Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    62

    Mountain King / Rubber Queen any good at cornering?

    Hello everybody!

    Well this is the story. We have some Continental fans here, and after having listened to them, I got a pair of MK II 2.2 tyres. Well cross-country tyres they are, so narrow, no visible side knobs, whatever. Will be sold soon. So, I am thinking, will the 2.4 be any better?

    The other Continental option (before giving up on that brand) that does not weigh a whole kilo is the Rubber Queen (Trail King). Does anybody have experience with that one, how does it corner? I've seen a German lab review and they gave the MK II 5/5 for cornering, whereas the RQ got only 4/5, which makes me wonder how bad it is or how incorrect the test was.

    Mean, the bike came with the Kenda Excavators, best tyres I've ever seen. I could do whatever crazy stuff with them including turning the front wheel close to 90 degrees and not falling down. But those are a bit heavy, esp. when used with the tubes, so I went for the MK II due to the local hype about it, and the 2.2 version is not anywhere close for sure, cross-country, as I've already said.

    It really looks like I'll be putting the Exc back on the bike soon some guys at the local bike shop told me out of them, like too much resistance, too draggy, but man, if it's not stable, what's the point of the low "rolling resistance'?

  2. #2
    no trees are safe
    Reputation: Millfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    490
    Have you thought about combining the tyres? A grippier tyre in front and a faster tyre in back?


    I've got mountain kings II and compared to my old tyres these grip great. I found them more than suitable for xc trail and marathon use (marathons here range from 40 to 150km). No real problems with cornering. Ive noticed though that you need to lean the bike if you want to get cornering grip.

    What is your definition of cross-country riding? What PSI/BARs are you running them on? What is your terrain? They don't perform as well in deep sand or mud. Perhaps you're a bit spoiled by massive knobs of Excavators?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    62
    Yeah, knobs, exactly. I'm not quite into the marathons thing, and understand cross-country as, well, extremely exhausting long rides over moderately complex terrain, without crazy jumps or obstacles, and mostly in a straight line

    I run them with tubes, at some moderate pressure, like 35 or so psi, didn't check, actually. But, well, you see, I have this crazy tyre test, turning the front wheel around while standing still or going very slowly, and indeed they are that good at that

    I really do not know, maybe I'm doing something wrong.. is there such a thing as trialsy trail riding? That's be the kind of thing I want to do, and it looks like these tyres are not the best ones for that kind of thing.

    Again, I'm just learning now, not a pro or even experienced guy. Just sharing my ideas and experiences here with you.

    Yeah, combining is a good idea indeed, a 2.4 MK II would make a good rear tyre, probably. But is the Trail King really superior on the front?

  4. #4
    no trees are safe
    Reputation: Millfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    490
    35 PSI is quite high. I run them on about 22-25 front and 25-30 rear and I could definitely go lower. I'm a light rider though. I only weight about 65kg.

    Are you riding in damp, dry, loose, loose over hardpack, hardpack terrains? What volume would you prefer? Do you climb a lot?

    And BTW I have no idea what is your test trying to achieve or even how it looks. o.O

    In my opinion give them a bit of time, get used to the different handling and Wear off the little pointy things that are from the molding of the tyre. I found their influence to the traction on hardpack surprisingly noticeable.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    62
    Hmm, interesting bit of advice there, might well be worth waiting for the treads to wear out.

    The test is simple, will the tyre slip off when turning the wheel at a decent angle in a kind of trackstand (well not quite, because the bike is moving slowly, I can not do trackstand yet). Maybe I'm requiring the tyres to do a wrong thing, who knows.

    Maybe 30 PSI, I do not check that, I remember that o seat the tyre on the rim I used that 35 PSI, maybe later it runs at a mere 30 PSI.

    Well anyway, the point of this discussion is to get somebody who is familiar with both MK II and RQ (TK) to compare them, especially their cornering performance.

  6. #6
    no trees are safe
    Reputation: Millfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    490
    Thats... quite an interesting test... All of my tyres slid like that. And its probably a pretty useless test to be honest. When cornering at a high speed there are different forces affecting the bike than when you simply try to skid the front in a trackstand position. The tyre wasn't designed for this and will probably never get in a situation like that in real riding. In fact if the tyre would hold you like that in a higher speed you'd probably fly over the bars.

    Are the tyres behaving OK besides that one test fail? One thing I've noticed on these mt kins II is that they're quite narrow, yet high. That partially compensates for the smaller size. And bigger isnt always better
    Last edited by Millfox; 09-05-2012 at 05:02 PM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    62
    Yeah, I understand that's extreme

    OK, indeed, I will test them thoroughly on a trail and report back.

    They are narrow, indeed, like a few millimeters under 2.2 inch, and this is why I am eager to give the 2.4 version a try, given that is is sooo light for a 2.4 tyre.

    That said, I also happen to have a set of Fat Alberts 2.4 on my mother's hardtail (for commuting over sandy summer house terrain), those things are knobbbyyy, but nevertheless the reviews say those are pretty average tyres.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,813
    The Mountain Kings corner well, but you have to commit and lean them over hard for best results. If you just turn the bars without leaning & weighting the tires properly they're only a bit above average, but get your weight over them and lean them hard and they'll corner at speeds that'll scare the heck out of most riders. The Rubber Queen has even more cornering grip than the Mountain King, and I find it's more forgiving. You don't have to fully commit on the corners and it handles lazy riding a bit better, I don't have to work them as hard as I do with the Mountain Kings to get the best out of them.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    62
    OK, I see now. That's pretty much what the other reviews seem to imply if not state directly. Well, I love to lean the bike into the corners, so they should work well for me. Need to do some real tracks to come to a conclusion.

    Is the RQ 2.2 really wider than the MK II 2.4? What about higher (more volume)? Can anybody confirm that?

  10. #10
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,700
    I have both a TK (RQ) 2.2 and MK II 2.4... they are very similar height and width. I'd say they are very close in volume. MK II 2.4 maybe a *touch* more casing width, but not much.
    2011 Yeti 575 - 2015 Fox Float 36 RC2 160 / Fox Float X - 31.3 lbs

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by LCW View Post
    I have both a TK (RQ) 2.2 and MK II 2.4... they are very similar height and width. I'd say they are very close in volume. MK II 2.4 maybe a *touch* more casing width, but not much.
    Hows the TK 2.2 compare to the MKII 2.4. I've got a MKII 2.4 and it grips well for it's size but lacks the bite of a wider tire like a Hans Dampf. I now use it on the rear instead.

    Allways wondered why Conti made two tires so similar. I assume the TK must be a step up on grip and a bit slower?

  12. #12
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,700
    I find the MK II 2.4 to be ok but cornering grip sucks on hardpack or loose over hardpack. Washes out to easily. TK has WAY more grip. I'll be putting a TK 2.4 on front probably.
    2011 Yeti 575 - 2015 Fox Float 36 RC2 160 / Fox Float X - 31.3 lbs

Posting Permissions

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