I’m about to buy some new tyres for my Blur as I want something with bigger volume than my current 2.3 Minions. Everyone is raving about the Conti Rubber Queens, and two mates who have them really rate them as well

Only thing is, riding in Scotland it is often muddy and not sure how the RQ will perform in the wet as does not have a very deep tread pattern like the Minions. I’m wondering if I should go Baron rather than RQ if there is not too much penalty on rolling resistance. In either case I would go for the non UST Black Chilli folding version

Anyone have any experience of riding both, or any comments on the Baron, specifically rolling resistance?

I’ve got a std (read cheapo) Baron and Im very impressed with it in the mud, its pretty good in the dry too. Grips well and sheds well. Not any heavier than a std Hi Roller.
I’d say a good tyre for use in Scotland all year round!

Hi Captain, I’m running 2.2 BC RQ on my hardtail and 2.4 BC Baron’s on my Nic… they are non UST but I run them tubeless. Bit of a faff to seal but degrease them inside and it works much better. I like them both despite a few issues with my RQ’s over the last two years. Considering the packaging says they are different sizes the tyres are almost identical with the RQ looking marginally larger. For trail feel, rolling resistance and lite-weight (650g) the RQ takes the medal, but for outright grip, mud shedding, and bombing trail the Baron is a bit ahead (850g).

I’ve not tried the 2.2 RQ on the back of the Nic yet but I destroyed a 2.4 on it last summer (you were there). I’ve managed to tear 2.2 and 2.4 RQ sidewalls on the front and rear doing silly things and being unlucky… but I really like RQ’s (especially in the dry) so I bought a UST for running on the rear in the big mountains (1050g for UST vs 850g). The UST is a much heavier tyre and does dull the great feel you get from the tyres, but better that than fixing torn sidewalls.

I can get away with running the lighter 2.2 non UST RQ’s front and back on my hardtail as I mostly use it for the local forestry stuff, in the mud they are not a bad tyre but not brilliant, for my hardtail I really like them, a good lightweight all rounder IMHO. The Baron is better in the mud and more confident in the gnar due to a thicker sidewall which means I’m more comfortable using them on the Nic for the mountains… no problems yet anyway.

I suggest… go for the Baron’s f&r, or maybe go Baron on the back and stick a 2.2 RQ on the front to save a bit of weight? I think the 2.2 RQ is a bit delicate on the back for some of the gnarlier stuff I like to ride (and the way I ride it obviously 🙄 ).

I’d guessed the Baron would be good in the wet. The big questions are how much better than the Rubber Queen, and how much more rolling resistance than the Rubber Queen?

Perhaps it’s RQ for summer and Baron for winter? Thing is, in the summer I’m doing a lot of Munro type riding, so rock grip is really important. If both are Black Chilli compound will they both hang on to the rocks in the same way?

I’m seeing little difference between summer and winter so far this year, perhaps winter was dryer?

Rubber Queens are not bad in the mud but the Baron does clear better but there is not much in it. The Black Chilli compound is not “amazing” so don’t expect miracles but they feel better than most other tyres I’ve tried when on wet rocks and roots… but that could be as I’m running 25-28psi which also helps???

The 2.2 Rubber Queens make for a noticably lighter wheelset which does feel good on the bike… but as I mentioned I have found the sidewalls a little lacking in strength for the way I ride so the extra weight of the Baron is cheap insurance against trailside bodges and long walk outs. I guess I could get away with the 2.2 RQ if I minced a bit more… but where would be the fun in that? 😈

Was out riding in the lovely British Summer weather on Saturday (read monsoon conditions!) with a pair of Rubber Queens on my hardtail.

Where others lost traction and came off their bikes, not once did I slip. Even over numerous wet roots, I maintained traction. They helped me clear every climb I had the legs for. Even did the old Y2K DH track in the FOD (which for those that know it is steep and covered in off camber roots) and didn’t falter once.

Can’t stress how good I think they are once again! Massive fan of these tyres, just wish they did a version that was slightly less porous than the conventional folders, and slightly lighter than the full UST tyre.

FWIW Baron’s are more of a winter tyre, whereas RQ’s seem to work well all year round (as long as you’ve got the clearance cos they are big!). Neither are quick rolling, but the RQ’s will be noticably quicker than the Baron.

I have used both and generally agree with Messiah.

