# Continental Speed King Supersonic



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

after creating such a debate in another thread here's a special thread on the new Conti Speed Kings:

Conti Speed King SS 2,1":
weight: ca. 385-415g
carcass width: 45,0mm
tread width: 49,6mm

Conti Speed King SS 2,3":
weight: ca. 420-440g
carcass width: ? (i haven't found any verified numbers yet)
tread width: ?

shown below an actual test of rollingresistance performed in the Schwalbe laboratory (don't compare numbers from other tests with these numbers! you can however see where a certain tire ranks here and compare with the numbers from other tests you have). on the left there's the regular tires (brown colour), on the right side you see the orange-colored readings for UST-tires. measurements taken for ONE tire at 2,5 bar and tires got loaded with 50 kilos/ 110 lbs during the test to simulate a riders weight.

some measures that are missing in the test below:
Schwalbe Nobby Nic is a 2,4"
Schwalbe Racing Ralph is a 2,25"


you can see that in an older test the Racing Ralph 2,25" got much better readings: 22,3 Watts

anyway - you can see that the Speed Kings are pretty good rollers. the 2,3 is even better while still having an impressingly light weight.

i currently use the 2,1" version and grip is really great. as mentioned earlier i didn't think they are as fast rolling as my all-time favourite Nokian NBX but still very good when comparing with other rubbers out there. the actual sizes are rather slim. so i think the 2,3" is the way to go seeing it is only marginally heavier than the 2,1". these tires are very light and don't have any punture resistance if you run them with tubes. best to be used with sealant and avoid rocky terrain as the sidewalls probably won't be the thickest as well....

downsides:
-very fast wear. the rubber is soft so they wear pretty fast
-no fast cornering on paved roads. the rather soft sideknobs give a very soft feel when leaning the bike into corners...there's better cornering tires on paved roads!
-punture resistance in general. the thin sidewalls don't offer any protection. best to be used with sealant.
-loud when riding on paved roads

the 2,3"" Speed Kings got a SUPER ranking in that comparison test, the 2,1" still a very good.

NO - i don't sell them!!! altough i personally get them cheap i don't sell any tires as shipping cost is simply too much for tires. so i don't sell - i just report and show pics of a new product on the market....just in case someone might think i was doing cheap promotion in here. these tires are pretty new on the market and easily could become a WW favourite.

oh, and a last sidenote: Specialized tires once again mark the highest readings. maybe someone should tell those guys that not always the higher the numbers the better


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

My option should be the 2.3s, better cushion and grip.
Ritchey Z-Min 1.9 tires are great but a little thin for twisty and rooty tracks.


----------



## ilostmypassword (Dec 9, 2006)

2.3. Then just get out and ride man!!


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I love the 2.3s that I got about a month ago. However, as Nino alluded to, there is little to no sidewall thickness to them. My 1st ride out, maybe 10 minutes after hitting the trail, I crossed a log, and there were rocks on the other side. The front went down the side of one of the rocks, and cut open the sidewall about 3/4". I've tried to reapir the cut. I'm running these on Stan's Olympic rims with Stan's sealant, and so far though it has not burst, the repair area is bulging out.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

BlownCivic said:


> I love the 2.3s that I got about a month ago. However, as Nino alluded to, there is little to no sidewall thickness to them. My 1st ride out, maybe 10 minutes after hitting the trail, I crossed a log, and there were rocks on the other side. The front went down the side of one of the rocks, and cut open the sidewall about 3/4". I've tried to reapir the cut. I'm running these on Stan's Olympic rims with Stan's sealant, and so far though it has not burst, the repair area is bulging out.


Yes, sounds familiar to my experience with the Nokian NBX light. These are tires for smooth terrain only. Beware a rock in the trail or you will DNF. I think the testers in this RR test were smokin' crack cocaine all day if they measured the Conti Explorer as a fast roller! Basically the Explorer ranks even with the Speedking in this test?.....So, what we have then is a slow rolling tire that you must not ride over rocks with? I will pass on this tire.


