# Race King 2.2



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Just received a pair of Continental Race King 2.2 from Chain Reaction today. 488 and 487gms for a 2.2" that measures an actual 54mm (2.12") wide inflated. Black Chili rubber compound and they appear to be built nice and straight and hop free. That's 50gms a tire lighter than the Nevegal 1.95's they'll replace. These are supposedly the secret weapon that Irina Kalentiyeva used at Offenburg in the rain in 2007 so I'm hoping that they work in my neck of the woods on wet roots and rocks.

It does fill up a big percentage of a SID fork


----------



## Thomas (Feb 19, 2004)

*Here is mine*

Race King Supersonic 2.2" = 494gram
Speed King Supersonic 2.3" = 434gram


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Thomas said:


> Race King Supersonic 2.2" = 494gram
> Speed King Supersonic 2.3" = 434gram


That is the exact combination that I am using currently on my Giant Anthem Advanced. The 2.2 Race King is really really close to the rear brake arch/seatstay support. When the tires was brand new, it definitely rubbed the arch, but now that there's some wear on the tire, it only occasionally touches when there's some mud/stones on the tire. I'm looking at getting the 2.0 for the rear to see how much clearance I gain.

On another note, the reason I'm using the Speed King on the front is due to a failure of the Race King that was there at first. I am running then with Stan's on Olympic rims. I had a "burping" incident on a big drop, where I had too much weight/not enough pressure on/in the front tire. The fork bottomed, and the next thing to go was the tire bead. The tire still had air in it afterwards (enough to ride down the rest of the descent), but when I got to the bottom and pumped the tire back up, it had a bit of a "tweak" to it. I thought nothing of it, expecting to re-seat the bead when I got home, and have the tire running true once again.

After re-seating the bead, the tweak was still there. "Oh well" I thought. "Live and learn". Next ride, I did it a 2nd time, and this time, the tweak was much worse. It seems that the carcass/kevlar bead was somehow damaged so that the tire no longer runs true. It's bad enough that on the road ride home from my ride, I was keeping the speed down because the tire was so badly out of true.

As far as I can tell, the tire is toast. There is no externally visible damage other than the fact that the tire is seriously out of true. Damn it, the thing is practically brand new. Anyone else ever experience this type fo failure? Needless to say, I'm running a little more pressure in the front tire these days.


----------



## EGF168 (Aug 13, 2007)

When you guys have ridden them a way, tell us how well they grip, how fast and how puncture resistant they are.:thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

EGF168 said:


> When you guys have ridden them a way, tell us how well they grip, how fast and how puncture resistant they are.:thumbsup:


i tried the 2,1" Speedkings first, then i got very light samples of the 2,3" and used them on my rigid winterbikie front and rear hoping for some added cushion. to my surprise the ride was really bad. the cushion wasn't there at all. i was hopping around like on a full rubber ball regardless of the pressures i tried. when i lowered the pression it would start feeling VERY sketchy to the point it would burp air, when riding it with higher pressure i was getting white knuckles from holding to the handlebar...when i went back to my original 1,8" (!!) Nobby Nic the ride was MUCH better. felt like adding supsension. sounds weird but the fat 2,3" Speedking was by far the worst dampening tire i ever mounted on a MTB!
and i definitely didn't like its grip as well. cornering is bad. as is with the 2,1". they do roll decent but are a long way from real fast tires....i used them for about 50km only and they already seemed to seperate. you can see on the pic below that each centerknob seems to be halfway ripped away and the sealant would "shine" through....very strange.

i won't recommend them at all.


----------



## EGF168 (Aug 13, 2007)

Well that isn't very encouraging, but I don't use tubeless so hopefully I would get away without some of those problems, all I really need is something for the UK mud later in the year that clears easily but doesn't have the problems for normal use that you get with specific mud tires. I've got it down to the Speed King protection 2.1/3 combo and Hutchinson Toro's, I guess I'll just have to buy and try one although I don't like the look of the centre knobs in that pic.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

EGF168 said:


> Well that isn't very encouraging, but I don't use tubeless so hopefully I would get away without some of those problems, all I really need is something for the UK mud later in the year that clears easily but doesn't have the problems for normal use that you get with specific mud tires. I've got it down to the Speed King protection 2.1/3 combo and Hutchinson Toro's, I guess I'll just have to buy and try one although I don't like the look of the centre knobs in that pic.


the Speedking does VERY bad in mud! as mentioned i had it mounted on my winterbike and was very diappointed. the 1,8" Nobby Nic is what works best for me during the wet/muddy season. surprisingly good cushion ( i run it at 2,2 bars with sealant), really light (around 400g), pretty fast rolling and great grip. my favourite for the winter/mud right now. WORLDS better in the slippery stuff than the Speedkings!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The interesting thing is the difference in size between the Mountain King 2.2 and the Race King 2.2. The MK 2.2 has a 49mm carcass and a 52mm wide knob to knob width. The carcass on the Race King is huge at 54mm wide, so it could be run with a lower pressure, it'll be interesting to see how it feels on the trails. It looks like the Race King 2.2 is built on the same size carcass as the MK 2.4, the side knobs on the RK don't extend past the carcass width.

The bouncy quality was my big complaint with the 2.3" Vertical Pro's, they ricocheted off rocks and roots like mad. I'm hoping that the Black Chili rubber helps keep these tires from being a like a basketball on trail lumps and bumps.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

might give those race kings a try, the 2.2 is wider than my 2.2 MK which is more like a 2.0 and smack bang the same weight.


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

Continental Race King WorldCup 2,2 LTD, cut tails ! = > 479 / 492 g. http://light-bike.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=3462

Plenty of room on my Santa SL. I run them +/- 100 km only so it's little to fast to say more. Fast tire, allow low pressure (under 2 bar with tubs). Traction on sand - as long as you can ride. Very good mud cleaning. Good bump absortion. I ride in the forest only. I'll write some more few km later .

Conti Race King Supersonic 2.0 (not mine) -> http://light-bike.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=3481
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wrong with too low air pressure on them. Definietly more then 2,0 bar /30 psi is needed, for light rider too. I was flat with rear on XC downhill. That wasn't fault of a tire. Puncture of the tube was from rim inner site. No hole in tire after this (short carefull breaking). But the tire is thin. On rocks it will be ?? cut in same situation. The tire work great on dry, slow technical downhills in forest with roots etc.


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

The Race Kings are thin. I run them tubeless with Stan's on the DT Swiss XR 1450 wheels. Most of the team members are running them with latex tubes. As far as traction....they are like velcro! They are pretty much my tire of choice for all racing conditions. As for day-to-day training...I suggest a little beefier tire in non-Supersonic.

I have been testing since June of 2007


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

You've been testing them since June 2008  That's impressive as it's only May 2008  


Nice bike, nice rider too!


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

Tiffster said:


> You've been testing them since June 2008  That's impressive as it's only May 2008


Err....since June '07 :thumbsup:


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

:thumbsup: 

What frame is that in the pic with the blonde ?

DT Swiss Carbon rims too


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

Our team frame sponsor is Rotwild. It's a brand out of Germany.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Tiffster said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> What frame is that in the pic with the blonde ?
> 
> DT Swiss Carbon rims too


She is the current World Champ... no surprise she gets some nice kit.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Finally had weather cooperate to get some riding done on these Race Kings. They are really nice fast rolling tires at 30psi. Lots of grip on smooth rocks and smooth polished roots, work really well in the mud of varying gooiness without spinning out and without packing up, really well on loose over hardpack and feel really good on a hardtail. I was quite familiar with the way my 1.95 Nevegals felt on the hardtail and they were a good compromise between grip and rolling speed, the Race Kings feel like they roll faster and have really nice squirm-free cornering.

I think I might swap the 2.2 Mountain Kings off of my ETSX and put some Race Kings on it, they feel much more predictable on roots and rocks and less squirmy with the more densely packed knobs. I like the big carcass for deformation grip capability over roots and rocks.


----------



## eliflap (Dec 13, 2007)

i bought a pair of Race King WC 2,2 

never used ... so decided to sell on ebay

468 and 460 their weight

i agree with Nino ... NN 1,8 are wonderful

i used with latex on my scalpel 2008 , great tyre


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Where can I order the race king in 2.2 and 2.0 in the us?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

You'll need to get them from Chain Reaction Cycles in the UK, they haven't floated across the Atlantic yet. I think CRC still only has the 2.2", the 2" haven't crossed the English Channel yet.


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

I order them from star bikes, 2.2 and the 2.0 in supersonic. I dont know how long it will take them to get to Ca. But my Ibis Mojo SL cant wait for its new shoes. Thanks for all the help.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

How can a tire with 2mm tall knobs grip like velcro?...  

Where I ride I have a lot of hardpack with sketchy sand over it, and its very difficult to have good grip when cornering or when going a little faster. 
This tire seems to be very fast rolling that’s something I like but I think I need bigger knobs in my trails.

Anybody else tried the conti race king supersonic in 2.0?


----------



## EGF168 (Aug 13, 2007)

sergio_pt said:


> How can a tire with 2mm tall knobs grip like velcro?...


Depends where you ride, in your case your riding in the wrong place for these tires, I have no doubt they grip like Velcro where I ride because there isn't that much loose stuff.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm actually surprised how well the Race Kings grip pea gravel and loose over hardpack surfaces, much better than the Mountain King on those surfaces. I think it must just be all the knob edges and the minimal squirm. They do wear fast, but so far I haven't come across a condition where they really suck (no deep gooey mud here though, it tends to be like watery oatmeal consistency not peanut butter). Wet roots and rocks are good, general dry hardpack and pavement sections are great, and dead quiet.


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

The question I have is do I try and run these tubless or go with a lightweight tube? How much trouble is it to get the supersonics to seal up? What is the ride quality like?

Any help?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*it takes a couple of days...*



KenDobson said:


> The question I have is do I try and run these tubless or go with a lightweight tube? How much trouble is it to get the supersonics to seal up? What is the ride quality like?
> 
> Any help?


i run a RaceKing 2.0" SS on the front and it took me a couple of days to get that tire completely sealed. it would mount pretty easy but lose air overnight.it took me 3 full days to get it airthight.i had it re-inflated twice per day, laying flat on it's sides so it can seal the porous sidewalls...yet it was taking 3 days to get fully sealed.

i am really happy about it's low rolling resistance and grip as long as it is dry. i am not so happy on damp,technical trails where it definitely lacks sidegrip. i never felt this insecure with my Nokian NBX which do grip better in steep,technical terrain. as long as it is dry the RK is very good indeed though. i will mount another one on the rear soon where i still run a 08 Racing Ralph. the Racing Ralph got much better than the old version. it actually has decent grip everywhere, is lighter than the RK (my selected RR 2.1" weighs 207g, the selected RK 435g).

as mentioned elsewhere i am currently testing some VERY light inner tubes so i will try the RK also on the rear soon.


----------



## 2times (Jul 14, 2006)

I tried the Speed King Super Sonics tubeless and could'nt get it to hold air; I ended up switching to light weight tubes. I'm a newbie when it comes to runnig tubeless though.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

With my Mountain King Supersonics - the first time i sealed them was a complete nightmare. Basically i couldn't really get them to seal and just had to pump them up once a week.

With the same tyres i have re-mounted them about a week ago.I removed all the old sealant and tried again. This time they inflated fine, i layed them on there sides for about 8 hours each side and they are completely sealed i havent had to reinflate them as there still rock hard a week later  


On a side note. Whats the best option Race King 2.2 or 2.0? My Mountainkings are 2.2 but they actually measure 2.0 i understand the Race King 2.2 is actually a 2.2 etc and im happy with 2.0 tyres. Plus the 2.0 is 50 grams lighter per tyre :thumbsup:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Has anyone tried treating the inside of the tires with sealant before trying to mount them, basically painting the inside of the tire with sealant and letting it set up and dry, and then going through the tubeless process?


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

My solution to getting these things sealed which works every single time, is to do the shake/lie on their side thing for 2-3 cycles, and then just ride the damned thing. It'll hold enough air for a 1-2 hour ride, and then after the ride, the tire will be sealed for good.

YMMV!


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Rocky,

You can't do that as the stans solution doesn't make the sidewalls airtight unless air is trying to pass through it in which case the latex goes hard or "skins" to make the seal.

I have thought about that very same idea though, spraying something on the inside of the tyre before mounting it to help make it airtight - like a sprayable rubber etc but ive never found anything.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I notice that some tires are already sprayed down with something like silicone lube (Nokian WXC300's for instance) to keep the inner tube from sticking to the tire. I wonder if that has an effect on getting the tire to seal as the liquid carrier in the sealant beads up on it instead of wetting the tire surface. :skep:


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

It will prevent a seal - the latex wont be able to skin over a liquid covered contact surface.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

nino said:


> i run a RaceKing 2.0" SS on the front and it took me a couple of days to get that tire completely sealed. it would mount pretty easy but lose air overnight.it took me 3 full days to get it airthight.i had it re-inflated twice per day, laying flat on it's sides so it can seal the porous sidewalls...yet it was taking 3 days to get fully sealed.
> 
> i am really happy about it's low rolling resistance and grip as long as it is dry. i am not so happy on damp,technical trails where it definitely lacks sidegrip. i never felt this insecure with my Nokian NBX which do grip better in steep,technical terrain. as long as it is dry the RK is very good indeed though. i will mount another one on the rear soon where i still run a 08 Racing Ralph. the Racing Ralph got much better than the old version. it actually has decent grip everywhere, is lighter than the RK (my selected RR 2.1" weighs 207g, the selected RK 435g).
> 
> as mentioned elsewhere i am currently testing some VERY light inner tubes so i will try the RK also on the rear soon.


I'm sure your 207g for the Ralph must be a typo...

I'm curious about how big the 2.1 RR is compared to the 2.0 Race King. The 2.2 RKs that I got are huge. Probably the biggest tire I've ever had.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*oops...*



JaLove said:


> I'm sure your 207g for the Ralph must be a typo...
> 
> I'm curious about how big the 2.1 RR is compared to the 2.0 Race King. The 2.2 RKs that I got are huge. Probably the biggest tire I've ever had.


correct: must read 407g


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Nino,

Do you "know where to get" Conti tyres?? I want some Race Kings but i want light ones.....


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no RaceKings for me !*

ok - i have done a couple of really intense and long rides and my conclusion using a Race King 2,0" SS on the front is:

-VERY good on hardpack

-VERY fast

-VERY hard to get sealed "tubeless" (it took me 3 full days of constant re-inflating and changing side-to-side and shaking etcetc)

-VERY,VERY bad in the mud or even on damp,humid trails! as soon as it gets a bit slippery or steep the RaceKing is a sure way to loose traction. i really have no confidence at all in this tire. even going straight through mudholes or slippery sections you can loose your line...i haven't experienced such with any other knobby i had on my bike before. it really behaves like a semislick at best as soon as it gets humid. definitely a no-go for me as i don't like a tire to wash out when i'm on the brakes. i might give it another shot in the rear but on the front i will not mount it again.

next tire to test in the front is the new 08 Schwalbe Racing Ralph. i have it in the rear and it really performs very good. for sure no mud-tire as well but at least decent traction and no wash-out without warning.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

nino said:


> next tire to test in the front is the new 08 Schwalbe Racing Ralph. i have it in the rear and it really performs very good. for sure no mud-tire as well but at least decent traction and no wash-out without warning.


that is the next tire i will buy as well. the new RR sure remind me of the Nokian NBX lite.

everyone i know who runs em, loves them and seem to be a great all rounder, fast and good traction.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Rr*



kevbikemad said:


> that is the next tire i will buy as well. the new RR sure remind me of the Nokian NBX lite.
> 
> everyone i know who runs em, loves them and seem to be a great all rounder, fast and good traction.


i will know in about 3 hours....i just start a ride using RRs front and rear now.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Did you get a chance to try the RK 2.2 for comparison to the RK 2.0? I've had really good grip on wet roots and rocks with the RK 2.2 on both my hardtail and 4x4 bike.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> Did you get a chance to try the RK 2.2 for comparison to the RK 2.0? I've had really good grip on wet roots and rocks with the RK 2.2 on both my hardtail and 4x4 bike.


I was thinking the exact same thing. It seems unusual to Nino to not try a couple of different sizes. I know he's always looking for the lightest stuff, but it still seems odd. Maybe the 2.2 wasn't available to him at the time.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Rk 2.2*

okok,
i was just trying the slimmer, lighter RKs first and at least on the front i didn't like it at all. not what i want on my bike since the slightest humid spot would make it wash out. really strange.

i then mounted 2.1" Racing Ralphs front AND rear and i was getting back the confidence i was missing with the 2.0" RK.

next to try was a RK 2.2 in the rear. i have to say i was really impressed. still difficult to compare since we had now 4 days of terrific late-summer weather with trails in perfect grip.absolutely no mud left and just the PERFECT terrain to ride on. but i am really impressed by the 2.2 so far.

what i really like a lot was the superb comfort! so far i didn't care about how comfy a tire rides but this one is awseome.i used it with the prototype inner tubes i already mentioned elsewhere at 2.0 bar pressure (29 psi) and the comfort and grip of this tire was unreal. i felt like riding a FS.on gravelled roads you just feel like riding on a paved road. there were sections with roots that seemd like a groomed trail...completely smoothed out. it also seems very fast. too bad there were no slippery spots anymore as i would really like to see how it performs there. i really hope it does decent. anyway- just the rear tire gave me VERY much confidence.

BUT the tire is HUGE! as you can see in the second picture i have just a couple of millimeters left between the brakecable of my V's and the top of the knobs....so definitely no deep, sticky mud with these rubbers

one negative note was that the huge,ballonlike size of this tire made for an even steeper headangle on my already short-legged front of the bike. with the rear sitting higher the headangle became steeper and i really could feel the added nervousness going down. the grip of the Racing Ralph on the front however was real good as well. now i already installed the RK 2.2 on the front as well. this will level my ride again and if the front adds as much smoothness as the rear does i may think about going full rigid as well () i hope to be able to do a ride soon in hopefully somewhat slippery conditions as well...it's a long time i wished for such conditions rather than the perfect weather we have now. those are really huge tires. my bike looks like Hulk Hogan

but it still weighs a decent 7,14 kilos just as pictured. not bad considering the huge tires (468+470g) and standard Crossmax wheels.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I had the same sort of issues with the MK2.2 versus the MK2.4, the smaller carcass made it necessary to run lots of pressure and then the tire was sketchy. If the pressure is dropped enough to keep it grippy I could feel the rim hit objects on the trail. It would be great to see a comparison of the inflated tread pattern on the RK2.0 and RK2.2.

The RK2.2 can be run fairly low in pressure (but not really low without pinch flatting in this Supersonic form) and that seems to help it grip rocks and roots like crazy. But definitely no gooey mud, not much clearance left on most forks and frames. It makes a high tech bike look a bit like a beach cruiser with the enormous tires. It does make a hardtail a lot more comfy to ride.

I'm still amazed at the traction of the RK2.2 on loose over hardpack and pea gravel/sand.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I wonder if there are any differences in the World Cup version versus the Supersonic version, other than the word painted on the sidewall? The 2.2's I got from Chain Reaction are all the WC version.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> I wonder if there are any differences in the World Cup version versus the Supersonic version, other than the word painted on the sidewall? The 2.2's I got from Chain Reaction are all the WC version.


I think the World Cup version IS the Supersonic. I don't think there are 2 different models. If there are, I'd really like to know.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



JaLove said:


> I think the World Cup version IS the Supersonic. I don't think there are 2 different models. If there are, I'd really like to know.


i do believe that sponsored riders get different tires than what we buy. the rubber compound might be softer for better grip and it hasn't to last more than 1 race...

BUT on the other hand it would be damn stupid to let the consumers know that they don't get the same tire the racers have. so i sure think those are the same tires. i don't think that Conti would put a different label on "team" tires so anyone can actually see that those are special. maybe that's an earlier version or vice-versa.


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

I don't know if this will matter in there, but I have the SpeedKing 2.1 and the tire performed best in the manufacturers recommended 55psi, i know it seems very high but it performed very well on Hardpack surfaces. Today I ran that tire on medium-hard and medium-loose moist to wet conditions on a local trail and i had to drop the pressure drastically to make it hook up. I ran it at around 38psi which is still high compared to the old tire i rode (which was 28f/32r). But as nino said the ride comfort of the Conti Tire is way and beyond any other tire. This tire is great, it diggs deep, sheds well, doesn't bounce and absorbs pump very well, but there is something about this tire that i don't like and I can't put my finger on it. 

I think what all these tires need (RK, SK and MK), is a snakeskin thread in between the knobs.


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

*RK 2.2 Tubeless or not?*



rockyuphill said:


> I've had really good grip on wet roots and rocks with the RK 2.2 on both my hardtail and 4x4 bike.


 I can't belive it . I'm running RK 2.2 WC on fullsusp. XC bike. On wet root I met soil in very fast mode! On forest tracks dowhills (not true DH but down) front tire heave tendency to sideslips. On the breaks & without! Kerkovej (sponored Ergon rider) on PM to me wrote, he's running it with stans inside at lower preassure then mine. Then it will be more grippy With tubes I can't get lower, 'cose sidewalls wrinkled dangerously (once flat). Propably good tire for speed drving (not so technical), but better tubeless. Kalentieva riched Bronze Olimpic Medal on them (after our Silver Majka , on Geax) indeed.
=========================

WC wersion was promo mode. Kalentieva & team made some good job (I was catch too). The NEED was marketed. Then WC reborn as SS to fit name philosophy of the Conti. So simple


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Bikeon said:


> I can't belive it . I'm running RK 2.2 WC on fullsusp. XC bike. On wet root I met soil in very fast mode! On forest tracks dowhills (not true DH but down) front tire heave tendency to sideslips. On the breaks & without! Kerkovej (sponored Ergon rider) on PM to me wrote, he's running it with stans inside at lower preassure then mine. Then it will be more grippy With tubes I can't get lower, 'cose sidewalls wrinkled dangerously (once flat). Propably good tire for speed drving (not so technical), but better tubeless. Kalentieva riched Bronze Olimpic Medal on them (after our Silver Majka , on Geax) indeed.


I watched the race here on TV and it looked like a lot of the riders were running very low pressures in their tires. You could see when some of them were going over rocks and down those steps every lap that their tires would really compress a lot.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm running Maxxis Flyweight tubes in the 2.2's. Running about 28-30PSI and I'm about 89kg. I've got lots of roots and rocks to try them on... :skep:


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> I'm running Maxxis Flyweight tubes in the 2.2's. Running about 28-30PSI and I'm about 89kg. I've got lots of roots and rocks to try them on... :skep:


That looks pretty rough, eh? What size tubes are you running and what rims do you use?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

XTR 975 wheels and the tubes are the 1.90-2.125" size.


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Well I just mounted my new Race Kings on my Ibis Mojo Sl. I went with light weight conti tubes and will attempt to go tubeless after a few rides. I went with th 2.2 in front and 2.0 in back. From the looks of it I should have gone with two 2.2's. Wish it was easier to get them but I will ride it this way and make a judgement. The 2.2 looks perfect on my dually and the rear seems alittle to skinny and low sidewall.

Will post some pics when I find my camera.

later


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Just got back from a ride. The tires have alot of grip here in the nor cal hardpack with moon dust on top. Also seem to go though the rock gardens well. I think I will order a 2.2 for the back. I like the size of it, and the sidewall protection of the bigger tire. If I was racing x-country I would like the 2.0 for sure. They roll well. Next need to try and go tubeless with them and see what the difference is. Also mine are the supersonic model dont know if this makes a difference.


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Pics of the 2.2 and 2.0￼

￼


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Let me know who you order from and when. I may join you if they're coming from Europe, so we can share the shipping charges. I need a 2.2 Race King SS, and maybe a pair of Furious Freds.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

How big is the Race King 2.2 vs a Mountain King 2.2?


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> I'm running Maxxis Flyweight tubes in the 2.2's. Running about 28-30PSI and I'm about 89kg. I've got lots of roots and rocks to try them on... :skep:


 Hymm, I have trust You. After beautyfull foto even more  .

Yesterday I switched to my old XC set from HT Dale / Headshok (sold): Schwalbe Skinny Jimmy Fold. 1.9 & Conti Twister fold. 1.9. Wow. I just reflect HOW it was possible to run tight tires as this . My Santa SL drove like HT a bit. Some ground clearence problems. I'll run them one more time, to check tread needs for next set up. Mayby Conti SK or MK for front and SK for rear (period).


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Tiffster said:


> How big is the Race King 2.2 vs a Mountain King 2.2?


The Race King 2.2 has the same carcass size as the MK 2.4, they are huge. The big difference is the side knobs on the RK don't extend past the carcass width.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Hi Rocky,

Thanks mate. They will fit my Sid like yours but it might be too tight a fit on my rear frame - my 2.2 MK's dont have much space !

Oh well at least the 2.0 RK are lighter!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*i love the RK 2.2 !!*

ok- i mounted the RK 2.2 a couple of days ago, now front AND rear , and was really impressed to say the least. these rubbers are indeed gripping like velcro, they have superb comfort and are super fast. so far i couldn't detect any weakness in them. that was on perfectly dry trails with superb grip (dry loamy trails...you know there is no better!)

now i already wrote above that i was curious if the tires would also grip when things get slippery....my "wish" came true as we had rain during the whole night and also all day long. so i decided this would be the perfect test since rain on such trails makes for a super-slippery mess. the very top gets soft while underneath it is still dry...so i went for a ride during lunch-time in the rain!

i was heading for the trail i know is the most slippery around with lots of off-camber turns, logs and roots and technical switchbacks. also lot of sections where the trail would fall to one side which usually lets you slip very easily. ok - i was prepared for the worst since the RK 2.2 is HUGE in size and the knobs are pretty small and not very much confidence inspiring when you think about going for a mud-ride with them. but the tires did so well i am really amazed!! i really have a hard time believeing how well they performed since the usually super-slippery trail wasn't slippery at all. i was always expecting the tires to wash out (i'm riding those trails for 15 years year in and out so i know how they feel in every imaginable weather). the tires indeed grip like V-E-L-C-R-O. i started with low expectations...slowly realizing the tires would grip...slowly going faster yet still having that barrier because i was always expecting the bike to slide...not so. in the end i was riding the bike almost as fast as when things were dry. really, really amazing. also important it seemed not to pack up from all the loam i was riding through. i never had the knobs filled. maybe the trails still weren't deep enough but usually in these loamy conditions they would clog up fairly easily.not so today.

i am also impressed by the low rollingresistance. usually a tire clearly lets you feel when you run over different terrain.on smooth paved roads it's fairly easy to pedal while usually in sandy sections or sections with deep gravel or sticky loam you could feel the added resistance from your tires. the 2.2 RKs seem to roll over everything with ease. so fast i was really smiling.i sometimes think i had a gear higher than usual even though the massive circumference would make for a higher gearing. for more details on fat tires offering lower rollingresistance read here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=4850701&postcount=97

VERY important tough is the tire pressure. i was using those experimental inner tubes at just 2 bar front / 1.9 rear (29 / 27 psi). i would think these tires are too bulky for a "tubeless" setup. they are moving around on the rims quite a bit and i would think this might lead to a "wobbly" ride. i might get corrected but usually such huge tires when used "tubeless" on narrow xc-rims ask for a certain pressure in order not to get this wobbly feeling. anyway - i was using them with inner tubes and i think this combination is the best suspension you can get. my hardtail feels like glued to the ground. the trails get smoothed out and it really seems you're gliding effortless. After my first positive feedback my friend also installed the RK 2.2 but he wasn't as impressed. when i checked his pressure he would have 2.2 bar (32 psi). just yesterday he went riding also with 1.9 bar and now he also was all positive. so i really think these tires need LOW pressure to excel. at higher pressure setting they will behave like a full-rubber ball and get springy. but at low pressure these babies suck up everything in their way and offer an insane amount of grip.

i also tried lower pressure settings. as low as 1.4 bar but then the tire really feels wobbly and attacking corners resulted in that wobbly feeling and when braking hard going downhills you always felt like washing out....in the end i felt best at 1.9-2 bars up front with slightly less in the rear.

so-i still can't believe my impressions from today. i might need more rides and a direct comparison with my old favourite (Nokian NBX). but so far i am a real fan of the RK 2.2


----------



## elephant (Mar 21, 2006)

nino said:


> VERY important tough is the tire pressure. i was using those experimental inner tubes at just 2 bar front / 1.9 rear (29 / 27 psi). i would think these tires are too bulky for a "tubeless" setup. they are moving around on the rims quite a bit and i would think this might lead to a "wobbly" ride. i might get corrected but usually such huge tires when used "tubeless" on narrow xc-rims ask for a certain pressure in order not to get this wobbly feeling.


I am thinking about new tires soon.

I use a 2.4 Mountain King tubeless and I have to ride at about 32 or 33 PSI in the rear to eliminate most of the wobble. I would think going from my FSA rims which are very narrow to something like ZTR 355s would be wide enough to get back down to 28 or 29 PSI. Also, the comparison is not perfect because the bigger tread also impacts the wobble of the MK 2.4.

I would be interested to know what rims you are using.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

elephant said:


> I would be interested to know what rims you are using.


the 2.4 MK is the same size than the RK 2.2 !
it's just the knobs that stick out on the MK.

i use Mavic Crossmax UST wheels (you can see my bike in a recent post in this thread)


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

nino said:


> VERY important tough is the tire pressure. i was using those experimental inner tubes at just 2 bar front / 1.9 rear (29 / 27 psi). i would think these tires are too bulky for a "tubeless" setup. they are moving around on the rims quite a bit and i would think this might lead to a "wobbly" ride. i might get corrected but usually such huge tires when used "tubeless" on narrow xc-rims ask for a certain pressure in order not to get this wobbly feeling. anyway - i was using them with inner tubes and i think this combination is the best suspension you can get. my hardtail feels like glued to the ground. the trails get smoothed out and it really seems you're gliding effortless. After my first positive feedback my friend also installed the RK 2.2 but he wasn't as impressed. when i checked his pressure he would have 2.2 bar (32 psi). just yesterday he went riding also with 1.9 bar and now he also was all positive. so i really think these tires need LOW pressure to excel. at higher pressure setting they will behave like a full-rubber ball and get springy. but at low pressure these babies suck up everything in their way and offer an insane amount of grip.


maybe try them tubeless on a wider rim like the ZTR race - i can feel a huge difference in tire stability between average XC rims like crossmax sl, 717 and the ZTR RACE - the CM and 717 rims need to be 4 or 5 psi higher pressure with the same tires, you can go much lower on the RACE rims tubeless. you also get a little more volume with a wider rim.

i need to get a set of tires!


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> Dude, how wide are your bars? :thumbsup: on seat height, you have me beat, and I thought I ride with a lot of post out.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*my bike*



snowdrifter said:


> nino said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## 2times (Jul 14, 2006)

*Reliabilty, longevity*

Nino, do you have any impressions as far as longevity is concerned? I have a pair of Speed King SS 2.3's and they have not lsted long at all, I'm a little disappointed to say the least.

Might be too early for you to tell but I thought I would ask anyway.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wear*



2times said:


> Nino, do you have any impressions as far as longevity is concerned? I have a pair of Speed King SS 2.3's and they have not lsted long at all, I'm a little disappointed to say the least.
> 
> Might be too early for you to tell but I thought I would ask anyway.


no i can't tell about wear since i did only 4 rides now.
but i can tell that the Speedkings wear ultrafast. i had a set of 2.0 and also 2.3s and both performed pretty bad. when having a closer look at my 2.3s i discovered that the knobs were HOLLOW! really, no joke! i did also just about 3-4 rides with them but there's some knobs that got ripped open and you can actually see that they are hollow inside. maybe that's the reason my 2.3 Speedkings weighed just 409g...and the carcass is so thin it actually shines through.you can also see the wet spots from the sealant coming through. but i don't care since the Speedking was really a bad performing tire all the way.

i don't really care about wear anyway since tires are too important for me. that's the number 1 factor on the bike.


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

2times said:


> ...do you have any impressions as far as longevity is concerned? I have a pair of Speed King SS 2.3's and they have not lsted long at all, I'm a little disappointed to say the least. Might be too early for you to tell but I thought I would ask anyway.


My RK 2.2 set has more then 450 km. No signs of wear right now. Any foto needed??


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Not sure how indicative of wear it will be, but the little mold tits took about twice as long as I expected to wear off the middle knobs and they're still hanging in there on the side knobs.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*comparison ride...*

i mentioned above that i would need a compariosn ride to get proof of my impressions yesterday. well - i did the exact same ride today using my Winterbike with Nokian NBX in the fornt and 08 Racing Ralph 2.1" in the rear. a setup i am happy with most of the time. now today the weather was fine, rain has stopped this morning and we even had the sun out but this does not affect the trails IN the forest which are completely in the shadow. so the trails were actually the same as they have been yesterday.

wow-what a difference!

i'll start with the most important: the ride is just slightly over 1 hour long (1:02:30 to be precise). today it took me 35 seconds longer while my average heartrate was 8 beats higher!! that's 160 average instead of 152 and this alongside a slower time.

i had severe problems in that mentioned, super slippery downhill section where i would loose 30 seconds alone with 3 hairy moments and twice almost crashing into a tree....no honestly, that trail is indeed super slippery and that was the reason i chose it because i was really curious to see how the RaceKing 2.2 would do there. it indeed was like riding on rails when i compare to my usual combo.

my winterbike has disc and a newer SID WC with 80mm travel compared to my Scale which comes with V's and a oooold school SID with just 63mm of travel. the fork of the Winterbike is definitely doing a better job...but i was MUCH slower there.

on a sidenote: it was soaking wet, deep mudholes etc but i didn't have a single problem with my Vs yesterday. the discs today went completely unnoticed. for sure no worse but no better as well.

so i will use the RK 2.2 from now on. i need more time on them and will have to adapt as they allow MUCH higher speeds in slippery conditions.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

nino said:


> so i will use the RK 2.2 from now on. i need more time on them and will have to adapt as they allow MUCH higher speeds in slippery conditions.


You do realize that it just means more blood and bruises when things _do_ go horribly wrong.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

What RK 2.2 are you guy's using? Suresonic? Protection? With tubes or Setup as Tubless?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*supersonic with tubes*



scarsellone said:


> What RK 2.2 are you guy's using? Suresonic? Protection? With tubes or Setup as Tubless?


i use the supersonic version (470g) with suuuperlight prototype innertubes


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Im riding the supersonic with conti light tubes, 30psi in front 2.2 and 35 psi in rear 2.0


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

nino said:


> i mentioned above that i would need a compariosn ride to get proof of my impressions yesterday. well - i did the exact same ride today using my Winterbike with Nokian NBX in the fornt and 08 Racing Ralph 2.1" in the rear. a setup i am happy with most of the time. now today the weather was fine, rain has stopped this morning and we even had the sun out but this does not affect the trails IN the forest which are completely in the shadow. so the trails were actually the same as they have been yesterday.
> 
> wow-what a difference!
> 
> ...


try the 08 ralph 2.25 fr and rr. the narrower tires are slower. also that nokian is like
a 1.8, i tried them and they suck. i can guarantee you are faster on the 2.2 conti fr and rr
than you would be on the 2.0 conti fr and rr. i would like to see your times and impressions
on the 2.2 conti fr and rr vs the 2.25 ralph fr and rr.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*agreed...*



peabody said:


> try the 08 ralph 2.25 fr and rr. the narrower tires are slower. also that nokian is like
> a 1.8, i tried them and they suck. i can guarantee you are faster on the 2.2 conti fr and rr
> than you would be on the 2.0 conti fr and rr. i would like to see your times and impressions
> on the 2.2 conti fr and rr vs the 2.25 ralph fr and rr.


i already rode the RK 2.0 and didn't like it too much!

the Conti RK 2.2 got tested by german magazines also against the new Racing Ralph 2.25 and not only is the RK faster but also slightly lighter (ca. 20g). i don't plan to test the 2.25 Schwalbes since i am really,really happy with the Contis now.

by the way - they didn't just test the tires indoors but also on the trails where the RK was faster as well.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Here's a question...

Has anyone got a pic of the same bike setup with RK 2.2 and MK 2.2's (at different times obviously) or maybe is running a MK front and RK rear.

If so can you link up a pic please?

Thanks!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Tiffster said:


> Here's a question...
> 
> Has anyone got a pic of the same bike setup with RK 2.2 and MK 2.2's (at different times obviously) or maybe is running a MK front and RK rear.
> 
> ...


i had the 2.2 MK this spring and it isn't anything near as huge as the RK 2.2.
the MK 2.2 is as slim as a regular 2.0. what they measure is the outer extremes of the sideknobs which stick out on the MKs. you don't have any knobs going farther out than the carcass on the RK so the 2.2 is indeed the carcass width.it is HUGE.

and the MK was a tire that i took aff as soon as i was back home fom Italy. no weakness at all but not shining either. but he was defintely too slow for my taste. a pretty good do-it-all tire.


----------



## panplan (Jun 12, 2008)

After all the praise those RK got here I would think about trying them. One problem I see is the weight of ust version in 2.2 which seems to be 700 g. since I don't want to go back to tubes I'm puzzled... Nino: how can you ride with pressure so low and don't puncture your tubes?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They are such a large volume tire that you'd likely only have to worry about pinch flats if you're running down into the 20-25psi range for the supersonic version, or really flying on a trail with square edge rocks.

Conti has updated the German language site and UK website with all the sizes and types, including Protection, UST and a 29" version. They'll all be Black Chili rubber too.

* Race King Supersonic: 3 Lagen/ 180tpi/ faltbar/ Black Chili Compound
* Race King ProTection: 3 Lagen/ 180tpi/ faltbar/ Black Chili Compound
* Race King UST-Tubeless: 3 Lagen/ 330tpi/ faltbar/ Black Chili Compound
* Race King Supersonic.: 3 Lagen/ 180tpi/ faltbar/ Black Chili Compound
* Race King 29inch: 3 Lagen/ 180tpi/ faltbar/ Black Chili Compound
.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*low pressure...*



panplan said:


> After all the praise those RK got here I would think about trying them. One problem I see is the weight of ust version in 2.2 which seems to be 700 g. since I don't want to go back to tubes I'm puzzled... Nino: how can you ride with pressure so low and don't puncture your tubes?


as mentioned by rockyuphill:
the tires are HUGE and you will have a hard time to get a pinch flat. but i will have an even harder time since my prototype tubes are virtually un-pinchable!!

i'd also say the only weakness is the sidewalls which could get cut by sharp stones etc...pinchflatting them seems almost impossible to me.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Nino what news of these inner tubes of yours?

How light?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Tiffster said:


> Here's a question...
> 
> Has anyone got a pic of the same bike setup with RK 2.2 and MK 2.2's (at different times obviously) or maybe is running a MK front and RK rear.
> 
> ...


I don't have the same camera angle...

MK2.2's









RK2.2


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no news*



Tiffster said:


> Nino what news of these inner tubes of yours?
> 
> How light?


sorry - no news. they're still in the prototype and testing stage.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*big smile!*

i just headed for that slippery trail again yesterday when i met a big group of bikers, all dressed in Swisspower Team clothes, all on Scott bikes etc....about 15 riders.they looked fast
someone called my name and immediately realized it was Frischi calling me (Thomas Frischknecht). it turned out they went for a "sponsor"-ride with several sponsors. the full team was there with Nino Schurter (bronce medaillist at the olympics), Florian Vogel (European champion) , Frischi etcetc...since they were also heading for that same trail i joined them and we had a little chat.

on the way down that trail Vogel went into the lead followed by Schurter and myself while the others stayed behind with some of the sponsors which had a hard time on that slippery trail...i was following those guys and was really having a smile on my face because i had absolutely no problem to go their speed. there was also a younger guy in our group (Matthias Rupp, 17th at the worlds 07 in Fort Williams) but he had a rather wild style sliding and hopping around...anyway - at the bottom those guys would all tell how slippery and wet the trail was, even Frischi said "slippery when wet" with a big smile on his face while some others arrived carrying their bikes down the trail as they weren't able to ride it...i on the other hand was riding like on rails! that RK 2.2 is definitely the BOMB. i definitely think the tire made it much easier for me in some sections i was even thinking about passing but thought it might wise for an old men to stay behind those cracks

maybe it's just because of the tires which really makes a BIG difference, maybe it was because i was riding that trail just a couple of days before already but then those guys, all living in the area, know it in and out as well. anyway - i felt great never had "a moment" hanging in there.

a little sidenote: at the bottom i realized Frischi was using the Ashima ultralight rotor on his rear wheel and when i asked he would just shake his head and say it was BS because it would not offer enough power...


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

nino said:


> i just headed for that slippery trail again yesterday when i met a big group of bikers, all dressed in Swisspower Team clothes, all on Scott bikes etc....about 15 riders.they looked fast
> someone called my name and immediately realized it was Frischi calling me (Thomas Frischknecht). it turned out they went for a "sponsor"-ride with several sponsors. the full team was there with Nino Schurter (bronce medaillist at the olympics), Florian Vogel (European champion) , Frischi etcetc...since they were also heading for that same trail i joined them and we had a little chat.
> 
> on the way down that trail Vogel went into the lead followed by Schurter and myself while the others stayed behind with some of the sponsors which had a hard time on that slippery trail...i was following those guys and was really having a smile on my face because i had absolutely no problem to go their speed. there was also a younger guy in our group (Matthias Rupp, 17th at the worlds 07 in Fort Williams) but he had a rather wild style sliding and hopping around...anyway - at the bottom those guys would all tell how slippery and wet the trail was, even Frischi said "slippery when wet" with a big smile on his face while some others arrived carrying their bikes down the trail as they weren't able to ride it...i on the other hand was riding like on rails! that RK 2.2 is definitely the BOMB. i definitely think the tire made it much easier for me in some sections i was even thinking about passing but thought it might wise for an old men to stay behind those cracks
> ...


How is the wear of the tire so far? Guess you didn't tell Frischi to try different pads, eh?


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

*RK Tubless?*

Has anyone tried running the RK's Tubless with Stan's? I had a set of SK 2.1 supersonic last year & tried running tubless & they just would not seal? I'm thinking of getting a set of the RK with protection & try & setup Tubless on Mavic SLR's? What do you guy's think?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*pads*



JaLove said:


> How is the wear of the tire so far? Guess you didn't tell Frischi to try different pads, eh?


they are using swissstop pads and those usually do a pretty good job...Florian Vogel is using the serrated Alligators and is completely satisfied and happy with them (160/140mm).


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*new Contis tubeless...*



scarsellone said:


> Has anyone tried running the RK's Tubless with Stan's? I had a set of SK 2.1 supersonic last year & tried running tubless & they just would not seal? I'm thinking of getting a set of the RK with protection & try & setup Tubless on Mavic SLR's? What do you guy's think?


as i already wrote they would take VERY long to get sealed. it took me a full 3 days of constant re-inflating,shaking etc. until they would hold the air without going almost flat overnight. the newer Contis come with a very slippery "coating" inside the tire which seems to prevent the sealants from making good contact. it will eventually work but it takes quite long.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Same here. My MK's didnt seal the first time too well - i had to reinflate them twice a week.

After about 2 months i removed them, stripped the old sealant off the inside which removed the slippy surface Nino mentioned. Reinstalled them and took about 8 hours to seal - i haven't had to pump them back up once in nearly a month


----------



## reformed roadie (Mar 30, 2008)

I guess that obvious solution is to remove the coating prior to attempting a Stan's conversion.
Any suggestions on getting it off safely w/o effecting tire or sealant?

Is the coating 1) a result of the manufacturing process, 2) a protectant (like the stuff chains come with) or 3) just something conti adds to make this a pain and make people buy their UST tires?

My only experience w/ contis tubeless was trying to seal a flow protection...weeks later the sidewalls were still weeping...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It's either a silicone mould release or a silicone coating to prevent the tube from vulcanizing itself to the inside of the tire. Nokian has been using it as well.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

I've no idea how you would get it off, it's just the inside of the tyre is slippy. You could maybe try washing the insides out with soapy water but make sure to dry them off properly.


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

I have my front RK 2.2 converted to tubeless and waiting on a new 2.2 to replace the 2.0 RK on the back then I will go tubeless in the rear. These tires have alot of grip, and the front is nice tubeless, took alittle work but seems worth it. Loving them.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

What version of the RK's do you have? Supersonic or protection?

On a side note, did anyone see the new Schwalbe Rocket Ron? The weights are below 400g's for a 2.1 a UST 2.1 is just above 500g's
I was set on the RK's now I'm contemplating on which tires to try? The downfall on The Schwalbe would be the cost?


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

nino said:


> on the way down that trail Vogel went into the lead followed by Schurter and myself while the others stayed behind with some of the sponsors which had a hard time on that slippery trail...i was following those guys and was really having a smile on my face because i had absolutely no problem to go their speed. there was also a younger guy in our group (Matthias Rupp, 17th at the worlds 07 in Fort Williams) but he had a rather wild style sliding and hopping around...anyway - at the bottom those guys would all tell how slippery and wet the trail was, even Frischi said "slippery when wet" with a big smile on his face while some others arrived carrying their bikes down the trail as they weren't able to ride it...i on the other hand was riding like on rails! that RK 2.2 is definitely the BOMB. i definitely think the tire made it much easier for me in some sections i was even thinking about passing but thought it might wise for an old men to stay behind those cracks
> 
> maybe it's just because of the tires which really makes a BIG difference, maybe it was because i was riding that trail just a couple of days before already but then those guys, all living in the area, know it in and out as well. anyway - i felt great never had "a moment" hanging in there.
> 
> a little sidenote: at the bottom i realized Frischi was using the Ashima ultralight rotor on his rear wheel and when i asked he would just shake his head and say it was BS because it would not offer enough power...


nice to be Swiss... man, i am lucky if i see a fat guy on a bike from Wal-Mart... never mind some of the fastest riders in the world. great story. very cool.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Rocket Rons...*



scarsellone said:


> What version of the RK's do you have? Supersonic or protection?
> 
> On a side note, did anyone see the new Schwalbe Rocket Ron? The weights are below 400g's for a 2.1 a UST 2.1 is just above 500g's
> I was set on the RK's now I'm contemplating on which tires to try? The downfall on The Schwalbe would be the cost?


3 downsides:
-the given sizes don't correspond with the actual size. that's not typical Schwalbe Style but a 2.25 is rather a 2.0 etc...so you need to look at 1 size bigger than what you actually want...therefore weights go up.

-they are VERY prone to get flats.the sidewall/carcass seems to be identical with the Furious Fred which is pretty bad in this aspect

-they wear very fast.the rubber compound is soft and it is supposed to be a race tire.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Nino,

How can you say/know that if there not even out yet?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*because...*



Tiffster said:


> Nino,
> 
> How can you say/know that if there not even out yet?


because there was a test in german BIKE magazine with all details and because one of the Schwalbe test-riders is writing a lot about it in that german forum you already have posted in.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Ah right ok. Kool :thumbsup:


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

I have MK 2.4's in the protection model on the front and rear. They're mounted to Bontrager Racelite tubeless wheels. I had no problem getting the tires too seal tubeless using stans. The guy helping me did use an air compressor to inflate them rapidly. We inflated them up to about 40lbs or a little higher. They held pressure (dropped maybe two pounds) over night. Since then (three or four months) I have had no issues with the tire. 

I'm running them at about 26lbs. in the front and about 28lbs in the rear. The tire seems to hook up really well at the lower pressures. I started out running them at about 30lbs in the front and 32lbs in the rear. The higher pressures seemed to make the tire not handle as well nor grip (hookup) as well on all surfaces. They were slower (could feel all the knobs on hardpack) with the higher pressure. 

I'm thinking about testing out a RK 2.2 in the protection model on the rear tire and see if I like it. I looking for a little less rolling resistance then the MK. I hope I can get it sealed tubeless, as I don't normally like running tubes.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

Do you think the 2.2 RK's are too big for a full suspension? Everyone feels that the 2.2 are much better. I think for a HT they would be great. Has anyone tried the 2.0 RK's front & back on a FS bike?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*big is much better!*



scarsellone said:


> Do you think the 2.2 RK's are too big for a full suspension? Everyone feels that the 2.2 are much better. I think for a HT they would be great. Has anyone tried the 2.0 RK's front & back on a FS bike?


it won't change it's grip manners if it is mounted on a FS or hardtail!

the slimmer 2.0 RKs didn't do any good on my bike! no grip as soon as the trails got humid. they would wash out easily. the bigger size is days and nights better.faster AND much, MUCH better grip. the slim RKs are 50g lighter but not worth a penny in my opinion.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've switched both my 4x4 FS and hardtail to RK2.2's and it's a huge improvement over Nevegals on both. 

I also noticed yesterday that the rear tire especially is very sensitive to inflation, even a couple of pounds too low makes it squirmy and slow. I was tinkering with pressures and there was a point where dropping a couple of pounds made it feel really wiggly in corners. That pressure will vary for each rider's weight but it looks like it has a narrow sweet spot in inflation, maybe 3-4 pounds wide between too hard and too soft.

I'd also say that you can likely expect to wear out two rear tires to one front tire. My rear tire on the hardtail has the raised edges worn off the knobs already but still has the the little mold tits on the front knobs, including the centre knobs. So the wear is likely comparable to Stick-E rubber on the Kendas, I would wear out two Kenda rear tires to one front tire as well.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*100% agree here*



rockyuphill said:


> I also noticed yesterday that the rear tire especially is very sensitive to inflation, even a couple of pounds too low makes it squirmy and slow. I was tinkering with pressures and there was a point where dropping a couple of pounds made it feel really wiggly in corners. That pressure will vary for each rider's weight but it looks like it has a narrow sweet spot in inflation, maybe 3-4 pounds wide between too hard and too soft.


as mentioned above i had the same impressions when trying different pressure settings and my friend also didn't like it with 2.2 bars and fell in love with 1.9 bar....shows that a little more or less pressure can make a BIG difference. just try different settings and rest assured if you find the sweet spot you'll like it big time!!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Are the Supersonic versions still handmade in Germany or have they got their Taiwan plant geared up to use the Black Chili compound? 

One of the things I've really liked about the original Worldcup Handmade in Germany versions is the tire tread is dead straight on the carcass, no wibbles, wobbles and hops, it has been years since I've seen tires this well made.


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

Tiffster said:


> Rocky,
> 
> You can't do that as the stans solution doesn't make the sidewalls airtight unless air is trying to pass through it in which case the latex goes hard or "skins" to make the seal.
> 
> I have thought about that very same idea though, spraying something on the inside of the tyre before mounting it to help make it airtight - like a sprayable rubber etc but ive never found anything.


Plasti Dip, which is a synthetic rubber is available in a spray can.

http://www.plastidip.com/


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

Has the protection model came out yet? Or only the supersonic / world cup? I looked at Star bikes and Chain reaction's sites and all I could find is the supersonic. Thanks


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

CRC has the 2" Protection model in stock

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=30313


----------



## eagle_no1 (Jun 13, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Are the Supersonic versions still handmade in Germany or have they got their Taiwan plant geared up to use the Black Chili compound?
> 
> One of the things I've really liked about the original Worldcup Handmade in Germany versions is the tire tread is dead straight on the carcass, no wibbles, wobbles and hops, it has been years since I've seen tires this well made.


just bought one from Kadi, from the picture it shows "hand made from Gremeny"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...ageName=ADME:B:WNARL:US:1123#ebayphotohosting


----------



## AZ-X (Feb 16, 2004)

:thumbsup:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I hope it's a long time before they get Taiwan making tires with Black Chili rubber, the German made tires have been so much better in quality.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I just got some 2.2 supersonic RaceKings today. I probably won't use them for a couple of months or when the weather gets worse.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> I hope it's a long time before they get Taiwan making tires with Black Chili rubber, the German made tires have been so much better in quality.


I'm sure they never will. A good compound recipe is not something you'd want to share


----------



## kramerrides (Apr 3, 2007)

nino said:


> it won't change it's grip manners if it is mounted on a FS or hardtail!
> 
> the slimmer 2.0 RKs didn't do any good on my bike! no grip as soon as the trails got humid. they would wash out easily. the bigger size is days and nights better.faster AND much, MUCH better grip. the slim RKs are 50g lighter but not worth a penny in my opinion.


I am sure this was covered somewhere but searching proved fruitless...

I'm certain I've read that the necessary power output increase due to the heavier weight of wider tires is relatively insignificant-- compared to the wattage savings of having better rolling resistance because of the wider tires.

Is there data posted somewhere regarding this? I read through this thread but didn't see any numbers...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*link...*



kramerrides said:


> I am sure this was covered somewhere but searching proved fruitless...
> 
> I'm certain I've read that the necessary power output increase due to the heavier weight of wider tires is relatively insignificant-- compared to the wattage savings of having better rolling resistance because of the wider tires.
> 
> Is there data posted somewhere regarding this? I read through this thread but didn't see any numbers...


correct - i posted a link in posting 61:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=4850701&postcount=97

you sure can feel heavier tires when sprinting/accelerating out of the saddle...they make your bike feel heavier. BUT the advantage of faster rolling is much more important than just that little bit of a light feel you get. traction is better, grip is better,speed is higher ALL THE TIME not only when accelerating (going up, down,flat, also when cruising or not pedalling at all)...but for sure you can't just say fatter is better. there's fat tires that stink big time. but the RK 2.2 is just one of the tires you should try out!

go to analyticcycling and play around a bit:
http://analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html

you'll find out that 1 kilo lighter on the bike on a climb is making a minimal difference.you sure are faster but 100g on a tire aren't making you any faster really. it's the tires rollingeresistance wich has by far greater effect.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

*race king 2.2*

i just ordered them today! lets wait for them.. they seem pretty niceeee


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

I am looking to get a Race King 2.2 model from chain reaction cycles. Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the Race King supersonic and the Race king UCI? They have both models in the 2.2.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

But no stock on the UCI version. That was their original listing when they were only available in the World Cup version, it's been replaced by the Supersonic.


----------



## Goran_injo (Jul 4, 2007)

So, what is the verdict from those of you who tried MK and RK as front tire?

I rode MK up until now, and am very satisfied with it. Is it worth to try RK?


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

> So, what is the verdict from those of you who tried MK and RK as front tire?
> 
> I rode MK up until now, and am very satisfied with it. Is it worth to try RK?


That is exactly the setup I am wanting to try. I've been running the Mountain kings for about five months now and am looking to throw a race king on the rear. My reasoning is for a slightly lower rolling resistance tire that will pedal easier than the king. Also should be lighter that my 2.4 protection model kings, so acceleration might increase too. (I'm kinda relating this combination to running the kenda small block eight on the rear and the nevegal on the front.? maybe)

Maybe someone that has done it will chime in. I know the consensous with the tire is that the Race king 2.2 is better than the 2.0 when it comes to traction and handling. And the recommended pressure is around 28-30lbs or (1.9-2.0 bars, I think; I don't use bars, sorry)

I'm looking to purchase a 2.2 protection when it comes out, but I may go ahead and pick up a supersonic version in the meantime and give it a try.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I would say a MK and RK are different critters. For really variable conditions including deeper mud and All Mountain type riding, the MK would be a better choice as the tread pattern has bigger knobs and more mud clearing. 

I have MK 2.4 Protection on my 6x6 AM bike, and they are superb, but I wouldn't consider the RK's for that application, even though the carcass size is about the same as the RK 2.2. The MK's Black Chili rubber still works well in that application. 

I tried the MK 2.2's on my 4x4 FS and found them really wanting for grip, much like Nino found with the RK 2.0's. Less knobs across the tire seem to equal less grip.

I'd worry that the heavier versions of the RK would give up some of their benefits (light weight and good grip for the weight). I like the RK's on my hardtail and XC FS, but the trails I ride those bikes on are different than I ride my 6x6 bike on. I don't worry about pinch flats or sidewall damage on those XC trails.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

Thanks for the input rockyuphill. The typical trail conditions I ride are clay dirt hard pack singletrack with some rock, not big rocks mainly small gravel. Other sections are covered in pine needles, the MK's really dig in well in the needles, and some sections are heavily rooted. The large carcass of the MKs really helps with the rooty sections and tackling logs and rock gardens when I travel to different trails. 

I've seen many riders running the small block eight (rear)/ nevegal (front) combo at the trails. The trails are not really all mountain, maybe one or two sections with moguls and drops would qualify. I would call them XC with some AM in the mix, and I rarely ride in the mud. Winter brings some more dampness and leaves. Would the race king work in this application?


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

Oh and the bike is an 07 fisher Hifi pro 120mm travel up front and about 4.5 inches of travel in the rear. Thanks for your help.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That sort of trail surface is ideal for the RK's.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

Thats the answer I was hoping to hear. Thanks for you help. I think i'm gonna pick up one for the rear and give it a shot.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*front too...*



jmb123 said:


> Thats the answer I was hoping to hear. Thanks for you help. I think i'm gonna pick up one for the rear and give it a shot.


get 2 of them! you won't regret.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

What's all this then?


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

rockyuphill

where did u get those and how much?


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

Ugly.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It's from Singletrack Magazine's Interbike coverage.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

ohh nice.. anyone know the difference of that compound?


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> What's all this then?


Too kewl for school, eh? Nice.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Maybe it's White Chili compound? There was no write up, just the pic.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

It's "Just" a white finish nothing special just special editon colour.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

is there any difference between the 2.0 and 2.2?

i bought 2.2 and just arrived 2.0 AGHH 

 

so im thinking to just send them back..
what u guys think?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Nino found the grip on the 2.0's substantially less than the 2.2 (up a couple of dozen posts).


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

send them back, I have ridden both and the 2.0 is not as good as the 2.2 The 2.0 just doesnt have the magic feel of the 2.2 The 2.2 have a great ride, awesome grip and brake well.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

than you for your opinions guys
im sending them back!!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*good description...*



KenDobson said:


> send them back, I have ridden both and the 2.0 is not as good as the 2.2 The 2.0 just doesnt have the magic feel of the 2.2 The 2.2 have a great ride, awesome grip and brake well.


this sums it up very good: the 2.0 lacks the magic of the 2.2

the 2.0 is a decent tire but the 2.2 is so much better it's unreal.forget the 50g weight penalty of the bigger size! it is MUCH better in every other aspect!!!