The Baron’s really excel in the wet/mud – really impressive. I’ve had a couple of offs when the baron lost grip. This was on bone dry hard pack trails with ball bearing sized rocks covering the trail. I think the RQ’s would have handled it better, but I was pushing pretty hard so it might have been rider error! Conversely, I’ve never lost grip in a bad way with the Baron when the trail has been stupidly muddy and steep. A real confidence booster.

The 2.2 RQs roll really well for a large volume tyre and perform well on rocky surfaces. big days out are not a problem with this tyre due to weight and lack of rolling resistance. Had to do an unplanned 80km detour once and the tyres did not hold me back any. I wouldn’t fancy doiung that with the Barons! The RQs have given up on me due to sidewall tears so carry a tyre boot or two in your pack. The tread wears very well and you’ll trash the sidewalls before the tread wars out.

Try a Baron up front and a RQ 2.2 on the rear?

I’d say a Hans Dampf is a slightly more mud-friendly RQ

messiah, fair comment about summer vs winter this year – crazy.

Good point about the weight of the Baron’s vs the RQ’s – I hadn’t noticed that the Barons had the Apex sidewall and the RQ’s don’t so I see what you mean about the Barons being tougher. As for weight, my current Minions are about halfway between the two.

I run my Minions about the same pressure as you for normal riding, but up them by around 5 psi for the big stuff when I’m carrying more kit and want to avoid tyre misery halfway down a Munro. What’s your view on both the rolling speed and grip on rock/rubble between the two? Also do you reckon you could run Barons at a slightly lower pressure because of the tougher sidewall?

mboy and PaulGillespie – good input.

As I’ll hopefully be getting in a lot of long days on steep, technical terrain in the next few months it looks like the RQ’s are the way to go but making sure I’m carrying a tyre boot. Would be nice to have the extra strength of the Barons but don’t want to sacrifice grip, weight and rolling resistance.

If you’re riding rubble, I’d probably prefer the 2.4 RQ, just to throw another tyre in the mix!!! 🙂

It has the Apex sidewalls and is the same weight roughly as the Baron. Pretty bad in really slopy mud though, its the reason I bought the Baron for the winter, have now just switched back to the RQ 2.4 up front.

I was running the Baron at about 20psi with tubes and it was fine. This was an accident though so I upped it to about 25psi. The apex sidewalls mean you can run it a bit softer if you want.

From the sounds of it, go with the 2.2s and take it from there.

Captain, if your not destroying single ply minions you’ll be fine with the 2.2RQ… 😉

Pressure wise I can’t go below 25psi as they get squirmy and burpy… but don’t all tyres?

As above, go for the 2.2 RQ’s and enjoy. Carrying some kind of tyre boot patch thing would be a good idea.

Paul’s suggestion of the 2.4 is good if your expecting dry rubble… mine were brilliant in Arizona last year 8)

Thanks guys. RQ 2.2’s it is – I’ll probably run them at around 30 psi for some extra sidewall protection. There are always some rubbly bits, but not enough to justify the extra weight of the 2.4’s.

BTW, been doing some research and a couple of the German sites like Action Sports are doing them for less than EUR 40 which is a huge saving on the £45 UK pricing

Black chili Baron is one of the best tyres I’ve used for ages… Sure it’s a bit draggier than a 2.2 Queen but it’s got good, consistent grip in the dry and it’s superb in the wet. Also feels a little tougher- though I never had any issues with RQ sidewalls even though they felt flimsy.

I suppose what it comes down to is the RQ is a good allrounder if your “allround” doesn’t include a lot of mud. And the Baron is a good allrounder if it does (the best, maybe)

Am this (picture small amount gesture thing) close to ordering a Rubber Queen 2.2 black chili for the front of my bike. Have a X-King 2.4 protection black chili for the back. The dilemma is UST or not. Any more advice? It’ll be on a 140mm forked Soul and I like to thing I ride fairly smoothly.

I’ve noticed there’s quite a narrow ideal range of pressure with my current XR4 2.2 front tyre, too high and it gets boingy, too low and it squirms and understeers. Does the RQ suffer similarly being equally huge volume but fairly lightweight? Would the UST version be better for running low pressures when it gets greasy? (it’s even more rooty than FoD here!)

Has anyone found the non-UST version to be impossible to tubeless?

