tyres (mountain king ii) - 2.2 all round or 2.4 front?

dubcat

Hi - i need a new rear tyre as I got a gash in the current one and so I figured I might as well buy a pair.

I have bontrager mud-x tyres for winter weather so i need more of an all rounder tyre to use the rest of the year. Most of my riding is xc with a little bit of trails in the surrey hills planned for the future. I have settled on the protection version of the mountain king ii. I know the racesport version is better for xc as it is 100g lighter but I hate changing tubes and am willing to pay for that with a little additional weight.

I will buy the 2.2 for the rear. Should I get 2.2 or 2.4 for front?

Thanks,
Dub.

pnev

2.2 mountain king on the back, 2.2 rubber queen on the front

YeehaaMcgee

Pnev wrote:

2.2 mountain king on the back, 2.2 rubber queen on the front

I think I gave him this exact information in another thread.

dubcat

Yeehaa - could you do me a massive favour mate? Can you check whether you really did give me that advice elsewhere? I can't see where you did and now I am feeling a bit senile. Please help me put my mind at rest.

Pnev - thanks man, I have seen that combo talked about in a few threads so went and ordered from a German shop today. Hope they arrive soon

YeehaaMcgee

It might have been someone else then, sorry. Either that or I'm also going senile

dubcat

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

It might have been someone else then, sorry. Either that or I'm also going senile

Haha don't say sorry! You share loads of knowledge on here and it's always appreciated. Not surprised if you get newbies asking the same question over and over mixed up.

Now, I need to start a 'what are the best rubber feet for my zimmerframe' thread...

felix.london

Just ordered that combo myself (both 2.2") from Bike-Discount after putting a tear my current rear tyre.

Looking forward to getting home and trying em out

YeehaaMcgee

what I've found is that mountain kings II have served me fantastically almost everywhere, however, they're not so hot on some wet rocks. They were a little sketchy in a wet llandegla (limestone base? I dunno, slimy anyway), and just non functional in a notoriously slippery Dinorwig forest, which has huge, smooth, rounded slabs of stone covered in slime, everywhere.
However, rubber queen tyres (and MKII 2.4s, apparently) have a softer compound, giving them a big advantage on wet rocks.
Wet roots, however have not proved to be a problem at all for the mountain kings.
So, for racing, or long distance rides, mks are awesome due to their very high rolling speed and tenacious grip in virtually all conditions, but for general riding, a rubber queen on the front would be more flexible.

YeehaaMcgee

Oh, of course, make sure you stick to black chilli versions of Conti tyres, they're tougher, last longer, grip far better, and roll far faster.
Conti's cheaper tyres aren't too hot.

felix.london

Yeah kinda figured the RQ could be overkill for my generally dry conditions and could've saved a fair amount of weight by sticking an MK2 RaceSport on the front but I like the idea of the higher volume, more grippy tyre on the front. It gives me more confidence - are the RQ's higher volume than the MK2's? - they certainly look taller

YeehaaMcgee

I believe there's two sizes of RQ, from what I've seen, kind of an XC version, and an AM, freeridey version.

felix.london

hmm, well I'm sure I'll be fine 2.2" non-UST, BC versions of both. Haven't had ride for nearly 3 weeks so looking forward to it

YeehaaMcgee

You should be, yeah. One interesting thing I've found with the black chilli tyres is that you can run them a few PSI harder than other tyres, and still have more grip. I'm loving the compound, frankly. (I particularly like how it squeaks like a demented squeegee when gripping on harder surfaces!)

Continental do seem to suggest/confirm, in a roundabout kind of way, that the 2.4" versions of both tyres have a softer compound, whereas the 2.2" are meant for speed speed and more speed - and also that the rubber queen has a softer compound than the MK.

cat_with_no_tail

I might give the UST versions of these a try myself. My Nobby Nics are just about done now. It's just the weight difference that puts me off. Putting these on will add almost a pound to the bike overall. Adding a pound to the wheels just seems very counter-intuitive to me.

YeehaaMcgee

Mountain King II, in 2.2" flavour seem to be extremely light to me. Without going for a proper racy tyre, I can't imagine anything would be much lighter.

felix.london

There is no MK2 UST in the Black Chilli and the UST (non-BC) do weigh a shed load

The 2.2" MK2 Black Chilli RaceSport is 500g - seems pretty good to me

cat_with_no_tail

Ah, I'm toobless though remember Yeehaa.

