How do they differ from Rubber Queens? 😀
Different (narrower) carcass, faster, less grippy.
Not got them myself, but know a couple of people that run em on the back of their bikes and quite like them, but the 2.4" X King comes up smaller than a 2.2" Rubber Queen so be careful of the sizing! The 2.2" is about the same as most 2.1's, and the 2" X King is very narrow.
Seen the X-King Racesports for the same price as Rubber Queen 2.2's both with Black Chili, just to confuse my choices further 😀
x-king are an xc/dry trail tyre. although I find them surprisingly versatile. Rubber queen are much more a gravity oriented tyre, although they roll pretty well. Mountain kings come between the two in the continental range.
Racesport is continentals lightest carcase, I found it to lightweight for the rear, but if your a racing snake you may get away with it. Depending on the riding you do consider the protection carcase, which is (iirc) about 100g heavier but would allow a lower pressure.
2.4 x kings are huge imo you would not want to run 1 in a rockshox reba fork when leaning in a corner it would rub. I have x kings on the back of both my bikes an have done for the last 2 months they have been really good i was running the 2.4 on the front as well and that had loads of grip as well.
I have run both tyres on my bike, would choose rubber queen 2.2's every time. The X-king 2.4's are good but don't have the ultimate grip of the rubber queens and don't ware as well. Only reason I switched to the X-kings was the fit in the rear of the frame.
Thanks rustle
I run them tubeless on one of my bikes and really like them. In the winter, they don't like real deep mud, but they do shed quickly. Love them in the summer - no punctures in 4 months tubeless :-))
dantsw13 are you running tubeless on ust rims or with sealant etc?
Regards
Richard
I'm quite liking the x kings atm, there faster rolling than the rubber queens but not as grippy. I prefer the x kings for trail xc stuff