----------



## wiiija (Jun 23, 2005)

I've been toying with the idea of running the 2.3's for a while now on my stans olympic with sealant, should save some weight over the NN 2.1 I'm running now.
The only thing stopping me is the fact I tried a pair of Explorer supersonics last year and ripped the sidewall on the first ride and thats on a really tame trail with no sharp rocks, god knows how it happened, a little worried about the same thing happening with these.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

there should be something wrong with the first diagram. The Karma and the Piranha (have almost no tread...) can't roll slower than the Explorer - and by 10w, no less!


----------



## cmv96 (Aug 19, 2004)

mountainforce said:


> How heavy are the 2.3 speedking non super sonic?


Conti Speed King 2.3" 560g
Conti Speed King ProTection 2.3" 610 g / (584 g actual)
http://www.conti-online.com/generat.../themes/tires/mtb/speedking/speedking_de.html

I too had a problem with Conti Explorer Supersonics on my stans olympic with sealant. Tire blew off running over a root! The last time I ever tried a supersonic as a tubeless setup. I am VERY CURIOUS to know what experiences anyone has had with Conti Speedkings SS as a tubeless setup. Those weights in the photos are incredible with the amount of knobbies those tires have!


----------



## cmv96 (Aug 19, 2004)

Nino,
Why is Conti quoting a 500g weight for their Speed King 2.3" Supersonic on their website, while your figures (and your scale @ 426g) differ by such a large amount?
Thanks


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

cmv96 said:


> Nino,
> Why is Conti quoting a 500g weight for their Speed King 2.3" Supersonic on their website, while your figures (and your scale @ 426g) differ by such a large amount?
> Thanks


don't ask me!
the tires are much lighter than advertized. that's a sweet gift, right?

i run mine with sealant and have had zero problems so far! with Explorer Supersonics i had a terrible time to get them sealed. not so with the Speed Kings.


----------



## cmv96 (Aug 19, 2004)

nino said:


> don't ask me!
> the tires are much lighter than advertized. that's a sweet gift, right?
> 
> i run mine with sealant and have had zero problems so far! with Explorer Supersonics i had a terrible time to get them sealed. not so with the Speed Kings.


Indeed!

How many miles do you have on your SpeedKings?

When you say you "had a terrible time to get them sealed", do you mean that the sidewalls had a lot of pinhole leaks, or that you had a tough time getting them mounted on your rims? And, if so, which rims gave you a terrible time, was it your new SLR's?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



cmv96 said:


> Indeed!
> 
> How many miles do you have on your SpeedKings?
> 
> When you say you "had a terrible time to get them sealed", do you mean that the sidewalls had a lot of pinhole leaks, or that you had a tough time getting them mounted on your rims? And, if so, which rims gave you a terrible time, was it your new SLR's?


correct - they had a lot of tiny holes in the sidewalls.

but it's years ago i didn't use any Explorers.
i use the Speed Kings on my SLRs.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

*explorer pin holes*

i have a hard time believing these finding as well also based on the fact they found explorers to be fast rollers, because they aren't.

BTW - I also could not use them with Stans due to the pin holes in the sidewalls.


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

I love Continental Verticals and Explorers and I run them converted to tubeless on Stans rims. However, I only use "Protection" versions. No pin holes, no trouble setting up, no blow offs, no roll offs, and no torn sidewalls -- even at pressures in the low and mid 20's. Compared to Supersonic, the weight penalty is plenty at around 100 grams per, but for me the added ease and longevity is worth it. I look forward to trying the SpeedKings Protections converted to tubeless.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

kevbikemad said:


> i have a hard time believing these finding as well also based on the fact they found explorers to be fast rollers, because they aren't.
> 
> BTW - I also could not use them with Stans due to the pin holes in the sidewalls.


well - i used Explorer SS for about 2 years on my bikes. the Eclipse kit would seal these tires but they needed some extra time in the beginning which is what i meant with "a hard time". usually a tire is sealed almost instantly or within a couple of seconds. not so the Explorer Supersonics. but once sealed they didn't cause any extra problems.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

kevbikemad said:


> i have a hard time believing these finding as well also based on the fact they found explorers to be fast rollers, because they aren't.
> 
> BTW - I also could not use them with Stans due to the pin holes in the sidewalls.


