Any one tried them both in trail star /black chilli ?

tick, very interesting in this topic. Especially if we’re talking tubeless.

Not tried both but using Trailstar HD on front on 29er – easy to set up tubeless and very grippy. Rolls better than I expected too.

Got them both on at present – HD front and RQ rear.
Have previously run RQ F&R before. They have been very good in most conditions but have their downsides: not great in mud, not great tubeless (UST version heavy, non UST difficult), sidewalls seem to cut up in rocks.
The HD is easy to run tubeless and much lighter than the UST RQ. Just got back from Wales and never lacked grip with HD in testing conditions. Rolls well enough. Will probably get one for the rear in time.

RQ 2.2 I’m running was pretty easy to tubeless, scrubbed the inside with IPA, seated the bead using a tube, then popped in some stan’s, swished it around, then inflated with a track pump.

Easier to tubeless than Maxxis, but much harder than Schwalbe – which go up without sealant or any tricks with a track pump from the box.

The sidewalls do still leak a little sealant – and probably lose 5psi over a week – which isn’t bad at all.

I’d assume with a little time and more riding they’ll stop seeping.

Had 2.4 (non UST) RQs, lots of problems with them tubeless, blowing off the tyre, in the end the sidewalls deformed badly and they both ended up in the bin. Would never buy another Conti MTB tyre.

Hans Dampfs have all the good things of the RQs, but non of the bad, tubeless with a track pump, not a single problem since. Can’t fault them at all.

Aren’t the HD heavier, and draggier than the RQs though? If they were I’d see that as a downside – it’s the reason I’ve not gone with them, they seem more synonymous with the Conti Baron in terms of weight and stickiness….

HD do not seem heavy and roll quite well, not noticeably different to RQ which also roll well. They are the mid/hard compound which no doubt helps. Have some muddy marys, the Schwalbe soft compound – thats a tyre that does not roll well. First impressions of hd are very good, but then I’ve only run them for a short while.

Running a non ust tyre tubeless and it’s the tyres fault that it doesn’t work? 🙄

What’s the size difference between 2.2 RQ and the Hans Dampfs?
Ian

Didn’t get on with the queens so recently changed to hans dampfs and much prefer them, lighter, roll well and easy to set up tubeless, find them much more predictable in corners ( but that’s more a personal preference). Size wise the hd’s are wider than the queens but not as big height wise. Big tyres though!

I’ve had both now, first ride on my dampfs today.

Had 2.4 RQs really grippy, unbelievable on wet roots so much grip, had a load of trouble running them at lower pressure they rolled off the rim regually. After 4 months they were totally destroyed to the point that the rear wouldn’t go through my frame where it distorted shape so badly. Conti warrentied them so big thumbs up! i run tubeless and they would pump straight up with a track pump too which was handy

LBS took the RQs in as stock as there was no way they were going back on my bike so swapped for the dampfs. First impressions are wow they are light compared to the contis! They grip just as well and are far easier to lean over but they do roll slower (trailstar f+r) and they needed a compressor to inflate but so far I’m impressed.

HTH

Are the HD tough enough for you to get a bit silly in the rocky stuff?

Time will tell but they have the snakeskin sidewalks which look like they will help.

Love my rubber queens black chills 2.2 ust , run at low pressure and never had any issues 19/29psi

HD Trauilstar front and Pacestar rear here, not tried RQ’s but followed a mate on some whilst he squirmed around the other day…..granted could have been, pressure/skill/speed related, but I’m no wizz and felt pretty smug 8).

They run tubeless fine, not noticed any real air loss and are hammered on the sharp limestone around the Peaks with no issues.

65Euros the pair from bike-discount.de (or something like that).

HTH

The RQs have a bigger air chamber, right?
Just tonight was sizing my HDs up against a Fat Albert and a 2.4 Maxxis Advantage. The HDs are normal volume tyre by today’s standards; the Albert slightly bigger than average, the Advantage big, period.

I’ve just bought some RQ 2.2 BCs and tried them out in the damp Surrey Hills today. I have to say that I was impressed: They slid out less than my usual High Roller combo (Super Tacky front and Maxxpro rear) and even in the deepest slop did not feel squirmy.

When they did slide, they slid predictably, and quickly hooked up again.

They’ll be staying on for a while.

This refers to the non-UST version.

Holy thread resurrection Batman! (Had to say it before someone else did)

What’s the general consensus now that people have had a bit more time on these? Had 2.4 RQ’s, loved them but too heavy for all day riding really.

Currently running Mountain King II 2.4’s with tubes. Afraid to run them tubeless because apparently they’re difficult to seal and I seem to be able to roll them off at the sort of pressures I’d like to run.

So, RQ or HD ? ? ? ?

Both, I run hans dampf trailstar front and a 2.2 black chilli rubber queen rear, both went tubeless without any problems on flow rims, pretty similar size wise.

Feel the rubber queen rolls well but grips nicely when cornering and climbing and the HD offers a bit more grip up front, no problems with punctures or sidewalls in the peaks.