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

Where can I get Race Kings in the US? I can't find them on any of the usual catalog sites.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I got mine two days after I ordered them from my local bike shop. I'm in Canada.
Maybe all the Americans ordered them at the same time and they're sold out everywhere?
It couldn't have been any easier for me to get them.


----------



## grimes_joseph (Sep 13, 2004)

anybody got proto 29x2.2 versions yet?? kerkoveJ?? nino?? anyone?? i see it only comes in non-tubeless but i want to try with stan's. just scrub out the slippery stuff first?? thanks in advance.

jg


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

schlim said:


> Where can I get Race Kings in the US? I can't find them on any of the usual catalog sites.


Chain Reaction Cycles is as fast as anything.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Chain Reaction Cycles is as fast as anything.


Can't quite justify $30 for shipping.

Anyone know if they've shown up in J&B or QBP yet?


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

I ordered the 2.2 supersonics! I'm a little worried about sidewall tears, but if I like the grip and they tear, I can get the protection version.


----------



## jadis3 (Nov 18, 2007)

I am planning to sell a new pair of RaceKing 2.2 WorldCup Limited on eBay next week


----------



## Bends But Doesn't Break (Jun 23, 2008)

schlim said:


> Where can I get Race Kings in the US? I can't find them on any of the usual catalog sites.


Quick Froogle search came up with http://www.bikesomewhere.com/bikesomewhere.cfm/productLarge/38/218/26126?i=default


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They do have the Supersonic models as well


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

On bikesomewhere.com, they have a couple of models. I'm looking for 26x2.2, so I'm narrowed down to the wire bead, folding version, or supersonic. I know the supersonic is the lightest and uses the black chili compound rubber (which I like), but what is the difference between the other two besides cost? I know folding and wire bead is different, just need and explanation of how and why folding is better/ cost more? 

I'll probably end up getting the supersonic version, but just wondering. I also almost got some off of Chain Reaction but couldn't justify $30 shipping.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The wire bead is cheaper, heavier and not Black Chili rubber. You either want the Supersonic or the Protection versions, they are the only two with the Black Chili rubber. Protection has sturdier sidewalls to reduce pinch flats if you ride in rocky areas, supersonic is lighter and has very light sidewalls.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

I figured the wire bead wasn't what I wanted, but the protection model isn't offered in a 2.2 anywhere yet is it? I haven't been able to find it. I'm currently running the Mountain king protection 2.4's and love them, so I'm familiar with them. I'm guessing the folding version on that site isn't the protection version otherwise it would be $58 like the supersonic. 

I don't think I would have trouble with blowing a sidewall (if I chose the supersonics) on my normal trail, but some other trails may pose a problem. I need the protection 2.2 model to come out! Ha

Thanks for your help


----------



## tropper (Oct 3, 2008)

I ordered the RK Protection from Chain Reaction and they don't seem to be Black Chili. In fact they are made in India rather than Germany. The build quality is average. They are more like the SK Protection which didn't come in Black Chili either. I think I'll send them back and get them replaced by the Supersonic version which I believe they are the only RK with Black Chili.

The Continental websites have contradictory information for the RK and depending on the language you select they tell you the following:
- English: all versions Supersonic and Protection are suposed to come with Black Chili and Hand made in Germany - this I found it to be incorrect
- German: only the Supersonics are supposed to come with Black Chili. Protection come with standard compound - this is the correct info

I am still doubting about the 2.0 or 2.2 version. I plan to do 60% road and 40% mountain as I use the bike for commuting. What would you advise? Is the 2.2 so much better in mountain that could offset the potential advantage of the 2.0 on the road?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The 2.2" roll very fast on pavement and are the best on the trail. The Conti website originally indicated that the Protection and Supersonic were the only two tires in Black Chili, and both were made in Germany, but the latest Conti website info indicates it is just the Supersonic in Black Chili. Damn!

_World Champion!

The Race King has presented itself as any talented newcomer would do : With victories!

Irana Kalentieva took it's first prototype to podium positions of both the MTB XC world cup and the world championships in 2007.

Available in two widths of 2.0" & 2.2", large vloume casing combined with a low profile tread pattern and Black Chili compound are just what ensures a head start on fast paced technical world cup tracks and marathon trails.

*ProTection and wire/fold variants are also available (non Black Chili)*, along with 29" and UST versions which will be available in 2009. _


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

tropper said:


> I plan to do 60% road and 40% mountain as I use the bike for commuting. What would you advise? Is the 2.2 so much better in mountain that could offset the potential advantage of the 2.0 on the road?


You're going to wear the knobs off any mountain bike tire by riding on the road. I'm guessing the black chilli compound wears even faster than standard rubber would on the road. It's a waste of money and energy to ride knobbies on the road.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

*Fantastic*

Thanks everyone. I finally tried the 2.2 SS yesterday, & they are great. I think I found my new race tire! I felt totally in control! Roll fast. I also was conviced the Nokian NBX lites were my favourite tires, but so far like these RK 2.2 even better. I also have a set of 2.0. I don't know if i should try or sell?
Thanks rockyuphill, nino, KERKOVEJ . You guys rock! *You are test pilots! *Without guys like you we would be blowing all kinds of money! It's nice to get it right the first time!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*sell the 2.0 !*



scarsellone said:


> Thanks everyone. I finally tried the 2.2 SS yesterday, & they are great. I think I found my new race tire! I felt totally in control! Roll fast. I also was conviced the Nokian NBX lites were my favourite tires, but so far like these RK 2.2 even better. I also have a set of 2.0. I don't know if i should try or sell?
> Thanks rockyuphill, nino, KERKOVEJ . You guys rock! *You are test pilots! *Without guys like you we would be blowing all kinds of money! It's nice to get it right the first time!


you can defnitely sell the 2.0

the 2.2 is better in EVERY single aspect except weight but those 50g are well worth the upgrade in grip,comfort,faster rolling and control.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

Best tires, good grip, cornering.
Excellent tire!! i changed the 2.0 by the 2.2

I tried them today in my local trails, rocks, sand, loose dirt they were awesome!!
thank you guys for recommending them!


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

Got mine!! 460g and 470g in the 2.2 version on my Alpine hanging scale. Sadly, it'll be awhile before I can try the tires because the intended frame hasn't arrived yet.

Get em while they're hot at Phat Tire bikes:
http://phattire1.stores.yahoo.net/corakimobiti.html


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Just put in an order for mine. Here's to hoping they clear my frame in the rear else I might have to trade someone for a 2.0.:yikes: :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## DanielM3 (Nov 12, 2006)

Just ordered some as well. Has anyone run these tubeless yet? Just curious how they will seal up?


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

DanielM3 said:


> Just ordered some as well. Has anyone run these tubeless yet? Just curious how they will seal up?


Several people have, just go back and actually read the thread. It seems some people have had trouble with it sealing up due to a mold release agent applied to the interior of the carcass. As soon as mine arrive I intend to give them a vigorous scrubbing prior to setting them up with Stans. I'll post how it all works out.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

The 2.2 SuperSonics RKs have a huge volume! They barely fit on my bike and the front brake loop (I use Avid Mag Vs) are practically touching the tire. Much larger than the 2.3 Speed Kings I took off. Should be super comfy. They seem to require lower pressure as well, I run tubes and usually run my SKs at ~33psi, I will be running the RKs at about ~31psi.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

I should get mine today or tomorrow. In the event that the 2.2 rear doesn't fit my already-tight frame, does anyone have a 2.0 supersonic they want to trade me?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Oh yeah... big. :thumbsup:

The 2.0 doesn't have the same kind of grip that the 2.2 does. If it doesn't fit then a different tire might be a better choice. I think a big part of the grip comes from the ability for the large volume carcass to deform and hold on to surfaces. Even on wet roots and rocks where there is some slippage, it's like 60% grip 40% slip, so it never just loses it.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

I tried one i got a borrow of, it wouldn't fit my frame


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

My prob is chainstay side clearance. I can take a taller narrow tire but at the very least the mold nipples will rub frame. Right now I have an SB8 in the rear and when things get in it, it'll rub a bit (plus it's not the best molded from the factory). Thankfully my wheels are pretty narrow and dont spread the bead out much so it might work.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

The mold nipples (is that what they are called?) rub on my chainstays a little but that still means I have about 1/4" clearance. That will have to do.



dinoadventures said:


> My prob is chainstay side clearance. I can take a taller narrow tire but at the very least the mold nipples will rub frame. Right now I have an SB8 in the rear and when things get in it, it'll rub a bit (plus it's not the best molded from the factory). Thankfully my wheels are pretty narrow and dont spread the bead out much so it might work.


----------



## sanrensho (Feb 20, 2004)

Tubedriver said:


> The mold nipples (is that what they are called?)


Nibs. They're called nibs.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

Nibs! That sounds better.:thumbsup: "Mold nipples" gave me the willies [shudders]. rft:



sanrensho said:


> Nibs. They're called nibs.


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

Here are some shots of the Race King 2.2 Supersonic on my newly acquired Orbea Alma frame. 

As you can see, there is a bit of clearance left, which makes me happy. It's a big volume tire! The bead is a little loose on the Crossmax rims, so I don't think it'll be a tubeless candidate for me. I have flyweight butyl tubes on the way. I'll have a ride report when I have a complete bike.


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

A couple more pics:


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

i cant get over how tall this tire is. 

i so hope mine come through tomorrow so i can get them set up tubeless in time for the weekend.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

I went on an epic fast night ride (for me anyway) and it just happened to be my first ride on my new Race Kings 2.2. Unbelievably good tire!:thumbsup: 


The ride is typical east coast riding (lots of hills, stream crossings, various rock gardens and root bowls, 1-2.5' drop offs) and the pace was quick for a little less than 3 hours.

The Race King rolls as fast as any tire I have tried. The large volume provides a ton of cushion, I bounced off rocks and roots that I missed seeing and the tires saved me. Straight line grip was very good and I was able to clear some hills that had more experienced riders with uber expensive gear walking.

I think the single best characteristic of the Race King is how they handle turns. They lean over and the traction/feel during this transition remains absolutely linear. Awesome!

I had some grip issues with traction through uphill rock gardens directly following a stream crossing as the wet tire would slip and slide a little but certainly no worse then any other tires I have used (mainly Explorer Pro and Vertical Pros). 

I have the SuperSonic version and they held up fine although I am a light rider (140lbs) and tend to not break stuff much. I run lightweight tubes and set pressure to 31 psi. I would probably go lower ~29-30 at some less technical trails.

The Race King 2.2 is easily the best overall tire I have ever used.







P.S. The Speed King 2.3 I just removed (after 3-4 rides) is easily the worst tire I have ever used. Complete POS.:madman:


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Tubedriver said:


> I had some grip issues with traction through uphill rock gardens directly following a stream crossing as the wet tire would slip and slide a little but certainly no worse then any other tires I have used (mainly Explorer Pro and Vertical Pros).
> 
> I have the SuperSonic version and they held up fine although I am a light rider (140lbs) and tend to not break stuff much. I run lightweight tubes and set pressure to 31 psi. I would probably go lower ~29-30 at some less technical trails.


I would hazard a guess that you could probably get away with much less than 29-31 psi, considering your weight. I ride mine in the 23-25 psi range, and I've got 40+lbs on you. I realise that you're running them with tubes, and I'm running them a la Stan's, but barring any craziness, with their substantial volume, you could avoid pinch flats with much lower pressure. This would also go a really long way to improving your wet rock traction :thumbsup: .


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd agree, mine are down in the 29-31 PSI range and I'm 195 pounds and they have lots of grip on wet roots and rocks, so a lighter person could easily get away with less PSI. On a 17mm wide rim they get squirmy in cornering below 28PSI for my weight..


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> I'd agree, mine are down in the 29-31 PSI range and I'm 195 pounds and they have lots of grip on wet roots and rocks, so a lighter person could easily get away with less PSI. On a 17mm wide rim they get squirmy in cornering below 28PSI for my weight..


thats why there is a tire recomendation for each rim width to avoid the tires from 'rolling' when cornering: http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html also each rim manufacturer should state that.
for a 17mm wide rim the limit is 2.1 tires.

I have to say I'm amazed how someone can ride such a baloon tire for XC... and they even make biger tires? thats a freeride tire


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Don't knock it till you try it....


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

I agree but there where so many big rocks I wanted to err on the side on trying to save my wheels from getting banged up.

I am riding a much less technical trail tonight so I will start at 28 psi and bleed them on the trail till they feel right.



BlownCivic said:


> I would hazard a guess that you could probably get away with much less than 29-31 psi, considering your weight. I ride mine in the 23-25 psi range, and I've got 40+lbs on you. I realise that you're running them with tubes, and I'm running them a la Stan's, but barring any craziness, with their substantial volume, you could avoid pinch flats with much lower pressure. This would also go a really long way to improving your wet rock traction :thumbsup: .


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> Don't knock it till you try it....


hhmm ok send me a pair, I really need new tires


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> I'd agree, mine are down in the 29-31 PSI range and I'm 195 pounds and they have lots of grip on wet roots and rocks, so a lighter person could easily get away with less PSI. On a 17mm wide rim they get squirmy in cornering below 28PSI for my weight..


I'm 175# and I run all of my tires at 30psi with tubes on XC rims and haven't had a pinchflat. I'll admit that it is pushing the envelope sometimes when hitting square step-ups hard with the rear wheel, but I haven't had any failures yet.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

just got them mounted up... they fit! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

fork clearance 









chainstay









seatstay









pardon the dust, it's a mountain bike after all.









everyone at the shop joked about my 'enormous cruiser balloon tires'

we'll see who laughs last after i give them the full field test this weekend. right now i have tubes in them to round them out before i rig up the stan's. the insides are VERY slick with mold release compound and i'll have to scrub them vigorously to remove it so the stans will stick.


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

You will love them, they roll great and have alot of grip. The size gives them a smooth fast ride. They will wear quickly. I have ordered three 2.2 and one 2.0 from starbike. I really need one more 2.2 for a complete set for next summer. The set Im running now will be worn out just in time to switch to mountain kings 2.4 or fat alberts 2.25.

Good luck


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jul 10, 2008)

Has anyone mounted the 2.2 on Crossmax SLRs? I'm curious if they too wide of tires for the rims and will feel squishy and non responsive?


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

I have SLR's. They worked great! I tried them with tubes. I will eventually try them tubeless. I'm not sure how they would feel running tubeless? Nino mentions that using tubes with them might be better? better control?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm running them on XTR and SLR's, they work pretty much the same on both. The Supersonics snap onto the bead shoulder with the same ping on both at about 50psi using Maxxis light tubes. The tire casing width is about 2mm narrower on the SLR rims when inflated to the same pressure (52.5mm versus 54.5mm on the XTR).


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

Ran them last night at my usual afterwork trail (pretty smooth, some streams and roots/logs but not very technical overall). Started at 30 psi (with tubes) on Crossmax STs. I ended up bleeding them down to 25 psi. I probably could go lower but don't want to give up cornering stability for a little more straight line grip and cushioning.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

You'll also find that you will hit some point in dropping the pressure where they also start to roll much much slower, usually about the same place where they get squirmy in the rear under cornering loads.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

I just ordered one! Race King Protection 2.2. I know it's not the Black Chili Compound (even though their site says it is in english with different info in german), but I couldn't risk sidewall puncture. I'm only going to run one on the rear to it test for now. This tire won't have enough tread to provide grip in leafy conditions for the winter will it? I'm gonna leave the mountain king 2.4 on the front and try the RK on the rear and if the conditions of winter seem to burly, I'll switch back to the MK on the rear for the rest of winter.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The only place I've had the RK skid or slip is in deeper slick mud (with lots of water and silt or clay). It seems to grip well on wet leaves (unless they're sitting on a smooth wet wood bridge deck with decaying leaf slime, that stuff makes teflon look sticky). But much like the forward slippage on really wet rocks (like flowing water wet) you get about 60% grip and 40% slip so there's time to catch it.

At least with the Protection version you can run slightly lower pressure.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> The only place I've had the RK skid or slip is in deeper slick mud (with lots of water and silt or clay). It seems to grip well on wet leaves (unless they're sitting on a smooth wet wood bridge deck with decaying leaf slime, that stuff makes teflon look sticky). But much like the forward slippage on really wet rocks (like flowing water wet) you get about 60% grip and 40% slip so there's time to catch it.
> 
> At least with the Protection version you can run slightly lower pressure.


Awesome! I hope I can make it last as a winter tire, cause once I switch from the MK 2.4 protection 750g to it 570g I doubt I'll want to go back. My home trails are mostly clay dirt but they stay amazingly dry even through winter. Leaves have posed problems in the past when they combine with pine needles, but I don't think it'll be an issue. We do have bridges but they are covered with black tacky / sandpaper stuff to prevent slippage during the winter months.

Do you think I'll have any problems mounting the protection tubeless. It'll be going on a bontrager race lite rim. The MK's sealed easily the first time and only lost 5lbs the first night.

Funny I mention such a heavy wheel on this forum, I'm getting new wheels before spring though! Looking at having some ZTR olympic or 355's built up with either some Chris King hubs or maybe some industry nines.... can't wait.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Put about 40 miles on the RK 2.2 SS's yesterday. Loose-over-hardpack clay, loose shale and sandstone, peapack gravel, tons of rocks (some real jagged stuff too). Ran about 30 psi as i was using tubes to round out the tire so it'll set up nicer tubeless. I started rolling very early in the morning so the heavy dew mixed with clay (we don't have actual mud in this part of Texas) accumulated on the tread but it still held VERY well. Hosed it off after the first lap and the trail was dry by then. These things are INCREDIBLE. They do absolutely everything I could ask of a tire for the conditions above. I'm totally sold. 

That said... moving on to tubeless. I set them up on American Classic MTB 26 wheels (pictured above). These are very narrow so it took a bit of finess to get the rim strip seated and tensioned right (I actually wish it were smaller so I could stretch it more). It is VERY important to run these tubed for a while to round them out from their folded state. To seat the tire, I used an air compressor with a presta valve attachment mounted onto the valve stem with valve core removed. After a few tries, I could comfortably seat the tire this way, so i added sealant, filled it with air, covered the valve stem while i replaced the valve core, and proceeded with the rest of the instructions. The sealant was bleeding through the sidewalls in many places and it didn't appear to be sticking. I suspect the release agent from the molding is to blame for this and it resulted in a slow leak (more the front than the rear). I'm going to try some more today, possibly involving scrubbing the interior to try to remove the release agent.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I've always had great luck when trying to seal these things by just doing a 45-60 minute ride. Seems that this does the trick when all else fails (repeated shaking, lying on the side).


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

it seems i've got the rear sealed pretty good now but i'm still having some tiny sidewall holes that havent sealed yet on my front one. i'll do the shake/lie on side thing a few more tries then give it a spin to the local trail and a few times around tonight.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

*Sidwall durability for tubeless*

Has anybody who has set up the Supersonics as tubeless cut their sidewalls? How's the durability looking?


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Okay, so I have got the tubeless procedure down for these. Using more or less the standard tubeless procedure, mine held about 30 psi comfortably. That's fine, but I wanted to be extra sure, so I put 45 psi in them to see how it would hold. Very tiny blisters of rubber and air formed on the sidewalls, predominantly in the checkerboard-pattern area. I popped them several at a time with my fingernail and turned that part of the tire downwards and gave it a shake. I repeated this twice, letting the other one sit on alternating sides when I wasn't working on it, topping it off to 45 psi in between. When I was done, I let it sit overnight and checked the pressure in the morning and it was still 45 psi. I'm pleased, so I'm going to drop it back to 28-30 psi and go ride it tonight.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

dinoadventures said:


> Okay, so I have got the tubeless procedure down for these. Using more or less the standard tubeless procedure, mine held about 30 psi comfortably. That's fine, but I wanted to be extra sure, so I put 45 psi in them to see how it would hold. Very tiny blisters of rubber and air formed on the sidewalls, predominantly in the checkerboard-pattern area. I popped them several at a time with my fingernail and turned that part of the tire downwards and gave it a shake. I repeated this twice, letting the other one sit on alternating sides when I wasn't working on it, topping it off to 45 psi in between. When I was done, I let it sit overnight and checked the pressure in the morning and it was still 45 psi. I'm pleased, so I'm going to drop it back to 28-30 psi and go ride it tonight.


when converting to tubeless with sealant, I don' t think you are supposed to pump the pressure past what you intend to ride at... sometimes it seems necessary to get tire beads to seat properly though.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

Got my Race king Protection 2.2 in this week. Haven't tried to mount it tubeless yet. Put it on with a tube last night. I'm not quite pleased with the tire, it seems since I elected to get the protection (non handmade) version I have sacrificed quality. Not terribly, but the the tread on the center doesn't line up quite right, which I'm not too picky, but kinda bothers me. Also the tire seems to have a wobble in it. My mountain kings spun true as you can get, granted they were protection models and "handmade in germany". I don't think my wheel is out of true, but I'll have to check to be sure.

I guess what I'm asking is will this tire shape up better after some rides (deformation from packaging / just not set completely right yet) or is it just poorly made and will never roll as true as the MK's? It doens't have to be perfect seeing as I'm not a racer or anything, but the wobble is easily noticeable while spinning the tire.


----------



## Matti (Aug 27, 2008)

I have a set of Race King world cup that I've used for approx 2000 km's, and the front one is still wobbly I'm afraid. Mounted them on a new true wheelset a week ago, but that didn't change anything. Still it's such a great tire, so I don't let it bother me.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

Matti said:


> I have a set of Race King world cup that I've used for approx 2000 km's, and the front one is still wobbly I'm afraid. Mounted them on a new true wheelset a week ago, but that didn't change anything. Still it's such a great tire, so I don't let it bother me.


Ok well at least it hasn't affected performance too bad. I'm gonna check and make sure the wheel is true and that I have it set in the dropout all the way. Thanks for your help.

I'm ready to get this thing out on the trail!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Are the Protection versions handmade in Germany like the Supersonic versions? It should say on the side somewhere. That was one aspect of the RK Supersonics that I have been very happy with, the tread and carcass are dead straight and wobble free.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Any place in the US actually have the 2.2's? I'd like to latch onto a pair of the Super Sonic version.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Are the Protection versions handmade in Germany like the Supersonic versions? It should say on the side somewhere. That was one aspect of the RK Supersonics that I have been very happy with, the tread and carcass are dead straight and wobble free.


The protection versions are not "handmade in germany", and no it doesn't say it on the side of the tire. The supersonic's are the only model of the race king that are handmade and have the black chili compound. My MK 2.4's are protection models, and are perfect in terms of manufacturing.

On Conti's site it says protection and supersonic models will be handmade and black chili compound IN ENGLISH. But in German, it says only supersonic models will be handmade and black chili. Kinda BS if you ask me.

I was hoping that the protection race king would be of better quality. I'm gonna ride it anyway to try out the tread pattern and if I like it, I might order a supersonic version.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

IAmtnbikr said:


> Any place in the US actually have the 2.2's? I'd like to latch onto a pair of the Super Sonic version.


I bought mine off Phat Tire for about 90 shipped for the pair.


----------



## 743power (Sep 25, 2007)

IAmtnbikr said:


> Any place in the US actually have the 2.2's? I'd like to latch onto a pair of the Super Sonic version.


they're not in stock at conti. Waiting for some to come in so I can try them.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jmb123 said:


> I'm gonna ride it anyway to try out the tread pattern and if I like it, I might order a supersonic version.


ask MotoGP racerValentino Rossi if he likes his tread....i'd say it's also the rubber that affects the RKs super performance by a big degree.that thing hooks up amazingly. i'm not sure if you will get the same grip with their "standard" rubber.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

this year Rossi loves his tires, but last year he was pretty upset about his michelins.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*tread?*



ginsu2k said:


> this year Rossi loves his tires, but last year he was pretty upset about his michelins.


yet both brands slicks look the same....it's the RUBBER that makes the difference. that's what i meant.


----------



## Pushead (May 17, 2006)

nino said:


> yet both brands slicks look the same....it's the RUBBER that makes the difference. that's what i meant.


I believe that it must be lot to do, how hole construction and carcass of tire is working, how Rossi likes his tires. Not only rubber...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Pushead said:


> I believe that it must be lot to do, how hole construction and carcass of tire is working, how Rossi likes his tires. Not only rubber...


correct-i know that as well but you still get the point: that standard rubber protection version might offer weaker performance than the black-chili compound supersonic version (which also differs in carcass).


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

brentos said:


> Has anybody who has set up the Supersonics as tubeless cut their sidewalls? How's the durability looking?


Took mine on a trail with all sorts of pointy limestone all over it and rode them hard for rather significant mileage. theres dirt marks all over the carcass from where it interacted with rocks, but zero sidewall damage.


----------



## evil genius (Jun 15, 2006)

Is the Race King UST out yet? I know its going to be heavier.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Chain Reaction Cycles has them

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=31581


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

dinoadventures said:


> Took mine on a trail with all sorts of pointy limestone all over it and rode them hard for rather significant mileage. theres dirt marks all over the carcass from where it interacted with rocks, but zero sidewall damage.


Thanks, so has anybody cut their sidewalls on the Supersonics? Just trying to figure out how MUCH risk there is of cutting them. Thanks again!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It depends on how and where you ride. If you cut or damage sidewalls now, then the Supersonics are thin and are likely to be more catastrophically damaged. If you never damage sidewalls now then they're no more prone to damage on trails that don't damage other tires. You likely won't want to use them around flinty sort of rock or big thorns,


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> You likely won't want to use them around flinty sort of rock or big thorns,


I've rolled mine through pointy shale riverbeds lots of times and I've pulled out several 2"+ thorns from them prob free. We have a few trees here with epic thorns. Short of taking a branch off one of these and giving the tire a few whacks to the sidewall with it, i can't foresee having a prob with these in any situations we would have in these parts.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

There's a stretch of trail here that is covered in the output from a tunnel boring machine that's been going through granite, so lots of sharp chips and blades of granite, and no issues at all so far.


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

Finally got out and tried the Race king Protection 2.2. I'm running tubes and did not want to risk a flat so I ran about 32lbs of pressure (I weigh 165lbs with gear.) I thought the tire hooked up great. The ground was nice and tacky in areas and covered in leaves in others. Overall I really liked the tire, it didn't corner as well as the Mountain king mainly due to the leaves and dampness of the trail this weekend, but pedaling efficiency and climbing bite were up to par enough for me. I'm gonna try and run this tire through the winter. Once I get it setup with stan's I'm gonna lower the pressure to about 28lbs.

Also, the deformation / wobble I mentioned in an earlier post, has straightened out after riding the tire for about 9 miles, must have been just not seated completely in the bead hook or something. There is still one litlle wobble but nothing compared to when I first mounted it. 

Thanks for all your help guys.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I was out on the weekend on the RK 2.2's. A variety of trail surfaces, from leafy trails with some tacky soil underneath them and some loamy stuff with a few muddy spots about 4"-5" deep. In the deep loamy puddles they can be a bit squirmy if you hit them with any lateral velocity, but are good straight on. I had good traction even on the leafy stuff at 30psi at my 195pound weight.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I just finished an autumn ride on mine as well. Lots of leaves, and plenty of tacky moist loam and dirt. I ran mine at 25 psi rear and 23 psi front. Plenty of grip and I didn't feel any squirm. Yeti ASR-C with me geared up at around 190 lbs. (I gained a bit of weight over the last few months). They are set up tubeless with the front mounted on a Stan's Race 7000 and the rear on an Olympic.


----------



## flafonta (Feb 6, 2008)

dinoadventures said:


> Took mine on a trail with all sorts of pointy limestone all over it and rode them hard for rather significant mileage. theres dirt marks all over the carcass from where it interacted with rocks, but zero sidewall damage.


Dinoadventures, I think you are also from DORBA land. Have you ever tried the Racing Ralf, and if so, how do you compare them to the Race King? I am debating between the 2 for XC racing in the area.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Going to try RR/FF Schwalbe's for now and continue to look for some Conti's also.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

flafonta said:


> Dinoadventures, I think you are also from DORBA land. Have you ever tried the Racing Ralf, and if so, how do you compare them to the Race King? I am debating between the 2 for XC racing in the area.


That's right. I'm in the area of AH.

I have used the 07 RRs but not the new ones. I thought they were okay, but I decided to go back to crossmarks/sb8, which I ran until I got the RK2.2's. So far I've run them at JB, RCP, Solavaca, AH, and LBH. Now I'm gonna get another pair for my singlespeed. They're incredibly awesome tires and fast as all get-out.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

*just installed a set of 08 Conti Race King Supersonic 26 x 2.2...*

just installed a set of 08 Conti Race King Supersonic 26 x 2.2 on the wifes DT Swiss/ Specialized wheels (that came with her 08 Stumpjumper Pro Carbon) she loathed the S-Works Captain tires that came with her bike! 2 sets of RK Supersonic were purchased from starbikes, postage to California from Germany took just 10 days.

the RK were a tighter fit on the DT Swiss 4.2 rims than the (brilliant) 08 Schwalbe Racing Ralf Evo 26x 2.1 tires that i installed on my Crossmax SLR wheelset last week - and so were alot easier to inflate to 40 psi to settle in (with a 60ml bottle of Hutchinson Protect Air in each tire, she is not as big a fan of Stan's products as moi).

don't see the advantage of riding with a tube before switching to sealant with the thin wall Supersonics, the RK bead popped easily from folded with plenty of liquid soap and a few spins & a good shake before inflation with a floor pump. thicker sidewall versions of the tire might benefit from training though.

we'll probably be starting the RK at 26 psi front & 30 psi rear for starters she's under 125lb, i'm 165lb fully loaded, 60 miles already on my RR @ approx 25 psi F & 30 psi R on the steep/dry/loose/fast hardpack over here in the Santa Monica Mountains.

thanks to everyone whose posted info on this thread, its been really invaluable.


----------



## Stalk (May 24, 2005)

I got my pair from Starbike (2.2 Supersonic) and they came in 470g and 471g.
Went ahead and put them tubless right away on the Sunringle RPM lite rim. I've used standard rim strip since I couldn't find any references to RPM lite and think it's quite different from Rhyno Lite that requires special rimstrip.

Since rim had deep curved profile it's was impossible to inflate RKs using just a floor pump. I had to put foam strip from HW store under rim strip which gave me tight interface between tire and srip. Each wheel took about 1 day of pumping and shaking time to time before it was able to hold air overnight.

While it's not best way to test new tire setup I took those to intense 35miles/6,4Kft ride. Inflated to about 30PSI tires held perfectly all day and never slept except few very loose downhill spots. They give a lot of control while cornering and behave much better than SB8 I'm used to ride on my bigger bike. 
Other day I started a quick ride and rear tire was very low PSI (around 20ish) Ride started extremely plush on the climb untill I hit few rocks on the DH section and started to spew Stans and air slowly. So I guess my rim configuration wouldn't allow extremely low pressures. 
I gonna ride it hard and see hows sidewalls will hold. If it would work well on HT, I gonna put one instead of SB8 2.35 on the rear of my Nomad, since this tire look like a winner in all other departments. Of course I may look for Protection version for Nomad in case Supersonic casing will not stand hard obuse.

This tire is so plush, that sometimes I forget to turn-off lockout on the SID and don't feel much of a difference


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jul 10, 2008)

Did you have to do any special stuff like scrubbing them down before hand to get these to seal up?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

how tall is the Race King 2.2 tire? this is measured from the ground to the rim.
Would like to compare with my tires.


----------



## Stalk (May 24, 2005)

I did nothing to them. Just install, pump, shake and repeat after few hours.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Tall....*



sergio_pt said:


> how tall is the Race King 2.2 tire? this is measured from the ground to the rim.
> Would like to compare with my tires.


mines are about 55mm from rim to ground. that's on Crossmax and Amclassic rims.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> mines are about 55mm from rim to ground. that's on Crossmax and Amclassic rims.


thanks nino. They are the same height as the 2.0 pythons, not that big after all.
Someone is labeling the tires wrong.. I thought we had standards. After all...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*don't tell me...*



sergio_pt said:


> thanks nino. They are the same height as the 2.0 pythons, not that big after all.
> Someone is labeling the tires wrong.. I thought we had standards. After all...


don't tell me: you are using Pythons?????? i can't believe it.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> don't tell me: you are using Pythons?????? i can't believe it.


yep They are good enough to ride fast.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no they aren't*



sergio_pt said:


> yep They are good enough to ride fast.


just imagine what your speed would be like with good rubber....


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

came in second in my category on these today. darn good rubber. 

that said, pointy shale rocks seem to take tiny chunks out of the knobs. hasnt turned into a problem yet.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

finished 3rd today in a race, amazed with this tires, they do a good job on loose sand and rocks


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*test...*



sergio_pt said:


> yep They are good enough to ride fast.


Hutchinson Pythons....i hope you aren't using the 2.3 version 
not much better if it's the 2,1 Version...and Grip has never been a strong point either.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

damn I need to learn German!

I'm using the 2.0 pythons the tubed version with stans. I dont like them much for the grip at cornering but they stick well on stright uphills. Also the UST version is much better than even being heavier, because they roll better and do not burp air and better protection.

But as weightweenieeeeeeee I'm always looking for lighter stuff. 

Has anyone compared the race king with the racing ralph? wich one is better?

nino in your chart we see that the RR is better that the race king, wich one do you prefer?
we also have the chart the schwalbe RR +eclipse as the best rollling tire with 18.9W wich size is it?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I just picked up another pair of the RK 2.2 Supersonics, and though they're still labeled Handmade in Germany, those hands appear to be trying to bump up the production volume as the carcass and tread are not nearly as straight and wobble free as the original couple of World Cup versions I bought. These are all mounted on XTR wheels so the bead shoulder is the same on all of them and they all appear to be equally well seated on the bead. The small line around the bead is equally spaced to the rim, but the tread appears to be less than perfectly aligned on the carcass. :skep: That's too bad, the accuracy of construction was one of the things I liked best about them. :bluefrown:


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

I like pythons, 3000km and still 70% on rear, front like new. Weight 515 and 530g. RK weight is great. I'm curious about RK 2.0 and RK 2.2. How fast do they wear? I hate to change tires, so I need univeral tire, python is quite universal. Will RK 2.2 handle in wet conditions, mud etc?
I can have RK for $78 with shipping is it good price?


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm not the biggest fan of the Python or New Python (really not) but just to be fair and because I really enjoy reading all the good information provided on this forum (by Nino and others), I'd like to correct the information Nino posted about the Python.

The 2.3 version shown on the message below is the Python New Generation (with more lateral grip since 2005) in MRC Medium version which is the All Mountain version of the tire with soft compound, 66tpi and a bit on the "heavy" and thick side in order to be resistant.

So here we are comparing the Race King 2.2 Supersonic with Black Chili compound and a really light and cross-country oriented carcass to an All-mountain strong version of the Python... (you said yourself Nino that Race King protection probably doesn't compare well to a Supersonic because different or the different carcass and rubber compound)

A shame the 2.3 python doesn't exist in cross-country version. But if we wanted to make a fair comparison, there are two light cross-country version of the Python in 2.0 --> Air Light (127 Tpi, 500gr, tubetype), Tubeless ready (127 Tpi, 540gr, tubeless ready). I'm not saying the Race King wouldn't be better... but the difference probably wouldn't be that much.

Here is the test made by bike magazin on the old tubeless python back in 2003 :


If only Continental and Schwalbe could make their Racing Ralph and Race King in tubeless ready, we wouldn't have to ask again and again these questions : "is it safe to ride this tyre tubeless", "have you managed to inflate it without tube", etc.
I don't understand why all high end tyres don't have a tubeless ready version, it only adds 40 to 50gr to the tyre and makes our lives so much more simple !!! :madman:


----------



## Matti (Aug 27, 2008)

A week ago or so I mentioned in this same thread that my RK 2.2 have been in use for approx 2000 km's. Well, the very next day I popped the sidewall on the rear tyre. So, there's my answer to the question how long they last.

I've used them in dry and wet. Because of the high volume they can be run on low psi's, and therefore they work very nicely on wet roots and rocks. 

I will definitetly buy another set come spring. Nokian WXC 300 is my tire choice now for the next 4-5 months.


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

Is there a difference between worldcup version and supersonic?


----------



## Matti (Aug 27, 2008)

I believe (i.e. I don't know for sure) that the World Cup is more or less the same as the supersonic, except for the World Cup logo on the sidewall.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*correct...*



xc-rider said:


> I'd like to correct the information Nino posted about the Python.


correct - that's why i also showed 2 different tests: one is the most recent with the new 2.3" version and the other is an older like yours where they tested the 2.1" version...and if you look closer you will see that the readings were no better already back then: it is not fast rolling nor does it offer superior grip nor is it light...i would say it is a mediocre tire at best. I once ot a brandnew Specialized S-Works (i think it was in 2002) which came with Python tires. i can only say that back then those were the worst tires i had ridden. No grip and too slow. when i changed tires that bike suddenly came alive.

I just printed this info since "sergio_pt" said he was riding fast with them....well - he might have a big smile if he ever tries a new generation of a race-tire! that old test of 2003 shows low numbers for the Racing Ralph. But remember that the newer offerings from Schwalbe and Conti roll faster while offering a lot more grip as well! Don't compare numbers from different tests but rest assured that the new generation of tires is faster than the tires of back then.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Matti said:


> I believe (i.e. I don't know for sure) that the World Cup is more or less the same as the supersonic, except for the World Cup logo on the sidewall.


I think the design is the same and the Supersonic represents the move into a regular production as the World Cup tires seemed to be less available, so maybe smaller production runs. Either way I'm sorry to see the build quality slip. :skep:


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Either way I'm sorry to see the build quality slip. :skep:


Me too, but I'm glad the tires still don't.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

dinoadventures said:


> Me too, but I'm glad the tires still don't.


Speaking from experience it is a very difficult life when a perfectionist assembles a bike and has to see a wobbly front tire out in front. :skep:  It's true that it doesn't seem to affect traction.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

I have RK 2.2 on my 1x9 and my SS bike and only one tire (rear on the 1x9) has a wobble. It was bad enough that I pulled the tire off an trued the rear wheel before figuring out that it was the tire. So in my case, 25% have a wobble.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Pulse- said:


> I like pythons, 3000km and still 70% on rear, front like new. Weight 515 and 530g....


yep the pythons last and last and last.. major due to the hard rubber compound. 
That's why I like them because I'm a real all-terain biker and ride a lot of the paved road and they also roll relatively well for this porpuse. I also ride off-road of corse, rocky roads, fire roads, downhills, big steep uphils etc



xc-rider said:


> If only Continental and Schwalbe could make their Racing Ralph and Race King in tubeless ready, we wouldn't have to ask again and again these questions : "is it safe to ride this tyre tubeless", "have you managed to inflate it without tube", etc.
> I don't understand why all high end tyres don't have a tubeless ready version, it only adds 40 to 50gr to the tyre and makes our lives so much more simple !!!


I agree, thats absolutely right. I hope the manufaxturers read this and start making superlight tubeless tires, after all its just a matter of tightenng the beads and more rubber to the sidewalls til they hold air.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> Speaking from experience it is a very difficult life when a perfectionist assembles a bike and has to see a wobbly front tire out in front. :skep:  It's true that it doesn't seem to affect traction.


why dont you send the tires back?


----------



## eq4ever (Sep 24, 2005)

Could somebody post a picture how much space is there left on an old sid with RK 2.2 mounted? I'm considering these tires but I'm afraid they won't fit...

Nino, you probably have a few sids lying around, could help me out? 

Cheers!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*old SID no problem*



eq4ever said:


> Could somebody post a picture how much space is there left on an old sid with RK 2.2 mounted? I'm considering these tires but I'm afraid they won't fit...
> 
> Nino, you probably have a few sids lying around, could help me out?
> 
> Cheers!


it' fits the old SID...no problem! I don't have a front view but there's enough space left also for mud rides.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> why dont you send the tires back?


Too much trouble, and no guarantee that a replacement would be any straighter. I just have to focus on the fact that tires are expendable and wear out, and not get hung up on straight treads. At least they don't have a hop in them like so many of the Kenda's seem to. I always have to fight the urge for _perfect_ with the realization that _perfectly adequate_ is sometimes more appropriate. :skep:


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jul 10, 2008)

I have the exact problem. I have contacted Conti to see if there is a solution.


----------



## Kananaskis (May 26, 2006)

I know it's not about the RK 2.2's but does anyone have experience with Maxxis CrossMark or Larson TT? How do they compare to the RK? The weights seem decent on there web-site. Do we have real weights?


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

How bad is the tyre wobble? 

I Just mounted some Racing Ralphs which have a wobble too - front and rear but it's barely nothing.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Tiffster said:


> How bad is the tyre wobble?
> 
> I Just mounted some Racing Ralphs which have a wobble too - front and rear but it's barely nothing.


Maybe an 1/8" side to side total excursion. :skep:


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

Kananaskis larsen tt weight is very different I've seen 410-460g (1.9). I had it on my rims but havent' used it because I changed my mind. I read a lot of reviews about it and most of it was about poor wearing resistance, fast rolling and bad for wet conditions. This is not a very good tire for sure. If you don't like Race King then get Racing ralph 2008 "2.0 I bet that you will be more satisfied than with larsen tt.
Read RK 2.2 reviews! It seems to me that RK 2.2 is a better tire, larsen tt 1.9 is very narrow, I would say it's narrower than normal 1.9 tire.


----------



## Kananaskis (May 26, 2006)

thanks, the maxxis were in the lbs and caught my eye. i want the rk 2.2 but cannot find them. to be honest, i've been reading this forum and am very confused about which ones i need???

i want 2.2 non-tubless, that i can run tubless with stans and the best or top-o'line quality. i do have a lead on racing ralphs non-tubless, not sure if i can run stans in them or not, but don't want to pull the trigger until i'm sure about the rk 2.2 they really intrest me more. looking for speed, durability and a bit of grip.


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

I was about getting RK 2.2 when I heard of Rocket Ron 2.1 weight 390-415g! What do you think about it? I don't know what to choose and I wouldn't like to buy 2 sets of tires, because I already have one.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It will depend on how much tread you need. The RK have quite a few low knobs compared to other light tires. If you're racing or riding dry hardpack then you likely don't need all the knobs that a RK has.

If you want lots of grip in wet roots/rocks and loose dust/sand/pea gravel over hardpack, then you want a RK.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Rocket Ron ...mixed reviews...*



Pulse- said:


> I was about getting RK 2.2 when I heard of Rocket Ron 2.1 weight 390-415g! What do you think about it? I don't know what to choose and I wouldn't like to buy 2 sets of tires, because I already have one.


the Rocket Ron gets mixed reviews in Germany. First of all the sizing is weird sinze the 2,2" is slimmer than your usual 2,1" and the 2,1" version barely measures 2,0"....those tires are pretty skinny therefore the low weights.

anyway - i can't comment on how they perform since i didn't try them BUT i wouldn't choose a tire just because of it's weight. the RK 2.2 is fast and offers awesome grip in ALL sorts of conditions. i couldn't ask for more.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*ultrathin sidewalls...*



Pulse- said:


> I was about getting RK 2.2 when I heard of Rocket Ron 2.1 weight 390-415g! What do you think about it? I don't know what to choose and I wouldn't like to buy 2 sets of tires, because I already have one.


here's a pic of a Rocket Ron...just 0.4-0.5mm !! looks like paper to me


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Thank god i went with some Racing Ralphs! 

.4mm thick ! That's unreal. My Racing Ralphs are both 435g and sealed first time no worries but then again the sidewalls are a good few mm thick.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That looks like a tube with bumps on it.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Wow, that's scary looking! I mounted up my Racing Ralph/Fast Fred combo and using my Alpine scale they were around 450g/350g. The sidewalls were definitely thinner than the Specialized Rockster/Mt. Baldy setup that I was using. Lost nearly 1/2 pound with the change and I feel they'll provide just as much grip and cornering ability. If I need more traction I could mount up another Ralph on the back but I don't think I will with our hardpack trails around here.


----------



## Kananaskis (May 26, 2006)

So what's the answer? RK or Racing Ralph's? And which ones UST w/sealant or Non-UST with Sealant???
I think I ride in the same stuff Rocky Uphill rides in...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Race Kings roll fast on pavement and hardpack, grip well in wet conditions (but only OK in deeper thick/greasy mud), and have great grip on loose over hardpack. But they are big, if you have tight chainstay clearance, you might not have room for the RK's. The Black Chili rubber is the key factor to high performance.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

wow the rocket ron is really thin, looks like its gona blow in any bump.

whats the best tire to seal with notubes, the conty race king or the schwalbe racing ralph?


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

Hey guys,

I read through this whole thread and I still don't have a solid choice, maybe someone can offer me some advice. 

I'm trying to decide between the MK and RK. I've got a 5" fs bike that ride mainly aggressive XC on hardpack with very rooty sections. No jumping/drops, less than 10% rocks (only get when I go on road trips). 
I love speed on single track and I love climbing. Coming off a set of worn 2.1 Nevegals. I was happy with their performance, but at 650g each plus 175g tube, it's a place where I could loose some weight.

Initially I was ready to grab some MK 2.2 with protection, but after reading this thread, maybe the 2.2 RK would be good.......or maybe the 2.4 MK........ss?.....with or without protection?...........baah........too many choices.

I'll be using these tires on a set of crossmax rims and I'll be running tubeless. 

I am trying to ww this bike, shooting for sub 23 lbs (around 4lbs to loose off my stock bike). My spreadsheet says that it is doable for *relatively* cheap.

Thanks for any advice!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

If you're not on trails prone to tearing out sidewalls then the RK2.2 Supersonic should be good. I'm running a pair on my Rocky ETSX FS bike and was just out on them in really wet conditions and they are great. Black Chili rubber is the key ingredient. 

If you were in loamy conditions then the MK2.4 SS or Protection might be a better choice as the knobs have more spacing, but on hardpack and roots the RK's will rule.


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

Thanks for the reply rocky. I will probably get the RK's then.

However, I'm not too clear on the wording on the continental website, but is the black chili rubber incorporated into both the ss and protection version or just the ss version? Also, their website lists both the ss and protection version to be 480g for the 2.2 RK, I find it hard to believe that they weigh the same although one is purported to have thicker walls, I wonder if it's a typo. 

Thanks


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Their website is confusing, the info you get depends which region you look at. Only the SS version is Black Chili in the Race King, originally it indicated that both versions will be Black Chili. The Mountain King is available in Black Chili in the SS and Protection versions. 

The small print disclaimer on the Conti UK website for the Race Kings says: ProTection and wire/fold variants are also available (non Black Chili), along with 29" and UST versions which will be available in 2009. 

The Mountain King page says: The Supersonic and ProTection versions manufactured in Germany also offer our new Black Chili compound – for even higher speed, longer tread life and greater control.

My RK 2.2 SS tires weighed 488-492gms, so I'm thinking the Protection versions weigh more than that. My Mountain King 2.4 Protection tires (Black Chili) weighed 670gms, same as the Nevegal Stick E 2.35" they replaced.


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

Excellent, thanks for clearing that up. RK 2.2 ss it is.


----------



## eric512 (Jan 27, 2006)

Race King Supersonic 2.2 (no protection) availability (US shipping). This is what I found so far online for two tires with shipping.

Phat Tire - 90.97 shipped
Chainreaction - 112.00 shipped to US
Starbike - 99.98 shipped to US

Hopefully as more US retailers get these in stock the price may come down.

Anyone else found a better deal?


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

got ours from Starbike when they were Euro 25 each. 

bikesomewhere dot com has the Race King Supersonic 2.2 for $58.00 (retail price?) - but they offer free postage and no tax out of state. warning when i order a set from them bikesomewhere let me know they'd been shipped and on their way, then the next day emailed that the item had been backordered and was not in the parcel afterall!

Chainreaction do free shipping with large orders + the dollar is quite strong of late vs the pound.

when i picked up my new frame the other day, i saw on a bike there a Taiwanese version on the Race King in 2.0 without the Chili compound, and instead of the smashing chequer finish on the German made versions it had a different finish more like the soles of vintage trainers.

word of warning inflating the (German) Race King Supersonic 2.2 to anything over 50 psi when sealing the bead, it can cause the tire to bulge and distort. the mrs now has a slightly wobbly front tire - but at least its keeping the correct pressure weeks on end.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

i buy a set from ebay, 38 each +5 shipping 

take a look there


----------



## eric512 (Jan 27, 2006)

FueLEX8 said:


> i buy a set from ebay, 38 each +5 shipping
> 
> take a look there


Don't see any on ebay today. Was it a US seller?


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I bought mine from my local Canadian store for $57 bucks each. I got them two or three days after I ordered them. Maybe I got them before everyone wanted them.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Ebay...*

i just did a search on german Ebay and what i found out is that interestingly the RaceKings are cheapest here in Switzerland (not my auction!)
http://cgi.ebay.de/Continental-Race...3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66:2|65:1|39:1|240:1318

2 Tires: 50 Euro
shipping for 2 tires to the US: +17.95 Euro
Total: ca. 68 Euro = 87$

those guys will certainly do better outside ebay as well.they even have their phone nr listed...


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

ericsan256 said:


> Race King Supersonic 2.2 (no protection) availability (US shipping). This is what I found so far online for two tires with shipping.
> 
> Phat Tire - 90.97 shipped
> Chainreaction - 112.00 shipped to US
> ...


I got mine from Phat Tire. $40 for a Supersonic Black Chili tire with limited availability in the US was a good deal in my opinion, especially since I regularly see Continental tires go for $60+ retail. The 09 Mountain King Protection Black Chilis go for $68!


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

i think i know the answer, but does anyone actually like the 2.0 version?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Nino tried the 2.0's and found them slippery and skittish.


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

I bought 2 RK SS 2.2 for $72 with shipping (in Poland from polish internet store)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*2.0"*



kevbikemad said:


> i think i know the answer, but does anyone actually like the 2.0 version?


no-forget about it!
the 2.0" is not half as good as the 2.2" !!


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

nino said:


> no-forget about it!
> the 2.0" is not half as good as the 2.2" !!


Not to mention about half the size. They scare me.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*not scary...*



dinoadventures said:


> Not to mention about half the size. They scare me.


naaah - the are not scary but nowhere near the performance than the 2.2".
the 2.0" is doing good on dry hardpack.rolls pretty fast and grips ok.nothing that several others do as well if not better (the Racing Ralph 2,1" does as well while offering better grip in slightly humit conditions). the worst part however was the wet/humid performance where the 2.0" size would wash out early. it is not offering the endless grip of the 2.2.

meanwhile i just had a couple of rides in snow and the 2,2" does well even there...not that there has been tons of snow but the trails were all covered and in sunny places it was a slippery mess....i have yet to find a weakness in this tire-simply amazing!!


----------



## 743power (Sep 25, 2007)

how are the sidewalls holding up for you folks on these? I have been trying to get some from conti. The rep said they are paper thin and for "closed xc race courses" only. I'm going to try them anyway, but is there any merit to this?


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I think Conti sidewalls in general are very thin but it hasn't been a problem for me.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

I have taken them on some gnarly rocky stuff plenty of times and it holds up fine. I'm running the Supersonic version.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

There's no sharp rocks in my area, I've never torn a sidewall on any tire out here. So far I haven't even had a sidewall scuff on the Race Kings on my hardtail or 4x4 FS bike. 

By the same token I don't think I'd even try to run the supersonic versions of the Mountain Kings I'm running on my Slayer SXC, that bike gets tossed into more widely varying terrain.


----------



## Matti (Aug 27, 2008)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the rear tyre of the world cup version held up for approx 2000 km's for me. I'm a fairly heavy rider at 90 kg's, riding lots of roots and rocks. Definitely not a raceday-only tire.


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

Pulse- said:


> I bought 2 RK SS 2.2 for $72 with shipping (in Poland from polish internet store)


 Me too  , some time ago (was written earlier in this topic), but I'm Polish . Minimum 3 polish bike-net-shops have them on stock. In Poland Conti RK 2.2 aren't so popular (period  ). Almost everybody running Schwalbe, some trayed Geaxs, Hutchinsons, Conti too, but another treads.

I was desperatly looked on something another thread then Schwalbe to my Santa SL. 1st impression with RK 2.2 was miscellaneous a bit. Now I discovered them again. Steel trying to live with lover preassure on RK 2.2 (influence of STRONG sugestions from this forum) and trust them. Anyway - a very appreciate lover preassure on them. Howgh!


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

I just got my RK 2.2 SuperSonics. They weigh 464 and 472 grams, compared to 606 and 606 for my (used) WTB Mutano Raptor 2.4 Races, and the RK 2.2 casings are only about 2mm narrower than the WTBs, so I'm not giving up much pinch-flat protection.

Now it's time to mount up the lighting systems and see how they work on the trail


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

mechBgon said:


> Now it's time to mount up the lighting systems and see how they work on the trail


After my first ride, I definitely like these tires. I went out to do some of the hard climbs tonight.

After getting warmed up, I started up a trail that ramps up the side of the bluff steadily, but there are two consecutive steep sections, perhaps 50m long and 75m long, that most people will use their inner chainring to climb. I don't like to use my inner chainring, so I would usually do these in my 32 x 32, but lately I've been strong enough to roll them in my 28-tooth cog.

So tonight I shifted to my 32 in the rear, then upshifted to the 28 (it's a night ride and I have no gear indicators, so I'm using the Braille method here ). And I hit the first steep section. _Ouch, that was difficult :skep: and here comes the second steep section, which is longer and steeper! Why am I so weak, when I was able to do this with the heavy tires on Monday?!_

So I got halfway up the second steep section, and was forced to get out of the saddle to keep moving in the 28-tooth cog. After clearing the section, I finally noticed that I was still in the 44-tooth chainring. :eekster:

That was the first of three instances where I thought I was weak, and then found that I was actually in the big chainring. When I'm actually using the middle ring, I feel like I can basically use almost one cog higher than usual in the rear. Going up two of my hardest sets of climbs, climbs where I sometimes deliberately hyperventilate in advance because I'll be at 185bpm at the end, I had more left at the top tonight.

The cornering and acceleration are also noticably better than the WTBs. These tires could be habit-forming :thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

mechBgon said:


> ... I feel like I can basically use almost one cog higher than usual in the rear.


this is exactly what i described in my initial post about these tires: they let you ride 1 gear higher even though the circumference already makes for a higher gear !! they are superfast rolling. i am still impressed now that we have some snow. i expected these huge tires to suffer when things get covered with snow but so far they do great even in snow. there's still not much snow around and just overnight almost all got washed away by rain but still - these tires rock on just about EVERY terrain. awesome.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

Now here are my next questions:

1) should I use the lightest tubes (Maxxis Flyweight, Conti Supersonic), or should I use tubes in the 120-130 gram range? Will the lightest tubes be too thinly stretched in a tire as large as the RK 2.2, and have a risk of rupture? (I am not ready to switch to tubeless yet)

2) how do I prevent my riding buddies from finding out about these tires? Maybe I can paint over the labels, yessss.... 

by the way, thanks to everyone for the good information in this thread, and *ericsan256* for mentioning the PhatTire deal, which is where I got my tires.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*tubes...*



mechBgon said:


> Now here are my next questions:
> 
> 1) should I use the lightest tubes (Maxxis Flyweight, Conti Supersonic), or should I use tubes in the 120-130 gram range? Will the lightest tubes be too thinly stretched in a tire as large as the RK 2.2, and have a risk of rupture? (I am not ready to switch to tubeless yet)
> 
> ...


as mentioned in my initial post i run my RKs with experimental ultra-ultra light tubes and never had any problems.

then i mounted these same tires on my Winterbike and since i had only 2 prototypes of those super-tubes had to mount regular innertubes until i got more prototypes to test. so i was using Supersonic inner tubes for the last couple of weeks: i had a total of 8 flats in that short period !!!! always tiny little thorns that would make for slow leaks...i was using tubelesskits the last 8 years and had a total of 3 flats over all these years. i had completely forgotten how inner tubes $uck!! now the supersonics sure get streched quite a bit inside these huge tires so the slightest thorn might make for troubles....no snakebites though as the tires are so huge you will have a hard time to bottom out.

anyway: just last week i got the 2nd generation of those supertubes and since then i'm flat-free again while my bike got quite a bit lighter too:thumbsup:


----------



## mezzanine (Sep 6, 2004)

Nino what are these supertube innertubes your talking about. Got a link?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*supertube...*



mezzanine said:


> Nino what are these supertube innertubes your talking about. Got a link?


as mentioned these are just prototypes and not available to the public.
hopefully available next summer.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

Got about 2 months use on my RK 2.2s (on both my 1x9 HT and my SS). Great general use tire, no issues with typical east coast rock gardens. I have used lightweight tubes with no issues. Typically run them at about 28-30 psi. Very linear feel when leaning over. There is nothing I want Continental to change on this tire. A worthy (and much better) successor to the Explorer Pro. :thumbsup:


----------



## mhaskell (Aug 25, 2004)

Tubedriver said:


> Got about 2 months use on my RK 2.2s (on both my 1x9 HT and my SS). Great general use tire, no issues with typical east coast rock gardens. I have used lightweight tubes with no issues. Typically run them at about 28-30 psi. Very linear feel when leaning over. There is nothing I want Continental to change on this tire. A worthy (and much better) successor to the Explorer Pro. :thumbsup:


What version are you running? World cup? Supersonic?

Where do you ride?


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

Supersonic.

Mainly in MD and VA usually at Patapsico, Schaeffer and Wakefield.

Was on a night ride last night and it started to rain, ran through some rock gardens with sharp edges and heard a couple "pops" and "pings" but the Supersonic RKs held up fine.



mhaskell said:


> What version are you running? World cup? Supersonic?
> 
> Where do you ride?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Great info from everyone here. I just got a set of RK2.2 Supersonics and can't wait to try them out. Based on everyone's info here, I'm excited and it sounds like they'll serve me well in both Michigan (dirt) and Arizona (rocks).


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

mechBgon said:


> Now here are my next questions: should I use the lightest tubes (Maxxis Flyweight, Conti Supersonic), or should I use tubes in the 120-130 gram range? Will the lightest tubes be too thinly stretched in a tire as large as the RK 2.2, and have a risk of rupture? (I am not ready to switch to tubeless yet).


