Results 1 to 83 of 83
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,981

    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
    844
    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
    8,293
    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
    1,736
    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
    1,736
    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
    6,653
    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
    8,293
    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
    4,754
    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
    8,120
    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
    3,344
    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
    1,981
    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
    872
    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
    1,308
    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.
    Pivot Firebird
    Hightower 29
    Tallboy 3
    Pivot LES SS
    Salsa Beargrease C
    Giant TCX

  37. #37
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,192
    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
    1,981
    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
    786
    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
    3,538
    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
    8,293
    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.

  51. #51
    BC
    BC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    872
    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?
    Yes. Just picked them up today.

    They are the same as the German 2.4,s (checkeboard pattertn,"handmade in Germany,etc) injust in a 2.2 size.

    Have them mounted up tubless. Will give'em a go this weekend.

    FYI weight 674 grams.

  52. #52
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    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?
    Although the TK2.2" have the same checkerboard etching and says "Made in Germany", I am pretty sure it doesn't have the reinforced sidewalls like the 2.4" version. First, you can just feel the difference, as it is much thinner. Second, there is the lower weight.

    Lastly, unlike what you read, the Conti's website says so: "There is no Apex sidewall reinforcement on the 2.2 model, thus keeping weight low."

    http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticy...berqueen.shtml

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cheezwhip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    786
    The TK 2.2 sidewalls are thinner for sure - although, getting them to work tubeless was a snap (or so it seemed - my wheel guy is a wizard). Day 2 and holding air so far.
    ¡Geaux Tigers! - ¡Visca el Barça!

    "Finer than frog hair!" - Lumberjack

  54. #54
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by cheezwhip
    The TK 2.2 sidewalls are thinner for sure - although, getting them to work tubeless was a snap (or so it seemed - my wheel guy is a wizard). Day 2 and holding air so far.
    On what setup? Ghetto or Mavic? Stan's rims?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cheezwhip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Cable0guy
    On what setup? Ghetto or Mavic? Stan's rims?
    Stan's all around (Flow rims, rim tape, valve stems, etc.,)
    ¡Geaux Tigers! - ¡Visca el Barça!

    "Finer than frog hair!" - Lumberjack

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kenrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    257
    Has anyone run these Ghetto? I tried on my Mt Kings, but got the dreaded sleepage through the sidewalls. No problems with Stans......

  57. #57
    tardcore
    Reputation: pjlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    821
    Got a good ride on the 2.2's today and am very impressed. I have them set up on Mavics with 2 scoops of Stan's holding great. I love these tires, awesome grip in loose, rocky, silty conditions and fast rolling! I'll install the 2.4's on my other bike and report back after a good test.

  58. #58
    ride better, ride faster
    Reputation: inzane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenrow
    Has anyone run these Ghetto? I tried on my Mt Kings, but got the dreaded sleepage through the sidewalls. No problems with Stans......
    Yep, and I get seepage through the sidewalls (2.4 RQ, non-UST Black Chilli, Apex sidewall).

    I am running them with homemade sealant http://mountainbikingzane.wordpress....in-bike-tyres/

  59. #59
    Big Test Icycles
    Reputation: Hangtime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,437
    Two days on a new 2.4 RQ UST mounted on an 819, on the front of my Five Spot. They grip well on the climbs and are very stable on landings and decending. Now that I have it I will be going with a 2.2 for the rear when UC has them in stock, I fear clearance issues with the rear stays on my 05', adding in some mud. Great tire, I'll be able to get used to the size. Mine measures 61mm wide on the calipers at the casings, thats exactly 2.401575". So far they get

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Cable0guy
    Although the TK2.2" have the same checkerboard etching and says "Made in Germany", I am pretty sure it doesn't have the reinforced sidewalls like the 2.4" version. First, you can just feel the difference, as it is much thinner. Second, there is the lower weight.

    Lastly, unlike what you read, the Conti's website says so: "There is no Apex sidewall reinforcement on the 2.2 model, thus keeping weight low."

    http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticy...berqueen.shtml
    I think some people maybe be getting the old version/rubber queen.

    This person reported their TK 2.2 they received 3 days ago being about 100 grams heavier than the old 2.2 RQ, so that gives support to the apex now available in the 2.2 (plus the description where he ordered it noted the apex):

    Black Chili in new Traik Kings 2.2?

  61. #61
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by syadasti
    I think some people maybe be getting the old version/rubber queen.

    This person reported their TK 2.2 they received 3 days ago being about 100 grams heavier than the old 2.2 RQ, so that gives support to the apex now available in the 2.2 (plus the description where he ordered it noted the apex):

    Black Chili in new Traik Kings 2.2?
    The guy in that thread is getting info off of CRC. CRC's site doesn't distinguish the difference between the two. I trust Conti's own site for info over CRC's, wouldn't you? Besides, I have both the Rubber Queen 2.4" and Trail King 2.2", and 2.2's sidewalls are significantly thinner. 2.4's are very thick, almost like a 2-ply tire. From what I read from Interbike, the only difference between TK and RK is the paint job (some people objected to the name "Rubber Queen").

