Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 83
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,259

    Continental rubbber queen 2.2 or 2.4?

    Ready to pull the trigger on a set of the rubber queens but on the fence on the size. All the info I can find on 2.4 says it is a very large volume tire comparable to most brands 25 which is overkill for the trails it will see. I haven't ridden a 2.2 in a very long time and any 2.2 I can think of would be to small However DT himself says the 2.2 is plenty big I currently ride the larsen tt 2.35 but they are useless for the wet early season Any body know how the 2.2 rubber queen is size wise compared to a 2.35 tire? Thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by big JC
    Ready to pull the trigger on a set of the rubber queens but on the fence on the size. All the info I can find on 2.4 says it is a very large volume tire comparable to most brands 25 which is overkill for the trails it will see. I haven't ridden a 2.2 in a very long time and any 2.2 I can think of would be to small However DT himself says the 2.2 is plenty big I currently ride the larsen tt 2.35 but they are useless for the wet early season Any body know how the 2.2 rubber queen is size wise compared to a 2.35 tire? Thanks

    I don't know how they compare. I was going to get the 2.2s but I don't know of anyone who has these tires in stock.

  3. #3
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    2.2 non-UST Black Chili is out of stock everywhere I checked. If you know of a place that sells them, let me know. The 2.2 UST is not Black Chili, unless Conti changed that recently. 2.4 Black Chili non-UST version is also hard to get at a reasonable price.

    Sizes run true. I even checked with my calipers. I haven't checked 2.2 RQ's, but if anything like 2.4, it will be roughly 2.2 if you measure them, casing to casing or tread to tread.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ebeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    842
    I haven't put the calipers on my 2.4, but it looks frickin' huge. Awesome tire btw.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,519
    It's a decent tire. I'm running a 2.4 RQ on the front now. I think a 2.4 front/2.2 rear would be a good setup for aggressive trail riding. It's a big volume casing but the tread pattern isn't very wide. I think I like a 2.5 Nevegal a little better up front tho.

    Good luck finding a 2.2.

  6. #6
    IdontShootPeopleAnyMore
    Reputation: DriveByBikeShooting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    730
    did you guys see this

    it seems that shiggy dude knows his stuff pretty um... good
    What mountain bike forum do pirates use? .....



    MTB-arrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

  7. #7
    Bike to the Bone...
    Reputation: rzozaya1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    8,291
    I run both 2.4 non UST black chili tires on my bike, and for me, the RQ has been the best tire I've run. I don't know if the Spot has any rear size limit on tire, if not, the 2.4 runs pretty fast for a tire that size. When I bought the tire, I also looked at a 2.2 for the rear, but Conti didn't made the 2.2 with the black chili compound nor the Apex sidewalls, so I went 2.4 both front and back, and haven't looked back.

  8. #8
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    By the way, BikeBling has 2.4 RQ's for $40. Plus you get a 10% discount when you use the coupon REALDEAL.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: crank1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by LncNuvue
    It's a decent tire. I'm running a 2.4 RQ on the front now. I think a 2.4 front/2.2 rear would be a good setup for aggressive trail riding. It's a big volume casing but the tread pattern isn't very wide. I think I like a 2.5 Nevegal a little better up front tho.

    Good luck finding a 2.2.
    I'm running a UST 2.4" RQ front and a UST 2.2" RQ rear. It's a great combination on nearly everything, but especially rocky and sandy stuff.

  10. #10
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    I use the 2.2 RQ's (black chili) on my RFX or SS as my "normal" tires...meaning everything except FR days or mud. They are not good for either of those things/situations, but better than average at most other things. The 2.2 is larger than it's size suggests. I'm large...and prefer high-volume and these tires are good to go. I'm not a weight freak by any stretch, but when I tried the 2.4's on the RFX I couldn't notice any increase in grip/control but you could sure tell they were not rolling as well...so why push more weight on a tire if there's not a pay-off for me...2.2 was the easy answer.

