- High roller or Rubber Queen?
Reet put another gash in a Purgatory. Its not quite fatal for the tire but I have fears that it may be for me when it finally gives up the ghost.
So it new tyre time.
Its a front tyre that needs to work all year round, can’t be arsed changing tyres as I run them tubeless. I’m taking a punt on toughness rather than weight so looking at a high roller in 2.35 UST flavour and the 2.2 Rubber Queen, may even go for a 2.4 as its going on the front but have seen how bloody massive they are and don’t fancy trying to keep up on tarmac with one of them up front.
Any body got a direct comparison for the above.
TAAPosted 7 years ago
I’ve run 2.2 RQ USTs front and rear on my Five and I really rated them. They’re not black chilli in this size though. I’ve since had 2.2 UST Nobby Nics and am now on to 2.35UST High rollers.
To be honest they’ve all been good although the HRs and RQs are probably the better of the three.
If I could be sure that the non-UST Black Chilli RQs would work well on my 819 rims, I’d definitely get them next time.
The UST HRs are lighter, which is why I’ve ended up with them now and will probably stick with them
I’ve also got non UST HRs on Mavic 321 rims (running ghetto tubeless) on my Orange Blood.
So in summary, the HR USTs are good, the non UST HRs are also good tubeless and the Tubeless RQs were also very good.
Hope that helps!?!?!?!Posted 7 years ago
Looks like they’ve updated them then, mine were deffo not BC compound, I remember checking out Contis website when I bought them.
Go with the RQs then, but try and get the latest chilli ones. Ribble have them on offer at £29 at the moment, but I suspect that’ll be the older ones.Posted 7 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
How tough are the RQs? I never had any problems with mine in the short time I kept them but the sidewalls were the thinnest I’ve ever used other than XC race tyres. I used non-UST ones tubeless and watching the sealant almost pour out through the walls was pretty funny.
I never really clicked with them myself but then I’m not that impressed with the smaller highrollers either. Remember the size difference will be huge, the 2.35 Highroller is narrower than the 2.2 RQ and much less tall.Posted 7 years agochakapingSubscriber
The 2.2 UST seems as tough as the 2.4 UST. Both are pretty heavy.
I pierced a 2.4 coming down Cader Idris a bit fast on my Froggy and put DH tubes in after that, but never had any probs with sidewalls on the USTs despite quite a bit of Lakes/Wales action.
I think they’re tough enough for trail riding most places if run tubeless, but the shallow-ish tread pattern can clog easily in some conditions – so HRs might be a better bet if you don’t like to change your tyres.Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘High roller or Rubber Queen?’ is closed to new replies.