are these any good as a rear tyre? will it be faster rolling than a rubber queen? what are the sidewalls like on conti’s tubeless ready tyres?

any general thoughts appreciated, will only be as a rear cos if i keep contis’ i will leave the RQ UST 2.2 BC on the front

It was rated the no.1 trail tyre in this months (June) WMB magazine group test. The rear in particular for grip, durability and rolling resistance.

hmmm you got a link at all to it?

will the mountain king be quicker than a rubber queen on the rear???

I’ve run RQ F&R and RQ F with MK R before now. All 2.2 flavour. The MKs do roll faster, quite noticeably. I think this could have something to do with being considerably narrower than the RQ, despite having the same width printed on them.

I do like the grip and rollyness of the MK on the rear but I always seem to flat them (protection version too), even when pumped up to fairly high pressures. I had 4 punctures in one MK on last years Coed-Y enduro. I should give them a try tubeless tho, might make all the difference.

cheers pocketshepher, id kinda assumed they would roll a bit quicker than the beasty RQ’s!

i reckon ill get a MK2 in 2.2 ust and see how that fairs, like you say it cant be any slower than a RQ, and although it wont be as fast as a X King, at least ill have a bit more traction/grip when it turns a bit wet/muddy, something i completely lacked last night once the heavens opened, and on sections i nail absoultly every time even in the winter with the RQ’s on!

ps, thinking about it im only gonna go down the UST route too, hearing to many stories of people with TLR tyres going wrong, ive never once had a slash on my UST tyres so the 200gram gain in weight is worth it IMO, especially around the peak district

Agreed. I run the UST versions of the RQs and had very few problems. UST MK on the rear could be ideal for the summer.

Less traction then rubber queen but still plenty of grip. Fast rolling too so ticks that box.
2.2 Mk2 is a skinny tire.
2.4 mk2 is close to 2.2 RQ volume so would be a better rear to go with a 2.2RQ front IMO.

i reckon ill get a MK2 in 2.2 ust

Do they come in the black chilli compound now?

thats cool, ill go for a 2.2ust, i dont want a massive rear tyre, id prefer to have a bigger volume tyre up front, i want the rear one to grip still but be quick, so the MK2 UST sounds ideal, especially as you say they roll quick, which is great!

nope chakaping, they dont do them in BC, but i ran a XKing ust without BC and grip wise it was great, until the tread ran out, so im not to bothered, as the front RQ is a BC which is where id prefer more grip

I’m running MK2.2 rear BC2.2 front both BC works very well. Loads of grip even on wet rooty sections, pretty fast rolling, no problems with flats at around 40PSI and I’m heavy. MK is much smaller than the RQ.

Was thinking of getting these tyres for my next set does anyone know how wide the 2.2 or 2.4’s come up in relation to 2.35 high rollers?

2.2s are similar to 2.35 HRs

Cheers Chakaping

read the reviews and got a pair of 2.4 BC protection, grippy, fast and light but now up for sale ,

i did not like the transition to the side knobs, there is a drift zone before you get there and its fine if you throw the bike down into every corner but on a long rides on unknown trails i found it got a bit tiring.

great tyre in every other respect,

2.4 is about the same as a 2.2 RQ widthwise +/-

I run a 2.2 Protection MK 2 on the rear & a 2.35 Hans Dampf on the front.

I find the combination excellent

The MK 2 is definitely faster than the RQ that I used to run F & R.

Huge difference in the physical width – the MK 2 comes up narrow.

I love my Conti MK 2s protection black chillis

So are people running these tubeless then?

I’ve currently got Hans Dampfs which I love, but the rear is slightly too fat for my frame. I want a 2.25 HD (26″) but since that doesn’t exist, how would I get on with the MK2s? What’s the risk of pinches when running tubeless?

2.4 MKII Protection front and rear, tubeless on Flows EX. Front took maybe a week to completely seal – I just pumped it back up before every ride under that period until it held air overnight. Other than that, no issues. I’d definitely go Protection again for tubeless, the sidewalls on the other versions seem a bit fragile.

I’ve just set up a Conti MK 2.2 Racesport Black Chili tubeless tonight.

I’d heard horror stories about them being mega porous but it was probably the easiest tyre to set up yet. Went up immediately with a track pump. Some pinholes in the sidewall that sealed straight away. It’s still up after 4 hours.

I got one to replace a Nobby Nic 2.25 I was running on the rear (have a 2.2 Black Chili Rubber Queen up front). The Nobby Nic had worked well for a while but suddenly started to disintegrate – the central blocks were falling to apart and big lumps were coming away from the side blocks.

I enjoyed them (2.4 BC) over winter as they dug into soft ground and cleared well without feeling like velcro elsewhere. A big grumbly on hardpack so they’re off in favour of fat semi slicks until the ground goes soft again

Iffoverload – if your mountain kings are ust then I could be interested! Let me know cheers

The model listing of these is such a pain in the arse though!
Bike 24 are now listing UST as Black Chilli, aswell as the Protection version. Though Continental themselves still say UST does not have Black Chilli.

Anyone ordered these recently and if so know if the UST version does have Black Chilli or not? Or do I still need the standard protection for UST compatibility and black chilli compound?

im not risking the protection version, im just gonna go UST straight away, its mega rocky by us and ridden at more speed its a tyre’s worst nightmare….

the only time ive slashed a tyre sidewall was the one time i ran a tubeless ready one

the MK2 UST may not have black chilli, but its gonna be quicker rolling on the rear that a RQ and its still gonna have more grip than the X King UST (non bc again) im running at the mo