 For RK 2.2 Conti Supersonic 26x1.9/2.1 are just great. Remember to use some talc or baby powder  during instalation :thumbsup:


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

I've installed my RK 2.2, it fits my frame and fork without any problem (simplon mythos, reba) guess there will be no problem in wet conditions too.

I can't say much about traction, but I tried it in very slippery conditions (something like ice) and it holds pretty good. Didn't have any problems with traction.
The biggest change I feel is COMFORT! These tires are much more comfortable than my hutchinson pythons 2.0. That's because of size, but on the other hand I find RK 2.2 to be more comfortable than Racing Ralph 2.25 and that's almost the same size. Can't wait for the spring to test it in dry condition, sand etc. But so far I'm more than satisfied.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nice pictures Pulse-
I also use the pythons and I might try the RK 2.2 too. 
You say that the RK is more confortable than the pythons. Are the RK2.2 bigger than the pythons 2.0? Do you have a picture from the side view of the tire?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The RK 2.2's are a HUGE volume. Here's a RK 2.2 in a new SID.


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

sergio_pt, yes RK 2.2 is bigger than python 2.0 and that's normal since "2.2 is more than "2.0

Take a look at the pic, python 2.0 and RK 2.2

I also attach side view.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Yep thats a big tire! But not always the size provided by the manufacturer is the real size. so I guess the Racing Ralph 2.25 is even bigger than the RK 2.2?

I had a chance to try the RR 2.1 and they are smaller than the python and less confortable because they are less tall. I ned to decide what tire to get.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

the racing ralph 2.25 is NOT very big. When I measure it the casing is 2" and the thread is 2.1

not a true 2.2 - i don't have the race kings, but it looks as if they are wider/larger volume.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I have a Race King 2.2 and Mutano Raptor 2.24 mounted, and the King is just a tiny bit wider across the section. WTB calls the 2.24 a 54 tire, while Conti lists the RK as a 55, so I think even they acknowledge that it has fairly high volume.


----------



## babar (Feb 20, 2004)

the racing ralph 2.25 is definitively wider than the Racing king 2.2
I have 57mm at the bollon for the RR and 54mm for the RK


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

kevbikemad said:


> the racing ralph 2.25 is NOT very big. When I measure it the casing is 2" and the thread is 2.1
> 
> not a true 2.2 - i don't have the race kings, but it looks as if they are wider/larger volume.


My Racing Ralph 2.25" are plenty wide. They measure 2.20" on a new XTR rim. The were quite a bit narrower when mounted on my old Crosslands w/ tubes though.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

*you sure?*

really? my 2.25 is mounted on a ZTR race rim... pretty wide rim. i just measured it again, and it is actually only a 2.

have you actually measured?


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

*Yes, sure.*

Yep, they're 2.20, measured and all. There is not doubt that they are a wide, high volume tire. I had the UST version and it was even a hair wider.

I'm suspicious that you were sold 2.1"s mismarked as 2.25"s. Did you have a chance to weigh them? I would guess that the 2.25s are close to the claimed 525 grams, while the 2.1s should come lighter. Maybe give Schwalbe a call.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

i had bought a set of 2.1 and they were really small, about a 1.9, I returned them for the 2.25 due to the lack of volume...

i have seen other bikes with 2.25s and none of them looked like a full 2.25, but only 2" is pretty small/average.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

How come some race king supersonics weigh 474g and others are 494g? A 20g range difference is pretty large. Thinking of ordering some but want a good weight. The website says 460grams as well so which are correct?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Welcome to the world of handmade tires and manufacturing tolerances.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

That's ±4%, which is actually not that bad of a tolerance when it comes to volume parts.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

I have 6 different RK 2.2 SuperSonics and only 3 have straight tread.



rockyuphill said:


> Welcome to the world of handmade tires and manufacturing tolerances.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Bah I will have to buy 4 sets of tires to make my mind on wich one is better.
Continental Race King 2.0, Continental Race King 2.2, Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.1 and Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25...this might get expensive... 
I'll exclude the Racing Ralph 2.1 for being too small...

A side by side picture comparison on this 4 sets of tires + pythons would be really nice and enlightening.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Skip the RK 2.0, they don't have the same sort of grip that the 2.2's have.


----------



## greyhorse (Aug 29, 2007)

Here you go:

These are Racing Ralph 2.25 USTs mounted on M775 Deore XT wheels with a rim width of 19mm. I believe Rocky Uphill uses M975 XTR wheels so this should be as direct a comparison as it gets. My RRs measure 55mm tread-to-tread with the casing half a millimeter or so smaller. From the picture it looks like the Race King 2.2s are wider?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

On an XTR wheel, 54.86mm carcass width. (widest part of tire)


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

anyone got a picture of a tread that isn't straight? I've never seen one before. If you mean it's 1-2mm out then I think you need to understand that's not going to make a difference once they're under compression. Nontheless I'd like to see a pic of the bad RK 2.2 tread.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

saga said:


> anyone got a picture of a tread that isn't straight? I've never seen one before. If you mean it's 1-2mm out then I think you need to understand that's not going to make a difference once they're under compression. Nontheless I'd like to see a pic of the bad RK 2.2 tread.


You'd need a video of the rotation to spot the tread wobble. So far I haven't had any hop, which is something you can feel.


----------



## ecoast (Nov 7, 2008)

has anybody gone from nevegal 2.1 to these? Comparison?

...on bikesomewherre there are 4 choices; I am looking for the 2.2 /chili; is that the folding or supersonic folding? (eliminating wire bead &protection).... they, of course, all say chili...just want to make sure i get the right ones...

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I went from Nevegal 2.1 Stick-E rubber to the RK 2.2 Supersonics and the rolling resistance is night and day difference, the RK's roll faster and quieter, they are much lighter and with the Black Chili rubber and large volume they can be run lower in pressure than the Nevegals so they grip wet roots and rocks much better. The RK's give up a bit of grip to the Nevegals in deeper or gooey/slick clay type mud as they tend to float across the mud and the shallow tread can pack up quickly. For the rain forest where I live, this is not a big issue, not much clay mud here. The RK's work much better than the Nevegals on hardpack and pavement, and at least as well or better on loose over hardpack or pea gravel. 

You want the the RK 2.2 Supersonics to get Black Chili rubber. Might not be the best choice if you have lots of thorns as they are very light carcass construction, but it seems to be the Black Chili rubber that makes the difference in performance.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

ecoast said:


> has anybody gone from nevegal 2.1 to these? Comparison?


First of all, you're comparing a tire with a square edge profile to one that's about as round as it gets. That in and of itself will make a profound difference in how it corners. Round tires don't have as much bite into loose-over-hardpack as the square ones but when they are on the edge of breaking loose they are far easier to control and turn a bit back out if necessary. I am very pleased with how well the RK's corner.

The Nev's are a really good tire, unfortunately they are heavy and very slow. Solely based on the weight difference, you will definitely feel an increase in how fast you get up to speed with these as well as a more responsive suspension and less effort needed to get the front end up over obstacles. There is also much, much less rolling resistance. Nevegals aren't the tire of choice for long straights and surely not anything like pavement. The RK2.2's are faster by far, even faster than Crossmark's.


----------



## ecoast (Nov 7, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> I went from Nevegal 2.1 Stick-E rubber to the RK 2.2 Supersonics and the rolling resistance is night and day difference, the RK's roll faster and quieter, they are much lighter and with the Black Chili rubber and large volume they can be run lower in pressure than the Nevegals so they grip wet roots and rocks much better. The RK's give up a bit of grip to the Nevegals in deeper or gooey/slick clay type mud as they tend to float across the mud and the shallow tread can pack up quickly. For the rain forest where I live, this is not a big issue, not much clay mud here. The RK's work much better than the Nevegals on hardpack and pavement, and at least as well or better on loose over hardpack or pea gravel.
> 
> You want the the RK 2.2 Supersonics to get Black Chili rubber. Might not be the best choice if you have lots of thorns as they are very light carcass construction, but it seems to be the Black Chili rubber that makes the difference in performance.


Thnks. apprciate the response; eXactly what i was wanting to hear...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Thank you very much for the pictures and to all that replied. :thumbsup: 

The Race King 2.2 is the tire I need to try. Pythons have a good speed and traction in straight lines but when cornering they skip the trajectory, nothing you can't control, its also sometimes funny but also dangerous...
The RK seems to have a rounder edge and wider contact base to the ground that possibly will give better handling in the corners. 
Comparing the pictures form rockyuphill and greyhorse the Racing Ralph 2.25 are not so tall has the RK 2.2. and I need some height for rocks and bumps absortion.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

RK 2.2 are not especially wide but they are VERY tall (large volume).



greyhorse said:


> Here you go:
> 
> These are Racing Ralph 2.25 USTs mounted on M775 Deore XT wheels with a rim width of 19mm. I believe Rocky Uphill uses M975 XTR wheels so this should be as direct a comparison as it gets. My RRs measure 55mm tread-to-tread with the casing half a millimeter or so smaller. From the picture it looks like the Race King 2.2s are wider?


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Anyone got any more weights to add? I hear people saying they have 460g 2.2 supersonics but I'm yet to see the tires on a scale saying so. I think they may be the 2.0 RK that people are weighing in the 460 range.

Also have you noticed the worldcups say 460g but now the RK supersonics are down as 480g for the 2.2's. So maybe they did have a difference after all.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

saga said:


> Anyone got any more weights to add? I hear people saying they have 460g 2.2 supersonics but I'm yet to see the tires on a scale saying so. I think they may be the 2.0 RK that people are weighing in the 460 range.
> 
> Also have you noticed the worldcups say 460g but now the RK supersonics are down as 480g for the 2.2's. So maybe they did have a difference after all.


My 2.2 Supersonics are definitely 2.2s, and IIRC they were 464 and 472 grams.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

were they world cups or normal supersonics? I have worldcups and they weigh in at 498g and 486g. Maybe they managed to get the new production runs slightly lighter somehow which is odd as you'd think the worldcup tires the pros use would be lighter.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I just weighed a new pair of Supersonics at 490gms and 505gms (with the elastic string on them still), and a new pair of World Cups at 482gms and 484gms. Maybe they select them for weight before labeling.

We might also be dealing with some calibration variations between various scales.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Just a question for those who like rigorous measuments. The RK 2.2 as said is a tall tire, how tall is it?


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

Just fits under a REBA/SID arch (don't have actual measurements).



sergio_pt said:


> Just a question for those who like rigorous measuments. The RK 2.2 as said is a tall tire, how tall is it?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

From the edge of the rim to the top of the centre knob, uncompressed, with 32psi, I measure about 54.5mm. So they are about as round as most tires.


----------



## rroadie (Aug 3, 2008)

Hmm, I'm currently using Mountain King supersonic 2.2's, any idea how the Racekings compare in terms of all around performance?
I ride mostly technical XC big mountain stuff in Alberta and BC. Usually not too muddy but can deal with everything from scree slopes to rock gardens too lots of roots.
I was thinking of switching to the Mountain King 2.4's at least in the front.:eekster:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



sergio_pt said:


> Just a question for those who like rigorous measuments. The RK 2.2 as said is a tall tire, how tall is it?


regardless of its weight/size/looks...it is worlds better than your Pythons!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I had the MK2.2 supersonics on my ETSX and found them sketchy on loose over hardpack and on dry loose conditions, they worked OK on loamy trails. The RK 2.2's give up some grip on wet/slimy clay mud compared to the taller knobs on the MK, but on wet and dry trails, pea gravel, hardpack and loose over hardpack, and wet roots and rocks, the RK 2.2's work very well. But only the SS/WC version is Black Chili which seems to be more than half the performance. 

I have the MK 2.4 Protection on my SXC, they weigh in at the exact same weight as the Nevegal 2.35" they replaced at 748gms. They feel much grippier than the MK2.2's and yet still roll faster than the Nevegals.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> regardless of its weight/size/looks...it is worlds better than your Pythons!


They might be better! I'll tell you when I try them.

The Pythons are 45mm tall. one more cm over this lenght might be a risk for the tire rolling out the rim on the corners?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

No, it's a very round tire, so even on a 17mm wide rim it is quite stable. It is very pressure sensitive, so you will find that it only has a 3-4 PSI range in the sweetspot of optimum pressure.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*I absolutely agree!*



rockyuphill said:


> No, it's a very round tire, so even on a 17mm wide rim it is quite stable. It is very pressure sensitive, so you will find that it only has a 3-4 PSI range in the sweetspot of optimum pressure.


These tires have a certain pressure range where they shine. Any higher and they act like a full rubberball and become springy and their grip level will be only soso. Any lower and they tend to feel sluggish and slow. You definitely have to find the right pressure setting for yourself but then you will be rewarded with one sweet performing tire on almost any terrain.

I just had a VERY muddy ride and on the downhill section which by now was really deep,deep mud i suffered a bit. But that was really deep and would have asked for a real mud tire. We had almost 40cm of snow until 3 days ago when everything started to melt. By this afternoon almost all was gone...you can only imagine how the trails looked like But i was still mastering these sections. It would slip but on the roots that were underneath you get a grip where other tires would definitely wash out instantly.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

saga said:


> were they world cups or normal supersonics? I have worldcups and they weigh in at 498g and 486g. Maybe they managed to get the new production runs slightly lighter somehow which is odd as you'd think the worldcup tires the pros use would be lighter.


Normal Supersonics. Readings from my scale seem to be on-target with publicly-known weights of various items, so I think it's accurate enough to compare tire weights with, since tires inherently vary anyway. My Supersonics are from Phattire and were weighed bare.


----------



## Wiewior (Aug 15, 2008)

Today I had my first ride on Conti Race King 2,2 Protection and...
they are only 52,2mm and 52,4 wide  WHY? I use them with Rigida Taurus rims








Will they grow bigger or sth like that?

The good thing is that THEY ARE SOOO FAST...it's unbelievable. my last tires were Michelin XC AT 2,0 and they are ****. They roll slow and after having them 2 seasons I couldn't handle them fully and with theyr 27TPI I had about 2 punctures every month.
Race Kings are so great comperet with M. xc A/T


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Protection version use a different carcass and a different rubber compound, so the carcass might be smaller, or it might be it grows less under pressure with the protection carcass.


----------



## Wiewior (Aug 15, 2008)

Wow!! they stretched ;D since yesterday they grow to 53,15 and 54,55 ! I put down the air and reinflated them slowly ;D crazy tires...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Hehe thats good balloon rubber!


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

*tread change*

just noticed that the tread seems to have changed as some point...

the first pic is a pic jeff kerkove posted of some "test rider" tires.

does anyone have the tires with this tread pattern (and are they lighter?)


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

i, for one, am more than pretty happy with the tread pattern as is. nothing about the tire makes me wonder if the grass is greener, so to speak, on the prototype. if you want something lighter at the expense of all else, continental makes that too, but if you want an awesome hardpack tire then the final product def delivers.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The tread on my tires all look like the production version. I imagine that having those paired blocks have an edge parallel to the tire centerline instead of being a pointy block helps cornering grip.


----------



## ecoast (Nov 7, 2008)

scored a pair 2.2 supersonic for $57 shipped on CL !

gonna run 'em ghetto tubeless; can't wait & I'll report back after riding...although it just snowed again in NNJ...


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

sick deal. where in NNJ? I'm from west paterson.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

Got my first flat in a VERY long time last night with RK 2.2 SSs (using ultralight tube). I was riding a fast flowing, smooth, non-technical, 10 mile, single track loop. Will pull the tube out later today, looking mainly for thorns I guess.


----------



## ecoast (Nov 7, 2008)

dinoadventures said:


> sick deal. where in NNJ? I'm from west paterson.


...up by Greenwood Lake.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

After over 600 miles of riding rocks and roots and such, today i tore sidewall on both of my tires at an endurance race in the Texas hill country. I run the supersonics set up with stans. The back one looks to be repairable as the damage appears slight and is a slower leak but the front took an inch long vertical slash perpendicular to the tread. I am actually shocked it held the tube problem free for about 40 more miles to the end of the race. I will tear into these (pun) tomorrow and get some more pictures and data.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

That's not good! I just bought a set of the race king UCI's. Not many rocks where I ride though.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That is what they warn about with the Supersonics, they have very light sidewalls. It's too bad they aren't doing the Protection version in Black Chili like they are with the Mountain Kings.

I haven't taken the sidewall out of a tire during a ride since 1988 when a left side U-brake shoe got whacked by a rock hard enough to turn it about 30 degrees and have it slice about 1/3 of the circumference of the tire before it went flat and got out of the way. :skep:


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

I'm not sure I find fault in the tires for this one. I've spent months scraping them against sharp rocks and other things for which they are not designed. If you are the kind of person that believes in UST setups then you can interpret this to mean whatever you like. The actual puncture in the rear is small (just big enough to ooze a little sealant, it might even seal up by itself) but something definitely did the front one in as the puncture had very clean edges and pressure loss happened immediately. Something had cut right through it as I rounded a corner during the race. 

I will definitely buy another few sets of these for both bikes as I still love everything about them. I am not going to let what happened once at a race several hours from my usual trails affect how I feel about the tires. I have had worse tire problems by far with RRs and Crossmarks and SB8s.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

My flat was a thorn that went through the tread and made a pin hole in the tube. Not really the tires fault.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

An update: 
I superglued a patch to the inside of the less-damaged tire and it sealed up just fine now. Front is irreparable. I'm going to put in an order for five more of these.


----------



## eebkr12 (Feb 26, 2008)

Sorry if this has come up already as I have read a lot of this thread but not all.

Has anyone tried the 29er version? I'm sure it would but does it perform as well as the 26x2.2 version? 
Also as far as side wall durability goes how does the 29 version compare to a racing ralph 29er?

Thanks


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I don't think the Race King 29x 2.2 has been released yet. The Mountain King 29 x 2.2" has been available for a while.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> I don't think the Race King 29x 2.2 has been released yet. The Mountain King 29 x 2.2" has been available for a while.


It has. You can buy it from several online merchants and it was in the MBA review of the Cannondale 29er a month or two back. The c'dales ship with them.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Well so it is, it wasn't on the usual sites like CRC. The 29" doesn't appear to be Black Chili rubber, so it's likely going to perform on par with the standard non-Supersonic folding or UST version. It will have a little longer contact patch so it should have more knob edges in contact with the ground.

edit: I stand corrected... from Competitive Cyclist

_There is more to a tire than knobs. The Continental Race King 29 does its majik not only with the low, finely-gritted tread bars, but with the large, supple casing and round profile. While this is a tire for big wheels, it doesn't ride like a big tire, which is to say, it doesn't feel slow. It feels responsive.

Go up, or down, and it grips. The transition to turning is smooth. Lean on the tire for a long-radius turn and it is still gripping as well as it did while riding a straight line.

A word of warning. Early iterations of this tire were made on an under-sized mold. The result is a tire that is closer to 1.9" than the 2.2" intended. Going forward, the tire has been re-done and is now a true 2.2".

The Continental Race King 29 has a three-ply wrap of 60 thread per inch casing material for a 180tpi casing. *The tread rubber is Black Chili compound. *The bead is foldable. The recommended tire pressure is 50psi, with a max pressure of 65psi. The ETRTO size is 55-663 and the tire size is 29 x 2.2". The tread and casing is black. 650g._


----------



## eebkr12 (Feb 26, 2008)

Continental needs to get their story straight. I read that as well and on the continental web site there is a spot where it lists all the race kings as having black chilli compound. I e-mailed continental to ask about this and they replied and asked where on their site that is says that they all have black chilli! He said only the supersonic versions have it and that the 29er doesn't. I sent him the link to their own site so it will be interesting to see what they say. And if competitive cyclist is printing that, I am still hoping there is some truth to it.


----------



## chuckred (Apr 27, 2007)

*Light and fast, yes - Durable - no*

After five pinch flats in 6 rides - including a double front and rear that cost me a bunch of time at Leadville, I had to give up on them. I kept putting more and more pressure in to the point that they stopped being fun to ride (I got the double flats at almost 50 PSI - and it wasn't even a hard impact). They have great traction at 40 psi and not so great at 50... but since they were so fragile, they're now sitting in my garage waiting for just the right conditions.

I'd say avoid them if you're riding anything rocky - but on smooth trails they're fast and have good traction. I did notice that at the higher pressures they were actually very good in wet sloppy shallow muddy conditions.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Has anyone put talc powder on the inside of the tire?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*????????*



chuckred said:


> After five pinch flats in 6 rides - including a double front and rear that cost me a bunch of time at Leadville, I had to give up on them. I kept putting more and more pressure in to the point that they stopped being fun to ride (I got the double flats at almost 50 PSI - and it wasn't even a hard impact). They have great traction at 40 psi and not so great at 50... but since they were so fragile, they're now sitting in my garage waiting for just the right conditions.
> 
> I'd say avoid them if you're riding anything rocky - but on smooth trails they're fast and have good traction. I did notice that at the higher pressures they were actually very good in wet sloppy shallow muddy conditions.


hey, i can't imagine you get pinchflats with the 2,2"s !! 
those are HUGE ballons and i never was able to even get close to a pinchflat. you must be talking about the 2,0" size, right?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm in the 195-200 pound range and find the RK 2.2 Supersonics are just right in the 28-32PSI range, I've whacked the rim on roots at 25PSI but didn't pinch flat. 

I can't imagine running the 2.2's as high as 40PSI, let alone 50PSI. :skep: It must be the 2.0's.


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

saga said:


> Has anyone put talc powder on the inside of the tire?


Yes. My teammates in Europe run the Race King 2.2 with super light tubes with the addition of talc powder.

As for me, I opt to run them with Stan's. This is the set up I ran at Leadville 100 this past year.....as with all my 2008 racing here in Colorado. As for PSI, I run them at about 20 PSI in the front....23 PSI in the rear. I weight in at 170 lbs....give or take a pound or 2.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> I'm in the 195-200 pound range and find the RK 2.2 Supersonics are just right in the 28-32PSI range, I've whacked the rim on roots at 25PSI but didn't pinch flat.
> 
> I can't imagine running the 2.2's as high as 40PSI, let alone 50PSI. :skep: It must be the 2.0's.


I can't imagine it either. My 2.2s are less than ideal if I put 34psi in them. I plow mine into all sorts of things.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

I run mine with talc and lightweight tubes. Run them at 28-30 psi and there is NO way I am going to pinch flat these. Mine are the RK 2.2 Supersonics. I have had one flat, it was a thorn like piece of wood that went through the tire and made a pin hole in the tube.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

KERKOVEJ said:


> Yes. My teammates in Europe run the Race King 2.2 with super light tubes with the addition of talc powder.


Which tubes are they using? Conti. supersonics, Panaracer Greenlites, Maxxis?


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

limba said:


> Which tubes are they using? Conti. supersonics, Panaracer Greenlites, Maxxis?


They are using the Conti Supersonic Unitube MTB
http://www.conti-online.com/generat...al/bicycle/themes/tires/tubes/mtb/mtb_en.html


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

Ok, thanks.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Damn, I just spent an hour or so taking the talc powder out of the my front tire(just a thin layer) on the inside of tire) thinking I'd made a mistake after reading a few comments on not doing it. But if racers are doing it then that gives it more credibility. Maybe I'll get the talc powder out again 

When I was putting the talc on the tire I did notice how thin it is, but once pumped up it should be fine for where I ride.


----------



## chuckred (Apr 27, 2007)

*Sorry - my confusion*



nino said:


> hey, i can't imagine you get pinchflats with the 2,2"s !!
> those are HUGE ballons and i never was able to even get close to a pinchflat. you must be talking about the 2,0" size, right?


They're 2.1 Speed King Supersonics, not Race King. They rode fantastic at lower PSIs, but keeping air in them was a challenge! Maybe I'll try them again with Stans...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Speed Kings don't have near the grip of the Race Kings, especially on loose over hardpack and hard pack trails. Give the RK 2.2 Supersonics a try, they'll knock your socks off at comfortable pressures.


----------



## steesh (Jan 4, 2009)

How heavy are the continental supersonic tubes?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Speedkings are terrible!!*



chuckred said:


> They're 2.1 Speed King Supersonics, not Race King. They rode fantastic at lower PSIs, but keeping air in them was a challenge! Maybe I'll try them again with Stans...


ahh - see!! I knew it couldn't be the RKs you were talking about.

But how can one possibly ride those Speekings anyway?? Those tires are not worth a penny. I tried them too as i was blinded by their light weight but all i did were a couple of rides which was enough to realize they wouldn't roll fast enough, nor offer the grip i like. I found them even dangerous in corners where you would ride on those too soft sideknobs which would eventually fold over and make you wash out without any warning. For me the Speedkings are some of the worst tires made. Worse is only the 2,3" size which does nothing good at all. it rides like a pogo stick regardless of the pressure, same weird cornering and not fast rolling as well.

Do yourself a favour, get some RACE KING 2,2" SUPERSONICS and you will know what a good tire is all about:thumbsup:


----------



## rasmusj (May 29, 2008)

KERKOVEJ said:


> As for me, I opt to run them with Stan's. This is the set up I ran at Leadville 100 this past year.....as with all my 2008 racing here in Colorado. As for PSI, I run them at about 20 PSI in the front....23 PSI in the rear. I weight in at 170 lbs....give or take a pound or 2.


May I ask which rims you use? Thought people had trouble keeping them on, but it would be the final bit of convincing for me, if they could run on Stans rims without risk of burping


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

100grams


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

i use talc powder in both and they seem ok.


----------



## ecoast (Nov 7, 2008)

...mine showed up today.$57 shipped for pair of SS 2.2...love that CL!

They look like beach cruisers! funny..


Ice storm here today; no POSSIBLE way to ride...can barely walk on d-way.


----------



## ~ScaryFast~ (Jan 22, 2004)

ecoast said:


> ...mine showed up today.$57 shipped for pair of SS 2.2...love that CL!
> 
> They look like beach cruisers! funny..
> 
> Ice storm here today; no POSSIBLE way to ride...can barely walk on d-way.


Wow where did you get a pair for that price?


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Jeff Kerkove whats your take on wet rock and mud tires? Mountain king 2.4's seem to be a good try, but those dam Race King 2.2 really spoil you. I want the winter version of a race king 2.2. Can you have Conti make it!


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

KenDobson said:


> Jeff whats your take on wet rock and mud tires? Mountain king 2.4's seem to be a good try, but those dam Race King 2.2 really spoil you. I want the winter version of a race king 2.2. Can you have Conti make it!


I use the Race King 2.2 for all racing...wet or dry out here in Colorado. I know, that Irina rode the Race King 2.2 to World Cup victory at a very sloppy Offenburg course in 2007.

The Mountain King 2.2 and 2.4 tire I use for training. They are a good all around riding tire. The Race King and Mountain King are pretty much the only tires in my quiver.


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

rasmusj said:


> May I ask which rims you use? Thought people had trouble keeping them on, but it would be the final bit of convincing for me, if they could run on Stans rims without risk of burping


I used Stan's rim strips on the DT Swiss XR 1450's with the Race King 2.2 Supersonics. I know Wiens tried to run these tires on Stan's rims.....but had a heck of a time. Don't think he ever got it to work...or to the point that he trusted it.








</a>


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Thanks Jeff, I am addicated to these race kings. I am happy to see them poping up in us shops. Its going to be so popular here.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I've been running the RK 2.2s on Stan's Race 7000 front wheel at about 23 psi, and on Olympic rear at 25 psi, and I've had no trouble with burping or rolling of the tires at all. That's on my Yeti ASR Carbon, and I weigh in and around 195 in race configuration right now.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

steesh said:


> How heavy are the continental supersonic tubes?


I just weighed a Conti Supersonic tube at 94gms and a Maxxis Ultralight tube at 129gms, without the Presta locknut in both cases


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

steesh said:


> How heavy are the continental supersonic tubes?


the ones i used were 91 und 93g

They $ucked big time as i got a flat almost every other ride. I had forgotten how bad it is to get a flat since i was using tubelesskits for the last 8 years....i had a total of 8 (!!) patches on these supersonics within just a couple of weeks before i installed my prototype inner tubes.

MUCH lighter and no flats again


----------



## KenDobson (Jan 18, 2008)

Nino,

I have seen you post about these tubes for some time. Lets get to the production ones so I can buy them. Quite teasing

I want lighter and no flats......


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*pre-production...*



KenDobson said:


> Nino,
> 
> I have seen you post about these tubes for some time. Lets get to the production ones so I can buy them. Quite teasing
> 
> I want lighter and no flats......


I still use prototypes but within the next couple of days there should be a pre-production run and several selected riders/racers will get them to further test them and find possible weaknesses that might need to be adressed. It's interesting to see how many details and problems show up in as simple a product as a inner tube.

I personally don't see a release before summer but i might stand corrected. I'm still not allowed to show pics or give out any details but rest assured they are the bomb.

Especially in these huge RK 2,2" the Supersonic inner tubes get streched too much which makes them super-prone to get flats. These supersonic tubes already are pretty thin so by streching them they get even thinner and the slightest little bit makes them get a flat. I had tiniest little thorns that would easily penetrate them...so thin you hardly see them. Those same thorns never ever created any problems with a tubelesskit in these past 8 years and also not for these new tubes within the last couple of months.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Okay well here's a question for you nino as I'm still on tubes and pretty much against tubeless kits because of the mess but I would like to know which you prefer; the new inner tubes your using or the tubeless kits?

The tubeless kits do scare me. I'm currently on conti supersonic inner tubes and agree they're pretty thin but then again in my case most inner tubes puncture with thorns and the like no matter how thick the tube is.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



saga said:


> Okay well here's a question for you nino as I'm still on tubes and pretty much against tubeless kits because of the mess but I would like to know which you prefer; the new inner tubes your using or the tubeless kits?
> 
> The tubeless kits do scare me. I'm currently on conti supersonic inner tubes and agree they're pretty thin but then again in my case most inner tubes puncture with thorns and the like no matter how thick the tube is.


To be honest these new tubes are what i like best at the moment.
The ride is absolutely comparable with tubelesskits but you don't have "the mess" an they allow you to change tires as usual---->Easier to handle and lighter too!

Best of all the are MUCH more resistant to punctures than any other tube i have tried. BUT we will see better once more people are testing them. i might just have been lucky these past months, you never know. More people will get more results and we will definitely see in just a couple of weeks if they deliver the performance we expect: Lightest inner tubes on the market with MUCH better puncture protection than even Latex tubes. AND they can be used with sealant as well so you can imagine...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

why do we need to use tubes when tubeless systems exist and are MUCH better? "mess"? :lol: just be more carefull.

and why do we need to reinvent inner tubes? because someone wants to make money!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

sergio_pt said:


> why do we need to use tubes when tubeless systems exist and are MUCH better? "mess"? :lol: just be more carefull.
> 
> and why do we need to reinvent inner tubes? because someone wants to make money!


I would venture to say that 98% of cyclists can not mount or change a tire that is setup with latex sealant. I would also think that vast majority can not patch a tire without sealant. Pretty much anybody can change a tube. And it works pretty damn well, so it is not a massive pain point.

People who frequent this forum are far from a target customer base for a mass market product.


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

saga said:


> The tubeless kits do scare me. I'm currently on conti supersonic inner tubes and agree they're pretty thin but then again in my case most inner tubes puncture with thorns and the like no matter how thick the tube is.


That's the nice thing about tubeless sealant. I found a 1/2 long thorn that had been in my tire for nearly a month but the tire had never lost any air. If I wouldn't have been removing the tire to install a new one, I never would have known it was in there. (I found it when I noticed it sticking through the inside of the carcass.) If I was running a tube, I would have known within a few seconds, and I would have lost valuable riding time as I fixed the flat. With the size of this thorn, I would have hoped I wasn't going fast on rocky terrain, I'd still be spitting stones and dirt out! Haha. The nice thing about a tubeless setup is it can make a good tire seem great!

I still have a tubed setup on my Fisher, needless to say that bike hasn't moved in months!

I really want to try out the Mountain Kings in 2.2R/2.4F sizing.

Some of the thorn broke when removed, but still decent sized:


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Curmy said:


> I would venture to say that 98% of cyclists can not mount or change a tire that is setup with latex sealant. I would also think that vast majority can not patch a tire without sealant. Pretty much anybody can change a tube. And it works pretty damn well, so it is not a massive pain point.
> 
> People who frequent this forum are far from a target customer base for a mass market product.


If you count roadies in your 98%, I'm pretty sure your statement that most cyclists can change a tube becomes substantially more tenuous.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

dinoadventures said:


> If you count roadies in your 98%, I'm pretty sure your statement that most cyclists can change a tube becomes substantially more tenuous.


No need to rub it in for our smooth pavement friends . 

79% of all statistics is bogus, but my point was that using latex based tubeless systems is far from trivial (but then I always see people in LBS changing flats... _


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -Anchorman quote.

Lol, sorry couldn't help it.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

By the way... Since the RK 2.2 supersonic is so big and light (for the size), isn't the sidewall way to thin to run them tubeless...? They should be thinner than a 2,25 Racing Ralph that I run now...


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Batas said:


> By the way... Since the RK 2.2 supersonic is so big and light (for the size), isn't the sidewall way to thin to run them tubeless...? They should be thinner than a 2,25 Racing Ralph that I run now...


Too thin for what? They run tubeless just fine.


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

Batas said:


> By the way... Since the RK 2.2 supersonic is so big and light (for the size), isn't the sidewall way to thin to run them tubeless...?


I'll agree that the Supersonic tires are thin...but they do seal up with Stan's. Stan's normally suggests 2 scoops per wheel of sealant to seal non-UST tires. Because the Supersonics are a thinner tire, I use 3 scoops....sometimes 4 to achieve tubeless nirvana. By the time the sealant seeps out through the thin sidewalls you are left with roughly 2ish scoops inside the tire to seal any puncture that may occur.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

dinoadventures said:


> Too thin for what? They run tubeless just fine.


 Sidewall cuts done by rocks. Sharp rocks.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Batas said:


> Sidewall cuts done by rocks. Sharp rocks.


If it is sharp enough to cut through that sidewall, it will do it irrespective of the presence of a tube inside.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It's too bad they decided not to do the Protection version in Black Chili, otherwise it would be worth looking at the Protection version for that sort of terrain.


----------



## Alta825 (Mar 9, 2004)

Correction - 

Protection Race King's both in the 2.2 and 2.0 DO USE Black Chili. 

It is the UST and std blackwall version that don't utilize the Blk Chili compound. Black Chili is used on the Made In Germany tires only....


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

From the Conti UK website

_'Supersonic' Black Chili option

Available in two widths of 2.0" & 2.2", large vloume casing combined with a low profile tread pattern and Black Chili compound are just what ensures a head start on fast paced technical world cup tracks and marathon trails.

ProTection and wire/fold variants are also available (non Black Chili), along with 29" and UST versions which will be available in 2009._

from the German website

* Race King Supersonic: 3 Lagen/ 180tpi/ faltbar/ Black Chili Compound
* Race King ProTection: 3 Lagen/ 180tpi/ faltbar
* Race King UST-Tubeless: 3 Lagen/ 330tpi/ faltbar
* Race King: 3 Lagen/ 84 tpi/ faltbar und Draht
* Race King 29inch: 3 Lagen/ 180tpi/ faltbar


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

KERKOVEJ said:


> I'll agree that the Supersonic tires are thin...but they do seal up with Stan's. Stan's normally suggests 2 scoops per wheel of sealant to seal non-UST tires. Because the Supersonics are a thinner tire, I use 3 scoops....sometimes 4 to achieve tubeless nirvana. By the time the sealant seeps out through the thin sidewalls you are left with roughly 2ish scoops inside the tire to seal any puncture that may occur.


That's extra 60g of goop. And you still have mechanically weaker sidewalls. Diminishes the whole point of a light tire...


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

Some riders are lucky enough to not have to deal with sharp rocks. Those sidewalls would be sufficient. My weight combined with the massive amount of sharp rocks in my area would instatly eviscerate those sidewalls.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

dinoadventures said:


> If it is sharp enough to cut through that sidewall, it will do it irrespective of the presence of a tube inside.


 Most cuts are superficial. You can run the tires if they have a tube. But the cut could not be repaired by liquid latex.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Batas said:


> Most cuts are superficial. You can run the tires if they have a tube. But the cut could not be repaired by liquid latex.


I've had cuts sealed by stans before. The only cut I've had on a set of RKs that was not repairable couldn't take a tube either because it bulged out through the slash. If your weight, terrain choice, or riding style are not suited to this type of tyre, look elsewhere. That is not a problem with the tire as it is still functioning well within its advertised capacity.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

kevbikemad said:


> just noticed that the tread seems to have changed as some point...
> 
> the first pic is a pic jeff kerkove posted of some "test rider" tires.
> 
> ...


I just came across yet another pic of a variation of the RK 2.2 tread pattern, they aren't even the same in the 3/4 versus straight on view.


----------



## 743power (Sep 25, 2007)

they look the same, looks like the straight on view was flipped verically in photoshop. . .


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

A friend of mine recently ordered the RK2.2 non-SS off CRC and he said the volume wasn't anywhere near as large as my SS's. Is it possible that the smaller-mold issue from the early 29ers also affected the 26" size?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They're made on a different mold and different carcass, the non-SS versions are made in Asia somewhere.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

roockuphill I worked out why you may have hob and wobble in your tires. I have a set of race kings and left them folded for a few months and now they're showing signs of wobble after mounting them to my wheels. I think maybe the shape changes slightly when they've been left folded for a while.


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

saga said:


> Has anyone put talc powder on the inside of the tire?


 Me . RK brand new is slippery inside walls, but later it's better (like every tire runned with tube) to powder inside a bit. It's lowering resistance b'twen tire wall and tube, which are common during breaking and accelerations.


limba said:


> Which tubes are they using? Conti. supersonics, Panaracer Greenlites, Maxxis?


 Mine run with Conti SS 1.75-2.1 (94-96g).


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

*To talc or not to talc *



saga said:


> Damn, I just spent an hour or so taking the talc powder out of the my front tire(just a thin layer) on the inside of tire) thinking I'd made a mistake after reading a few comments on not doing it. But if racers are doing it then that gives it more credibility. Maybe I'll get the talc powder out again
> When I was putting the talc on the tire I did notice how thin it is, but once pumped up it should be fine for where I ride.


 Look carefully inside an old tire / tube combo. A lot of small erased debris of rubber. This came from drag between tube & tire. All of this debris is needed to clean out. Next powder a bit a tube or tire inside. Baby powder works well.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> They're made on a different mold and different carcass, the non-SS versions are made in Asia somewhere.


So are the UST and Protection versions possibly smaller volume also? I need to know as I will be ordering a bunch more RK2.2s this week.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Only the Supersonic/World Cups are handmade in Germany so all the others will be built on molds in Asia, hard to say about the sizing comparison. For me it's Black Chili or nothing


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

Im going to buy some, just for the fact this thread is 18 pages long.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Hand/of/Midas said:


> Im going to buy some, just for the fact this thread is 18 pages long.


5 pages. Set your preferences.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Just put in for three more RK 2.2 SS's. Phat Tire now has one left in stock. The fellow there said he'd weigh them out and send me the lightest three. 

My singlespeed (that I haven't posted on here yet) will have some high-volume RK loving next week and I get to endure the joy of setting these up tubeless again.

by the way, I saw the wire bead standard version of the RK 2.2 and it is indeed smaller. The carcass size is closer to that of a Crossmark. Sidewall isn't that much thicker. My buddy said he was very pleased with them for the $20 or so each he paid from CRC. IMO, they should call the non-SS 2.2 the 2.0 as the one labeled 2.0 is more like 1.7 (though apparently popular, according to the Phat Tire folks.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

How do you mount the race king for the rear, it says "ROTATION" with an arrow. But for the rear should this be pointing away from the direction of spin?????


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

Hand/of/Midas said:


> Im going to buy some, just for the fact this thread is 18 pages long.


hehe, 80 posts in here by rockyuphill.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

saga said:


> How do you mount the race king for the rear, it says "ROTATION" with an arrow. But for the rear should this be pointing away from the direction of spin?????


Same direction F/R. Works great.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

rkj__ said:


> hehe, 80 posts in here by rockyuphill.


80/434, that's only 18.4% of the total today :thumbsup: :skep:


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

I had to cut down the rubber nipples so they wouldn't contact my fsr mudguard for the rear tire. I feel bad cutting down the tire but I guess for the rear where less rolling resistance is wanted maybe it's an idea.

Anyone else cut there's down?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The molding nipples only last about 50-100km of use, depending how abrasive your trail surfaces area..


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

saga said:


> I had to cut down the rubber nipples so they wouldn't contact my fsr mudguard for the rear tire. I feel bad cutting down the tire but I guess for the rear where less rolling resistance is wanted maybe it's an idea.
> 
> Anyone else cut there's down?


 Me . It's 3-4 g
lighter after


----------



## flafonta (Feb 6, 2008)

Are the 29" version of the RK also large volume?

Just got extremely disappointed with the Mountain King 2.2 29er. Very skinny, smaller than 1.9. Actually, smallest 29" tire I have ever seen.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

flafonta said:


> Are the 29" version of the RK also large volume?
> 
> Just got extremely disappointed with the Mountain King 2.2 29er. Very skinny, smaller than 1.9. Actually, smallest 29" tire I have ever seen.


Francois,
The first 2.2's were a little small but I think they remedied that. I haven't personally seen any in the wild so I don't know that they are true to size. Perhaps ask in the C'dale or 29er forum as the C'dale 29ers come with them from the factory.

You're welcome to try out my RK 2.2 SS's iffin you feel like giving the 26er a roll.


----------



## Marco666 (Jan 20, 2009)

nino said:


> here's a pic of a Rocket Ron...just 0.4-0.5mm !! looks like paper to me


Hi, last summer I got from my sponsor one pair of Rocket Ron their weight were about 400 grams. Rocket Ron is gut tyre to needles, soil and softer underlay but after two races were these tyres dead..In both of them was 20mm hole..and I´ll never buy Schwalbe..only problems with these..You can not blow it on low presure..many of my collegues cut em..very hardly..

Now I want to buy Conti Race King 2.0 Supersonic and make it Tubeless with NoTube system (Stan´s or NoFlats)..


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

I have been using RK 2.2 Supersonics on all my bikes, great tire.

My wife's bike has no problem running the RK 2.2 in front but the RK 2.2 will not fit on the rear. I like the idea of running identical tires front and rear so I was thinking of the 2.0 RK but heard it is not nearly as good as the 2.2? Any recommendations? Currently, I threw on a 2.3 Speed King SuperSonic on the back of her bike but it is a pretty lousy tire.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Tubedriver said:


> I have been using RK 2.2 Supersonics on all my bikes, great tire.
> 
> My wife's bike has no problem running the RK 2.2 in front but the RK 2.2 will not fit on the rear. I like the idea of running identical tires front and rear so I was thinking of the 2.0 RK but heard it is not nearly as good as the 2.2? Any recommendations? Currently, I threw on a 2.3 Speed King SuperSonic on the back of her bike but it is a pretty lousy tire.


Where is the clearance issue? Is it with the height or the width?


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

The 2.2 RKSS didn't leave very much clearance at all on the rear of my old Giant Anthem Advanced. It was the diameter that caused a problem for me. When they were above 30psi, the moulding flash would rub the chainstay bridge, and if there was any dirt/stones stuck in the tread, they ground away at the carbon/paint.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

oh yeah, snug fit...


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Just tossed mine onto my new hardtail frame and it fits with room to spare. Hell, I could probably clear 2.5's with this. That's way more than I can say about my C'dale frame.

If they came out with a RK 2.5 SS, I'd buy it.

I also was reminded about what a procedure it is to get these things to take bead when setting up tubeless. I've got them sitting around with tubes in to round the tire out a bit.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Just transformed my trail config to a race setup. Threw two sets of these on last night as our race setups; one set for the wife and one for me. I bought these based on this thread for use in a couple of upcoming races. Wife was running 2.1 Fire Pro's and I had 2.35/2.1 UST Nevegals both set up ghetto. Changing out the tires (used conty light tubes) and Sette dropper seat post back to stock I dropped 3.2 lbs on my ex 7 (high 27 lbs total). Wife dropped ~1.5 lbs on her SL (high 26 lbs total). Both weights were taken on a digital bathroom scale so take that number with a grain of salt, but rough order of magnitude they made a difference. Just moving the bikes around the garage was easier! Riding down the driveway, I noticed better acceleration right off the bat and seemed to roll better (captain obvious to the rescue!). Haven't taken it to the trail yet.

Like Dino^^^^ I also tried to set one up ghetto from scratch, but couldn't get the bead to seat, was close but wouldn't ever take. Stan's everywhere LOL. Like everyone has said, these are big tires (in diameter) for a 2.2 but fit both bikes. These tires are also very round compared to what I'm used to riding, can't wait to see how they ride. 1 out of the 4 has a horrible wobble. I tried to reseat the beads a couple of times but gave up. Hopefully after the first ride I'll be able to fix it. I've had tires do this on this particular rim in the past though, I may have to do more investigating.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

no kidding they're faster and rounder. You went from fire XC's and nevegals which are both slow and square. 

given infinite time i will post up the definitive guide to getting these set up tubeless. i'll be doing three more in the next week.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Like both of those tires for general use around here, but when time counts there are better choices. BTW the tires are the 2.2 SS versions. As suggested in an earlier post, I'm going to put some foam weather stripping under the sacrifical tube to try to initially seal the bead. We'll see, I love science experiments!


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

pwork said:


> As suggested in an earlier post, I'm going to put some foam weather stripping under the sacrifical tube to try to initially seal the bead. We'll see, I love science experiments!


I'm all for science, but you're doing what now?


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Typical ghetto setup with a presta 20" tube split down the middle then trimmed when the tire is holding...filled some stans. Both sets of rims are bonty. This setup has worked for our non UST rims and at least two others in our area, typically with non-UST Kenda's but has worked with Panaracers. I think part of the issue you addressed, these need a tube in them for a while to round them out. The tire I tried had only been unfolded (and had not been mounted) for an hour or so. We're putting the first miles on them tonight, I'll report back.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

sorry that took me a bit to associate your wording to ghetto tubeless. i tried setting it up last night with the rim strip instead of just tape and valve and i wasn't getting any luck with that. next time i will try a different nozzle on the air compressor.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

Pretty much both.



dinoadventures said:


> Where is the clearance issue? Is it with the height or the width?


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

dino-you reminded me of another thought I had...I was hitting it with 120-130 psi (which is way more than I've needed in the past) and it was apparent that the flow wasn't there...a buddy that has the same compressor and has done a few setups as well agreed. I think part of my issue may be due to the old sacrifical tube/rim strip/valve I was using (I just took off the old tire and put the RK on there...as I didn't want to trim again if I didn't have to). I think that stans may have choked off the port. I've got a different brand of tubes (new) I'm going to try that appears to have more throw in the valve as well...we'll get there, but like I said "science experiment"!


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

I doubt this is the case on your setup, but on the Stan's valve stems you can pull the valve core for additional flow. Might be worth investigating.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

WOW, just got back from the maiden voyage and can't believe the difference these tires made. Semi-frozen rolling ST, with some leaves rocks/roots/baby heads. Like someone else said its like having another gear or two; stomp on the pedals and go! Was able to make a climb in a 32t chain ring for the first time too. Completely different bike. Plenty of traction (although to be fair in tonight's conditions only a semi slick would be sketchy). Cornering was predictable. Wife loved her's as well. I almost want to throw the Nevegals back on for resistance training purposes LOL! I been riding off and on for a while and I can honestly say this is the first time changing tires (or any other component) has made this much difference. A close second would be changing from XT v's to BB7's or from J3's to K24's.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



pwork said:


> WOW, just got back from the maiden voyage and can't believe the difference these tires made. Semi-frozen rolling ST, with some leaves rocks/roots/baby heads. Like someone else said its like having another gear or two; stomp on the pedals and go! Was able to make a climb in a 32t chain ring for the first time too. Completely different bike. Plenty of traction (although to be fair in tonight's conditions only a semi slick would be sketchy). Cornering was predictable. Wife loved her's as well. I almost want to throw the Nevegals back on for resistance training purposes LOL! I been riding off and on for a while and I can honestly say this is the first time changing tires (or any other component) has made this much difference. A close second would be changing from XT v's to BB7's or from J3's to K24's.


These comments exactly reflect my impressions i wrote early in this thread:

-Ultra fast rolling. It's hard to tell people that haven't tried it but this tire rolls over EVERYTHING at such an ease it is simply amazing. You almost don't notice changes in terrain anymore. Whereas other tires defintely let you feel when there is added drag from the ground the RK 2,2" seems to flow over every terrain with the same ease as if you would roll on tarmac all the time. This is what really makes you faster !! Me too i was doing some uphills a gear higher than usual even though the tire circumference makes for a longer gear...Simply impressive!

-Grip is awesome on almost every terrain too. I am most impressed by it's grip on wet/damp trails with rocks and roots. You can actually steer and brake on such trails where other tires wash out instantly. This has also to be felt as people can't believe that a tire can offer this amount of grip on wet,slippery roots....simply amazing!

-comfort with these tires is unbelievable. There is no suspension on earth that absorbs small bumbs like a high-volume tire. These tires, if used at low pressures, make for such a cushion that hardtails become like FS bikes (well - sort of..you know what i mean). I am able to remain seated over some sections with lots of smaller roots and logs because the tires would soak up the impacts. Much like the suspension of a FS does. The tires feel like glued to the ground and together with the awesome grip give you such a secure feeling that you sometimes feel like on rails....simply amazing!

-Forget about snakebites! This tires balloon-size is almost impossible to g-out....No more snakebites even at low pressures. So a major risk of flattening is gone....Simply amazing!

-Weight for their ballon-size is good. They are around 480g which by weight-weenie standards is MUCH TOO MUCH !!...But rest assured these tires more than outweigh the added weight!.....I know this added weight is a big hurdle to overcome for any weight-weenie. I was really having a hard time to install them at first. I never rode with such balloons, never wanted tires that weighed around 500g...The pair added about 200g right away over the tires i used before but the added speed, grip, comfort and most of all FUN is more than worth it!!

BUT:
-ONLY the bigger 2,2" offers all these awesome traits! The smaller 2,0" size is just average.

-ONLY get the Supersonic Version. It seems the Hot Chili compound is what makes it stand out!

-ONLY low pressures allow it to perform at it's best! Usually you should be using around 2,0 bar pressure (= ca. 29 psi). Slightly more or less but i'd say start there and try what works best for you. I felt a bit sketchy at first because i was used to slimmer tires which give you more direct feel of the ground. You will feel strange at first with these "soft balloons" but you will accustom once you actually try and ride them this way!

Downsides:
- I haven't any sharp rocks around here but the thin sidewalls might be a risk. Still we haven't heard of too many problems of this kind but if you are in a area with lots of sharp rocks these might be a bit risky.

-Setting them up "tubeless" with sealant seems possible but not too easy. I'd guess a good compressor for installation is a must if you want to run them with sealant.

-The only critics i have regarding grip was in really deep and messy/sticky mud. But only tractionwise on the rear wheel. Interestinly they would steer fine but it's the traction when climbing that suffers. Not more than other real knobbies though! I'd say only real mud-tires would do better! But that's really the only critics i have. I used them all winter long, on slippery loamy trails, covered with wet leaves, slick roots and logs, frozen trails and now powder snow...these tires do it all with ease.


----------



## JMK331 (Mar 9, 2008)

For those trying to mount these tubeless I got mine mounted by putting a tube in and inflating them enough to set the beads. Then I removed the tube and made sure I left one bead fully seated. Then I was able to get the tire inflated with my compressor without too much trouble. Now if I can figure out a way to get rid of the wobble I'll be good to go.

Edit: Rims are ZTR Olympic


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

How long should I expect these tires to last? I'm assuming they wear fairly quickly.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

FTM said:


> How long should I expect these tires to last? I'm assuming they wear fairly quickly.


That's a trick question. It depends on the terrain. I have over 800 miles on a pair that is ridden mostly on hardpack. It seems pointy rocks cause the most tread wear on these.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

Yeah, I figured it would be hard to answer but your answer seems like a good jumping off point.

Basically, I've got a set coming in the mail and have a 65 mile race coming up in a month. I won't be using these tires, or my race wheels, all the time but want to get used to the handling before the race - just wanted to make sure I had sufficient tread on race day.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Pavement climbs seem to wear them the most, so if you're putting on a fair bit of pavement miles to the trail head, that's where you'll see them wear. As long as you stay on dirt they will last pretty well, at least as well as any of the other soft rubber tires.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

I am fortunate enough to life less than a half mile from 3 separate trail heads so pavement isn't really an issue.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

FTM said:


> Yeah, I figured it would be hard to answer but your answer seems like a good jumping off point.
> 
> Basically, I've got a set coming in the mail and have a 65 mile race coming up in a month. I won't be using these tires, or my race wheels, all the time but want to get used to the handling before the race - just wanted to make sure I had sufficient tread on race day.


i did an 80-something-mile race on mine. they don't wear down that quick unless you're riding sharp limestone or crushed up concrete or some such. they're nice on the road, wind resistance aside. cushy : )


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

I bought the 2.2 World Cup versions, are they lighter than Supersonics?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Mattias_Hellöre said:


> I bought the 2.2 World Cup versions, are they lighter than Supersonics?


They are essentially the same, they don't even seem to be selected to be the lightest as my World Cup versions were 484 to 490gms. Other people have had them as light as 460gms (as spec'd).


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Can someone compare the RK 2.2 with the Schwalbe NN or RR 2,25 in terms of comfort...?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Batas said:


> Can someone compare the RK 2.2 with the Schwalbe NN or RR 2,25 in terms of comfort...?


not really...but riding NNs is like riding against wind compared to the RK


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

such a large tire should make you loose lots of aerodynamic or make a big air resistance when riding at >30km/hr or maybe less when compared to a thiner tire. whats the most important factor air resistance or roling resistance?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Tire wind resistance on a MTB with fat frame tubes, a big non aerodynamic fork, and stuff hung out in the airstream like water bottles and V-brakes? :skep: 

Rolling resistance will be a bigger factor, along with being able to pedal through rougher stuff because the bigger tire sucks up more of the bumps. 

Nino isn't exaggerating how fast rolling and grippy these are... buy a set and prepare to be amazed.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

I am using this as my front tire. It is as good as everyone here has described. I set it up tubeless without too much trouble. Did a 20 mile ride with a tube first and used a compressor to inflate. Sealed up without much trouble. One thing I do not think too many have mentioned, though Rocky showed in his first post, is how tall this tire is. Leaves constantly stick to the tire and catch on the crown of my reba. Last weekend rode a trail that had everything; rocks, roots, sand, gravel, leaves and unfortunately wet leaves and mud. Wet leaves packed bad enough that I could feel the resistance, mud was a lost cause due to clearance. Traction is great and in light mud if you show some restraint it is still rideable (sans the clearance problem). Weight is great for a tire its size. Its a great tire, but be prepared for some noise as trail debris catches on the crown.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The tire stops collecting so much stuff once all the molding nipples are worn off.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*corect...*



rockyuphill said:


> The tire stops collecting so much stuff once all the molding nipples are worn off.


I was just ahout to say that too. But i still get a lot of noise on my downtube when going through certain sections of small, wet gravel. Then it seems the frame gets kind of sandblasted by tiny little stones that get picked up and thrown out instantly. I noticed this much more with the RK than i did with other tires. But the sticky leaves get less with some wear.

By the way: i have at least 1000km on my Winterbike and the front looks still like new, the rear is still i'd say 80%. The rears center knobs just miss that tiny little second edge on top. traction is stil great though.i will post a pic later.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

With the older Conti Vapor tires there was a noticeable drop off in wet root and rock performance when that small suction cup edge around each knob wore off, the RK's may have a drop off in grip as well but not near as dramatic, likely because the rubber is grippier. 

The oldest pairs of RK's I have still have the molding tits on the front tire except for the centre and the rear tire has the centre knobs about 20-30% worn, so like most other sticky tires, it looks like they will wear at 2 rear tires to one front tire. A bit of tire rotation is in order this spring. A small price to pay for the grip they deliver. 

The nice thing is, about the time the rear wears to the point where they would be replaced for dirt use, they'd be ideal semi-slicks for a pavement bike. :thumbsup: 

At least they aren't $1000/tire like something from a Z06 Corvette.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

just got mine in the mail yesterday, 455g and 462g. I'll mount them up next week, can't wait to give them a spin. I should have my race wheels built up soon and then they are going on that.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Jeepers, I have no luck on getting low weight versions. Of the World Cup versions that I have here, they have all been 484-490gms and the one pair of Supersonics I have are both 505gms. :skep:


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

I was pretty surprised. I will double check the weights this evening to make sure I wasn't high.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

FTM said:


> just got mine in the mail yesterday, 455g and 462g. I'll mount them up next week, can't wait to give them a spin. I should have my race wheels built up soon and then they are going on that.


455? SICK. where from?


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

Bike Tires Direct... now you guy got me thinking that I was hallucinating. I'll check and post photos soon.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

Looks like my memory was a little off


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Amazing weights, I went through 6 different world cups and the lightest I weighted was 480g and 481g. That 452g is pretty impressive. It's a lot of weight to be saved, I imagine they must be thiner as where else can the weight be lost from?


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

I haven't actually unfolded them yet, maybe there's a big hole in them.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I even had to go back and check my scale calibration. Canadian quarters weigh 4.4gms each, a stack of 7 is 30.8gms and my scale says 31gms, so I am just getting heavy Race Kings. :skep: :cryin:


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

But aren't those are Canadian grams? With exchange rates and all...


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

People should sell items like the above light tire on ebay, I've never seen it. Seen lots of tuned stuff but that's different to actual light stock parts. I would certainly bid on a pair of tires that are in the lighter range than what I can get my hands on.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*light tires...*



saga said:


> People should sell items like the above light tire on ebay, I've never seen it. Seen lots of tuned stuff but that's different to actual light stock parts. I would certainly bid on a pair of tires that are in the lighter range than what I can get my hands on.


In the german ww-forum light tires get sold. That's the only possibility for a true weight-weenie to get pre-selected tires. Certain guys work in shops so they pick out the lightest tires when their shop orders and they sell them for good money in the forum.

