Home › Forums › Bike Forum › 2.2 vs 2.4 mountain kings

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women
  • This topic has 19 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by MS.
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • 2.2 vs 2.4 mountain kings
  • nickc
    Full Member

    How do the smaller versions of these tyres measure up compared to the proper sized ones?

    Posted 15 years ago
    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    smaller

    Posted 15 years ago
    nickc
    Full Member

    boom tish….are you here all week?

    Posted 15 years ago
    Turnerfan1
    Free Member

    Come up like a 2-2.1 in most other brands.
    Thanx Max

    Posted 15 years ago
    ChunkyMTB
    Free Member

    What Turnerfan said. I’ve got some 2.4 MK’s and they look like 2.0’s!

    Posted 15 years ago
    nickc
    Full Member

    Sorry, not clear, how do they compare? Are they as good. Clearly they are thinner….

    Posted 15 years ago
    Daffy
    Full Member

    2.4s come up like a 2.25 Racing Ralph. 2.2s come up like a Bonty Mud-X 2.0

    So they come up about 0.15/0.2" smaller.

    Posted 15 years ago
    nickc
    Full Member

    Yes, they are smaller, we’ve established that. Right, now, are they as good, grip wise? Are they as draggy? Do they stay clear like their larger cousins?

    Posted 15 years ago
    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    suck em and see

    Posted 15 years ago
    MrNutt
    Free Member

    smaler profile would imply that they would be slightly less draggy than the larger ones but less stable over rocky stuff and need to be run harder?

    why not just get some High Rollers?

    Posted 15 years ago
    ChunkyMTB
    Free Member

    They are crap on rocks and when it starts to get wet I have no confidence in them. I tried in the Maritime Alps recently and they were appalling. They aren’t much different to the old Conti Vert’s. I just use High Rollers.

    Posted 15 years ago
    jimw
    Free Member

    the 2.4’s came as standard with my Orange 5 which I bought in July. As soon as any mud came on the track they were not good at all. Also I have never had as many punctures as with these tyres in the short time they were on the bike- the side walls and main carcass are very thin presumably to save weight. Now on Panaracers and having no problems

    Posted 15 years ago
    gingerflash
    Full Member

    I was recently talking to a bike shop owner about these. It seems the big difference between those who hate them and those who love them might be the black chilli compound rubber. He’s noticed that those who’ve had supersonics with BC rubber like them whereas those who buy the standard or protection ones seem to think they’re crap.

    I have 2.4 supersonics and think they’re great in all conditions, including wet rock and fairly thick mud. I get a few pinch flats but then that’s the price you pay for a 540g 2.4 inch tyre. I really like them.

    Posted 15 years ago
    Daffy
    Full Member

    I find 2.1 speedkings to be effective in all conditions except wet limestone. I ran them without issue a Mayhem.

    Posted 15 years ago
    v10
    Free Member

    The black chilli comment is very valid, ive used both and the difference in wet grip is huge.

    I also find that the 2.2 is a much better tyre than the 2.4. Because of the large lightweight sidewall on the 2.4 it just tends to fold under hard cornering whereas the 2.2 tends to hold its shape better and dig in more.

    Its exactly the same with the Speedkings, the 2.3s are awful and the sidewall is wider than the edge of the tread on some rims. The 2.1’s on the other hand are superb.

    Posted 15 years ago
    r6ymy
    Free Member

    The Protections also have the Black Chilli compound, it’s the steel bead and folding ones that don’t. I used the 2.2 protections last summer and found them to be an excellent tyre, fast rolling and grippy on most surfaces wet or dry, just not good in mud.

    Posted 15 years ago
    chakaping
    Full Member

    Yes, I have the 2.4 protections (with black chili) and rate them highly for everything except fast hard downhills, where they seem to fold a bit as v10 pointed out.

    Now have one on the rear of my 575, where folding isn’t such an issue, and one on the front of my Trance or Handjob where it performs very well in almost all circumstances.

    If I didn’t have more tyres than Kwik Fit at the moment, I’d buy the 2.2 as a rear as well.

    Posted 15 years ago
    booboorazoom
    Free Member

    Running the 2.4 Protections with BC – lurv ’em!!!!, they sem to be a proper 2.4 size – the 2.2 come up small – but the 2.4’s come up nice and round so no shoulder issues when banked over hard and great all round grip – good roll over, not very draggy and a nice extra bit of suspension if yer hardtailing – am just about to try the Supersoncs in a 2.4 so can lose a bit of rotational weight but slightly worried about the thin side walls so may go back to Protects if I suffer lotsa pinch flats

    Posted 15 years ago
    GaryLake
    Free Member

    I think the MKs tend to flatter a riding style that has a bit of finesse to it – they don’t seem to like being banked over and ragged by the scruff of the neck.

    I’ve had black chillis and non black chillis and the black chilli comes into it’s own on wet rocks – bloody tenacious grip on wet rock!

    Posted 15 years ago
    MS
    Free Member

    I have 2.2’s on my scale 40. Best tyre ive had in a long time. fairly fast rolling and not to bad on the climbs. As for people saying that they are rubbish in the mud, i could not say that. grippy as anything and dig in to find the grip.

    I would say the 2.2’s are fairly wide to. I had panaracer fire 2.1’s and the MK’s are alot wider than them.

    But then again i am a conti man!

    Posted 15 years ago
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)

The topic ‘2.2 vs 2.4 mountain kings’ is closed to new replies.

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women