how do these tyres fair as all rounders? ive read they are quite fast rolling on tarmac and exceptionally grippy over wet roots/rocks/slabs etc and basically the holy grail of tyre….

will defo be UST in 2.2 as the 2.4 looks mahoooooosive!

any thoughts on them appreciated, price is a little scary so if anyone knows of a place new for relatively cheap deal for a pair please do tell!

thinking of giving them a whirl for general riding duties around peak! when it gets super dry perhaps ill whack on a maxxis crossmark on the back leaving a rubber queen up front

I run the non UST on my hardtail and I love them… apart from the faff of setting them up tubeless… and the time I ripped a sidewall open…. but even considering those issues I still love them.

I plan to try them on my big bike one day (which currently has non UST BC Barons which I also love but are heavier, and before that had 2.4 non UST BC RQ’s until I tore the rear apart and fitted a UST for the big rocky days of summer).

You can tell I like Conti BC tyres can’t you 🙄

Price is exceptionally scary, but they are as close as a tyre can come to being the holy grail IMO. They’re not exceptional at any one thing, but very bloody good at most things, and unlike other tyres that are pretty good at most things, they roll reasonably quickly.

Oh and 2.2″ Rubber Queen up front, 2.25 Crossmark out back, has been my choice on my hardtail for a while now. Really good combination, though on a couple of muddier rides have wished I had a Rubber Queen on the back too once or twice.

Got a set – really like them – OK rolling for a big soft tyre but slower than other tyres I have used such as mountainkings

Got mine for £30 odd apiece from bike discount.de

Running tubeless 2.2 Conti RQs on Flows for the last 6 months. Both front and rear. Loads more grip than the previous Maxxis HR front and seemingly very little loss in rolling resistence or drive than previous Larsen TT rear. Quite pleased with them really. No really signs of wear either. Which is nice 🙂

very positive so far guys! sure somebody will come along soon and spoil the praise 😉

no 2.2 ust TJ on the bikediscount site, had a look on other german ones and cant see them, unless im being blind 🙁

@Messiah me too, RQs and Barons depending on what I’m riding. Brilliant tires, Conti have really raised the stakes.

They’re good but I prefer my Hans Dampfs for some reason, they just seem to dig in a little bit more, both tubeless, RQs are UST BC (2.4 f 2.2 r).

CRC were knocking out Cont Vert Pro’s in BC flavour for £20 until last night and for the money were absolutely superb value

I rate RQ,s in 2.2 ust them seem to get me out of lots of bother and seem to like wet rocks up and down!!

They are my current favourite tyre as well. I’m running one tubeless one regular, both black chilli. The grip levels are superb all round, particularly in soft loamy soil. The non-UST tyre is quite a bit lighter than the UST one, to the extent that there is little weight benefit to running tubeless with UST. I’ve never managed to get the Non-UST one to stay inflated when trying to run tubeless. That said the non UST ones are quite susceptible to pinch flats over rocks, so running UST tubeless does have it’s advantages.

I thought only the 2.4 was black chili?

Or do they do a black chili 2.2 UST now?

I thought only the 2.4 was black chili?

Or do they do a black chili 2.2 UST now?

They used not to but started doing 2.2 UST BC about, hmmmm, a year a go? Hence the reason why my old RQ on my rear wheel is non-BC and the newer one on the front is BC (both 2.2 UST).

http://www.nextdaytyres.com/Tyres/Continental/Rubber-Queen.aspx?ID=353

Well, what a coincidence – fitted exactly the same model of tyre on my 140mm full-sus last night. I haven’t had chance to try them off-road yet, but am well impressed with the volume for a 2.2″….sidewalls also look pretty gritstone resistant.

I’m pretty much looking for same thing as OP, and bike is mainly used on natural Peak trails.

Good to hear the positive comments, as they’re a bit expensive to just take a gamble on.

p.s. you could try Lex’s Mountain Bikes, he did me a good deal on a pair, but that was a few months back now.

Black chill 2.2 ust : best tyre I’ve ever used .

jesus they are some holy positive reviews above! not one bad thing mentioned!

are they really that ok for rolling resistance too on tarmac and fire roads etc? using maxxis ardent/advantage at the moment, but want to try something with bigger volume and better grip as an allrounder

they sound great for peak district stuff, lots of roots, greasy wet rocks, slabs, grease and wet in general!

to be honest the more i think about the price they arent that bad, maxxis ust tyres are 48 quid a pop so they are can actually be had for cheaper than them!

I’ve been thinking about getting some RQ’s as a mate loves them, but looking at the tread pattern I’m not sure they will give as much grip in muddy conditions as my current Minions. Living in Scotland and riding 100% natural trails rather than trail centres, mud capability is pretty important

Comments?

timmys – Member

I thought only the 2.4 was black chili?