So at the moment I'm using the TLR, snakeskin, double defence nics, which weigh about 630g. The UST versions are about 100g heavier (745g).

The UST mountain kings are 820g and the RQ is 850g.

I know you're going to say I'm not currently comparing UST with UST, and strictly speaking you are of course correct. But I find that the TLR design on Schwalbes to be very good at doing "proper" tubeless (at least when you use the snakeskin, double defence versions. The regular ones are shiyte).

I still think I'm going to give it a try though. Worst case is that the extra weight makes me fitter for next summer

felix.london

But if we are to believe what we're told (including what Yeehaa says) the non-BC versions aren't anything special and as stated, you cannot get BC versions in UST

YeehaaMcgee

felix.london wrote:

There is no MK2 UST in the Black Chilli and the UST (non-BC) do weigh a shed load

Holy crap, yeah, BC is only on the Protection and Racesport versions. How peculiar.
And, the Protection ones (mine) are 590g, but the same width in UST is a whopping 820g! FOR A 2.2" TYRE!!! :shock:
I'm not usually concerned with weight, but holy crap - I've had DH tyres weighing roughly that!

And I'm shocked at the no BC - it means I wouldn;t bother buying the UST version at all.

benpinnick

felix.london wrote:

There is no MK2 UST in the Black Chilli and the UST (non-BC) do weigh a shed load

The 2.2" MK2 Black Chilli RaceSport is 500g - seems pretty good to me

Conti have special scales. No way they'll actually be 500g. In fact, I think I have the actual weight somewhere.... 619g!

cat_with_no_tail

felix.london wrote:

But if we are to believe what we're told (including what Yeehaa says) the non-BC versions aren't anything special and as stated, you cannot get BC versions in UST

I'll pass then :P

robertpb

I'm using MK2's Race Sport and running them tubeless, 2.4 up front and 2.2 rear.
The MK 2.2 comes up bigger than the 2.25 Nobby Nic so they are not on the small side.

YeehaaMcgee

You reckon? I thought they were the narrowest 2.2 inches I'd ever seen. Probably measured on the "girlfriend scale".

benpinnick

I agree. My mkII 2.2 is 2inches at it's widest. Conti have special rulers too.

felix.london

benpinnick wrote:

I agree. My mkII 2.2 is 2inches at it's widest. Conti have special rulers too.

hmmm, probably coulda gone for the 2.4" then..oh well, they're currently winging their way from Germany to south east France as we speak

felix.london

...hope they arrive before I do

balmybaldwin

Cat With No Tail wrote:

I might give the UST versions of these a try myself. My Nobby Nics are just about done now. It's just the weight difference that puts me off. Putting these on will add almost a pound to the bike overall. Adding a pound to the wheels just seems very counter-intuitive to me.

The Rubber queens are great as UST and are black chilli, but you can't get the MK in UST with Black Chilli which is really annoying

benpinnick

@felix for someone riding the kind of terrain you do, I'd suggest (although you've bought them now!) that the Bontrager XR4s in either a 2.2 (which is a real 2.2) or even better the mahoosive 2.35 would be ideal. Im running some right now in 2.35 and the kick my MkIIs butt by a considerable margin. best tyres Ive had in a long time, and only £20 too. No UST options mind.

felix.london

balmybaldwin wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

I might give the UST versions of these a try myself. My Nobby Nics are just about done now. It's just the weight difference that puts me off. Putting these on will add almost a pound to the bike overall. Adding a pound to the wheels just seems very counter-intuitive to me.

The Rubber queens are great as UST and are black chilli, but you can't get the MK in UST with Black Chilli which is really annoying

But the MK(2)'s are what he was talking about i.e. the title of the thread

dubcat

Just to clarify i ended up buying the protection version of the mk2 (which is made of black chilli) and the black chilli version of the rq.

felix.london

benpinnick wrote:

@felix for someone riding the kind of terrain you do, I'd suggest (although you've bought them now!) that the Bontrager XR4s in either a 2.2 (which is a real 2.2) or even better the mahoosive 2.35 would be ideal. Im running some right now in 2.35 and the kick my MkIIs butt by a considerable margin. best tyres Ive had in a long time, and only £20 too. No UST options mind.

Hmm, sound good. Maybe I'll give the 2.35" a go on the imminent AM build which will hopefully be ready for next summer

..where d'ya get them for £20 ??