CGG, the UST version is much heavier than the standard tyres, and I’ve heard that the non UST sidewalls are a bit porous so take a fair amount of goo to seal

To get the non UST conti’s to seal give the inside of the tyre a quick scrub and degrease – Meths works well. Makes a big difference.

chiefgrooveguru – unless your some kind of animal on your bike I wouldn’t bother with a UST on the front. I managed fine with a non UST 2.4 at last years Macavalanche and chasing storm troopers in Cactusville Arizona.

Definitely not an animal though getting more grrr month by month… I cleaned the inside of the X-King with white spirit and it’s on an old wheel with a tube in at 40psi getting stretched into shape in the hope of avoiding seating/sealing pains – I’ll do the same with the Rubber Queen. Sounds like I can go non-UST – if it doesn’t seal I’ll be heading north of the border with a Claymore though! 😉

Northwind – Member
I never had any issues with RQ sidewalls even though they felt flimsy.

The side wall of the 2.2 you sold me blew apart after about 6 months of use 😛

Did you consider MK2s?

The 2.4 version is a decent size and my LBS has been raving about them. Going to give the 2.2s a go for XC myself.

As above, I’d recommend the Hans Dampf – proper tubeless, proper sidewalls, better in mud than an RQ (IME).

Just for some balance… I wouldn’t run the RQ2.2 non-tubless version tubless. I did and it was squirming all over the place at 35psi-ish. I normally run 28-30 with tubes. I didn’t like the way it handles when set up tubeless, was truely horrendous – for me anyway! It actually blew off the rim and trashed the tyre on the second ride – painful due to the cost of replacement! Back to tubes now and it’s fine.

I was running it on a stans 355 with stans rim tape and sealant. I had to use 2 wraps of electrical tape to get them to seat easily with a track pump. I also degreased the inside with IPA and after a few nights of shaking and riding up and down the street it sealed fine. Same as my X-Kings.

I think wider rims would have helped but I think the flimsy sidewalls don’t provide enough support. If only they made a RQ 2.2 with the Apex sidewalls the tyre would be perfect!

Edit: Messiah, what rims are you running?

I’m paranoid now – how heavy are you Paul? Ditto for Messiah? Was it squirming on both front and back?

I’m 14stone with kit/water etc. Was running it on the rear only as I had a tubed baron up front.

Phew! I’m a bit lighter and I’ll only have it on the front: X-king protection on the rear and the carcass on that is much stiffer than on my old XR4s (which are very close to the Rubber Queens in volume and weight).

My RQ (2.4) experience was the same – squirmy, blowing off the rim (Flow), sidewalls deformed.

Been running Baron front, RQ 2.2 rear for over a year through all conditions. The Baron is far grippier than the RQ up front, esp. in muddy conditions, and the paddle tread of the RQ is perfect as a rear.

I’ve found the Baron to corner similarly to a Minion, only better – you can rail it and it will hold a line in most conditions, whereas the RQ up front can wash out due to the lower profile tread and smaller side lugs.

I’ve noticed there’s quite a narrow ideal range of pressure with my current XR4 2.2 front tyre, too high and it gets boingy, too low and it squirms and understeers. Does the RQ suffer similarly being equally huge volume but fairly lightweight? Would the UST version be better for running low pressures when it gets greasy? (it’s even more rooty than FoD here!)

You might remember me telling you not to bother with the XR4…?

Well it was for pretty much the reasons you describe. Needed different pressures to suit different terrain, which is highly unpractical, otherwise running it at a constant 32psi as I generally did, it neither gripped well in loose conditions or on hard pack at all. Most underwhelming tyre I’ve used in ages!

The RQ is the polar opposite. It’s got a nice bit more clearance too (for me on my Reba anyway), though the carcass is almost as big as the XR4. When I first got an RQ, I looked at the shape of the knobbles and didn’t think it would lend itself that well to being a front tyre. How wrong can you be! It’s definitely better up front with something slightly quicker rolling out back (I’ve been using a Crossmark mainly in 2.25″ guise, though also another RQ too), and IMO makes for a perfect 3 1/2 seasons UK tyre for the places I ride at least… Only in the very worst weather when the mud becomes horrific is something narrower and spikier a better bet.

As for the UST or not debate… UST for me from now on… Too much hassle and not worth the weight saving for the non UST version if you ask me. Too porous and too thin sidewalls. A mid weight version with the Apex sidewalls and a Tubeless Ready bead would be a winner though if they made it!

