Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 83
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    788

    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
    985
    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
    2,376
    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
    811
    I haven't put the calipers on my 2.4, but it looks frickin' huge. Awesome tire btw.

  5. #5
    destination unknown
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,515
    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
    736
    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
    8,290
    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
    2,376
    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
    1,534
    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
    1,828
    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
    178
    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
    1,534
    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
    1,166
    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
    6,590
    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
    1,828
    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
    8,290
    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
    3,216
    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
    1,828
    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
    7,877
    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: Ciclistagonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,122
    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
    1,476
    Same tread pattern; different name. I actually prefer the name rubber queen.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 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
  •