    Brock...
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

  11. #11
    ride better, ride faster
    Reputation: inzane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    183
    Some size comparison photos of the 2.4 Rubber Queens over on my blog. A 2.5 Maxxis DHF and a 2.35 Specialized Eskar are in about the same width range. Rubber Queens are very tall tyres tho...

    http://mountainbikingzane.wordpress....air-of-queens/

    and my thoughts on the tyres

    http://mountainbikingzane.wordpress....ew-1-month-in/

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    182
    I have the 2.2 UST.Very big tyre and they dwarf a 2.2 Mountain King! Have a 2.35 High Roller and tread looks the same but the RQ looks to have bigger volume and is a slightly deeper tyre.
    Thanx Max

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: crank1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by MAX LLOYD
    I have the 2.2 UST.Very big tyre and they dwarf a 2.2 Mountain King!
    Yeah i also have a set of 2.2" UST Mountain Kings on my Anthem singlespeed. I reckon you could almost run the MK inside the RQ as puncture protection if you needed it!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Duncan1104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,176
    Didn't Conti change the name of the Rubber Queen to Trail King? Might be the reason the RQ's are hard to find.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,632
    I just bought a set of 2.4 UST Rubber Queens. The ones from bikebling.com still say rubber queen. The tread is very low profile, not what I was expecting. I haven't mounted them up yet because I might send them back... anyone ride them in mud? I'd hate to mount up a $110 set of tires and have them not work. I thought maybe send them back and get a set of Big Betty or Fat Albert UST???

    I'd like to hear your opinions. And yes, they had the RQ with Trail King printed on them.
    "It looks flexy"

  16. #16
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    They are not a mud tire. I've used (the black chili) them in plenty of wet conditions here in the Willamette Valley (wet part of OR) from full on soaked and muddy to currently raining wet roots/rocks/etc and everything inbetween. They did fine in wet...but sucked in truly muddy. Muddy Mary and Timberwolfs have been vastly superior for our brand of mud.

    Brock...
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

  17. #17
    Religion = Non-thinking
    Reputation: louisssss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,146
    How is this setup for XC riding in 50% wet/50% dry conditions in NE USA?

    Front: MK 2.4 Protection(if it fits in my rockhopper)
    Rear: RQ 2.2

    If this is bad, what you you suggest?
    RH SL Pro

  18. #18
    Bike to the Bone...
    Reputation: rzozaya1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    8,291
    Quote Originally Posted by louisssss
    How is this setup for XC riding in 50% wet/50% dry conditions in NE USA?

    Front: MK 2.4 Protection(if it fits in my rockhopper)
    Rear: RQ 2.2

    If this is bad, what you you suggest?
    I think of putting a RQ front, MK rear.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,454
    Quote Originally Posted by louisssss
    How is this setup for XC riding in 50% wet/50% dry conditions in NE USA?

    Front: MK 2.4 Protection(if it fits in my rockhopper)
    Rear: RQ 2.2

    If this is bad, what you you suggest?

    rzozaya is right, the RQ 2.2 is bigger than the MK 2.4. The MK 2.4 also has less rolling resistance. Run the RQ in the front and the MK in the back.

  20. #20
    Religion = Non-thinking
    Reputation: louisssss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,146
    Everyone tells me the MK is a better front tire...

    Is the RQ available w/ black chili in 2.2?
    And what size MK should I go with for the rear?

    For half dry and half wet riding on my rockhopper
    RH SL Pro

  21. #21
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    Yes the 2.2 is available in black chili. I have a set...they are on the RFX...which is on the car...which will be on trail in a few.

    Brock...
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Duncan1104
    Didn't Conti change the name of the Rubber Queen to Trail King? Might be the reason the RQ's are hard to find.
    YES. but noone seems to have them in stock yet.

  23. #23
    Ultra Ventanaphile
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,307
    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    YES. but noone seems to have them in stock yet.
    Just saying...
    http://www.performancebike.com/bikes..._400013_400052
    -Aaron G.

    "Before D.W., "anti-squat" was referred to as pedal feedback."

  24. #24
    Religion = Non-thinking
    Reputation: louisssss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,146
    My lbs's cintineebtal rep said that they can no longer get rubber queens, yet said they can get trail kings in 2.2 w/ black chili tho

    are they the same tread pattern and tire?
    RH SL Pro

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,667
    Same tread pattern; different name. I actually prefer the name rubber queen.