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Cable0guy
    The guy in that thread is getting info off of CRC. CRC's site doesn't distinguish the difference between the two. I trust Conti's own site for info over CRC's, wouldn't you?.
    Someone else in that thread is (gvs_nz), but he clearly noted he got his tires from BB and he weighed them himself. BB only sells the kelvar so 766g is a lot more than continental's own site claims (unless it was wire bead which they don't sell) and lakesnake's in this thread weigh a lot less at 674g:

    Black Chili in new Traik Kings 2.2?

  63. #63
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by syadasti
    Someone else in that thread is (gvs_nz), but he clearly noted he got his tires from BB and he weighed them himself. BB only sells the kelvar so 766g is a lot more than continental's own site claims (unless it was wire bead which they don't sell) and lakesnake's in this thread weigh a lot less at 674g:

    Black Chili in new Traik Kings 2.2?
    Usually manufacturers tend to lowball weights. Shiggy's site got 694/710g instead of 650g claimed (and notes no Apex sidewall).

    http://mtbtires.com/site2/tire-specs...tal-tire-specs

    On the Conti's main German website, it says the 2.2 Black Chili folding bead doesn't have Apex. Among the 3 models in the 2.2 version range, only the UST version has it.

    http://www.conti-online.com/generato..._queen_en.html

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Cable0guy
    On the Conti's main German website, it says the 2.2 Black Chili folding bead doesn't have Apex. Among the 3 models in the 2.2 version range, only the UST version has it.

    http://www.conti-online.com/generato..._queen_en.html
    The website hasn't been updated for TK change and 100 g is a more significant deviation than the normal range reported for the RQ 2.2. He had two of them and one was 761 and the other 766g, reports a thick/meaty tire:

    Black Chili in new Traik Kings 2.2?

    Continental certainly needs to make things clearer when it updates their models - maybe add something to the sidewall or an additional designation.

  65. #65
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by syadasti
    The website hasn't been updated for TK change and 100 g is a more significant deviation than the normal range reported for the RQ 2.2. He had two of them and one was 761 and the other 766g, reports a thick/meaty tire:

    Black Chili in new Traik Kings 2.2?

    Continental certainly needs to make things clearer when it updates their models - maybe add something to the sidewall or an additional designation.
    I wish I can take my TK 2.2 Black Chili's off and measure them for you. Already has some miles on them, so even if I weighted them the weights will be off. But these aren't "thick/meaty" tire that the other guy claims. Frankly, I don't trust what the other guy says either about the weight. As I said before, the sidewalls are thicker than normal tires like Nevegals, but nothing like how thick the 2.4 RQ's sidewalls are, which are closer to 2-ply or UST tires. And from what I remember from Interbike, the only change from RQ to TK is the name.

    PS: Here is the info from Interbike:

    http://reviews.mtbr.com/interbike/ga...nterbike-2009/

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: crank1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Cable0guy
    Usually manufacturers tend to lowball weights. Shiggy's site got 694/710g instead of 650g claimed (and notes no Apex sidewall).

    http://mtbtires.com/site2/tire-specs...tal-tire-specs

    On the Conti's main German website, it says the 2.2 Black Chili folding bead doesn't have Apex. Among the 3 models in the 2.2 version range, only the UST version has it.

    http://www.conti-online.com/generato..._queen_en.html
    Interestingly that page lists the 2.2" UST weight as 1000gms. If you check out the DH link for the RQ it lists the 2.2" UST weight as 850gms.

  67. #67
    BC
    BC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    872
    An update on the 2.2 TK. I finally got all the side wall pin hole leaks to seal up using a mixture of latex and slime. I was about to give up on tubless, but after 2 rocky rides, they are holding air fine now. As far as performance, they work well for thier size/weight. After a week they measure in at advertised size. Took a little while for them to stretch out. It's a good lightweight tire so far. I would still take the 2.4's for any serious chuncky trail riding. The sidewalls of the 2.4's are significantly thicker and held air great from the get go. I plan on running the 2.2 on the rear until it wears out, but went back to a 2.35 blue groove on the front due to the larger contact patch.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    I've got a 2.4 coming and hopefully here tomorrow, not planning to ride rigid tomorrow though ( but we'll see ) but I'll fit and compare it and ride it over the weekend.

    As said it's on my rigid with a fat Mavic 729 rim for even more volume / lower pressure.