But i haven't seen such light RaceKings before...congratulations!!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

FTM said:


> But aren't those are Canadian grams? With exchange rates and all...


It's just the Fahrenheit/Celsius dollar conversion that sucks our buying power to 72 cents.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Wife and I did our first race on the RK's, race 2 of 3 on the same course. Wow what a difference. 34 mile TT with lots of rocks (~30%), and some long climbs and decents. I wouldn't consider this the typical XC course. 

We're still running tubes on FS bikes. Wife had no issues and we love the tire's low weight and RR and traction in the dirt/mud. However, my front washed in a right hand turn at about 20 mph and I went down hard (I don't recall bouncing). Nothing damaged but my pride and my cofidence going down hill. In addition I got a flat about a mile from where I got my flat in the first race; steep fast technical rocky decent and it was a slow leak. I haven't done an autopsy on the tube yet but a quick glance didn't reveal any snake bites or punctures in the tube and no tears in the tire. I was running ~32 psi, I weigh 142 lbs. 

Any suggestions for a front with low weight and rr but better grip for cornering? I've heard good things about the MK. I'm going to stick with the RK in the rear but considering I've had a flat with a UST tire (explosive decompression) set up ghetto and a tubed RK any suggestions for the third race setup in the rear? These two flats are the only flats I've had in a year on any trail.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*too high pressure?*



pwork said:


> I was running ~32 psi, I weigh 142 lbs.


i am running them at 28-29 and weigh 155 lbs. You really need to run them the softest possible. At your weight you should definitely be able to go lower! my guess: around 25 psi.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

Nino is that 155lbs with full gear and shoes?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

saga said:


> Nino is that 155lbs with full gear and shoes?


no-nature pure


----------



## Ninko (Jul 19, 2006)

Damn I've tried those today. Slightly wet ground, some grass pieces and hardpack (but then in wet condition how do you guys call this?).
The tire is rolling really fast and has a lot of comfort in it. I'm not really sure what pressures I need to ride with. I'm ridding with a 1.9bar in the back and 1,8 at front (psi: 27 and 26).
I think I can go a little lower with this (I weight 67 kg, or 148 lbs). 

I race with them this Sunday, will try some pressures before the race, Planning to ride with as low as 24 psi. Think it must be possible without gaining rolling resistance. They roll really well right now, and they have a very good speed at hard surfaces (like tarmac etc). 

Nino, what's your experience with them when lowering the pressure? Rolling resistance going up very fast??


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They have a fairly narrow sweet spot that will be quite evident, likely 3 to 4 PSI between minimum and maximum optimum pressure range. Too low a pressure and they will be slow and squirmy. You can tell in 100m of riding.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*exactly!*



rockyuphill said:


> They have a fairly narrow sweet spot that will be quite evident, likely 3 to 4 PSI between minimum and maximum optimum pressure range. Too low a pressure and they will be slow and squirmy. You can tell in 100m of riding.


as soon as the tires starts feeling wobbly you are too low. when it feels springy you are already too high. as rockyuphill states there is really a sweet spot which for me is around 1,9-2,0 bar pressure (28-29psi). it's just because of cornering on hardpack that i have to raise the epressure slightly. i could well live with less but in corners the tire starts moving around when i push. it's really the cornering which made me find the correct pressure.

by the way - how long will it take that bikers forget about the myth that low pressures are slower? its completely wrong thinking ! it's the other way round: LOWER pressures are much FASTER offroads!! this has been prooven many times now in different tests. also WIDER tires roll FASTER offroads and can save huge amounts of your total watt-output!

maybe take a closer look at these graphs below!

upper graph:
you can see the different rollingresistance of paved road (blue), gravel (red) and meadow (yellow). now have a closer look what happens by rasing the pressure.left is low pressure starting at 1,5 bar (=22 psi) and to the right they raised until 4 bar (=58 psi)
----->as you can see the rollingresistance offroads is much better using LOW pressure. it's on roads that higher means better BUT the difference on paved roads isn't nearly as big as you would think.

lower graph:
influence of tire widht on rollingresistance
green is the slim tire,blue mid-sized tire,red fat tire...i think the results speak for themselves----->fatter is faster!


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Did the autopsy last night and found that the tube had been pinched, not a big hole hence the slow leak. Based on the above, I'm going to try to convert them to tubeless and use some brake going down that hill. Dish soap work to get the mold release off the inside so the sealant will work on them?


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

i installed a fresh set of RK WC on a Crossmax SL wheelset last week, going tubeless using a 70ml 30ml mix of hutchinson protect air and stan's - which is great for sealing beads (it dries out really fast here). 

after leaving the wheels inflated to 45 psi overnight with tubes, in the morning i switched out the tubes with one bead still locked. while i (floor)pumped like a maniac the mrs sloshed the wheel around sealing the bead before they popped - done.


----------



## Rogntudju (Sep 15, 2007)

Hello everyone,

I read earlier that sealing Supersonic RK's with Stan, for tubeless mount may be quite difficult.
To those who succeed that, what's your method, quantities.... ?

Culturesponge talks about mixing Hutch' and Stan's solutions for example, ant other experiences ?


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

_I'm still waiting for the protection version....must I go to the nearest mountain and meditate before the tire gods?_


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

Culturesponge talks about mixing Hutch' and Stan's solutions for example said:


> better perhaps you should start a new thread in the wheels and tires section of this forum?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I was out yesterday on trails that were everything from bare dirt to spring corn snow and dirty ice. The RK's worked quite nicely on the snow, the big footprint had some good flotation, no worse than riding in a couple of inches of sand in the soft snow. There were some spots where I had some slippage but all manageable amounts. The grip on dirty ice surprised me, I was ready for the sudden wheelspin and loss of froward momentum but it never happened on the climbs. There was a lot of dirt on the ice so it wasn't smooth wet ice, otherwise I likely would have been going nowhere.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Rogntudju said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I read earlier that sealing Supersonic RK's with Stan, for tubeless mount may be quite difficult.
> To those who succeed that, what's your method, quantities.... ?
> ...


I used dish soap to clean the insides of the tires, but don't think it worked. I tried with some Joe's sealant on thursday. And still have a 50% pressure drop over a 24 hr period when laying on their sides. I really need to ride them as that seems to seal them up quicker than anything.

What should be used to clean the inside of the tire? Simple green maybe?


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

pwork said:


> I used dish soap to clean the insides of the tires, but don't think it worked. I tried with some Joe's sealant on thursday. And still have a 50% pressure drop over a 24 hr period when laying on their sides. I really need to ride them as that seems to seal them up quicker than anything.
> 
> What should be used to clean the inside of the tire? Simple green maybe?


Have you tried the thing I do where you kick it up to 45-50 psi and pop all the little blisters that form and let the sealant fill those in? If you do that for a few cycles with laying it on its sides for about 15 minutes in between inflations that should work. It's worked for my last five or so.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

No, I'll try that. I've just taken it up to 35 or so.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

Mounted mine up yesterday (to Stan's rims), took them to 40-45psi, swish, lay on side, come back a while later, repeat process... 8 hours later (with very little time and effort involved) they are sealed and holding their pressure.

Rode them once with tubes before mounting tubeless, they are freaking amazing!! Roll like slicks on pavement and hardpack and soak up the bumps on my fully rigid singlespeed. Can't wait to try them at tubeless pressures... tomorrow on wet hardpacked decomposed granite - fast and sticky.


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

Got a pair in: 470 grams and 490 grams. I can't believe they are so freakin big! Yet really light.

Tried to mount them up to my stan's rims tonight with no luck. So, I threw some tubes in them for now to help things out. I'll try to get them mounted up again tomorrow.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Do the tyres seal well on the rims interface? Are they tight or loose on the rim? This is important because if the tyre is not suposed to run tubeless there is a big risk they explode out of the rim in certain circumstances.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Contis are almost always an easy install on standard rims, the Race Kings are never a problem to get on or off without tire levers. They do snap onto the XTR UST rims with quite a ping when you air them up, but I never get that sort of ping on regular rims when I mount them with tubes.

I'm looking forward to seeing these Eclipse tubes as well.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

What do you mean 'they snap with quite a ping'? 
If they are not so loose as hutchinson tyres is good with me.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

When the last portion of bead snaps into place, it makes a loud _PINNNNNG!_ sound, about the same as when a UST tire mounts up on the XTR wheel. But they just air up and seat on a standard rim like DT Swiss XRC330's, no noise at all.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

hmm the hutchinson tyres also snap in to the UST beads of the rim with a 'ping' and they also explode/roll out of the rim very easily. Its dangerous material... 

ho boy I'll see about it later. I also would like to try the new eclipse innertube.

anyone else can comment on the conversion of the RK to tubeless?


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

so how weak is the casing? Are these tires goign to be super sensitive to tears and such on the sidewalls etc? I'm ready to order a set but honestly am concerned they will only be good for smooth trail riding. Also the side knobs look very low, are you guys who give these good reviews doing any aggresive trail riding? Hard cornering? Do they descend well? I'm no expert racer but I can put down a decent pace, they sound fantastic so far but I'm hoping they grip as well as something like a nevegal 2.1+ etc..

I'm currently running mutanoraptor 2.4's that weight 600 grams (the shaved down knob race version of the 2.24) and they have pretty good side grip but they also have taller knobs on the side (but low knobs in the middle) I don't think I'd want anything that grips any less. I'm not just a pure climber


----------



## ozhoo (Sep 28, 2008)

I chewed through four of them in under a month. I loved the traction and cornering, but the sidewall couldn't stand up to our rocky socal trails. I'd keep patching up the sidewalls but eventually they'd get cut from tread to bead. I'll still run them when I get back north, but for down here, I've given up on light-weight Conti's.

O


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Race King is no substitute for a Mountain King. If your trails are gnarly all mountain-ish with sharp pointy things, then the MK 2.4 Protection is what you need. The Supersonics in all the Contis are not up to surviving sharp pointy objects, the sidewalls are thin.


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

So maybe I'll buy them and check them out on some local trails and if I like them keep em for race day or for particularly long gruesome climbing smooth rides.

Although you just went from recommending a race tire for moderate XC to a full on heavy weight AM tire just for some pointy stuff. I ride mostly XC trail stuff aggressively. I'm assuming these will work but with less margin for error....


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It's all about the terrain. If you deal with pointy rocks and thorns the RK Supersonics are just not hefty enough and the RK Protection version doesn't use Black Chili Rubber so it doesn't behave the same. 

The place the RK Supersonics shine is on hard pack, loose over hard pack, smooth and wet roots and rocks, and mud that isn't too slimy or squirmy. If you have deeper mud the MK's are better, they don't pack up.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Yody said:


> so how weak is the casing? Are these tires goign to be super sensitive to tears and such on the sidewalls etc? I'm ready to order a set but honestly am concerned they will only be good for smooth trail riding. Also the side knobs look very low, are you guys who give these good reviews doing any aggresive trail riding? Hard cornering? Do they descend well? I'm no expert racer but I can put down a decent pace, they sound fantastic so far but I'm hoping they grip as well as something like a nevegal 2.1+ etc..
> 
> I'm currently running mutanoraptor 2.4's that weight 600 grams (the shaved down knob race version of the 2.24) and they have pretty good side grip but they also have taller knobs on the side (but low knobs in the middle) I don't think I'd want anything that grips any less. I'm not just a pure climber


I've got a minor tear in one of mine from a rocky trail. By rocky I don't mean gravel or river rock, I mean the larger sharp technical stuff. Would have never noticed it with a tube but did I tried to convert it tubeless. We'll see how they hold up. They DO NOT grip like a Nevegal and I took a pretty hard fall at the bottom of a decent when the front washed in a turn. That was my bad and got lazy; they are far from a semi slick and you just have to know where the limits are and adjust. However, they perform very well if within the parameters that they were designed. They have so much better rolling resistance and acceptable traction in a variety of conditions that they are very good for a race or a non-rocky trail for daily use. I'll probably take them off after this race series and use them for races only as they likely won't put up with my non graceful power through the rough style on our local trails.


----------



## paulbu (Feb 17, 2004)

Just got a set of these. They are pretty much a pita to seal. I used two scoops for the front tire and I have reinflated it 4 times and it is still not holding pressure. Back tire i used 2.75 scoops and it appears to be sealing easier but still isnt holding pressure. It gets better every time i reinflate but at this rate it will be next week before they are ready to go. 

Looks like the biggest problem is that flag texturing they put on the sidewalls. My recommendation to Conti is to drop that texturing. It just makes the tire harder to mount and seal and has no positive effect.

Personally i would feel better if the tire were a little heavier without the highly porous sidewalls.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

You do realize the Supersonic version is not intended to be used tubeless.... :skep: For the intended use with tubes, that airtight requirement isn't really an issue. 

I'm looking forward to trying the RK's with these Eclipse wonder tubes.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Ha !*



rockyuphill said:


> You do realize the Supersonic version is not intended to be used tubeless.... :skep: For the intended use with tubes, that airtight requirement isn't really an issue.
> 
> I'm looking forward to trying the RK's with these Eclipse wonder tubes.


Well - rest assured those tubes are THE hot ticket regardless of the tire you use! All the advantages of "tubeless" in a tube.

I have my fair share of experience in setting up Supersonics with sealant...it can really be a mess---->no more with the Eclipse tubes:thumbsup:


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

paulbu said:


> They are pretty much a pita to seal. I used two scoops for the front tire and I have reinflated it 4 times and it is still not holding pressure. Back tire i used 2.75 scoops and it appears to be sealing easier but still isnt holding pressure. It gets better every time i reinflate but at this rate it will be next week before they are ready to go.


Pump up the tires and go ride the bike for 1/2 an hour. When you come home they'll be sealed. I've done this 4-5 times now, and it works every time.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

I guess eclipse is shooting his feet then? If the tubes are SO much better like you say, who is going to buy the eclipse tubeless systems?


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

Agreed with the PITA to seal up with Stans. I got mine to pop on the beads (after inflating and running with a tube for a day first.) But, they are being a real problem to seal up. It's all of those tiny bubble that form through the sidewall. 

I've been pumping them up and popping them over and over again, letting the sealant fill in the holes. I'd say I'm close to being done now. But, I've been working on them for a couple days now. 

Went out for a short ride on them today, in the hopes of helping the process. Started with about 28 psi and ended the hour ride with about 15. Aired them up when I got home.... we'll see how the hold up overnight now. 

The performed fantastic on the trail though. I think it will be worth the effort once they are sealed up fully.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> I guess eclipse is shooting his feet then? If the tubes are SO much better like you say, who is going to buy the eclipse tubeless systems?


... more like selling a new product to every one who already bought into a tubeless system. Does Apple shoot itself in the foot each time a new type of iPod comes out.


----------



## paulbu (Feb 17, 2004)

I think the days of "these tires are not meant for tubeless" is pretty much gone. Manufacturers should just assume that their tires will be run tubeless now. So yes, if the tire isnt suitable for tubeless sealant systems then i consider that a huge negative. Especially if the primary cause of the flaw is because of something cosmetic they did to the tire. I would say that even with tubes the tire is unnecessarily weaker because of the checkered flag pattern they put on the already thin sidewall. 

I know there are some parts of the country where you might not NEED tubeless with a sealant and can get by with a tube but not in Texas (and Texas isnt the only state either). Pretty much the entire state warrants tubeless. The only people who run tubes are noobs.

Nino, I hope those tubes are all you have been claiming they are. I have some serious doubts that they would handle thorns very well but we'll see. If all they do is avoid pinch flats, well, that isnt really an issue with tubeless so i guess i would stick with tubeless. Thick latex tubes dont pinch too easily but they are not avery thorn resistant. Then there were those polyurethane tubes that were supposed to be the shiznit but those would burst (the seam would split), i dont even know if they were more thorn resistant than any other tube because they would self destruct before you had a chance to test the theory. As you can see, i am a little bit cautious about running tubes. They just arent reliable in my experience. 

At any rate, i hope the magical Eclipse tubes are all you say they are. That would be nice.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

paulbu said:


> I know there are some parts of the country where you might not NEED tubeless with a sealant and can get by with a tube but not in Texas (and Texas isnt the only state either). Pretty much the entire state warrants tubeless. The only people who run tubes are noobs.


That's damn right, especially when goatheads are in season. Two inch+ thorns and/or cactus are a regular hazard on many trails I ride. Last night I got back in from the hill country and pulled out fourteen thorns/spines/etc from my rear tire alone.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> Well - rest assured those tubes are THE hot ticket regardless of the tire you use! All the advantages of "tubeless" in a tube.


I think we could jump on the hype train when they are in mass production and cost less then a cheap wheelset. Few hand made prototypes are a few hand made prototypes.


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

I finally got one of mine to setup tubeless (rear). I ended up scrubbing the inside with diluted Simple Green and washed it down with some rubbing alcohol to remove any potential residue. It setup pretty quick after ward. I rode for 4 hours on a slow technical trail and didn't have any issues. However, my wife flatted both with her tubes; one was a thorn but don't know what caused the second yet.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Does anyone know if the Race King 2.2 Supersonics will fit on the rear of a GT Zaskar Team Carbon?


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

pwork said:


> I finally got one of mine to setup tubeless (rear). I ended up scrubbing the inside with diluted Simple Green and washed it down with some rubbing alcohol to remove any potential residue. It setup pretty quick after ward. I rode for 4 hours on a slow technical trail and didn't have any issues. However, my wife flatted both with her tubes; one was a thorn but don't know what caused the second yet.


I just did one more yesterday and it required no scrubbing. It did, however, have a quarter inch puncture between the hot patch and the tread that required patching. The tire has never seen trail so I'm wondering how that got there. Aside from that I did the usual procedure which involved rounding it out by having it mounted with a tube for a while then kicking it up to 50 psi and popping all the little blisters for a few cycles. It's all good this morning. I'm doing another this evening so hopefully it will be this easy.


----------



## paulbu (Feb 17, 2004)

Well, I have both tires mounted. Mine mount right up with no tube needed to round them out. I am using the Stan's rim strip though. So the bead isnt too big of an issue.

The front tire i just mounted up, no washing or anything. The rear tire i washed hoping to have a better time of sealing it up than with the front. Took several days of inflating the tires to 45-50 psi, poping bubbles, covering them in soapy water to check for air leaks, sloshing sealant to get leaks to stop etc, to get them it to hold air. I took it for a ride the other day, lost a lot of pressure during the ride, had to air up the front tire once and the rear tire twice over a 1.5 hour ride. Both tires were low when i got home (10-15psi).

Since then (several days) i have been airing the tires up regularly throughout the day. and storing the tires on their sides (level). Pressure drop is still unacceptable on the rear but it is getting better. Front tire might be OK but will have to see on my next ride if it can hold air or not.

Oh, i did open the front tire up to a little extra sealant. One thing i noticed is that in these tires the sealant doesnt stick to the rubber like on most tires. This is leading me to believe that it has something to do with the rubber compound or that oily stuff that everyone is trying to wash out. Maybe if i had used something a little stronger like the simple green someone else is using it would work better.

As far as the ride goes, they feel like they are good race tires. They dont really feel any faster or more confortable than my Schwalbe RR 2.25 (old tread pattern). They might grip better in corners but I could ride them that hard as they were just not holding pressure and i didnt want to roll them off the rim. So, IF they ever seal up then i will give them a thumbs up (well, that and if we figure out how to get them to seal in less than an hour). 

If i had to make a call on these today i would have to give them the thumbs down but i am going to hold off until i try a few more things.



.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

paulbu said:


> Pressure drop is still unacceptable on the rear but it is getting better. Front tire might be OK but will have to see on my next ride if it can hold air or not.


Maybe those new Eclipse tubes are starting to sounding better than tubeless?


----------



## cmh (Jan 30, 2004)

Sounds like the RKs are the bee's knees. Also sounds like the 2.2s are the way to go, but if we're talking about a lighter rider (120lbs) on a Scott Scale, are the 2.2s necessary, or is it OK to stick with the 2.0? Have been running 26x2.0 MKSS with excellent results.


----------



## Ninko (Jul 19, 2006)

Have ridden the tires now for almost a month and they are really awesome. In the beginning I was riding them with to hard pressures. But since a few weeks I';ve dropped the pressure to like around 1,5 bar (I've been lower and that's great but doesnt work in short corners).
I've mounted them up tubeless with Olympic rims and they sealed in one time. The sidewalls are pretty thin though. In the beginning there came a bit of latex out of them a few times. 

This sunday I will ride my first real xc race on them. Pretty fast track I think I will be running around 1,5 bar (plusminus 20psi). In the back for sure. Maybe around 1,4 bar (19 psi) in front and 1,6 in back. Must be great!


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

I made a resolution last year to never ever again convert a Supersonic tire with Stans solution. 
Simply too much of a mess, and the sidewall are way too thin to handle technical courses.
From a ww perspective, the weight saving of the Supersonic gets balanced by the dried latex skin that keeps layering and layering. After two weeks the liquid solution would be competely gone, unless you keep adding avery week. I've removed as much as 50-60g of dry latex per wheel, in just over a month of usage. 
I know, there's the Black Chili difference, but I would go with the standard version (non supersonic) for Stans conversion.

On a different subject, has anyone measured the *real width of the 2.0 version*? Thanks
fab


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Ausable said:


> I made a resolution last year to never ever again convert a Supersonic tire with Stans solution.
> Simply too much of a mess, and the sidewall are way too thin to handle technical courses.
> From a ww perspective, the weight saving of the Supersonic gets balanced by the dried latex skin that keeps layering and layering. After two weeks the liquid solution would be competely gone, unless you keep adding avery week. I've removed as much as 50-60g of dry latex per wheel, in just over a month of usage.
> I know, there's the Black Chili difference, but I would go with the standard version (non supersonic) for Stans conversion.
> ...


Last 2.0's i saw were more like a 1.7.

I recently have made the decision to explore some alternatives to the RK's for a couple of reasons. First, after a week of fussing around with a pair recently set up with stans, it lost the seal to the bead during a race and I had to DNF it after bleeding time desperately trying to keep it filled with air. That makes it a week and a half it's taken me as today was the first day I've had a ride where it's held air. Not exactly confidence inspiring, but what really did it for me was when I tried to order a fresh pair to replace the ones I have with about 1300 miles on and are starting to show a lot of sidewall wear... the price has gone up by $12 to $52 each. That's a 30% increase. I can't throw that kind of money around on tires only to trash them on rocky courses after not much mileage, so I've ordered a pair of Panaracer Razer 2.3's to try on my non-WW Turner Flux. $25 a pop and full sidewall protection. I only hope they are anywhere near as good. I'll probably still continue to use the RK's on my hardtails unless these Panaracers turn out awesome.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

dinoadventures said:


> after a week of fussing around with a pair recently set up with stans


Isn't it about time these are available...?
No fuss, no mess, airthight from the very first moment.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Are you just jerking our chains, or are they available now?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

BlownCivic said:


> Are you just jerking our chains, or are they available now?


not yet. sometime this year but no exact date yet.

Anyway - these will end all problems associated with tubelesskits. Mount any tire any time, also minutes before a race.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

i'll wait for the tubes.. they seem damn good


----------



## Drea (Aug 23, 2008)

Nino make sure those tubes get to Denmark ASAP! I want some


----------



## Thomas (Feb 19, 2004)

Me to


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Here's the deal for sealing most Continental Supersonic tyres.

I dont know what it is they use but all my Continental tyres had "something" sprayed inside the tyre so the rubber was all slippy etc. Sealent would not "skin" on it and seal.

So i removed the tyres, drained the sealant and scrubbed the stuff off the inside of the tyre using water and soap. 

Reinflated the tyres with stans and they sealed straight away.

They should seal no problem. I just sealed my Furious Fred - 282 grams and it sealed in a day no problem. Its been rock hard since too. 


@ Nino - do you need to run a rim strip with those tubes ? I might be able to save weight. I currently use 50grams sealant, 7 gram rim tape, 7 gram valve = 64grams So i could save a little bit if its just a tube


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

tiffster, I did scrub the tires just like the four sets of RKs I've done previously. This one had issues leaking air at the bead. It appears to be sorted now. 

Nino, as much as I like the feel of tubes, it is not an option around here. You can see who is running tubes at the races by glancing at the DNF list.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



dinoadventures said:


> tiffster, I did scrub the tires just like the four sets of RKs I've done previously. This one had issues leaking air at the bead. It appears to be sorted now.
> 
> Nino, as much as I like the feel of tubes, it is not an option around here. You can see who is running tubes at the races by glancing at the DNF list.


As mentioned in the other thread these tubes are far more resistant than any other tube on the market. But you are right-these are still tubes....but just that much better material.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

Even if they are more resistant, when i'm pulling two dozen things out of my tires after some rides, that's still a lot of opportunities to flat. Not small things, either. My Stans booger collection is lookin' good.


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

So after all the good reviews of RK 2.2 SS, is this the ultimate, multipurpose, ww, tire that you guys would recommend for a ht rider? I'm looking to replace my Kenda SB8 rear and Nevegal front (both 1.9) for a little more cushion. Thanks.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Yes!*



morrisgarages said:


> So after all the good reviews of RK 2.2 SS, is this the ultimate, multipurpose, ww, tire that you guys would recommend for a ht rider? I'm looking to replace my Kenda SB8 rear and Nevegal front (both 1.9) for a little more cushion. Thanks.


YES - that's if the trails surface allows the use of the rather thin carcass.

---->better not too sharp rocks and not too many thick spines as the tire sure isn't the best protected...but it is definitely one of the fastest,grippiest and nost comfortable tires around.

Just keep tire pressure low!!


----------



## Feideaux (Jan 14, 2004)

paulbu said:


> The rear tire i washed hoping to have a better time of sealing it up than with the front. Took several days of inflating the tires to 45-50 psi, poping bubbles, covering them in soapy water to check for air leaks, sloshing sealant to get leaks to stop etc, to get them it to hold air. I took it for a ride the other day, lost a lot of pressure during the ride, had to air up the front tire once and the rear tire twice over a 1.5 hour ride. Both tires were low when i got home (10-15psi).
> 
> Since then (several days) i have been airing the tires up regularly throughout the day. and storing the tires on their sides (level). Pressure drop is still unacceptable on the rear
> As far as the ride goes, they feel like they are good race tires.
> ...


You are remarkably composed considering what you've just been through 

I'm patting myself on the back right now after steering clear of ghetto tubeless for those very reasons. XTR wheels, Racing Ralph UST, shot of stans, not a single issue. :thumbsup:

I commend this set up to everyone on this thread! Ride more!


----------



## pwork (Apr 16, 2008)

Just an update. Race 3 of 3 in this series. I finally completed a race w/o a flat. See previous posts for course descriptions. Both my RK's setup tubeless. Both were scrubbed with simple green and isopropyl. Used Joe's rimstrips which are similar to the Stan's setup then filled with stans. Tire that had a patched small tear was moved to the front (and still has a wobble) but worked fine. Rode on Sunday as well with no issues.

Wife was having a great race but flatted in the exact same spot I did in the two previous races. I kept her tubed setup (didn't have time to convert to tubeless) in but did put some sealant in her tubes. That evidently didn't help. Both got PB's but if she hadn't of flatted, she'd finished on the podium. Thats mountain biking. Bottom line, these tires are great for all around/race duty on groomed trails. Their bite is very good for such a light and low RR tire. However, I'm going to save mine for race day use only with as our local trails are demanding with tons of rocks. Besides its better to train with more rolling resistance right?


----------



## bingobong (Mar 4, 2008)

I just bought a set of these in 2.2 supersonic after reading all the great reviews on this thread. Question I have for those who have been using these is whether there is a noticeable difference in performance between running these with tubes vs tubeless (apart from the obvious pinch flat and small puncture issues etc). To keep things simple I would plan to run the same pressure whether tubed or tubeless (30psi front/34 psi rear - riding weight 85kg) so just want to know if there would be much difference in speed and grip if I went the tubed option. Cheers.


----------



## cmh (Jan 30, 2004)

BlownCivic said:


> My solution to getting these things sealed which works every single time, is to do the shake/lie on their side thing for 2-3 cycles, and then just ride the damned thing. It'll hold enough air for a 1-2 hour ride, and then after the ride, the tire will be sealed for good.


+1 on this... fought the RKSS's for two days, maybe a little more. Sometimes they seemed to be holding air, sometimes they'd leak down quick, but the end result was *always* the same - completely flat in a couple of hours. Luckily I didn't lose the bead, so could reinflate.

Went for the first ride with them tubeless yesterday, and as of this morning, the one is soft but not flat, and the other seems to be at the same pressure as yesterday. I did use some CO2 on the one, so the leakdown could just be from that.

But definitely the hardest set of tires to seal up so far. The previous MKSS were a little bit of a challenge, but nothing like this.

Oh, and as for ride reports -- this is my wife's bike, so she says the volume is nice, her Scale feels like a full sus now. However, she doesn't find them to have the traction of the MKSS, has noticed them sliding out on corners and steep climbs. Nothing too bad, but so far she's still leaning towards the MK over the RK. Her first ride was 28/28psi with tubes, yesterday's ride was 20/24psi with a Stan's tubeless conversion on American Classic wheels.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm about 88-89kg and run them between 28-32PSI with tubes.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I run them with 23 front and 25 rear. I'm also about 85 kg. This is tubeless on Race7000 front and Olympic rear. I wonder if you maybe don't have enough sealant left in the tires for them to seal up properly? Just a thought!


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I've just gone through this entire thread, and by the end I had lost track of who was running which rims with the RK2.2's.

I'm considering trying to mount 2.2's tubeless with Stans, and I have a choice of rims that I own. Have you guys had the best luck running them on UST rims with Stans, or non-UST rims with rim strips and Stans? I have one set each of 19mm inside width UST and non-UST rims that I could try with the RK2.2SS's. What would you guys recommend? Thanks!


----------



## chpfly (Oct 22, 2007)

*Best Price on the RK 2.2 SS?*

Super $$ tires. Any deals on them? Looking for the SS.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

there are some on ebay right now.. but they are the 2.0 version :skep:


----------



## razmaru (Feb 23, 2009)

*will it fit?*

seeing as nino has better experiences with the 2.2 RK, i might be tempted to try these babies out, but at the same time eveyone is commenting on how huge those puppies are (2.2 RK similar to 2.4 MK). Im currently on a 2.1 SB8 both fr and rear and im afraid i might have problems getting the 2.2 RK to fit the rear seat stays and chain stays...is it more of a wide tire or a tall tire??..

also what would be the carcass size of a 2.1 SB8?...i heard they are fairly high volume tires.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They are big, and round, give or take 54mm wide and 54mm tall. That's an RK 2.2 in the rear of a carbon Rocky Vertex, and a new SID.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

ppl here say to use low pressures with the RK, but be careful if you use narrow rims as crossmax SLR and XTR, the big and large tire will have a tendency to roll out of the rim when cornering. 
I tried this tire with the SLR and sealant, and it’s getting a little difficult to seal but not has difficult has Hutchinson pythons where all the sidewalls were making a huge amount of microbubbles but they sealed. The RK only makes some bubbles here and there, but it can take some days to seal properly…


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That's where that narrow optimum operating range comes in, you only have a 3-4 pound range between too hard and too soft. If you can roll the tire it is underinflated for your weight, even on XC rims like the XTR. I have them on XTR and XRC330 DT rims and in the optimum pressure range they won't roll under.


----------



## razmaru (Feb 23, 2009)

holy mudkips....thats a real tight fit... just made it on the mud clearence. I have prolly about 6-7mm clearence of space on both sides of the tire on my chainstay arch with my SB8s. 

These tires are pricey, prolly i might settle for RK 2.0s, front and rear with low to mid pressure. I wonder why the 2.2s are starkly different from the 2.0s in terms of performance?... is it due to its bigger size?...what if i run the 2.0s with the sweet spot psi?...

is the performance of the non supersonic vastly diff from the supersonic? im not talking weight (which is obvious) but in terms of traction or overall feel.


----------



## razmaru (Feb 23, 2009)

This here is a pic of my chainstay clearance. Pretty tight i would say with the 2.1 SB8, would a RK 2.2 or 2.0 fit there?. I dont think i have probs wif my fork, i think my recon's arches can handle em up front.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

razmaru said:


> holy mudkips....thats a real tight fit... just made it on the mud clearence. I have prolly about 6-7mm clearence of space on both sides of the tire on my chainstay arch with my SB8s.
> 
> These tires are pricey, prolly i might settle for RK 2.0s, front and rear with low to mid pressure. I wonder why the 2.2s are starkly different from the 2.0s in terms of performance?... is it due to its bigger size?...what if i run the 2.0s with the sweet spot psi?...
> 
> is the performance of the non supersonic vastly diff from the supersonic? im not talking weight (which is obvious) but in terms of traction or overall feel.


Yes there is a big difference with the Black Chili rubber (and the handmade in Germany tires versus the Asian made versions in general), they perform about like the older Conti Vapor or Explorer tires with regular rubber.

The size seems to be a footprint to pressure issue. If you're very light, like under 125 pounds you might be able to get a low enough working pressure without pinch flatting or whacking the rim, but what I find with all smaller volume tires is that when you weigh more than 175-180 pounds you have to run a high pressure to keep from smacking the rim on roots and rocks and the footprint is never big enough by the time you keep the rim safe.


----------



## razmaru (Feb 23, 2009)

Icic...so let me get it straight... the supersonics (black chilli) are made in germany and the non supersonics are made in asia?....did i nail it? I will prolly get the supersonics then if that is case, everyone seems to have only good things to say abt the black chili stuff.

I weight 135-140 pounds with gear so i guess im pretty light, as per ur advice i can prolly run lower pressures and getting a wider footprint whilst still saving my rim. (future rim would be a dt4.2....i hope :thumbsup: ) 

as for my clearence (in my pic above) do you think i would be better served fitting the RK 2.0s or 2.2s?


----------



## gotdirt33 (Jul 6, 2008)

so....I was planning on going with schwalbe rocket rons for my mojo sl build but now im seeing that the rocket rons have terrible sidewalls, so if im getting my information right, the conti supersonic tires are better performing and much higher quality that schwalbe? i mean for starters they're handmade in germany not asia.....


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I have about 6mm clearance with the RK 2.2's on the rear. They are 54mm wide and 54mm tall so you could compare the SB8's in width and height.


----------



## razmaru (Feb 23, 2009)

6mm, thats about what i have and mine are 2.1s  ..... i will still measure it though. now if i can only get my hands on a digi caliper.... straight rule against the tire wont be accurate i suppose...


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

ended up walking for 1 hour :madman: 

almost 90% thread left, i'll still love how it grips

do they have any warranty?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Was that run tubeless or with tubes? What killed it?


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

it was with tube, and it was a sharp rock going down hill, fortunately i had time to stop, if not...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Supersonics definitely don't do well around sharp and pointy things.


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

now i see.. anyone know where is the best place in the US to buy one? looking for good price  

another thing, what is the weight difference between de protection and the supersonics? are they with the same chilli compound?


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

FueLEX8 said:


> now i see.. anyone know where is the best place in the US to buy one? looking for good price
> 
> another thing, what is the weight difference between de protection and the supersonics? are they with the same chilli compound?


Here are a few deals for the RK Supersonic.

$47.19 I know they are in the UK but shipping is still reasonable or even free if you spend enough.
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/Continental_Race_King_Supersonic_Foldable_Tyre/5360039975/

$46.87 I have never heard of these guys.
http://www.bikesonline.com/index.ph...ce-King-26-x-2.2-Supersonic-Black-Black-Chili


----------



## rasmusj (May 29, 2008)

If ordering from Europe, tyres from both Schwalbe and Continental are significantly cheaper in Germany, see bike-discount for instance, 40$ including german vat. Shipping, however, is quite expensive compared to the UK shops.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

I think thats the worst puncture in this whole thread so far. Way worse than either of my two. These aren't the tires for sharp rocks. I've taken them off my Turner which I use for those kinds of courses. 

I buy my RK's from Phat Tire, but everyplace just jacked the price up 30% so they're now $52 each instead of 40. CRC has them for less, but the shipping is harsh unless you order other stuff. Anyhow, yeah, Phat Tire is reliable. I've bought several pair from them.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

FueLEX8 said:


> now i see.. anyone know where is the best place in the US to buy one? looking for good price
> 
> another thing, what is the weight difference between de protection and the supersonics? are they with the same chilli compound?


Unfortunately the Protection versions aren't Black Chili rubber, not sure why since they make the Mountain King Protection versions in Black Chili. So far my experience with the MK 2.4 in SS and Pro versions indicates they share the grip and rolling resistance qualities, the only difference is the weight and extra inertia. If I were running them both on the same bike I might notice some difference in ride quality with the thicker sidewalls, but I'm using the Pro versions on my All Mountain 6x6 bike.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

*RK Supersonic instant blow-out during fast downhill section*



dinoadventures said:


> I think thats the worst puncture in this whole thread so far. Way worse than either of my two. These aren't the tires for sharp rocks. I've taken them off my Turner which I use for those kinds of courses.
> 
> I buy my RK's from Phat Tire, but everyplace just jacked the price up 30% so they're now $52 each instead of 40. CRC has them for less, but the shipping is harsh unless you order other stuff. Anyhow, yeah, Phat Tire is reliable. I've bought several pair from them.


the wife had her RK Supersonic back tire pretty much explode on a fast (20-30mph) downhill section the other day after it was holed by flinty shards of rock sticking up from the trail. luckily she had the skills to stop without crashing - but she would have had no chance if it was the front tire that had blown out, i hate to think about it.

the tire was converted to tubeless and almost new, i'm up/down that trial sometimes twice a week without incident.

that's it i'm done using paper thin sidewall tires. if your a racer and need that edge during a race, okay - otherwise you are risking your kneck to save a few grams rolling on paper thin sidewalls.

i've ordered some Race King Protection 2.2's from Phat Tire (they are apparently sold out in Europe til June, Conti has none at least) and will try find something to do with the other 3 RK SS tires.


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> The Supersonics definitely don't do well around sharp and pointy things.


Agree. But I should mention I personally have not had an issue with sharp and pointy things.....but there is a 'risk' taking the Supersonics into this type of terrain. My next race is filled with all kinds of sharp and pointy rocks...so I switched out the ProTection version ran tubeless with Stan's. It really comes down to the right tire for the right application...lightweight or not.








</a>








</a>
.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Luckily there are not so many pointy rocks up here in the rain forest, a lot of wet granite, a lot of wet roots, a lot of wet logs, and moss/mud/humous. I am cautious around blackberry vines which can shred lycra like a platoon of pissy hissy kitties, the thorns are certainly long enough to poke holes in a tire.

What are the Protection versions like for grip? What's the build quality like?


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

*Race King Supersonic high speed instant deflation on fast fireroad descent*

the terrain where the tire instantly deflated is really somewhere where you wouldn't have expected there to be any problems/danger, we rack down to the trailhead as fast as is "safe" usually 20-30mph, its a flat wide and open descent with little stones/dusty at most.

i was very suprised that potentially fatal accident inducing rocks had erroded through the trail during the winter rains - they seem be only projecting less than 15mm at most, but that's obviously enough to rip open a thin sidewall at high speed.

anyway, if your rolling RK Supersonics make sure your life insurance is paid and up to date!

...no wonder the Race King Protection version is tuff to get hold of.

have fun/be safe peeps

(edit for typo)


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

What pressure was she running? That's quite a way up the sidewall.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> What pressure was she running? That's quite a way up the sidewall.


front 28/30psi rear 32/34psi, she weighs approx 57kg (125lb) with full mtn gear, backpack was empty of water by that time, the tires looked fine right up to the moment the back tire went bang.

...if your riding RK Supersonics tubeless, do yourself a favour and keep a close check on any scuffs or the slightest sign of damage to those paper thin sidewalls.

i was drawn to the Supersonic version of the Race King because they are handmade in Germany with black chili compound, and abit lighter - but that is just trivial if they puncture so easily and instantly.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm running with Maxxis Ultralight tubes and have yet to have a puncture of any sort since I started the thread. But there aren't many pointy things here, other than fir needles (and bear teeth, but at that point I'm thinking I have a bigger problem).


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> I'm running with Maxxis Ultralight tubes and have yet to have a puncture of any sort since I started the thread. But there aren't many pointy things here, other than fir needles (and bear teeth, but at that point I'm thinking I have a bigger problem).


keep it that way rockyuphill!

...i would have whole heartedly reccomended these tires to my mother before Sunday's err, main event - but now i think they are effing dangerous and should come with a safety warning & perhaps a laurel wreath. (jokes)

the original puncture in the sidewall was probably very small, but because the Supersonic sidewalls are so thin it ripped out more and "instantized" deflation.

its a great tire for race day though.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

saga said:


> Anyone got any more weights to add? I hear people saying they have 460g 2.2 supersonics but I'm yet to see the tires on a scale saying so. I think they may be the 2.0 RK that people are weighing in the 460 range.
> 
> Also have you noticed the worldcups say 460g but now the RK supersonics are down as 480g for the 2.2's. So maybe they did have a difference after all.


My other RK 2.2 SS weighs 464g.


----------



## bingobong (Mar 4, 2008)

Have to agree these tyres in the 2.2 are fantastic like everyone says - light, fast, grippy and super comfortable. In particular I was impressed at how much grip they had on the front (was worried when I first was the tread pattern) and the controlled way in which they let go - you get plenty of warning when they get beyond their limit and makes me feel like a pro the way I can drift corners with these. I ran these with tubes at about 28 psi front/30psi rear on my hardtail and they performed great and felt like I had an extra inch of travel. Next I will try them tubeless on my Stans rims but it's good to know they also work well with tubes in case I can't seal them up or have to put a tube due to puncture.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

Edit: No longer relevant info


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*size changed?*

From what i read in german forums it seems they changed the actual tire size!! The newer 2,2" seems to be slimmer than the "original". This is probably where the weight savings come from. I still have to verify that but it really seems they went to a slimmer carcass:madmax:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The latest WC version I have is about 1.5mm smaller in the carcass width than my older WC and Supersonic versions


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

*tread width*

i recently saw a "swatch book" of conti tires in the LBS. basically just 5 inch sections of tires.

it had the 2.2 and 2.0 both, the overall width of the casing, layed open was WAY wider, probably at least an inch.

but the tread was just as crazy. the 2.0 tread was probably ONLY 1.8. and the 2.2 was much closer to 2.2.

explains why there is such a huge difference in performance. the 2.0 looked STUPID skinny. the twister 1.9 was much wider in the tread area, than the 2.0.

it would be a shame if they start making the 2.2 smaller....


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

culturesponge said:


> the original puncture in the sidewall was probably very small, but because the Supersonic sidewalls are so thin it ripped out more and "instantized" deflation.


so i went back and scoured the trail where the wifes tire was flatted, looking for the culprit - incase it felled another mtn biker.

i found the rock, it was still on the single track all lined up & ready to do it again. it looked just like a broken 2" neolithic hand tool possibly for removing the hide of a Mammoth! wedge shaped with a worked razor sharp pointy cutting edge and a flat base.

just about any mtn bike tire i've used would have stood no chance.

anyway, thought i'd post back and update.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

nino said:


> From what i read in german forums it seems they changed the actual tire size!! The newer 2,2" seems to be slimmer than the "original". This is probably where the weight savings come from. I still have to verify that but it really seems they went to a slimmer carcass:madmax:


My 460g 2.2" Race King supersonic has casing width of 2.02" (51.3mm) at 25psi on rim w/ 19mm inside width. 

My tire was purchased from Wiggle at the end of March.

What was the previous width of the 2.2?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I purchased mine at Christmas time, and it measured 54.5 mm wide on a 19mm inside-width rim at 32 psi.

*EDIT:* Tread width of both of mine is 51.5mm, and the casing is 54.5 - 55.5 depending on pressure and which tire I measure. One is 465g, the other is 469g. That's well within any production tolerance for something like this.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Most of my mounted sets measure 54.5 to 54.6mm (2.15") wide and the newest pair are 53.2mm (2.09"), all on the same rim width and at the same pressure. All measured with a digital caliper at a few spots around the tire. None are less than 480gms, and they are a mix of World Cup and Supersonic models.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I have these tires in 3 different configurations. All these measurements are with digital calipers:

RK SS in 2.2 bought from Starbike about 5 months ago mounted on ZTR Olympic at 25 psi: 55.5mm casing

RK SS in 2.2 bought at the same time as above, mounted on Race 7000 rim (21.4mm inside width) at 25 psi: 57.2mm

RK SS World Cup in 2.2 bought from Starbike when they were 1st available, mounted on Olympic at about 35 psi: 56.2mm

I have another pair of RK SS 2.2s that I bought form Starbike about a month ago. I picked them up while they were still readily available (you never know), but I have no idea how wide they are, and probably won't know till I'm ready to use them.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

Okay I know the tread doesn't extend past the sidewall, so can anyone give the actual tread width?

I want to see if it's just the carcass size that changed, or if the tread width changed too.

Edit: The tread on mine measured 1.94" (49.3mm). (25 psi)


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

51mm (2.00") from outer knob edge to outer knob edge on all of mine.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

Quite a difference they are slipping under our noses. Are the tires still even being made in the same place?

Is there any way to contact Continental? Their online mailing form doesn't work...go figure.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Do the skinny versions still say Handmade in Germany?


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

Yeah, but then it also still says 2.2:skep:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

EU regs wouldn't let them BS about where they're produced, but it may be that racer feedback has told them the 20gms of weight savings is more important that the extra bit of width. The original spec on them had them at 460gms, so maybe they're modifying the production to get them back to that spec weight. 

Conti has always been quite approximate in width, the old Vertical Pro 2.3's were 2.15".


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I've edited my post above to include tread width.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

culturesponge said:


> so i went back and scoured the trail where the wifes tire was flatted, looking for the culprit - incase it felled another mtn biker.
> 
> i found the rock, it was still on the single track all lined up & ready to do it again. it looked just like a broken 2" neolithic hand tool possibly for removing the hide of a Mammoth! wedge shaped with a worked razor sharp pointy cutting edge and a flat base.
> 
> ...


Take a big rock and BASH that sucka apart...before another rider gets tossed-off his bike.


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

I'm pretty hesitant to use the RK SS 2.2 because of sidewall protection. I don't want to ride around thinking about how thin my sidewalls are at the back of my head. Is there any other lightweight options for me that's not as heavy as a Nevegal 1.9 (f) and a SB8 1.9 (r) but with a better performance? Thanks guys.


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

morrisgarages said:


> I'm pretty hesitant to use the RK SS 2.2 because of sidewall protection. I don't want to ride around thinking about how thin my sidewalls are at the back of my head. Is there any other lightweight options for me that's not as heavy as a Nevegal 1.9 (f) and a SB8 1.9 (r) but with a better performance? Thanks guys.


RK 2.2 Protection?

I use the Panaracer Razer MX 2.3 on my bike that I take to the trails with sharp rocks. Much less volume, about 50g heavier, much harder compound, seals up tubeless instantly. Should last forever. Like Gremlins, DO NOT get them wet or bad things happen.


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

dinoadventures said:


> Like Gremlins, DO NOT get them wet or bad things happen.


LMAO, if I had room I would quote that in my signature! :thumbsup:


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

So last week a guy comes in with his XC full-suspension bike. They're up on the showroom hanging it from the scale. Somehow it had ended up with Michelin 2.50" tires that weigh 830 grams. Each. Dude wasn't happy, and I can't blame him. He's using the bike for XC racing.

So the salesman wasn't sure what to do. I intervened, _one moment, lemme get some tires to show you_ and hauled up my hardtail to show him the RK 2.2 Supersonics. _With those tires and some extra-light tubes, sir, you'll be missing about two POUNDS of rotating weight_.

Dude says to get him some, and rush them. So I thought, "you know, I'd better go look up the precise Highway2 part number so the poor guy doesn't end up with... oh... the Protection version or something. The ordering guy might mess up the product description, but he can't mess up the actual part number."

So I go look it up, fill out the special-order form, and the next day, the ordering guy comes down and informs me that (1) Highway2 was out of the Supersonics, and (2) Highway2 was saying "you _do_ know that's a pure raceday tire, right...?". So (3) the ordering guy had *ordered the Protection version instead.*

:madman:

I told him he should cancel the order, because dude wants race tires for his race bike, not training tires for his training bike. We'll see what happens...

Sorry for the rant, I just needed to vent a bit. How would you guys feel if someone tried to slip you Protections when you wanted Supersonics? Yeah, thought so.


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

What XC bike can fit 2.5 tires? Wow. Lol.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

How do these compare to the Speed King Supersonic? My SS are plenty fast and still grip like velcro. Is the Race King slightly better?


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

Datalogger said:


> What XC bike can fit 2.5 tires? Wow. Lol.


It's a Trek Fuel EX. The supposed 2.5" Michelins measured the same width as my RK 2.2 Supersonics, so he actually wouldn't be giving up any casing width.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Zachariah said:


> How do these compare to the Speed King Supersonic? My SS are plenty fast and still grip like velcro. Is the Race King slightly better?


More stable and more lateral grip because of more treadblocks/edges, super grippy, huge volume so very compliant and good at conforming to surfaces. Excellent on wet roots and rocks. Very round profile so very smooth transition from rolling on centre to edges in cornering. Very low rolling resistance. Narrow operating pressure range for a given rider weight, likely 3-4 pounds min to max. My fave tire in everything but deep gooshy mud (where the MK2.4SS do nicely)


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

Zachariah said:


> Take a big rock and BASH that sucka apart...before another rider gets tossed-off his bike.


no kidding, i tossed that damn thing straight down into the canyon below, afterwards i regretted it - co's it might really have really been an anchient artifact, the cutting edge looked really similar to a Stone Age arrowhead (i still have) that i found near Bristol (England) a few years ago - i do remember pretty much where i threw it though!

i'm keeping the RK SS 2.2's on my bikes, but now the mrs has the Protection versions of Race Kings 2.2 and Mountain Kings 2.2 on both her wheelsets (red sidewalls hit with black marker pen).

i'm not happy with smaller diameter Conti tires for 2009, they have similar ride characteristics but don't shine - if i have any spare cash i'd be busy stocking up on 08 RK SS 2.2's to last for a few years.

(edit to correct typo)


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

After following all the info in this thread, I'm curious if the ProTection 2.2's would be better suited, tubeless - to New England riding, or would I be better off with SS's and tubes? Weight would be the same, but it seems there is a dramatic difference in tire compounds. As a moderately big guy - 175 pounds - and a decent technical rider, will the two different compounds really be that different?

I'm ambivalent about tubes since the east coast has way, way less pointy stuff to cause flats - but do like tubeless (been running everything tubeless since 2001) for its near bullet-proofness. FWIW, years ago I ran Conti Explorer SS's tubeless for racing, and once sealed and seated - they were fine. I raced on them for too long and did suffer damage in a race that was a beetch - but I had it coming. 

Anyhow - great thread.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Big difference between the Black Chili and regular rubber compound. The regular compound is still 61 durometer rubber like the other Conti's, including the Explorers. The Black Chili has much better grip, like the difference between Kenda's Stick-E rubber and the standard Kenda rubber, but it rolls much faster than the Stick-E rubber.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

What durometer rating does the supersonic have?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They're kinda cryptic about, but it holds onto wet roots and rocks like 45-50 durometer tires, but rolls as fast as their typical 61 durometer rubber.

http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/news_int_5.shtml#01

*Whats the big deal about Black Chili?*

Black Chili is the name for our latest tyre compound which hit the market in 2007 and has fast become a hit with cyclists across the world who have marvelled at its performance beneifits.

The fact is that Black Chili will improve our tyres performance in all areas. We can even make a tyre to last longer, yet also grip better and roll faster! The figures are astounding; 26% lower rolling resistance, 30% higher grip, and even 5% longer mileage.

lack Chili is only made at our factory in Korbach, Germany. No other tyre facility in the world has access to its secrets.

Black Chlli is a new tread mixture, the result of the latest research from our polymer and raw material laboratories in Hanover, Germany. Continental AG refined newly developed synthetic rubbers with proven natural rubber with powerful profile blends. These are 'nano' sized soot particles, who's surface properties are optimized for use in bicycle tyres. These smaller particles enable the tyre tread to deform around surface objects more quickly, improving grip. They also form a tighter bond with each other thus improving compound strength for improved tread life and less chance for lugs to rip and tear on our MTB tyres. The way in which these particles interact with each other also lowers rolling resistance.

These new polymers and carbon fillers make Continental racing and mountain bike tyres the quickest and safest tyres in competition!

Compared to the previous leading Continental tyre compound, the Activated Silica (ASC) tyres, Black Chilli offers a 26% lower rolling resistance, a 30% increase in adhesion quality, and a 5% increase in tread life. For road racers and MTB trail riders, the speed and handling advantage is clearly noticeable!


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

why dont they make all the range with the black chili compound? Or an optional tire with it?

My racekings are getting VERY HARD to seal damn!... these flag markings just makes it very difficult!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Something about the Asian factories not having access to the new Black Chili rubber to make sure it doesn't get corporately espionaged. But I am curious why they haven't offered a Protection version of the Race King, there's a lot of races that happen in parts of the world where a little more durable carcass would help.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*"new" VS "old" RK 2,2" SS*

I just got the opportunity to select/pick myself more lightweight RK 2,2 SS out of a huge pile of new tires.

I was surprised that this time most tires wweighed around 465-470g when last time they were all around 480-490g.

The lightest ones i was able to select are bot 455g, last time the lightest was 471g if i remember right.

So now i mounted the new one onto the same rim,same innertube (still 56g:thumbsup: ) and same 2,0 bar pressure

here's the measurements of the "OLD":
Outer width (Carcass): 54,8mm
Tread width: 51,0mm
Height above rim: 56,1mm

here's the same measurements of the "NEW":
Outer width (Carcass): 53,4mm
Tread width: 49,0mm
Height above rim: 54,1mm

rim is the Alex scandium- outer width 23,6mm / inner width 18,3mm

So the newer one is definitely a bit slimmer. I can't tell about how it rides as i just mounted it. I will now head for Italy for my usualy spring-biking vacation. I will use the RaceKings although i am very sceprical in all those sharp rocks and spines...it will be the ultimate test for both the tires and Eclipse-inner tube as well. we will see...


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

Where can we buy the old ones from? Can you tell new from old by looking at the tire?


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> Something about the Asian factories not having access to the new Black Chili rubber to make sure it doesn't get corporately espionaged. But I am curious why they haven't offered a Protection version of the Race King, there's a lot of races that happen in parts of the world where a little more durable carcass would help.


Conti does make a RK Protection: http://www.conti-online.com/generat...es/mtb/cc_marathon/Race King/raceking_en.html


----------



## jmb123 (Apr 29, 2008)

mechBgon said:


> Conti does make a RK Protection: http://www.conti-online.com/generat...es/mtb/cc_marathon/Race King/raceking_en.html


Yes they do make a Protection model for the Race King, I have it in the 2.2 size and it's a great tire, *but it's not the "Black Chili Compound". *

IN english, their site used to say SS and protections version were "Black Chili", but in German it said the only Black Chili tires were the SS / World Cup versions.

Funny, the magazine ads have the protection version listed as Black Chili.... maybe it is made with the black chili compound now? I don't know :skep:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

If they can make the SS and Protection versions of the Mountain King in Germany in Black Chili, you'd think that they could make the Race King in both. They must feel that the Race King weight gain in the Protection version wouldn't be worth the effort. They offer the UST Race King which has neither the Black Chili rubber or much light weight qualities.


----------



## adambikes (Dec 25, 2008)

So, I weigh 163 ponds, live here in Western North Carolina, ride in the rocky paradise known as Pisgah, have a hard tail with a RS Reba on the front, and ride pretty aggresively over lots of rock gardens. I've read through this thread and am a little skeptical of the RK 2.2:
pic
that I just bought, but have not ridden yet (can return). This is NOT the ProTection, right?, but it does have a pretty tough looking sidewall (look close at photo). Did they improve that for '09. Also, it says on the back, Made in India. Should I go with the ProTection?, which is special order for my shop. It's not that we have super sharp rocks everywhere, its just that I don't want to have to worry about that. If it helps in telling yall how careful I am on picking lines and avoiding sharp rocks; over the past 12 years of mountain bike racing, I've only twice had sidewall falts with average priced tires. Are these Race Kings just a bit delicate for really aggressive sharp spikey rocks and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill?


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

Your picture isn't showing up. Here is the direct link:

http://picasaweb.google.com/adambikes/MiscForUrls#5326254985724987106


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

adambikes said:


> So, I weigh 163 ponds, live here in Western North Carolina, ride in the rocky paradise known as Pisgah, have a hard tail with a RS Reba on the front, and ride pretty aggresively over lots of rock gardens. I've read through this thread and am a little skeptical of the RK 2.2:
> pic
> that I just bought, but have not ridden yet (can return). *This is NOT the ProTection, right?,*


Correct, that is the "vanilla" Race King 26 x 2.2, neither the ProTection nor the SuperSonic.


----------



## factoryrider (Feb 10, 2009)

Trails here in Ohio (compact + flat) were perfect for my new 2.0's. I previously ran a continental kings 2.4 (f) and 2.2 (r). Dropped almost 100g in each wheel for like 80 bucks!! The bigger tires are tanks on the road but great for trails. 2.0's are good though until loose stuff. Went to NM for a week and trails are steep and slick (gravel-like) and tires weren't as perfect. Ran stans and lowered pressure and all was better. Definitely recommend for east coast trails.

The BLOG.

The PHOTOS.