Well, it is a test on a steel drum, as far as I know. I don't know to what degree trail surface will have an impact on rolling resistance, but I image it is a factor. It could very well be that where you ride Explorers they simply aren't the faster tire. On Bike's steel drum they are. 

One slight caveat: the difference between 'it feels fast' and 'it is fast' is infinite. You cannot feel subtle difference in rolling resistance, just as much as you can't feel one bike being physically slightly faster than another. Hardtails feel fast, because they feel 'snappier', 'more direct', and we expect them to be. Bolt an SRM crank to your bike and in many cases an FS rig will be faster on a decent course. Yet the FS bike still feels sluggish, no matter what.


----------



## Duckman (Jan 12, 2004)

Strange. I've got 2 Explorer Pros using Stans in service atm. Also used the Twister SS many times with Stans also(altho I've had 2 blowoffs with the same SS now). Cost me a race a few weeks ago. 

The Explorer is relatively slow tho. Yes indeedy.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

quote: The Explorer is relatively slow tho. Yes indeedy.

Yes I think so especially when compared with the Piranha that I tried recently 

So besides the german diagrams that show that the Speed King has the same rolling resistance than the Explorer, what is the real word opinion from those who have tried both (on the dirt, not on steel drums)?
thanks
fab


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Also interesting to read this at schwalbe website
http://schwalbetires.com/wider_faster_page

larger tires = low rolling resistance?..


----------



## EuroMack (Jan 15, 2007)

Great link, Sergio!

I was a roadie for several years before being riding my first MTB, so I always believed conventional wisdom that the highest pressure you can ride => smaller contact patch => lower rolling resistance.

They sold me with this line:
*"Overall it suffers less retardation."*

Anything that reduces my retardation is worth it's weight in gold! :thumbsup:

I'm gonna increase my retardation with a couple pints and ponder this one...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Yes, its about retardation but not just that. I think an important point is the tire stiffness.
There are other points... Do some googling about bike rolling resistance and take your conclusions.
Some tires might be very good on some surfaces but very bad on other types of surface.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

please read this also very interesting
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2005/features/conti_tech


----------



## linuxxx (Feb 14, 2006)

thanks for all that info nino and sergio_pt


----------



## gert (Jan 30, 2004)

Ausable said:


> there should be something wrong with the first diagram. The Karma and the Piranha (have almost no tread...) can't roll slower than the Explorer - and by 10w, no less!


They tested the 2.2 Karma and the MRC Medium 2.3 Piranha. I guess the lighter 2.0 versions of those tires might have lower rr. Most of the other tires were also 2.2/2.3 and heavy duty versions. Maybe they didn`t want any of the tires to outperform the Speed Kings.


----------



## KMan (Dec 30, 2003)

*What does Conti say.....*

about using liquid sealants? I had to stop using Conti tires a few years ago because the liquid sealants would breakdown the rubber and destroy the tires. Have the updated thier mfg process to allow the use of sealants?

KMan
www.MLKimages.com


----------



## pastajet (May 26, 2006)

I wonder what the width of the Speed King 2.3 really is? The other Conti's 2.3 are more like 2.1. I run the Schwalbe Alberts which are a true 2.25 (might be a tad fatter). they weigh around 640 or so. I ran the Conti Vertical 2.3 for a bit but found them to skinny for my tastes. The Schwalbe Alberts fit in that nice cusp between to fat and to thin.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

gert said:


> They tested the 2.2 Karma and the MRC Medium 2.3 Piranha. I guess the lighter 2.0 versions of those tires might have lower rr. Most of the other tires were also 2.2/2.3 and heavy duty versions. Maybe they didn`t want any of the tires to outperform the Speed Kings.


