Conti tyre sizes

rockmonkeysc

I have just fitted some mountain kings to my hardtail. How do continental measure their widths? Have they invented a metric inch thats a nice round 20mm? It's extremely skinny for a 2" tyre, measuring nearer 1.75", much narrower than my old 2" specialized fast track tyres.

supersonic

Across the main carcass I think, but many of their tyres are notosrious for this. Speed Kings come up small, Verts just a little small while RQs are quite big.

Kiblams

I have been contemplating putting my MK2.4 on the new front wheel (Mavic 317 - Max 2.3" tyre) as I know they come up small.

weescott

The 2.4" MK is actually 2.25". The 2.4 Rubber Queen is actually.....2.4". Then there is wall height that seems to be missed off measurements altogether. i.e Race King 2.2's are much much taller than Race King 2.0's

The new MK2 is meant to measure what it says it measures! Such a noble jesture from Continental. :roll:

rockmonkeysc

Well they do seem to work pretty well in the mud. Bit slippery over wet roots & rocks but got used to that after a few miles.
The mud seems to be back down here in cider country. Time to embrace the filth

.blitz

Kiblams wrote:

I have been contemplating putting my MK2.4 on the new front wheel (Mavic 317 - Max 2.3" tyre) as I know they come up small.

The 2.4 MK is less of an animal than say, a 2.4 Nic but it is still a sizeable tyre. It has the height of a 2.4 but not the width and you should be OK with one on a 317. I run a 2.4 MK on the front of my Proflex with its ancient Mavic Crossland at 25-30 psi and it is fine. Not the fastest tyre in the world but insanely grippy.

Northwind

Conti's sizing is the worst in the business IMO, it's one thing to be wrong but fairly consistent like Maxxis where at least you can tell what you're going to get but Conti are all over the place, no rhyme or reason. Honestly I think the marketing people choose the sizes depending on what they think people want... Like, "Oh, we've made the Mountain King, an allrounder trail tyre, in 2.0 and 2.2. But nobody will buy a 2.0 allrounder. Lets just claim it's a 2.2 and say the 2.2 is 2.4, nobody'll notice and we can say "Look, it's incredibly light for a 2.4!"

And then that's not helped by people saying "The Rubber Queen comes up huge!" when actually what they mean is "It's actually the size they promised, gasp!". So used to being lied to that it's shocking when it's true.

andy46

Northwind wrote:

Conti's sizing is the worst in the business IMO, it's one thing to be wrong but fairly consistent like Maxxis where at least you can tell what you're going to get but Conti are all over the place, no rhyme or reason. Honestly I think the marketing people choose the sizes depending on what they think people want... Like, "Oh, we've made the Mountain King, an allrounder trail tyre, in 2.0 and 2.2. But nobody will buy a 2.0 allrounder. Lets just claim it's a 2.2 and say the 2.2 is 2.4, nobody'll notice and we can say "Look, it's incredibly light for a 2.4!"

And then that's not helped by people saying "The Rubber Queen comes up huge!" when actually what they mean is "It's actually the size they promised, gasp!". So used to being lied to that it's shocking when it's true.

+1

i have Mountain Kings 2.2 which i changed for the summer to Race Kings 2.2, same size so i thought :shock:

they do fit but only just, i'll try to get a photo up on sunday night to show my (lack of) mud clearance.

on another note though the Race Kings are super fast