I’m thinking about splashing out on a set of RQ, but I’ve read mix views. I mainly ride natural trail with a few dh days on my nomad. I have noticed they r quiet big volume tyres so is it better to have a 2.4 and a 2.2 rear?

Work great for me doing reasonably aggressive trail riding. Not sure they are the best for full on DH though…

That will just whack out the geo, I’m pretty sure the 2.4’s are taller. What I remember about Rubber Queens (it’s many years since I rode them) is that the 2.4’s rolled really really well for a 2.4 inch tyre and at the same time offered a decent amount of grip. I suspect they had much lower rolling resistance than my 2.35 High Rollers.

Cheers bud but I wouldn’t say full on dh more of a wannabe 😉

I run a 2.2 and really like it..far superior to the Nobby nic it replaced!

Paul

I like them to ride but sidewalls are not great. Lots of rock scars looking near the bone. Patched one gash and moved them to 3rd bike.
Using Nobby Nic and Hans Dampf now on main FS.

as above….

never used them in USt guise, but after going through two RQ BCs due to split sidewalls I’d be wary of using them….

rather the extra rolling resistance of HR over flimsy RQ. why don’t Maxxis make a normal UST trail version of the HR?

I’ve run the 2.4″ RQs on everything, including DH. They’re great all-round tires. I would run the 2.4″ at the rear, unless it doesn’t fit. As a example, the 2.4″ fits great on a 456C, doesn’t fit a Banshee Spitfire or a Transition TransAM, but only because there’s not enough mud clearance. The 2.4″ also won’t fit a Bomber 44 fork as it’s too close to the arch.

Just got some Hans Dampfs on a bike and these seem very good too, stiffer side walls, similar grip, but not as big as the RQ2.4s.

The UST Rubber Queen doesn’t have flimsy sidewalls. Although it’s heavier than the normal version it still rolls very fast for its size and you can run lower pressures before it starts squirming, which allows it to perform pretty well when it get muddy.

IO had some RQ’s for a while. Didn’t keep them on long enough to really rate them in many conditions. I had a 2.4 front, which was huge (still went through an old-style Revelation* well) and a 2.2 rear, which was the biggest I could get through my Ti 456 and is still by far the biggest volume tyre I’ve ever had in that bike, mostly because the RQ doesn’t have big protruding shoulder knobs.

The large volumes made the local rock gardens a bit too easy and tamed the trail too much TBH. They rolled ok enough too. I punctured the rear (non black-chili UST) riding with Switch-Backs in spain. The rear was shredded beyond 2nd hand sale after that holiday! The front tyre went on to be much loved by a new owner 🙂

*back when the Revelation lowers were the same as Pikes

UST has thicker sidewalls than non-UST. Never had an issue with mine on rock despite many trips to Lee Quarry, Seven Stanes and my local riding.

I’ve had a sidewall rip, thanks to Kentish flint.

Other than that, they’re a great tyre – the 2.2 is massive, far larger than a Conti Mountain King for example of the same stated size. 2.4 up front and 2.2 at the back is probably overkill, especially if you’re running relatively narrow rims. My Wolf Ridge has 2.2 at both ends and it’s more than enough.

Latest version of the RQ 2.2 isn’t as massive as it used to be, not as tall and weighs 100g less (UST version). Still a superb tyre.

I use 2.4 front and rear on a 5, great for everything apart from proper mud, can be sensitive to pressure though, a few psi here and there make a lot of difference, as above they roll really well even at low pressure and grip is brilliant in most conditions.