Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    762

    26" Conti X-king 2.4 vs Nobby Nic 2.35 or 2.4. Which is taller? Larger?

    I have a pair of 26" Conti X-king on my xc fs mtb and plan to use these as an up size from my previous 2.1 tires, and as a potential alternative to going 650B conversion on this bike. 2.1 x 650B Neomoto barely fits on the rear with a hair of clearance and I may want more volume rather than simply upping wheel/tire diameter.

    I will try these Conti x-king 2.4 this spring, but I wonder if there are bigger tires out there that don't weigh a ton. These X-king 2.4 and the NN 2.4 are about the same overall weight on average as the older 2.1 tires I had previously. I don't want tires heavier than 650-700 g.

    Does anybody know if the Schwalbe 26" x 2.35 or 2.4 are taller/bigger tires than the 2.4 x-king? Also, what is the difference between the 2.35 and 2.4 Nobby Nic if they are spec'd so close in size? How different are they?

    thanks in advance for any feedback,


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,089
    Are you using the protection or std folding xking? My xking racesport 2.4's are 554/578g and my old No Ni 2.4's used to be 650g, but I believe the newer ones are closer to 700g now. If your using the protection version you will find they do not come out as big as the racesport.Std folding conti's also were smaller. They're a weird bunch.The RS xking and No Ni are the same height. The racesport xking is narrower and very fast. Faster than the Ra Ra 2.4, also similar height and weight. The std folding and protection will be slower.

    I've got the 2.35" no ni in 650B and used to have 2.4 in 26". The 2.35 looks to be a 2.25" tread on the 2.4" casing. The 2.4 has bigger tread blocks than the 2.25 and 2.25 hence the slight dimension difference. The 2.35" willl be faster but it's a bit wimpy cornering compared to the 2.4".

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    762
    I believe my x-kings are protection. I guess I will just run em and see what they are like.

    I was thinking of getting a Mountain King II for the rear as I like aggresive rear knobby tires for climbing traction. I don't need the fastest tire out there as I am not racing at the moment. I just want a tire faster than my previous nevegal.

    What tires would be taller than the 2.4 x-king protections I have on now?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by morkys View Post
    I believe my x-kings are protection. I guess I will just run em and see what they are like.

    I was thinking of getting a Mountain King II for the rear as I like aggresive rear knobby tires for climbing traction. I don't need the fastest tire out there as I am not racing at the moment. I just want a tire faster than my previous nevegal.

    What tires would be taller than the 2.4 x-king protections I have on now?
    Mk2 and Xking are basically the same height. You'll squeeze a few more mm out of racesport versions of both. Trail king 2.4 will give you another 5mm in height. But why bother. Your better than me if you can pick the difference in rollover of a xking 2.4 26" and a 650b neo 2.1. The front is where it makes a difference in stability and traction , not rollover.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,089
    Just add that if you want the taller tires for a smoother ride you won't get it from protection tires. They have an extra ply and protection layer under the tread which, as a buy off for giving more puncture protection, provide a harsher, slower ride. The same reason Schwalbe came out with the Hans Dampf Super Gravity without extra tread reinforcing and most other schwalbe snakeskin tires are only reinforced on the sidewalls.

    If you want a smooth riding big volume tire try and choose one with light flexible casing. If you don't need the puncture protection,you can't go past the Rocket Ron 2.4 .It's light weight will also keep your steering sharp. The racesport version of MK2 or Xking 2.4 are not as compliant but will give better tread durability on the rear. All are a similar height but the Ro Ro is wider and better cornering grip.The Mk2 steers noticeably slower than the Ro Ro and xking.The snakeskin schwalbes ,like the No Ni 2.4, are not as smooth even when run at lower pressures.The pre 2013 Ro Ro has more cornering grip than the 2013 version. The 2013 version is faster and will last better on the rear.

    The 2010/ 2011 michelin 2.25's [i haven't used the 2013 tires, May be the same volume?]when run at low pressures, offer probably the smoothest ride I have ever encountered. They bounce to much at high pressure but at squirmj pressure thay are uber smooth on the rear.They are a 2.4 volume. Std compound tires are terrible in wet conditions though.The 2.25 wild Rock'r is taller than any other tire I've used besides the Trail King 2.4.

Posting Permissions

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