Or do they do a black chili 2.2 UST now?

They used not to but started doing 2.2 UST BC about, hmmmm, a year a go? Hence the reason why my old RQ on my rear wheel is non-BC and the newer one on the front is BC (both 2.2 UST).

http://www.nextdaytyres.com/Tyres/Continental/Rubber-Queen.aspx?ID=353

Ah I see, cheers for that. That’s my combo for the Alps sorted – normal 2.2 UST on the rear and a chili 2.2 UST up front. Rode 2.4’s in the Alps a few years back and they performed great.

I have these – best tyres I have used in 25 years of mountain biking. I find them good on rock, loam and hardback. Only thing not brilliant at is deep mud…

Loads of people I know love them. I tried them and couldn’t get on with them but it seems to be just me. I found on steep, bumpy descents the front had an unnerving tendency to ‘pop’ to the side occasionally – a bit like someone kicking the front wheel to the side giving a sudden change of direction. My guess is that the relatively thin sidewall bulges and the increased pressure at the side then pops them sideways – not sure. Could be too low tyre pressure (25psi). Either way, very off putting and went back to minions. Think the Rubber Queen sheds mud slightly better than the minion though.

I’ve swapped over from Minion DHF’s (front & rear) to UST RQ black chilis this week, so will try and drop a quick update on here after the weekends riding, for any Minion owners who’re interested.

I’ve swapped over from Minion DHF’s (front & rear) to UST RQ black chilis this week, so will try and drop a quick update on here after the weekends riding, for any Minion owners who’re interested.

Very interested in that if you find some muddy conditions

CaptainMainwaring – I only ever ride my 2.2 RQ’s in muddy conditions… or that’s how it certainly feels this year 👿

I’m really surprised when I read people complaining about the 2.2″ Rubber Queens performance in mud as I find them perfectly acceptable (for a non mud specific tyre that is). They do clog-up and slide about a fair bit in the clag but no worse than most other tyres; but they roll much quicker than most other tyres and grip on roots and rocks very well. The 2.4″ RQ is a bit too balloon-like so does float about in the mud which is why I keep mine for the dry days of summer… can’t see me using them this year then 🙄 I was using the non UST 2.4’s that day last year… if you remember I tore a chunk out of my rear tyre and dinged a rim on the descent, but that tyre was already past it’s best. After that I fitted a UST on the rear and went on to do some really stupid riding in rock and cactus strewn trails in Phoenix Arizona with no problems… the UST is a much beefier tyre!!!

As a better mud tyre than the RQ I like the non UST Baron, but it feels like a beefier tyre than the 2.2 RQ and there is noticably more drag and weight, it weighs about the same as the 2.4 RQ but doesn’t roll as well… but grips better.

Tallgavin above mentions the RQ’s giving suddenly and they do accasionally do that with a load bang if your really throwing them into rocks, a little unnerving but now part of the fun. Being big with thin sidewalls tyre pressure is very important, less than 25psi and they squirm madly, more than 30 and they bounce about and don’t grip too well… so running them tubeless is a must (IMHO etc etc).

Getting the non UST’s RQ and Baron to seal tubeless is a bit of a chore but worth it as it makes them light and supple which means they ride really well. I’ll put up with the risk of the occasional torn sidewall for how good they feel (I’ve managed to tear and repair a couple of sidewalls). The UST has a more bombproof feel but it loses some of the suppleness which makes the non UST’s so nice to ride… I’ll run a UST on the rear if I’m expecting to be banging through stuff really hard but for my general riding I seem to be able to get away without it. Others may not quite have my skill level so running a UST on the back could be considered insurance…

Despite the odd torn sidewall and pain of tubeless set up I really rate the Conti Baron and RQ tyres. I’ve never felt the love for Maxxis tyres, I don’t like the dual ply as they feel dead and if I run the single ply I trash them… and I’m loath to try the lust etc based on past experience.

Thanks messiah – great feedback and yes I do remember you tearing the sidewall on that descent. We should do that route again this year with a good posse

Mate of mine is currently running Minions but is putting the RQ 2.2 on his new bike so will be interesting to get his direct comparison. The reason I asked about mud performance is because exactly as you say it looks like we are going to need good mud performance the whole summer at this rate.

Your comment on getting the non UST versions to go up tubeless makes them very tempting as I’m a bit put off by the weight of the UST versions which apparently come out at over 1kg compared to the non-UST’s at around 700g, about the same as my Minions

As far as weight goes, the 2.2 UST RQ’s aren’t that bad. Being a weight obsessed geek, I weighed ’em before fitting, and FWIR they came out at 765/775g. Maybe the 1kg ones are the 2.4’s?

