Conti Rubber Queen / Trail King 2.2

[shirk]

Anyone running these?

Looking for a lightweight high volume xc/am tires.

I hear the sidewalls are not as paper thin as the single ply Nevegal. I usually run Stick-e Nevegals and I think they have a slightly thicker sidewall than the regular ones. Anyone confirm that?

I can get them cheap, actually cheaper than 2.35 DTC Nevegals, so being the cheap ass mofo I am and hate to actually spend money on tires figured I would give them a try.

[Rontele]

flowtron likes the rubber queen.

[joetron]

Its true. I'm running a 2.4 up front and a 2.2 in back, both UST....so I can't speak to sidewall strength...but I've never been a tearer of sidewalls anyways.
I dig the tread though, grippy on off camber and good consistent feel when carving turns.
Leaps and bounds better in construction and tread(IMO) than Nevegals.

[shirk]

Its true. I'm running a 2.4 up front and a 2.2 in back, both UST....so I can't speak to sidewall strength...but I've never been a tearer of sidewalls anyways.
I dig the tread though, grippy on off camber and good consistent feel when carving turns.
Leaps and bounds better in construction and tread(IMO) than Nevegals.

How would you compare them to a High Roller?

Most of last season I had a pair of 2.35 High Roller's on the bike for pedal rides (ran Telonix with the Iron Cap for shuttle / DH abuse).

Is the 2.2 about the same volume as a 2.35 High Roller or larger?

[skiingnow]

Hey Shirk,

let me know where the deal is! I need to replace the 2.2 telonix on my endorphin...

[marshalolson]

running the 2.4 ust on my dh bike right now. they ride really nicely. i dig them for sure, but only have 3 rides on them as of now.

the 2.2 is at least as big as the 2.35 maxxis, closer to a 2.4 or so maxxis. the 2.4 conti rubber queen is about 2.7 dhf size.

[gh444]

I'll let everyone else review them but if you have any specific questions about the tech or design, let me know.

[gh444]

running the 2.4 ust on my dh bike right now. they ride really nicely. i dig them for sure, but only have 3 rides on them as of now.

the 2.2 is at least as big as the 2.35 maxxis, closer to a 2.4 or so maxxis. the 2.4 conti rubber queen is about 2.7 dhf size.

Did you dig the Kaisers and/or Rain Kings? They are catching on really well.

I'm running the 2.4 RQueens on my 5.5 inch travel bike. I've tried 2.4 up front and 2.2 in the rear and decided that I prefer to stay balanced.

[Rontele]

How do they roll? Any thoughts vis a vis the Ardent? Currently running a 2.25 Ardent on the rear, but have been a bit disappointed at times (still really like the tire). Thinking of switching to a 2.2 RQ.

[marshalolson]

Did you dig the Kaisers and/or Rain Kings? They are catching on really well.

I'm running the 2.4 RQueens on my 5.5 inch travel bike. I've tried 2.4 up front and 2.2 in the rear and decided that I prefer to stay balanced.

i rode the kaiser a bunch last year. great dh tire. like truly nice. i would like to see a little harder rubber version for just riding though. the current version is a 2-3 day race tire really. which is fine, they ride awesomely.

they bite well, corner well, and roll pretty fast.

the sidewall is super stiff, which is fine, but they sorta suck to try and get tubeless. would love the see a UST casing version (the same casing the 2.4 rubber queen uses... please??)

word.

[deepsquat]

Been running non-UST 2.4 RQs f&r exclusively on my 6&7" bike for 'bout 1.5 years. Dig em. In my experience the sidewalls became thread-bare after about a year, while the tread was still good.

I think the new name is silly. Or just points out how silly the US consumer is...

[shirk]

I'll let everyone else review them but if you have any specific questions about the tech or design, let me know.

What is the durometer of the non Black Chili rubber?

On the website is says "3 plies" on teh regular non Apex 2.2 folding. What are they talking about there.

[Rick]

I've got the 2.2's on my Enduro. Two rides so far - working out great for greasy, rocky, rooty Norway riding. Last couple years I used Big Betty's (2.5) - its amazing how much lighter my bike feels with these tires. I'm not sure what I'm missing out on as they descend damn well...

[bagtagley]

Its true. I'm running a 2.4 up front and a 2.2 in back, both UST....so I can't speak to sidewall strength...but I've never been a tearer of sidewalls anyways.
I dig the tread though, grippy on off camber and good consistent feel when carving turns.
Leaps and bounds better in construction and tread(IMO) than Nevegals.

You running that setup on your trail bike?

[gh444]

would love the see a UST casing version (the same casing the 2.4 rubber queen uses... please??)
.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll chat with Germany and see if thats a possibility.

I think the new name is silly. Or just points out how silly the US consumer is...

Definitely a silly situation.

What is the durometer of the non Black Chili rubber?

On the website is says "3 plies" on teh regular non Apex 2.2 folding. What are they talking about there.

Conti doesnt publish a durometer for many if any of their tires. The reasoning, if I understand it correctly, is that just because something is harder or softer, doesn't mean that it rolls better/worse or wears better/worse.

