Well I never thought I would say this, but I need a tyre for dusty trail!

Being a long time Conti fan I’m after a Race King for the rear. Thing is do I go for a 2.0 or a 2.2 (which looked massively wide to me). I’m on FS, and usual favour a thinner rear tyre.

Cheers for any advice!

They are quite large volume, mine looks like a balloon. Fast rolling, but not much fun braking on rough ground as i find it locks up easily du to the slick (ish)profile

Mine is a 2.2 and its not so much the width as the ‘height’ of the tyre. Its massive.

I have the 2.2 and its wide but not huge, a fair bit smaller than my 2.3 specialized tyres.

Cheers! Has anyone tried a 2.0? Is it too narrow?

I have 2.0 front and back, ace for cross country you wont regret it! I run them quite hard tho 45ish, so if your looking for a plusher ride as always, go larger

Cheers! Think I’ll be keeping the 2.2 X King up front. Mainly XC and some trail centre use.

2.0 race king is pretty narrow but then so is the 2.2 x-king.
I can mount some to compare widths if that helps

I used to run the 2.0 on my XC bike, both with tubes and tubeless. I found I had problems with the sidewalls deforming on the last 2 tyres I used so I switched to a Kenda Small block 8 which proved to be a much stronger (and faster rolling) tyre.

I’ve ordered one of the 2.0 normal folding tyres thanks. I was using the Race Speed versions of Conti’s, but with the sidewalls cutting so easily I thought I’d try the normal versions for now.

which looked massively wide to me

compared to what? I’ve a 2.2 on the back of my Cham at the minute, and it’s no bigger than any other large volume tyre.

Just mounted an x-king 2.2 protection and race king 2.2 supersonic on DT 4.2d rims.

2.2 RK is pretty similar in casing width to 2.2 XK, but theres probably an extra 1/2 inch of casing height from the RK!
Thats the decision maker for me. Potentially drop a couple of psi off the larger casing height tyre to maintain pinch flat resistance yet achieve better rolling resistance on all but pavement.

Both tires up against the wall.. so, difference you see is total diameter difference.

Would Make mine into a 29’er! 😉

Hoping the 2.0 isn’t to much narrower, hopefully just not as high!

2.0 likely will be a bunch narrower if 2.2 – 2.4 x-king comparison or 2.2 – 2.4 MKII comparison is anything to go by.
Larger diameter in 26 is a good thing imo – yes, I’m a 27.5 fan and believer in wider/taller/lower psi being better in all circumstances (except tarmac)