Looking at the barons meself as I fancy a change from the RQs. Also looking at the hutchison toro enduros – anyone tried these? Seems a similar sort of tyre to the RQs and I’ve really liked other hutch tyres I’ve used in the past.

Had a set of those Hutchinson Toro Enduro’s come on my Maverick when I got it 3 years ago. Only did a couple of rides on them, but was fairly impressed. Sadly for me, normal Hutchinson tyres have no hope of going up tubeless, and the UST version were not only mega money but also 1kg each!

If you’re an inner tube Luddite they’re pretty good, though not RQ good IMO. Solid 4/5 for me though if the RQ is a 5/5…

You might remember me telling you not to bother with the XR4…?

I’ve been riding the XR4s for over two years – almost worn out the one that was on the front and went to the back when I sliced the previous rear through on a flint. Must have done 2000 miles on it.

Anyway, when I started using the XR4s I hadn’t been riding MTBs in the modern stylee for very long. And as an all-round tyre for a novice-ish rider they are great – roll well enough, grip really well, last ages, generally progressive in their behaviour. Put them under a better, faster and more aggressive rider and the tall side knobs and thin carcass can’t handle the cornering forces and they drift prematurely. However it’s taken me a few years to reach that point! And as you get faster the smaller the window of pressures gets too (it’s a couple of psi either side of 25psi on the front for me).

I was keen on the new XR4s which solve the side knob problem but I don’t think the double row of side knobs will be open enough for decent mud performance. Plus I’m curious about the black chili thing and also wanted to find a grippy front / faster rear pairing that won’t clog up too badly. Will report back once they’re on and have ridden enough corners.

I’m paranoid now – how heavy are you Paul? Ditto for Messiah? Was it squirming on both front and back?

I’m under 14 stone. Flow rims with the flow rimstrip with my 2.2 non UST Rubber Queens on my hardtail. There is some squirm in the back but I don’t find it a problem unless I let the pressures drop below 28psi (and 25psi front)… I’ll live with a bit of squirm for the grip they give at these pressures. My hardtail is predominantly used for a very muddy local forest so grip is everything.

I had the 2.4 RQ’s on these wheels before and as I mentioned the front was fine but I destroyed the rear… so UST for the rear if I’m running 2.4 RQ’s (big bike).

The Baron’s I’m currently running are on the big bike and are on Flow’s with yellow tape… I prefer the rim strip although the tape is lighter.

I absolutely think a wide rim like a Flow is important for running these tyres tubeless at low enough pressures to feel the benefits.

I found the 2.2 squirmed on the rear at low pressures. I noticed it more when I wasn’t using proper cornering technique – ie, leaning myself with the bike. Leaning the bike under me and pumping up the pressures fixed this.

Since the RQ blew apart, I’ve switched to a 2.25 crossmark on the rear which feels slightly faster with similar grip and volume as the RQ but not as squirmy and hopefully has stronger sidewalls (its also lighter).

Rubber Queen 2.2 black chili just arrived! However it’s the UST version, not the non-UST that I ordered so no worries about it acting up when seating/sealing or under more gnarr moments. Carcass feels nice, not as heavy as I was expecting.

My 2.4 RQ BC USTs were destroyed within 4 months of riding they were distorted to the point they wouldnt go through the frame.

Just swapped over to the hans dampf and so far so good.

An update and a question: I’ve been riding a Rubber Queen 2.2 UST BC front and a X-King 2.4 Protection BC for a few months now. Really great pairing except for the X-King suffering flint cuts a little easily and being short of braking grip on steep stuff in the wet. So I’m thinking of swapping the Rubber Queen to the back for the winter (and trips to more gnarly rocky places) and putting either the same or a Baron 2.3 UST BC on the front.

What about a Rubber Queen 2.4 UST up front? The 2.4 has an extra sticky black chilli compound to give extra grip.

My gut feeling is that it gets too muddy where I normally ride for the RQ 2.4 as it may just surf along on top of the clay without biting in and gripping – however someone I regularly ride with has a Nate 3.8 up front and that seems to work well!

I was set on the Baron until yesterday I spotted that the RQ was working great on left corners but not on rights because I wasn’t correctly leaning the bike to the right – having started fixing that technique issue the RQ 2.2 seems pretty good in the mud. But is the Baron better enough to be worth the drag and does it have less dry grip?

Never used a Baron. I just stick with RQ 2.2’s front and back and always have good grip in all conditions.