3 plies is the number of times the casing overlaps under the tread. It gives the tire a higher tpi. The casing remains the same regardless of whether the sidewall is Apex or not. The Apex simply is added compound in the sidewall to add some stiffness and prevent pinch flats. I dig Apex in general. The 3 plies and tpi is different depending on if the RQ is a wire bead, folding or UST.

[gravitylover]

Have the 2.4's on my enduro and love 'em. Roll fast enough and they hook up really well in (seemingly) all conditions.

[skiingnow]

Conti doesnt publish a durometer for many if any of their tires. The reasoning, if I understand it correctly, is that just because something is harder or softer, doesn't mean that it rolls better/worse or wears better/worse.

.

but it does make a difference on slippery roots and rocks. Which is what we deal with up here on the North Shore pretty regularly.

[gh444]

but it does make a difference on slippery roots and rocks. Which is what we deal with up here on the North Shore pretty regularly.

Talk to the guys at Steed. They have a quite a bit of experience with these tires and how they work in your conditions.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

Hey Shirk, i run Rubber Queen UST's front and rear on the North Shore. 2.4 front and 2.2 rear.

The 2.4 is black chili and made in germany. The 2.2 seems to be made out of the same plastic that ice cream pales are made out of, is made in China, and I don't like it. Plus, because it's made out of a shitty, inflexible rubber, seating it is a pain in the ass.

I've run the Nev folding Stick-E's which are single wall and I've also run the DTC UST 2.35 and 2.1. I only like Stick-E for the north shore, although DTC is livable on the rear, I just found the DTC offered no greater wear than the Stick-E so why bother.

Anyway, back to the Rubber Queens. They're heavy...but for their size, I guess not bad at all. The 2.4 Black Chili is a nice tire. I have zero issues with it out in these parts. Good grip. Huge volume (it's a legit 2.4) and I love a tire that seats up right away with a floor pump. Rear tires are not a huge deal to me, but I would like a bit better bite than what the 2.2 provides when say climbing hard on slick granite (the Stick-E Nev 2.1's were better for me out back) plus the big gaps between lugs mean that the rear can get hung up easily on slick roots and tossed whichever way gravity or momentum takes it. I only mention that as I've never noticed it to this degree with any other tire.

I would still run the 2.2 on the rear only if the price was right as it is a true 2.2 and again, not bad weight for such a big tire. I just wish it were the quality as the 2.4 UST. I'd also gladly run it over the DTC Nev UST if it were cheaper, no question.

Oh, and to answer your question about sidewall thickness. Yes, the RQ's sidewalls are much, much thicker, especially in the 2.4, than the single wall Nevegals (which are very thin). The 2.4 is a pretty beefy tire. The 2.2 is again thicker than the Kenda, but the construction is night and day to the 2.4.

...and I chose the RQ's for the exact reason you are looking at them: a relatively light, huge volume UST tire that can be used in the Sea to Sky corridor.

One last edit for durometers. I don't know what they are, but I'm guessing the non black chili is in the 60 to 70 range. The grip of the black chili appears impressive, but then I've never run a 42a Minnion which I believe is the king of sticktion. To feel the lugs it would appear the 50a Kenda Stick-E is stickier and softer, but only marginally, so I would venture a guess that the Black Chili compound is in the 55a range.

[robnow]

Bumping for any new opinions.

Thinking of buying Funkens 2.4 and throwing a 2.2 on the back for Alberta/BC riding. Is it much of a hinderance to be unmatched in sizes? I only know it'll be quicker due to less rolling resistance and weight on the back.

Any opinions on 2.4 Mountain Kings vs. 2.2 Rubber Queen...too XCish?

[LaBelle23]

Bumping for any new opinions.

Thinking of buying Funkens 2.4 and throwing a 2.2 on the back for Alberta/BC riding. Is it much of a hinderance to be unmatched in sizes? I only know it'll be quicker due to less rolling resistance and weight on the back.

Rubber Queen vs. Mountain King?

Can't tell you about the mountain king, but on the sizing issue I have some RQs on the way and will be running a 2.4 on front and 2.2 on the back. Friends already are on that set-up and really like it -- no issues with running a different size front and rear.

[deepsquat]

The Rubber Queens seem to perform well, front or rear, but the Trail Kings are pretty much rear-specific.

[gh444]

The Rubber Queens seem to perform well, front or rear, but the Trail Kings are pretty much rear-specific.

The RQ and Trail Kings are exactly the same tire just simply a name change for the North American market.

[Crinkle]

wow, i just mounted up a 2.4 UST rubber queen on the front of the Firebird. Its ginormous. Its huge next to my Nevegal 2.35 rear tire. I'll take a pic tomorrow. The casing is huge and damn is it heavy.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

That's good news since Conti just warrantied my 2.2. I was riding along and a huge blister had formed in the middle of the tread. Spun around back home. Took it off and a huge section of threads had separated: only visible from the inside.

I don't care what anyone says, relative to so many other worthy tires in the full on fat 2.2 range, the Chinese RQ is a piece of complete shit.

My 2.4 still looks like new, but it is up front.

And yeah Crinkle, it's 1150 grams, give or take 20, and massive.

Specialized Chunder 2Bliss is next up for my front: lighter, should be stickier and have to run sealant, but I like the idea of the more supple sidewall on the Spesh tires.