet I run trail kings and Hans dampf's on my hd.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,189
    I think it depends on your trail conditions. I run an MKII in the rear, but that is Socal rocks and hardpack. We only get 6-8" of rain per year so I have no concept of wet roots! Our plants go deep looking for water and there are really no trees here to speak of.

  4. #4
    Off the back...
    Reputation: pinkrobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,008
    Conditions around here are everything from blowing dust to greasy mud, and there are roots on every single trail. I roll a 2.2 Rubber Queen on a 30mm rim in back, and I am very pleased with the performance on the HD. The 2.4 will likely give you frame rub. The Black Chili rubber is very grippy, even in the wet [moreso than the Maxxis SuperTacky compound if you're familiar with that]. I tried a MKII, and it was simply not that grippy on anything other than dry hardpack. In front, I am using the 2.3 Conti Baron, which I find is an excellent pairing with the RQ.
    dgsmills.com
    #pinkrobeyyc
    CMBA

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    184
    I currently run Trail King 2.2 UST on both front and back. I find them to be very good tires. I used to ride Trail King 2.4 UST, but they are heavy. The 2.4's felt way better than the 2.2's on the downhill, but the 2.2's aren't much worse. It's a compromise. The only gripe I have is that if your weight isn't perfect in corners they will slide out, but I think most tires would do that in our grit over hard packed dirt.

  6. #6
    Bike Addiction
    Reputation: 00sable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    763
    The MK is lighter but for me that was its ONLY advantage over TK's. I run 2.2 TK's and are pleased with the roll. Not any rolling advantage to MK's there by my perception. I also run the rear tire rotation as front and see very little traction lost when braking or pedaing. I had a tubed 2.2 MK that weighed 650g. The tubeless TK's weigh in at 800g IIRC.
    Disclaimer: Always get a second opinion cause I'm just guessing

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,020
    Thanks for the replies guys. Anyone go from Weirwolfs, which I love, to these?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,189
    I was running a Weirwolf on the rear before my MKII. WW rolled a little better I think but the MK has better traction. I found the WW a little squirmy in the corners.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,020
    Yeah, the WW's do roll quite nicely....looks like I may just need to get a pair of MKII's and see for myself.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,020
    Anyone have an opinion on the 2.4 X-King? Like the idea of the fast rolling characteristics, worried about cornering and braking.

    X-King Back MK II FRont?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,189
    I hated the X King and took it off after 1 ride.

  12. #12
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,723
    When I'm using my Enduro bike as an XC bike or faced with a very pedally Enduro stage I use MKII 2.4s. They're way lighter than my normal Maxxis DHF2.5/Ardent2.4 EXO combo but still have enough grip to enjoy slack angles and big suspension and the Proctection sidewalls have held up. They have more grip and a little more drag than a 2.2" Ardent, which I thought wasn't sufficient for a 6" bike. That's a pretty good way of classifying them: An XC tire for big bikes.

    The Trail King is more along the lines of the DHF or High Roller 2. It's a big, grippy tire with the associated weight and drag.
    Keep the Country country.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    88
    Try Maxxis, a set of tires aren't forever like death. They are predictable, in the wet you get plenty of warning when they are about to let loose, not like the instant on off of the conti. They are fast rollin, can be run at low pressure, plus they Stan up very well. Probably the best all round tire you can get.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    88
    By the way High Rollers, 6 years now no flats, 0 issues

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,054
    Trail Kings are a great tire. MKII's are ok, but you won't get a wow from hardly anyone on their performance. I'd go with the TK's for aggressive riding if you like Conti. If you want something faster, Maxxis Ardents and Schwalbe Nobby Nic 2.35's are significantly better than MKII's in my opinion.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    570
    I just got MK2 2.4, a bit disappointed with the width, I was expecting it tobe wider than ardent 2.25. Apparently 2.4 is the same width as ardent 2.25 and nobby nic 2.25.
    as for performance, I like it as trail riding for my style, grippy and good rolling too. Weight is 770gr. .
    Next time I will get nobby nic 2.35 for front.
    I got the protection black chilli, very well built. It is so hard to install tho.

  17. #17
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,370
    Quote Originally Posted by inter View Post
    I just got MK2 2.4, a bit disappointed with the width, I was expecting it tobe wider than ardent 2.25. Apparently 2.4 is the same width as ardent 2.25 and nobby nic 2.25.
    as for performance, I like it as trail riding for my style, grippy and good rolling too. Weight is 770gr. .
    Next time I will get nobby nic 2.35 for front.
    I got the protection black chilli, very well built. It is so hard to install tho.
    I always called the MK 2.4 "fat 2.25 tires". I much prefer the TK 2.4, and they have true 2.4" carcass.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,020
    Ardents.....I've been wondering about those too. Looks like a fast rolling tire.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,189
    Ardent is fast but lackluster grip in the rear using the 26 version. Really liked the 29 version.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    251
    Hans Dampfs or Minions, DHF in front and reversed in rear, exos. Interested in throwing on one of the new Magic Marys from Schwalbe on the front of the HD.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    570
    I like ardent at front and NN rear. Ardent is a bit taller than NN, same width tho, but NN is lighter.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by pastajet View Post
    I always called the MK 2.4 "fat 2.25 tires". I much prefer the TK 2.4, and they have true 2.4" carcass.
    Agree, TK 2.4 is wider. I thought MK2 2.4 should be pretty close in width.
    I wanted a wide front tire under 800 gr, that is why I bought MK2.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Betarad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    790
    I just replaced a set of worn Ardent 2.4's on my HD, which I was very pleased with, with..gulp...a set of Mountain King 2.4's (no not MKII's, just MK's) that I got for a REALLY good price. Despite being dirt-cheap, I'm finding the MK's to be very loose and squishy on dirt, bone-rattling on asphalt, and pretty much mediocre in general. Makes me wonder how improved the MKII's are. I'll be going back to the solid, predictable feel of the Ardents.