    The 2.2's make the huge looking 2.3 Eskar look small so the 2.4 should provide the required suspension for my rigid fix

  69. #69
    Religion = Non-thinking
    Reputation: louisssss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,146
    at 750-1000g (TK 2.2-2.4) i dont feel its worth the weight penalties over the mountain king (at least for my type of XC riding. i've been deciding between these two tires for a month and decided on MK Protection 2.2's (F&R) and they both weigh in at 568g. If you want to save a whole pound of rotational weight, and willing to lose some volume, def check out the MK Protection for XC riding.
    RH SL Pro

  70. #70
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,192
    Quote Originally Posted by louisssss
    at 750-1000g (TK 2.2-2.4) i dont feel its worth the weight penalties over the mountain king (at least for my type of XC riding. i've been deciding between these two tires for a month and decided on MK Protection 2.2's (F&R) and they both weigh in at 568g. If you want to save a whole pound of rotational weight, and willing to lose some volume, def check out the MK Protection for XC riding.
    My wife is running MK Protection 2.2s. Those are some tiny tires. 2.2MK is nothing like the RQ in the same size.

    _MK

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

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,538
    Those small volume tires become pretty slow rolling when they're ripped open/pinched.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    Not done a proper ride on the TQ 2.4 yet, had a play around on road and very mild xc stuff I could find locally, seems great, trying to work out what pressure to run it at for pretty good comfort ( RIGID Bike ).

    Role speed on the front only is not a issue, if anything it's faster than the much smaller better tread patterned in theory Spesh Eskar which was on the front, Black Chilli is good stuff

    Weight, not interested, never will be, big and strong lasts, light weight ( MK's a good example ) SUCK!!

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    WOWSA first proper ride on the 2.4 today, rigid on the front, the volumes big enough to make rigid almost feel like suspension, missed no forks much less today than before with the 2.3 Eskars which where big tyres, role speed is fine, wet rocks / roots are not a issue on the front, pressure is really low, guessing 25psi but no accurate gauge and no squirming around on hard pack, PERFECT!!

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: intensworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    129

    Trail King 2.2 Black Chili Non UST

    Pinhole leaks were found on my Stan Flow tubeless setup like others had reported. I feared my ride would get affected if I lost too much air with bumps or ruts but that wasn't the case. So far the leaks are diminishing with continued use. I had a combination of Slime tubeless sealant with a bit of Stans. These minute leaks look as if the tire is sweating minuscule traces of liquid. I am more confident on these tires or maybe i just drank the Black Chili kool-aid and its psychological. This was the first I went ahead using non UST tires and converting them. I usually just run UST Contis. The 2.2 TK size is a nice fit for all mountain use in the front while a MK 2.2 would fit nicely in the rear (IMO for my local terrain). I am happy with them.

  75. #75
    BC
    BC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    872
    Another update on the 2.2's. Back to square one on tubless. They held for a while but went back to the sidewall leaks again. I'll be running tubes from now on. The sidewalls are really thin, hence the light weight. Just too much trouble for me to run tubeless.

  76. #76
    A mtb rider from Isreal
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by LAKESNAKE
    Another update on the 2.2's. Back to square one on tubless. They held for a while but went back to the sidewall leaks again. I'll be running tubes from now on. The sidewalls are really thin, hence the light weight. Just too much trouble for me to run tubeless.
    so get the tubeless version

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,538
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGY
    so get the tubeless version
    Nah, just run the 2.4, non-ust, tubeless. If you're gonna add weight, it should at least be beneficial. The 2.4 works great tubeless, and only weights ~900 grams after it's worn out.

  78. #78
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGY
    so get the tubeless version
    As written above, 2.2 UST weighs more than 2.4 regular and is not made from Black Chili compound.

  79. #79
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,291
    Any word on a Trail King 29" version?

    I'm running 29x2.25 Racing Ralphs right now (running tubeless with Stans)... but they are proving a little finicky to completely seal....

    Wondering if there's a TK 29 coming, and if so, Black Chili? UST?

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT
    EVIL Following


  80. #80
    BBW
    BBW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by cheezwhip
    My shop got black chili Trail King 2.2's working (Stans + Flow rim).
    how is holding?? I have flow

  81. #81
    BC
    BC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGY
    so get the tubeless version
    I've been running it with tubes, but flat constantly on the most minor stuff. I'm sure the tubless version would be better, but the tread pattern would still be the same. It's like theres not enough side knob on the 2.2. They slide off off camber rock faces too much. Complete opposite of the 2.4 which has monster traction. I found a happy medium with the new single ply maxxis minion DHF 2.5. 810 grams, good traction and NO FLATS (yet).

  82. #82
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,944
    Quote Originally Posted by LAKESNAKE
    It's like theres not enough side knob on the 2.2. They slide off off camber rock faces too much.
    Definitely not the first person to notice that trait. It was the main reason I pulled off the one I was running. Some people don't seem to notice it, but several reviewers have.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  83. #83
    In Search of Singletrack
    Reputation: shosan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    120
    I have the UST 2.4 rubber queen on the front and it rides great. a big tire, good for the gnar, was very happy riding it a downieville as well as the dry rocky trails in Marin.

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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