Forum menu
I heard that the 2.4" TK Black Chili compound is a huge tire which measures for some people even 2.45-2.5", but I'd like to get the Performance version, which uses the PureGrip compound and is made in Asia.
If you own this specific version of the tire(not BC please), could you please tell me the actual width of the tire ? The height would be also great, if it's a 27.5".
If read of some rare reports(like this [url] http://forums.mtbr.com/wheels-tires/conti-trail-king-2-4-not-so-big-754776.html [/url]) of tk's being narrower than advertised, and want to make sure what size the PG's are. If they measure indeed 2.4" I might need to buy 2.2" because of possible fork rubbing on my XC30 .
Are the different compound tyres likely to be a different size?
If they aren't then they aren't an enormous tyre. I had the black chilli version and they fitted with plenty of clearance though a Rockshox Revelation fork and he back end of a Boardman Pro FS frame.
I only bought them as they were on offer but they were pretty good. Why would you specifically want the performance version - if you can afford it go for the better compound.
For Conti it seems it's likely.Are the different compound tyres likely to be a different size?
Why would you specifically want the performance version - if you can afford it go for the better compound
I'm on a tight budget, the performance version is the best I can get.
I can't speak for that exact version but the ime the trail king being massive is a myth - mine were exactly the claimed size. They just seem big if you don't measure them, because we're so used to tyres not being the size they claim to be. They're fairly tall, though, and yes Conti are the least reliable company for sizes so you can't really assume the others will be the same size.
TBH it wasn't that great a tyre in black chili, I didn't hate it but I wouldn't buy another
I miss read that first post - I had Mountain King 2.4's not Trail King 2.4's. Got a bargain on them for £24 each last year. Think from chain reaction.
@poah, the protection version you are linking is almost twice the price of the performance version I could get.
I've used a lot of conti tyres and rate them but I would steer clear of the pure grip versions for anything other than sedate off road routes. For only a couple of quid more you can get on-one chunky monkey, maxxis dhr II from CRC, wtb trail boss from crc and schwalbe nobby nic. If you're set on the trail kings then crack on but there are other options.
Newer PG tyres have sturdier carcasses. Early ones were pretty flimsy.
I'm set on the TK already, after some days of researching. I don't need something too hardcore and am on a tight budget. I'll ride them on asphalt and dry offroad conditions, mostly hardpack, maybe some forest paths. They are not going to see dry conditions/mud.
I'm not a hardcore rider with crazy expectations. My bike had the stock OEM Mountain Kings on it up to now, and I can't say they worked bad for me.
What I'm trying to find out in this thread, is if the 2.4" TK will rub against my XC30 fork.
What I can say is that a I had the 2.4 on the front and ran it wil rockshox revelations, rockshox sectors and fox float 32. Each time I also had a front mucky nuts type mud guard under the fork arch and I never had any clearance issues except in thick mud conditions. I'd be more concerned about clearance at the rear TBH. If you're really concerned, try the conti mountain King 2.4. It used to come up a little smaller than the TK and is still a decent tyre with the same rubber compound. Buy one and test it at each end then buy a second based on the fit.
Thanks for the help 🙂
I only want to get the 2.4" TK for the front, and for the back a 2.2" TK or MK, not sure yet.
What version were yours, Paul ?
It looks like the forks you have used tire with are all am/dh forks, my xc30 is more of an XC one.
I found this on the mbr.co.uk forum, and was a bit worried:
db3266
06-Nov-2014, 10:10 AM
my fork is a rock shox XC30, I think that will take a 2.4 tyre ?
I will measure when I get chance.
NorthernMatt
06-Nov-2014, 10:12 AM
If it's anything other than a RubberQueen/TrailKing then yes. If you go for those it might be a bit of a squeeze/not fit at all.
One more rub report, by user slowride454 from mtbr forum:
The fork is a Rock Shox Recon Silver TK that I bumped up to 120mm and upgraded the damper. The new wheel and tire combo is a Conti TK 29x2.4 at 622-60 on a Velocity P35. I have only ridden this combo 3 times and have crashed a few times when the front end comes to a dead stop from tire rub."
Mines were the black chili version. Why not buy the 2.2 for the rear and use it initially on the front to test for clearance. If there's plenty of space then the 2.4 should be fine.
TBH, for the type of riding you do, is the risk worth the hassle? Just get some cheap schwalbe performance in 2.25, wtb comp something or other in 2.3, or personally, get a pair of specialized 2.3 purgatory grids. Google says £20 per tyre. Will certainly perform and last better than the pure grip conti and are tubeless ready too. I know you're keen on the PG TKs but if you can't try before you buy you could end up with a tyre that doesn't fit and wasting money.
Did you have any experience with the pure grips ? This is not the same compound as in the standard oem version. They seem to get good reviews most of the time.
No experience of that compound but I'm sure they'll be fine for you. I was thinking more about the tyre not fitting in the front and if you're on a budget then sticking to the 2.4 might be risking wasting money. Not to mention the comments you've found about them causing crashes!
Thanks Paul. I'm gonna get a 2.4" and a 2.2". If the 2.4" doesn't fit in the front I'll sell it, and use the 2.2". I'll then get a MK for the back.
Among the 2-3 rub reports I also found more reports that it fits in forks like Suntour XCM or Dart 3.
Found this [url=
my XC30 should be a higher level fork than the XCM.