  26. #26
    Arrrghhh!!!
    Reputation: insighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    245

    2.2 in stock

    Just got a pair of the 2.2's from bikebling. Put in the order last Sunday and received them today. Good price, and reasonably quick. After the mixed reviews I've heard about Bikebling I thought it might be a couple weeks-- I was pleasantly surprised.
    I ordered the RQ's but ended up with the Trail Kings. Made in germany with the black chili, and the tread looks just the same as the RQ's.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by insighter
    Just got a pair of the 2.2's from bikebling. Put in the order last Sunday and received them today. Good price, and reasonably quick. After the mixed reviews I've heard about Bikebling I thought it might be a couple weeks-- I was pleasantly surprised.
    I ordered the RQ's but ended up with the Trail Kings. Made in germany with the black chili, and the tread looks just the same as the RQ's.
    Does it have the reinforced sidewall? Do these tires work well ghetto tubeless if you get the non-UST version?

  28. #28
    Arrrghhh!!!
    Reputation: insighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by syadasti
    Does it have the reinforced sidewall? Do these tires work well ghetto tubeless if you get the non-UST version?
    They have the Apex sidewall. I haven't mounted them up yet. Anyone here run the regular ones tubeless?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by insighter
    Just got a pair of the 2.2's from bikebling. Put in the order last Sunday and received them today. Good price, and reasonably quick. After the mixed reviews I've heard about Bikebling I thought it might be a couple weeks-- I was pleasantly surprised.
    I ordered the RQ's but ended up with the Trail Kings. Made in germany with the black chili, and the tread looks just the same as the RQ's.
    got a weight for that tire?

  30. #30
    tardcore
    Reputation: pjlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    821
    I got some 2.2 TK's (formerly RQ's) from Bikebling they were 690gr ea or so. I'm pretty happy so far so I ordered some 2.4's for the Fireturd, I have the 2.2's on the DubSpot.

  31. #31
    tardcore
    Reputation: pjlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    821
    BTW the 2.2's are massive, about the size of a Nevegal 2.35!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by insighter
    Anyone here run the regular ones tubeless?
    I have a non-ust 2.4 setup tubeless on flows with a couple scoops of stans. Might as well be a ust tire, it's a thick casing and mounted without issue. No need for the extra weight of the ust version.

  33. #33
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by insighter
    Anyone here run the regular ones tubeless?
    I was also able to mount the regular 2.4" tubeless fairly easily using a compressor. Got it on the 1st try.

    Not the same story with the regular 2.2", which lacks the thick sidewalls, and the beads are porous. I gave up after 3 tries.

  34. #34
    Ridin' in iRie meditation
    Reputation: TurnerFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    312
    Anyone know how this tire does in hardpack and rock gardens?

  35. #35
    BC
    BC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    868
    I ordered the 2.4 RQ. Great tire/traction IMO, but 970 grams (as opposed to the 850 advertised) they were too much mass for a small guy like me to spin. Going yo try the 2.2 TK this weekend.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Scott@GO-RIDE.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,292
    As some others have said the 2.4 Rubber Queen/Trail King is a monsterous tire. We have a set mounted up on Stans Flow rims and the casing measures 2.6" in width. That is a big big tire and due to that size the tread profile is pretty round. I prefer tires that are somewhat flat on top. They just corner a lot better in most situations.
    Giant Reign Adv
    Hightower 29
    Pivot Mach 429SL
    Giant TCX
    Salsa Bear Grease C
    Lil Shredder 24" - son's