Now it'clear, thanks
And your last point might be the key

fab


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*2,3" Speed King 409g*

Speed King 2,3" Supersonic:
i just had the opportunity to weigh 30 tires and pick the lightest samples:
i found 4 tires all weighing from 409-414g. most weighed around 430g, the heaviest i weighed was about 440g

409g - not bad for a 2,3" tire with this kind of knobs:thumbsup:


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

nino said:


> i just had the opportunity to weigh 30 tires and pick the lightest samples:
> i found 4 tires all weighing from 409-414g. most weighed around 430g, the heaviest i weighed was about 440g
> 
> 409g - not bad for a 2,3" tire with this kind of knobs:thumbsup:


 Are you runing the 2.3? How big are they compared with the Nobby Nics 2.1?
Aren't you affraid that a sharp rock would ruin the supersonic sidewall?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*not yet...*



Batas said:


> Are you runing the 2.3? How big are they compared with the Nobby Nics 2.1?
> Aren't you affraid that a sharp rock would ruin the supersonic sidewall?


not yet. i first wanted to try a set of Nokians again for a comparison.

we don't have sharp stones over here in zurich.


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Where to buy Speedkings in USA??*

Cant seem to find the 2.3 in Supersonic anywhere???


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

jtc1 said:


> Cant seem to find the 2.3 in Supersonic anywhere???


I've bought 4 of them now from www.starbike.com. Shipping is a bit steep at 30 euros, but I usually combine it up with other stuff to spread the pain. Also remember that the VAT which is included in the on-line price is taken off at the checkout, since the parts are not staying in the EEC.

Usually takes about 7-10 days to get them from Germany to Canada.


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Thanks - but looking for a dealer within the USA*

as there are many contiental MTB tire dealers, and most of them are selling the speed king - just not the supersonic in 2.3.


----------



## RHR38 (Oct 12, 2005)

>Nino

Is Speed King better on wet roots?

edit: btw anybody tried latex tubes w/ lightweight non UST racing tyres like NBX, SK SS or else..me thinks good snakebite or sidewall tear can't be solved with Stan's liquid > latex tubes better rolling but little bit more lasting?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*better than what?*



RHR38 said:


> >Nino
> 
> Is Speed King better on wet roots?
> 
> edit: btw anybody tried latex tubes w/ lightweight non UST racing tyres like NBX, SK SS or else..me thinks good snakebite or sidewall tear can't be solved with Stan's liquid > latex tubes better rolling but little bit more lasting?


better than what?

sealant will make for better protection. if you have a cut in the tire a tube is also cut.


----------



## RHR38 (Oct 12, 2005)

Oops.. I meant is SK better in wet roots than NBX Lite? 

Yep, I used Stan's sealant for one season with wider NBX Lite. I had trouble to find right air pressure (big rider=1,90/75 plus hardtail) little bit more and it felt too harsh, little bit less and snakebite right away. Snakebite typically 6-7 mm long and did not seal well. Cost me 3 dnf's. My favourite or racing routes are not rocky. Just wondering is there big difference between latex and butyl tubes.

More OT  Rank these 3 (non UST): NBX Lite, SK and CrossMark (haven't tried SK and CM)

(superb weather here btw..and radio sings Gil Scott-Heron, Brian Jackson - Hello Sunday, hello Road:thumbsup: )


----------



## BadHabit (Jan 12, 2004)

jtc1 said:


> as there are many contiental MTB tire dealers, and most of them are selling the speed king - just not the supersonic in 2.3.


2.3 SS out of stock all around for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

Had no luck looking for Speedking instead this is what I've got








Continental Twister Supersonic 1.9

So, are conti-tyres safe to use with liqui-sealants? TIA!


----------



## Light-Bikes (Apr 5, 2007)

the next tire from conti - mountain king 2.2 supersonic.
round about 480/490g in 2.2 version



https://www.light-bikes.de/website/new/2007/06/05/testpreview-continental-mountain-king


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

All the *Kings* are good, huh!?! Is it out in the market now?


----------



## Light-Bikes (Apr 5, 2007)

in august


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Onie said:


> All the *Kings* are good, huh!?! Is it out in the market now?


 The question is, are they good with latex...?


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

*Onie quoted his own**



So, are conti-tyres safe to use with liqui-sealants?