Having chatted to the Conti guys at Dalby XC World Cup last year, & what’s been said above, a non-UST front, UST rear sounds a good plan.

According to the Conti chaps, the ‘Protection’ version of their tyres converts to tubeless with sealant much better than ordinary version, as the sidewalls are less porous. (they didn’t do the RQ in black chili & protection when I bought mine tho – maybe they do now(?))

HTH

Price is exceptionally scary, but they are as close as a tyre can come to being the holy grail IMO. They’re not exceptional at any one thing, but very bloody good at most things, and unlike other tyres that are pretty good at most things, they roll reasonably quickly.

Oh and 2.2″ Rubber Queen up front, 2.25 Crossmark out back, has been my choice on my hardtail for a while now. Really good combination, though on a couple of muddier rides have wished I had a Rubber Queen on the back too once or twice

I also use a RQ on the front (2.4) and crossmark 2.25 on the rear and have am really liking it. I used to run a 2.2 RQ on the rear until the sidewall split (the 2.2 non UST seem to have very thin sidewalls)

I have to say though, the crossmark on the rear has really impressed me – seems just as quick as the RQ and has similar volume but is more stable when cornering. This is definitely the best tyre combination I’ve had.

I’m not sure what UST 2.2’s are but my non UST are 720g. 2.4 RQ and Baron are both approx. 820-850g, and UST 2.4 RQ were 1050g… Better to go non UST if you can!

…exceptionally grippy over wet roots

Mine don’t grip on wet roots. 🙁

Otherwise the UST is great for most conditions, especially in rockier areas. Can be a bit phased by southern mud/clay/chalk combo, but TBH that’s when you want to be running a mud tyre.

well just ordered a set – hoping these live up to the hype above, as im expecting great things off these now!

How do they compare with 2.35 Maxxis HR’s for size?

They come up way bigger than HR 2.35’s, which come up small compared to most tyres of the same supposed dimensions

UST 2.2s are about 850g

UST 2.2s are about 850g

That’s what Conti claim, but according to Nextdaytyres both UST versions come out at 1050g, compared to the non UST at 770g. Perhaps someone with some accurate scales could weigh some new ones. If the UST versions weigh that much more surely it defeats half the objective of going tubeless which is to lose weight as there is no tube

Just to throw a bit of downer onto the love-in. I took mine off after a winter session for the March heatwave, stored them in the garage for a couple of weeks and the sidewalls were cracking when I put them back on, surface damage but not what I expected from a £90 pair of tyres. These are UST BC 2.2 for reference.

They aren’t bad in mud or deep water! They clear quite quickly once out of the claggy mud round these parts.

How do they compare with 2.35 Maxxis HR’s for size?

Slightly thinner, substantially deeper.

I have both 2.2 RQ USTs and 2.35 HR LUSTs.

The Rubber Queen love-in is quite close to coaxing me away from ordering some of the new XR4 2.2 TLR (read some really great reviews of these – stickier stronger side knobs, wider spaced ramped harder centre knobs – and the old versions were still good) – just the lack of a proper tubeless ready but not overweight UST variant that’s bothering me… For that price I want it all!

Another big thumbs up for the snakeskin 2.2 UST RQ in black chilli-as gripy and predictable as my old Minnions but roll quicker, clear well and grip on wet roots too!! My year round choice tyre from now on.

For the record on weight. I’ve got a 2.4″ UST, a 2.2″ UST and a 2.2″ non UST in my possession. I’ve not weighed the 2.2″ versions, but the 2.4″ is just over a kilo. The 2.2″ non UST is very light for a tyre of its size, I’d guess the 700ish gram claim to be true. The 2.2″ UST is a good deal heavier, but it’s still some way off the 2.4″ UST for weight. An educated guess, I’d say it’s around 850-900g.

The UST sidewalls are definitely worth it though, I’ve had a real PITA getting my non UST tyre to stay up tubeless. It seated fine, the beads are fairly tight and a good quality, it’s just so bloody porous, I must’ve slung nearly a pint of sealant in now and it still leaks! If Conti do bring out a tubeless ready halfway house tyre, they will sell them by the truckload even at £50 a pop…

Chiefgrooveguru, all I’ll say is the Rubber Queens are in a different league to the XR4’s. I found my XR4’s to lack any real bite, and understeer was always the name of the game. I’ve not had a sketchy moment yet on a Rubber Queen, either front or back. Immense tyres!

How does the 2.2 UST Black Chili roll compared to the 2.2 XR4? I guess I can live with extra rotating weight – if it was such an issue then 29ers wouldn’t be proving effective!

Non ust black chili 2.2’s sealed up fine with fresh Stans fluid but were porus.
One weighed 650g, one 670g. One leaked more and took some sealing.