  37. #37
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,165
    Quote Originally Posted by LAKESNAKE
    I ordered the 2.4 RQ. Great tire/traction IMO, but 970 grams (as opposed to the 850 advertised) they were too much mass for a small guy like me to spin. Going yo try the 2.2 TK this weekend.
    Yeah, I've got a bit of a gripe with my 2.4 RQs with Black Chili. 920g each. Coming off of Schwalbe where the weight is damn close to advertised I was a bit put off by the excess weight. That said, these tires are fantastic.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  38. #38
    ride better, ride faster
    Reputation: inzane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by TurnerFred
    Anyone know how this tire does in hardpack and rock gardens?
    yeh, oodles of grip in hardpack and rock gardens and having a huge casing with apex technology in the sidewall makes them hard to pinch even at low pressures. Black Chilli sticks to the rocks quite well too. These tyres are really "tall" as well which give extra rock absorption.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by LncNuvue
    I have a non-ust 2.4 setup tubeless on flows with a couple scoops of stans. Might as well be a ust tire, it's a thick casing and mounted without issue. No need for the extra weight of the ust version.
    Hey how much do you weigh and what kind of bike do you ride? I tried tubeless about five years ago but found the tire to feel ubber squirly especially on turns Your post makes me think I might give it another try

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smaxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by big JC
    Hey how much do you weigh and what kind of bike do you ride? I tried tubeless about five years ago but found the tire to feel ubber squirly especially on turns Your post makes me think I might give it another try
    Ust tires get better every year, I am 225 and have no issues with squirly tires as long as the pressure is right. I like fat albert and maxxis advantage

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cheezwhip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Cable0guy
    I was also able to mount the regular 2.4" tubeless fairly easily using a compressor. Got it on the 1st try.

    Not the same story with the regular 2.2", which lacks the thick sidewalls, and the beads are porous. I gave up after 3 tries.
    My shop got black chili Trail King 2.2's working (Stans + Flow rim).
    ¡Geaux Tigers! - ¡Visca el Barça!


    "Finer than frog hair!" - Lumberjack

  42. #42
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by cheezwhip
    My shop got black chili Trail King 2.2's working (Stans + Flow rim).
    I am sure it can be done, but I don't like to take chances on tubeless conversion if it is difficult. Maybe it works better on non-Mavic UST rims or ghetto tubeless setups. 2.2"s have thin sidewalls and flimsy beads compared to 2.4"s. I rather not have to deal with issues like burping and slow leaks on the trail.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Cable0guy
    I am sure it can be done, but I don't like to take chances on tubeless conversion if it is difficult. Maybe it works better on non-Mavic UST rims or ghetto tubeless setups. 2.2"s have thin sidewalls and flimsy beads compared to 2.4"s. I rather not have to deal with issues like burping and slow leaks on the trail.
    Don't the new TK 2.2 now have apex sidewalls just like the 2.4? They switched compounds and moved manufacturing to Germany. BB's description says they have apex.

    Can anyone confirm?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,523
    Quote Originally Posted by LAKESNAKE
    I ordered the 2.4 RQ. Great tire/traction IMO, but 970 grams (as opposed to the 850 advertised) they were too much mass for a small guy like me to spin. Going yo try the 2.2 TK this weekend.
    ....and yer gonna make me a deal on one of those 2.4s

    They all get lighter as you wear 'em out. Great tire.

  45. #45
    Bike to the Bone...
    Reputation: rzozaya1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    8,291
    Quote Originally Posted by syadasti
    Don't the new TK 2.2 now have apex sidewalls just like the 2.4? They switched compounds and moved manufacturing to Germany. BB's description says they have apex.

    Can anyone confirm?
    I'm expecting a 2.2 next week, I'll confirm on the apex.

  46. #46
    tardcore
    Reputation: pjlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    821
    I just got the 2.4's in they weight 910 grams each, FYI.

  47. #47
    Ridin' in iRie meditation
    Reputation: TurnerFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    312
    I think I'm going to spring for these. 2.4 up front fer sure, but what about rear?

    5-Spot, trail riding, hardpack/rock garden conditions. Do my share of climbing so grip in rear is a must, but don't want to sacrifice cush by going with 2.2. Currently run Maxxis Highroller 2.35 front/2.35 Larsen TT in rear. Larsen is beefy, but rolls great so would want similar performance.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,519
    2.35 Highroller LUST seems to be the best rear tire I've tried to date.

  49. #49
    Ridin' in iRie meditation
    Reputation: TurnerFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    312
    ^ I've heard that. I love it up front, never thought about it on the rear. Maybe try the Conti up front and move HR to rear?? Decisions...

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by TurnerFred
    Maybe try the Conti up front and move HR to rear?? Decisions...
    That's my current setup.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •