Forum home Mountain biking forum MTB general

2.4" Continue Mountain King on an Inbred 26"

Iain CIain C Posts: 464
edited November 2013 in MTB general
Very simple question...will they fit?

Apparently they measure up pretty small, nearer to a 2.2...has anyone tried them on an Inbred (slot dropout but 3x9 geared)



  • Posts: 4,067
    Continental? Not sure who told you they come up small...probably a bit bigger (that stated sizes) if anything.
    "Why have that extra tooth if you're not using it?" - Brian Lopes

    Votec V.SX Enduro 'Alpine Thug' 2012/2013 build

    Trek Session 8
  • Iain CIain C Posts: 464
    It was the reviews on Wiggle...from quite a few people so must be some truth in it!
  • Posts: 4,067
    I have a 2.2 RQ and 2.2 MK2 and they are probably slightly wider than 2.2" if you were to actually measure them so I can't see the 2.4 versions being the same size as the 2.2.

    Not sure what 'they measure up pretty small' means - compared to a tape measure or compared to other manufacturers 2.4 size tyres?
    "Why have that extra tooth if you're not using it?" - Brian Lopes

    Votec V.SX Enduro 'Alpine Thug' 2012/2013 build

    Trek Session 8
  • One of the key differences in the Conti ranges when you move from 2.2 to 2.4 is not just the width... the height of the tyre is also significantly bigger (i.e. the outer diameter of the tyre) so something else to consider

    I know that Conti tyre models all measure up differently - i.e. a 2.2 MK does tend to be narrower than a 2.2 Rubber Queen, and the RQs are particularly known to be big - maybe this is what the "measures up pretty small" comments are about.

    Ideally you need to find someone who can measure it for you (or perhaps has an old tyre they'll give you to try)
    Cannondale Killer V 1995 (Promo model) - My first Race bike now converted to a commuter
    Lapierre X-Flow 712 - XC fs rocket
    Pivot Mach 6 - Enduro Machine
    Pinarello FP2 - Roadie
  • Iain CIain C Posts: 464
    Thanks for the advice guys. Also just noticed the stupid iPad spelling correction on the title! Bloody thing!
  • step83step83 Posts: 4,162
    ive a 2.2 RQ on the back of my Scandal which just about clears. I wouldnt like to try an get a 2.4 on the back as balmy said its tall an wide which makes it tough to fit.
  • NorthwindNorthwind Posts: 14,675
    Are they MKs or MK2s? MKs do come up small. Conti are annoyingly inconsistent, a 2.2 Rubber Queen is barely narrower than a 2.4 Mountain King, and higher volume.

    Also worth mentioning that the old MK just isn't very good.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • Iain CIain C Posts: 464
    They are Mountain King 2 I'm looking at...
  • bails87bails87 Posts: 12,998
    I've got MK2s in 2.2 and 2.4 (not on an inbred, unfortunately for you). The 2.4" is smaller than a Schwalbe 2.35" Hans Dampf and the 2.2 is visibly smaller than a 2.25" Racing Ralph or Nobby Nic. So a 2.4" MK2 is probably equivalent to a 2.3" Schwalbe.

    I don't know if that's any help, probably not unless you've already got a Schwalbe you can check the size against!

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • Iain CIain C Posts: 464
    Well, I phoned On One and they reckon it will I'll give it a go and report back!
  • A 2.2 rubber queen measures exactly 2.2" across the width. W 2.2 mountain king 2 measures 1.95" across its with. Both inflated to 30 psi.

    a 2.2" RQ will not fit my boardman fs rear as the increased height reduceds the mud clearance too much!
  • jaysonjayson Posts: 4,606
    I had 2.4 MK's and they're not as big as some tires out there for their sposed 2.4" size, i had them on a carrera with no problems at all fitting them in so an On One will have zero problems cause they tend to have big wide back ends.
Sign In or Register to comment.