----------



## adambikes (Dec 25, 2008)

So, I'll ask the question again (this time about this "vanilla" Race King I have from orig. post above): So, I weigh 163 ponds, live here in Western North Carolina, ride in the rocky paradise known as Pisgah, have a hard tail with a RS Reba on the front, and ride pretty aggresively over lots of rock gardens. It's not that we have super sharp rocks everywhere, its just that I don't want to have to worry about that. If it helps in telling yall how careful I am on picking lines and avoiding sharp rocks; over the past 12 years of mountain bike racing, I've only twice had sidewall falts with average priced tires. Are these Race Kings just a bit delicate for really aggressive sharp spikey rocks and am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Also, I use these with tubes and am not having any luck getting them seated straight (makes wheel look out of true, when it is not). Suggestions? Ive tried pumping them up to 70psi to pop into place to no avail.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

The only model you should be worried about is the supersonic. Everyone has trouble getting these to go tubeless. Try riding with tubes for a few weeks. then be careful and pop the bead on one side only when you remove the tube.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

adambikes said:


> So, I'll ask the question again (this time about this "vanilla" Race King I have from orig. post above): So, I weigh 163 ponds, live here in Western North Carolina, ride in the rocky paradise known as Pisgah, have a hard tail with a RS Reba on the front, and ride pretty aggresively over lots of rock gardens. It's not that we have super sharp rocks everywhere, its just that I don't want to have to worry about that. If it helps in telling yall how careful I am on picking lines and avoiding sharp rocks; over the past 12 years of mountain bike racing, I've only twice had sidewall falts with average priced tires. Are these Race Kings just a bit delicate for really aggressive sharp spikey rocks and am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Also, I use these with tubes and am not having any luck getting them seated straight (makes wheel look out of true, when it is not). Suggestions? Ive tried pumping them up to 70psi to pop into place to no avail.


The standard RK version should have stronger sidewalls has it is heavier. And if you know how to ride safely over rocks you won't have problems. I'm riding the supersonics 2.2 converted on the rock trails, I like to ride fast but safe too and the tires are holding great soaking all the hits from the rocks, feels like I have a full suspension! :thumbsup: and awesome grip on the uphills the tire doesn't sketch 1mm! I was skeptical about the tire but it is very good.

Are you using a compressor to pop the tire beads into place? Make sure the tire beads are in place, use some soap to help them slide, use a good amount of sealant, add a lot of patience shaking back and forward, more patience over a couple of weeks and the tire will seal.


----------



## adambikes (Dec 25, 2008)

thaNKs yall. I am using tubes (the rims are 2007 cane creeks).


----------



## Megaclocker (Sep 28, 2005)

Anyone ran those RK 2.2 SS on ZTR rims with only yellow tape during a couple of month.
I want to know if they have strong bead (no tire unriming)

RockyUP : Is it a good idea to run them on the vertex or the low clearance is a problem ?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

There's not much clearance but I haven't had any issues. Of course we don't have gooey mud here.


----------



## gixer7 (Jul 26, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> There's not much clearance but I haven't had any issues. Of course we don't have gooey mud here.


Geez you'll wanna hope your wheels never go out of true mid race. Thats pretty tight!


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

Megaclocker said:


> Anyone ran those RK 2.2 SS on ZTR rims with only yellow tape during a couple of month.
> I want to know if they have strong bead (no tire unriming)


I am: Olympic up front and 355 in back - absolutely no bead problems at all. The beads locked in on first airing and actually took a little effort to unlock when I had to remove the front tire this weekend; tore the sidewall on a trial that I knew was not appropriate (a lot of sharp rocks) for these tires. Minor cut which should be fine with a tube (Nino, tell your friend to hurry up!)


----------



## bikin222 (Apr 23, 2007)

I just mounted a pair last week on my Blur classic. As said in the past posts these are phenomenal tires!!! I have been a Conti fan since the early 90's and these are their best yet. Super fast rolling speeds, great traction, holds well in the corners. OK in the wet but superb in the dry. Clearance is def an issue but hey I'm on a Blur classic. Clearance is always an issue.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Anyone done a good comparison between these and the Small Block Eights 2.0 or 2.2 size tires?


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

rockyuphill, I'm from your neck of the woods and ride xc/trail on Burnaby Mountain, Buntzen Lake, Lower Seymour.... I was thinking of picking up the Mountain King supersonics (2.4 f and 2.2 r) for my fisher hardtail. But now I'm considering the Race King 2.2 SS f and r instead. What would you recommend? Or is it seasonal? Ie. Race Kings for spring/summer and Mountain Kings for fall/winter?

Thanks in advance.

BB


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd say at least partially seasonal, I like the MK2.4 when the trail surface is muddier or just deeper loose stuff, but the Race Kings work really nicely on wet roots and rocks, just not so good on the deep slimy black compost gruel that passes for mud in the rain forest. You never actually spin out, but the directional control gets a bit vague when you're hitting deep pockets of that compost.The Race Kings also are less squirmy climbing across off camber rock surfaces and the like. The Mountain Kings still roll faster than Nevegal 2.35's. I think the MK's will likely work a bit better on split cedar ladders and the like. On smoother wood it is likely a toss up. Even the black chili rubber won't help on the actual slime coated wood decks.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Is the Race King 2.0 SS all that bad? No one seems to comment on them...


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

jalove, i was wondering the same thing.
I measured them this afternoon. the tread is the same width but, the sidewalls are at least a 1/4" taller on the SK.
2.1 small block and a 2.2 speed king


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*2,0"*



Zachariah said:


> Is the Race King 2.0 SS all that bad? No one seems to comment on them...


I did many times...i don't like them at all. They can only 50% of that the 2.2" does.


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> I'd say at least partially seasonal, I like the MK2.4 when the trail surface is muddier or just deeper loose stuff, but the Race Kings work really nicely on wet roots and rocks, just not so good on the deep slimy black compost gruel that passes for mud in the rain forest. You never actually spin out, but the directional control gets a bit vague when you're hitting deep pockets of that compost.The Race Kings also are less squirmy climbing across off camber rock surfaces and the like. The Mountain Kings still roll faster than Nevegal 2.35's. I think the MK's will likely work a bit better on split cedar ladders and the like. On smoother wood it is likely a toss up. Even the black chili rubber won't help on the actual slime coated wood decks.


Thanks. I'm going to have to think about this for a bit before I decide which way to go. The guys at my favorite LBS were telling me about how they like the Race King.

By the way, I currently have a pair of Panaracer Fire XC Pro 2.1 (the japanese made ones) on and they are too slow rolling for my tastes and don't have particularly good wet root grip. But they're ok for most conditions and slow wearing at least. A competent all rounder I suppose. Maybe I'll get the Race Kings and for muddier conditions put the Panaracers back on.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

I wish the Weight Weenies listings also listed true tire casing widths. My 2.2 RK ss should have been advertised as a 2.0. I'm not sure what the width of the 2.0 RK is, but from what people say, it's an absurdly skinny tire.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Buster Bluth said:


> Thanks. I'm going to have to think about this for a bit before I decide which way to go. The guys at my favorite LBS were telling me about how they like the Race King.
> 
> By the way, I currently have a pair of Panaracer Fire XC Pro 2.1 (the japanese made ones) on and they are too slow rolling for my tastes and don't have particularly good wet root grip. But they're ok for most conditions and slow wearing at least. A competent all rounder I suppose. Maybe I'll get the Race Kings and for muddier conditions put the Panaracers back on.


If you're running Fire XC Pros, the Mountain King 2.4 Supersonics will knock them down, rub their face in the mud and step on their glasses while calling them nasty names.


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> If you're running Fire XC Pros, the Mountain King 2.4 Supersonics will knock them down, rub their face in the mud and step on their glasses while calling them nasty names.


This is what I figured. 

What would you go with in my shoes? A pair of the MK 2.4's or a pair of the RK 2.2's? Both would be the super sonics. Compared to my panaracers I want faster rolling, better wet root grip, more cushy ride. I was siding with the RK's (seem to be faster, smoother and cushier with the large volume but low knobs) but I'm concerned they won't perform on those muddy autumn rainy rides around our parts. This is the BC coast, after all.


Maybe I'll just flip a coin.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

On the hardtail I stick with the Race Kings because I don't have chainstay clearance for the MK2.4", but on my 4x4 FS bike I switch back and forth between the MK2.4 and RK2.2, depending on how much muck there is. On my 6x6 bike I run MK2.4 Protections all the time. Right up to the point where the black mush is about 4" deep the Race Kings work fine, and if you're riding any place with some clay in the mud, the Race Kings will pack up as soon as the mud gets sticky.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Kyle2834 said:


> I wish the Weight Weenies listings also listed true tire casing widths. My 2.2 RK ss should have been advertised as a 2.0. I'm not sure what the width of the 2.0 RK is, but from what people say, it's an absurdly skinny tire.


I can say that the 2.2 that I've had for the last few months are huge. They are definitely a true 2.2 tire in casing width.

I'd still like to hear comparisons in ride between the RK 2.0 and 2.2 vs the Small Block 8s in any size. Thank you biketuna for giving some info on size between your 2.2 Speed King and the 2.1 SB8. I guess nobody here has had the Race Kings and the different sized SB8s to compare against yet, eh?


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

I ran 2.1 SB8 (as a rear tire) for a while last year, it was just OK. The RK 2.2 is many times better in traction and rolling resistance.

I ran them both tubeless with similar pressures (mid 20s psi).


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

FTM said:


> I ran 2.1 SB8 (as a rear tire) for a while last year, it was just OK. The RK 2.2 is many times better in traction and rolling resistance.
> 
> I ran them both tubeless with similar pressures (mid 20s psi).


Thanks. Any differences as far as durability that you noticed? Either the tread wear or sidewall strength/puncture resistance? I may be heading to the rockies this summer.


----------



## Gaz6r4 (Mar 1, 2009)

I am looking at ordering a 2.2 RaceKing for the front of my 4x bike. Would be paired up with a 2.0 Larsen TT EXception.


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> If you're running Fire XC Pros, the Mountain King 2.4 Supersonics will knock them down, rub their face in the mud and step on their glasses while calling them nasty names.


This is the exact thing I experienced, going from the Panaracers to the Mountain Kings. Good golly, they make the XC Pros look like a joke.


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

Can someone let me know if they have access or have for sale World Cup Race King 2.2's for 26"? I'm in Northern California, OAKLAND 94612. Thank you.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

the world cups are the same as the super sonics I think. They are just missing the logo.
www.universalcycles.com has the German made version which is the black chillie version.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Kyle2834 said:


> I wish the Weight Weenies listings also listed true tire casing widths. My 2.2 RK ss should have been advertised as a 2.0. I'm not sure what the width of the 2.0 RK is, but from what people say, it's an absurdly skinny tire.


I'd really like to know what is going on with that, because the 2.2 RK Supersonic I got a few weeks ago is fully 2.2 casing width, and the guy selling it said it had come in very recently.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

some compliant amongst all the praise.

So yesterday i decided to mount my mountain king 2.4 SS front and race king 2.2 SS rear.

The following is completly related to the Race king and not the mountain king.

1. Gosh the race king 2.2 are hard to inflate, i had to enlist the help of a compressor which is fine. The beads finally locked and after that trail run i started loading it up with sealent.

2. I noticed these tyres are a freaking huge volume tyre. Usually a few pumps and its up to 20psi but with this it takes ages which is awesome. I love high volumn tyres.

3. What is this? what are all that hissing sound? I shaked the sealant around, lying it flat etc etc the normal methods soap and all???

4. Ahhh, the sidewall is punctured 10-20 times from factory. I noticed all these sealent running out as if i rode it previously and went through a bush with thorns in it or something.

As i look at the Tyre currently i see pin dots of sealant everywhere on the sidewall of my tyre. Fair enough this is not an UST tyre but i really did kinda expect better with such cool logoing and branding and the whole handmade in German thing. Maybe robot made taiwan maxxis is better


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

jdc5r said:


> Maybe robot made taiwan maxxis is better


Inside tip: all bike tires are laid up by hand, regardless of where the factory is located. The machinery may differ slightly, but not the "handmade" part. I must admit, though, marketing genius on conti's part.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

jdc5r. they will seal. it does take a while but it's worth it.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

RK 29'r Tires.
I know its been mentioned, but I searched & could not find anything. 
How are The Race King 29'r Tires? Same as the 26???


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

scarsellone said:


> RK 29'r Tires.
> I know its been mentioned, but I searched & could not find anything.
> How are The Race King 29'r Tires? Same as the 26???


They are not black chili.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

biketuna said:


> jdc5r. they will seal. it does take a while but it's worth it.


upon closer inspection with the good old soap today i have found 20 or so mini bubble points all the way around each side of the rim. Except the sealant aint sealing it. It seems to be so small the sealant cannot get through to it.

I dont know if it is my sealant which joes instead of stans hmmm for now i have taken them apart cleaned them out and decided to run tubes because i really need to ride before i go crazy. maybe i will try later on :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

jdc5r said:


> upon closer inspection with the good old soap today i have found 20 or so mini bubble points all the way around each side of the rim. Except the sealant aint sealing it. It seems to be so small the sealant cannot get through to it.
> 
> I dont know if it is my sealant which joes instead of stans hmmm for now i have taken them apart cleaned them out and decided to run tubes because i really need to ride before i go crazy. maybe i will try later on :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


welcome to super sonic tires from conti - most light weight tires have lots of pin holes in the sidewalls (including other brands) but conti super sonic tires are VERY thin. normal issue for these tires. laying the tire on one side on top of an open box, than the other side, back and forth for an hour or so at a time is what works best for me. but you really have to baby sit them. might actually take a few days to seal up. as well, conti super sonics also have a very slick coating on the inside which does not allow the sealant to stick to the rubber, making it even harder to seal - but it can be done.


----------



## nathanbal (Jan 30, 2007)

kapusta said:


> They are not black chili.


and they are not as big as the 26" version.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

If you go thru this entire post you will find all the tricks.
1- lightly scrub the inside of the tire to remove some of the slick coating.
2- if you have the time put tubes in over night to stretch 
3- soap up the tire, Hopefully you have a valve with a removeable core!
4- using compressor blow air thru valve to lock beads.(air released,but beads are locked)
5- add sealant thru valve, add inner core, pump up
6- do everything kevbikemad said, but the best way to seal is to go for a ride with a hand pump & keep an eye on pressure!

These tires are worth the time & effort. Now if I can find someone to buy my 2.0 RK SS's!


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

Does anyone have any ride time on them? on the 29 inch site, the guy testing thinks they are pretty good? but was going to convert tubless, & still waiting reviews?


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

jdc5r said:


> upon closer inspection with the good old soap today i have found 20 or so mini bubble points all the way around each side of the rim. Except the sealant aint sealing it. It seems to be so small the sealant cannot get through to it.
> 
> I dont know if it is my sealant which joes instead of stans hmmm for now i have taken them apart cleaned them out and decided to run tubes because i really need to ride before i go crazy. maybe i will try later on :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


I cleaned mime with degreaser and soap, 2 hours later and half my sealant on the garage floor still could not get them to seat. I put a tube in and road it for 2 weeks and I'm good now. still took a while to seal all the little holes.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

I still cannot seal the tires completely, this much time after my last post... about 1 month trying! lol the pressure just keeps droping over night.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

i went for my first ride with my MK 2.4 and RK 2.2 rear setup. Very impressed. VERY VERY even if it is with tubes


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*front?*



jdc5r said:


> i went for my first ride with my MK 2.4 and RK 2.2 rear setup. Very impressed. VERY VERY even if it is with tubes


Unless there's sticky mud you would be even more impressed by using a RaceKing 2,2 in the front as well!! It's only on sticky mud that the RKs have some problems otherwise they are really superb on everything else. Much faster than the MK!


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

yeah i thought about that but we have a lot of loose over hardpack here in Australia. ie gravel stones and i just thought the front would bite better with 2.4

Of course i am open to trying and i will most likely get another 2.2 RK like you said up front i think it will give me that extra performance!


----------



## dinoadventures (May 2, 2008)

jdc5r said:


> yeah i thought about that but we have a lot of loose over hardpack here in Australia. ie gravel stones and i just thought the front would bite better with 2.4
> 
> Of course i am open to trying and i will most likely get another 2.2 RK like you said up front i think it will give me that extra performance!


I ride a lot of loose over hardpack, especially in the summer, and the RK 2.2 SS's work great.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

This is the part that amazes me the most, they actually have good grip in dust, sand and even pea gravel on hardpack. Bigger crushed gravel or river gravel... not so much (but what does?).


----------



## p_shep (Jan 12, 2005)

Think I've just stumbled upon a great way of sealing the tyres...
Had no luck of first going straight to puting Stans in the tyres and inflating, so I threw a tube in (along with the sealent still in there.
The tube had a puncure in it, but allowed me to inflate the tyre before, after a few mins, the presure inside the tube, and inside the tyre equalised. I could feel the sealent sloshing around, as well as the tube hitting the sides of the tyre  Lot's of bubbles and sealent leaking out, but no worrys about getting the bead to seat 
So there you go... a tube with a puncture really does have a use!

The next challenge of course, is to take the tube out, and get the bead to seat!


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

ive read alot about the 2.2 being so much better then the 2.0, but it seems like the 2.0 problems were when on the front, is the 2.0 good on the back? My frame will only fit 2.0, and ill get a 2.2 for my front. whatcha think.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

Good question, I bought 2.2 & 2.0 for the same exact reason, but never tried it?

Calling NINO!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The thing I like the best about the 2.2 is the huge volume on the rear for both cush and the grip because of the ability to conform to rough surfaces. 

I've never liked any of the skinny small volume rear tires like Maxxis Ignitor 2.1's or Conti Explorer as I found that by the time they have enough air to avoid whacking the rim they are too hard to have the kind of grip that makes them useful. Lighter riders might not have that same issue, but I'm in the 195 pound range.

YMMV


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

I see the benefit of a HT using the 2.2, what if you are using a FS + 2.0?


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

scarsellone said:


> I see the benefit of a HT using the 2.2, what if you are using a FS + 2.0?


Steel HT. Gunnar Rockhound.
The benifit in question is grip/control.


----------



## norcom (Feb 22, 2007)

I've been riding on these Race Kings for a little over 300 miles now. I ride in FL with mostly roots and sand, not much rocks. There's a small path about 30 yards on my trail that has some rocks and I'm guessing I tore the sidewall on it but I can't say exactly as I found the tear while back at the house.

Do you think it's possible to fix it or should I just trash the tire?


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

If your using tubes put a dollar bill between the tire and tube. Keep an eye on the tear, if it grows put it in the trash.


----------



## p_shep (Jan 12, 2005)

After a week of continual re-inflating and shaking, my pair might be close to lasting a ride!

ooooh that was a lot of effort!


----------



## p_shep (Jan 12, 2005)

EPIC FAIL!

I'll try the rubber rim-strip, but with just the rim tape I didn't get even close to seating using a gas-station compressor!


----------



## p_shep (Jan 12, 2005)

They are STUBBORN tyres! Even with the rim strips, I could only get one to seat. The other I had to go back to my UST racing ralph, which I can get inflated with just the tape and track pump.

The amount of stans sealent to get there though... sheesh! What a waste!


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

p_shep said:


> They are STUBBORN tyres! Even with the rim strips, I could only get one to seat. The other I had to go back to my UST racing ralph, which I can get inflated with just the tape and track pump.
> 
> The amount of stans sealent to get there though... sheesh! What a waste!


sorry to hear you having probs.

i've had no probs inflating several RK SS tubeless with an el cheapo floorpump and a 70ml/30ml mix of Hutchinson Protect Air and Stans which is great for sealing the bead.

1. leave wheel overnight with an innertube inflated at just below max reccomended pressure.
2. remove the tube with one bead still locked.
3. slosh the UST solution around bead to bead before closing up the tire.
4. saturate the tire outside with plenty of liquid soap.
5. recruit someone else to pump with a good floor pump while you slosh the tubless solution around to wet the beads inside, flip the wheel over and slosh while still pumping to wet both sides of the rim inside - the tire should bubble abit then pop when the bead seats itself.
6. spin + shake the wheel, then go for a ride if poss.

worked 100% of the time for us. if that method doesn't work for you - next time your in LA bring your wheels with you and i'll fix them!


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> The thing I like the best about the 2.2 is the huge volume on the rear for both cush and the grip because of the ability to conform to rough surfaces.
> 
> I've never liked any of the skinny small volume rear tires like Maxxis Ignitor 2.1's or Conti Explorer as I found that by the time they have enough air to avoid whacking the rim they are too hard to have the kind of grip that makes them useful. Lighter riders might not have that same issue, but I'm in the 195 pound range.
> 
> YMMV


Well, 2.0 is the biggest ive ever rode on this bike, so i wont have any negitives then!
Ive been using 2.0 Fast Trak tires and have been really happy with grip,comfort, and everything, so size wont be an issue for me. im about 165lb now, after gaining ten pounds in a year.


----------



## p_shep (Jan 12, 2005)

culturesponge said:


> sorry to hear you having probs.
> 
> i've had no probs inflating several RK SS tubeless with an el cheapo floorpump and a 70ml/30ml mix of Hutchinson Protect Air and Stans which is great for sealing the bead.
> 
> ...


I've pretty much done all those steps and more. Just isn't to be. It seems the combo of american classic rims and RK SS 2.2 is a difficult one. In the end, to get the front tyre to seat it took three wraps of the yellow tape and the rim-strip. kinda defeats the point of a light tyre really. I'm guess the reason the rear one didn't seat is because I didn't add the extra 2 layers of rim tape.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

p_shep said:


> I've pretty much done all those steps and more. Just isn't to be. It seems the combo of american classic rims and RK SS 2.2 is a difficult one. In the end, to get the front tyre to seat it took three wraps of the yellow tape and the rim-strip. kinda defeats the point of a light tyre really. I'm guess the reason the rear one didn't seat is because I didn't add the extra 2 layers of rim tape.


On Amclassic rims the Eclipse rimstrip does a great job of holding tires. It makes for a thight grip. I haven't tried the RKs on those rims but every other tire so far seated within seconds. no fiddling, no soap,no mess. I have a friend who uses the RKs on Amclassics with Eclipse and he said it wasn't too big of a deal. No worse than other lightweight tires he tried before.They would seat easily but need a couple of days to seal 100%. The first couple of days you will have minor air loss but after 2-3 days that's no problem anymore and tires airthight.

Anyway - the 56g Eclipse tubes are in the pipeline and should solve all those problems.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

p_shep said:


> I've pretty much done all those steps and more. Just isn't to be. It seems the combo of american classic rims and RK SS 2.2 is a difficult one. In the end, to get the front tyre to seat it took three wraps of the yellow tape and the rim-strip. kinda defeats the point of a light tyre really. I'm guess the reason the rear one didn't seat is because I didn't add the extra 2 layers of rim tape.


If I recall the yellow tape is only 8 or 9 grams a layer. still isn't heavy.
You might want to consider getto tubeless. search here and youtube.com


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

biketuna said:


> If I recall the yellow tape is only 8 or 9 grams a layer. still isn't heavy.
> You might want to consider getto tubeless. search here and youtube.com


yeah - but if you need 2-3 layers you are at the same weight than the Eclipse rimstrip which is superior in getting a tire to grip.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

I would like to try an eclipse rim strip but they are very expensive and hard to find here in the USA. If you know where I can get some for a cheap price PM me.


----------



## mhaskell (Aug 25, 2004)

Had a race yesterday with the race king supersonics, running tubeless with stans. The course was classic new england, rooty, rock gardens, stream crossings and mud, it had been raining on and off for the day before and during the race.

I was worried how the tires would do in the wet sections, and the deep mud, but i was blown away by the traction they had. Running around 28 psi. Wet roots and rocks were no problem and once the single track smoothed out the tires roll very well.

Give them a try, but be warned that the sidewalls look pretty thin, def a race day only tire.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've been running the RK's as an everyday tire on 2 hardtails and a 4x4 FS bike for most of a year and I've only had two pinch flats in all that time (rear tire) and no sidewall damage, so if you don't have a lot of pointy things sticking out of trails, they'll last until the tread wears out in everyday use.


----------



## mhaskell (Aug 25, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> I've been running the RK's as an everyday tire on 2 hardtails and a 4x4 FS bike for most of a year and I've only had two pinch flats in all that time (rear tire) and no sidewall damage, so if you don't have a lot of pointy things sticking out of trails, they'll last until the tread wears out in everyday use.


Supersonics?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

mhaskell said:


> Supersonics?


yes sure!
the others don't offer half the performance.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

mhaskell said:


> Supersonics?


World Cup/Supersonics, some of each. Not a lot of pavement miles on them, just getting to and from the trails to my house, so the tread lasts a long time in the dirt.

Mind you this is what my trails look like... YMMV


----------



## mhaskell (Aug 25, 2004)

nino said:


> yes sure!
> the others don't offer half the performance.


Hi Nino, I know the performance of the SS, I was asking Rocky if he had no damage with the supersonics- I don't have enough miles on mine to tell how robust they will be.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*cool...*



rockyuphill said:


> World Cup/Supersonics, some of each. Not a lot of pavement miles on them, just getting to and from the trails to my house, so the tread lasts a long time in the dirt.
> 
> Mind you this is what my trails look like... YMMV


our trails look very similar then:thumbsup:

RK heaven!!


----------



## nis240sxt (Apr 10, 2007)

Nino or any one else, do you have the actual width measurement of the RK 2.0 vs 2.2? I will be mainly be using it on dry hardpack trails, no wet or mushy stuff. Since the 2.2 SS are all sold out here in the US, i might consider trying the 2.0. What do u think?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*No 2.0" !!*



nis240sxt said:


> Nino or any one else, do you have the actual width measurement of the RK 2.0 vs 2.2? I will be mainly be using it on dry hardpack trails, no wet or mushy stuff. Since the 2.2 SS are all sold out here in the US, i might consider trying the 2.0. What do u think?


How many times do we have to repeat that the slimmer 2,0" is not doing nearly as well than the 2,2? forget about the 2,0"!


----------



## AZ-X (Feb 16, 2004)

nino said:


> How many times do we have to repeat that the slimmer 2,0" is not doing nearly as well than the 2,2? forget about the 2,0"!


Correct. They're not even in the same league for traction. You might as well get a different tire if you're not getting the 2.2s. I've tried both pretty extensively too.

It's too bad. I don't even have any 2.2s left. Sold the last extra set to someone just a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

It would be REALLY cool if a 2.3" version of this tire came out.


----------



## mhaskell (Aug 25, 2004)

nis240sxt said:


> Nino or any one else, do you have the actual width measurement of the RK 2.0 vs 2.2? I will be mainly be using it on dry hardpack trails, no wet or mushy stuff. Since the 2.2 SS are all sold out here in the US, i might consider trying the 2.0. What do u think?


Here is the race king 2.2 versus a Maxxis Minion DH-F 2.35

The race king measures 2.18" across the carcass and nearly the same, 2.19" across the knobs. The minion measures 1.97" across the carcass and 2.07" across the knobs.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

and the metric version...


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

Race king 2.0" is a too thin tire, only 46mm wide.


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

Anyone done a good comparison between RK SS 2.2" and Maxxis Larsen tt 2.0" tire?

I would like to know which one has better cornering grip.

Thanks.


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

I never ran the race king, however I ran the speedkings for a yet now and they are just awesome. I'm thinking of trying the larsen tt next. I'll let yah know on a few weeks.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

daleksic said:


> I never ran the race king, however I ran the speedkings for a yet now and they are just awesome. I'm thinking of trying the larsen tt next. I'll let yah know on a few weeks.


The Speedkings are 10, no wait, 100 times inferior to the RaceKings in EVERY aspect except weight !!

You can't throw them out of the window far enough...they just $uck!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> inferior ... in EVERY aspect except weight !!


That is applicable to a whole lot of products discussed in this forum.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

i am really really loving the combo of mountain king 2.4 and 2.2 race king.

They roll fast for the amount of grip they have, they have awesome grip, and really the race king feels like tubeless even with tubes since its such a high volume tyre! Had to ask a friend to check my rear tyre as i was riding because it felt like i got a flat which is the synonymous feeling associated with tubeless setup. The front tyre is handling all the loose pebbles fine but i think over time i will chuck another race king 2.2 up front and give it a go since we are always striving for improvements and experimenting


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

If it has that wiggly feeling it's like a couple of PSI too low on the RK's.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

i am fairly light weight and have not come across that wiggly feeling yet. Will keep it in mind though.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I always hear how bad Speedkings are. What is so bad
about them? Do they have anything good going for them?
I live in SoCal and ride mostly hard pack, sand, and loose
over hard pack. I have Speedkings on one of my bikes, and
they don't seem bad to me. What am I missing?

Best, John


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

John Kuhl said:


> What am I missing?


Being opinionated.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Sk*



John Kuhl said:


> I always hear how bad Speedkings are. What is so bad
> about them? Do they have anything good going for them?
> I live in SoCal and ride mostly hard pack, sand, and loose
> over hard pack. I have Speedkings on one of my bikes, and
> ...


The only real strong point of the SKs is their low weight.I had 2,1" at 400g / 2,3" size at 407g!

They do roll decent but not the fastest

The 2,1" is a joke in width. It's just too skinny.

The tall sideknobs fold as soon as you lean into corners making them VERY sketchy through corners especially if you try to brake into corners. I'd even say these are dangerous on hardpack or tarmac because of this. At moderate speeds they sure are ok but when you try to lean your bike into corners they are just horrible.

SKs are good on dry terrain but then every tire is. On soft soil you are lost. In gravel they wander and don't give a secure ride.

Some of the worst tires comfort-wise. I even tried the big 2,3" size and they made my ride feel like sitting on a Pogo-stick.Absolutely no cushion regardless of the pressure i tried. Definitely a no-go on a Hardtail. I tried it in both sizes at all pressures...no way!

SKs are very prone for flats because of the thin carcass and open thread

They aren't durable.Some of the fastest wearing tires i ever tried.

Did i miss something? That's all i can remember

--->SKs have a very small range of decent operation.

If you like the SKs now be forwarned that the RKs will be like christmas once you have them on your bike...you'll have a BIIIG smile on your face-rest assured!


----------



## Hadouken* (Nov 27, 2007)

Curmy said:


> Being opinionated.


lol. Awesome!


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

shaggy.gpd said:


> Anyone done a good comparison between RK SS 2.2" and Maxxis Larsen tt 2.0" tire?
> 
> I would like to know which one has better cornering grip.
> 
> Thanks.


Nobody has any opinion about Larsen vs Race King ?

Well, first of all sorry my bad english, but i need some help, i´m trying RK SS 2.2" on the front wheel and i had some "drifts" last day, and i don´t know if it is because i´m testing it, trying to find its limit (which i didn´t with larsen).

Also i have to say that the terrain where RK drifted might be too loose, so maybe i want too much from this tire, i don´t know ( i didn´t test Larsen as much as RK)

I see you are happy with RK cornering but, how fast do you go down hill?

I´m running it at 2bar (29psi), and i´m 70Kg (155lbs)

Thanks.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

shaggy.gpd said:


> Nobody has any opinion about Larsen vs Race King ?
> 
> Well, first of all sorry my bad english, but i need some help, i´m trying RK SS 2.2" on the front wheel and i had some "drifts" last day, and i don´t know if it is because i´m testing it, trying to find its limit (which i didn´t with larsen).
> 
> ...


I must say that the RK SS has FAR exceeded any expectations I had for this tire in terms of overall grip, but nonetheless, it simply does not have the cornering grip of a tire with actual side knobs. I have been quite happy with the tire in the rear (not such a big deal when it slides out a little), but the thought of running it up front is frankly quite scary to me. This tire would be the perfect rear tire if it just had 50 grams worth of side knobs.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I started off with 2.2 RK SS's on front and rear. I found the lack of front grip to be pretty scary, regardless of the pressures I tried. I then put a Neve 2.1 DTC up front, and that worked quite well. In the meantime, I researched rolling resistance, etc., and decided to try the Mountain King 2.4 SS up front. This combo has been excellent. The MK seems to have better grip than the 2.1 DTC Neve, it tolerates reasonably low pressure (I've been running at 31 psi), and it rolls easily. It is NOT a high-volume tire, however. It's no bigger than the 2.1 Neve in spite of the 2.4 name (in fact, it is one of the smallest-volume tires I own, and they're all marked 2.1 - 2.4), so don't get your hopes up for a RK-style balloon tire with knobs. However, the size of the tire hasn't hindered me on my XC riding.

I don't mind the way the RK slides at the rear (sometimes that works to my benefit, and I like a tail-out attitude), but I do not recommend it up front for any surface that is even remotely loose.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

CTB said:


> I started off with 2.2 RK SS's on front and rear. I found the lack of front grip to be pretty scary, regardless of the pressures I tried. I then put a Neve 2.1 DTC up front, and that worked quite well. In the meantime, I researched rolling resistance, etc., and decided to try the Mountain King 2.4 SS up front. This combo has been excellent. The MK seems to have better grip than the 2.1 DTC Neve, it tolerates reasonably low pressure (I've been running at 31 psi), and it rolls easily. It is NOT a high-volume tire, however. It's no bigger than the 2.1 Neve in spite of the 2.4 name (in fact, it is one of the smallest-volume tires I own, and they're all marked 2.1 - 2.4), so don't get your hopes up for a RK-style balloon tire with knobs. However, the size of the tire hasn't hindered me on my XC riding.
> 
> I don't mind the way the RK slides at the rear (sometimes that works to my benefit, and I like a tail-out attitude), but I do not recommend it up front for any surface that is even remotely loose.


I wonder if the SS version of the MK 2.4 is smaller than the protection version. My MK 2.4 protection (2.19" casing, 2.40" tread) is significantly larger than my Nev 2.1 (2.0" casing, 2.17" tread).

Sorry, this is a bit off topic, point being that conti clearly has different measuring sticks for different tires, even the new line, and even within the same design name and size :madman:


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I thought I'd try and post some data. These were all measured by me, and I did an engineering estimate on the air volume of each tire, as best I could. My measurements are the air casing - not the knobs - using calipers. Not scientific, but pretty close for comparisons. The "measured on" refers to the inside width (ETRTO) of the rim used, not the outside width.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

Thanks for the info Nino.

Best, John


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanks for your answers.
Today i went back where i had drifted, to see which type of terrain it is, and one drift was on deep gravel, on the corner of a crossroad; and the other was on deep loose, due to trucks traffic; so i´m not sure that other tire weren´t drifted.

Anyway i´ll give a try to Mountain King tire.

Thanks.


----------



## wannabeRacer (Feb 9, 2004)

what does everything think of the Hutchinson Python 2.0 compare to RK 2.2 in overall handling and conditions for a do it all tyre?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

wannabeRacer said:


> what does everything think of the Hutchinson Python 2.0 compare to RK 2.2 in overall handling and conditions for a do it all tyre?


I think Python sucks.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

I remember a long time ago when pythons use to be good. 6-8 years ago. there wasn't that many choices back then.


----------



## wannabeRacer (Feb 9, 2004)

pythons out and in the dumpster ;-)

and what about Schwalbe Nobby Nic as front tyre and Racing Ralph at the rear?


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

i ran that setup previously and found the front to be not grippy enough and the back to be pretty bad. Of course it all depends on the sort of riding you do, your bike, and your terrain. Only way to tell is to try.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Correct*



wannabeRacer said:


> pythons out and in the dumpster ;-)
> 
> and what about Schwalbe Nobby Nic as front tyre and Racing Ralph at the rear?


Pythons have to be dumped.Not worth a thought.
When i bought my Specialized S-Works in about '01 it came with Pythons. I rode them initially but the bike was just not feeling any good. I was riding S-Works for 4 years already and knew something was weird with how the bike handled. As soon as i swapped tires it became alive. It would not only roll faster but the grip level and weight were just in another league. For my memory the Pythons and Conti Speedkings together are the worst performing tires i have tried in my almost 20 years of mountainbiking!!

Nobby Nic is a pretty good allrounder BUT the RK is just so much superior in every aspect.
Racing Ralph rolls very good (on par with the RK) but has only decent grip on dry terrain.Definitely no allround tire.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

nino said:


> For my memory the Pythons and Conti Speedkings together are the worst performing tires i have tried in my almost 20 years of mountainbiking!!


Except possibly for IRC Mibro 2.1 UST on any moist surface. Work fine on dry hardpack and pretty much nothing else.


----------



## wannabeRacer (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I think the RK 2.2 seems like a good choice, might get myself a set and see how they go?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Maybe things change in 6-7 years in a production of a tire hmm? I've ride a lot with the pythons and they roll much faster than the racekings on tarmac road, on the trails this difference is not so noticeable. 
The pythons have just the right volume for rock riding and for the narrow rims like mavic SLR. 
Now I have the racekings on my bike, they are stupid hard to seal because of the super thin sidewalls and flag markings, they are too tall for the crossmax SLR rims, they do not roll better than the pythons, the only good thing is they grip better!


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

jdc5r said:


> i am really really loving the combo of mountain king 2.4 and 2.2 race king.


I've been rockin this combo for the last couple of weeks now too. Tubeless with 819's. Loved them:thumbsup: until I took them to a rocky boulder fest trail the other day and promptly tore the sidewall on the rear and blew out the bead on the front with a 3' drop. Learned my lesson....never run regular tires tubeless on a rocky trail. :madman: 
Going to try the Racing Ralph UST's next.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

*Python's vs Race King (Black Chili Compound)*

my 2004 S-Works Epic build has a Mavic Crossmax SL UST wheelset, first up i went from the original UST Pythons then a hard compound version of the New Python UST, then for a while Racing Ralph EVO (really great, but too easy to shred) since this year Race King World Cup LTD Ed.

on exactly the same trails on the same bike i'm getting much better training times. mostly i ride to the trailheads from my doorstep, rolling on tarmac is slower with Race Kings but i don't mind as i'm warming up at that time anyway.

i've had no probs mounting the tires with a Pedros Prestige floorpump (30ml Stans + 70ml Hutchinson Protect Air), although the sidewalls still glisten with tubeless gloop months now after mounting the tires, they only loose about 4psi a week - which is probably as much as the barrel of the floorpump.

they are fantastic tires, i'm glad i've a small stockpile of the old fattie version RK to last me a while.

...still have Pythons on the town bike, looks like they will never wear out.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

wannabeRacer said:


> and what about Schwalbe Nobby Nic as front tyre and Racing Ralph at the rear?


:thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> they do not roll better than the pythons


However tests on a smooth roller show a HUGE difference between RK and the Hutch!
Don't let a silent running tread think it is any faster!


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

wow race king rolls better than kenda small block 8! that thing rolls like no other....


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

nino said:


> However tests on a smooth roller show a HUGE difference between RK and the Hutch!
> Don't let a silent running tread think it is any faster!


Its not the noise they make... which is about the same. Its how they feel and the extra effort I need to do the same I did with the pythons. I and I was using python 2.0 not 2.3
And then different size tires will have optimal pressures for optimal rolling resistance, in that test I see they use 2 bar for all tires. how is that affecting rolling resistance? A 2.3 size tire at 2bar will be slower than a 2.0 size tire at the same pressure on a smooth surface I think. 

Later I'll try to do some rolling resistance tests with both tires on the trails and fire roads, which is where they were made to ride on, and take some conclusions.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Not about roling resistance but watch the continental factory making some tires.
I can see some mountain kings being cooked also some road tires, some tire tests, puncture resistance and blow up pressure etc. Nice to see that the tire will only blow at 20bar.

video: http://www.weightweenies.com.br/blog/?p=523


----------



## Pulse- (Jun 12, 2007)

I use supersonic version of RK 2.2 and I was asked if standard 2.2 wired version is as good as supersonic (besides the weight ;-)) Has any one tried wired and ss version?


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

I mounted the RK 2.2 supersonics on a 28mm rim and the sidewalls are wider than the thread.
I swapped it out for a 2.1 small block eight and no issues. 2.4 mountain king is great on a 28mm rim.

mountain king up front and small block in the rear.


----------



## ionutph (May 10, 2009)

*RK 2.2 SS cycling computer seting*

I just ordered a pair of RK 2.2 SS. What setings are you guys using on cycling computers at optimal presure ? I ask because I want to have a starting point for my setup. I know that also depends on presure and when standing on bike the circumference is lower. I am a very lightweight rider.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*circumference*



ionutph said:


> I just ordered a pair of RK 2.2 SS. What setings are you guys using on cycling computers at optimal presure ? I ask because I want to have a starting point for my setup. I know that also depends on presure and when standing on bike the circumference is lower. I am a very lightweight rider.


i have measured them at 2093mm circumference
("old" series 2,2 SS at 2 bar on a Alex scandium rim)


----------



## leftycan1 (Dec 27, 2007)

Just raced my Race King 2.2 Supersonics converted tubless today for the first time and man are they fast and they grip exellent on the roots and rocks here in the Northeast. I finished first overall in the Sport Class here. I was nervous going into the race because I always ran tubless tires and these were the first I have converted. Also all the post about sidewall tears doesn't help either. After the race I checked pressure and I didn't loose any and the sidewalls look mint also :thumbsup: . The only thing that happened was 2x's I was cruising along and next thing I knew I was tumbling head over [email protected]@. I didn't see it coming there was nothing on the trail but maybe small rocks and such. This has never happened to me before. Is it possible this could be from the tires bouncing off something?


----------



## flafonta (Feb 6, 2008)

Anyone knows if this Conti Race King 2.2 SS would fit on a Specialized FSR-XC 2008?


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

has anyone here tried race king 2.2 and also tried crossmark exception? I just acquired an anthem x and it comes with exception tyres. From my short run on them they seem to be quite good too..


----------



## biglines (Apr 6, 2009)

*My experience with the RK SS! 2.2*

What a tire!! :thumbsup: 
I pick up a set yesterday and mounted them up for my evening race last night with Conti SS tubes. i had MK 2.4 SS on there which have been great but are overkill in most situations (still keepers though), i also was running 150 g tubes with the MK's so i saved roughly 1/2 lb per wheel changing to the RK's and SS tubes.

Right away i noticed the weight loss on the wheels but as for the RK's they had excelent grip in the corner's, they rolled soooo much faster than my MK's and the high volume is awesome! i ran the tires at 30 psi F/R (i weigh 180 w gear) with no worry's about pinch flatting and the tires just sucked up those roots. These tires will remain on my bike in all situations except rainy races where it is a mud bog and then my MK's can shine. 
So to sum it up i am super stoked on these tires and they have been one of the best upgrades i have made to my bike to date.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

*Sealing the tire*

So what's the best and quickest way to seal the Race King Supersonic?

The guys that have converted this tire to tubeless please explain how you did it :thumbsup:

I've been fiddling with the tire and sealant for over 30days and the tire still looses air through the sidewalls.


----------



## strader (Jun 14, 2006)

I had to use three scoops of stans in each tire to get it to hold a strong seal. I also had to inflate the tire with a tube first to get one bead to seat, then pop the other bead on using a compressor.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

thanks strader I'll try to use even more sealant maybe it will help.. but then we'll loose the weight advantage adding so much sealant.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

Once it seals you won't need the 3 scoops. Wait acouple weeks and you should be good


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Did you scrub off the silicone mold release agent from the inside of the tire?


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

sergio_pt said:


> So what's the best and quickest way to seal the Race King Supersonic?
> 
> The guys that have converted this tire to tubeless please explain how you did it :thumbsup:
> 
> I've been fiddling with the tire and sealant for over 30days and the tire still looses air through the sidewalls.


Add more than enough sealant, then ride to slosh the sealant around. Bring a hand pump with you & check air pressure once in a while.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> Did you scrub off the silicone mold release agent from the inside of the tire?


Yes I have scrub the tires inside with abrasive sponge and detergent.

Hmm silicone? I'll check the car paint shop here, they usually have anti-silicone and anti-grease products to clean the car before painting. maybe that will work on the tires


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

supersonic tires need to be layed on their side, on an open box like in notubes videos. do this for a day or two, flipping them over at least few times a day. give the wheel a quick little shake every time you flip em. usually takes about 2 days to seal up proper.

the shaking and riding ideas help, but for me it is the laying on the side that works best and fastest.


----------



## dcb (Sep 19, 2005)

kevbikemad said:


> supersonic tires need to be layed on their side, on an open box like in notubes videos. do this for a day or two, flipping them over at least few times a day. give the wheel a quick little shake every time you flip em. usually takes about 2 days to seal up proper.
> 
> the shaking and riding ideas help, but for me it is the laying on the side that works best and fastest.


That is what I did, after I rode them with tubes for a few days and used a compressor to air them up. They were by far the biggest pain in the ass of any tire I have used to get sealed up, but I was well rewarded. I REALLY like these tires. Had my first race on them today and they roll very well, and they are very comfy because of the volume. Good traction as well for a tire that rolls that fast.

I was about to give up on getting them sealed up, but I'm glad I stuck with it.


----------



## wannabeRacer (Feb 9, 2004)

Has anyone tried putting Mountain King at front and RK at the rear. I'm thinking having this combo as do it all riding conditions.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

jdc5r said:


> i am really really loving the combo of mountain king 2.4 and 2.2 race king.
> 
> They roll fast for the amount of grip they have, they have awesome grip, and really the race king feels like tubeless even with tubes since its such a high volume tyre! Had to ask a friend to check my rear tyre as i was riding because it felt like i got a flat which is the synonymous feeling associated with tubeless setup. The front tyre is handling all the loose pebbles fine but i think over time i will chuck another race king 2.2 up front and give it a go since we are always striving for improvements and experimenting


................


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

wannabeRacer said:


> Has anyone tried putting Mountain King at front and RK at the rear. I'm thinking having this combo as do it all riding conditions.


That is what I run (2.4 F, 2.2 R).

Mainly because I like to roll fast, but cannot afford injuries from front tire washout.


----------



## Mighty Matt (Apr 22, 2009)

rockyuphill said:


> I was out yesterday on trails that were everything from bare dirt to spring corn snow and dirty ice. The RK's worked quite nicely on the snow, the big footprint had some good flotation, no worse than riding in a couple of inches of sand in the soft snow. There were some spots where I had some slippage but all manageable amounts. The grip on dirty ice surprised me, I was ready for the sudden wheelspin and loss of froward momentum but it never happened on the climbs. There was a lot of dirt on the ice so it wasn't smooth wet ice, otherwise I likely would have been going nowhere.


where do you live / ride?


----------



## leftycan1 (Dec 27, 2007)

I raced these a few weeks ago on a dry course and they just dominated, they took on everything from rocks and roots with no problems. I just raced today after a week of rain and light rain today. I will not be running these again under these conditions. They were absolutely useless on most short climbs that were rooty. They just spun out so badly. I absolutely love these tires when the conditions are right(dry course). But am now looking for suggestions for wet damp races. I have currently been running the michelin xcr muds but am looking for new suggestions.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

mountain king?


----------



## leftycan1 (Dec 27, 2007)

That may be a good alternative. I won a 2.2 supersonic testrider version earlier this spring. I haven't tried it out yet.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Mighty Matt said:


> where do you live / ride?


Vancouver


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> Vancouver


Any idea what the XC trails at Whistler are like right now? I'm heading up there in the morning for the 1st time for riding. Any trail suggestions?


----------



## Drea (Aug 23, 2008)

leftycan1 said:


> I raced these a few weeks ago on a dry course and they just dominated, they took on everything from rocks and roots with no problems. I just raced today after a week of rain and light rain today. I will not be running these again under these conditions. They were absolutely useless on most short climbs that were rooty. They just spun out so badly. I absolutely love these tires when the conditions are right(dry course). But am now looking for suggestions for wet damp races. I have currently been running the michelin xcr muds but am looking for new suggestions.


Get the Schwalbe Nobby Nics. These tires are a absolut winner in "year-round wet condition" Denmark. :thumbsup: 
Quite light to..


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Drea said:


> Get the Schwalbe Nobby Nics. These tires are a absolut winner in "year-round wet condition" Denmark. :thumbsup:
> Quite light to..


For me the Nobbies are some of the worst on wet rocks/roots!
Definitely a no-go on such terrain.Otherwise a very good allrounder although not too fast rolling.


----------



## nathanbal (Jan 30, 2007)

would have to agree - NN is awesome in the dry, but in the wet its scary.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

BlownCivic said:


> Any idea what the XC trails at Whistler are like right now? I'm heading up there in the morning for the 1st time for riding. Any trail suggestions?


I haven't been any further north than Squamish this season, but there's a bunch of Whistler discussion here, including several threads on which trails to tackle (and which trails might tackle you  ). In general, Whistler is not a place for a WW bike.:smilewinkgrin: It's also likely to be smokey/hazy with the Tyaughton Lake forest fire just north of Whistler.


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

direction arrow

Right how does it work. Front easy as you get it the arrow to point in the direction of travel but what about the rear? I've been told on the rear to have the arrow pointing away from the direction of travel..


----------



## moosehead (Jun 5, 2008)

*Thanks All*

Much appreciate the feedback on the RK's in this monster thread. Got a pair of 2.2 Protections for an endurance event, and they'll be staying on my 4" XC rig full time. Incredible blend of speed/low RR, high volume for a little plush and traction, and durability with reasonable weight. Doubt I'll suffer pinchflats despite still running tubes at 225 lbs rider weight. Currently running tires at 36-37 lbs, down from 40.

Recommend great customer service and in-stock Continental's from Phattire http://www.phattire.com/


----------



## schlim (Aug 20, 2006)

It looks like I'm finally about to tear through the sidewall on my rear Race King Supersonic 2.2. I like the RK 2.2 enough that I don't want to experiment with Racing Ralphs, SB8s, Larsens, etc. 

I'm looking at the RK versions that are slightly heavier, but hopefully more durable. But the standard kevlar folding bead and the UST versions aren't black chili rubber. 

I love the low rolling resistance, low weight, and high volume of this tire. Will the difference in compound ruin the ride? Is it even noticeable?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

schlim said:


> I love the low rolling resistance, low weight, and high volume of this tire. Will the difference in compound ruin the ride? Is it even noticeable?


night and day, Black Chili makes this thing work like magic.


----------



## josliver (Oct 5, 2007)

Could you please give your opinion for some questions, so that we could make a summary of the best pratices to run the RK 2.2 tubless?

A. What is the sealant that works better with the RK? 
I see that most of you use Stans, but did you try other options / brands or "special mixtures" and can compare with Stans performance? 

B. As the RK 2.2 is a big tire, how much sealant do you think is needed?
Stans recomends around 60 gr, do you think we should use more in this case?

C. Considering we run these tires in the range of 24 to 32 PSI, how much pressure (maximum) should we use during preparation?
Problem I face is:
As I increase pressure "small holes" open and air flows, after some shaking and rotation all holes are sealed but when I increase pressure again, "new holes" open and I need to repeat the process. How high should I go?

Regards .... JO


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

For me 
A. Stan's only
B. 2 scoops the first time, and 1 scoop every few months as needed.
C. I go to 35 and once it's sealed go ride. More holes will open up and seal up as your riding.


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

josliver said:


> A. What is the sealant that works better with the RK?
> B. As the RK 2.2 is a big tire, how much sealant do you think is needed?
> C. Considering we run these tires in the range of 24 to 32 PSI, how much pressure (maximum) should we use during preparation?


A. I am running Stan's
B. I run 3 scoops in the Supersonics.....do to the fact, the tire is thin, and it requires a bit more sealant to seal. I run 2 scoops in the ProTection version of the tire.
C. When I first Stan's out the Race King 2.2 I inflate the tire to 55 PSI....then shake the tire to get the sealant to cover all on the inside of the tire. Come time to ride, I am running about 21-25 PSI.


----------



## josliver (Oct 5, 2007)

Excelent! 
Thank you, hope other also give their opinions.

Regards .... JO


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

ive had so many flats on the race kings im going to retry mounting it tubeless ....


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

wannabeRacer said:


> Has anyone tried putting Mountain King at front and RK at the rear. I'm thinking having this combo as do it all riding conditions.


Yes...look for my post above, #718. An excellent combo.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

CTB said:


> Yes...look for my post above, #718. An excellent combo.


F: Mountain King Protection 26x2.0 R: Race King Protection 26x 2.2 (run tubeless)

the mrs tried it out when we were up in Oregon in June, it seemed to work allright, no drama getting grip on the climbs or loamy corners

tires were @ 25psi front & 27psi at the back & she weighs about 125lb maybe (i don't like to ask!)


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

Just a review on Stan's and Joe's tubeless solution which might help some people to seal the 2.2 race kings.

After a full year and a bit of getting no punctures at all it was my turn to get the dreaded punctures. They came one after the other and sometimes even two times during one lap! The feeling of changing a tube and disrupting the riding is not the best one on the trails. Especially in the rain with a nice stromlo dh ahead of you.

Just for a bit of background information. I am a fairly light rider and i ride with low pressure only. Anything over 30psi and i do not like the feel at all. Usually my setup is around 20psi at the front and 25psi at the rear. Sounds low but keep in mind that i have gone 1.3 years without any punctures so i was feeling fairly invincible The bike i will be refering to here is my trance x2. I have changed most of the parts on this bike and as such the review will be based on my experience with the QR15 XT wheelset (1.62kg model not the 2kg am model) and a 2.4 Continental Mountain King Supersonic front and a 2.2 Continental Race King Supersonic rear.

When i was initially acquiring all the parts for the Trance i wanted a setup which was capable of tubeless hence the XT tubeless wheelset. However i wanted to try a ghetto tubeless since i know that i am doing relatively XC rides on this bike and will not really attempt to jump this bike. As such a further 200-250g of rotational mass loss and a much supple feeling was greatly sought after.

First attempt
--------------
This was hell. Straight out. I know from the extensive race king thread on MTBR that it is a very stubborn tyre to seal but greatly worth it once it is done. The reason why it is hard to seal is due to it's inherent low weight, a wide carcass and an ultra thin sidewall which i would say is even thinner than maxxis exception series tyres.

The tyres refuse to seal via a normal pump. Fullstop. There is absolutely no way to seal it using a normal pump. A gas servo/compressor air pump is definitely required. However once i realised this it was very easy to seal up at my nearest servo. I had used a generous amount of Joe's solution for this attempt as Joe's is what CRC sells. Straight away though i noticed issues. Basically the tyre was like a dam wall that is about to crack. I would do the whole shake and turn procedure and laying it on its side and then turn over trick but it would always be flat in the morning.

Even when you are just holding it there are constant small holes forming that was not there previously. Followed by a light gush of the Joe's fluid. I then used the foam bucket trick to see how badly my situation actually is. The join between the bead and the rims were all seated. That was not an issue but once i had the foam on i could see around 30 small bubbling holes on the sidewalls of the race king tyre! I turned the wheel around shook it around did almost everything but it just seemed to me that Joe's solution was not sealing it. Air would keep gushing out and new holes would form and basically after about 7 days of turning the tyre on each side and the trance x waiting for its maiden voyage i was getting pretty sick of it.

I took the tubeless setup apart cleaned everything and decided to just chuck two tubes into the wheels.

Second attempt
-----------------
After a myriad of punctures i finally ordered in some Stan's solution with renewed hope. Yesterday i mounted the tyre on the trance x2 sans tube and proceeded to seal it using an air pump from the same servo. Straight away the Stan's kit is brilliantly user friendly. The bottle is easy to open with a nice screw in cap. Stan's also provides a nice scoop to measure excatly how much solution you are putting in with clear concise instructions on how much should be used and how to prepare the solution previous to installation. I used about 2 scoops in each tyre, a little more than recommended but i felt a worthy insurance in light of the tyres i am using. Stan's solution itself is much more viscous than the Joes solution. It seems like it is a much thicker fluid overall.

Once i aired up the race king rear i was reminded of the dam wall again with one difference this time. Previously with Joe's solution once a hole would form it would be very very hard to seal it. It seems like the air would keep gushing out for a long time before it decided to seal. This time however with Stan's i noticed the seal was almost instantaneous. This was a good sign. Even though there were plenty of holes forming every second rolling the wheel on the ground and shaking it sealed the holes almost immediately.

It still lost plenty of pressure during the course of a 6-7hr effort and after pumping the tyres back up to 60psi a few times i noticed that it was stopping to lose pressure. Giving it the over night test i woke up this morning to pleasantly fine that the tyre has finally sealed *hurray*!!!

From my findings and experience i would say that Stan's solution is most likely better than the Joe's solution. For many people Joe's solution might suffice but i believe i put it to the ultimate test when i attempted to install my race king tyres. These tyres really give the sealant a good workout. The prices of both sealants are similar *much cheaper than tubes* but Stan's package is much easier and pleasant to use.

PS. I did not mention the mountain kings as they were relatively easier to seal. One application of Stan's and it was sealed straight away. Although with the previous Joe's solution it still failed to seal.

PPS. When i was installing the tyres for tubeless this time round i found a 5cent coin dent on my rear wheel. This made me think it would be impossible to seal the rims tubeless but true to Stan's video where he rides the bike through nails and stuff it sealed without any effort with some slight bubbling.

Cliff notes :: Stan's > Joe's in pretty much every way.


----------



## cmh (Jan 30, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> ...snip...
> Cliff notes :: Stan's > Joe's in pretty much every way.


excellent writeup! Thank you!


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

60 psi would certainly make it harder to seal. I rarely pump the tires much above 40-45 psi, and even then, it forces more solution through the sidewalls. The end result would likely be more solid though, as the possibility of having new sidewall leaks after taking it up to 60 psi is lessened. 

Next time, after you've go the tires holding air decently (1-2 hours without getting really low), drop the pressure down to your normal riding or slightly above, and go ride for an hour or so. The flexing of the tire sidewall, and constant coating of the solution inside the tires almost always ensures a perfect seal with minimal effort.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

thing is i noticed that the holes do not form when its at a lower psi but i was forced to pump the pressure up to 60psi. Roll it around to seal the holes. Deflate and then reinflate and repeat. After doing this 3-4 times it was sealed.

Yup next process will be to drop to riding pressure and go for a ride!


----------



## josliver (Oct 5, 2007)

In between the two attempts did you clean the inside of the tyre? Or did you clean it before the first attempt?
I mean, is it possible that (on top of changing the sealant), you also changed the tyre condition, on the inside, by removing the "coating" that some describe can have negative impact on the process?
I believe that what you saw on the surface of the tyre is the result of better performance of Stan´s, it proved that Stan´s is more adequate, at least for this specific case, no doubt.
My point is: I would like to be sure if the cleaning of the inside of the tyre is really needed or not.
I want to avoid to clean the inside of the tyres on this process, but if all agree it is needed, for sure I will do it.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Regards ..... JO


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

i did not purposely clean the inside and if therewas any form of cleaning it was just hosing the previous joes sealent out using tap water before chucking tubes in. I did not scrub sidewalls. 