Click to expand...

*Oh, my bad! I've been meaning to say, All the Kings are good, huh!?! That is, in the weight category alone... Again, again... So, are conti-tyres safe to use with liqui-sealants?

Anyone, please?  Thanks!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Mountain King...*



Light-Bikes said:


> in august


i rode a Mountain King 2,2 about 6 weeks ago in italy during my biking holidays. it replaced the Nobby Nic 2,1" i used on the front but within 4 days almost all sideknobs of the NN got ripped away...the Mountain King Supersonic was a great tire in these dry and rocky conditions.rolls pretty fast and offered good bite. i have my doubts in the wet as the knobs aren't that tall. it is also a bit heavier than the Speed Kings.

i had it mounted with Eclipse Tubelesskit. it sealed INSTANTLY!! to date this was the fastest a tire was sealed ever. within a tenth of a second it was sealed. unbelivable.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*1st ride on the 2,3" SK*

i mounted the 2,3" Speed Kings on my rigid Winterbike. it used to have 1,8" Nobby Nics for the wet winterseason. i thought some meatier tires would take away an edge or two when riding fully rigid...

anyway - i mounted them using Eclipse Tubelesskits and they would inflate pretty easy. however the sidewalls of my ultralight samples are very,very thin and there are plenty of pinholes where the selant would come out. but after a couple of minutes all was good.just a couple of hours later i went for the 1st ride but it was to early i guess. i lost air pressure during the ride, front and rear, and had to re-inflate. this never happened before. so i inspected the tires back home and gave them some real high pressure and it was obvious that there were still some pinholes in the sidewalls as sealant would come out...

anyway - now it seems everything is sealed so tomorrow i will have a longer ride. from what i can tell they are pretty fast rolling and offer very good bite. still not the best on paved roads and a bit vague on gravelled roads but this might already be cause of the pressure dropping...but i already prefer them over the 2,1"

anyway - the tires give a lot more cushion without any weight gain:thumbsup:

real numbers:

lightest weigh of my handpicked 2,3" Speed King Supersonic: 409g ( i have 4 samples all weighting within 409-414g)
carcass width: 50mm
knob width: 51,5mm


----------



## dennis rides Scott (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm surprised that the Maxxis Crossmark has such low rolling resistance in the test. In a test in the Dutch magazine fiets, they came out bad on rolling resistance.


----------



## CanOnlyRide (Oct 27, 2005)

so you weighed the foldable speed kings, what about the supersonics and the kevlar protection ones? im lookin at the 2.1s...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*can you read?*



CanOnlyRide said:


> so you weighed the foldable speed kings, what about the supersonics and the kevlar protection ones? im lookin at the 2.1s...


on all my pictures it says "supersonic" in bold , white letters:skep:


----------



## CanOnlyRide (Oct 27, 2005)

i know, i guess i shoulda been more specific... there are different ones that are different weights... Foldable, Wire, Duraskin and Supersonic, and i was wondering if you weighed each one since they are much higher weights on Conti's site.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*just Supersonics...*



CanOnlyRide said:


> i know, i guess i shoulda been more specific... there are different ones that are different weights... Foldable, Wire, Duraskin and Supersonic, and i was wondering if you weighed each one since they are much higher weights on Conti's site.


no - i weighed just the supersonics. i'm after light tires, not heavy ones


----------



## SKullman (Oct 4, 2004)

Onie said:


> Had no luck looking for Speedking instead this is what I've got
> 
> Continental Twister Supersonic 1.9
> 
> So, are conti-tyres safe to use with liqui-sealants? TIA!


 I rode my Conti Twister Super Sonics a full XC racing season with the standard Stan's Setup. Bunch of Midwest XC and the Leadville 100. They worked very well. I'm not that heavy so take it as you like.
The next year I switched to the Explorer Super Sonics, just as good.


