So i'm looking for a new tyre and i'm well impressed with the 2.4 Conti X-Kings Black Chili protections on my brothers bike, but he says the front can wash out and go from plenty of grip to no grip, especially in wet mud, pretty quickly. I think a rubber queen is bit too far in the other direction so i've ended up looking at the mountain king II. They look and sound exactly what i'm after but I have a problem.
The back end of my Blur Classic is pretty tight and I want to get the bigger of the two sizes in there if I can. I currently use 2.25 Maxxis Crossmarks and they seem fine for clearance. Reading about Mountain kings I can't work out just how big a 2.4 MK really is, a few of the reviews say they measure up small so I don't want to go for a 2.2 that actually ends up being more like a 2.0.
So my question is, does anybody have the 2.4 or the 2.0 and how do the rated sizes turn out to be once they're fitted?
Cheers.
There was a review in this months MBR and it gave actual measurements.
Cheers Paul, i'll grab a copy on the way home.
Speaking to the conti rep he was saying sizing was very similar to the old mk's and not the rubber queens. Hope that helps
I have been running the 2.2 Mtn king 2 and the sizing is pretty much the same as previous Mtn kings. They are smaller than the rubber queens.
The X-king and Mtn King 2 run the same carcass but with different tread, I tried a pair of 2.4 Mtn kings and they weren't a great deal wider but they were quite a lot taller.
I've been very happy with my 2.2's for general cross country and trail centre use.
Cheers, it's the height where I might have the problem. Thanks for that.
Managed to get a 2.4 X-King in there, looking at the tread profile I don't think i'll get the mountain king II through, well it will but it'll have about 1mm clearance on the seat stay brace. The X-King has about 5-6mm clear.
I did a comparison to my 2.25 cross marks and the 2.4 X-King is about the same width and the same height at the highest tread block on the Maxxis.
Cheers for the replies.