I dont understand the logic of cleaning the sidewalls, wouldn't an extra coating on the sidewalls be ideal? or is it the fact that it stops the sealent from penetrating?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> thing is i noticed that the holes do not form when its at a lower psi but i was forced to pump the pressure up to 60psi. Roll it around to seal the holes. Deflate and then reinflate and repeat. After doing this 3-4 times it was sealed.
> 
> Yup next process will be to drop to riding pressure and go for a ride!


I don't think any of us (let alone NoTubes.com) would recommend taking tires over 40 psi. You're lucky the tire didn't blow off the rim when you took it up to 60 psi. Once you do that, the tire is trash (with regard to running tubeless) from the stretch of the bead(s) and I wouldn't trust it.

Regardless, glad you got 'em sealed up. I've had similar sidewall sealing issues with other thin casing tires (Racing Ralph sidewalls take just as long as what you went through with the Continental tires). From start to finish, it's usually a several day to two week+ process to finally get the sidewalls to stop leaking on such thin wall casing race tires. But once they are finally sealed, you're golden.

BB


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

It NEVER takes me more than 1-2 days tops to have my tires sealed, be they Conti SuperSonics or Maxxis Maxxlites. The trick that works for me, and I've stated this many times already, is to go for a ride after the tire holds air for a reasonable amount of time. Also, be absolutely sure you have enough sealant inside the tire before this ride. You'd be surprised how much sealant bleeds through the sidewall and around the bead while you're initially shaking and rolling the tire.


----------



## russya (May 3, 2007)

I had a lot of trouble sealing my MK supersonics, after days of frustration I just dumped the rest of sealant in the bottle, probably 10 oz. Completely more than I ever had before, went for one quick ride and came back and took out the excess. Both tires sealed up this way, and the supersonics that I've mounted since then did as well. No need for the shaking and what not since it's so full that it covered all the surfaces just riding. 

This technique if you want to call it that has also worked for all my friends as well. We hate the shaking. We're also having good luck with the caffelatex, but I haven't sealed a supersonic with it yet. I'll be mounting a new RK supersonic next week so I'll see if it seals up easier than stans.


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

I got lucky


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

You farging bastage! I'm jealous!


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

BlownCivic said:


> You farging bastage! I'm jealous!


I sorry









Not really sorry :lol:​


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

BruceBrown said:


> I don't think any of us (let alone NoTubes.com) would recommend taking tires over 40 psi. You're lucky the tire didn't blow off the rim when you took it up to 60 psi. Once you do that, the tire is trash (with regard to running tubeless) from the stretch of the bead(s) and I wouldn't trust it.
> 
> Regardless, glad you got 'em sealed up. I've had similar sidewall sealing issues with other thin casing tires (Racing Ralph sidewalls take just as long as what you went through with the Continental tires). From start to finish, it's usually a several day to two week+ process to finally get the sidewalls to stop leaking on such thin wall casing race tires. But once they are finally sealed, you're golden.
> 
> BB


really? i hear people taking it up to 60 all the time :S

whats the reason behind this?


----------



## AlexRandall (Apr 2, 2009)

Has anyone set up the RK 2.2 on the ZTR 7000 rims????


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

AlexRandall said:


> Has anyone set up the RK 2.2 on the ZTR 7000 rims????


i can answer that in a month if you can wait

should be a great combo, running my Supersonics @ 27/29psi tubeless on DT XRC 330 rims, will be nice to go 5psi lower on the ZTR rims


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

AlexRandall said:


> Has anyone set up the RK 2.2 on the ZTR 7000 rims????


My front is on the 7000. Rear is an Olympic.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

hows the asr-c treating you?


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I absolutely love riding it. It's really lively, even though the headtube angle is much more slack than the Anthem Advanced I was riding before. It's pretty light right now (18.75lbs) and super easy to run hard. 

I did however recently have a failure of the rear triangle. I was riding with my son and his friend about a month ago, and when we were on the way home, we stopped for ice cream at DQ. While I sat outside waiting for them boys to come out, I noticed something strange on the left side seat stay just above the carbon moulded pivot point. The carbon was splintering, like something had exploded inside the tube. It was just on the top, and there were no signs at all of impact of any kind. 

I contacted the store where I bought the frame. It took bloody forever (10 days) to get the RMA number from Yeti, and that was only after I called Yeti myself to ask what was going on. The store had not contacted Yeti at all at that point. I raised a stink. I sent the swing arm directly to Yeti, and they sent out my replacement within 24 hours of having received it. They however sent it to the shop (in Oregon) instead of sending it back to me directly.

I ended up without the bike for almost 4 weeks, when it should have taken less than 2. I don't blame Yeti at all. They were fantastic about it. The shop on the other hand was very slow, and not particularly great at providing customer service.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

good to hear that yeti is good with their warranties though...

Must be a super fast bike


----------



## AlexRandall (Apr 2, 2009)

BlownCivic said:


> My front is on the 7000. Rear is an Olympic.


Not wanting to read all 17,689 posts on this thread, did you find it hard to mount the tyre onto the 7000. I know a lot of people have had problems, but I thought this rim (being designed for normal beads) might be easier.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

No harder than any other wheel I have mounted any of the SuperSonic tires on.

Yeti were absolutely fantastic. They were fast and handled the matter in a precise way. The shop on the other hand...

The bike is an absolute rocket, and certainly well beyond my skill level, but it's so much fun to ride.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> really? i hear people taking it up to 60 all the time :S
> 
> whats the reason behind this?


For the reason I said - chance of blowing the tire off the rim when set up tubeless. Once you do that, the tire is ruined for tubeless use.

That rule of thumb comes from the NoTubes.com instructions found here.

_Hang the tire with valve stem at the top or side (see photo 3 ), inflate the tire to 35-40 psi (*never inflate over 40 psi*). _

I overinflated one tire (wasn't using a gauge as I was trying to go on "feel" alone) and blew it off the rim. Luckily, it wasn't while I was riding.:thumbsup: It makes a nice loud explosion when it blows off and you may or may not want to experience that - let alone trashing a tire bead in the process.

I'll stick with the recommendation of not inflating beyond 40 psi. The sealant will take care of the leaks provided you do the shake and bake, lay flat routine. Sometimes, stubborn tires (thin casing) will take a bit longer to seal, but they will eventually seal with the routine and riding. Having ruined a tire and been through the exploding experience, I can't see risking it all by going up to 60 psi for a tubeless installation.

BB


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

so basically if it doesnt blow off the rim it is ok? 

Keep in mind that the 60psi stage is already over. Basically my question to you is what detrimental effect would it caused if i inflated it to 100psi and it did not blow off and then i backed it down to 20psi. What detrimental effect would that cause? If this does not cause any detrimentla effect why would it make it useless?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> so basically if it doesnt blow off the rim it is ok?
> 
> Keep in mind that the 60psi stage is already over. Basically my question to you is what detrimental effect would it caused if i inflated it to 100psi and it did not blow off and then i backed it down to 20psi. What detrimental effect would that cause? If this does not cause any detrimentla effect why would it make it useless?


You did not blow it off the rim - so obviously, there was no detrimental effect. The bead stretch comes when the tires is blown off the rim making the tire pretty much worthless for future tubeless applications. You avoided that from happening in spite of airing up to 60 psi. If you want to experiment up to 100 psi before backing down to 20 - feel free. 

My premise in responding to your post was simply to point out to others the risk of blowing the tire off of the rim by taking the pressure that high during installation. I didn't come up with that 40 psi limit. NoTubes.com is where it comes from and whether it is prudent or not, I felt it worth mentioning. Somebody may read your post, have a different rim and a different gauge who thinks the advice of taking the tire up to 60 psi is a good and safe way to fill the small casing holes with sealant before backing off the pressure to normal tubeless riding levels. And they may have different results - as in a tire that explodes off of their rim.:nono:

When dealing with the expense of tires and safety of eyes/ears during installation - I figure keeping the risks low are well worth the effort.

BB


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

fair enough, advise noted


----------



## TheRedMantra (Jan 12, 2004)

Interesting video. I just bought a set, hope that this is not normal.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That's the standard folding tire which is made in Asia somewhere. The SS are all handmade in Germany.


----------



## Hardtail Rider (Dec 21, 2008)

HI! 

I need some advice, I'm thinking about buying the Standard Race King for 50% Pavement & 50% Hard pack dirt. Is there a major different in the standard version to not consider it?


----------



## TheRedMantra (Jan 12, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> That's the standard folding tire which is made in Asia somewhere. The SS are all handmade in Germany.


I just ordered a set of the 2.2 folding protection version. Should I worry? Not everyone can afford to replace the supersonics as needed...


----------



## TheRedMantra (Jan 12, 2004)

TheRedMantra said:


> I just ordered a set of the 2.2 folding protection version. Should I worry? Not everyone can afford to replace the supersonics as needed...


Got them in today.I thought to myself, so long as they are both under 600g I will be happy. 576g for one, and the other came in at 520g! Not bad for a 2.2 protection model. Not sure which to run in front and back. Thinking I should run the heavier one up front. Should take less energy to accelerate the rear wheel and would balance the weight out a bit better. Heh, its funny to even think like this, the weight is so negligible I doubt it will make a difference either way. My bike is about to drop some 750+ grams for $80, I couldn't be happier.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Just ordered the 2.2 Protection ( I'm fat ), only for rear use far to much mud here, I like the rounded profile hope thats still okay on 321's, hoping to remove some of the drag while keeping my rear cushion if not better as I can run these softer than my current tyres.

Hmmmm new tyres


----------



## cammccarty (Jul 20, 2007)

Just sealed up a set of Race King Supersonic 2.2 on a set of Mavic crossmax last night. Tubeless with 2 scoops of Stans. I would never go with the 2.0 These 2.2 feel and look on the slim side.

Took about ten minutes. 
First installed tubes and seated beads on rim. Broke one side of tire to remove tube and install tubeless valve. Poured in 2 scoops of Stans. Aired up with compressor. Tried a floor pump for a few seconds just to see how hard it would be. Don't even waste your time.
Compressor aired up tire perfect. Shook, shake for a few minutes. Went for a ride and tire holding air the next morning. Very easy tire to convert tubeless.


----------



## the sloth (Aug 11, 2007)

I put a 1cm cut into the sidewall of one of my Race Kings.... is it trashed or can it be repaired? I'd hate to throw out a practically new $50 tire....


----------



## FueLEX8 (May 24, 2008)

I have repaired 2 sidewall cuts putting a piece of rubber inside the tire and glue it with super glue, btw one cut was like an inch and the fix has been held fine!!..  oh and I'm using tubes


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

the sloth said:


> I put a 1cm cut into the sidewall of one of my Race Kings.... is it trashed or can it be repaired? I'd hate to throw out a practically new $50 tire....


If you use tubes you can put something between the tube and the cut. I've used the cardboard/paper box the tube comes in and it worked.


----------



## FTM (Sep 14, 2004)

FueLEX8 said:


> I have repaired 2 sidewall cuts putting a piece of rubber inside the tire and glue it with super glue, btw one cut was like an inch and the fix has been held fine!!..  oh and I'm using tubes


I used a bit of old tube and some Mastic tubular glue. I'm still running it tubless and it's held up perfectly for several months and a few races with no problems.


----------



## russya (May 3, 2007)

Got my Race King 2.2 today. Weighed in at 464. I mounted it tubeless and aired it up with no sealant to check out how much the sidewalls were leaking. They leaked as bad as my previous MK supersonics. Put in some caffelatex, and with a little shake and rotating the sealant around a couple times and it sealed up almost completely. Caffelatex seems to be a much better tire sealant than Stans or the others, but it doesn't seal bigger holes very well. So I'm running it 50/50 with Stans. So if you're having trouble sealing your supersonics, I suggest getting caffelatex. It makes that job a lot easier. 

Also, I didn't scrub the inside to make it seal easier either


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

russya said:


> Got my Race King 2.2 today.


Do you mind telling me where you bought it?


----------



## russya (May 3, 2007)

http://phattire1.stores.yahoo.net/corakimobiti.html

I've bought tires through them a few times and they've always got them sent out quickly and the prices are good.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

After a lot of work getting it to seal, I finally rode my converted RK 2.2 SS on the trail yesterday. I'm using a Mavic XM819 UST rim and Stans. Over the course of a 2-hour ride (15 miles), I lost about 1.5 psi. Overnight after the ride, I lost 4 psi. Is this pretty much as good as it gets, or should I try yet another dose of Stans (this would be the 4th scoop)? Any feedback would be great, thanks!


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

They should seal completely. Mine are losing maybe 1-2 psi over 2-3 weeks. Its possible that the Stansi the tire has dried up, or been consumed in the process of sealing up the tire. Pop the bead of the tire and have a look inside to see what's left.


----------



## eric512 (Jan 27, 2006)

CTB said:


> After a lot of work getting it to seal, I finally rode my converted RK 2.2 SS on the trail yesterday. I'm using a Mavic XM819 UST rim and Stans. Over the course of a 2-hour ride (15 miles), I lost about 1.5 psi. Overnight after the ride, I lost 4 psi. Is this pretty much as good as it gets, or should I try yet another dose of Stans (this would be the 4th scoop)? Any feedback would be great, thanks!


I don't think the # of scopes will improve the sealing of the tire (4 is way to much). Its more of "where" the sealant is. Try pasting some sealant along the bead of the tire with a paint brush. That's what finally got mine to seal. I leak about 1-5psi over a few days of sitting in my garage, none while riding. Paint the Stans on the outside of the bead - between the bead and the rim.


----------



## russya (May 3, 2007)

That's actually pretty decent. It's not great but I've seen much worse, and if other peoples experiences with supersonics are anything to go by you are ahead of most. I've gotten mine to hold air for weeks on end, but I'd be happy with 1.5 lost overnight. 

4 scoops is too much to have all the time and at this point you're sealed enough that I'd take it out and run the correct amount. Eric's recommendation is a good one, I do something similar but a lot more messy by just dripping it all around the beed and the rim lip. That seems to be the last place you work on before you're done, so try that.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Update on the UST 2.2 for those who are interested. 

I have one delivered so far and another on the way.
The one I have in house weighs 650g. Not 700 like it's advertised.

On the size. It is a plump casing but its not what I would call a really fat tire. It's high volume for its size but there is still loads of clearance on a fox f100.
Can't wait to get the second one and finish my build. They look like they should roll fast. I guess we will see if the traction is there.

Mounting up tubeless was easy. I put it on an empty rim with a tube overnight at 55 psi and then took it off and put it on the ust rim. Hit it with the compressor up to 45 or so and it sealed right up. hasn't lost any air since. I will be putting some sealant in before I actually use it but as far as the overall mounting process went it couldn't have been much easier. The wheels in question are xtr wh-m975.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks for the insight on the converted RK, folks. The reason I mentioned another possible scoop of Stans is because when I first assembled the tire with 2, it seemed to hold air reasonably well and then suddenly go flat at random times. I also couldn't get all the bubbling to stop when using soapy water to look for leaks. Once I added the last bit of Stans, the tire immediately seemed to seal. No more bubbles in the soapy water and it held air for nearly a week before I rode on it. I aired it up last night prior to loading my bike in the car for a ride today, and so far it has held well. Hopefully I'm still in good shape.

Lucifer, thanks for posting the UST info. I definitely want to know what you think once you ride the tires, so hopefully you'll give us an update once you do.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Got my cheap Race King 2.2 Steel today, mounted much smaller than my Syncros Point and Chute 2.5 I took off the bike and a similar weight but that was a light but huge tyre.

Only a road test so far, need more pressure than I'm used to, 2nd attempt with more air felt quite nice added more air still so should rip on the road sections hopefully ( Thursday nights road has too much damn road in it arrggghhhh )

Off out shortly to test it, been raining here on and off and hard so should be fun 

Won't be doing any of that UST stuff though, ohhhhh noooooooooooo!!

They came UST on my mates Laperel ( sp! ) so I have ridden them like that in mud breifly front and rear though, only rear for me.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It is the Black Chili rubber on the Supersonic version that changes the Race King from just another knobby tire into something that grips like a blend of shredded Velcro and super glue. 

So for all these other versions, your satisfaction mileage may vary dramatically.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> It is the Black Chili rubber on the Supersonic version that changes the Race King from just another knobby tire into something that grips like a blend of shredded Velcro and super glue.
> 
> So for all these other versions, your satisfaction mileage may vary dramatically.


Understanding that. Although the standard compound is pretty tacky...
Are there any conti tires that are both UST and black chili?


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Mates got 2 x UST 2.2's going spare so plan to knick 1 of them soon ish!! Didn't realise 2.2 UST was Black Chilli it looked a shade bigger and rounder too ??

Quick Blast on the 2.2 Steel cheap ones on wet ground / mud and :-

Role speed on road and trails is wow amazing bike roles like my road bike ( which has 2.0" Marathons on it and wide rims ).
No traction issues on wet rocks and wet shiney bricks going under a bridge.
No issues with mud.
There abit crashy compared to my 2.5's over rocks but supple enough over anything else.

I dropped a few psi's cured the crashy, role speed drastically reduced though, so back to riding them hard for me 28psi according to my shock pump. ( likely 35 )


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It's only the Supersonic version that are Black Chili compound, they're keeping their secret rubber compound in Germany and not using it in the other versions made in Asia, a little trouble with the security of intellectual property in Asian factories.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I'll stick to Cheapo Steel then, I don't expect they'll take much wear before they become useless at anything other than dry roads 

And the SuperSonics will likely last 1/3rd the time at 3x's the price.

I'd go SS on the front for just dry trails though if you could get them for 29" wheels.


----------



## TheRedMantra (Jan 12, 2004)

Anyone have any info about these tires in white? There are some pics on light-bikes.de but I have not found anything else about them.


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

Those are sick looking. Probably won't be white for long though...


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

TheRedMantra said:


> Anyone have any info about these tires in white? There are some pics on light-bikes.de but I have not found anything else about them.


OMG WANT! :thumbsup:


----------



## KERKOVEJ (Jan 23, 2004)

TheRedMantra said:


> Anyone have any info about these tires in white?


Conti makes custom colored tires from time to time for marketing purposes. They made some gold sidewall Race King's last year for my teammate Irina. They also made these Ergon green Race King's for Eurobike and for potential use at the World XC Champs this weekend in Australia. This image is off of Bike Radar..and the first I have seen, other than some email chit chat from Germany.








</a>

Here is an image of the gold sidewall Race King's....








</a>








</a>


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

lucifer said:


> Are there any conti tires that are both UST and black chili?


The Rubber Queen is the only one AFAIK, unfortunately. :madman:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It looks like the Rubber Queen is the only UST Black Chili tire. And again only made in Germany to keep the secret rubber compound secret...

*Whats the big deal about Black Chili?*

Black Chili is the name for our latest tyre compound which hit the market in 2007 and has fast become a hit with cyclists across the world who have marvelled at its performance beneifits.

The fact is that Black Chili will improve our tyres performance in all areas. We can even make a tyre to last longer, yet also grip better and roll faster! The figures are astounding; 26% lower rolling resistance, 30% higher grip, and even 5% longer mileage.

Black Chili is only made at our factory in Korbach, Germany. No other tyre facility in the world has access to its secrets.

Black Chlli is a new tread mixture, the result of the latest research from our polymer and raw material laboratories in Hanover, Germany. Continental AG refined newly developed synthetic rubbers with proven natural rubber with powerful profile blends. These are 'nano' sized soot particles, who's surface properties are optimized for use in bicycle tyres. These smaller particles enable the tyre tread to deform around surface objects more quickly, improving grip. They also form a tighter bond with each other thus improving compound strength for improved tread life and less chance for lugs to rip and tear on our MTB tyres. The way in which these particles interact with each other also lowers rolling resistance.

These new polymers and carbon fillers make Continental racing and mountain bike tyres the quickest and safest tyres in competition!

Compared to the previous leading Continental tyre compound, the Activated Silica (ASC) tyres, Black Chilli offers a 26% lower rolling resistance, a 30% increase in adhesion quality, and a 5% increase in tread life. For road racers and MTB trail riders, the speed and handling advantage is clearly noticeable!

The following tyres in the Continental range all feature Black Chili :

* Grand Prix 4000 s
* Grand Prix 24mm
* Grand Prix 4000 (only black version)
* Grand Prix Attack and Force
* Grand Prix Triathlon
* Grand Prix Supersonic
* Competition
* GP 4000 Tubular
* Sprinter
* Podium
* Digga
* RubberQueen
* MountainKing
* Twister Supersonic
* SpeedKing Supersonic
* Kaiser
* Rain King
* Race King


----------



## Limon (Jan 26, 2004)

QBP/Quality got them, get them while you can!
more info at your local bike shop.
Race King supersonics 2.2


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Well the Race King Steel rear only, running at road pressure is useless on think nearly dry sticky mud, but hey what isn't, lowered the pressure abit and then cleaned the climb 

Rolling resistance hard is well road bike level, too hard to ride in the forest, but great a few strokes and much improves my 5mile road ride to the forest , a quick Pssstttt and only a little and great all rounder thus far.

Still much faster rolling than my previous tyres, volume is plenty feels more comftable then the High Roller 2.5's, traction is off the wall even on muddy sections and well I knocked 20mins off my normal 30mile loop, powered up all the hills in a higher gear.

Seriously impressed, as I say though I can almost ride anything on the rear so give me as fast rolling as possible and doubt anything would be faster than this.


----------



## Linga115 (Mar 23, 2008)

can anyone tell me how long these tires last? i got some on the way and i wanna know how long before i gotta reorder


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I'm 160 lb with gear, not a powerful rider, I ride singletrack XC, and I ride about 10-12 miles once or twice a week. I've had the same 2.2 RK SS on the rear of my full-suspension bike since March and it shows just a little bit of wear. Trails here are dirt, sand, and roots, not rocky. I'll easily get this season and probably next out of the same tire. Hope this helps.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm running the SS 2.2's on most everything XC I own right now and most of the trails here are loamy forest floor with lots of roots, logs and wood bridge decks, some gravel or packed gravel/clay to access dirt trails, and some pavement to get between my doorstep and the dirt. The rears wear about twice as fast as the front, and most of that wear seems to happen on the paved climbs to get home again. It can take a month to wear the nubbins off the front tire and a couple of weeks on the back, and then the tires have been lasting a full season no problem on my hardtail that gets most of my mileage.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> I'm running the SS 2.2's on most everything XC I own right now and most of the trails here are loamy forest floor with lots of roots, logs and wood bridge decks, some gravel or packed gravel/clay to access dirt trails, and some pavement to get between my doorstep and the dirt. The rears wear about twice as fast as the front, and most of that wear seems to happen on the paved climbs to get home again. It can take a month to wear the nubbins off the front tire and a couple of weeks on the back, and then the tires have been lasting a full season no problem on my hardtail that gets most of my mileage.


How many miles are you roughly getting out of a rear tire? Also do you ride around many rocks? I know it's not recommended with this tire, but there's no way I could avoid rocks, but I would definitely like to try this tire.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

It's hard rubber ( cheap version ) and there is alot of surface area so that both bode well but at the same time there isn't much of it, 20% wear will likely make the tyre into a full on slick and useless on anything other than road.

I think 2-3months of me with the road stuff I do with a group ( linking up single track via roads , kinda weird ) thats why cheap £13 a pop don't care too much!!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Rod said:


> How many miles are you roughly getting out of a rear tire? Also do you ride around many rocks? I know it's not recommended with this tire, but there's no way I could avoid rocks, but I would definitely like to try this tire.


The rear gets to about half tread depth in 7-8 months, maybe 1500kms?

Not a lot of sharp rocks here... lots of wood


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I try to avoid rocks when I can, but I'm more concerned with grazing the sides of sharp rocks, etc. Running straight over things hasn't proved to be a problem with my RK. I did pinch flat on roots twice this year while running tubes at 29psi, so I upped my psi on those particular trails.

I can't say how many miles I get out of them since I haven't worn one out yet. I'm probably well over 100 miles on it at this point, maybe more like 150.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Not a lot of sharp rocks here... lots of wood


Now this is the kind of trails i like! We have some similar looking soil over here but i'm not as good a photographer as you are and usually don't have the camerea with me on my rides (too heavy)

Great pics!! Makes me wanna hop on the bike right now...


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> The rear gets to about half tread depth in 7-8 months, maybe 1500kms?
> 
> Not a lot of sharp rocks here... lots of wood


Man, you gotta take me. Pretty pretty please!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

BlownCivic said:


> Man, you gotta take me. Pretty pretty please!


Part of the Richard Juryn Trail, that stretch is just east of the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve access road that you get to using Lillooet Road to Cap College (see red arrow). The trail starts at Inter-River Park near the bike skills park and runs through the cemetery and then along the top of the water pipe berm and then ducks into the woods at a couple of spots. Once you're in that area you can just follow the trails and explore.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

UST update.

Got my second tire in and I am sad to say it is much heavier. 707g. 
It was also a bit harder to mount. 
So clearly there is a lot of variation in these.


----------



## Robin v Berkel (Aug 19, 2008)

my 2.2 are 477 + 483gr and 2.0 are 2x 437gr


----------



## Flip03 (Nov 24, 2005)

Well i plumped for the 2.2 supersonic and my god are they supersonic. I have always been a bit fussy with tyres but i ran these at a 12hr race last weekend and came away with a win. Running them on 355's with a couple of scoops of stans. Rode them once in the woods for an hour the week before the race and was pretty excited about their performance. Rear lost a bit of pressure during the race but topped up with a canister and was fine from half distance onwards.
Buy these tyres and you to will win some races.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

lol yeah right...

Ordered a new RK SS for the back and it is 440g, a little lighter than the first set. :thumbsup: 
Now the tires are relatively air tight, just added even more sealant and it worked.


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

I've been riding a new set of RK 2.2 for a couple of weeks now. Very nice tires, 470g each, 3 scoops of stans to seal. 

Talk about huge tires, the manufacturing nubs rub on my rear triangle....


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

civil said:


> Talk about huge tires, the manufacturing nubs rub on my rear triangle....


Yep, big....


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Yep, big....


Big, but so far I'm impressed. :thumbsup:

Giant Trance X


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

Big, not so much. These tires are TALL, quite a bit taller than the 2.4" Mountain King....

Wide they are not.


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

Yes, I should have been more specific, very tall.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

In fact very round. They are as tall at they are wide. A fat carcass.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Still loving mine on the rear, rocks, mud ( only 1 ride in mud bone dry here ), Road ( don't like ) haven't let me down once yet.

I like the narrow but tall, Conti Vert's where exactly the same, gives good cushion without rolling to slowly idea for me.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

what's the actual width and height (e.g., measured from the edge of the rim) of the 2.2" version? approximately, of course, just to get an idea of what they're like.
sorry if my question was already answered here, but nine pages are too many to read at once .

p.s. found: http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=5714245&postcount=720


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

shapirus said:


> what's the actual width and height (e.g., measured from the edge of the rim) of the 2.2" version? [/url]


Mine are 2.18" (55.4mm) wide, using digital calipers in a few different spots... 40psi on Rhynolites(just a temporary setup rim).

Fun tire, really enjoying mine, but I sure hope they get rid of the flag pattern on the side someday for the sake of a nicer tubeless conversion


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

older World Cup versions are 54.5mm wide and high on a 17mm wide rim (XTR or Mavic) and the newer ones are closer to 53.5mm wide on the same rim,measured with digital calipers.


----------



## Diesel~ (Feb 17, 2008)

lucifer said:


> UST update.
> 
> Got my second tire in and I am sad to say it is much heavier. 707g.
> It was also a bit harder to mount.
> So clearly there is a lot of variation in these.


Thanks for the UST update.

Do you have a caliper measurement for the casing width? I'm curious to know if the 2.2 UST version is just as wide as the non-UST measurements that others have been posting.

Thanks!

-D


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

mine 2.2 ProTection has just arrived, i'll use it on the rear wheel.

weighs 575 g on my scales, so the claimed weight (570 g) seems to be pretty true.
the measured width on DT Swiss XR 4.2d is 54.7 mm (2.15"), and it's actually the carcass width which is wider than the protector area, though everyone knows this already .
the height on the same rim is about 53-53.5 mm.

looks pretty fat and sexy. can't wait to actually try it .

btw i'm going to use it with the maxxis flyweight 26x1.9-2.1 tubes which are about 95 g (on my scales). didn't ride yet, but so far they fit good in this 2.2" tire. hope they will work good as well. will put another one into the front weel too, where i use the Vertical ProTection 2.3".


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Anyone in FL or the Southeast have any input as to how these work in hard packed to softer sand?

My Kenda SB 8's aren't quite living up to expectations

Thanks


----------



## FLMike (Sep 28, 2008)

tmc71 said:


> Anyone in FL or the Southeast have any input as to how these work in hard packed to softer sand?
> 
> My Kenda SB 8's aren't quite living up to expectations
> 
> Thanks


Im in South Florida, It worked well on hard packed sand (never got into the soft sugar sand)... but didnt end up lasting too long

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=561616


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

The cheap steel, with the pressure lowered worked well on sticky mud and wet rocky sections, had a few skip outs and had to drop the pressure then all fine and dandy.

Rear only!!


----------



## lucatosolini (Dec 2, 2006)

What a tire!
today i win my first ride with this tire..
race king 2.2 with stans
Tanx to you all for the rewievs of this tire!


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Sick tires!!!! 460g and 455g for the 2.2 supersonics. These tires are unreal!! They roll and crush roots amazingly. So plush, yet very fast, corner and climb great. The least washy tire I have ridden in the soft sand spots. Thnx for all the reviews, I am amazed how well these tires are performing so far.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Race King cheap was still working very well on muddy forest trails and wet rocks, but keep nearly losing the rear end which is getting worrysome, so retired it for the winter for a cheap steel Mountain King so far only a quick road test, it's noisy not that draggy but can hear it buzzing away 

The MK 2.4 is smaller to, looks like a 2.2 to me.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The regular rubber on the Race King is just an average tire, nothing special about the tread pattern, you only see the truly impressive results with the Black Chili rubber, otherwise you could just as well be riding a Vertical Pro or Explorer.

The Supersonic/Protection Mountain King 2.4 measure 61mm wide to the outer knobs, not sure about the Asian made steel bead versions.


----------



## Shebagger (Nov 14, 2007)

*Conti Race King SS 2.2's ----- very nice !*

Put my first day on these tires and am very impressed! I shaved a bunch of time on a ride I did all summer. Squaw Valley>Alpine Meadows>Stanford Rock and back. (Lake Tahoe)

I set them up with tubes on my DT4.1's but plan on installing my Stans kit. They are so fat that you can run less psi with tubes and not pinch. Not enough air and they were very bouncy, to much and they sucked. There is a definite sweet spot for pressure.

I did finally pinch bashing a huge rock (rear) at the end of my ride , the biggest bummer is I did not know what pressure I was running. My front had 30psi when i got home and the rear (after flat change) had 28psi. I was bashing the front alot on the Rim Trail too.
Not sure if tubeless is worth it. I think I can run the pressure I want with tubes. I could run lower tubeless but I was feeling my rims as it was.


----------



## stevesbike (Feb 26, 2009)

I've been running a pair (supersonic) for the last 2 weeks - noticed the reduced rolling resistance right away and how quick the acceleration is - not sure how much I'll get from the rear as it's already looking chewed up (knobs not sidewalls).


----------



## COLINx86 (Apr 8, 2009)

which version of this tire should I get if I want it to be a 2.0, use tubeless(ZTR Olympic)?
I get frustrated easily with tires easily when trying to get the bead to set. Should I stay away from the SuperSonic?
Oh and I'm only 130lbs, ride on varying terrain (pretty much everything, not too much mud), and would like the tire to be sub 500g.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Stay away from the 2.0, no where near the same performance as the 2.2.


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

COLINx86 said:


> Should I stay away from the SuperSonic?


I found the supersonics sealed pretty easily using 2 scoops of stans in each tire. I took them out for a ride that day. A few slow leaks in one tire, but after a few more rides it's been good.

Plus, only the supersonic has the black chili compound which is supposedly what makes these tires desirable.

As rocky said above, 2.2 if you can.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I finally put mine on my bike. I did 3 hours yesterday and two hours today. I'm no tire expert but these things are great. I never thought about my traction once. Put 'em on, pedal and smile.


----------



## Shebagger (Nov 14, 2007)

i Went tubeless (Stans kit on my DT4.1's) with these and they dominate. I started out with ~35 f&r then lowered to ~25 psi. ( I am 6'1" 180lbs) 
They were awesome in the snow and climbed well. I did eat it at the end washing out but I am sure that would happen on any tire?
The ground was not frozen as it was the other day so the hookup was $$.

On the snowless dirt on the ST DH it felt like maybe I was running to low a pressure and the tire was folding over rather than hooking up (make any sense)?

Also, with my rear shock locked out the ride felt bouncy but with it open the ride was smooth.

heading out of Squaw


Up the W.States trail (3 bridges)


Down the Tevas Trail


the goods


the "lookback"


Tevas S.T.




2nd tracks , damned Coyote beat me to it here.


heading up OTB trail (looks like a few came down it minutes ago)


that's it, batteries in Go-Pro finally died


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jul 10, 2008)

Is it me or are these super sketchy in the loose stuff and loose dirt over hard pack. They seem so uneasy. Nice in dry hard pack though. I just cant stand how they feel like they are gonna wash out on every corner in the semi loose and loose stuff.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Jonnybravo said:


> Is it me or are these super sketchy in the loose stuff and loose dirt over hard pack. They seem so uneasy. Nice in dry hard pack though. I just cant stand how they feel like they are gonna wash out on every corner in the semi loose and loose stuff.


ALL Continental tires are like that...Race King, Speed King, Mountain King, etc. They just hate deep sand and loose corners. If you want a tire that corners like a Ferrari- get the new Schwalbe Rocket Ron.


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jul 10, 2008)

In what size? And in front and back?



Zachariah said:


> ALL Continental tires are like that...Race King, Speed King, Mountain King, etc. They just hate deep sand and loose corners. If you want a tire that corners like a Ferrari- get the new Schwalbe Rocket Ron.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Johhnybravo: What pressure are you running them at


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

I have Race King 2.2 worldcups, the best tires I´ve tried in a ong time, does suit me fine, all conditions is no problem only get yourself time to be accustomed.

I ran these tires today in mud and small motocross tracks in the forest with a lot of berms and jumps, works fine at speed.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The only place that I've had the pucker factor go up with Race King 2.2 Supersonics is hitting deeper or goopy mud with the front in a corner, they do twitch, but they don't lose it completely. Even going over wet roots and logs when you lose traction, you get maybe 40& slip and 60% grip. I'm astonished how well they stick on sand or small pea gravel over hardpack. Don't often see deep sand around here, but I can see that anything that cries out for big shoulder knobs does not jive well with a RK, that's MK territory.

If you run the RK 2.2's at a pressure just above the point where they squirm under cornering loads, they really stick well and roll fast.


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jul 10, 2008)

I actually like them in mud and tacky stuff. It's the dry loose stuff and loose over pack that makes them sketchy...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Which size are you using, the 2.0 or 2.2?


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jul 10, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> Which size are you using, the 2.0 or 2.2?


2.2 front and back.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm about 195 pounds and run them at about 28psi, on both a hardtail and a FS bike I've found they stick pretty well on dust/dirt over hardpack, and sand/small pea gravel over hardpack, but it's always possible you're just hitting it faster than I am.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I'm 165 with full gear, and I only run RK SS 2.2's on the back of my bike. I found the front WAY too sketchy for my riding. I run the RK at 29 psi ghetto tubeless, or I ran at 32 psi with a tube (ran 30 until I pinched it). The rear moves around a bit with this setup (I use either an MK SS 2.4 up front or a 2.1 Nevegal DTC), but I like that for my style. But I don't use the RK up front. It grips well enough in the back to make the gains in low rolling resistance worth it for me. I also use 19mm inside-width rims, soon to be 21mm. I wouldn't try the 2.2 RK on a 17mm rim.


----------



## DCW-RacerX (Oct 22, 2008)

*Race King SS Tubless + Rim Strip?*

Ignore - duplicate


----------



## DCW-RacerX (Oct 22, 2008)

*Race King SS Tubless + Rim Strip?*

I just got the new notubes Alpine wheelset and I put my RK SS's on them as tubeless without a rim strip. I installed them at 25 psi with Stan's and they sealed up nicely and held good all night.

The next day, about 45 mins into my first ride, my RK's started feeling squirrely and I watched my front twist and burp down to about 10 psi while my rear had more quietly leaked down to about 16 psi.

Are you guys using a rim strip with your tubeless RK SS setups? I'm guessing I need a strip since the Alpine rim is only tubeless ready not UST? I'm going to try running 31 psi with a little more Stan's added(assuming I may have lost some burping) to see if that will hold until I get some strips.

I was just riding basic single track with nothing technical, so, I thought the minimal tubeless approach would work.


----------



## 2times (Jul 14, 2006)

DCW, I have ordered an Alpine wheelset but have not received it yet. What combo of spokes & hubs did you use and how much did the wheelset end uo weighing?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Do the Alpines have spoke holes on the inner rim? If so, you have to use the yellow tape. Anything with spoke holes is going to leak as far as I know. From Stan's site:

"Fully tubeless compatible with the yellow tape and valve stem."

Tape 'em up and see how it goes.


----------



## DCW-RacerX (Oct 22, 2008)

I didn't have a scale available before I put my tires on so I can only go by the weight Calculator: 1335 gms - using AC disc hubs, 2.0/1.5 black spokes, and yellow tape and valve. They feel good and light after riding on Mavic Crossrides!

I'm happy with the cost to value of the Alpines - $720. I almost went with the Podiums but considering the need for discs and cassette I wouldn't have been able to come in under $1000.


----------



## DCW-RacerX (Oct 22, 2008)

*I had the wheelset built with yellow tape and a valve..*

.. so actually I didn't even check for spoke holes. Good question, I should have looked.

I do feel the leaking may be from the tires moving on the rims, since right before I saw the front tire twist and burp it did not look or feel low on air. It makes sense to me that the beads might squirm on the rim given the Race King Supersonic's tall and thin side walls.

I reinflated today back to around 31 psi, with some more Stan's, so I'll know more this weekend after my next ride. I did go a little light on the Stan's the first pass, maybe that had something to do with the leaking.


----------



## 2times (Jul 14, 2006)

:thumbsup: DC, thanks for the info. I went with almost the same setup except I am using a ZTR rear HUB and Am front HUB as you are. I figure mine should weigh around 1350. Like you said, the best value I could find for $ vs. weight; my LBS even threw in 2 free Schwalbes, a Christmas deal


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Anybody tried the Supersonics (Black Chili aswell as the Protection ones (both 2.2) ? I really like the Supersonics, but I cut 2 sidewalls already on some rocky downhills.
The black Chili probably makes all the difference, but I would really like to know how they compare......


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

With the regular rubber the Race Kings are about like the previous generation of Vapor XC tires.


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

DCW-RacerX said:


> I reinflated today back to around 31 psi, with some more Stan's, so I'll know more this weekend after my next ride. I did go a little light on the Stan's the first pass, maybe that had something to do with the leaking.


I'm running the supersonics with olympic rims. I found you have to dump tons of sealant in there to prevent air loss. I'm wondering if the protection version would require less sealant, and if so what would the weight be for the SS + lots of sealant vs the Protection + less sealant.

Anyway, just keep putting sealant in there and eventually they will stay aired up, mine hold air just fine for a week or so and on first install they were definitely leaky.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Anyone have an update on the UST version? Does it feel stiffer at lower pressure, as some people have reported the non-UST setup as tubeless feeling like it rolls when cornering.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

*RK on front or rear with SB8?*

Wife has given me a 2.1 Kenda Small Block 8 for Xmas and I'm shortly to be purchasing a second tyre to go on the singlespeed (On-One inbred with 100mm Fox Vanilla up front).

Very tempted towards a Supersonic 2.2 RK, but not sure if I should put it on the front or the rear...

Thoughts?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Big tire on the front means more grip to prevent washouts


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Fair nuff, 2.2 RK up front for grip and the 2.1 SB8 out back for flat proofing then.

Interesting... Currently I have a wirebead SB8 up front and a cont explorer out the back. Curious to see how the opposite setup compares.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

I have being riding my ss rigid voodoo with front and rear ss race king 2.2 now and here is waht i have to report.

1. The tyres are fast. I feel that having this setup have almost made it easier to pedal. Identical to going up a few teeth on the cogs but without loosing the gear inchs. This is useful for single speeding as momentum is key to almost everything. *this is a no **** sherlock realisation. I wouldnt expect anything less from some of the fastest tyres in the world coming from wtb exiwolfs and the bike weighing around 9kg now instead of original 12kg*

2. These tyres are not so good puncture wise. This is made worse by the fact of a rigid bike and single speeding. Since it is a rigid you have to run fairly low tyre pressures to absorb some of the bumps and since it is single speeding you are often smashing the back tyre into rocks and ledges as you cannot afford any loss of momentum.

3. Whilst the back race king grip wise is good the front isn't so good on certain terrain. To be honest i was not surprised by this as anyone with a bit of brain will realise what type of terrain the race king excels at and what it wouldn't. On anything tacky and packed down the race king is fantastic but on loose gravel get ready for a bit of washing out. Again to be expected.

I am going to turn the bike around and try something hugely different to see how it effects the ride of the bike. Next setup will see me running 2.5 minion dhf single ply front and a 2.4 ardent on the rear. I am worried how this will make it feel as momentum is super important as i mentioned earlier but the extra rubber/weight/volume should make the bike a whole lot more stable. It might work or it might not but only testing will tell!


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I was that impressed with the RK2.2 26" Steel on the rear, I'm giving it to a mate and will be ordered a 2.2 Protection for the better rubber despite 2.5x's the price.

It was surprisingly good in mud it did lose it on wet rocks but it was the cheap compound, black chilli should sort this issue out nicely.

Wouldn't go SuperSonic the Speedking Supersonic was much smaller than the Pro version, but the rubber was much nicer.

RK2.2 out performs MK2.4 on the rear EASY in mud!!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> 3. Whilst the back race king grip wise is good the front isn't so good on certain terrain. To be honest i was not surprised by this as anyone with a bit of brain will realise what type of terrain the race king excels at and what it wouldn't. On anything tacky and packed down the race king is fantastic but on loose gravel get ready for a bit of washing out. Again to be expected.


Again - pressure settings are VERY important with these tires. They have a certain sweet spot that you need to run them otherwise they feel springy or mushy...and both times they won't offer the best grip. I haven't seen a tire that is this crucial with pressure as is this Conti. It's all done with the correct pressure setting. I haven't noticed any lack of grip in the loose compared to other tires...Viceversa: i personally have found it to be the best gripping tire on all various soils except sticky mud.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

jdc5r said:


> On anything tacky and packed down the race king is fantastic but on loose gravel get ready for a bit of washing out. Again to be expected.


If you were to run it just on the rear and use a real grip tire on the front like a 2.35 Nevegal, would you be concerned in loose conditions? Is it bad enough on the loose stuff that the back end will wash out in corners?


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

nino said:


> Again - pressure settings are VERY important with these tires. They have a certain sweet spot that you need to run them otherwise they feel springy or mushy...and both times they won't offer the best grip. I haven't seen a tire that is this crucial with pressure as is this Conti. It's all done with the correct pressure setting. I haven't noticed any lack of grip in the loose compared to other tires...Viceversa: i personally have found it to be the best gripping tire on all various soils except sticky mud.


I am very particulate with my pressure settings. I reset and repump my pressure begining every ride + i use a digital pressure gauge to accurately monitor pressure.










Anything but big tread patterns for this terrain only i think. Pretty hard for any tyre with shallow tread to bite into that cornering wise. Also i noticed the same corners with those gravel after a bit of rain packed down and the race king bit into them fine..


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

mightymouse said:


> If you were to run it just on the rear and use a real grip tire on the front like a 2.35 Nevegal, would you be concerned in loose conditions? Is it bad enough on the loose stuff that the back end will wash out in corners?


That i think is the ideal compromise. You wouldn't have any problems with the gravel corners *well less problems* if you were running something liek a highroller/minion/nevegal up front. Basically something with real edging shoulders. However i must say even on the gravel corners it performs much better than you would expect with the shallow tread patterns and lack of real cornering knob. Really a wonderful tyre. I wanted to try something new since i wanted to see how a bigger tyre at the back will increase comfort.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

What I've found with the RK 2.2 Supersonic is that even when it slips, it only slips some, so on loose surfaces, wet surfaces etc, it's never let go completely, it might slip 40% and grip 60%, but it's easily recoverable. I've had no problems spinning out on wet roots or rocks, it will slip some and propel me forward some. Even on diagonal wet roots it will slip some but not completely.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

rockyuphill said:


> What I've found with the RK 2.2 Supersonic is that even when it slips, it only slips some, so on loose surfaces, wet surfaces etc, it's never let go completely, it might slip 40% and grip 60%, but it's easily recoverable. I've had no problems spinning out on wet roots or rocks, it will slip some and propel me forward some. Even on diagonal wet roots it will slip some but not completely.


i agree with you. Someone once said best single speed tyres are ones that regain grip quickly right after it slips so i can say honestly that both the front and rear tyres exhibit this feature.

Front wash out is a little scary but have never caused me dire issues just a little bodily fluid loss at times :thumbsup:

Also should i be too concerned with the scruffed sidewalls of this tyre? I run it as a back tyre on my dual sus too and the rear sidewall looks a bit worn. Ive never worried to much about this though...

U can see it in this picture slightly.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The sidewalls are very thin, so you want to make sure scuffs aren't going to deteriorate to the point where you have a tube pop thru, so check for frayed cords in the sidewall, as opposed to scuffed rubber.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

will keep an eye on it. I am running tubeless though....

see how it goes!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> I am very particulate with my pressure settings. I reset and repump my pressure begining every ride + i use a digital pressure gauge to accurately monitor pressure.
> 
> Anything but big tread patterns for this terrain only i think. Pretty hard for any tyre with shallow tread to bite into that cornering wise. Also i noticed the same corners with those gravel after a bit of rain packed down and the race king bit into them fine..


ah i see-that's really deep and something we don't have over here.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> Anything but big tread patterns for this terrain only i think. Pretty hard for any tyre with shallow tread to bite into that cornering wise. Also i noticed the same corners with those gravel after a bit of rain packed down and the race king bit into them fine..


Scale is a bit hard to judge, what size are those pieces of gravel/sand?

I've found that the RK's work unreasonably and mysteriously well on hardpack with either coarse sand (all the way up to pea gravel) and fine sand over top, but not that well in deeper sand and pea gravel, they don't have as much flotation as you might expect for the tire volume.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

the pieces arent big but there is a little bit of depth to the gravel.

I went the other end of the tyre spectrum and trying some of these on my SS... 2.5 minions and 2.4 ardents lol i had the tyres lying around and i wanted to see how it would go with em


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I imagine you'll feel the extra inertia for sure.


----------



## ilostmypassword (Dec 9, 2006)

How many pages do we need to explain that a thin, fragile, and weak tyre is thin, fragile and weak? :skep:


----------



## DCW-RacerX (Oct 22, 2008)

*My last RK SS Posting..*

Tires are the last point of interface to the ground, so not surprised to see all the pages devoted to, IMHO, a very good tire.

My final posting on the RK 2.2 SS -

I've raced and trained with these tires for a couple of months in varied East Coast terrain(rocky, rooty, sandy, dry, wet, snow, etc.) and have had nothing but good experiences to report with them. All the positives noted in these post have held true for me and the Stan's, while still leaky at times, is acceptable now(Stan's Alpine wheelset with yellow tape only).

I recently raced these tires on a course that many said don't ever run with thin walls due to the harsh rocky conditions(Snake Creek Gap), yet my RK 2.2 SS's worked perfectly. I kept the psi around 30, so the tires were a little bouncy through the rock gardens, but I don't think it slowed me down much and it probably helped avoid cuts.

I do subscribe to the idea that the right tire\psi should be matched to the right conditions, and that no one tire is the ultimate answer, but, maybe I've just been lucky with these tires and found them to be good in many conditions for the endurance style XC racing\riding I've been doing.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Can anyone compare the sidewalls of the RK 2.2 SS to the Larsen TT Exception? Similiar? I only know the latter (and wasn't too happy with its paper thin sidewalls)


----------



## Drea (Aug 23, 2008)

SS is super super thin and fragile. If your into sharp rocks and what not, then look elsewhere. Maybe protection version, but then i think the hole idea of the light, predictable, soft and sweet tire is gone.

BTW: It's a shame there's no 29" SS version with black chilli and duraskin.!!


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Thanks, but "thin" is always relative, would be nice to be able to compare it to some tire that I know. RK is not easily available in my area.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

i sliced my rear supersonic over the last weekend riding at stromlo which was where the worldcups were held in aus on the xc course. 

I am now looking into the protection tyres. My friend has the ust version and the supersonic version and he says that there isn't too much difference interms of feel and the extra reliability is handy.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

quax said:


> Can anyone compare the sidewalls of the RK 2.2 SS to the Larsen TT Exception? Similiar? I only know the latter (and wasn't too happy with its paper thin sidewalls)


i have the larsen and im pretty damn certain the RK is thinner.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Got one myself just for the sake of seeing what everyone is talking about. I have a RK 2.2 SS, a Larsen TT Exception, and a RaRa 2.25 right in front of me. Regarding sidewalls I'd say that RK is between Larsen and RaRa leaning towards the former. It does not strike me as exceptionally thin when compared to other race tires. I'll see how it will seal


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

just mounted the tire, once again, nothing unusal for such a race tire:

mount with tube first->remove tube but let one side seated->insert valve-> seat (more or less) other bead with tire lever->remove valve stem->seat tire with CO2 cartridge->fill with two cups Stan's->insert valve stem->pump up with floor pump-> do the shaking for a few cycles->take it for a very short ride at very very very low air pressure->do some shaking tomorrow

I don't use any soapy water, I don't like the mess.

so far it holds the air quite nice and it was not different to any other tire.


----------



## twenty6black (Jan 12, 2009)

*MK SS 2.4....just rode them today.*

Very cool tires...these 2.4's roll like 2.2's, and the weigh in like 2.0's of 5 years ago!!!

WOW...snowy conditions, but really enjoyed these tires. see picture for setup....LC(cheers)


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

3 days later:
I have to paddle back, this tire is a nightmare! There is absolutely no way that I get those sidewalls sealed. I even dismounted it, washed it to get rid of any potential stuff that may interfere with the sealing process. Absolutely no difference, there are still some tiny leaks that do not get sealed, despite all shake dance and other tricks.
No matter how good it rolls, this is simply too much hassle initially. Definitely not my race tire this season.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

3 more months and my RK 2.2 Steel can go back on, looking forward to riders without the rear dragging, likely treat myself to a Protection version for the Black Chilli though 


Hmmmmm Tyres, Tubeless isn't my thing at all, too much initial hassle and I'm a serial tyre for the conditions changer so not for me at all.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

quax said:


> 3 days later:
> I have to paddle back, this tire is a nightmare! There is absolutely no way that I get those sidewalls sealed. I even dismounted it, washed it to get rid of any potential stuff that may interfere with the sealing process. Absolutely no difference, there are still some tiny leaks that do not get sealed, despite all shake dance and other tricks.
> No matter how good it rolls, this is simply too much hassle initially. Definitely not my race tire this season.


Mine were a b*tch until I added a third scoop of Stan's. My theory was that there were so many holes that all that was left to shake was the Stan's liquid with no particles, so I thought more particles would help. Since then, no problems. They bleed down very slowly, but nothing unacceptable. Did the same technique for my MK 2.4 SS front.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

I'm already at 3.5 scoops fresh sealant, absolutely no difference. And the weight saving is also gone. You can really see that there are sections along the tire where no bleeding occurs but then others where you have tiny leaks that are only visible under water. However, that's simply not acceptable for endurance racing, I'd rather stick with RaRa in the rear.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Ride it! Unless it's leaking so fast that you couldn't get a 45 minute to 1 hour ride in. The ride will seal it. Make sure there's enough Stan's in the tire and go for a ride. This always seals the tire perfectly for me.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

i just sealed a second race king took me 4-5 days of repeated shaking around and resting it on its side to get it to seal. How does the protection 2.2 compare? I am sure the 2.2 protection will seal easily and if the performance aint too different i am going to save some time in my life next time round lol


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

I'm kind of interested in the protection version myself. I've got the SS doing ok but I didn't (edit: DID) have to dump a ton of sealant in. Might as well get some extra sidewall protection for the weight. When I wear out the rear I might go 'pro' with that tire since its more at risk for sidewall damage IMO. 

How does the tire performance compare for the protection vs the SS? Same traction, same rolling characteristics?


----------



## cowpat (Apr 13, 2008)

Ansible said:


> I'm kind of interested in the protection version myself. I've got the SS doing ok but I didn't have to dump a ton of sealant in. Might as well get some extra sidewall protection for the weight. When I wear out the rear I might go 'pro' with that tire since its more at risk for sidewall damage IMO.
> 
> How does the tire performance compare for the protection vs the SS? Same traction, same rolling characteristics?


I think the special thing about the RK SS's is the stretchability of the carcass - if you grab the rubber in the tread area with both hands and try to pull it apart (with the tyre off the rim of course...) you can see it stretches pretty easily - it's sort-of like an overweight inner tube. If you try that on a Schwalbe RR for example it doesn't stretch at all.

I suspect it's the stretchability that makes it absorb the gravel and little rocks that gives it its grip and performance characteristics. Pity the SS is so hard to seal. I managed to seal the front tyre but the rear tyre refused to seal - hundreds of tiny pinholes in the "chequered flag" area on one side of the tyre. Worked fine with tubes until I rode over some thorns and blackberries - they went straight through the soft tread and punctured my tubes with tiny little holes.

I have a couple of RK Protections on order. I'm interested to see how stretchy the carcass is - whether it's the Black Chilli that stretches or it's in the design of the tyre. If it's not stretchy like the SS then I expect the performance is going to be pretty much like any other tyre with a minimal tread pattern. At any rate they should seal up with Stan's pretty easily.

Will let you know in a week or so once I've got them.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Futher update on my attempts: it does not seal. I'm now at 4.5 scoops of sealant. Took it for two more rides at really low pressure. Shaking, shaking, shaking. No effect at all on the bleeding of the sidewalls. Yesterday I replaced the tire with a RaRa, same sealant, almost no air loss overnight. RK is no option for me anymore.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

what rims are you running again?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jdc5r said:


> what rims are you running again?


If the tires has porous sidewalls the rims don't matter. He would need to run tubes.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Just to throw in a bit of distraction from discussion of trying to seal them tubeless, one of the only places I've found the RK's to be sketchy is hitting deep or slick mud with the front wheel in a corner, they always have a bit of pucker inducing slip, not a complete washout, but just a twitch of mudroplaning. 

I happened to pickup a limited production run set of Black Chili Vertical Pro 2.3" (which are 2.2" across the widest knobs) from Universal Cycles. In Black Chili compound they work superbly in that deep goopy or slick mud for cornering and for forward acceleration. These are ProTection versions so they aren't light at 670gms, but they roll fairly fast (although you can feel some knob squirm on pavement) and work much better than the old compound VP's on wet roots and rocks. I do like these better than the supersonic MK's. Maybe Conti will do a Supersonic version of a VP in Black Chili. 

A combo of a Black Chili VP front and RK rear would likely work nicely when the mud is just bad enough that RK's are not confidence inspiring. And when it gets really muddy, switch both ends to the VP.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

ZTR 355, however, as already pointed out by nino the sidewalls wouldn't seal. I checked it in a water bath. The bleeding wouldn't stop.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

*Aspen Tangent*

Anyone with experience of the SS RK 2.2 had a play with the Maxxis Aspen yet?

Would love to know how they compare.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

quax said:


> ZTR 355, however, as already pointed out by nino the sidewalls wouldn't seal. I checked it in a water bath. The bleeding wouldn't stop.


Have you tried a different sealant?

Besides that putting tires under water will definitely hinder them from sealing.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Fullrange Drew said:


> Anyone with experience of the SS RK 2.2 had a play with the Maxxis Aspen yet?
> 
> Would love to know how they compare.


Tha 2.25" Aspens are not great on wet smooth surfaces like logs, roots and rocks, or in mud, they're really a dry hardpack tire (as advertised by Maxxis). They also don't work as well on loose sand & pea gravel, especially under hard braking, as I discovered.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

nino said:


> Have you tried a different sealant?
> 
> Besides that putting tires under water will definitely hinder them from sealing.


Underwater cycling? I don't know ;-)










Regarding the sealant, I mounted a brand new RaRa with the sealant from the RK tire (but only 2 scoops and not 4.5). Would seal the tire as expected. So it can't be the sealant. This was also one of the thoughts I had.

I've read enough reports of people who were not able to seal the tire decently, so I may just be one of them. Those who succeed seldomly tell how well the tire holds the air. For 12 to 24 hour I events I simply need the best reliability I can get. With RKs my fear would be that during the ride a leak in the sidewall pops up.

However, whatever the reason is, this is simply too much hassle for me.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

quax said:


> Underwater cycling? I don't know ;-)
> 
> Regarding the sealant, I mounted a brand new RaRa with the sealant from the RK tire (but only 2 scoops and not 4.5). Would seal the tire as expected. So it can't be the sealant. This was also one of the thoughts I had.
> 
> ...


I understand BUT those RKs have that shiny inside "coating" and it might be possible that a different sealant might seal better here...i have riding buddies that used Eclipse sealant with great success to seal the RKs.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

O.k., I still had a some Caffeelatex left. Dismounted the RaRa and mounted the RK with 2.5 scoops of CL. What should I say, it sealed it nicely. 10 hours later, almost no air lost.

Now I'm in some sort of dilemma here ;-) . Ditched CL last year because I had found it too thin to seal real world punctures. With a tire as vulnerable as the RK a high performing sealant is essential. Now while CL may does a good job with sealing those little leaks it is definitely inferior on the trail (we did our own little "path of death" experiment a while ago ... Stans was simply outperforming all the others)

At least I can use it now for training and see what all the fuss is about with this tire


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

can you mix the sealant? 