  24. #24
    mountain biker
    Reputation: slyfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by Betarad View Post
    I just replaced a set of worn Ardent 2.4's on my HD, which I was very pleased with, with..gulp...a set of Mountain King 2.4's (no not MKII's, just MK's) that I got for a REALLY good price. Despite being dirt-cheap, I'm finding the MK's to be very loose and squishy on dirt, bone-rattling on asphalt, and pretty much mediocre in general. Makes me wonder how improved the MKII's are. I'll be going back to the solid, predictable feel of the Ardents.
    well, the MKII is pretty much a completely different tire than the MK; not so much an improvement as a completely different tire. It's like comparing apples to oranges:
    MK:
    Name:  mountainking_uv-data.jpg
Views: 8481
Size:  100.0 KB
    MKII:
    Conti Mountain King II or Trail King on HD?-continental-mountain-king2-zoom.jpg
    continuous growth is the strategy of a cancer cell.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,189
    Also you HAVE to run the Black Chili compound. That is a huge differentiator as well.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    433
    I haven't tried the mountain kings, but from my experience with x-kings, trail kings, rocket rons and most recently hans dampf on my SL, I'd recommend only considering the Trail King or Hans Dampf because otherwise you won't get the full capabilities of the bike. I've only been using other tires now because I've been doing some racing, but afterwards I'll switch to Hans Dampf F&R because I can still go just as far, it only takes a bit longer. Also IMO Hans Dampf is better than Trail King in spite of lower durability because I think Conti might have some quality control issues (the tires warp and wobble even on a true wheel).

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    799
    I use TK 2.2 on my HD, black chili/folding and really like then in front (haven't tried back yet) - big volume tire ~750g if I recall. The ONLY thing is they are a PAIN to mount tubeless (non UST version) as the sidewalls needs to be painted 3x with stans and let to dry before mounting them. swiss cheese sidewalls. Never had issue with other brands... Agrr....

    I use the 2.4 TK which are very big on my DH 8" bike - also black chili/folding but not the new protection models as those were not out then (supposedly 850gr). ~1000gr they are still 400+ gr lighter than most big DH tires and I had no flats in 20+ days of park riding (N* and Whistler) while my group got 7 flats over a week at Whistler on supper heavy DH tires and tubes. go figure... No complain but the knobs might not be deep enough for some of the N* moon dust, though they are very wide and I run them low (tubeless).

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,949
    Protection conti tires mount up tubeless easily. Non protection or non UST are a royal PITA. I know most people want low rolling weight but a more beefy tire really makes a bike so much more capable. I put 2.35 Hans Dampfs on my Mach 5.7 and it transformed the bikes capabilities in damp rocky rooty conditions.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    433
    How is this even a question? SL can go both ways, but if you want the marginal speed of mountain kings you might as well ride a Ripley. IMHO

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by michael1 View Post
    How is this even a question? SL can go both ways, but if you want the marginal speed of mountain kings you might as well ride a Ripley. IMHO
    Better yet a 29'r hardtail????

    There are a lot of people who actually pedal their bikes and don't want/need big slow tires. They're usually the ones kick'n you butt on the way up and down.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    799
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Protection conti tires mount up tubeless easily. Non protection or non UST are a royal PITA.
    That's good to know cause they didn't have protection model when I got mine, and TK 2.2 non UST are a real PITA otherwise. The 2.4 are easier (thicker sidewalls) but still not the easiest as the sidewalls still had some small pin holes... I don't want the weight and cost penalty of UST branded ones. Interestingly enough the TK 2.4 protection are listed at 850gr vs ~1000gr for the folding/blackChili pair I have on my DH bike. That's almost a pound of rotational weight gain... my Glory DH bike is already really light at under 34lbs vs all my carbon buddies V10, but it's good to know they mount tubeless better...

Similar Threads

  1. 29er Conti Trail King/Mountain King... Anyone?
    By Helmetless in forum 29er Components
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 02:43 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-01-2012, 12:55 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2012, 03:54 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2011, 06:19 PM
  5. conti X-King and Mountain KIng II
    By Flboy in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 01:24 PM

Posting Permissions

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