Forum menu
Is anyone on here running 2.2 Rubber Queens? If so how do they compare size wise with, say, 2.35, 2.4 & 2.5 Maxxis and Schwalbe (or other) tyres?
I'm currently running 2.4" Schwalbe Big Betty's which are pretty big for a 2.4 and since switching from 823's to wider Flow rims they've started rubbing slightly on the stays. I'm guessing the 2.4 Rubber Queen will do the same so I'm considering 2.2's front and rear or 2.4 front and 2.2 rear.
Photos would be good 🙂
Cheers.
Schwalbe 2.4s are roughly the same as the RQ 2.4s, perhaps a smidge narrower.
2.2 RQ are just a bit smaller then a 2.5 Maxxis (high roller etc). The 2.4 RQ is massive.
Huge
2.4 RQs are huge.
2.2 RQs are loads smaller - the difference is more than you'd expect.
A 2.2 RQ is about the same size as a 2.4 Mountain King, bigger than a 2.25 Nobby Nic but a little smaller than a 2.4 Nic.
If it helps, this is a 2.2 RQ on a 717.
[url] http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardstarkie/4106555709/in/set-72157614620678724/ [/url]
i was running maxxis ardent 2.4, schwalbe nobby nic and fat albert, both in 2.25 and now rubber queens 2.2, all on flow rims. the contis are not much smaller than the ardents, just about the same size as the schwalbes.
Thanks all. Looks like a 2.2 at the back then if I want to go with the Rubber Queens. I was also thinking of going for 2.3 Barons but I can't find Black Chili versions in stock anywhere
Black chilli Barons are due out in march.
I've got a 2.4" Big Bettie on the front and a 2.4" Rubber Queen on the back at the moment - both running tubeless on Flow rims. Quick look in the garage last night and a wee test with piece of cardboard shows that the size of these tyres is about the same to within a couple of mm, with the Rubber Queen being the slightly narrower but only where the knobs are - I checked them up and down and side to side and they really are very similar.
If the 2.4 Big Bettie is a bit close at the back and rubs the chainstay then a 2.4" Rubber Queen will almost certainly do the same.
Cheers min. I just nipped out to the shed for a look and there's approx 2mm between the sidewall and the non-drive stay and about 3-4mm at the drive side. It's a wee bit snug and if the Betty had stiffer sidewalls it would be fine but because they flex quite a bit it rubs each time the tyre deflects off something. If the 2.4 UST RQ has stiffer sidewalls I might get away with one at the back.
Neither of my tyres are UST so I don't know about that. Sidewall wise the two tyres I have feel very similar... i.e. scary thin and flexy... which means they feel great!
I'm using Bontrager Rhythm fims, which are as wide as Flows.
I got my calipers out (sad, I know) to compare what I had.
The widest point of a Rubber Queen is the carcass (i.e. the round bit).
The widest point of a Mountain King is the Shoulder Knob.
2.4" Rubber Queen (UST): Carcass = 2.39"
2.2" Rubber Queen (UST): Carcass = 2.22"
2.4" Mountain King (Supersonic): Carcass = 2.2", Shoulder = 2.4".
HTH.
FWIW, the 2.2 RQ and 2.4 MK run fine through my Ti 456. the 2.4 RQ rubbed [i]slightly[/i].
2.4 rubber queen:
[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5476145396_cf7fd6b3ef_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/7930597@N03/5476145396/ ]IMG00045-20110224-1552[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/7930597@N03/ ]barry_kellett99[/url], on Flickr