I went for a hard ride yesterday doing 4 loops equaling some 40kms or so of riding yesterday in rocky terrain. The race kings was sealed pretty nicely prior to this but after yesterdays ride they would deflate over night again. I purchased protection tyres and will be trying that. I dont expect a HUGE difference in performance but at least i will get some added reliability!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd be surprised if you don't feel the difference between the Supersonic and Protection versions, the Supersonic version is so supple and conforms so well to the terrain, you can definitely feel the stiffer Protection carcass on the Mountain Kings.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

jdc5r said:


> can you mix the sealant?


not really recommended


















Update on my RK: still holding the air perfectly. Wonder why it wouldn't work with Stans? Is it really the partition agent in the RK? But are Stans and CL really so different? Basically water and latex. Maybe someone will find out about that holy grail of tubeless'ing someday.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> I'd be surprised if you don't feel the difference between the Supersonic and Protection versions, the Supersonic version is so supple and conforms so well to the terrain, you can definitely feel the stiffer Protection carcass on the Mountain Kings.


I have both versions, and this reflects my experience. Those supersonics are definitely more supple under my 150lb butt.

Also, I had no issues getting any of my supersonic tires to seal. Before mounting the tire I'd hand-spread the sealant on the sidewalls. A month later I removed the tire to hand-smear the sealant that builds in the middle of the tire, re-distributing it to the sidewalls.

One can't just dump sealant into the tire and expect it to cover every square inch, hand-spreading the sealant over the sidewalls and bead before mounting is a necessary step. Same goes for riding right after mounting the tire so that the sealant can capillary through the porous rubber.

Now my RK SS and MK SS only leak ~3psi/week, at most.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Kyle2834 said:


> One can't just dump sealant into the tire and expect it to cover every square inch,


so why does this work for many other tires then?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Kyle2834 said:


> Also, I had no issues getting any of my supersonic tires to seal.


Maybe it would help if you let people know which sealant you used.I never had to "paint" the inner of the tire. This is usually done after inflation when shaking the wheels.We all know this procedure well enough.That's when you are standing in the garage, holding a wheel in hands and and gently shaking it like some castagnettes

Anyway - As mentioned above my riding buddies got their RKs sealed perfectly using Eclipse sealant.


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

You guys go through way too much for a set of xc tires, there are other high volume fast rolling tires out there, might way just a little bit more but these are mountain bikes we're riding not road bikes.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Yody said:


> You guys go through way too much for a set of xc tires, there are other high volume fast rolling tires out there, might way just a little bit more but these are mountain bikes we're riding not road bikes.


next stop, the 29er forum to tell them their worried too much about their wheel size :drumroll:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The RK's work really well with tubes as well...


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

mightymouse said:


> next stop, the 29er forum to tell them their worried too much about their wheel size :drumroll:


lol


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Yody said:


> You guys go through way too much for a set of xc tires, there are other high volume fast rolling tires out there, might way just a little bit more but these are mountain bikes we're riding not road bikes.


Well - problem is these tires are so good. You can't realize until you haven't ridden them...be lucky if you still haven't tried them so you don't know what you miss.

I personally don't have a single problem as i use them with Eclipse-tubes from day one:thumbsup:


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

nino said:


> Well - problem is these tires are so good. You can't realize until you haven't ridden them...be lucky if you still haven't tried them so you don't know what you miss.
> 
> I personally don't have a single problem as i use them with Eclipse-tubes from day one:thumbsup:


I don't care what you ride, you ride weenie trails if these are your favorite tires. Any tire that is so thin it seeps Stans Latex does not belong on a real mountain bike.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Yody said:


> I don't care what you ride, you ride weenie trails if these are your favorite tires. Any tire that is so thin it seeps Stans Latex does not belong on a real mountain bike.


Dream on


----------



## AlexRandall (Apr 2, 2009)

Yody said:


> I don't care what you ride, you ride weenie trails if these are your favorite tires. Any tire that is so thin it seeps Stans Latex does not belong on a real mountain bike.


 Any non-ust tyre will seep latex, as it uses the latex to seal....including DH ones.

The next thing you'll say is that Nico Vouilloz didn't ride real DH trails because he did so with WW xc spokes. Luckily _I'm_ skilled enough to ride harder trails with lighter stuff

Oh yes and GTFO troll


----------



## raceer2 (Jul 21, 2007)

Yody said:


> You guys go through way too much for a set of xc tires, there are other high volume fast rolling tires out there, might way just a little bit more but these are mountain bikes we're riding not road bikes.


you gotta do what you gotta do...skinny is a relative term around here 

sometime a little work is required to get a workable solution.

having run 'non mountain bike' tyres in your jargon like ravens, crows at courses knows to be hard on tyres, I can assure you they work real well.. same with tyres like sb8 which need a little work to seal initially....given the correct prep, tyre pressures, riding style, they can be made to work !

YMMV :thumbsup:


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

AlexRandall said:


> Any non-ust tyre will seep latex, as it uses the latex to seal....including DH ones.
> 
> The next thing you'll say is that Nico Vouilloz didn't ride real DH trails because he did so with WW xc spokes. Luckily _I'm_ skilled enough to ride harder trails with lighter stuff
> 
> Oh yes and GTFO troll


I have at least 30 non UST tires sitting in my garage, half of which I've ran tubeless, not one of them has ever allowed Stans Latex nor (crappy) Cafe Latex to seep through the sidewalls, even the thin ass SB8 and Spec Sworks Eskar and those both have thin sidewalls. Maybe its time for you to STFU instead of me GTFO

If you guys want a dependable high volume tire with fast rolling tread and light weight that won't implode on you and sets up tubeless no problem. check out the WTB Mutanoraptor 2.4 race tire. I have 3 sets of these tires sitting in the garage, I've ran the same set for over 8 months of riding tubeless over lots of rocky,rooty, and smooth trails and never had a problem with them. Also some of them weigh in at 580 grams(have had some weigh around 620 also though) There's no reason to dyck around with these Conti 2.2's. You guys are on a trip lol.

I don't run them anymore because I lost interest in light tires and wanted something with more traction to go faster DH but I went almost as fast with these tires as I have with my more AM oriented tires. The only place they suck is in the mud and rain, although its still doable.


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

And another thing it seems a lot of you guys don't realize but if you run these huge volume tires on your typical "skinny" XC rims with low pressure, if you go fast enough through a turn or land a jump sideways you WILL peel the tire off of the rim. You either need wider rims or higher pressure or just again compromise your riding and go slower. Well that is unless you have a really good clincher rim like a UST or a WTB rim. If the rim you have really grabs that tire you might be okay.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Yody said:


> ... you guys don't realize...


I think it's the other way round but to each his own
You are talking grip, WE are talking speed on xc bikes.

Your Mutanoraptor got tested and has about 30 Watt rollingresistance and about 600g weight......definitely NOT what most guys in here are looking for.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

Yody said:


> If you guys ...]


lol, thanks for the education in DH or AM tire + rim choices Yody

your missing the point - the RK 2.2 is for XC not DH or AM

Mutano(C)raptors came with the wifes new bike back in 2003 - easily the slowest rolling tires ever - they were torture & ran they were full of concrete not air


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

To a man with a screwdriver, everyone looks like they have a screw loose.  :ciappa:


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Update: 60hrs later: tire starts "sweating", however, almost no air lost.

nino, is the Eclipse sealant still the same as the DT Swiss sealant? This was acutally the first sealant I had used, however, since I always treat my worn tires (I change them rather early) with nail attacks I could see that Stans is better in sealing bigger holes.

Well, but somehow I have the feeling that you may disagree with that statment


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

There are 2 different mutanoraptors, the 2.24 raptor is 800 grams and is slower rolling due to the deeper blocks, id definitely consider that more of an AM tire. 

However the raptor 2.4 is 600 grams and has much lower treas height, and much more volume. No way is this anywhere near a ''DH or AM'' tire. This is a fast rolling all purpose tire. But hey if u want to save 75 grams and spend days trying to setup ur tire only to have air and latex seep out of the sidewalls and risk ripping it open on anything resembling a sharpsharp point be my guest. Good luck with that. I only noticed a very slight improvement in rolling resistance and acceleration going from the 2.4 to the SB8, the sb8 was better but not by much


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Yody said:


> There are 2 different mutanoraptors, the 2.24 raptor is 800 grams and is slower rolling due to the deeper blocks, id definitely consider that more of an AM tire.
> 
> However the raptor 2.4 is 600 grams and has much lower treas height, and much more volume. No way is this anywhere near a ''DH or AM'' tire. This is a fast rolling all purpose tire. But hey if u want to save 75 grams and spend days trying to setup ur tire only to have air and latex seep out of the sidewalls and risk ripping it open on anything resembling a sharpsharp point be my guest. Good luck with that. I only noticed a very slight improvement in rolling resistance and acceleration going from the 2.4 to the SB8, the sb8 was better but not by much


But you noticed this is a thread about the RK, didn't you?

We alll understand you are lucky with your tires...but this is about FAST and grippy xc-tires, ok? If you don't need such a tire or don't want to mess around ok, there's a bunch of riders that want to benefit from the superior performance of this tire so they even invest some time to set it up tubeless also when it sometimes seems to be a pain. There must be a reason, don't you think?


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

The tires I'm mentioning are FAST and GRIPPY, if u really wanted u could take the 2.4 and shave a little of the tread off, (not like there's much of it anyway) and have a 550 gram tire that not only rolls super fast but will be reliable, these tires that you guys are obsessing over, spending $$$ on, and having troubles setting up IMO are not worth the hassle considering other XC high volume tires that are out there.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

LOL all good guys

There are different people out there riding bikes. Some people are happy with okish rolling and good traction and minimal setup hassles and some people are happy with fast rolling good traction and more setup hassles. Different people and that is the bottom line. I dont know Nino and everyone else in this thread but the only thing i can assume is to not assume about what kinda trails they ride or whether they are riding easy trails just based on their tyre choice or maybe equipment orientation. 

Some people are a lot more techy/geeky with their equipment setup and this is fine. 

Yody your points are of value too. Depending how you ride and your past experiences a 450g super light tyre might not suit your requirements but please do understand that these guys are not riding your trails! Grouping race king tyres as non MTB tyres really isn't fair


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

I've run both the mutano 2.4 and the 2.2 rk. I like the mutanos and they are durable, grippy and fast. But I think the rk is a better tire for xc racing, at least for me. So light, and awesome grip, and definitely better acceleration than the mutanos. For endurance racing or multi day events where reliability is paramount I might consider going mutano, but for the 'normal' length xc stuff I do I think the RKs edge ahead. 

To me the RKs are a little like stan's: more hassle to set up, and maintenance can be a hassle, but more performance too. Its all in where you want to draw the line. And also it depends on how much you weigh too, what your trails are like and how you ride them.


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

Ansible said:


> I've run both the mutano 2.4 and the 2.2 rk. I like the mutanos and they are durable, grippy and fast. But I think the rk is a better tire for xc racing, at least for me. So light, and awesome grip, and definitely better acceleration than the mutanos. For endurance racing or multi day events where reliability is paramount I might consider going mutano, but for the 'normal' length xc stuff I do I think the RKs edge ahead.
> 
> To me the RKs are a little like stan's: more hassle to set up, and maintenance can be a hassle, but more performance too. Its all in where you want to draw the line. And also it depends on how much you weigh too, what your trails are like and how you ride them.


Well said; I suppose if you're on super buff trails these tires would work if you didn't mind the unreliability factor.


----------



## Kyle2834 (May 4, 2007)

nino said:


> Maybe it would help if you let people know which sealant you used.I never had to "paint" the inner of the tire. This is usually done after inflation when shaking the wheels.We all know this procedure well enough.That's when you are standing in the garage, holding a wheel in hands and and gently shaking it like some castagnettes
> 
> Anyway - As mentioned above my riding buddies got their RKs sealed perfectly using Eclipse sealant.


I use a mix of latex, slime, and water. I just prefer hand-coating over shaking the wheel, because it assures everything gets evenly covered...and takes less time.



quax said:


> so why does this work for many other tires then?


It 'works', but you will use excessive amounts of sealant getting everything coated. I am on ZTR355s like you, and my biggest issue was getting them to seal at the bead. Dumping the sealant into the tire instead of hand-smearing it will only hinder you when trying to get the bead sealed.

In any case, why NOT just coat the tire evenly, bead included, before mounting? It's easier.


----------



## cowpat (Apr 13, 2008)

My RK Protection's came in the mail today. The tread rubber/carcass is not anywhere near as stretchy in the rolling direction as the SS version, so I don't think they're going to have the same amount of grip or low rolling resistance over gravel and small rocks like the SS. They seem pretty much like any other lightweight low-profile XC tyre so I expect they'll perform similarly. I'll run them for a while anyway to compare them with the RK SS and the Schwalbe RaRa that I'm running now.


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

my friend used the ust version which is even harder and said there isnt too much difference. of course there is a difference but a little bit of body language can compensate.


----------



## jthurd (Oct 4, 2006)

Please let me know how the SS compare to the Protection. I ordered some 2.2 SS's from my LBS but somehow they ended up getting 2.2 protections. I needed tires and mostly ride rocky/technical stuff so I just took them. I have not mounted them yet, I have been looking for some direct comparisons for the small possibility of taking them back. Does anyone know an approx weight and volume difference between the 2.2's? Do they both use the black chilli compound? 
I am coming form WTB weirwolfs 2.55, which I love for traction and volume, but are not very fast rolling. I used to run 2.0 karma's but I cut the sidewalls twice and got sick of getting stranded and having to sow patches into them. They also wore very quickly. 
I only do a handful of races a year (which I take seriously), they will mostly be for training. 
thanks-



cowpat said:


> My RK Protection's came in the mail today. The tread rubber/carcass is not anywhere near as stretchy in the rolling direction as the SS version, so I don't think they're going to have the same amount of grip or low rolling resistance over gravel and small rocks like the SS. They seem pretty much like any other lightweight low-profile XC tyre so I expect they'll perform similarly. I'll run them for a while anyway to compare them with the RK SS and the Schwalbe RaRa that I'm running now.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Protections are heavier, the casing is not as supple/flexible and they are not made using Black Chili rubber.

Details of the different characteristics of the RK (weight, rubber type etc) can be found here:

http://www.conti-online.com/generat...es/mtb/cc_marathon/Race King/raceking_en.html

For general tootling about as a low profile tyre, the Protection should be fine but from everything I've read and everyone I've been in contact with who have used both, the grip/speed of the SS is markedly better.

The "magical" extra performance seems to be 2.2 only and Supersonic Black Chili only. Otherwise it's just a decent low profile conti tyre. (which is still no bad thing, I've had great results for years using Explorers in stock Conti rubber compound.)


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Let's hope continental is reading this thread, and that they will offer the protection version in black Chile compound also. I really like the supersonics, but have had 2 sidewall cuts already...


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

Here are some specs that I compiled from Continental's site:

370g	26 x 1.9	Twister Supersonic
420g	26 x 2.1	Speed King Supersonic
440g	26 x 2.0	Race King Supersonic
470g	26 x 2.3	Speed King Supersonic
480g	26 x 2.2	Race King Supersonic
490g	26 x 2.2	Mountain King Supersonic
560g	26 x 2.4	Mountain King Supersonic


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

My two RK 2.2 SS's are 469 and 465g; my MK 2.4 SS is 589g. So there is some range in those figures, of course. My RK's are fairly old, and I believe this very thread talks about them gaining weight and losing size as time went on.

NINO: What is the graph on the left above? "Durchschlagshoehen" translated to "copy height" using an online translator, which didn't help.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Yody said:


> However the raptor 2.4 is 600 grams and has much lower treas height, and much more volume. No way is this anywhere near a ''DH or AM'' tire.


Yody, where is this tire? I'm at the WTB site, and the 2.4 Mutanos listed (under "All Mountain") are 750g. I've run a 2.24 DNA Mutano on my bike previously. Good grip, pretty strong, but definitely not a lightweight. Mine was 713g. A 600g 2.4 Mutano that is easier to seal than a 590g Mountain King could be of interest to me, pending RR numbers.

Edit: A ha. Yody's tire is listed on WTB's Europe site. I guess we can't buy them here in the US. That kinda sucks.

Edit of the edit: Apparently these tires are in the US, but not at WTB's site:

http://www.pricepoint.com/detail/11...WTB-Mutano-Raptor-Race-Tire-26x2.24-_-2.4.htm


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Measured with the upper device: a 10 kg guillotine (a few mm in width). Resulting height from which guillotine is released is "Durchschlagshöhe"


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Ah, flattening height. Thanks, Quax! :thumbsup:


----------



## nitropowered (Aug 30, 2007)

Yody said:


> You guys go through way too much for a set of xc tires, there are other high volume fast rolling tires out there, might way just a little bit more but these are mountain bikes we're riding not road bikes.


Ask a cyclocross racer about tires. Its far worse than this


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

CTB said:


> Yody, where is this tire? I'm at the WTB site, and the 2.4 Mutanos listed (under "All Mountain") are 750g. I've run a 2.24 DNA Mutano on my bike previously. Good grip, pretty strong, but definitely not a lightweight. Mine was 713g. A 600g 2.4 Mutano that is easier to seal than a 590g Mountain King could be of interest to me, pending RR numbers.
> 
> Edit: A ha. Yody's tire is listed on WTB's Europe site. I guess we can't buy them here in the US. That kinda sucks.
> 
> ...


They sell them all over the US, its a standard tire. I've have some of them weigh 580 grams whiel some others come in at around 620

Strange though, I just checke WTB"s website an it looks as if the 2.4 Mutano for 2010 is going to be a tubeless ready....or what WTB calls "TCS" And it appears they gave it the Inner Peace sidewall which is where the extra weight is coming.

So it looks like next year or so the 600 gram race tire might not be around? You should still be able to find them anywhere though, there's probably a huge stock pile of them. Just make sure you get the ones that say "race" on the package. I know Performance bicycles sells them, but they are heavier and are not the race version.

Also the 2.4 is way more XC oriented than the 2.24, with its low tread and high volume they really do work great, unless its muddy  I've also had luck with all the WTB tires going tubeless, even though they say its not recommended, I've ran many of their tires tubeless on different wheels, all with good luck


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

After following this thread for some time, I did a bit of searching online and just ordered two of the 2.2-inch Race King Supersonic with Black Chili from Niagara Cycle Works through Amazon.com.

I've bought tires from Niagara Cycle Works before and found them to be cheap and pretty fast. These tires were only $38.21 each and the shipping was free, so the total cost for the pair was $76.42.










These tires will replace the 685-gram, 26 x 2.35 Syncros Point 'N Chute Factory 3 tires I have on my 2000 Breezer Lightning. I haven't posted any pictures of this bike here before because with its Slime tubes (which I won't give up) and many other parts that could be lighter, it weighs 22 pounds.

In this picture you can see the NOS Avid SAAGO stem, and the old Dura-Ace cranks that I bought for $20 and then sanded and polished. They just barely fit, using an NOS Dura-Ace 118mm bottom bracket.


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

And here they are. The pair of 2.2-inch Continental Race King Supersonic tires arrived yesterday, and they averaged 470 grams. With its new carbon bars, the Breezer now weighs in at just under 21 pounds.

The rolling resistance is noticeably lower. In fact, I first noticed the difference right after mounting them, when I pushed the bike across my hardwood floor.

Nearby there's a steep hill that's covered with loose gravel that I climb every day, and these tires allow me to get to the top in a bigger gear.

They're really nice on the road, too - fast and quiet.

I also tried these same tires on my Klein that has triple cranks, and they really make it feel like a race bike.

I love these tires.


----------



## Mighty Matt (Apr 22, 2009)

Roadsters said:


> And here they are. The pair of 2.2-inch Continental Race King Supersonic tires arrived yesterday, and they averaged 470 grams. With its new carbon bars, the Breezer now weighs in at just under 21 pounds.
> 
> The rolling resistance is noticeably lower. In fact, I first noticed the difference right after mounting them, when I pushed the bike across my hardwood floor.
> 
> ...


That is an awesome bike!!!


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Roadsters said:


> I love these tires.


I like the dog. What's his name?


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

Her name is Dig, and she's a high-energy Australian Cattle Dog. Several times a day I ride one of my mountain bikes with her on a four-foot leash running beside me.

Unless we're at an intersection, I let her set the pace. She and I have done more than 5,000 miles together this way.

In the Passion forum there's a nine-page thread about dogs. Below is a YouTube video featuring rescued Australian Cattle Dogs.






Dig picture 1

Dig picture 2

Dig picture 3


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Roadsters said:


> Her name is Dig, and she's a high-energy Australian Cattle Dog. Several times a day I ride one of my mountain bikes with her on a four-foot leash running beside me.
> 
> Unless we're at an intersection, I let her set the pace. She and I have done more than 5,000 miles together this way.
> 
> In the Passion forum there's a nine-page thread about dogs. Below is a YouTube video featuring rescued Australian Cattle Dogs.


That's a cute and friendly dog. Amazing how she has done that distance.  I always have the dogs running dead scared in front of me when I'm riding the bike 

Nice machines you have there, the roadster is looking good. :thumbsup:

back on topic.. 
My rear RK is getting wasted, too bad they don't last so long...
have fun riding the RK with Dig


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)




----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

sergio_pt said:


> back on topic..
> My rear RK is getting wasted, too bad they don't last so long...
> have fun riding the RK with Dig


How many miles on your RK? I've found that the mold spikes and edge ridges wear off the knobs but it takes quite a while to start wearing the knob height down. I'm lucky that I don't have to ride on pavement that much.


----------



## cowpat (Apr 13, 2008)

jthurd said:


> Please let me know how the SS compare to the Protection. I ordered some 2.2 SS's from my LBS but somehow they ended up getting 2.2 protections. I needed tires and mostly ride rocky/technical stuff so I just took them. I have not mounted them yet, I have been looking for some direct comparisons for the small possibility of taking them back. Does anyone know an approx weight and volume difference between the 2.2's? Do they both use the black chilli compound?
> I am coming form WTB weirwolfs 2.55, which I love for traction and volume, but are not very fast rolling. I used to run 2.0 karma's but I cut the sidewalls twice and got sick of getting stranded and having to sow patches into them. They also wore very quickly.
> I only do a handful of races a year (which I take seriously), they will mostly be for training.
> thanks-


I've recently run RK SS 2.2, Schwalbe RaRa 2.25 and now PK Protection 2.2 on my 4" dually as well as my singlespeed. I've used them mainly in hardpack, gravelly and rocky terrain, no real mud. My comparative opinion, FWIW:

RK SS:
- noticeably the most grip of all three on all surfaces
- supple and comfortable, seems to conform to the terrrain
- sidewalls do get scuffed and the tyres will need replacing before the tread wears down significantly
- very light
- hard to seal up tubeless (my set anyway), and I've picked up lots of thorns running with tubes

RK Protection:
- least grip of all three, just a little less than RaRa, skatey on gravel/loose surfaces
- possibly the fastest rolling, but it would be by a small margin only
- seems to dig into sand more than the other two tyres
- sidewalls seem pretty good, so far
- seal up tubeless ok, still a slow leak in the front tyre but it will probably go away

RaRa:
- can be surprisingly slippery on wet rock
- seal up tubeless easily

I ran them all at 27/27 psi. At my weight of 70 kg or so this is just enough to almost always avoid pinch flats with tubes and hitting the rim when tubeless.

As for overall speed - I didn't do any timed laps or anything, but the RK Pro and the RaRa are probably the same overall. A tiny bit more speed through corners on the RaRa and a tiny bit more on the straights on the RK Pro. The RK SS on the other hand is a different tyre entirely: lower weight, more grip and roll better on gravel, so I'd expect to be the fastest, although the RK Pros "feel" faster because they need more rider input to stay on line.

Overall though, unless Continental comes out with SS versions that will run tubeless without hassle, or Pro versions that are stretchy and supple, I'm going to go back to RaRa once the RK's wear out, mainly for reliability on longer rides (6+ hours, 100+ km) and the occasional enduro/marathon race.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Thanks for the great summary Cowpat.

Can anyone comment if the RK's seal up better on a tubeless ready rim than a standard rim? I'm also certain I'll want a wider front tire, but the RK makes a great rear tire ya? I wish I could find a tubeless ready tire that could compete with black chilli and these weights.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

mightymouse said:


> Thanks for the great summary Cowpat.
> 
> Can anyone comment if the RK's seal up better on a tubeless ready rim than a standard rim? I'm also certain I'll want a wider front tire, but the RK makes a great rear tire ya? I wish I could find a tubeless ready tire that could compete with black chilli and these weights.


mounted up some 477g & 476g Race King World Cup (same as 26x2.2 SuperSonic black chili) on Mavic Crossmax rims earlier this evening - no problem

all i had to do was slather the beads with soapy water and inflate first with an innertube, after the beads had popped, break the bead on one side remove tube, re-install UST valve, add 60g of Hutchinson Protect Air, slather with soapy water, re-inflate till beads pop, then finally rinse the wheels of soap under a tap - done

i like Racing Ralph EVO tires that come in triple nano compound, not as long lasting as RK SS 2.2 in black chili but still really brilliant


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

A fellow weight-weenie from germany was lucky and got 2 lightweight RK 2,2" SS from a store that picked him out the lightest they had...

I use the RKs all year long.Right now we have deep winter with up to 40cm of snow right outside of Zurich and even on snow the RK is simply amazing.That tire hooks up like no other. Simply amazing!
And as far as wear is concerned: me too i have yet to wear them down to where they need to be replaced.The very top edges get worn but once those are gone they hold up very,very long. So for me it's really the other way round: i have found them really durable! But this sure depends also on your riding style and terrain.me too i don't do a lot of paved roads and i don't slide around when braking.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

mightymouse said:


> Thanks for the great summary Cowpat.
> 
> Can anyone comment if the RK's seal up better on a tubeless ready rim than a standard rim? I'm also certain I'll want a wider front tire, but the RK makes a great rear tire ya? I wish I could find a tubeless ready tire that could compete with black chilli and these weights.


I mounted my RK SS 2.2 onto a Mavic XM819 UST rim. The UST rims of course do nothing to help seal the porous sidewalls. The beads sealed fine, but the sidewalls took days and a third scoop fo Stan's to seal. The beads stopped bubbling fairly quickly. I have not tried to mount the tire onto a non-UST rim yet, but I will be doing so soon.

I only use RK's on the rear. They washed out too much on the front in my terrain, so I use a MK2.4 SS up front, or sometimes a Nevegal 2.1DTC.


----------



## leugene (Jun 20, 2008)

Very disappoint, but my new regular RK2.2 just a little bit bigger than previous crossmark 2.1. Bought it only for volume. Protector width even narrower to maxxis. Casing width about 51.5 mm, main difference in height - conti about 5 mm higher.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

leugene said:


> Very disappoint, but my new regular RK2.2 just a little bit bigger than previous crossmark 2.1. Bought it only for volume. Protector width even narrower to maxxis. Casing width about 51.5 mm, main difference in height - conti about 5 mm higher.


mine 2.2 protection is 55.8 mm wide, which is fair 2.2", on the DT 4.2d rim.
didn't you get 2.0 by mistake?


----------



## leugene (Jun 20, 2008)

No, if want I'll get pics, but later. My rims are 717 and ds1-xc.
And 2 things: it was made in india and smell very


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

If it wasn't Handmade in Germany it wasn't the Super Sonic which is still the only one that is worth the effort. The Black Chili rubber is what makes this tire so good, not just the volume or tread pattern.


----------



## leugene (Jun 20, 2008)

I know. But I


> Bought it only for volume


As I understood from topic name this is not only SS RK 2.2 thread. ;-)


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Asian made tires won't make you happy like the Supersonic will. Carcass volume or not, the thing that sets these tires apart is the rubber compound.


----------



## leugene (Jun 20, 2008)

Ok-ok.
In earlier post I saw that "new" version is narrower than previous, but not as much as mine... :-( 

If You promise me that SS will be abot 55 mm width I'll buy it! Or maybe I should look another way like RaRa 2.25"? May I ask about its really size?


----------



## chek (Jun 26, 2009)

How does the SS (black chilli compound) wear, compared to normal RK tires?

I'm considering getting a pair as do-it-all tires and will be seeing tarmac, concrete, sand and dirt


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They will wear faster on pavement, but not as fast as something like Stick-E rubber.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> They will wear faster on pavement, but not as fast as something like Stick-E rubber.


I got my Supersonics last year. I ride them across the city to some rides, and have also done a road/gravel century with them, and I'm still on my first set. It's like several folks said: the raised edges on the knobs wear down (although I can still see them on the front tire a bit), but from there they seem to last acceptably well for a supposed "race-day" tire. No complaints.

I was riding with a buddy tonight after work, and when we stopped for a minute, he noticed the RK SS and said "oh, these are those tires you were telling me about," and I said "yeah... they're MAGIC. :thumbsup: "


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

leugene said:


> Ok-ok.
> In earlier post I saw that "new" version is narrower than previous, but not as much as mine... :-(
> 
> If You promise me that SS will be abot 55 mm width I'll buy it! Or maybe I should look another way like RaRa 2.25"? May I ask about its really size?


My 2.2 RK SS measured in at 53.3 and 53.8mm. 
​


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Well, you know, I'm pretty happy even with the ProTection version at the rear even though it's not a black chilli .
Yeah it might not have that super grip but it doesn't matter that much unless you do some racing when seconds count -- in this case you'll also run them at extra low pressures and thus tubeless (which isn't good for everyday riding anyway). Until then, it's a pretty good tire still. It rolls and grips better than anything I used so far. I'm not that concerned about seconds and weight, unlike grip, so I run Vertical 2.3 (protection version again) in front instead of RK and it's very good as well. I am tempting to try MK 2.4 in the front though.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Don't forget that tire width is rim width sensitive too. 

So far all of mine have been over 54mm wide (World Cup and Supersonic versions) on XTR rims


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

*Stan's Olympic rims*

Has anyone tried them on Stan's Olympic rims?

How are the 29'er version of the RK's? They are not SS?


----------



## eric512 (Jan 27, 2006)

*Supersonic 2.2 on Stans 355s -- help*

Ok - I must be an idiot. Can't get my new RK 2.2's on my Stans 355's to air up, even with a compressor. I've done a few tires before, but this one stumps me.

Already mounted the tire with a tube, broke one side, removed tube, in went Stans and tubeless valve but no joy. Not even close. Compressor at full blast, soap on the bead, the works.

Any ideas?


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

They are just a PITA sometimes. Did you try removing the valve core when you used the compressor? Sometimes the extra air flow you get by doing that will be enough to get it to seat. Another idea is to leave the tube in it for a couple days to get the tire to hold it's shape a bit better. 

Also, try seating the other bead first (if you haven't do so already). Sometimes one is less stubborn than the other. 

Good luck. I ended up selling mine off, because they were just a constant problem.


----------



## eric512 (Jan 27, 2006)

briscoelab said:


> They are just a PITA sometimes. Did you try removing the valve core when you used the compressor? Sometimes the extra air flow you get by doing that will be enough to get it to seat. Another idea is to leave the tube in it for a couple days to get the tire to hold it's shape a bit better.
> 
> Also, try seating the other bead first (if you haven't do so already). Sometimes one is less stubborn than the other.
> 
> Good luck. I ended up selling mine off, because they were just a constant problem.


Yup - that did the trick. Took out the valve core and hit it with the compressor. Pop pop pop. Bead set. Pulled of the compressor head, held the open valve stem closed with my finger, grabbed the core and screwed it in quickly. Didn't loose much air.

Now the sidewalls are leaking like Titanic, but I think some shaking will seal them up.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

ericsan256 said:


> but I think some shaking will seal them up.


..we will talk a couple of days later about that


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Are the MK SS's just as difficult to seal the bead on?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Pretty much, yes. My MK SS was harder to seal the SIDEWALLS than the RK was, actually. Eventually mine sealed quite well.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

Hey all, I'm about to order some race kings and have a question. I'm sold on putting the race king on my rear tire, but how well does it perform up front. I'm looking for something that will give me around the same cornering traction as my neo-moto on my 650b bike. Is the race king grippy enough? or should I put something like a mountain king 2.4? What conditions would require me to go to a beefier tier than the race king?

Thanks


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The RK has a very round profile, and the side knobs are the same height as the centre knobs, so if you have really loose trail conditions and you need something with shoulder knobs that will dig in while cornering, it's not your best bet. The MK is intended for all loose or deep dirt conditions where you need knob penetration into the soil. It can be squirmy and sketchy on hard pack or rock ledge. .


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

For the kind of riding I do here (generally lightly-loose, ranging from dry hardpack in summer to occasional tacky/muddy), I thought the RK up front was scary. I love it on the back, but I use something more aggressive up front all the time after trying a couple rides on the RK. That's been a MK SS 2.4, but that occasionally washes out unexpectedly when conditions here are very dry. Friends use Racing Ralphs with good success, and Nevagals work well here as well (other than they pedal like rocks). I have no issues if the rear of the bike slides around, but if the front washes out, I lose all confidence. The RK was not confidence-inspiring here. For the record, that was with tubes up front at 31-ish pressure.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

blantonator said:


> Hey all, I'm about to order some race kings and have a question. I'm sold on putting the race king on my rear tire, but how well does it perform up front. I'm looking for something that will give me around the same cornering traction as my neo-moto on my 650b bike. Is the race king grippy enough? or should I put something like a mountain king 2.4? What conditions would require me to go to a beefier tier than the race king?
> 
> Thanks


Try Michelin Mountain Dry2 2.15. Its a true 2.15 tire with incredibly smooth rolling and FAST with Cheetah like grip. The knobs are one of the BEST I have tried yet...even better than the RK 2.2. and Schwalbe Rocket Ron 2.3!!!


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I tried a RK2.2 on the front, abit vague for me the lack of side knobs it's more of a follow than a steerer.

Maxxis Aspen is very fast front or rear, abit more all conditions and due to real side knobs great on the front.

Went back to full knobbily on the front, Spesh Eskar 2.3 though, rolls very fast and has a great round profile, 700grams so good weight and huge volume.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

what about the trail king?


----------



## cjump (Sep 19, 2008)

i know there has been some trouble with setting up the RK 2.2 SS's tubeless. i just order a set on thursday and (by accident) bought new wheels on saturday. 

so my question is, has anyone had problems with 2.2 SS's mounting to ZTR 355's. Stan's website says this is a good match, but users in this thread have had troubles. what has been the solution?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

The biggest problem isn't cured by any rim - it's the ridiculously porous sidewalls of the 2.2 SS. The rims sealed pretty quickly; the bulk of the work was the sidewalls. I finally had to drop in a 3rd cup of Stan's to get more particles in there. Once I did that, it's been a-ok.


----------



## cjump (Sep 19, 2008)

3 scoops is the solution huh? that was what i was thinking because of the "Titanic" leakage of the sidewalls


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

blantonator said:


> what about the trail king?


The Trail King aren't really light at 650gms, but it does have more shoulder tread.

I've been using a Black Chili version of the Cont Vertical Pro 2.3" tire and they have been great on trail surfaces that need lots of knobs and big side knobs.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

blantonator said:


> Hey all, I'm about to order some race kings and have a question. I'm sold on putting the race king on my rear tire, but how well does it perform up front. I'm looking for something that will give me around the same cornering traction as my neo-moto on my 650b bike. Is the race king grippy enough? or should I put something like a mountain king 2.4? What conditions would require me to go to a beefier tier than the race king?
> 
> Thanks


 Try a Ra Ra 2.4 at 580g for a huge balloon tire it works great on the front in loose over hard and deep sand conditions. Not as good on wet tree roots as the RK.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

gvs_nz said:


> Try a Ra Ra 2.4 at 580g for a huge balloon tire it works great on the front in loose over hard and deep sand conditions.


how does it compare to the MK 2.4 in terms of size?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Unlike smaller versions,the 2.4 version of RaRa is true to size. The casing and volume on the 2.4 Ra Ra is much bigger than the MK 2.4.the casing on the Ra Ra is nearly the same width as the MK tread. The Ra Ra tread is slightly bigger than the casing.
From memory I think they were about 59/61mm casing/ tread width at 40 psi on a DT5.1 with a 2.2 tube.
tedsti has put some good measurement data here on a 18mm rim at 40 psi.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=545414&highlight=racing+ralph


----------



## TORO1968 (Oct 9, 2005)

Do you guys think I'd be crazy to try these tires on a Kona Dawg (5x5 trail bike)? I ride mainly hardpack trails with a few roots and am looking for new tires that roll better and are lighter than what I currently have (Specialized Resolution 2.3 UST F, Roll X 2.2 UST R mounted on Mavic 819s). 

I've also contemplated running 2.4 MK SS up front with a 2.2 RK SS in the rear...just because I dislike washouts greatly.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

When the trails dry out, I run Race Kings on my Rocky Altitude (140x140mm bike) and they work great but I don't have a lot of pointy things on my trails like sharp edge rocks. My trails are typically rooty and loamy/loose when dry. They work really well. YMMV.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

TORO1968 said:


> I dislike washouts greatly.


I'd suggest something with smaller cornering knobs than the MK, then. I've had more washouts than I'd like with mine when the trail gets packed. Those big knobs fold over pretty easily once they can't dig in. I'm contemplating cutting mine down.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Tora, RK 2.2 GREAT Tyre, I use it for that.

MK 2.4, WORST TYRE EVER, the knobs are to small and unsupported so they squirm around on hard pack and on softer stuff there isn't enough area there to do bugger all, serioulsy, steer away from.

RQ 2.2 or 2.4 on the other hand on the front, well 2.4 soon  just fitted a 729 rim so it'll take and make the best use of a Rubber Queen 2.4


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

Just got my Race King 29x2.2's from *Bike29*. Fast shipping and reasonable price, plus a live person behind the phone number which is another reason I patronized Bike29!

Coming from the Nano 2.1 and Python UST 2.1's, the Conti RK's are fast but surprisingly supple (soft), those diamond shaped knobs are easy to bend sidways in hand, don't have confidence in durability or will last as the Nano and Python have reputations for long lasting compounds - they wore very durable from my experience on urban commutes.

I know my Python's win hands down for both looks and function so far - I think the Python's are also the lightest of the three. Like the poster above noted, the Race King has a round profile, whereas the Python has higher edge teeth making it more of a squared off profile. Just mounted the Race King's today so will give them a big of go and report back if anything is worth adding. Oh, the "29 Inch" logo on the sidwall in orange is 100% cheese, almost as bad as the bold white "maxxis.com" on maxxis tires.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I've got 6months, likely 1000road miles which eat them up and 2000 XC Miles, just the cheapo £14 steel 26" version so the same compound and on the rear to, I bought a new 1 for the front to try it ( NO not good to vague in bends ) but there really isn't much difference between the 2, quite impressive really.


----------



## cjump (Sep 19, 2008)

cjump said:


> i know there has been some trouble with setting up the RK 2.2 SS's tubeless. i just order a set on thursday and (by accident) bought new wheels on saturday.
> 
> so my question is, has anyone had problems with 2.2 SS's mounting to ZTR 355's. Stan's website says this is a good match, but users in this thread have had troubles. what has been the solution?


Front- 471g
Rear-468g

i finally got around to mounting these today. the tires are sealed well with about 2.5 scoops in each tire. i have a bit too much sealant in the front tire so i might remove a bit. i aired up one with just a floor pump and another with a CO2 cartridge. Wouldn't you know as soon as i took both tires off and ready to mount the RK's that my compressor through it's belt and stopped working. ride report soon.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

cjump said:


> Front- 471g
> Rear-468g
> 
> i finally got around to mounting these today. the tires are sealed well with about 2.5 scoops in each tire. i have a bit too much sealant in the front tire so i might remove a bit. i aired up one with just a floor pump and another with a CO2 cartridge. Wouldn't you know as soon as i took both tires off and ready to mount the RK's that my compressor through it's belt and stopped working. ride report soon.


Airing up is usually not the problem. It's that they won't keep the air. Most probably you'll have a flat tire over night....


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

never use c02 cartridge with sealant. C02 cartridges reacts with sealant and renders the sealant pretty much useless.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

however, what you can do safely, is to inflate the tire with a cartrige to get it seated and fill in the sealant afterwards through the valve core


----------



## cjump (Sep 19, 2008)

quax said:


> however, what you can do safely, is to inflate the tire with a cartrige to get it seated and fill in the sealant afterwards through the valve core


which is what i did. just checked both tires. i have air in both but a bit of air loss in the rear.


----------



## Thomas Anderson (Mar 10, 2006)

I've got 3 months use on my 2.2 RK now and its been really good. Little sign of wear. Might put one on the back with a tube instead of my Bonty Super Revolt X with Stans (good rear tyre and v. light for a tubeless)


----------



## jdc5r (Feb 15, 2008)

cjump said:


> which is what i did. just checked both tires. i have air in both but a bit of air loss in the rear.


never thought of that. Awesome idea :thumbsup:


----------



## evil zlayo (Apr 22, 2007)

last year i bought a pair of RK, they leaked a bit, lost about 3psi per week.
this year, new pair, they don't leak at all, not one drop, still a little bit of air loss.
40g of sealant(caffelatex) + 7g valve = 47g per tire. still ligther, cheaper and more puncture resistant than those eclipse condoms


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Went for the first ride with my RK 2.2 SS tires yesterday. The dirt was about very sticky, but they performed better than my MK 2.2 SS tires, as they squirmed less in turns and never washed on me. It took me a couple miles to get used to them, as they ride differently. I just kind of had to let them run and do their own thing, as they definitely feel a little more vague, by which I mean I'm not getting all the input back from the trail I'm used to. 

Since they're on my aluminum hardtail, it definitely made the back of the bike feel softer, which is a good thing. So far as climbing goes, I'm still not completely sure if the RK or MK gave me the best traction.

They're being run with lightweight tubes and currently have 27 PSI up front and 31 PSI in the rear, and I'll probably drop that down to 26/30.

I need to ride them a little more, but I think they'll be staying on my bike.


----------



## oldassracer (Mar 26, 2009)

CTB said:


> The biggest problem isn't cured by any rim - it's the ridiculously porous sidewalls of the 2.2 SS. The rims sealed pretty quickly; the bulk of the work was the sidewalls. I finally had to drop in a 3rd cup of Stan's to get more particles in there. Once I did that, it's been a-ok.


this seems excessively heavy

anybody try spraying the inside of the tire with latex?

I was thinking, get a paint attachment for the compressor, fill the reservoir with liquid latex and spray a tire turned inside out

paint the bead with some thinned out tubular glue

use 20 grams of tire sealant for puncture protection

Anybody try this method?


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm considering buying a Giant XTC Advanced SL frame.

Does anyone know if the Race King 2.2's would fit well on the rear? 
From the pics I've seen with the stock 2.0 tires, it looks like it might be a snug fit.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Picking up my wheels from the shop today with my new RK 2.2's on them. Long story short, I bent my rear rim, had my budy rebuild it and ordered the tires and a Stan's kit. He put 13 hours into getting them sealed with no luck. But having now read the first 3 pages of this thread, I will be bringing home the remainder of the Stans goop/kit and after my group ride this evening, tearing them apart and attempting to sealing them myself. He simply doesn't have the time to get them to hold air for a few hours and then go ride them like I can. 

I am very excited at this point as I have been rolling on my stock wheels for 3 weeks now and dieing to get out on my nicer wheels. Not to mention my new tires. I even managed to order the Super Sonic versions of them so I a way stoked now! I will be riding them with tubes this evening so I will make sure I get the magic presure of 29/27 before I head out.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

use a lot of soap and water.
the only time I have trouble sealing them is when I get lazy and try inflating them 
with the valve in the valve stem.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Man, these things rock! I ran the magic 29 f / 27r pressure number w/ inner tubes. The tires never bottomed out or squirmed! They stuck to the dry surfaces and did fine after a few creek crossings as far as maintaining grip! I constantly found myself riding up on the guy in front of me. Quite a fast tire! Love them. Wish I would have gotten them sooner! Hell, I'm not even worried about doing the Stans kit on them right now.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Check out Vredestein tiger claw 2.4's, the volume is similar the weight is similar to a Folding version, ran softer it still roles similar but gives more cushion same time, so harder will likely be faster still on smooth stuff, might be slow rebound casing to which really smooths out the bumps nicely, sure feels it.

Rounder profile so it runs on hard pack down the middle more so and as a rear tyre it leans over better to which I think also increases small bump eating ability.


1SPD, I like your quote, just bought a steel frame, it's certainly not real, it certainly does not flex in any way and it certainly is heavy, like a lead weight, but also cheap and makes for a fun training machine rigid!!


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

Is that Tiger claw 2.4 true to size ? Sounds like a great tire aswell....


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Turveyd said:


> Check out Vredestein tiger claw 2.4's...


Where can you buy them in the US?

Would that be a good front tire to recommend to someone moving over to a rigid fork?


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

No it measured up as 53mm's so whats that a 2.1 width wise, maybe slightly lower than the RK on the same rim, but because of the ark of it it sits 4mm's higher at the centre. All the reviews said it was huge I was hoping for bigger but never mind 

Internal bead to beak is the same as a RK2.2 which might of stretched and so might this.

Wouldn't use 1 on the front, I did try the Eskar 2.3 on the front worked well, but wanted more so got the RQ2.4 which is great on the front, but that bikes got the 29" wheel + a Ardent 2.4 currently, the RQ is mounted to a DH rim for max low pressure to


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

1SPD said:


> Man, these things rock! I ran the magic 29 f / 27r pressure number w/ inner tubes. The tires never bottomed out or squirmed! They stuck to the dry surfaces and did fine after a few creek crossings as far as maintaining grip! I constantly found myself riding up on the guy in front of me. Quite a fast tire! Love them. Wish I would have gotten them sooner! Hell, I'm not even worried about doing the Stans kit on them right now.


Don't you mean 27front and 29 rear??? how much do you weight?


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

They're easily the best mtn. tires I've ever used. Even on the paved road they roll fast and are predictable when you lean they over in the corners. Great tires.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

After using them for a while I tried my old Mountain King 2.2 SS (mounted on another bike) for a couple rides. While I thought the MK was a good tire, and still think it's better than most things out there, the RK is simply better in all regards. It has more traction, it's more comfortable, it handles better, and is more predictable. I anticipate being on them for a long time. I'm 165 with gear, and ride 27f/31r with tubes on a ht.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The place the RK's really shine is when the Black Chili rubber tackles smooth wet surfaces like roots and rocks. :thumbsup:


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Ok, I have some rides under my belt at this point! Even raced on them this past weekend and came in 3rd in my first ever mtb race. I ran 30/30 as far as pressure in them w/ tubes. Not a single problem. Hit a few puddles/creek crossings and still had no traction problems. I almost feel that I need to order a second set just to have on hand in the event Conti stops making them. Just an awesome all around tire imo! BTW, I am 185 lbs w/ gear riding a fully rigid, single speed set up.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Something that's worth trying is see how much lower you can run them before they feel squirmy, as you get the best performance when they have the most compliant footprint. Try dropping a couple of PSI at a time until they feel wiggly when cornering then go back up a couple of PSI. I'm about 195 pounds and run them at 28 PSI with the Eclipse tubes. They have a fairly narrow optimum range for any given rider weight, about 4 PSI min/max variation. As long as you're not getting rim strikes on rocks, that will give you amazing traction.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

I was running them at 29f and 27r. I smacked a log pretty good last week and decided to go up a few lbs. I had a little slipping on a few turns but on race day, I forgot my gauge to drop them so I left them where they were. I had no problems what so ever. I may drop them back down to 29/29 tonight and see how things go. 

I agree that you might get better traction but I also think it depends on your riding style. I am usually pretty good at the beginning of the ride but as I get tired I tend to get a little more lazy and sit down alot more subjecting my rims to more danger. But I am getting stronger and these lazy moments aren't happening as often so I think I have a little wiggle room to play with here.


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

Hello guys. I'm looking to replace my Schwalbe Rocket Ron 2.1 Triple Nano Evo compound tires. How do these RK 2.2 compare to my RR's? Is it worth the extra 80g? My RRs weigh at around 435-440g. How about in terms of durability? So the ONE tire to get is the Continental Race King 2.2 SuperSonic in Black Chili compound right? I just want to make sure I get the right one. I'm curious about all the good stuffs you guys are saying about this tire.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

YMMV if you have a lot of thorns or sharp rocks as the carcass is very thin, so they aren't a super durable tire. But Supersonic (or World Cup versions) in Black Chili is the way to go, especially if your conditions include wet smooth surfaces like roots and rocks. Apparently the Black Chili is a 55 Shore durometer rubber but rolls faster than most anyone else's 61 Shore rubber, so they have a fairly high tech low hysteresis rubber in that Black Chili compound.


----------



## morrisgarages (Jan 25, 2009)

Thanks for the help again Rocky. I'm planning to run these RK with the eclipse lightweight tubes. I would be more than happy if these tires would last a tad longer than my RocketRons. Does the RK thread crack/break up and the sidewall threads show up too like in the case of my RR's?


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

*Continental Race King 2.2 29er tires*

Race King 2.2 29er tires hold up very well. The carcass is supple even after riding all summer. Sidewalls feature the "Gatorskin" cross hatched lines which I would assume strengthen the sidetubes, features like Schwalbe call it "Snakeskin". They are also quite durable and last long even with pavement urban assault riding. I run them with tubes at 40lbs both on and off road on 24mm wide rims. The Race King's, already balloon tire'esque, would be even fatter and beneficial mounted onto wide rims (35mm+).

Here is a set of 29 x 2.2 29er Continental Race King 2.2 tires for reference:


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

illnacord said:


> Race King 2.2 29er tires hold up very well. The carcass is supple even after riding all summer. Sidewalls feature the "Gatorskin" cross hatched lines which I would assume strengthen the sidetubes, features like Schwalbe call it "Snakeskin". They are also quite durable and last long even with pavement urban assault riding. I run them with tubes at 40lbs both on and off road on 24mm wide rims. The Race King's, already balloon tire'esque, would be even fatter and beneficial mounted onto wide rims (35mm+).
> 
> Here is a set of 29 x 2.2 29er Continental Race King 2.2 tires for reference:


They'll become to square on 35mm Rims and role very slowly.

Try a Vedestein Tiger Claw 2.4, rounder so should work better with wide rims, slightly higher volume and role faster and work better in general than the RK2.2 and can be ran lower pressure to. Weight is really low to.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Turveyd said:


> They'll become to square on 35mm Rims and role very slowly.


i thought tires with lower profile roll faster due to less deformations in the carcass, was I wrong?


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

shapirus said:


> i thought tires with lower profile roll faster due to less deformations in the carcass, was I wrong?


I think your confusing that with lower profile TREAD like the RK's have got, the rounder the tire the smaller the contact area on hard ground so it'll role like a smaller tyre, wider rims on the rear add a level of drag.

Ahhh my RK2.2 looks square cause it's mounted to a 23mm internal rim currently, it roles noticeably faster on a 17mm, I guess 35mm is external so ~28mm internal area.


----------



## leugene (Jun 20, 2008)

What's this tire on Ekaterina Anoshina rear wheel? Looks like new RK to me.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

RK2.2 I'd say, likely running a SuperSonic as he's a racer, the 2.0 looks a lot smaller.


----------



## Drea (Aug 23, 2008)

Thread pattern looks new on that RK 2.2


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Well, I did a race on them and had no problems what so ever. I have since flatted a few times. All of which appear to be the result of pinch flats. All of which appear to be caused by a lower pressure and the tire rolling enough to catch the tube between the tire and the rim. I got wise to this after buying several tubes and bought a pressure gauge. I pumped the tires up to 30 lbs according to my pump and then put the gauge on it. The gauge read 22 lbs! WTF!!! I have since been running them at 30 lbs according to my gauge and had no problems.

I did not notice in the beginning anything special with my tires. However, I have since noted that my rear tire has a defect in that it is not perfectly round. Well round but not true. There is a portion of the tire that the tread line shifts to one side and then back. Thus looking like the wheel is not true! I have taken the tire off twice and remounted it only to ever so slightly make it a little less wobbly. You can't tell out on the trail but on the few sections of road that I ride from time to time to get to the trail closest to my house, I can feel it at speed wobling beneath me. Annoying, well, yes but not enough for me to be bothered by it! I will ride it until it just goes bad, then rotate the front to the rear and buy a new one! Love these things! 

When the weather gets crappy hear in the next month or so, I will go back to work on making them tubless!


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

1SPD said:


> ...I have since noted that my rear tire has a defect in that it is not perfectly round. Well round but not true. There is a portion of the tire that the tread line shifts to one side and then back...


This is my only complaint with the RK 2.2 supersonics. If you ever run them at too low pressure that causes them to peel off the rim (even incompletely) the sidewall will stretch permanently and you get this sort of wobble that looks like you've put your rim out of true.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've only noticed wobbly RK 2.2 Supersonics on non-UST rims, the same tires on UST rims run true, so it appears to be the degree of flexibility in where the bead seats on the rim. The Supersonics I have on the DT carbon rims take a lot of fiddling to get them to run straight, the same tire airs up straight as an arrow on an XTR rim.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Well, I am running a cheaper rim if you will, a Velocity VXC that is a non UST. They came up straight and were doing good for a while. I think the wobble came once I bent my rear rim a few months ago. Unfortunately, it happened about 5 miles out so I had to ride back. Since then, it hasn't been the same. I have been able to get it pretty damn close to straight but the wobble is still there. 

So what TigWold says makes alot of sense to me as far as the sidewall stretching slightly but perminently. I will be damn if I am going to run right out and get another one right now though as the tires maybe have 150 miles on them! Sucks but money is tight and I gotta make it work. Since 98% of my riding is on the dirt in the woods, I'm not going to stress about this.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Like rockyuphill says, I thought it might have been incorrect seating on the bead causing the wobble when it happened because I burped the rear landing sideways off a large drop. Even after completely removing the tyre, cleaning the rim bead (Fulcrum red metal zero UST rim) and cleaning the tyre bead I could not get rid of the wobble completely.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Conti have announced that the new seasons Race King Protection will use the Black Chilli compound. As will a new Race Sport variant which will come in at slightly heavier than the Supersonic.

http://www.conti-online.com/generat...eral/downloads/brochure_bicycle_tires_en.html (download the .pdf)

Thanks to whoever posted this originally somewhere on the forum.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

nuffink said:


> Conti have announced that the new seasons Race King Protection will use the Black Chilli compound. As will a new Race Sport variant which will come in at slightly heavier than the Supersonic.
> 
> http://www.conti-online.com/generat...eral/downloads/brochure_bicycle_tires_en.html (download the .pdf)
> 
> Thanks to whoever posted this originally somewhere on the forum.


THANKS  Finally a BC on a tyre that makes sense that will be ideal for me


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

The Performance Lunar Light tube (99g and same as the Maxxis one) definitely does not like the Race King 2.2. My theory is the tube just stretches too far in the high volume RK and becomes too easy to puncture. I've run the Lunar Lights in the lower volume MK 2.2 without issue for a while.


----------



## roybatty666 (Mar 2, 2009)

Well after all the good reviews I thought I would try these babies out.

I have run 2.1 RoRO for the last year so can cope with the thin walls but the RoRo sucked on the wet slippy chalk rock surfaces we have so the RK sounded just the ticket and going on a Hardtail SS I was interested in all that volume.

Frame clearance is no issue (mine come up about 52mm on a EQ21 rim so not massive but the depth of these tyres is hooog! the RoRo are low profile so I have gained about and inch on the diameter! it looks more like a 650b now 

The front Lefty SL110 maybe an issue as I only have 102mm of clearance (photo with camera at an angle), I will have to give that a test as I doubt I get full travel so should be ok.

I need to get a pressure gauge as me Track pump's one is probably a little ropey, I have set them up 29fr 30r to start with

I also fitted the rear on the wrong way at first as they don't put the tyre labels on the a specific side it seems!

I will be trying these badboys out at the weekend and hoping for good things, next to the tiny RoRo they can't be any worse


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They are certainly very well suited for these trail conditions.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> They are certainly very well suited for these trail conditions.


Agreed! They shone both last weekend at Cheakamus Challenge, and again today in the Delta Watershed. I love these. 23psi front and 25psi rear, and they're like velcro!!


----------



## turbogrover (Dec 4, 2005)

rockyuphill said:


> They are certainly very well suited for these trail conditions.


Ha, those look just like my local trails as well. And yes these are the best performing tire I've ever used.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They should have named it Black Magic instead of Black Chili rubber


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

The pics look a lot like what I ride too, and slipping on wet roots is the worst. Are you running front and rear? I would have thought the MK SS would be better in those conditions than the RK, is that not the case?


----------



## Drea (Aug 23, 2008)

Bigger knobs doesn't necessarily mean better traction on wet rocks and roots. The RK has a much bigger contact area with all those small tight spaced knobs, witch in turn equals excellent traction. 
I must say that even tho I liked my RK's very much, their traction seems overrated in this thread.

The sweet thing about them are, that taken into consideration how light they are and how fast they roll, traction surprises tho offering little to none cornering grip when leaning in and pushing.


----------



## nathanbal (Jan 30, 2007)

the mountain king effectively has less surface area on the root because of the high knobs so in my experience they arent as good. mountain kings are better in the loose though.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Race Kings where you don't need soil penetration with the knobs, but you want big volume low pressure for conformance to the surface and grip, especially in wet and not slick mud conditions. They are happy climbing this wet smooth rock covered trail/streambed with no significant slippage. 

Mountain Kings where the trail surface is softer and you need the penetration. They are much squirmier on hard surfaces.

It's the Black Chili tire compound combined with volume that makes the RK's work, the skinny RK's and the RK's with standard rubber compound are just round black rim protectors. RK's are not great at higher pressures either, too small a tire patch.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Running standard Folding none BC RK2.2's currently, I've ran the 2.0 to, i find if I run them soft at all the knobs fold in and they become slicks.

I've used the BC with UST tyres ( with tubes ), but there impossible to get on and off the rim and wouldn't risk supersonics, yes there better, but there not much better.

I've actually moved to Vredestein Tiger Claw 2.4's on the rear of both my bikes, slightly heavier, but rounder profile, roll faster and work in winter conditions better, clear very quickly, similar height, slightly wider, 2mm's bigger inner carcas size or something when I measured them. Must order some more at £15 when possible, wouldn't pay £40 though.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Turveyd said:


> I've used the BC with UST tyres ( with tubes ), but there impossible to get on and off the rim and wouldn't risk supersonics, yes there better, but there not much better.


