- Conti Rubber Queen Black Chili 2.2 or 2.4
I use the 2.4 for trail centre playtime and as above, they are MAHOOOOOSIVE. No, I mean they are really rather large!
Great fun, though! Not really a general XC tyre, IMO. Might be better off with the new Mountain King 2, or perhaps a mix of 2.2 rear/2.4 front on the RQs.
Roll really well for such a big tyre and are really predictable when it comes to both cornering and braking.Posted 6 years ago
How much of a difference is there between the 2.2 and 2.4 versions of the Conti Rubber Queen BC – I want them for all round XC riding and trail centers to put on my Yeti 575.
One problem is I can’t find anywhere in the UK that seems to have any of the 2.2s in stock
Thoughts ?Posted 6 years agoneninjaMember
2.2 black chili in stock here –
I use one on the front of my Helius CC for everything now – big for a 2.2, the 2.4 would be too big for me. Awesome grip from the 2.2 on the front (run a Maxxis Advantage Exc 2.1 rear) – with an Advantage on the front, it let go unexpectedly a few times, the 2.2 RQ black chili seems to really dig and is very predictable.Posted 6 years agostevedeMember
I’ve got a 2.4 RQ on the rear of my Soul, it was all my lbs had in stock at the time in BC compound, it’s ridiculously large! Got a more acceptable 2.2 on the front, really surprised how well the 2.4 rolls for its size though and it does help compensate a little for my less than subtle line choices when i forget i’m on my hardtail and not the full suss.Posted 6 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
alpin – Member
please, flash. don’t go recommending Mountain Kings. they are more pants than a pair of sh”t stained knicker
Tried the new ones? I’m hoping they’ve learned from the extensive failings of the last version…
2.4 fits in a current model Revelation but I had to cut the mold hairs off it as they flapped against the crown and made an annoying noise 🙂 Not much clearance at the top of the arch. They’re a genuine 2.4 across but tall.
Wasn’t very impressed with them really, especially not at the price but others do like ’em. I thought “Hey, this is fast for a massive tyre” then shortly after I picked myself off the ground and thought “Hey, this has surprisingly little cornering grip for a massive tyre” 😆Posted 6 years agoalpinMember
yes, i’ve tried the new ones. i had a set fitted to my guide bike out in Gran Canaria. the side walls tore off on the first outing. ok in a straight line but not so hot in the corners. swapped them out that evening for 2.2 RQs. these weren’t the Black Chilli compound.
find the RQs a good all-round tyre. no need for trimming them with Lyrik and 29mm rims.Posted 6 years agokaminaMember
Had a pair of 2.4 RQ’s which weighed close to the claimed weight, but a buddy needed tires so I gave them to him and ordered a pair of UST’s. They weighed 100 / 150g over spec meaning they where really in the range of DH tires. Decided not to mount them and get the regular ones, they where about 150g over spec too.
Nice tires, roll well and grip well. They do have a tendency to roll under with very low pressures, but that’s probably due to the huge volume. Now I’m running Schwalbe’s (Big Betties). The new Trailstar compound is great, rolls almost as well, better traction, lighter and manages low air pressures better.
I’ve understood the 2.2 RQ is quite different to the 2.4. It’s still massive, but the side walls are thinner resulting in maybe more of an xc tire? A lot of people say they have had sealant seeping through the sidewalls on those tires, while the 2.4’s sidewalls always felt pretty thick.
You better check how much clearance your bike has on the rear, I could see a lot of bikes having problems with the 2.4’s on the rear.Posted 6 years ago
The topic ‘Conti Rubber Queen Black Chili 2.2 or 2.4’ is closed to new replies.