----------



## The Crimson King (Apr 25, 2006)

my apologises if this is a stupid question... 

but...from a converter a tire witdth of 50 mm is equal to 1.96"...so let's say 2" (instead of 2.3"). what i want to ask is, can i use this 2.3" tires (but the are 2") with supersonic tubes...wich suggest a maximum width of 2.1"? because otherwise i've to use much heavier tubes...and so i'd use the 2.1 version. but having a rigid fork i'd prefer the 2.3...:madman:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

The Crimson King said:


> my apologises if this is a stupid question...
> 
> but...from a converter a tire witdth of 50 mm is equal to 1.96"...so let's say 2" (instead of 2.3"). what i want to ask is, can i use this 2.3" tires (but the are 2") with supersonic tubes...wich suggest a maximum width of 2.1"? because otherwise i've to use much heavier tubes...and so i'd use the 2.1 version. but having a rigid fork i'd prefer the 2.3...:madman:


ascolta:
una camera d'aria supersonic pesa sui 90-95 grammi, il nastro sul cerchio altri 5-10g...cioe und totale sui 100 grammi.

un kit tubeless dalla Eclipse pesa soli 105g per ruota pero non ci sono le forature, hai un rendimento meglio e puoi andare a pressioni molto piu bassi che ti offre un grip fantastico...

io non capisco la gente usando le camere d'aria SS che si bucano troppo facilmente.

saluti dalla svizzera
nino


----------



## ilostmypassword (Dec 9, 2006)

Ordered my set of speedking supersonics 2.3 from Germany as stocks are low here in Australia and fitted them for a ride yesterday. 

Verdict? They have some much drag due to the HUGE knobs, that the weight loss is hardly worth it. I've put my Maxxis crossmarks back on.... as these are much better tyres with less rolling resistance (and more air volume).

As for the 2.3 label... well ... thats taking it a bit far. maybe if you include teh massive knobs its a 2.3....... but these are far from 2.3!!!

These tyres are average by far! AVOID (unless its very very muddy!):madman:

I'm happy with a + 200g weight difference using my Crossmarks as they actually roll


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*noise!*



ilostmypassword said:


> Ordered my set of speedking supersonics 2.3 from Germany as stocks are low here in Australia and fitted them for a ride yesterday.
> 
> Verdict? They have some much drag due to the HUGE knobs, that the weight loss is hardly worth it. I've put my Maxxis crossmarks back on.... as these are much better tyres with less rolling resistance (and more air volume).
> 
> ...


don't make the mistake to think LOUD tires roll slow! the speedkings knobs are very soft and make noise on paved roads. the tires actually roll pretty fast! the knobs aren't tall at all. these are actually quite small knobs but really, really soft.

as written the carcass measures just 50mm. the outer knobs 51,5mm.


----------



## Timbob (Mar 21, 2007)

I just rode my new Speed King Protection 2.3's today for 6.5 hours, variable conditions -- mud, hardpack, gravel, pavement, etc. They do roll very well and stick very well. I have used Kenda Kozmik Lite 2's , and these seem just as fast on pavement, but noticeably better off road. These will be the tires I run on the Trans Rockies this year. I only got a pair to see if Nino's assessment was right, and I think it is, but I'll be ordering more.

I've been impressed by Conti in the past, and I think they've done very well with this tire.

As for the sizing, these 2.3's are the same size as my 2.1 Nevegal's.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

I am also wating for my Speed King delivery!
I have avoided the Supersonic because over time I've found that the famous pinholes make the tire "sweat" until the latex solution is completely dry. This will happen over a very short period(i.e one week)
At this time, the latex will have created an inner membrane covering the sidewall and crown.
This is good, since the tire will be impervious to small punctures (thorns, etc) This is also bad, since the there will be no liquid latex to seal bigger holes that may break the thin latex membrane. 
A second latex application will last longer, but the tire will always sweat to some degree, and in any case the solution will dry out much quicker than with any other tires that I've tried in the past.
A Nobby Nic had liquid latex after three or four months after conversion, for instance. 
Now I use the Supersonics (explorer) for local XC races when the terrain isn very aggressive, while prefer standard tires for mountain races where rock cuts are always a possibility


----------



## wiiija (Jun 23, 2005)

Well I finally got my 2.1's today, they came in at 413g and 403g on the very expensive scales at work.
They didn't seem as thin as the explorer supersonics I had last year which can only be a good thing as I trashed the front on its first ride.