Last time I checked only the Supersonic has the Black Chili compound. The UST uses standard rubber.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

UST and Supersonic in the RK has BC, big made in germany on the sidewalls of the UST but it might explain it 

I see the UST X Kings won't have BC so this might be my error  29er UST definately hasn't got BC.

X King Protections have BC which I'm looking forward to, in a 2.4 format


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The UST tires were made in Asia so they don't have BC rubber, the BC rubber has been restricted to the Handmade in Germany tires. Not sure if that will change for the 2011 model year with the new Racesport BC versions.

_The Race King has presented itself as a talented newcomer in the best way possible - with victories! Irina Kalentieva - Topeak/Ergon took the first prototype to the podium at the 2007 UCI World Cup Championships. The secret of the Race King is a large volume casing mated to a low-profile tread pattern that not only spells speed, but also incredible all-round traction and control. Paired with our proprietary Black Chili compound, and weighing in at a scant 460g (2.2 SuperSonic), the Race King will impress through an incredibly wide variety of conditions. Choose the 2.0 for the ultimate XC weapon, or the 2.2 when a slightly bigger footprint is needed. Riding a 29'er? The 29 x 2.2 is bound to be one of the most desirable big wheels in the game.

* Race King ProTection: 3 plies/ 180tpi/ foldable
* Race King UST-Tubeless: 3 plies/ 330tpi/ foldable
* *Race King Supersonic.: 3 plies/ 180tpi/ foldable/ Black Chili Compound*
* Race King 29inch: 3 plies/ 180tpi/ foldable_









Without the BC rubber they are just rim protectors


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Turveyd said:


> UST and Supersonic in the RK has BC, big made in germany on the sidewalls of the UST but it might explain it


Where are you seeing this? I just checked again, and only the SS is listed as having Black Chili. I don't think just because it's made it Germany means it's BC.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

_'Supersonic' Black Chili option_

Doh!!! Won't bother to put that back on then, the rubber feels different to drats!!

I've leant it to a mate up the road, I'll go have a look and check it says Made in Germany so I'm not going totally mad!! *

* Odds are on MAD!!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Yep, the Black Chili rubber is a soft as Kenda's Stick-E rubber but has a special low hysteresis (low loss) rubber compound, I'd bet it would have come out of Conti's winter car tire development, as that's the same sort of thing that Nokian developed for their WR car tires. 

Most of the UST tires were made in Asia, might be some that were Handmade in Germany, there are some short run variations out there. I have a set of limited production Vertical Pros that were done in Black Chili rubber (also were Handmade in Germany). So there may be other rubber compounds made in Germany, but there won't be any BC rubber tires made in Asia.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

bad mechanic said:


> The Performance Lunar Light tube (99g and same as the Maxxis one) definitely does not like the Race King 2.2. My theory is the tube just stretches too far in the high volume RK and becomes too easy to puncture. I've run the Lunar Lights in the lower volume MK 2.2 without issue for a while.


Makes sense. I was getting tons of flats with the lunar lights and RK 2.2 combo. Perhaps try a larger tube???
I put on a Racing Ralph when I wore out the RK's and haven't flatted since. I'm waiting for the X King racesports to hopefully completely solve my problem.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Anyone use Panaracer Greenlite or Michelin latex tubes in the RK 2.2? Both tubes are listed as 2.1, so I'm a little worried about putting them in a 2.2 which is bigger than normal.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Yup, I was using Michelin Latex for a fair while.

Last time I did a tyre change I stuffed the tube with a tyre lever, that's the only reason that I'm not using them still.


----------



## Drea (Aug 23, 2008)

bad mechanic said:


> Anyone use Panaracer Greenlite or Michelin latex tubes in the RK 2.2? Both tubes are listed as 2.1, so I'm a little worried about putting them in a 2.2 which is bigger than normal.


I did. Miches leaks air to fast, Greens were good - and lighter.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I think both of those tubes are hit or miss in general. I've seen Michelins leaking air brand new right out of the box and other people love them. I had a Greenlite in my old tires for over two years and another one flatted on the first ride.

You try them and let us know what you think.


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

The Race King Supersonic 2.2 tires continue to amaze me. I've been so happy with them that I just bought my third pair of them.



















The orange Klein Adroit Pro was built to go anywhere comfortably, and has XTR M970 cranks with triple XTR chainrings. The Breezer Lightning, which appeared earlier in this thread, uses a pair of Dura-Ace cranks with a single 39-tooth chainring, a Dura-Ace chain, and a nine-speed Dura-Ace 12-27 cassette. A few weeks ago I built up a second one-by-nine, starting with a blue 1999 Klein Attitude Race frame. The drivetrain on this one is a pair of XT cranks with a 32-tooth Salsa single-specific chainring, a Dura-Ace chain, and an American Classic 12-25 aluminum cassette.

I've recommended Race King Supersonic 2.2 tires to a lot of people. I always use Slime tubes, and have never had a puncture with them. So far, the tires' only drawback is that they spoil you, so if you ride on any other fat tires, the bike will seem heavy and slow.


----------



## eric512 (Jan 27, 2006)

Roadsters said:


> I've recommended Race King Supersonic 2.2 tires to a lot of people. I always use Slime tubes, and have never had a puncture with them. So far, the tires' only drawback is that they spoil you, so if you ride on any other fat tires, the bike will seem heavy and slow.


I hate to ask - but what do your Slime tubes weigh??

And I do love my 2.2 SS tires - fabulous!!!


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

I use the regular "26X" Slime tubes - not the lightweight or much heavier thorn-resistant versions. I weighed six of them and they averaged out to 300 grams each. The lightest was 245 grams and the heaviest was 360 grams. I would attribute the weight difference to the varying amount of Slime remaining in them.

Most in this forum will see this as a significant weight penalty, and I won't argue. But the weight is worth it to me because I live in Arizona where there are thorns all over the place, and once had four flats in ten miles. Repairing flats in the desert sun just isn't for me. These bikes are so reliable that when I ride, I never carry tools because I just never need them. And in the six years that I've been using Slime tubes, over thousands of miles (and many hundred thorns), I really have never had a puncture. To me, that's worth a lot.


----------



## RecceDG (Sep 4, 2010)

> the skinny RK's and the RK's with standard rubber compound are just round black rim protectors.


I dunno. I'm using the RK Supersonic 2.0 and having great luck with them.

The trick seems to be that the tire responds to higher loads. If you slow too much at entry and kinda roll into the turn, the tire is kinda sketchy and will wash. If you retain a hair more entrance speed and really load it, it grabs and rails.

I haven't tried the 2.2 so I don't have a point of comparison, but the 2.0 is the best tire I've ever ridden.

My car has Conti ExtremeContact DWS tires on it, and those tires are magic as well. Not as good as a dedicated dry compound tire, but very good in the dry, and incredible in the wet.

DG


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I ran a 2.0 as it was all I could fit in the previous frame, but it didn't offer enough rim protection but it was FAST, much faster on roads atleast than the 2.2.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Has anyone gotten their hands on the new RK 2.2 race sport versions? I read here that Conti may be re-sizing them smaller compared to the current RK 2.2 SS

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=653404&page=2


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Just got my latest set of Race King Supersonic 2.2s and they are both a little heavier than previous ones at 482g and 483g a piece. The sidewall feels like its got fractionally more rubber on the outside over the carcass plys. The three sets of Supersonics I've had from earlier this year have all been between 445 and 465g each.

Has anyone else noticed the newest batch being heavier? I wonder if they will be more durable...


----------



## 1993gsxr907 (Sep 12, 2010)

KERKOVEJ said:


> The Race Kings are thin. I run them tubeless with Stan's on the DT Swiss XR 1450 wheels. Most of the team members are running them with latex tubes. As far as traction....they are like velcro! They are pretty much my tire of choice for all racing conditions. As for day-to-day training...I suggest a little beefier tire in non-Supersonic.
> 
> I have been testing since June of 2007


 Im in love!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

1993gsxr907 said:


> Im in love!


yep, these tires _are_ that good. :thumbsup:

or do you mean Irina? :skep: :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

​


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

Seems that Conti found how to redeem prototype molds.

http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/ti airking.shtml


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

The Air Kings been on the site for ages I think, looks identical to a RK2.2 though.

If there going to shrink the RK 2.2 atleast relabel the current RK2.2 to a RK2.4 and leave it alone.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

subtle tread differences


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Yeah so there is, must of been blind earlier, the Air Kings tread looks like it would make a pretty good winter condition tyre, might have to see if I can find 1 anywhere cheap 

Profile is different to.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Has anyone been able to confirm Conti will be shrinking the 2.2?


----------



## shaggy.gpd (Jan 21, 2009)

Yeah, the Air King has been on the site for ages, but i remember have seen its release news, on magazines, few months after i had mounted Race Kings on my bike.

I have posted it now, because prototype pic has reminded me them. 

I have just found it funny, nothing else.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

bad mechanic said:


> Has anyone been able to confirm Conti will be shrinking the 2.2?


Conti just replied to my email:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brett Hahn" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:07 PM
Subject: Race King

> Hello,
> 
> Not sure where this information from, but no intentions of changing the Race
> King. Do however be advised that the German-made SuperSonic version has the
> nice volume to which you refer, and the Asian-made UST and standard folder
> is actually narrower with less volume.
> 
> Enjoy the Ride


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

I've been having problems getting my RK SS 2.2s to air up tubless. I've tried them on DT 4.1d rims (tubeless compatible whatever that means) with just stans rim tape and valve. I also tried on a DT X430. No luck, I've run these wheels tubeless with with bontrager tubless and specilized 2bliss, and kenda nevegal tires with no issues ever, always super easy to air up.

I have tried no soap and water, soap and water, stans, stans with soap and water, nothing works. I am using air compressors (100PSI 1.5"). And I even tried a CO2 cartridge (thinking maybe it would be higher pressure and finally pop the tire on). Air is going in the tire and out again along the bead. When there is soapy water on there (dawn) I get bubbles everywhere. I have done my best to make sure the bead is seated as best I can get by hand, basically just as close to the outside of the rim as possible. I made sure the bead was seated around the valve stem area (it's not sitting on the little rubber grommet, it's up against the rim). Both the rim and tire are very clean. The tires are brand new out of the box.

It's like the tires are slightly bigger than the inside of the rims leaving little gaps for air to just flow out. I can't really feel lots of air coming out in one place, more like little bits of air coming out everywhere. Like I said, soap bubbles everywhere.

Does anyone have any tips to magically make this work?


----------



## RecceDG (Sep 4, 2010)

I haven't mounted these specific tires tubeless, but I have mounted tubeless tires on other applications before, so the principle should be the same.

Sometimes, what you have to do is "shock" the tire with air to get it to kick the bead up in contact with the rim. If the whole bead makes contact, air will get trapped inside the tire and force it onto the bead. Once the bead is seated, Bob's yer uncle.

What I would try is this:

1. Pull the valve stem out of the valve core. This gives a larger air flow path so you can shoot more air in.

2. Lay the wheel flat on the ground. This way you have gravity trying to push the down-side bead onto the rim, and the down-side should seal. Then hit the tire (through the valve stem) with a sudden blast of high-pressure air from the compressor. It should kick the up-side bead up and when the bead hits the rim it should seal. This may take a few times.

3. If that doesn't work, get a mini cargo strap or similar device and wrap it around the circumference of the tire, along the tread surface. The idea is to both reduce the volume inside the tire and to pinch the beads outwards. Try the same technique again.

4. If THAT doesn't work, put in a tube, and mount the tire. Let it sit overnight so the tire starts to shape itself. Then deflate the tube, remove it (keeping one side beaded) re-install the valve stem (with no core) and try again, this time with the beaded side up, not down (use gravity to help bead the loose side)

5. If THAT doesn't work, install with a tube, deflate, pry open just enough of the tire to reach the tube, cut it, and pull it out. Replace the valve core. You should now have the entire tire mounted less a small section about 2-3 inches long - and that should air up.

Good luck!

DG


----------



## Jake Pay (Dec 27, 2006)

*Have you tried Ghetto Tubeless?*

*PART 1*





*PART 2 *


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I *have* mounted several RK SS 2.2s, and the method I use is what Dennis (DG) described in both step 4 and 5. The key is to get the tire to take some shape before you try and seat the bead. I never have any luck getting the bead seated on a brand new tire. However, If I inflate it with a tube, and let it sit overnight (usually in the vicinity of a heat register, or in direct sunlight inside the house), I get 100% success in seating the bead.

The next issue you'll have is sealing the sidewalls. It takes a bunch of Stan's sealant, and a couple hours of shaking and sitting flat. However, all that'll achieve for you is getting the tire to hold enough air for a 30-60 minute ride. That's always been the key for me. Go out and ride. Make sure there's a bunch of sealant in the tire, and after the ride, I almost always have a perfect seal. If it's not 100% sealed after one ride, it's so close to perfect that my next ride it's perfect.

Once you have the sidewalls perfectly sealed, if you're really anal (I am), you can pop the bead, drain out the excess sealant (or all of it) and make sure you have absolutely the exact correct amount in the tire.

I've been doing it this way for the last 2 years or so, and I have enjoyed 100% success.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Thanks a lot for the tips BlownCivic and RecceDG. I currently have tubes in them, I'll let them sit overnight and try again tomorrow. What pressure do you let them sit at overnight, 30psi?

What percentage of the time do you have to do step 5 rather than step 4?

Right now I'd love to be trying to seal the sidewalls. Typically I'll take a day to let that happen.


----------



## RecceDG (Sep 4, 2010)

Out of curiosity, have you weighed a fully-sealed-and-sealant-ed wheel and compared it to a tubed wheel?

I'm curious if tubeless really is lighter.

DG


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I have no empirical data to say that it's lighter. I suspect it's about the same or slightly lighter than a lightweight tube (100g).

10g for rim tape and valve stem
50g for 2 ozs of sealant
say 20g for dried latex on the inside of the tire carcass (don't know for sure about this one)

The real difference for me is being able to run 23-25 psi in front and 25-27 psi in the back, and not worry about pinch flats. I've run Cheakamus Challenge 2 years now as well as many many trail rides in all sorts of conditions, and never had a hitch. I also benefit from not having had a flat in the last 3 years since I went tubeless as well as awesome traction in nearly all the riding conditions I come across.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

BlownCivic said:


> I also benefit from not having had a flat in the last 3 years since I went tubeless as well as awesome traction in nearly all the riding conditions I come across.


Yeah, I haven't had any flats either except for one caused by a really bad crash that ripped the tire off the rim. My friends who I ride with have had an average of maybe 5-6 flats in the same period.

BlownCivic, when you try and air up the tires again with step 4 or 5 do you use soapy water or just do them dry or with sealant or sealant + soapy water?


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I always use the soapy water.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

I put the tubes in and let it sit overnight, then took one bead off and took the tubes out. Aired up with the valve core out straight away. I think that's absolutely key. :thumbsup: 

Fiddling with it a bit while getting stan's in, I wasn't able to air it back up with the valve core in so I had to take it back out, put air in, put the valve core in (not much air escapes really if you're quick about it), and then add a couple PSI.


----------



## evil zlayo (Apr 22, 2007)

so, race king's 2.2 are too big for my frame.

do you have any suggestions for a simmilar tire, just as light, fast and high volume, but a little bit smaller than rk. maybe roro 2.25?


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Race King 2.0?

Litany,

I have the large Stan's syringe that permits me to inject the sealant through the valve, so I don't have to pop the bead to get the stuff in the tire. I think that's another key element to the success I've experienced. Leave the core out, inject the sealant, screw the core back in and pump the tire with still seated bead using the floor pump. Voila!

There should be no rush to get the valve core back in. If the bead is properly seated, it'll stay there unless you pop it off.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

BlownCivic,

Yeah, I put Stans in through the valve (with the valve core out) with just one of those 2oz bottles of Stan's, refilling it over and over. They're pretty handy! Deflating the tire and moving it into the truing stand the bead partially fell off despite being quite careful. I never even tried the floor pump, I had the air hose in hand and just went with what was easy. :thumbsup: 

Rear tire only held air for a couple hours yesterday before going completely flat (didn't check it for about an hour). However both tires held air overnight losing less than 10psi each! I'm pretty encouraged. I cleaned the inside of the tires with soapy water and a microfiber before I mounted them up, not really sure if that had any effect but it's working now!


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Great! Now go out and ride.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm never going to understand the obsession with ghetto tubeless, it costs loads in sealant, it's HASSLE hassle and more hassle, I just put a tube in, inflate and ride and 2 days later the pressure is still fine and rideable, I run RK 2.2's and don't get punctures or pinches, they run better hard anyway and if they did a Slime tube would be so much easier and cheaper.


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

Anyone know for sure that the racesport rk 2.2 will be black chili? If so I'm going to hold off until they are out.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

YES thats confirmed and the 2.2 Race Sports are available here :-

http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content...=17472;page=1;menu=1000,2,103,104;mid=4;pgc=0

If you can import them ??


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

BlownCivic said:


> Great! Now go out and ride.


Tell that to the parks dept. I can't wait. I've been dying to go for days. All the trails are closed right now due to rain :sad: Tomorrow I'll get some miles on em though!



Turveyd said:


> I'm never going to understand the obsession with ghetto tubeless, it costs loads in sealant, it's HASSLE hassle and more hassle


It doesn't really cost loads in sealant. A 32oz bottle is $25. If you put 4oz in a tire, which is a lot, you only need 2oz in some tires, that works out to be $3.13 per tire. Around here tubes cost $6-$8 per tube. Based on my riding buddies, a tire will outlast a tube so eventually the price evens out.

It's a little bit of a hassle at first I guess, but it's a hobby. What else was I going to do last night between watching UFC and F1? F1 was rain delayed too! (Poor Button and Webber, go Hamilton!) For me it provides greater reliability and more flexibility in terms of pressures.


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

Turveyd said:


> YES thats confirmed and the 2.2 Race Sports are available here :-
> 
> http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content...=17472;page=1;menu=1000,2,103,104;mid=4;pgc=0
> 
> If you can import them ??


I'm thinking about the racesport race kings, not x kings. Although the x kings look cool, and I want to try one on the front. The race king racesports aren't listed on the continental site, but they are here:

https://www.starbike.com/php/product_info.php?lang=en&pid=14489


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

litany said:


> Poor Button and Webber, go Hamilton!


Poor Vettel too (laughing in the background - hee, hee!).


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

BlownCivic said:


> Poor Vettel too (laughing in the background - hee, hee!).


after crashing into webber on a straight and into button's side pod, not to mention everyone else, he gets no sympathy from me.

the tires are ridable now, yay! the front has been supere easy, the back has been a bit of a challenge to get it to seal up. thr tires are amazing though. so fast, so light. grip is just so suprisingly good. the uniform feel when leaning them over is really confidence inspiring.


----------



## CarboneVeloce (Oct 21, 2009)

I have been looking for some lightweight tires for some time and after reading some of the post on the Rk 2.2 supersonics i decided to give them a shot. Decided to just run them with tubes and after the first ride I was blown away by there grip these tires are really that good! The grip is insane and cornering is exceptionally better than the Nevegals i had on my 09 Yeti Arc. I had a big smile on my face rolling on these for the first time.I think i have found my perfect tire! Thanks to all the positive reviews on this tire.


----------



## mightymouse (Sep 15, 2009)

Arc-angel said:


> I have been looking for some lightweight tires for some time and after reading some of the post on the Rk 2.2 supersonics i decided to give them a shot. Decided to just run them with tubes and after the first ride I was blown away by there grip these tires are really that good! The grip is insane and cornering is exceptionally better than the Nevegals i had on my 09 Yeti Arc. I had a big smile on my face rolling on these for the first time.I think i have found my perfect tire! Thanks to all the positive reviews on this tire.


better than the Nevegals in the wet/mud, or just in the dry? front and back tires, or just rear?


----------



## CarboneVeloce (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi Mightymouse. I live in florida so I mostly ride on dry hardpack over lots of roots and sugar sand. By looking at the tread on these tires I doubt they would be better than the Nevegals in the mud. Haven't tried them on wet roots yet as it has not rained in a while down here. I am running them on the front and back. Hope this helps.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

mightymouse said:


> better than the Nevegals in the wet/mud, or just in the dry? front and back tires, or just rear?


Remember that the Nevegal Stick-E is one of the highest traction tires ever made, and very few things are going to approach it so far as sheer grip goes. However, the RK 2.2 SS performs very well in the wet, better, in my opinion than the Nevegal DTC. The RK's only weak spot being soupy mud, where it simply doesn't have the traction. Use it front and back.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Black Chili RK2.2 SS has much better traction on smooth wet roots and rocks than the Stick-E Nevegal, likely because the top of the RK tread blocks are flat so there's a lot of contact area when you run them with lower pressures so they conform to the surfaces. But if the mud is greasy, not so much. I'm still looking for my first pair of X-King Racesport 2.4" to try in those goopier conditions.


----------



## CarboneVeloce (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi Mightymouse. I live in florida so I mostly ride on dry hardpack over lots of roots and sugar sand. By looking at the tread on these tires I doubt they would be better than the Nevegals in the mud. Haven't tried them on wet roots yet as it has not rained in a while down here. I am running them on the front and back. Hope this helps.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

bad mechanic said:


> The Performance Lunar Light tube (99g and same as the Maxxis one) definitely does not like the Race King 2.2. My theory is the tube just stretches too far in the high volume RK and becomes too easy to puncture. I've run the Lunar Lights in the lower volume MK 2.2 without issue for a while.


I had nothing but problems w/ the Forte Lunar light tubes in the RKs- puncturing all the time. Started running the slightly thicker Forte Ultra Lights (130G) and so far I've been puncture free!! Thnx for the advice:thumbsup:


----------



## nitropowered (Aug 30, 2007)

its been a while since I last posted on this thread (can't actually remember what i posted)

But I've got my RKSS sealed up tubeless with stans. Like most everyone else, it was a pain to get it to seal. Now that it is done, its totally awesome.

Here's what I did to get them to seal. Take sandpaper and lightly scrub the inside of the tire. You want to get the mold release off but don't take off too much rubber. Then I sprayed the tire with clean streak to clean it up.

Then your standard stans install. I used two scoops. It takes a while with plenty of shaking but it sealed up. For the first few rides, it didn't completely seal, but held air long enough. I would only notice that the air had leaked the next day.

Simply put, these are the best tires out there now. Predictable cornering, mad grip (though it doesn't look like it would with the tread style), I can ride over things I would normally slip on


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

I'll give my recent experience with the RK 2.2 BC. 

I had trouble getting mine to seal like most people, but eventually go them to hold air after 2 days of adding stan's, shaking, and riding. 

On my first ride I came off a small drop-off (maybe 1.5 feet high) slightly awkward and landed at an angle and burped both tires. I stopped and re-inflated to the normal pressure (25-28psi or so), and continued riding. 

After riding for a couple of minutes, I notice my front wheel is wobbling. I stop and assume I bent my wheel, but after further inspection, I realize my wheel is true, but the tire is warped! I then check the back and the same thing happened! 

When I hot back home, I deflated the tire and reseated the bead thinking this was the issue, but both tires were still warped (the back was so bad, it almost hit the CS). 

I then took them off and tired them with a tube, but no luck. Now I've got two brand new tires that are completely useless to me. Oh well, experiment over. 

I must say though, for that 20min. prior to them warping, they may have been the best tires I've ever used!

In the 15 years I've been mtn biking, I've never seen a tire do this, let alone 2 at once. I haven't read this whole thread, so I can't be the only one this has happened to?

BTW: I'm 145 pounds, and was riding a 4 inch xc bike. I'm a moderately aggressive rider, nothing out of the ordinary.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Overkill said:


> ... so I can't be the only one this has happened to?


You are not. I've done the same thing to a couple of RK 2.2 BC's. You can run them at low pressures and they are awesome until you launch off something sizable and then they'll burp and permanently stretch/warp the casing.

I find I need to run at least 28 psi to prevent this. I am amazed that anyone can run these tyres at less psi for any length of time without warping the casing.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've run them as low as 22 pounds with Eclipse tubes, I wonder if the sealant is causing issues with the rubber compound?


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

I've been able to run lower pressures with tubes and the high volume of these tyres make them almost impossible to pinch flat. However, even with tubes at the lower pressures I had a front warp from a slightly crossed up landing. The warping/stretching is probably not caused by the sealant weakening the side wall.


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

I doubt it was a sealant issue, as mine warped on the first ride. Sealant was only in them for ~2days or so. 

I'd love to try these again, but there is no way I'm paying for another set after my experience. This is the first time I've even burped a tire with a converted setup - I can't trust a tire like this for my local terrain and riding style.

If I were to mount these again, I'd be afraid to ride aggressively - that's not something you want in your head coming down a rocky decent or landing slightly off line from small amounts or air. I'll take a lesser tire to gain that assurance. Believe me, I really wish these would have worked out.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Overkill, the supersonic version has really thin sidewalls thats why it failed, there is a chance of a RaceSport which will be tubeless ready and stronger sidewalls maybe BC, failing that look at the new coming XK range, various versions all with BC just not the supersonic, likely need the 2.4 to match the RK2.2's volume though ( hopefully tad larger find out next week )

Availability so far is here :-

http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content...=17472;page=1;menu=1000,2,103,104;mid=4;pgc=0


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

Turveyd said:


> Overkill, the supersonic version has really thin sidewalls thats why it failed, there is a chance of a RaceSport which will be tubeless ready and stronger sidewalls maybe BC, failing that look at the new coming XK range, various versions all with BC just not the supersonic, likely need the 2.4 to match the RK2.2's volume though ( hopefully tad larger find out next week )
> 
> Availability so far is here :-
> 
> http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content...=17472;page=1;menu=1000,2,103,104;mid=4;pgc=0


Thanks, I'll look into those over the winter. On my trail bike I run a UST crossmark 2.25 on the rear, and a UST ignitor 2.35 on the front, and I find this combo very good for all conditions where I live. Obviously these are extremely heavy (~800 grams each), so not suitable for my race bike. You can run these at 18 psi, and have full confidence going through anything.

I like the tread so much, I just ordered the non UST exception series 2.1 versions to try on my race bike. I mounted them, but they look very small compared to the higher volume tires I've been running of late. No rides on them yet, so I can't comment if they will be a good race tire. The ignitor was 507 grams, and the crossmark was 519 grams, so not bad. The sidewalls feel "real", so hopefully they will hold up in rocky terrain.

I will be looking into those XK racesports though for sure.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

TigWorld said:


> Just got my latest set of Race King Supersonic 2.2s and they are both a little heavier than previous ones at 482g and 483g a piece. The sidewall feels like its got fractionally more rubber on the outside over the carcass plys. The three sets of Supersonics I've had from earlier this year have all been between 445 and 465g each.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed the newest batch being heavier? I wonder if they will be more durable...


Just got mine, it was 497g. I agree w/ you on the sidewalls feeling a bit more stout. My previous batches averaged 460g. If the tire wasn't so awesome, I might complain.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Depending on your weight, the small volume of the Exception 2.1 series may mean you need a lot of pressure to prevent pinch flats, and if you need to run them over 35PSI they bounce a round a lot. They are also 60 durometer rubber so they are a lot slipperier than the Black Chili on anything moderately damp.

I tried a pair of Ignitor 2.1 Exceptions before the RK2.2's came along, and for me they were too bouncy on rocks and too slippery on wet rocks.



Overkill said:


> I like the tread so much, I just ordered the non UST exception series 2.1 versions to try on my race bike. I mounted them, but they look very small compared to the higher volume tires I've been running of late. No rides on them yet, so I can't comment if they will be a good race tire. The ignitor was 507 grams, and the crossmark was 519 grams, so not bad. The sidewalls feel "real", so hopefully they will hold up in rocky terrain.


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Depending on your weight, the small volume of the Exception 2.1 series may mean you need a lot of pressure to prevent pinch flats, and if you need to run them over 35PSI they bounce a round a lot. They are also 60 durometer rubber so they are a lot slipperier than the Black Chili on anything moderately damp.
> 
> I tried a pair of Ignitor 2.1 Exceptions before the RK2.2's came along, and for me they were too bouncy on rocks and too slippery on wet rocks.


I'll be running them tubeless, and I only weigh 145 pounds, so I should be able to run them pretty low.

I had my first ride on the combo yesterday in muddy wet conditions with tubes (I always run tubes prior to converting tubeless; much easier). Even run at higher pressure than I would normally use, they were quite good - more specifically not bad at anything. They don't compare to the UST 2.3 versions I'm running on my trail bike, but I didn't expect they would. They should only be better tubeless at low pressure.

I really wish the RKs would have worked out, but my experience was horrible. I still can't believe I stretched the sidewalls on both of them on my first ride. I've never had an experience like that with any tire - and I've owed A LOT of tires over the years.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

My friend warped his front tire (RK SS 2.2) under extremely heavy braking, he had a tube in it. His tire was warped so badly that rolling along it would feel like you went over a small bump, like a curb, each rotation. Rim was fine.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

litany said:


> My friend warped his front tire (RK SS 2.2) under extremely heavy braking, he had a tube in it. His tire was warped so badly that rolling along it would feel like you went over a small bump, like a curb, each rotation. Rim was fine.


Warped? I don't understand. How do you warp a tyre?


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

nuffink said:


> Warped? I don't understand. How do you warp a tyre?


Casing damage. The nylon plies separate and/or tear.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Hmm, ok. It's not something I've ever heard before (the phrase, not the damage).


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

There is no visible tear - the way I understand it, the threads within the rubber tear and the rubber is essentially stretched, thus causing the warp. 

My rear tire was warped so bad, it was hitting the chainstay. At first I though I had just unseated the bead, but when I removed it and re-inflated, there was no change. I even tried putting a tube in, no change. This is the first time I've ever seen this happen to a tire, let alone both of mine in the first 20min of their life. 

I'm not sure if mine were a manufacture's defect, or these tires are just *that* fragile.


----------



## Johnnydrz (Jul 8, 2005)

I've been using the RK 2.2 SS on my singlespeed all summer. They have been the entire summer, mounted tubeless with Stan's. They are still on my bike. Started the season in May, spent the month of September in New-Mexico and Colorado (what a trip!) and absolutely zero problem. Added air once in a while and that's it. Next year, the front that's on now will go to the rear, cause that one is close to being cooked. Amazing tire for me. 

Johnnydrz


----------



## cddaraa (Oct 19, 2009)

race-sport RK 2.0 available
http://www.bike-components.de/products/info/p26482_Race-King-RaceSport-Faltreifen-Modell-2011-.html


----------



## homeagain (Jul 30, 2011)

Just fitted a pair of Race King 2.2 Protection foldings. Holy cow they are tall muthas coming from some Panaracer 1.95s.
But I'm enjoying the limo ride atm.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

I just cut my RK sidewall a couple of days ago. I might get the X Kings next. There's a huge thread on here that I've been reading through. The X Kings seem to be nice tires.


----------



## bikerboyj17 (Dec 18, 2007)

Just set up some of the older Race King 2.2 Supersonics tubeless for the first time. Both tires aired up easily and have been holding air for 6 hours now with no drop in pressure. There were some pinhole sized holes in the sidewalls but some stan's sealant took care of those easily. 

These are being run on Mavic 717 rims converted tubeless using Stan's yellow tape and rim strip, running 2 oz of sealant. I will probably put another scoop in before I go for a ride though, just to be sure. 

Loved the tired tubed, but I was getting a lot of flats for some reason. Hopefully tubeless will perform better. Will report back with long-term results.


----------



## Veda (Dec 17, 2009)

With all the problems with these supposedly light tires why not just use the new Nobby Nic 2.1 that's already tubeless ready and weighted (mine) at 490gr each? It has low rolling resistance that I used the 2.25 yesterday for a 120km on road touring.


----------



## ianz2 (Feb 16, 2009)

i just got mine from universal cycles yesterday and they are holding up to not only trail riding but dirt jumping too and at only 488 grams thats amazing


----------



## figo (Jan 23, 2004)

Ripped 2 sidewalls on my 29er in 2 days last week. Same kind of cut, the sidewalls are too thing for any technical-ish riding. Now back to Schwalbe, let's see how those hold up.


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

Oh man do i love these tires.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Hand/of/Midas said:


> Oh man do i love these tires.


Are you running them tubed or ghetto tubeless?

They continue to be my favourite tire for everything but really muddy conditions. They are not great in the greasy stuff...


----------



## MichaelRathleff83 (May 8, 2007)

I have been running the 2.2 Race King Racesport version with black chili compund for the last 2 weeks on the rear. Incredible fast tyre. But I have experienced that the tyre feels unstable in the corners if the pressure becomes to low (below 26-28 psi). 

At what pressure to you run the RK-tyre?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It depends on your weight and the rim width, but you'll find that it has a narrow air pressure range, maybe 4psi, between too soft and too hard. And you'll know right away as they feel squirmy, so bump your pressure about 2psi at a time until the squirm goes away and you've found the lower limit for you.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

32 in the rear 28 in the front for me


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I regularly run between 25-28 in the rear and 23-25 in the front. 175lbs all geared up. Stan's Podium MMX or Race7000 rims.


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

I was about to pull the trigger and buy these tires... but they seem a little hard to find. My LBS doesn't have them and says the distributor (QBP I presume) is backordered. Looks like a lot of the online retailers are out of them too.

Anyone know why they are so scarce these days?


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

why don't you *****es buy them in Germany? that's where they are produced and that's were they are cheaper!

https://www.bike-components.de/products/info/p26482_Race-King-RaceSport-Faltreifen-Modell-2011-.html
you can find more...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Chain Reaction has them

Continental Race King Supersonic Tyre | Buy Online | ChainReactionCycles.com


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

Actually, they do not have the Racesport version I am looking for. And it seems odd to me that they are on sale there, and clearly running out of stock as they seem to be in a lot of places.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

*Race King 2.2 Protection*

My buddy just got the continental race king 2.2 protection. We've been running supersonics for a while but he decided to try the protection as he was having issues with sidewall cuts on his rear tire.

Anyway, his tire was 573g as you can see.










Edit: Conti say that it has the black chili compound. It says on the box, maybe I'll take a picture later.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

litany said:


> My buddy just got the continental race king 2.2 protection. We've been running supersonics for a while but he decided to try the protection as he was having issues with sidewall cuts on his rear tire.
> 
> Anyway, his tire was 573g as you can see.


The big question is, does it have the Black Chili compound?


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

bad mechanic said:


> The big question is, does it have the Black Chili compound?


So they say.


----------



## TheRedMantra (Jan 12, 2004)

I have been running the 2.2 protection tires for two years now. They do not have the black chili compound. Weight on my first set was 520g & 575g. A variation that large disturbs me. These tires do not roll true. They have a nasty wobble but still grip well. I bought a pair of conti x-king 2.4 protection tires for my new build. Weight was 638g &638.5g. Claimed to be 630g. These are black chili and not made in India like the old race kings I have. I also bought a fresh set of 2.2 protection race kings. These are newer, but I'll have to double check to see if thet were made in Germany and are black chili.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Mine are supposedly made in Germany with Black Chili. The tires say on them handmade in Germany just like supersonics. They roll true or at least as true as a supersonic.

I understand that they have more rubber in the sidewall but I really hope they also have a stronger casing. I've had problems with the casing warping under heavy braking.


----------



## OLx6 (Feb 5, 2011)

Great tires. I buying the 2.2 supersonics for the past 3 years now. Noticed the supersonics are harder to find now, but the race sports are pretty easy to find. 

Anybody go from supersonics to race sport? What is your opinion on this?


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

OLx6 said:


> Anybody go from supersonics to race sport? What is your opinion on this?


I'm curious about this too. What is the difference supposed to be? They say the race sport is 30g heavier in the 2.2 I wonder what that weight is doing.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It's all in the sidewalls to help reduce premature wear of sidewalls and pinholes with sealant.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

The Racesports are tubeless ready.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

The race sports are black chili made in Germany right? The continental website isn't very clear about these things...


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Race King Racesport: 3 plies / total 180 tpi / Black Chili Compund


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

The box says:

- Handmade in Germany
- Black Chili Compound
- Supple lightweight construction
- 3/180 tpi


----------



## OLx6 (Feb 5, 2011)

So the race sport has more durable side walls. Anybody know if they ride differently than the Supersonics?


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

OLx6 said:


> So the race sport has more durable side walls. Anybody know if they ride differently than the Supersonics?


I can't tell the difference between them. Race sport has thicker sidewalls but they are still very thin and supple. I have tried supersonics and race sports with tubes and tubeless and they pretty much perform identically (but I have only used them as a rear tyre). I am currently using the race sport version tubeless.


----------



## OLx6 (Feb 5, 2011)

TigWorld said:


> I can't tell the difference between them. Race sport has thicker sidewalls but they are still very thin and supple. I have tried supersonics and race sports with tubes and tubeless and they pretty much perform identically (but I have only used them as a rear tyre). I am currently using the race sport version tubeless.


Good to know. Thanks for the info


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Can anyone explain this TPI stuff to me?

According to Sheldon Brown higher TPI means a more flexible carcass and better performance. He says:



Sheldon Brown said:


> Some tires use thick thread, some use thin thread for the fabric. With thin thread, there are more threads per inch ("TPI") and this number is often considered an important indication of tire performance.
> 
> The higher the TPI number, the thinner and more flexible the tire fabric is. Thin-wall (high TPI) tires tend to be lighter and have lower rolling resistance, but they're more easily damaged by road hazards.


 X-King 2.2: 3 plies / total 84 tpi 
X-King Racesport: 3 plies / total 180 tpi / Black Chili Compound
X-King Supersonic: 3 plies / total 180 tpi / Black Chili Compound 
X-King Protection: 4 plies / total 240 tpi / Black Chili Compound
X-King UST: 3 plies / total 330 tpi
X-King 29 inch: 3 plies / total 84 tpi

I'm interested in how compliant the tire is. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the more compliant it is (to a point) the better it conforms to bumps etc which may lead to a better ride and more grip.

So from this would you think the UST tire would be the most compliant, potentially offering the most grip, and lowest rolling resistance. But is it really? Isn't the UST version super tough etc.? It's still just 3 plies. What am I missing here if anything?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

UST isn't Black Chili. They are just regular round rubber rim protector things in the normal rubber compound, it's the Black Chili that makes them exceptional especially in the damp. 

The high thread count in the UST is likely to reduce porosity by giving a denser surface for the rubber to attach to. The UST rubber is heavier and less compliant (and not Black Chili).

Protection versions are definitely a bit stiffer feeling than the SuperSonic/RaceSport versions, the sidewalls are firmer.


----------



## LynskeyMatt (Feb 11, 2012)

im going to buy the race king 2.0's, project for the summer mind


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

LynskeyMatt said:


> im going to buy the race king 2.0's, project for the summer mind


I would skip the 2.0. It doesn't have enough volume to really work well, and is kind of a mediocre tire. With the Race King definitely go with the 2.2.


----------



## jathanas (Dec 9, 2009)

*Race Kings Rock (and roll)*

Set-up the RaceSport 2.2 tubeless 2 days ago. Having read up on how to avoid issues I scrubbed the inside of the tire with some alcohol and also used a huge amount of Stans (100ml).

It's held air beautifully so I am very happy. :thumbsup:

Running it as a rear tire on my 26" Epic I am amazed that this tire can roll so well but grip as much as it does. Its almost like a revelation. FWIW I was running Racing Ralphs before but I find the Race King to be on a different level.

The Race King quality over the Ralph is also very noticeable. Both 2011 SnakeSkin Ralphs that i had bought were not straight.

I'm now a Conti fan and will attempt to replace the 2.25 Rocket Ron I run at the front with a 2.4 X-King RaceSport.

Cheers, J


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

Looks like I'm a little late to the game here... I'm planning on putting the RaceSport version on as my front tire and the Protection version as my rear tire for a little added sidewall protection. Does the Protection version ride differently than the RaceSport version? Is the stronger casing stiffer and thus not as fast rolling?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Protection version isn't quite as supple, so you can use it with slightly lower pressure, but you may find it doesn't have quite the same sort of conformance to the terrain as the RaceSport version.


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Super Sonic vs. RaceSport*

I have found the Racesport to be smaller and not as supple as my older Super Sonics. Problem is that the Super Sonics just dont seal well with sealant - Stans or others. I think the best - would be to run SuperSonics with latex tubes. I dont see Latex tubes in 26" size for sale is the US though. 
Let me know if you know a source?


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

I have found the Maxxis Aspens a better option vs Race Kings for my trails.


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

rockyuphill said:


> The Protection version isn't quite as supple, so you can use it with slightly lower pressure, but you may find it doesn't have quite the same sort of conformance to the terrain as the RaceSport version.


So supple vs stiff sidewalls relates to traction and comfort more than it does to rolling resistance?

@Jlar: Might help if you told us what your trail conditions are like. I suspect the Aspens would work better on looser, rocky/gravely/sandy terrain the then Race Kings due to the taller and more aggressive side knobs.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I tried Aspen 2.25's here and the first time I went into a familiar corner and used the same braking point as I used with the Race King 2.2's I went straight off the outside of the corner into the trees with both wheels locked. Aspens don't have a lot of braking traction on loose surfaces.


----------



## subspd (Jan 24, 2007)

Where can you get these tires in a 29er in the USA?


----------



## jathanas (Dec 9, 2009)

rockyuphill said:


> I tried Aspen 2.25's here and the first time I went into a familiar corner and used the same braking point as I used with the Race King 2.2's I went straight off the outside of the corner into the trees with both wheels locked. Aspens don't have a lot of braking traction on loose surfaces.


I had the same experience with Ikons in the wet. Braking and climbing was terrible compared to the Race King 2.2 with Black Chili; especially on rocks.


----------



## jathanas (Dec 9, 2009)

subspd said:


> Where can you get these tires in a 29er in the USA?


They're not available with a Black Chili compound for 29ers yet. Come on Conti!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

jathanas said:


> I had the same experience with Ikons in the wet. Braking and climbing was terrible compared to the Race King 2.2 with Black Chili; especially on rocks.


Same experience, the Ikons are comparable in dry conditions but slippery on wet roots and bridges, or smooth rocks. If Maxxis made an Ikon in 50 durometer rubber for wet conditions, it would be interesting to try.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

jathanas said:


> They're not available with a Black Chili compound for 29ers yet. Come on Conti!


sure they are: Universal Cycles -- Tires > Mountain Tires > All 29 Inch Tires


----------



## subspd (Jan 24, 2007)

All I see are the x king not the race king...


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

subspd said:


> All I see are the x king not the race king...


I must have missed the specific tire you are looking for, I meant that the new Protection/Black Chili 29ers in general are available, UC has the new MK and XK available, but correct not the Race King.


----------



## subspd (Jan 24, 2007)

So the weight for the 2.2 race king tubeless is under 500g? Still can't seem to find this tire.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

subspd said:


> So the weight for the 2.2 race king tubeless is under 500g? Still can't seem to find this tire.


No, it isn't.

The Racesport version (tubeless ready) is around 500g.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

No the 2.2 Race King Supersonic 26" is under 500gms, the 29" version of the Race King 2.0 and 2.2 will be 630 and 650gms and are not available in Black Chili rubber


----------



## subspd (Jan 24, 2007)

So for a light weigth 29er these are not the tires... Thanks I was hoping to find a cheaper option to the TLR Ra Ra guess this isn't it... Bummer


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

CONTINENTAL Reifen Race King 29 x 2,2 Racesport 570g


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That must be new, they're showing availability May 12. It's still not on the Conti website, not even the German site.


----------



## jathanas (Dec 9, 2009)

rockyuphill said:


> That must be new, they're showing availability May 12. It's still not on the Conti website, not even the German site.


I'll be on these pretty quickly when they're released. Can't wait... Thanks for the link sfer.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

jtc1 said:


> I have found the Racesport to be smaller and not as supple as my older Super Sonics. Problem is that the Super Sonics just dont seal well with sealant - Stans or others. I think the best - would be to run SuperSonics with latex tubes. I dont see Latex tubes in 26" size for sale is the US though.
> Let me know if you know a source?


My Racesports are about 2mm wider and 2mm taller than my old Supersonics. Certainly not smaller.


----------



## Johnnydrz (Jul 8, 2005)

*Race King with latex tubes*



jtc1 said:


> I have found the Racesport to be smaller and not as supple as my older Super Sonics. Problem is that the Super Sonics just dont seal well with sealant - Stans or others. I think the best - would be to run SuperSonics with latex tubes. I dont see Latex tubes in 26" size for sale is the US though.
> Let me know if you know a source?


Sorry for commenting this late...

I've been running the Race King since it came out. Always the Supersonic 2.2 version (26"). Mostly with Stan's but also with Michelin latex tubes since last fall. I love latex tubes, even if they can be "iffy" at times, mostly when they decide to give up! Then they blow, literally. They are very resistant to snake bites and I normally ride them at around 20psi, I'm 135lbs. I have not been able to locate any in North America, so I order them from Chain Reaction Cycles. They do end up being expensive, but for me they are worth it.

Cheers


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

You can get them much cheaper from other European stores such as BikeComponents.de.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Just got a pair of race king 26x2.2 race sports in. They were hard to find so I ordered then from bike-discount.de for about 40% less than my LBS was willing to order them for. 

The tread is exactly as wide as my supersonics, they seem the same except no more checkered side walls 

Tire 1: 460g
Tire 2: 466g
26x2.2 Race king supersonic I also got recently: 465g


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

Got my racesport 2.2 from bike-components.de: 490g.
Good tire.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

My race sports seem to be about 1mm shorter and 1mm narrower than my supersonics were. I don't know if they stretch or anything though.


----------



## realconspiracy (Jan 22, 2011)

rockyuphill said:


> I tried Aspen 2.25's here and the first time I went into a familiar corner and used the same braking point as I used with the Race King 2.2's I went straight off the outside of the corner into the trees with both wheels locked. Aspens don't have a lot of braking traction on loose surfaces.


Agreed. Aspens just don't grip apart from on real hardpack. Anything with a bit of gravel or sand they'll just wipe you out.


----------



## HCR32GTSTYPEM (Nov 17, 2012)

I have Continental Race King 2.2, without black chilli though, they came stock with my bike made in India, just asking how to check how the manufaturing date on a Bicycle Tire? I can't find any "DOT" standard dates like cars and motorcycles on my sidewalls.

Oh btw hello from Singapore . Its my first post here


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

If there's any manufacturing date code it would have most likely been on the sticker on the inside of the tire, there's no requirement to DOT stamp bike tires.


----------



## SamoM (Nov 21, 2011)

Had a pair of 2.0s. Not the best tires IMO.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The 2.0's suck frankly. And if they weren't the Supersonic version they would really suck. It's the huge volume and sticky rubber on the 2.2 that make them work well.


----------



## SamoM (Nov 21, 2011)

I didn't want to say it, but they really do suck


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

jathanas said:


> also used a huge amount of Stans (100ml).


Huge? That's barely usable. I don't even bother trying Stans on a large volume Conti without putting at least three Injectors' worth in there (180ml). With the size of these things, all the Stans is used up just trying to coat them, leaving none left over for on-trail punctures. Glad yours worked out, but over the two years I've been using my 2.2 SS's, I've found that if I don't have any slosh when I'm done, it's not long before it starts losing over 5psi quickly and I have to add more. I haven't met a Conti yet that I haven't successfully sealed quickly this way (along with cleaning the insides like you did - Stans doesn't like to stick to mold release).


----------



## HCR32GTSTYPEM (Nov 17, 2012)

rockyuphill said:


> If there's any manufacturing date code it would have most likely been on the sticker on the inside of the tire, there's no requirement to DOT stamp bike tires.


o.0? no sticker on mine.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

HCR32GTSTYPEM said:


> o.0? no sticker on mine.


The tires made outside of Germany likely have no information about production dates, the handmade German tires have a production sticker in them, although it's coded so there's no way to tell what the date is.


----------



## HCR32GTSTYPEM (Nov 17, 2012)

okay thanks for the info, btw I am new here and new to the world of MTBs, so I gonna ask a noob question(I can't start a thread lol) 

My bike came with this fork, by default factory shipped the rebound is set to the minimum I weight 60KG+ (132.277lbs) I checked myself too, the rebound is turned all the way anti-clockwise (minus -) till it can't be turned anymore, but I ain't getting any sag at all? Or coil sprung forks have to be seasoned first (i.e. ridden a while) so that they will be soft?

SR Suntour XCR-RL. 
Link : srsuntour-cycling.com/index.php?screen=sh.detail&tnid=142

Thanks in advance.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

You should be asking suspension fork questions in the Shocks & Suspension thread. You will likely find a Suntour fork thread or other general fork setup threads


----------



## HCR32GTSTYPEM (Nov 17, 2012)

btw I contacted Germany Continetal Tyre support they in fact have a date on bicycle tyres 
:drumroll:.
I still didn't quite understand his explanation on the circle, but I understood the number and triangles. Shall await his reply again.



Continental Support said:


> on the side of your tyre you will find a circle with a cross in it. The
> cross devides the circle in four fields, each for one quarter. The
> point/points in it describe the different months. On the right side of the
> circle you will find a number. This number shows you the year of
> ...


Here's mine own tyre . So from his explanation I think its made in 2011, I just dun get the month explanation.


----------



## SamoM (Nov 21, 2011)

HCR32GTSTYPEM said:


> btw I contacted Germany Continetal Tyre support they in fact have a date on bicycle tyres
> :drumroll:.
> I still didn't quite understand his explanation on the circle, but I understood the number and triangles. Shall await his reply again.
> 
> Here's mine own tyre . So from his explanation I think its made in 2011, I just dun get the month explanation.


september 2011. 9 points for 9 months


----------



## HCR32GTSTYPEM (Nov 17, 2012)

SamoM said:


> september 2011. 9 points for 9 months


hahas, I tot that way too, but one is the top left quarter left blank ?? So shall await his confirmation :thumbsup:. I also asked why some tyres same model are painted Continental Siganature orange and some are full painted white (their logo) my pal has race king 2.2 but logo in orange while mine is fully white both our tyres are 26 inch and india made but are stock so we dun know the exact model hahas.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

They have many different models, the cheap wire bead tires have different logo prints than the Kevlar folding bead, and the Protection, Supersonic and RaceSport are different again (and also say Handmade in Germany). 

The blank quarter would allow for a total of 12 dots for 12 months,


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

I'm still very happy with the Race King Supersonic 2.2 tires. I'm more glad than ever that I bought four pairs of them because for 2013, the Race King Supersonic has been discontinued. In fact there are no Supersonic versions of any Continental mountain bike tires now, likely because Continental is expanding its range of RaceSport tires.

Here are the current variations of the Race King: Continental Race King


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

That's really annoying. I wonder why that did that? It seemed like they were a pretty good seller. I'll need to grab a couple extra pairs.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The RaceSports are the ever so slightly beefier versions to provide a bit more sidewall reliability than the original World Cup/Supersonic, there's a weeny bit more rubber on them, to accommodate the riders who actually use them every day instead of just race day. Other than that the Black Chili compound is the same.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

I've used the Supersonics every day and haven't had any issues with them.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

bad mechanic said:


> I've used the Supersonics every day and haven't had any issues with them.


The biggest change I notice with the race sports is that they air up and seal way, way easier than the supersonic. I have fitted 3 sets of supersonics tubeless and the same with race sports. The Race sports are a dream, so easy to air up and the sidewalls don't leak nearly as bad as the supersonics did.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm still running Race King World Cups with Eclipse tubes and have had no issues with sidewalls, the treads last a crazy long time if you ride dirt more than pavement.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> I'm still running Race King World Cups with Eclipse tubes and have had no issues with sidewalls, the treads last a crazy long time if you ride dirt more than pavement.


My tires only ever see dirt, and I've noticed they last a very, very long time. I think a reason is the knobs have such a low profile, that they don't get torn or worn very easily.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Yeah they last a super long time for sure (easily 1000miles), but they do slowly wear down and I usually end up replacing them before I really have to as they grip better in looser conditions when the knobs are slightly higher. Someone at a bike shop told me they don't last and are a race day only tire. I'm like, you've obviously never used them and have no idea what you're taking about.


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

Before I bought my Race King Supersonic 2.2 tires, I read a lot of this thread, so I knew what to expect. I've been especially careful with the sidewalls and have never damaged one. After years of riding, none of them show any wear that's worth mentioning.

The thing that amazed me the most about them is the local bike shops. I have never seen any Race King Supersonic 2.2 tires in a bike shop, and I couldn't find a bike shop employee who had ever ridden them. Eventually I persuaded the owners of two local bike shops to ride one of my bikes that has them. They liked them, but as far as I know they didn't order any of them.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Also been using Ssonics for 3+ years now and a RS in the back since I couldn't get a ssonic at the time. The RS was indeed easier to seat tubeless. I didn't notice it being any easier to seal up, but I've never had too much trouble with that.

No sidewall issues over all that time. Gave the rear RS a few scuffs the other day running way-too-low pressure, which caused a very slow leak, but once I refreshed the mostly-dried-up stans it stopped. 

Getting about 3000km per set give or take. No plans to change to a different tire anytime soon.


----------



## Bajamike (Jul 15, 2009)

Just picked up my first pair of 26" Race king 2.2's with protection and I love them. I have been riding IRC mythos 2.1 for ages because they seem to work well in the mix terrain I ride. I recently gone full rigid and wanted something with a little more volume. I only have one ride on the RK's so far but I was amazed at how well they hooked up and how much more speed I was able to carry through rough and sandy sections. I usually ran between 25psi front and 30psi in the rear in my IRCs but with the protected race kings I was able dropped down to like 18psi in the front and 22in the rear. Even at these pressures the tire barley bulges out when you sit on the bike and I don't feel any loss in efficiency. The side wall on the RK's is ridiculously strong. I honestly think I could easily run 14psi/18psi with out any issues. I will try it out this weekend and see what happens.


----------



## OLx6 (Feb 5, 2011)

I have been running the supersonics for years and love them. Next year I plan to get a UST wheelset. Anyone run the RK Protection tubeless on a UST wheelset? It looks like this works on their website, but they don't provide much detail.


----------



## aussie_yeti (Apr 27, 2004)

The RaceSport is now their lightest tyre (changed terminology). Then the Protection version follows with a reinforced sidewall. 570grams vs 650grams in 29x2.2 size.

Both have a UST bead and are 'tubeless ready', ie you need to use sealant. The tyre isn't airtight itself.

I've used both versions. In Australia the general opinion is the RaceSport version is useless when setup tubeless. Sidewalls are too thin and punctures are imminent. The Protection version however is one of the most popular tyres around. A good balance of puncture resistance, burp free tubeless reliability, good grip and low rolling resistance.

The most similar in weight, terrain suitability and performance would be the Schwalbe Racing Ralph Snakeskin and the Maxxis Ikon EXO 3C Tubeless Ready. I personally haven't had great luck with quality control of Schwalbe though so would steer you toward the Maxxis or the Conti. The Conti being slightly faster, the Maxxis being slightly grippier.


----------



## OLx6 (Feb 5, 2011)

aussie_yeti said:


> The RaceSport is now their lightest tyre (changed terminology). Then the Protection version follows with a reinforced sidewall. 570grams vs 650grams in 29x2.2 size.
> 
> Both have a UST bead and are 'tubeless ready', ie you need to use sealant. The tyre isn't airtight itself.
> 
> ...


Thank you Sir! I think the Conti RK Pro is my tire. Interesting comment on the Schwalbe's as this has been my experience as well. One of the reasons why I buy the German made conti's. After several sets of tires they were all straight, beaded well, etc


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

Since the Continental Race King 2.2 is such an outstanding tire, I'm bumping this excellent and informative thread for any who had missed it.

While I'm at it, I am currently using several sets of 26 x 2.2 Race King Supersonic tires with lightweight tubes with Continental Revo sealant, and it's a great combination that I'd recommend. I haven't tried running any Supersonic tires tubeless yet, but I will in the future.

Also, on another bike, a week ago I used Continental Revo sealant in a pair of 26 x 2.2 Continental Speed King II RaceSport tires (ordered from Germany since they're not available in the US) on my DT Swiss Tricon 1550 wheels, and after a couple of days they finished sealing up. If you're looking for something light and fast for hard-pack, and smooth and quiet on the road, the Speed King II RaceSport 2.2 tires are phenomenal.


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm after a conti speed king 26x2.3 and 29x2.3, the lightest version with the weight close to the pictures in the beginning of this thread. I'm having a hard time finding them online, I can see the version two with the slick thread...but I'm after the first generation. Anyone know were to find them? I'm in USA.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Good luck on finding any unused Speed Kings with that original tread pattern, those have likely been out of production for at least 5-6 years. Even the Speed King II are now being cleared out now.

The reviews of the original Speed King weren't that great as the tallish knobs were squirmy on hardpack, much like the X-Kings.

Far North Racing - Cycling - Continental Speed King 2.1 Supersonic Tires


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

Thanks rockyuphill!

Yeah, right after I've dispatched my message I realized about the bad reviews and stuff. I found on ebay this tire:
Continental Supersonic Race King MTB Foldable Tire 1pcs 26x2 2" 449G Black | eBay

The worst about this search is the lack of information on those race kings. Many of the Race Kings on ebay or amazon doesn't have the weight or is a heavier 550g-600g plus version....but I'm after the lightest one..and needs to be at least 2.2..I'm ok with 2.3 also. The link above is the lightest and confirmed to be light I've found so far.

Not interested on the new speed king pattern.


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

andrepsz said:


> Thanks rockyuphill!
> 
> Yeah, right after dispatching my message I realized about the bad reviews and stuff. I found on ebay this tire:
> Continental Supersonic Race King MTB Foldable Tire 1pcs 26x2 2" 449G Black | eBay
> ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

A direct quote from that ebay auction:

"From only 449g in it's two inch guise, the Race King is our lightweight flyer."


----------



## OLx6 (Feb 5, 2011)

I am going to have set of wheels built up with 25 mm internal width rims. Anyone run Race Kings on wider rims say 23 mm and up? Curious to see how this changes the tire performance.


----------