They inflated instantly on my Stans olympic rims using the compressor at work, they also fully sealed during the day so I was able to ride them home, I must say they are seriously fast, I didn't think they would be from looking at them as the knobs are pretty significant compared the ralphs they replaced.

Cornering seems a tad nervous but I'm sure I'll get used to that, overall I'm pretty impressed , first proper ride this weekend and it will be a wet one unfortunately as the UK has been rained out for weeks now.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

Also received my 2.1 (Pro version), weight is 520-525, casing is 46-47mm. Will inflate tonight, and race them on sunday- The sidewall is pretty thick, and the casing seems tough - I still havent verified that they are the real speed kings (desnt look so, as said the poster above) but they would be fantastic mud tires.


----------



## wiiija (Jun 23, 2005)

Seems my post was a tad premature yesterday, woke up this morning to find the rear flat and the front half deflated.....weird.

Try to seal them again, front deflated 45 mins later, rear seems sealed now, finally, lots of soapy water, no bubbles to be seen, I even submerged the tyre in shallow water to look for leaks.
The front however is a different story, it would appear that my olympic valve is buggered so I need to replace it (it kind of exploded), having to a run a tube at the moment now :/

If the rear deflates again overnight I think I'll give up, never had a problem with any other tyres.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

wiiija said:


> If the rear deflates again overnight I think I'll give up, never had a problem with any other tyres.


Don't give up. Just go for a 20-30 minute ride. When you get back from the ride, the tire will be sealed forever. Also make sure there's enough sealant inside the tire. I've practically lost my mind in the past trying to get tires to seal, coming back the next day to semi or fully deflated tires. Once I realised that all it took was a short ride (assuming of course there's enough of a seal that the tire will hold air for the ride), I never lost any sleep ever again.


----------



## wiiija (Jun 23, 2005)

Yeh, I will see how it goes, I went for a local spin earlier today, annoyingly I've just checked the rear and its lost air again!

After spending all that time shaking, spinning, laying flat etc etc (everything I usually do) I have no idea why it keeps losing air aaaargh, its the first tyre I've struggled with, Nics, ralph and rakers all sealed flawlessly.

*Update* The rear has finally sealed properly now, ordered a new valve for the front, we'll see if I have the same fun and games trying to get that sealed


----------



## RHR38 (Oct 12, 2005)

Here's a 2.1 Supersonic as a brand new and about 50 hours later, mostly forest riding but little bit tarmac too (not my tyres, pic from another cycling discussion forum)


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

Most light tires aren´t too durable, accept it or buy another tires.


----------



## RHR38 (Oct 12, 2005)

Yeah I know that (have raced more than decade). Just wanted to share visible information.


----------



## wiiija (Jun 23, 2005)

The picture above really doesn't surprise me, my rear tyre is looking like its got 5 months of wear after only 3 commutes and 2 proper rides, ouch.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

*changed my mind*

well, i said i wouldn't bother with them, but the LBS owed me some $, so i decided to try a pair. they are quick for a full knob tire, and do shed mud well, but are certainly not a super fast roller on open hardpack (compared to a twister ss or python).

as for the wear photos above... NO KIDDING! just one touch of the tire compound and you have to know they are NOT meant for anything but racing on dirt. NO PAVEMENT, and probably even rocks will wear them out too fast as well.

overall, for wetter races with some roots and and a few rocks, were you want good cornering and climbing, really good tire. i will stick with my twister ss for dry, hardpack conditions though.


----------



## Biscuithead (May 8, 2007)

nino said:


> Speed King 2,3" Supersonic:
> i just had the opportunity to weigh 30 tires and pick the lightest samples:
> i found 4 tires all weighing from 409-414g. most weighed around 430g, the heaviest i weighed was about 440g
> 
> 409g - not bad for a 2,3" tire with this kind of knobs:thumbsup:


Where can I buy a set of these? thanks


----------

